Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for May, 2013

Kindergartener interrogated over cap gun until he pees his pants, then suspended 10 days

8:28 AM 05/31/2013
Eric Owens

Education Editor

In the latest incident of anti-gun hysteria to erupt in a school setting, a kindergarten boy has been suspended from school for 10 days because he showed a friend his cowboy-style cap gun on the way to school.The incident happened on Wednesday morning at about 8:30 a.m. on a school bus in Calvert County, Maryland, reports The Washington Post.

The kindergartener had brought the toy gun because his friend had brought a water gun the previous day. He later told his mother than he “really, really” wanted his friend to see it.

The suspended boy had acquired the menacing, plastic, orange-tipped weapon at Frontier Town, a western-themed campground with a water park, mini golf and the like.

School officials at Dowell Elementary School in the town of Lusby proceeded to question the five-year-old for over two hours before finally calling his mother, whom The Post also does not name.

The principal eventually called the boy’s mother at 10:50 a.m. By that time, the five-year-old had wet his pants (which the mother called highly unusual).

The principal told the boy’s mother that the boy had simulated shooting someone on the bus with the offending novelty. However, both the boy and his older sister, a first-grader, say the principal is not telling the truth.

The Post explains that the principal — Jennifer L. Young, according to Dowell Elementary’s website — told the kindergartener’s mother that things would have been even worse had the toy gun been loaded with caps. In that case, the school would have regarded the plaything as an explosive and called the police.

“I have no problem that he had a consequence to his behavior,” the mother told the Post. “What I have a problem with is the severity.”

The mother is also upset about the trauma her son experienced without her knowledge.

“Why were we not immediately contacted?” she asked

The 10-day suspension is officially for possessing a look-alike gun, notes the Post. If the suspension is not lifted, the kindergartener won’t be able to go to school the rest of the year. The suspension will also be part of his permanent academic record.

The family has hired an attorney, Robin Ficker, who has managed to become something of a national legal expert in amazing overreactions by school officials over things that aren’t actual guns.

Ficker appealed the suspension on the family’s behalf on Thursday. On Friday, there will be a disciplinary conference.

The attorney noted that the the boy’s age is an essential factor when considering the punishment and the school’s actions.

“Kids play cowboys and Indians,” Ficker told The Post. “They play cops and robbers. You’re talking about a little five-year-old here.”

This incident is the second incident of anti-gun hysteria to erupt in a school setting in as many weeks. There have been many others over the course of this academic year as well.


How Does America Become a Banana Republic? Ignorance, Ignorance, Ignorance

by Marilyn Assenheim //

A brilliant and very politically astute friend has pointed out that the word ignorance is frequently misused, particularly with reference to politics. His position is that ignorance is an active rather than a passive word. To be ignorant, he posits, one has to choose to ignore what is right in front of them. Truer words were never spoken.

The travesties visited on the nation by The Imperial President’s regime are legion: Government takeovers of private industry, Fast and Furious, the DOJ’s refusal to prosecute black law breakers, astronomical expenditures initiated by The Lyin’ King (still being blamed on his predecessor), illegal interim appointments, downplaying persistent Islamic violence, encouraging friendships with and giving financial aid to nations hostile to America while decimating US defenses and boosting foreign military might are just a few, past examples. Now we have Benghazi, IRS wrongdoing and persecution of the press. Despite this, there is a dogged, blinkered segment of the population, lead by the MSM, which gives Our Dear Leader and his administration a free pass. Joblessness, misery and looming financial ruin are at catastrophic levels, yet his approval rating, according to Gallup and Rasmussen polls, is currently 49%. Why?

The Benghazi outrage, resulting in the deaths of four Americans seems to be anything but an outrage to the ruling class. Benghazi has been proven to be a political cover-up. Everyone that should have been held to account for what didn’t happen that night, a Secretary of State too busy to read her emails and infuriated that she should be called in front of Congress (“What difference does it make now?”) and a president MIA that night, haven’t been. There is an astonishing lack of curiosity, real rage or action by the government and the public. Despite a performance that would be an improvement if it was merely a failure, Hillary Clinton has an enormous cadre of leftists slavering for her to throw her hat in the presidential ring in 2016; why, Michael Bolton (who?) would “walk across the country” if it would encourage that outcome. No one has held The Lyin’ King to account for Benghazi. Where was he? No one knows…and no one is asking. John Boehner refused to form a select committee to investigate. Boehner doesn’t believe that the situation has “yet risen to that level.” No? Why?

The IRS is springing so many leaks that if it was a ship it would be kissing the ocean’s sandy bottom. It turns out that Douglas Shulman, former Commissioner of the IRS, visited The Lyin’ King’s White House 118 times in two years. That averages more than once a week. Why? The IRS Commissioner’s is not a policy making post; the position merely carries out policy. Shulman’s predecessor, Mark Everson, also visited the White House under President Bush. Once. He visited once during his four-year tenure from 2003-2007. The “why?” of Shulman’s 118 visits is another ugly, unanswered question.

Lois Lerner’s story also grows ever more corrupt. The latest disclosure of her activities indicates that she, personally, granted tax-exempt status to the Action for a Progressive Future in 2011. Not just any liberal organization, this “foundation” is run by The Lyin’ King’s half-brother, Abongo “Roy” Malik Obama. According to The Daily Caller, however, Lerner’s involvement was even more grotesquely dishonest than it first appeared: “In the month before the foundation was granted tax-exempt status, the National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint with the IRS, asking why the group was allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not applied for a determination. That’s when Lerner gave it the retroactive exemption back to December 2008.” How can this massive cesspool continue to be disregarded?

The answer is, of course, “ignorance.” It’s more than ignorance; it is avoidance.

Political Correctness aside, The Lyin’ King remains untouchable because he is black. Frank color blindness would dictate that, under the same conditions, any other president would have been run out of office during his first term. But liberal doctrine doesn’t sanction objectivity.

Delusional pigheadedness doesn’t change reality no matter how desperately liberals and RINO’s want it to. Ignorance of the law is not a defense against breaking the law. Neither is ignorance an excuse for a lack of political comprehension. But it surely is a path toward becoming a banana republic.

Read more:


Veteran Has His AR-15 Confiscated By Police For Fending Off Burglar


An Oregon man has had his rifle confiscated and is facing criminal charges after he attempted to stop a wanted felon from breaking into his home by firing a warning shot.

…Authorities say 40-year-old Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was attempting to flee the scene when he was arrested on outstanding warrants, including for burglary and assault.

…Military veteran Corey Thompson, 36, told KDRV-TV that the wanted felon was trying to beak into his home via the back door. Defending his property, Thompson said he warned the criminal that he was armed and he was giving him his one and only warning shot.

“This is the end result. You break into someone’s house, there’s consequences,” Thompson said.

Wielding his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, the veteran made good on his threat and fired one warning shot. The bullet did not strike the suspect or anyone else.

…However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”

Apparently, for police in Medford, a wanted felon trying to break into a law-abiding citizen’s home isn’t enough to justify a warning shot.

Thompson was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering. The veteran’s AR-15 was seized by police because they claim it was used in the commission of a crime.

Does this felon have to be stabbing Thompson in the throat before he’s allowed to fire a warning shot? This should not be allowed to stand. The behavior of this police department is outrageous and completely disgraceful. Everybody involved in this decision at the Medford Police Department should be sued, fired and even more importantly, Corey Thompson should be cleared of all charges and given his AR-15 back immediately.


Written by John Hawkins of

Teacher Faces Disciplinary Action For Telling His Students About Their Constitutional Rights


Robert Heinlein said: “When any government…undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.”

Oppression is a daily occurrence. We are oppressed by our public schools; we are oppressed by our “scientists,” and we are oppressed by our federal government. All major industries related to the federal government have cornered the market on oppression of the people. Public schools indoctrinate our children, universities force Socialist and Marxist ideals on their students, and “scientists” don’t allow anyone into their fields who would question the status quo. It is with oppression that power is at its strongest.

According to Town Hall:

“An Illinois Social Studies teacher faces disciplinary action for reminding his students of their Fifth Amendment rights when filling out a school survey on behavior…John Dryden was collecting the surveys before class when he noticed the students’ names were printed on them. He looked to see what was being asked and noticed questions about alcohol and drug use…Dryden told his students that they had a Constitutional right to not incriminate themselves by answering questions on the survey.”

As a result of Mr. Dryden informing his students about their basic Fifth Amendment rights, he is now facing disciplinary charges. Lucky for him, numerous people have risen to his defense.

With all the government scandals bringing fresh memories into our minds of past tyranny, it is an incident like this that makes my skin crawl. Tyranny doesn’t have a grand beginning; it never does. It starts with minor incidents; slowly collecting over time, and culminating in outright oppression. Tyranny takes time to accumulate strength; like a fighter in training. When it’s ready, it will knock us out with a single blow.

First, whether or not it is within the powers of the school to bring the hammer down with disciplinary action, it is entirely absurd. Dryden did absolutely nothing wrong when he merely informed his students of their Fifth Amendment right to decline self-incrimination if they had anything they didn’t want made public.

Second, I’m not sure whether it is within the bounds of the school’s power to ask these types of questions in the first place. Without anonymous surveys being offered, any information provided in ink would be directly linked to the student who filled out the survey. This behavior is unseemly at best and dangerously invasive at worst.

With Dryden facing disciplinary action, I can only shiver at the thought of what else public schools could do with the power they believe they have. Tyranny starts in small places.

Today’s Devotional by Dr. David Jeremiah

Few Agonizers
Recommended Reading: Daniel 9:17-19; 17 “Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.” (NIV)
In his book, Why Revival Tarries, the late preacher Leonard Ravenhill wrote of the prayerlessness of many churches. “We have many organizers, but few agonizers; many players and payers, few pray-ers; many singers, few clingers; lots of pastors, few wrestlers; many fears, few tears; much fashion, little passion; many interferers, few intercessors; many writers, but few fighters. Failing here, we fail everywhere.”
If you want to see a man of God in prayer, look at the ninth chapter of Daniel. He set his face toward the Lord to make requests by prayer and supplication in great humility and prolonged earnestness. He confessed his sins and those of his people. He pleaded for mercy, begging for God’s “face to shine” on His sanctuary.
How could you improve your life of prayer? Could you take a little more time, be a little more specific, pray a little more frequently? What about devoting an entire hour to prayer, or a morning, or a day?
Lord, teach us to pray!
“No man is greater than his prayer life. The pastor who is not praying is playing; the people who are not praying are straying.” – Leonard Ravenhill
© 2013 Turning Point

Children’s Network Launches Transsexual Superhero Show

Nothing says “child-appropriate material” quite like gender-bending underage superheroes. At least that’s the theory over at the Hub, the network co-owned by Discovery and Hasbro, which is trotting out its latest soon-to-be-dud, SheZow. That show follows the adventures of a 12-year-old boy named Guy who uses a magic ring to transform himself into a crime-fighting girl. Yes, you read that correctly. When Guy says the magic words – “You go girl!” – he becomes SheZow, wearing a purple skirt and cape, as well as pink gloves and white boots.

The chief executive of the Hub, who may or may not have been high (and leftist) when she greenlit this project, is Margaret Loesch. Loesch commented, “When I first heard about the show, my reaction was ‘Are you out of your minds?’ Then I looked at it and I thought, ‘This is just funny.’”

The target audience for the Hub is children aged two to eleven.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

EPIC: Texas Passes Bill to Train Teachers as Armed Marshals

By / 28 May 2013 /

teachersTexas legislators have sent a bill to Governor Rick Perry that allows schools to train and maintain teachers as “armed marshals” on campuses.

The bill, which had already passed the Texas house, enjoyed a bipartisan passage of 28-3 in the Texas senate.

According to the Associated Press, the bill enjoyed the strong support of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who “pushed lawmakers to help school districts provide teachers or other employees with special weapons and tactical response training.” Dewhurst’s pleas were echoed by smaller school districts that could not afford to hire police and other security forces for their schools.

Under the bill, trained teachers would keep a firearm in a lockbox “within immediate reach.” It allows one armed marshal per 400 students and contains provisions to hide the name of that marshal from public record, to keep him or her from being …


Generally Respected CBS Reporter “The Sharyl Attkisson approach”

Sharyl Attkisson is shown on CBS News. | CBS Photo

Producers at CBS News once nicknamed Attkisson ‘Pit Bull.’ | CBS Photo

By DYLAN BYERS | 5/24/13 12:10 PM EDT

Sharyl Attkisson has problems.

The Obama administration won’t answer the CBS News correspondent’s questions because her investigations — into Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Solyndra — often reflect negatively on it. Some colleagues at CBS News, where she has worked for two decades and earned multiple Emmy awards, dismiss her work because they perceive a political agenda. And now, she says, someone may have hacked into her computers.

Attkisson’s one piece of solace may come from finally gaining some like-minded colleagues in the media. For years, Attkisson has been one of the few mainstream reporters pursuing critical stories about the Obama administration. Today, as “scandal season” takes hold in Washington, she has seen her longstanding skepticism of the White House and the Justice Department become the conventional attitude among a formerly deferential Beltway press corps.(Also on POLITICO: DOJ: We haven’t ‘compromised’ Sharyl Attkisson’s computers)

Attkisson is a dogged reporter, driven by a strong skepticism of government. Producers at CBS News once nicknamed her “Pit Bull,” a source said, because she gets on a story and won’t let go. But that is seen as both a strength and a weakness. Her drive can produce great journalism, but it can also cause her to push stories to the point that colleagues — especially those of a more progressive bent — suspect a political agenda.

Among conservatives who rarely find champions in the mainstream media, however, Attkisson is widely respected.

“She goes after the stories others won’t go after, and she was right to go after them,” Greta Van Susteren, the Fox News host, told POLITICO.

(Also on POLITICO: Sharyl Attkisson in talks to leave CBS)

“She is actually doing what journalists are supposed to do,” said Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio host. “That’s not easy in Washington, D.C., where we have a president with whom the majority of reporters agree with politically.”

Last year, in a rare moment of right-wing support for a mainstream reporter, the conservative watchdog group Accuracy In Media gave Attkisson an award for her “outstanding contribution to journalism.”

Earlier this week, Attkisson told POLITICO her personal and work computers had been “compromised” and were under investigation. Though she said she was “not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity,” she said elsewhere that “there could be some relationship between these things and what’s happened to James [Rosen],” the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Department investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.

Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesperson, told POLITICO, “To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never ‘compromised’ Ms. Atkisson’s computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer or other media device she may own or use.”

The bulk of Attkisson’s work over the past five years has focused on the failures or perceived failures of the Obama administration, which has led to an icy relationship with the White House and the Justice Department.

In February 2011, Attkisson wrote a landmark report about the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, which earned her an Emmy award. Months later, she went on Ingraham’s radio show and said that officials from both the White House and the Justice Department had yelled and screamed at her because of her report.

Read more:

Gestapo Alert! DHS Sends Armed Guards and Helicopters To Monitor Tea Party Protests at IRS

Armed DHS guards at IRS protest
<“Armed DHS guards at IRS protest”;Credits: Jim Hoft
 Jason Howerton reported that it remains unclear why “federal officials felt the Tea Party presence required more than the attention of local law enforcement.”

Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit said that armed DHS guards greeted Tea Party activists in St. Louis.

“Around 300 protesters turned out anyway,” he wrote.

According to an account posted by Hoft, DHS used a helicopter against Tea Party protesters in Los Angeles and told the group they were not allowed on federal property.

“Many of our 300 tea party folks were approached immediately by Homeland Security and told they coIRS protest St. Louis County -- May 21, 2013uld not be on federal property. My lawyer told me as long as I didn’t block passage we were OK. Many Homeland Security trucks and a helicopter above us scared many patriots so most of group went to public side walk to rally,” an unnamed Tea Party activist told Hoft.

A report at BizPac Review said the DHS also made an appearance at a Tea Party protest in Florida.

“Under the watchful eye of Homeland Security — yes, they were present — protestors carried signs that read ‘We Do Not Consent to Tyranny,’ ‘Abolish the IRS’ and ‘Don’t Target me Bro!,’ making it clear they do not condone the use of the IRS as a political weapon,” Tom Tillison wrote.

A protest in Fort Wayne, Ind., actually had more police than Tea Party. Howerton said that a lone woman “was reportedly accompanied by three visible security guards in the IRS parking lot, which included a Homeland Security officer.”

“The DHS appears to have finally found a use for all those bullets it’s been buying,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote at Prison Planet, echoing a sentiment at Fire Andrea Mitchell.

“Amazing how Obama can send out his stormtroopers for peaceful IRS protests by the tea party, yet couldn’t bother with the ‘bumps in the road’ in Benghazi,” Fire Andrea Mitchell said.

According to reports, the Tea Party protests concluded without incident.

Video of the protest in St. Louis can be seen here.

PERJURY. Why Can’t We Just Say it Out Loud. Attorney General Holder Committed PERJURY.

Why is it so hard to say? Anyone of us caught lying to Congress, while under oath, would be charged with perjury. Attorney General Holder committed perjury while answering questions about his involvement with the DOJ‘s illegal act of invading the privacy of reporters, and the further slanderous invasion of privacy of FOX’s Rosen and his parents. They also committed perjury when they went to a Federal judge to get his signature for a search warrant accusing Rosen of being a co-conspirator.

That brings up a question I have been asking regarding President Obama instructing Attorney General Holder to investigate himself. Here is the question;

Have any of you ever heard of a time when an executive of a major corporation has been caught lying to the Board of Directors and then instructed by the Chairman of the Board to investigate themselves and return with a report? Anyone? Hello? Anyone out there ever heard of such a ridiculous situation?

Now even the liberals are joining the demand for Holders being fired. For me, he needs to be prosecuted for his repeated perjury before Congress.

Please see the following article from FOX NEWS;

House Republicans challenge Holder testimony on reporter surveillance

Published May 29, 2013

Top Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee openly challenged Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday over his testimony two weeks ago in which he claimed to be unaware of any “potential prosecution” of the press, despite knowing about an investigation that targeted a Fox News reporter.

Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-Wis., voiced “great concern” in a letter to Holder. They asked a litany of questions about the department’s dealings with the press, and pointedly alleged that the Fox News case “contradicts” his testimony at a May 15 hearing.

“It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement,” they wrote.

The letter comes a day after the committee confirmed it was looking into Holder’s testimony. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, Holder insisted that “the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material” is not something he was involved in or knew about.

But days later, it emerged that the Justice Department obtained access to the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen — after filing an affidavit that accused him of being a likely criminal “co-conspirator” in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea. Rosen was never charged, and never prosecuted. But he was effectively accused of violating the federal Espionage Act. 

“The media reports and statements issued by the Department regarding the search warrants for Mr. Rosen’s emails appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony before the Committee,” Goodlatte and Sensenbrenner wrote in the letter Wednesday. They did not accuse Holder of committing perjury, but noted he was “under oath.”

Among other questions, they asked Holder how he could claim to have never heard of the potential prosecution of the press. And they asked him to clarify whether he “personally approved” the search warrant request. Sensenbrenner, in an interview on Fox News, threatened to subpoena Holder to come before the committee if necessary.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though, said on Wednesday that it appears Holder testified truthfully. He said President Obama “absolutely” has confidence in him.

The top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, said he thinks Holder “was forthright and did not mislead the Committee.”

“Certainly, there are policy disagreements as to how the First Amendment should apply to these series of leak investigations being conducted by the Justice Department, and that is and should be an area for the committee to consider.  However, there is no need to turn a policy disagreement into allegations of misconduct,” he said.

Holder could argue that, in fact, Rosen was never prosecuted — and so his testimony was not misleading.

A federal law enforcement official said last week that the department had to establish probable cause in the affidavit in order to obtain the search warrant, per the terms of the Privacy Protection Act.

“Saying that there is probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime and actually charging the person with that crime are two very different things,” the official said.

Meanwhile, one of the country’s most prominent liberal legal scholars called Wednesday for Holder to be “fired,” joining the growing list of left-leaning pundits slamming his department’s pursuit of journalists’ phone and email records.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney and law professor at George Washington University, hammered Holder in a USA Today column Wednesday. He charged that Holder has “supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process,” aided by Democrats who looked the other way.

But in the wake of the reporter records scandal, Democrats are starting to join with Republicans in questioning whether Holder continues to be the right man to lead the Department of Justice in President Obama’s second term.

Turley, in his column, referenced a recent call by the Republican National Committee chairman for Holder’s resignation. “Unlike the head of the RNC, I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired,” Turley wrote.

While Democrats largely defended Holder when his department came under fire for the botched anti-gunrunning sting Operation Fast and Furious, they’ve been less forgiving over the move this year to seize two months of phone records from Associated Press offices. That bombshell was compounded by the revelation that the department seized phone and email records for Fox News offices. The scandal grew as the department acknowledged Friday that Holder was involved in the court document that accused Rosen of being a likely criminal “co-conspirator,” as part of the department’s successful argument for obtaining a search warrant for Rosen’s emails. 

According to a report in The Daily Beast, aides say Holder has started to feel regret for the investigations. Under Obama’s direction, he is starting a review of DOJ policies and meeting with representatives from the media. 

A Justice Department official said Wednesday that Holder will hold meetings with several Washington bureau chiefs of national news organizations over the next two days.

“These meetings will begin a series of discussions that will continue to take place over the coming weeks. During these sessions, the Attorney General will engage with a diverse and representative group of news media organizations, including print, wires, radio, television, online media and news and trade associations,” the official said.

Turley, in his column, scoffed at this course of action, since Holder was involved in the surveillance — at least the surveillance involving Fox News — in the first place. “Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions,” Turley wrote.

He described Holder as a trusted Obama “sin eater,” swallowing the worst criticisms to shield the president.

“Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general,” Turley wrote.

Read more:

Thank you Veterans


veterans-day-2012In honor of those who have given their lives in order that others may live free, I want to recall the words of President Ronald Reagan from remarks that he gave at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, 1986. I want to say thank you to our veterans, who heeded the call and have served honorably to protect and defend the Constitution which protects our freedoms.

“Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It’s a day of thanks for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It’s a day to be with the family and remember.’

“I was thinking this morning that across the country children and their parents will be going to the town parade and the young ones will sit on the sidewalks and wave their flags as the band goes by. Later, maybe, they’ll have a cookout or a day at the beach. And that’s good, because today is a day to be with the family and to remember.’

“Arlington, this place of so many memories, is a fitting place for some remembering. So many wonderful men and women rest here, men and women who led colorful, vivid, and passionate lives. There are the greats of the military: Bull Halsey and the Admirals Leahy, father and son; Black Jack Pershing; and the GI’s general, Omar Bradley. Great men all, military men. But there are others here known for other things.’

“Here in Arlington rests a sharecropper’s son who became a hero to a lonely people. Joe Louis came from nowhere, but he knew how to fight. And he galvanized a nation in the days after Pearl Harbor when he put on the uniform of his country and said, “I know we’ll win because we’re on God’s side.” Audie Murphy is here, Audie Murphy of the wild, wild courage. For what else would you call it when a man bounds to the top of a disabled tank, stops an enemy advance, saves lives, and rallies his men, and all of it single-handedly. When he radioed for artillery support and was asked how close the enemy was to his position, he said, “Wait a minute and I’ll let you speak to them.” [Laughter]’

“Michael Smith is here, and Dick Scobee, both of the space shuttle Challenger. Their courage wasn’t wild, but thoughtful, the mature and measured courage of career professionals who took prudent risks for great reward—in their case, to advance the sum total of knowledge in the world. They’re only the latest to rest here; they join other great explorers with names like Grissom and Chaffee.’

“Oliver Wendell Holmes is here, the great jurist and fighter for the right. A poet searching for an image of true majesty could not rest until he seized on “Holmes dissenting in a sordid age.” Young Holmes served in the Civil War. He might have been thinking of the crosses and stars of Arlington when he wrote: “At the grave of a hero we end, not with sorrow at the inevitable loss, but with the contagion of his courage; and with a kind of desperate joy we go back to the fight.”’

“All of these men were different, but they shared this in common: They loved America very much. There was nothing they wouldn’t do for her. And they loved with the sureness of the young. It’s hard not to think of the young in a place like this, for it’s the young who do the fighting and dying when a peace fails and a war begins. Not far from here is the statue of the three servicemen—the three fighting boys of Vietnam. It, too, has majesty and more. Perhaps you’ve seen it—three rough boys walking together, looking ahead with a steady gaze. There’s something wounded about them, a kind of resigned toughness. But there’s an unexpected tenderness, too. At first you don’t really notice, but then you see it. The three are touching each other, as if they’re supporting each other, helping each other on.’

“I know that many veterans of Vietnam will gather today, some of them perhaps by the wall. And they’re still helping each other on. They were quite a group, the boys of Vietnam—boys who fought a terrible and vicious war without enough support from home, boys who were dodging bullets while we debated the efficacy of the battle. It was often our poor who fought in that war; it was the unpampered boys of the working class who picked up the rifles and went on the march. They learned not to rely on us; they learned to rely on each other. And they were special in another way: They chose to be faithful. They chose to reject the fashionable skepticism of their time. They chose to believe and answer the call of duty. They had the wild, wild courage of youth. They seized certainty from the heart of an ambivalent age; they stood for something.’

“And we owe them something, those boys. We owe them first a promise: That just as they did not forget their missing comrades, neither, ever, will we. And there are other promises. We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance. We owe them a promise to look at the world with a steady gaze and, perhaps, a resigned toughness, knowing that we have adversaries in the world and challenges and the only way to meet them and maintain the peace is by staying strong.’

“That, of course, is the lesson of this century, a lesson learned in the Sudetenland, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Cambodia. If we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we really care about peace, we must, through our strength, demonstrate our unwillingness to accept an ending of the peace. We must be strong enough to create peace where it does not exist and strong enough to protect it where it does. That’s the lesson of this century and, I think, of this day. And that’s all I wanted to say. The rest of my contribution is to leave this great place to its peace, a peace it has earned.”


Area Student Arrested For Making A “Tornado in a Bottle”

By /

tornadoTuesday afternoon, a local elementary school student, Peter Collins, was arrested for bringing a “tornado in a bottle” to school for the annual Denysin Elementary science fair. Authorities were alerted after it was reported that a student had what appeared to be an “atmospheric weapon of destruction” on school grounds.


The school was quickly evacuated, as the Denver bomb squad was called in to deal with collecting and neutralizing Collins’ second grade science fair project. Teachers close to Collins noted that Collins was a, “stellar student’ and they were, “shocked learn someone like that could be capable of doing something so dangerous”. One witness remarked that Collins’ project looked,  “normal” until Collins shook it up to reveal its true “sinister and offensive form”.

According to Collins’ parents, the project was nothing more than water mixed with dish soap and blue dye that creates a, “tornado like spiral” when shaken. However, many area parents are not so convinced of the project’s innocent nature.

Mother of a student in Peter Collins’ class, Angela Surname, told reporters that she, “didn’t know how plans for such diabolical technology could get into the hands of children” and that she and all of her book club agree that the internet and, “whichever top-forty musician that wears the most black” are to blame.

Many parents have demanded the school district take, “immediate disciplinary action” against Collins. Several students in Collins’ class have reportedly told the school’s administration that they are, “too distraught “ by the the incident to do homework or participate in class.

These complaints by students have resulted in many parents demanding that free after school counseling be offered to any students in the district who were, “disturbed by Collins’ science fair project”.

Denysin Elementary School Principal, Dan Johnson noted that the school has a strict, “zero tolerance policy on any and all atmospheric simulations” since the infamous 2003 incident involving a baking soda volcano in which two students’ shoes and pants were temporarily stained.

Principal Johnson told reporters that seven year old Collins will be charged with, “possession and discharge of a weapon on school grounds, discharging a destructive device, and child abuse” all of which carry a minimum of ten years prison time.

When asked about the severity of Collins’ punishment, Principal Johnson told reporters, “We don’t allow toy guns in our schools, why should we allow a replication of something more destructive than a gun”.

When parents of Denysin Elementary students were asked about the severity of Collins’ punishment, many believed that the actions taken against Collins were, “perfectly reasonable”. “What if next time a student brings a real tornado to school? We have to show the bad seeds that there are serious consequences for their actions” remarked local mother and elbow pad enthusias, Coleen McClusky.

Many parents of students in Collins’ class have spoken out for Collins to be, “expelled and banished” from the school and state respectively. Those parents then told reporters that were their children to be in Collins situation, they were, “ninety percent sure (they) would still feel the same way”.

Collins is currently being held in San Morrison federal prison without bail, and will see a judge sometime in between, “next Tuesday and his eighth grade graduation”.

UPDATE: After being thrown out by three separate local judges, Denysin Elementary School Principal is pursuing the possibility of trying young Peter Collins in a military tribunal for, “Conspiracy and Terrorism”.



At least one Milwaukee mom won’t be sending her child to school on cross-dressing ‘Switch It Up Day’

By Ben Velderman and Steve Gunn ///

MILWAUKEE – Deidri Hernandez’s seven-year-old son won’t be in school today, after officials at Tippecanoe School for the Arts and Humanities confirmed they’re still holding “Switch It Up Day” – a time for students to come dressed as members of the opposite sex.

EAGnews Gender benderHernandez tells EAGnews the day was originally billed as “Gender Bender Day,” but Tippecanoe officials made the name change after she called Principal Jeffrey Krupar to complain.

The Milwaukee mother was not impressed.

“I didn’t have a problem with the title. I had a problem with the activity taking place,” Hernandez says.

She says it’s “ridiculous” and “creepy” to ask elementary boys to come to school dressed as girls, and vice versa, and predicts that having students dress as “transvestites” will distract from the learning process.

Hernandez knows of at least one other parent who shares her concerns and plans to hold her child out of class, too.

But it’s the motivation behind “Switch It Up Day” that has Hernandez most concerned.

She wonders if it is being done to promote the acceptance of homosexuality to students in school, which runs from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. Hernandez thinks it’s inappropriate to expose young children to these issues, even in a light-hearted manner.

“They might as well call it ‘Transgender Day,’” she says.

gender bender day second flyerAccording to Hernandez, when she called Krupar with her concerns, she was told the day was chosen by the school’s student council and is only meant to be fun.

Hernandez also complained to the superintendent’s office, but was told “by someone in the office” that the school wasn’t breaking any rules.

Hernandez says she’s “never stepped out like this” to challenge school policy, but decided somebody had to.

“Every time something’s bothering a liberal or an atheist, they come forward to complain. And somebody always has a problem with Easter or Christmas,” she explains.

Hernandez says her son won’t mind the day off from school, but she regrets that he’s going to miss a day of learning because of the controversy.

Tony Tagliavia, a spokesman for Milwaukee Public Schools, told EAGnews that “this is an idea created by students as one in a series of school spirit days” and participation is not mandatory.

We don’t believe the school meant any harm in approving the cross-dressing day. And we don’t believe the children who came up with the idea are trying to promote alternative lifestyles.

But we are concerned about student comfort. There are undoubtedly children at the school who felt like they had two bad choices today – either dress up as the opposite sex, which might make them feel uncomfortable, or dress normally and be out of place with the rest of the school, which might also make them feel  uncomfortable.

The third alternative – skipping a day of school – means they are missing a day of important instruction.

School officials should have thought this one through before giving it the green light.

The case of Fox’s James Rosen.

slavesDear Graduates: Tyranny Is Right Around the Corner

| May 23, 2013

A few weeks ago, President Obama advised graduates at Ohio State University that they need not listen to voices warning about tyranny around the corner, because we have self-government in America. He argued that self-government is in and of itself an adequate safeguard against tyranny, because voters can be counted upon to elect democrats (lowercase “d”) not tyrants. His argument defies logic and 20th-century history. It reveals an ignorance of the tyranny of the majority, which believes it can write any law, regulate any behavior, alter any procedure and tax any event so long as it can get away with it.

FoxHistory has shown that the majority will not permit any higher law or logic or value — like fidelity to the natural law, a belief in the primacy of the individual or an acceptance of the supremacy of the Constitution — that prevents it from doing as it wishes.

Under Obama’s watch, the majority has, by active vote or refusal to interfere, killed hundreds of innocents — including three Americans — by drone, permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants, bombed Libya into tribal lawlessness without a declaration of war so that a mob there killed our ambassador with impunity, attempted to force the Roman Catholic Church to purchase insurance policies that cover artificial birth control, euthanasia and abortion, ordered your doctor to ask you whether you own guns, used the IRS to intimidate outspoken conservatives, seized the telephone records of newspaper reporters without lawful authority and in violation of court rules, and obtained a search warrant against one of my Fox colleagues by misrepresenting his true status to a federal judge.

JFoxames Rosen, my colleague and friend, is a professional journalist. He covers the State Department for Fox News. In order to do his job, he has cultivated sources in the State Department — folks willing to speak from time to time off the record.

One of Rosen’s sources apparently was a former employee of a federal contractor who was on detail to the State Department, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Kim is an expert in arms control and national defense whose lawyers have stated that his job was to explain byzantine government behavior so we all can understand it. When he was indicted for communicating top secret and sensitive information, presumably to Rosen, his lawyers replied by stating that the information he discussed was already in the public domain, and thus it wasn’t secret.

Prior to securing Kim’s indictment, the Department of Justice obtained a search warrant for Google’s records of Rosen’s personal emails by telling a federal judge that Rosen had committed the crime of conspiracy by undue flattery of Kim and appealing to Kim’s vanity until Kim told Rosen what he wanted to hear. In a word, that is rubbish. And the FBI agent who claimed that asking a source for information and the federal judge who found that the flattering questions alone constituted criminal behavior were gravely in error.

Reporters are protected in their craft by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they can ask whatever questions they wish without fear of prosecution. If Kim revealed classified information to Rosen — a charge Kim vigorously denies — that is Kim’s crime, not Rosen’s. The Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that it is not a crime for a journalist to seek secrets, to receive them, to possess them and to publish them so long as they affect a matter of material public interest.

The government’s behavior here is very troubling. Government lawyers and FBI agents are charged with knowing the law. They must have known that Rosen committed no crime, and they no doubt never intended to charge him, and they never have. They materially misled the judge, who saw the phrase “probable cause” of criminal activity (taken from the Fourth Amendment) in their affidavit in support of the search warrant they sought, and he signed. The judge should have seen this for the ruse it was. It is inconceivable that a person could conspire to commit a crime (release of classified information) that is impossible for that person to commit, particularly with a Supreme Court case directly on point.

This misuse of the search warrant mechanism by misrepresentation of the status of the target continues the radicalization of federal criminal procedure now typical of this Department of Justice. It has claimed that it can release military weapons to foreign criminal gangs just to see where the weapons end up, and that its agents cannot be prosecuted for harm caused by those who received the weapons. It has held that the serious consideration given in the White House by high-ranking government officials to the identity of persons the president wants to kill somehow is a constitutional substitute for due process and thus enables the president to use drones to kill people uncharged with federal crimes. It has extended the public safety exception to the Miranda rule from the few seconds at the scene of the crime spent securing the prisoner, where the Supreme Court has said it resides, to more than 72 hours.

And now this.

The reason we have the due process safeguards imposed upon the government by the Constitution is to keep tyranny from lurking anywhere here, much less around the corner. Due process is the intentionally created obstacle to government procedural shortcuts, which, if disregarded, will invite tyranny to knock at the front door and sneak in through the back. Justice Felix Frankfurter warned of this 70 years ago when he wrote, “The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards.” That was true then, and it is true now.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.

Today’s Devotional by Dr. David Jeremiah

Friday, 5/24/2013 – Today’s Devotional
“Blessed Is Your Advice”
“The name of the man was Nabal, and the name of his wife Abigail. And she was a woman of good understanding and beautiful appearance; but the man was harsh and evil in his doings.”1 Samuel 25:3
Recommended Reading: 1 Samuel 25:23-33; 23 When Abigail saw David, she quickly got off her donkey and bowed down before David with her face to the ground. 24 She fell at his feet and said: “My lord, let the blame be on me alone. Please let your servant speak to you; hear what your servant has to say. 25 May my lord pay no attention to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name-his name is Fool, and folly goes with him. But as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my master sent.
26 “Now since the LORD has kept you, my master, from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hands, as surely as the LORD lives and as you live, may your enemies and all who intend to harm my master be like Nabal. 27 And let this gift, which your servant has brought to my master, be given to the men who follow you. 28 Please forgive your servant’s offense, for the LORD will certainly make a lasting dynasty for my master, because he fights the LORD’s battles. Let no wrongdoing be found in you as long as you live. 29 Even though someone is pursuing you to take your life, the life of my master will be bound securely in the bundle of the living by the LORD your God. But the lives of your enemies he will hurl away as from the pocket of a sling. 30 When the LORD has done for my master every good thing he promised concerning him and has appointed him leader over Israel, 31 my master will not have on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself. And when the LORD has brought my master success, remember your servant.”
32 David said to Abigail, “Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. 33 May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands. 34 Otherwise, as surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak.” (NIV)
Question: What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Answer: A woman has to intervene.
In 1 Samuel 25, David, running for his life accompanied by a group of malcontents, sought help from a surly and stingy man named Nabal. Conflict and bloodshed seemed inevitable until Nabal’s wife, Abigail, saddled her donkey and sought out David to appeal for peace. Her measured and reasonable words prompted David to reply, “Blessed is the LORD God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! And blessed is your advice” (verses 32-33).
One day Jesus will bring peace to the world, but until then we can take His message of peace to others and be peacemakers at home, work, and school. We can give such wise counsel that others will say, “Blessed is your advice.” Do you know an angry soul? Can you say a word to bring calmness to his or her heart and pour oil on troubled waters? “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9).
“Lord, help me be a person who speaks words that build up and not tear down.”Stormie Omartian in A Book of Prayer
© 2013 Turning Point

Well, THey’ve Succeeded in Shoving it Down Further into Our Throats

Boy Scouts to Accept Openly Gay Members

Posted on May 23, 2013


This makes no sense to me. What does scouting have to do with the gay lifestyle? Why do they have to make this into another recruitment ground? Their goal is to get kids while they are young. Girls think boys are gross and boys think girls have cooties. They’ll be confused and think this means that they are gay. It’s a true shame that liberals see this golden recruitment ground in our children.
Check it out:

In one of their most dramatic choices in a century, local leaders of the Boy Scouts of America voted Thursday to ease a divisive ban and allow openly gay boys to be accepted into the nation’s leading youth organization.

Gay adults will remain barred from serving as Scout leaders.

Of the local Scout leaders voting at their annual meeting in Texas, more than 60 percent supported the proposal.

Casting ballots were about 1,400 voting members of BSA’s National Council who were attending their annual meeting at a conference center not far from BSA headquarters in suburban Dallas.

The vote will not end the wrenching debate over the Scouts’ membership policy, and it could trigger defections among those on the losing side.

Continue Reading on

Read more:


fox news logo

Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay members

Published May 23, 2013

Associated Press

  • Boy Scouts-Gays_Angu.jpg

    Boy Scouts salute early Saturday morning, May 21, 2011 during New Jersey’s Boy Scouts Camporee in Sea Girt, N.J. The Boy Scouts of America’s National Council has voted to ease a long-standing ban and allow openly gay boys to be accepted as Scouts, Thursday, May 23, 2013. (AP)

GRAPEVINE, Texas –  The Boy Scouts of America threw open its ranks Thursday to gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders — a fiercely contested compromise that some warned could fracture the organization and lead to mass defections of members and donors.

Of the roughly 1,400 voting members of the BSA’s National Council who cast ballots, 61 percent supported the proposal drafted by the governing Executive Committee. The policy change takes effect Jan. 1.

“This has been a challenging chapter in our history,” the BSA chief executive, Wayne Brock, said after the vote. “While people have differing opinions on this policy, kids are better off when they’re in Scouting.”

However, the outcome will not end the bitter debate over the Scouts’ membership policy.

Liberal Scout leaders — while supporting the proposal to accept gay youth — have made clear they want the ban on gay adults lifted as well.

In contrast, conservatives with the Scouts — including some churches that sponsor Scout units — wanted to continue excluding gay youths, in some cases threatening to defect if the ban were lifted.

“We are deeply saddened,” said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s executive committee after learning of the result. “Homosexual behavior is incompatible with the principles enshrined in the Scout oath and Scout law.”

The Assemblies of God, another conservative denomination, said the policy change “will lead to a mass exodus from the Boy Scout program.” It also warned that the change would make the BSA vulnerable to lawsuits seeking to end the ban on gay adults.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry also expressed dismay.

“While I will always cherish my time as a Scout and the life lessons I learned, I am greatly disappointed with this decision,” he said.

The result was welcomed by many liberal members of the Scouting community and by gay-rights activists, though most of the praise was coupled with calls for ending the ban on gay adults.

“I’m so proud of how far we’ve come, but until there’s a place for everyone in Scouting, my work will continue,” said Jennifer Tyrrell, whose ouster as a Cub Scout den leader in Ohio because she is lesbian launched a national protest movement.

Pascal Tessier, a 16-year-old Boy Scout from Maryland, was elated by the outcome.

Tessier, who is openly gay, is on track to earn his Eagle Scout award and was concerned that his goal would be thwarted if the proposed change had been rejected.

“I was thinking that today could be my last day as a Boy Scout,” Tessier said. “Obviously, for gay Scouts like me, this vote is life-changing.”

The vote followed what the BSA described as “the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting’s history” to gauge opinions.

Back in January, the BSA executive committee had suggested a plan to give sponsors of local Scout units the option of admitting gays as both youth members and adult leaders or continuing to exclude them. However, the plan won little praise, and the BSA changed course after assessing responses to surveys sent out starting in February to members of the Scouting community.

Of the more than 200,000 leaders, parents and youth members who responded, 61 percent supported the current policy of excluding gays, while 34 percent opposed it. Most parents of young Scouts, as well as youth members themselves, opposed the ban.

The proposal approved Thursday was seen as a compromise, and the Scouts stressed that they would not condone sexual conduct by any Scout — gay or straight.

“The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive and unresolved societal issue,” the BSA said in a statement.

Since the executive committee just completed a lengthy review process, there were “no plans for further review on this matter,” the group added, indicating it would not be revisiting the ban on gay adults anytime soon.

Among those voting for the proposal to accept openly gay youth was Thomas Roberts of Dawsonville, Ga., who serves on the board of a Scout council in northeast Georgia.

“It was a very hard decision for this organization,” he said. “I think ultimately it will be viewed as the right thing.”

The BSA’s overall “traditional youth membership” — Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and Venturers — is now about 2.6 million, compared with more than 4 million in peak years of the past. It also has about 1 million adult leaders and volunteers.

Of the more than 100,000 Scouting units in the U.S., 70 percent are chartered by religious institutions.

Those include liberal churches opposed to any ban on gays, but some of the largest sponsors are relatively conservative denominations that have previously supported the broad ban — notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Southern Baptist churches.

While the Southern Baptists were clearly upset by the vote to accept openly gay youth, the Mormon church reacted positively.

“We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner,” an official LDS statement said.

The National Catholic Committee on Scouting responded cautiously, saying it would assess the possible impact of the change on Catholic-sponsored Scout units.

The BSA, which celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2010, has long excluded both gays and atheists.

Protests over the no-gays policy gained momentum in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the BSA’s right to exclude gays. Scout units lost sponsorships by public schools and other entities that adhered to nondiscrimination policies, and several local Scout councils made public their displeasure with the policy.

Read more:

George Washington Bore A Cross – Obama Thinks He Wears A Crown



“Criminals mock society’s laws. Your compassion is a weakness that your enemies do not and will not share…”

– Bradlee Dean

As the White House has been slammed with scandals such as Benghazi, Extortion 17, the AP phone tapping scandal, targeting FOX News, and the IRS targeting conservative groups, Obama appeared before the nation at a press conference. In the middle of answering a question about the IRS scandal, it began to rain. Obama had the “audacity” to call up two marines to hold an umbrella for himself and the Turkish Prime Minister, stating, “Why don’t we get a couple of Marines [to hold umbrellas.] They’re gonna look good next to us.”

What a stark contrast to our first president, General George Washington!

It was said that Washington was hailed as “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

During the Revolutionary War, George Washington didn’t send someone else to go in his stead… and he certainly would not have asked anyone to hold an umbrella for him. He took responsibility and went himself to lead the call for independence on the behalf of the country and the people he loved. During this time, he had little-to-no money to fight the war, but he fought on with what he had and beat back the tyrant King George.

George Washington was also known as the man who could not die in battle, as he was shot at several times with bullet holes in his jacket, yet he survived unscathed. He told his family, “By the all-powerful dispensations of providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation.”

Like King David, God protected Washington from his enemies.

In the past half-century, as we have seen the corrupt in government slowly usurp their authority and declare war on the American people, the “protection” of the president has risen to ridiculous measures.

A Congressional Research Service report investigated how much taxpayers spend whenever the president leaves the White House by plane. The report found that it costs $179,750 to fly Air Force One for just one hour! That expense is only for fuel, maintenance, and sundries; it does not include all of the staff and security personnel that accompany every move the president makes.

Making the clear distinction between then and now, George Washington bears the cross, while this president wears the crown.

Anyone who travels to Washington, D.C., will know what I am talking about. When the president’s motorcade goes through town, every road is blocked off by armed officers, and any building the president enters is searched over with a fine-toothed comb.

The Secret Service was originally created in 1865 to suppress counterfeit currency. It had nothing to do with the president’s safety until 1907, when Congress passed the Sundry Civil Expenses Act, which now meant that two men would be in full-time charge of the president’s safety. The Secret Service now has 3,200 employees, and whenever the president leaves the White House, the Secret Service calls on other federal, state, and local agencies to heighten security measures.

Until Harry Truman’s presidency, former presidents were dropped off at their homes and were provided no special pension, security, or other benefits. They would become an average American citizen, just like those they served.

When president, Truman would take daily walks around Washington, D.C., with a bodyguard or two in tow. American citizens could walk right up and shake his hand.

What has happened since then? When presidents work for the people, they feel safe enough to walk up and be friendly with their constituents. However, when they work for special interests and are being treated as crowned kings (which they are not), they suddenly feel that they need to be protected from their constituents. Is the writing on the wall? Yes, indeed it is.

Look at the parallel between Washington and the current administrations:

  • In 1789 the federal government under President Washington had 350 federal civilian employees; today they number in the millions!
  • In 1832 the total federal budget was $11 million; in 2011 it was over $4 trillion!
  • Since 1900 the total number of government laws and regulations the average citizen is required to obey has increased an estimated 3,000 percent.

James Madison stated that “… every word of (the Constitution) decides a question between power and liberty.” As the government increases control, this leads to a corresponding decrease of individual liberty and responsibility.

The real problem is when all this power becomes centralized and is left unchecked by the public, then comes the rationale that “they have the badge, they must be right.” Thomas Jefferson, who went through the era of the Revolutionary War, warned,

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

It has been said that laws are most numerous when the commonwealth is most corrupt. This video illustrates present-day criminals with badges. You may be shocked at who they are.




Trust But Verify


Ted Cruz: “I Don’t Trust Republicans.”

Stephen King said: “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.”

We are a world of liars; a Mecca to deceivers; living to eke out inches simply to get ahead. Once there–in a comfortable position–we lie even more, so that we may stay in that position. The reason we have Presidential term limits is because of this very human compulsion to lie. We have term limits because power is a strong tonic that, once taken, invigorates the user, and can compel them to do whatever it takes to stay in power.

Trust is a fool’s gambit. Well, blind trust. Proficient liars—the best of which are in the political world—use blind trust to take advantage of Americans every day. These lies pour from the mouths of Democrats and Republicans like water from the mouth of a river. These lies are never ending. As Reagan said: we must trust, but verify. We must make ourselves good students of character, so that we may see through deception, and find the honest politicians. Difficult as it may be to believe, they do truly exist.

Something I appreciate about Ted Cruz is that he is completely unafraid of offending his own Party. Not only is he articulate, but he stand on his convictions with an unwavering commitment. He gives a killer cross-examination (Dianne Feinstein) and he has a scalpel tongue, slicing apart his opponent’s arguments with surgical precision.

In the vein of offending his own Party, Cruz recently objected to his own Party forming a committee to hash out a budget. According to The Hill:

“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he thought it was ‘bizarre’ that a member of his own party was objecting to forming a conference committee with the House to work out a budget.”

McCain said: “Isn’t it a little bizarre, this whole exercise? What we’re saying is that we don’t trust our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol.”

In response to this, Cruz said:

“The senior senator of Arizona urged senators to trust House Republicans…and frankly, I don’t trust Republicans…It’s the leaders of both parties that got us in this mess…A lot of Republicans were complicit in this spending spree.”

What Cruz said has extraordinary resonance for two reasons. One, he is exactly correct regarding Republicans being complicit in spending us to death. Two, he is unafraid of distancing himself from the Party that could very well have to support him in the 2016 Presidential race.

This lack of fear shows a maturity, and an understanding that doing what’s right isn’t about following Party lines; it’s about the truth; no matter the response. Ted Cruz represents an ideal of the Republican Party; an expectation that is often spoken of, but rarely met. Cruz is a rare brand, and we need to support him with everything we have.

In 2016, the Democrats and many Republicans will try to keep us in the dark; Cruz is the point of light toward which we can walk. Trust, but verify. So far, my trust in Cruz has been validated.



NBC correspondent: Obama trying to ‘criminalize journalism’

Network’s White House writer delivers stunning verdict

// ]]>


The chief White House correspondent for NBC News, which largely has been enthusiastic about Barack Obama’s presidency, has delivered a stunning verdict on the latest moves to come out of the White House administration: It’s trying to criminalize journalism.

Wrote Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, “One gets the sense this White House has finally gone too far for even liberal media members.”

It happened with MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who noted that some people who definitely are not “tea party” types were expressing concern.

“We had Cokie Roberts and Al Hunt, Steve Rattner. And Cokie and Al, not tea party patriots, absolutely shocked as am I what this Justice Department did, not only to the AP, but now to Fox News,” Scarborough said during his interview with Chuck Todd of NBC.

“Tracing five lines inside Fox News’ Washington bureau. You add on top of that also people inside the White House talking about the Espionage Act against a reporter who did exactly what reporters have been doing for 200 years. It’s almost as if Eric Holder and Barack Obama never read the Pentagon’s Paper, Papers case. We’ve been having this fight for 200 years and they are talking about espionage?”

Todd responded, “What’s funny is I think candidate Obama if George Bush and Dick Cheney were doing this, imagine what candidate Obama would say. Candidate Obama would be unloading. There’d be a lot of Democrats that would be unloading on the administration if they were this and they were trying to crack down on leaks. This is, you can’t look at this and see it as anything other than an attempt to basically scare anybody from ever leaking anything ever again.”

He got to the point, “So they want to criminalize journalism. And that’s what it’s coming down, I mean, if you end up essentially criminalizing journalism or when it comes to reporting on the federal government, particularly on national security, and the only place they can, they think they technically can do that is on the issues of national security. What it’s going to do is the impact that we’ve heard, we heard the AP counsel say this over the weekend. It is going to make whistleblowers, and people that might leak, regular sources. You know, I’ve had different conversations with people over the last week who are sitting there not quite comfortable having certain conversations on the phone. I mean, it just completely, and maybe that’s the intent. I can’t think of any other intent of why they’re going about this in such a broad harassing sort of way.”

The comments are just the latest in one of the latest scandals for the Obama White House. Others are the IRS strategy to deliberately target conservative organizations with harassment, and the still-unanswered questions on the fatal al-Qaida-linked terror attack on Americans in Benghazi.

See the list of news media members under Washington’s watch.

Earlier, a veteran reporter warned that members of the news media aren’t the only Americans who should be concerned about the privacy of their telephone conversations.

Gregory J. Millman of the Wall Street Journal, who says his telephone records were targeted by the IRS many years ago, writes that the communications of citizens could come to the attention of the government in a number of ways, including by getting a call from someone in whom the government has interest.

WND reported the Obama administration said it pursued AP’s records because a double agent in the war on terror was compromised by a story. However, the news wire’s reporting on the issue didn’t mention the agent.

It was CIA Director John Brennan, who then was President Obama’s terror adviser, who told members of Congress that the U.S. had “inside control” of the situation. Media then reported on the use of a double agent, according to a profile of the government’s justification for pursuing the reporters’ telephone records published in the Los Angeles Times.

Millman writes that his records were targeted in 1991 when he wrote a story citing an Internal Revenue Service memo.

However, he pointed out that when his records were taken by the IRS, he wasn’t the only one.

“That’s how they happened to scoop up the phone records of a home builder, a trade association of corporate finance officers, an old friend who happened to live in Washington, D.C., and the Alicia Patterson Foundation, which supports investigative journalism and which I had called to discuss a fellowship.”

Millman says none of those people or organizations “had anything to do with the story at issue, and none learned until long afterward that IRS investigators had been secretly riffling through records of all their phone calls.”

Millman explains he learned only by accident that the records had been given to the government.

It also was revealed that when the government started looking at the records for James Rosen, of Fox News, it scooped up the records for a home where his parents live.


MSNBC: IRS Scandal – Wait For It – Bush’s Fault!

You knew it was just a matter of time, didn’t you? As the IRS scandal draws ever closer to Barack Obama, liberal media lapdogs are circling the wagons. In fact, they have just identified the “real” culprit: George Bush.

Who knew? From the “Let’s connect the dots that aren’t there” department, comes this ridiculous stretch, as reported by Mediaite:

Is it possible that the right-leaning Tea Party was being forced to reconcile onerous information requests from the Internal Revenue Service because former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, thought the nascent conservative movement reflected poorly on the Republican Party? This is the theory that was posited on MSNBC on Monday in an effort to explain the IRS’ admission that they had singled out conservative groups for undue scrutiny.

“Is it really the interesting part here that Shulman, who was a Bush appointee, might have been looking at Tea Party groups because of what it might have done to the Republican Party at the time – in the future of what we’re seeing now; basically, splintering the foundation of the Republican side?” MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked?

Mother Jones reporter Monika Bauerlein declined to respond to that speculation, but noted that when a group seeks tax-exempt status, they are asking for “a subsidy from the tax payers.”

“These Tea Party groups were looking for a subsidy from the tax payers, and there were a lot of these groups springing up at the time,” Bauerlein added. She contends that, in the wake of the Citizens United decision, there was a flood of applications to the IRS seeking tax-exempt status as a 501(c)3 – 6 organization. In fact, the number of applications for that status declined in 2010 in the wake the decision.”

Incredible. And? Not so much. Humorous, either way. Liberals’ “He hit me first!” or “Yeah, but what I did wasn’t as bad as what you did!” mentality is particularly entertaining when their crises erupt. (See: Hillary: “Vast right-wing conspiracy.”)

It’s only going to get “better.” Stay tuned.


Half of America wants Obama impeached

Even Democrats join surge of dissatisfaction in unprecedented numbers

Published: 1 day ago

Written by Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

Editor’s note: This is another in a series of “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.

The faux stone columns from his Denver acceptance speech are crumbling, the fireworks have fizzled and the unadulterated adulation of Barack Obama is a sour feeling of disillusion, as a new poll reveals half of Americans wants him impeached, including a stunning one in four Democrats.

“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel, of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll Thursday. It has a margin of error of 4.36 percent.

“Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.”

Actually, on the issue of the Benghazi scandal, where four Americans were killed when in what may have been a politically motivated series of moves, a surging danger to Americans at the foreign service facility there was ignored until al-Qaida-linked terrorists attacked, 50.1 percent of Americans said Obama should be impeached. That included 27.6 percent of the responding Democrats.

On the scandal of the Internal Revenue Service intentionally harassing conservative and Christian organizations? Forty-nine percent said they agree that impeachment is appropriate, including 24.4 percent of the Democrats.

And on the fishing trip the Obama administration took into AP reporters’ telephone records in search of something that may well have been done by his own administration, 48.6 percent impeachment is appropriate. That included 26.1 percent of the Democrats.

It was only two months ago that respondents to the same poll suggested, although in smaller numbers, that impeachment was appropriate for other Obama scandals. At that time 44 percent said he should be impeached for his campaign to give amnesty to illegal aliens inside the U.S., and 46 percent said he should be impeached for launching the war to remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

“What is clear from the data is that Obama is at risk of losing his base,” Wenzel explained. “On each of these questions, about one in four Democrats said they agreed Obama should be impeached. What could be more alarming to the White House is that it appears that most of American is tuned in to these issues now, as 93 percent of registered voters said they get at least one news update on these issues every day.”

He continued, “Of the three issues now in the news, the one that has been there the longest, and the only one that has to do with the death of American citizens, is seen as the most important to Americans. While 49 percent said the Benghazi murders of U.S. diplomatic personnel is the most serious issue, 26 percent said IRS harassment was most serious, and 25 percent said the seizure of AP phone records was most serious. With news still breaking on all three fronts, it is impossible to know which of the three scandals will ultimately be the most damaging to the Obama administration. These findings clearly show Americans are concerned about what is going on in Washington.”

It spells headwinds for Obama, too, as he lobbies American voters to grant him his wish of having a Democrat Congress during the last two years of his reign, Wenzel said.

“What could be most concerning to the White House is that the Democratic Party effort to retake the U.S. House of Representatives next year may be at risk because of these issues. Asked whether they would lean to vote for the Democrat or the Republican in their own congressional district based on what they know about these three situations, 46 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Republican, while 39 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Democrat. Another 16 percent said these issues make no difference in their congressional vote,” Wenzel said.

He said, “The appetite is growing for impeachment proceedings. It is too early to say it is time for those proceedings to start, but it’s now possible to see that day on the far horizon.”

Of those who did not vote in 2012, based on their knowledge of Obama’s administration now, 37 percent say they would have gone back to vote for Republican Mitt Romney, 27 percent for Obama, and others undecided.

That the situation is serious for Obama was confirmed by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan.

“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone,” she said.

“The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department,” she continued. “A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”

It’s even being compared to Watergate, that breakin episode that ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.

That was confirmed by no less than Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, whose reporting on Watergate eventually snared the sitting president.

Woodward said recently, “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”

A Republican congressman recently brought up the subject.

“I would say yes. I’m not willing to take it [impeachment] off to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CNN.

“We want truth, we want to bring the people who perpetrated the terrorism in Benghazi to be brought to justice, and we want to have the president do what he has said he would always do. And that is be open and transparent. Thus far, the White House has not done that.” (See video:

Earlier, Chaffetz was interviewed by the Salt Lake Tribune, and was asked if impeachment were within the realm of possibilities.

“It’s certainly a possibility,” he told the paper. “That’s not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don’t know where it’s going to go. … I’m not taking it off the table. I’m not out there touting that but I think this gets to the highest levels of our government and integrity and honesty are paramount.”

Chaffetz has been championing the call to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, onslaught at Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Other Republicans have also voiced impeachment as a potential final outcome.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said last week impeachment was possible over the “most egregious cover-up in American history.

“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe told radio host Rusty Humphries, according to the Hill.

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.

Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his full second term because of his complicity in a cover-up with Benghazi.

Other members of Congress who have uttered possible impeachment for a variety of reasons in recent years include Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

Others who have raised the subject?

Rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached, and he’s calling CNN anchor Piers Morgan an “effective idiot” in the battle over the Second Amendment.

Referring to Obama, Nugent says: “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”

“It’s so diabolical,” he said.

Nugent made his comments in a recent interview with radio host Alex Jones.

Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.

On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.

WND also compiled a special report on the various offenses Obama is blamed for committing and reported what experts on the Constitution believe should be happening.


See detailed results of survey questions:

Overall, how would you rate the job performance of President Barack Obama – would you say he is doing an excellent job, a good job, only a fair job, or a poor job?

The administration of Democrat Barack Obama has still not satisfied congressional and media questions about just what it knew and when it knew it about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last September 11. That attack killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. The Obama administration has changed its explanation of that attack several times since and has so far refused to identify those officials who made key decisions not to send help to stop the attacks, and who decided not to initially call the killings a terrorist attack. Knowing that and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?

It has been learned that the Internal Revenue Service, under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama, has purposely targeted conservative and Christian groups for harassment over their tax exempt status while giving liberal nonprofit groups little or no scrutiny. Further, the IRS apparently leaked private tax information from these conservative groups to opposing liberal groups who were able to use that confidential information for political advantage. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?

It has been learned that the U.S. Department of Justice under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama secretly obtained confidential telephone records of many reporters of the Associated Press in Washington, D.C. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his department obtained the phone records without the permission or knowledge of the Associated Press in order to find who in the federal government was leaking information about terrorist plots against America. AP officials have strongly protested this invasion of their privacy but the administration stands by its actions. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?

How much would you say you are paying attention to news coverage of these issues in recent days and weeks?

Thinking of the issue regarding the murders of American diplomats in Benghazi, the IRS’s harassment of the president’s political opponents, or the government’s secret snatching of private telephone records without permission, IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, which of the three issues do you think is the most serious?

Please tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement: None of these three issues involving Barack Obama is enough to trigger impeachment proceedings against him, but the totality of the mishandling or wrongdoing involving all three issues together IS enough to justify impeaching Obama?

Considering the totality of these three issues and their impact on our nation, and knowing that Obama is the head of the Democratic Party, are you more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress or the U.S. Senate in your area so Obama might have more political support in Congress – OR – are you more likely to vote for the Republican candidate to counter Obama in the final years of his term?

Thinking about everything you know and have heard about these three issues, if you could go back and change your vote for president because of what you have learned about them, would these current situations cause you to change your vote?

Thinking about everything you know and have heard about these three issues, if you could go back and vote for president because of what you have learned about them, would these current situations cause you to vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama, or would you still not have voted? (Includes only those who did not vote in the November 2012 election.)


The Stink Starts at the Head. More Christian Persecution with White House Connections

IRS: Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been a Christian?

Posted on May 19, 2013 by

But the IRS’s actions crossed a line from merely corrupt into sinister when it grilled an Iowa pro-life group about its religious views. During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Friday, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., asked outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about it.

“Their question,” Schock said, “specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.’ Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant? The content of one’s prayers?’

Miller tried to avoid answering the question, claiming to have no knowledge of the case, but finally said it would “surprise me” if such a question was asked.

The Thomas More Society presented the Ways and Means Committee with evidence in three cases involving its clients being harassed by the IRS. The information indicates that at least two other pro-life organizations were targeted and that the actions extended beyond the IRS’s Cincinnati office, which has been at the center of many of the past week’s revelations, and began before 2010, the date that has come up frequently in other cases of IRS harassment.

According to TMS, in 2011, the El Monte, California, office of the IRS began harassing Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, Texas. In a statement, TMS wrote: “In a series of questions penned by Exempt Organization Specialist Tyrone Thomas from the California office, the IRS asked a series of unwarranted questions ordering Christian Voices for Life without any foundation, to explain its content, message, and prayers as if they were engaging in highly offensive or criminal behavior.”

The Coalition for Life found itself under IRS scrutiny when it applied for nonprofit status in October 2008, during the closing months of the Bush Administration. Nearly a year of interrogation included an illegal demand from the IRS’s Cincinnati office that coalition board members sign a pledge not to picket Planned Parenthood. Other demands of the group included information about the “content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.”

Daniel and Angela Michael of Small Victories, a pro-life organization, were singled out by an IRS agent in Chicago who called them every two to three weeks with demands for a year.

During the testimony and numerous stories that have come out this week, it was also revealed that the IRS has been targeting conservative Jewish groups for similar treatment, especially pressuring them about support for Israel, while groups perceived as supporting liberal causes and the Administration have sailed through the IRS review process.

The Thomas More Society also represents clients who are suing the Department of Health and Human Services over the Obama Administration’s demand that religious groups provide health insurance to employees that funds contraception and abortions in violation of religious conscience.

Almost since Day One of the Obama Administration, the Department of Homeland Security has issued reports warning of the dangers posed by conservative groups and military veterans, conflating Christians and Orthodox Jews with Left-wing-inspired groups such as the KKK and neo-Nazis.

More recently, the Air Force and Pentagon have moved toward a policy of cracking down on Christians who evangelize by sharing their faith with other enlisted personnel. The planned policy change has raised alarm among conservative groups because it seems to be driven by the zealously anti-Christian Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Taken altogether, and viewed against President Obama’s self-professed preference for Muslims, the Administration’s targeting of Christians and Jews is chilling. Still the Administration pretends as if nothing unusual has gone on.

These are the roots of tyranny, which we are watching grow deeper before our very eyes.

Read more:

More Abortion Carnage

Texas Abortionist Killed Babies With His Bare Hands

Posted on May 18, 2013 by
There’s another murderer masquerading as an OB doctor in Texas whose clinic is being investigated after a few of his employees came forward with their testimonies. Three women and one other anonymous person who were employed by Dr. Douglas Karpen have come forward to testify about the horrific details of what went on at this particular clinic and possibly two other clinics that Karpen owned. Here are some of the things they witnessed from their former boss:

  • delivering live babies during third-trimester abortions
  • killing them by snipping their spinal cord
  • stabbing a surgical instrument into their heads or stomach
  • twisting their heads off their necks with his own bare hands
  • pulling the baby out of the womb in pieces because of how big it was

The three women that came forward said that they witnessed these types of things on a daily basis. Sometimes three or four babies were born alive and subsequently murdered by the abortionist on the same day.

As long as patients had the cash, Karpen would kill their babies for them well after 24 weeks, and at that point, he would charge around $4,000 to $5,000. From the Daily Mail:

”The women described one occasion where a fetus that Karpen thought was dead suddenly ‘opened its eyes and grabbed [the doctor’s] finger’ after he wrenched it from the womb. However, it met a similar fate to the other fetuses at the clinic, the women said. ‘He thought it was dead but the fetus actually opened its eyes and grabbed his finger,’ [former employee] Aguliar said. ‘He was alive. He thought it was deceased already. He was getting ready to put it in the back.’ They also recounted occasions when women were so far along with their pregnancy they were actually induced into labor and in two cases their fetuses came out while they were in the bathroom. Rodriguez described another incident where a patient’s fetus fell from her and onto the floor in the clinic’s waiting room. ‘[Karpen] just picked it up with a Chux [a large and disposable absorbent pad] and put it in the trash bag,’ she said.”

You can watch their interview here:

These so-called “botched abortions” are not isolated. It’s just that they’re kept under wraps. Planned Parenthood and the left try to distance themselves from these cases, but if you recall, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood actually argued in favor of letting doctors and mothers decide whether or not a born-alive baby should stay alive or be put to death.

Gosnell and now Karpen are showing what abortion is really about. I hope Karpen is put on trial and convicted of murder. Hopefully, this time the death penalty will not be neglected.

Read more:

Benghazi, Libiya Coverup

Benghazi, Libya Coverup

Benghazi, Libya Coverup


In Charge



“Good morning.  We want to apply for a marriage license.”


“Tim and Jim Jones.”

“Jones??  Are you related??  I see a resemblance.”

“Yes, we’re brothers.”

“Brothers??  You can’t get married.”

“Why not??  Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”

“Yes, thousands.  But we haven’t had any siblings.  That’s incest!”

“Incest?”  No, we are not gay.”

“Not gay??  Then why do you want to get married?”

“For the financial benefits, of course.  And we do love each other.  Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”

“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law.  If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”

“Wait a minute.  A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.  But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman.  I want to marry Jim.”

“And I want to marry Tim!  Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”

“All right, all right.  I’ll give you your license.  Next.”

“Hi.  We are here to get married.”


“John Stark, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”

“Who wants to marry whom?”

“We all want to marry each other.”

“But there are four of you!”

“That’s right.  You see, we’re all bisexual.  I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me.  All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”

“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”

“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”

“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it’s just for couples.”

“Since when are you standing on tradition?”

“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”

“Who says??   There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.  The more the better.  Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.  Give us a marriage license!”

“All right, all right.  Next.”

“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”

“In what names?”

“David Deets.”

“And the other man?”

“That’s all.  I want to marry myself.”

“Marry yourself??  What do you mean?”

“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together.  Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”

“That does it!?  I quit!!?  You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”


By Jerry Broussard

I spent most of my career as a sales representative working for a major worldwide copier corporation. I worked my way up into management, and then corporate management. The lessons I learned along the way, and many of them very painfully, taught me many lifelong lessons that still structure my life.

One of those valuable lessons was being aware of what was going on in my department and how that related to all the other departments. What was going on in the corporation was critical information, and saying, “I don’t know” became a career ending response to a question. Blame never worked, and lack of knowledge created a C.O.S. (Change of Status).

During my time in the Marine Corp, that same atmosphere existed. “Knowing” was expecting, especially because it might mean the life of the people in your unit. Not “knowing” was a miserable excuse and would result in disciplinary action. Part of your job description was to make sure you knew critical information in order to do the job you were assigned to accomplish.

Obama-ScandalsNow we have the President Obama administration up to its pits with “alligators” in the form of scandals. Benghazi, IRS Assault on conservative organizations, snooping into AP reporter’s emails and phone calls, “Fast n’ Furious”, voter shenanigans, voter oppression, phony voter registration, and all the other lies they have been caught telling. No matter who is questioned about these matters, the answer comes back, “I don’t know”, “I was uninformed”, “I never heard about that until it was a published news article”, “I was not told anything about that”, etc., etc., etc.. As prevalent as these excuses are, and the numerous people making these excuses, produces the following reactions;

  • Utter incompetence. Anyone accepting a responsible job to perform duties within an organization, and cannot tell you what is going on in that department, or what went wrong I that unit, is incompetent, assuming they are not deceiving you about their lack of knowledge.
  • They are too distracted. Any manager spending most of their time outside the department they are responsible for, is not going to know what is going on in that department (playing too much golf, multiple vacations, giving endless speeches, endless campaigning, etc.).
  • Poor management skills. The lack of knowledge is always the result of people occupying management positions that have no clue what it takes to be a successful manager. They have no idea what to keep track of, and rely too much on delegated authority, which give them an out if anything goes wrong.
  • THEY ARE LIEING ABOUT NOT KNOWING. They cover up the truth because of the punishment realized for making wrong decisions. This person will also blame others in an effort to deflect scrutiny off them. They hope you will drop it or look somewhere else so they can continue the deception.
    • Case in Point: Pelosi Blames Bush For IRS Scandal

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pointed out in her press conference today that former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman was appointed under George W. Bush, and that the agency is seen to most people as “three scary initials.”

“Has anybody mentioned that the director who left, and therefore we have now an acting director, was a Bush appointee? And that Miller was a career… these were not Obama appointees. But it happened on their watch.”

Pelosi was being asked a question on whether President Obama had done enough with the resignation of the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller.

Steve Miller was appointed acting commissioner November 9th of 2012, when the Bush appointee stepped down.

Read more:


In the corporate world, such people would be immediately punished, terminated and/or prosecuted. In the political world???????????

As for me and my house, we are going to remember all this next year for the mid-term elections. How about you?

More Evidence of the American Gestapo at Work – Fueled by George Soros

Bill Donohue: IRS Targeted Catholic League

Image: Bill Donohue: IRS Targeted Catholic League

The problems with the IRS extend beyond playing politics with conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt status. I have never made this public before, but given the heightened interest in the way the IRS has conducted itself, the time has come to disclose what happened.
Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501(c)(3) organizations. What the IRS did not know was that I had proof who contacted them to launch the investigation: Catholics United, a George Soros-funded Catholic organization.

The IRS was contacted on June 5, 2008, to launch a probe of the Catholic League, and the letter sent to me was dated Nov. 24, 2008. The June 5 letter was sent to the IRS by lawyers from Catholics United; it was mailed to Director Marsha Ramirez, director of Exempt Organizations Examinations, and to Lois G. Lerner, director of EO Division.

The “evidence” against me was nothing more than news releases and articles I had written during the presidential campaign on various issues. The lawyers also asked the IRS to question the source of new funding we had received, implying that we received illegal contributions.
The timing is not coincidental. On Oct. 20, I issued a news release, “George Soros Funds Catholic Left,” and on Oct. 23, I wrote another one, “Catholic Left Scandal Mounts”; both mentioned Catholics United. The same day, Oct. 23, I was asked to go on CNN, and when Catholics United found out, they contacted the station trying to spike the interview.
The person who did this was the head of Catholics United, Chris Korzen. He said I was not “an authentic Catholic commentator and representative of the Catholic Church,” and that they should either drop me altogether or put me on with Alexia Kelley of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (Catholics United is listed on the 990 of Catholics in Alliance as a related organization; Soros greases this group, and by extension, Catholics United).
The bid to keep me off TV failed. But here’s the key: Korzen was dumb enough to share with CNN the complaint issued by his group to the IRS. The document, which was leaked to me by someone at CNN, matches up extraordinarily well with the IRS complaint of Nov. 24.
In the end, the IRS concluded that although the Catholic League had “intervened in a political campaign,” it was “unintentional, isolated, non-egregious and non-recurring”; our tax-exempt status remained intact. This is false: I intentionally addressed political issues, and did not intervene in the campaign, unless, of course, my freedom to speak about political issues is a violation of the IRS Code. If that is the case, then this IRS unit should fold.
So the problem extends beyond the IRS. It extends to left-wing activists, funded by left-wing tycoons, all for the purpose of silencing conservatives. It’s time someone was held accountable for this obscene political game.
Dr. William Donohue is the president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. The publisher of the Catholic League journal, Catalyst, Donohue is a former Bradley Resident Scholar at the Heritage Foundation and served for two decades on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars. The author of five books, two on the ACLU, and the winner of several teaching awards and many awards from the Catholic community, Donohue has appeared on thousands of television and radio shows speaking on civil liberties and social issues. Read more reports from Bill Donohue — Click Here Now.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Not Knowing as the President is Incompetence, Bad Management and Deliberate Ignorance

What White House Doesn’t Know Will Shock You

obama is an empty chair

photo of Barack Obama, the empty chair

The White House is responsible for nothing and they don’t know about anything going on in their government.

They didn’t know about the DOJ’s covert seizure of the Associated Press’s phone records until today, Monday.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a statement Monday evening that the phone records story was purely a Justice Department affair. White House officials didn’t even know about it until they read press accounts Monday afternoon, Carney said.

“Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP. We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department,” Carney said in a statement given to the press pool travelling along with President Obama on fundraising trips to New York Monday. “Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice.”

The White House also didn’t know about the IRS targeting conservatives, people who want limited government or disagree with the government. President Obama didn’t know. He found out Friday with the rest of us.

“Let me take the IRS situation first. I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this I think it was on Friday.. [He’s not even sure if it was Friday. The IRS knew in 2011 and they are an arm of the Executive Branch.]

President Obama didn’t know that Benghazi was an al Qaeda attack. He thought it had something to do with a video protest gone awry even though the intelligence community knew it was a terror attack on the night of the attack.

The White House didn’t know the Talking Points were changed.

The White House didn’t know that terror training camps were sprouting up all around the Benghazi consulate and they didn’t know about the 200+ attacks in Libya prior to the 9/11 attack. The White House didn’t know about the security requests.

“We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there,” Joe Biden said.

Obama didn’t know his BFFs Jay-Z and Beyonce were going to Communist Cuba on holiday. He doesn’t know how they got the visa to go.

The White House said that in the Boston terror attack there was no indication of terrorist activity. They didn’t know about the Russians’ warnings to us about Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

The White House didn’t know about the thousands of illegals who were recently released from prison by Janet Napolitano as part of the faux sequester cuts.

The White House absolutely didn’t deceive over the impact of sequester. They didn’t know anything. The White House said they didn’t cancel the White House tours.

“You know, I have to say this was not– a decision that went up to the White House. But the– what the Secret Service explained to us was that they’re gonna have to furlough some folks. What furloughs mean is– is that people lose a day of work and a day of pay,” Obama said, in response.

The White House didn’t know anything about the Petraeus scandal. They conveniently learned about it the Wednesday after the election. The DOJ was investigating the Director of the CIA and the White House didn’t know.

“I’d refer you to the FBI. They have protocols in place on when to notify legislative and executive branches on investigations. It is simply a fact that the White House was not aware of the situation with General Petraeus.

The White House didn’t know about the Fast & Furious operation.

The White House didn’t know about the SEC/Goldman Sachs charges until after they were made public.

The White House didn’t know it had ordered General Stanley McChrystal to ”Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”

The White House didn’t know that Jon Corzine was a raging incompetent. In fact, Joe Biden said that he was the first one they called when they had a financial question.

The White House didn’t know a Mao Tse-Tung ornament was hanging on their Christmas tree for three years in a row though it was mentioned each year.

In 2011, Barack Obama told Bob Woodward that he regretted criticizing Paul Ryan at his budget speech last year. Obama said he would not have attacked Paul Ryan if he would have known Ryan was going to attend the speech. It’s quite miraculous that Obama didn’t know because Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to hear his speech.

Barack Obama didn’t know Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist even though they were colleagues and Ayers launched Obama’s career. Barack didn’t know about Jeremiah Wright’s anti-white, anti-Jewish rants even though he sat in his church for 20 years. Barack has carried that ability to not know into the White House – he didn’t know a member of a terrorist Muslim group was invited to the White House for a meeting with senior aides. Barack just didn’t know.

The White House said the Churchill bust wasn’t sent back and then they said they didn’t know it was sent back.

Maybe if Obama would stop campaigning and fundraising, he’d know what’s going on.


This is Almost Madness

Posted by  The Right Scoop on May 13th, 2013 in Politics | 80 Comments

Newt says that Obamacare is going to have big problems over this scandal because of its heavy reliance on the IRS. He said Obama will have to force people in the IRS to testify before Congress and fire who he can over this scandal in order to clearly back away from it. Because, as he reminds us, this is an administration that won’t profile terrorists, but they will profile patriots? He says it’s almost madness.


Religion of Peace Alert: Four Words Every Infidel Needs to Know

By / 15 May 2013 / 55 Comments

Screen Shot 2013-05-15 at 10.02.06 AMEach of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims.

Mohammed famously said, “War is deceit.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Nr.268). The Quran boasts that Allah is the “master of all scheming” (Quran 13:42) and that he is “profound in his machinations” (Quran 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, “We are used to your lying. Knock it off!”


Taqiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense (illaan tattaqoo minhum tuqatan (Quran 3:28).

This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation.Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.”

Reliance of the Traveller. Section r8.2 PERMISSIBLE LYING. The Prophet said: “He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar”). Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.


Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying” or where appropriate “lying under oath”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.1 If one swears “I will not eat this wheat,” but then makes it into flour or bread (and eats it), one has not broken one’s oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.5 When a person swearing an oath about something (in the future, affirming or denying that it will occur) includes the expression “in sha’ Allah (“if Allah will”), before finishing the oath, then the oath is not broken in any event if he thereby intends to provide for exceptions.

How does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of“those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”.

A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” In your mind,you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim.


Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts.

Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant,contradictory verse.

Here is an example: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256)

“Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?”(Quran 3:83)

Another example:Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Quran 22:39)

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah… that they should bemurdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned;“ (Quran 5:33)


Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Quran 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by abetter one or similar.”

Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Read more:
Get more Clash on, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

The Obama administration is doing a far better job making the case for conservatism

Obama is Making Conservative Principles Look Tasty


By / 16 May 2013 / 31 Comments

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 9.36.16 AMIt must get confusing in the IT department at the Associated Press: Are you talking about the hackers who hacked our Twitter account or the Justice Department hackers who hacked our phones? Monday, the Associated Press reported that the Justice Department had secretly obtained two months of records of phone conversations by its reporters. Meanwhile, the Washington Post revealed that the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups was more widespread than first reported. Someone at the IRS also leaked information about conservative groups to ProPublica. The Environmental Protection Agency may also have made it easier for environmental groups to file Freedom of Information Act requests than conservative organizations.

The Obama administration is doing a far better job making the case for conservatism than Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, or John Boehner ever did. Showing is always better than telling, and when the government overreaches in so many ways it gives support to the conservative argument about the inherently rapacious nature of government.

First let’s get our terms straight. Conservatives are not the same as Republicans. The former believe in a philosophy which stays roughly fixed and the latter belong to a party that occasionally embraces the philosophy but deviates when necessary to win elections, pass legislation, and follow the selfish aims of those who are in office and want to remain there. Conservatives argue against the expansion of government, whereas Republicans sometimes enlarge it to please their constituents or themselves. Republicans also sometimes botch foreign policy operations and spin themselves silly in their aftermath, which is why the Benghazi revelations are left out of this grand unification theory.

Though some of these scandals will allow Republicans to score points in the daily tally of who is ahead and who is behind, there is a larger benefit to conservatives that goes beyond the fall in the president’s approval ratings or the boost Republican Senate candidates may get in 2014. Those outcomes rely on further adjudication of these issues. It may turn out that President Obama had nothing to do with any of them. It could simply be rogues in various agencies. Or, maybe President Obama orchestrated the whole kaleidoscope of wrongdoing on the White House whiteboard. You don’t have to embrace either of those theories to see that it’s much easier to agree with the conservative notion that government is a mess. We have enough evidence of that already.

Read more:

Read more:
Get more Clash on, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Suppression of speech fine if Muslims threaten violence


Judge goes off deep end to shut up Christians



A federal judge has issued a startling ruling that suppressing Christian speech is allowed when Muslims threaten violence because they’re upset over the message.

The ruling from Judge Patrick J. Duggan in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Wayne County’s motion for summary judgment of a lawsuit brought by a team of Christians who were badgered, bullied and targeted with garbage thrown by Muslims who disliked their message at last year’s Arab Fest in Dearborn, Mich.

Officials with American Freedom Law Center, who have been arguing the case on behalf of the Christians, also said the judge denied AFLC’s motion requesting that the court issue an order preventing the Wayne County Sheriff and his deputies from restricting the Christian evangelists from displaying their banners and signs on the public sidewalks outside of this year’s Arab Festival.

It is scheduled for June.

In his ruling, Duggan said, “The court finds that the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”

The case had been filed by the AFLC after several Christian evangelists were violently assaulted by a hostile Muslim mob while preaching at the festival last year in Dearborn, which has the largest concentration of Muslims in the United States.

The lawsuit, which will be appealed to a higher court, alleged the county, sheriff and deputies refused to protect the Christians from the attack, and they threatened to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, said, “The First Amendment was dealt a severe blow today as a result of this ruling. Indeed, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive by engaging in violence. And pursuant to this ruling, the Christian speakers are now subject to arrest for engaging in disorderly conduct on account of the Muslim hecklers’ violent response to their speech. In short, this ruling turns the First Amendment on its head.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added: “This fight for our fundamental right to freedom of speech does not stop here. We have filed an immediate appeal of this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. While Judge Duggan may have been the first judge to rule on this issue, he won’t be the last. Indeed, we are prepared to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary because it is imperative that our free speech rights not be subject to mob rule. This is the United States, not Benghazi.”

WND previously reported on the case several times.

The violence developed at the 2012 events when Christian evangelists walking on public sidewalks surrounding the event while carrying signs with biblical messages were assaulted with stones, bottles and debris by attendees of the festival.

The signs that brought on the attack included “Know the God of the Bible” and “Trust Jesus.”

Several of the Christian demonstrators walked away bruised and bloodied from the attack. Ruben Israel, the leader of the group, pleaded with law enforcement officials to intervene so that the demonstration could continue peacefully.

However, the officer refused and demanded the Christians leave the premises or face arrest for disorderly conduct.

Shortly after, Israel contacted AFLC, which filed a federal lawsuit against Wayne County and several officials from the Wayne County sheriff’s office. AFLC charged that the officers failed to uphold their constitutional duty to protect the Christians.

A video has been released of the 2012 confrontation that explains authorities not only failed to protect the Christians, they ordered them to leave the Arab festival under threat of arrest for “disorderly conduct.”

However, not one Muslim was arrested for the attack, which left several members of the Christian group injured, the video says.

The video, and a related complaint, showed the crowd – reminiscent of a rock-throwing “intifada” scene from the Middle East – hurling a dizzying barrage of objects at the Christians, who were standing passively with their signs.

WND later learned that the Christian crowd had been carrying a pole with a pig’s head attached to the top, further angering the Muslim crowd. At the beginning of the video, Christian street preachers shout, “God is good, and God is not Allah!”

A the 2:17 mark of the video, the mob can be heard screaming: “You want to jump ‘em? C’mon, let’s go!”

One boy yells, “Let’s beat the sh-t out of them!”

A girl shouts, “Go home! Do you understand English?!”

Despite the attacks the Christians endured, a man identified in the video as Deputy Chief Dennis Richardson of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office tells them, “You’re a danger to the safety right now.”

Officers claim they don’t have the manpower to protect the Christians at the festival.

“Your safety is in harm’s way. You need to protect everybody,” said Deputy Chief Mike Jaafar of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. “You do have the option to leave. I just want to make that clear.”

Israel replied, “You have the option to stand with us” as Jaafar walked away, leaving the Christians to the mob.

When police leave, the crowd continues harassing the Christians and screaming profanities.

Then police begin escorting the Christians away from the crowd.

Richardson tells Israel: “We have the responsibility of policing the entire festival, and obviously your conduct is such that it’s causing a disturbance and is a direct threat to the safety of everyone here. Someone could get hurt. You already have blood on your face. One of the festival people, one of my officers, anybody can get hurt. Now we’re going to escort you out.”

Israel explains that the mob throws things and becomes more aggressive when police leave the scene.

“Part of the reason that they throw things on someone is because you tell them stuff that enrages them,” Richardson argues.

AFLC said the Christians were wearing shirts with Scripture quotes and Christian messages.

(Editor’s note: The following 22-minute video contains profane statements shouted by an angry mob and may be offensive to viewers.) >>>




How Many Scandals Does it Take?


“RINO’s” Beware. We Are Watching, Taking Notes and Voting Accordingly


There have been so many false narratives getting tossed around by the Democrats that it’s hard to keep up with them. For a while the narrative was that the far right wing whacko Republicans are to blame for all your problems, and that’s why the House needs to flip in 2014. Lately the narrative is that the Republicans are cowards who are afraid of Rush Limbaugh, and that’s who to blame for all your problems. Instead of trying to chase down every narrative that they throw against the wall to see what will stick, let’s look at some data.

Heritage Foundation has an entity, Heritage Action Scorecard, that measures votes to see how conservative members of congress are. Since the Republicans control the House, one might think the Heritage Action Scorecard position on the majority of the key votes would be Aye. This is not the case. Most of the key votes so far have the Heritage position to vote No. It’s not been conservatives that have been in control of the docket of key votes coming to the floor. There is an inherent problem with placing too much trust in the No votes to measure how conservative members are. Nancy Pelosi is voting No on these same floor votes. You know what someone is voting against, but you really don’t know what they are for. One key vote the Heritage position on the vote was Aye occurred back on March 20th.

Bill: H.Con.Res. 25: Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023.

Introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1] on March 15, 2013

Amendment: H.Amdt. 35 (Woodall) to H.Con.Res. 25: Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to insert the Republican Study Committee budget proposal.

Offered by Rep. Rob Woodall [R-GA7] on March 20, 2013

This was a vote to approve or reject an amendment.

Result: Failed 104-132

Now the result is a very interesting number. At the time of this vote there were three vacancies in the House, but only 236 of the 432 members voted. There were 14 Democrats who voted No, but their votes did not matter. They could have joined the 171 Domocrats on the floor who voted Present or the 15 Democrats who were not there and didn’t vote. The bill still would have failed.

The Aye votes are 94 out of the 168 Republicans who are members of the Republican Study Committee and 10 out of the 64 Republicans who aren’t members. Obviously there are those who join the Republican Study Committee to leave people the perception that they are conservative. There also those who hold TownHall meeting and interviews with the driveby print media and Sunday morning talk shows so they can be perceived as conservative. Don’t assume by perception. Verify by looking at the vote result.

    8 No votes and 2 who did not vote that may surprise you

  • Jeff Miller FL-01
  • Jason Chaffetz UT-03
  • Lynn Westmoreland GA-03
  • Ed Royce CA-39
  • Steve Southerland FL-02
  • Tim Walberg MI-07
  • John Campbell CA-45
  • Lynn Jenkins KS-2
  • Michele Bachmann MN-06
  • Virginia Foxx NC-05
    10 Aye votes by those who aren’t a member of the RSC

  • Jo Bonner AL-1
  • Dave Camp MI-4
  • Candice Miller MI-10
  • Charles Boustany Jr. LA-7
  • Lee Terry NE-2
  • John Duncan TN-2
  • John Mica FL-7
  • Tom Rooney FL-16
  • Dana Rohrabacher CA-46
  • Jim Sensenbrenner WI-5

Discovering the details reminds me of something Ronald Reagan often said.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

Our elected politicians are comparable to major league batters in one respect. It’s more important how well you are batting and helping your team now than what your lifetime batting average is. Let’s remind our elected that they serve us, their constituents. We don’t serve them. They are not royalty to hold the power to bequeath us with royal pardons and favors. Conservatives should hold on to the principles of freedom and opportunity instead of going for a bidding war with the Democrats on promising to give away stuff.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

American Gestapo?

Cleta Mitchell to Newsmax: IRS Scandal Reaches to White House

Tuesday, 14 May 2013 01:08 PM

By Melanie Batley and Kathleen Walter


IRS-Target-590-LICleta Mitchell, one of Washington’s most respected elections attorneys, told Newsmax she has tangible proof that high-ranking IRS officials in Washington were fully aware of the agency’s campaign to target conservative groups for heightened scrutiny, despite their denials.

And she thinks the president knew about the practice, too. If proven, she said, it could be an impeachable offense.

Mitchell, in an interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday, said she was told by a Cincinnati IRS agent that applications by two of her conservative clients were being processed by — and would ultimately be approved or denied in — Washington.

She said she also is aware of nearly 100 other conservative groups that were being targeted by Washington.

“There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations,” said Mitchell, who represents six groups which say they have been targeted, including the King Street Patriots and True the Vote.

“If they had the name ‘tea party’ or they had the word ‘patriots’ or if their mission was smaller government or study the Constitution, believe it or not, that would cause the IRS to say, ‘Oh, we better investigate these groups.'”

View video;

She added she had two clients whose group’s purpose was to lobby against Obamacare, both of which received extra IRS scrutiny. And of the clients who have gone public with their claims, they received “incredible scrutiny, voluminous requests for information, documents, almost like having been audited before they even are an exempt organization.”

In the case of one such client, she and her family subsequently became targets for audits to their personal and business tax returns, and were even visited by three different government agencies. She also knows of other groups who had surprise visits from the FBI after they applied for IRS status.

Mitchell said she doesn’t believe the president or the White House was uninvolved in the IRS activities, as the administration has claimed.

“I’ve thought for some time that this is politically motivated and that’s the reason it was happening. And, as I said, I’ve been doing this for more than 20 years and I’ve never seen anything like this until 2009, 2010. And the only thing that changed was we had a different administration,” she said.

“We know the White House used the Department of Health and Human Services to try to silence critics about Obamacare. So if we know they used HHS, why wouldn’t they also use the IRS or other federal agencies to try to silence political critics?”

Mitchell credits Congress for investigating the matter but says they have had limited effectiveness because she believes the IRS has lied even to lawmakers during hearings last year.

“They’ve been very helpful but the fact is, the IRS has lied and covered up, even to the members of Congress,” she said. “The problem is they’ve had hearings — the IRS commissioner basically lied to Congress last year when he appeared before Congress and they asked him about this targeting conservative groups and he said it wasn’t true. Well, no, we find out yes, it was true.”

She added, “They may try to say it was low-level people. It was not low-level people. They weren’t in Cincinnati. It was being directed out of Washington, and I have them on record saying that.”

Mitchell said the IRS practices are in violation of federal law.

She said it’s “a criminal offense to misuse information submitted by a taxpayer or an entity, anybody who submits anything to the IRS. The IRS agents are limited in what they can do with it, the scope of what they can say and do with it. So, clearly, the federal law has been broken.”

Asked whether it would be an impeachable offense if it emerged that the president or his officials were behind the IRS’ practices, Mitchell said, “Well, it certainly was for Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week.”

She added, “Isn’t that ironic? The House of Representatives passed articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week on May 18, and one of those was misuse of the IRS to go after political enemies.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Promoting Tolerance

Supposedly, Jiggs McDonald, NHL Hall of Fame broadcaster speaking in Ontario, says…… “I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against another mosque being built in Toronto . I think it should be the goal of every Canadian to be tolerant regardless of their religious beliefs. Thus the mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque . We could call one of the clubs, which would be gay, “The Turban Cowboy “, and the other a topless bar called “You Mecca Me Hot.” Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and adjacent to that an open-pit barbecue pork restaurant, called ” Iraq o’ Ribs.”  Across the street there could be a lingerie store called ” Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret “, with sexy mannequins in the window modeling goods.

Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toy shop, “Koranal Knowledge”, its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store called “Morehammered”.

All of this would encourage Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us, so their mosque issue would not be a problem for others.”

Yes, we should promote tolerance, and you can do your part by passing this on.

How Many Scandals Does it Take to Bring Down President Obama?

Three Scandals a Charm?


IRS, Benghazi, AP. Which of the 3 could take down Obama? Each in their own should be enough. All three together show the corruption at the core of liberals.
Check it out:

Sometimes when it rains on second-term presidents, they need more than an umbrella.

President Obama tried Monday to dismiss as “political games” persistent questions about how the White House handled last year’s attacks in Benghazi, Libya, while at the same time a new uproar about IRS scrutiny of conservative advocacy organizations ignited on Capitol Hill. Obama said if IRS agents willfully exercised political bias, responsible personnel must be “held accountable.”

As he was speaking during a brief news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, the reactions of House and Senate lawmakers suggested Obama did little to tamp down the Benghazi controversies, which have persisted since extremists killed four Americans there in September. Nor did he temper the bipartisan outrage following Friday’s news of an IRS inspector general draft report citing the agency’s mishandling of conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status, dating back to March 2010.

By the afternoon, the Justice Department was also in the hot seat after the Associated Press reported that, during April and May, the government secretly obtained phone and fax records connected to AP reporters and editors — part of an apparent hunt for government leaks. The phone data involved at least 20 personal, work and fax lines, including a phone in the Capitol that is used by multiple AP reporters, the news organization reported.

The AP protested the data-gathering in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, who was already scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.

Republicans, sensing stormy weather for Obama, leaped to defend the First Amendment, and to condemn the administration.

Continue Reading on www.usatoday.comIRS-Target-590-LI

Read more:

The Left to American Christians: Shut the Hell Up!

By / 11 May 2013 / 57 Comments

MH900430507Matthew 16:3-4 – And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

A couple of months ago I was conducting an Option 3 Drill of the Modern Army Combatives Program.  In this drill, you must utilize the techniques we have taught the soldier, and he/she must respond by being aggressive, close the gap (or come in closer contact with the opponent) and achieve the clinch (one of the 3 techniques taught) while the instructors and assistant instructors are punching the soldier. During this exercise one day, a soldier was hit in the face because she was not guarding it as she was trained to do.  She backed up a couple of steps and said “d%*n s^*t just got real”.  Recently, I felt that way when the report that the Pentagon was considering punishing soldiers for proselytizing (Sharing your faith in Christ) at work (here).

When we look at the timetable of policies, opinions, and regulations of this administration, a person can’t help but to wonder if they do anything else but hate Christianity with their anti-Christian agenda.  A few weeks ago the DOD released a power point slide adding Evangelical Christians (here) to the Extremist watch list.

As Christians it is a wake up call to the reality that it can happen here in America.  No, scratch that — it is a wake up call that it is happening here!  Everything that is happening right now is a warning sign that our religious freedom is being stripped away.

A prime example of this is the Sports Commentator who is in jeopardy of being fired over his comments about Jason Collins becoming the first openly gay Pro-Athlete.  He simply said, as a Christian, the Bible condemns homosexual activity (here).

As a side story to that — what is amazing is that President Obama called Jason Collins courageous for his coming out, but Mr. Obama couldn’t make a call to rescue the people under siege in Benghazi?  Our government and culture want you to just shut the hell up.  Shut up about Jesus, shut up about gay marriage, shut up about abortion, shut up about corruption, shut up about Obama and shut up about his regime.  JUST SHUT THE HELL UP!

Read more:
Get more Clash on, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

We Can’t Afford to Ignore the Tyranny that Exists



Last weekend, the President warned Ohio State graduates to ignore those voices that are constantly warning of tyranny. Of course, as many have pointed out since then, that would mean (among other things) not reading any history books on the founding of America, which would reveal the fact that our nation’s Founders were even more leery of government over-reach than the vast majority of modern patriots.

Not long ago, a friend recommended a book of mine on his Facebook page, only to have one of his other friends, a pastor, message him privately to warn him against that book. Of course, the helpful pastor was warning him about a book he himself had not bothered to read, based solely on the title.  It’s called Resistance to Tyrants: Romans 13 and the Christian Duty to Oppose Wicked Rulers.

 The bottom line of the pastor’s warning was this [paraphrased here]: I’ve looked up several definitions of tyranny, and we’re a long way from experiencing that. 

Which immediately set me to looking up the dictionary definition, in several versions. I won’t quote them all here. But the one below is very representative of what you’ll find elsewhere:

TYRANNY (noun):

  • arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Synonyms: despotism,absolutism, dictatorship.
  •  the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
  •  a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
  •  oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
  •  undue severity or harshness.

In addition, some dictionaries will point out that the ancient Greeks especially employed the word to speak of any usurper, or one who had attained power unlawfully.

The “money” adjectives above, the ones that really describe a tyrant, are thus “arbitrary,” “oppressive,” “unjust,” “severe,” etc.

The unnamed pastor above apparently has not been paying attention.

For instance, as the new Benghazi hearings continue, it’s now plain as day that the administration’s story about the attack being caused by reaction to a YouTube video was a complete fabrication. The President and all his minions knew without a doubt from the beginning that this was not the real reason. And yet, to this day, the only person “brought to justice” over Benghazi is the man who made the video. He still sits in prison, as of this writing.

Today, we read that the IRS is admitting that it targeted the President’s political opponents for extra-special treatment during the last campaign.

 Anybody take a plane trip lately? How do you spell oppression? T – S – A.

Do a search for terms like “domestic drone surveillance,” “Utah Data Center,” and “Presidential Kill List,” and then come argue that we’re “a long way from experiencing” injustice, severity, and oppression.

Even if we explore the minority definition of tyranny, the Greek one about usurpation, we would have to admit that it’s been a long, long time since the federal government was anything but a tyranny, having usurped (or stolen) authority that they were never lawfully authorized by the Constitution. Who gave the feds the authority to regulate education, for instance? Answer: no one. They took that for themselves.

One of the writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers presciently predicted that the “commerce clause” of the Constitution would be used as an excuse to claim near-unlimited power. Oh, but wait, we’re supposed to ignore the voices warning of tyranny.

To complete the story I began with, the pastor in question went on to admit that he’d never really studied the passage of the Bible that was in question. He doesn’t think he needs to. All he’s ever done is repeat what he’s been told by others. Trace that back, and you’ll find all of them did the exact same thing.

This is how Christianity is turned into the spiritual equivalent of an anorexic teenager. Her pastors refuse to really set good food on the dinner table, and the ones invited to eat don’t complain.

You can be part of fixing that. Start complaining. Why hasn’t your own pastor warned from the pulpit of the encroachment and threat of government tyranny?

Arm yourself for refuting his/her pathetic answer. Right now, you can get the information-packed ebook No Cover for Tyrants: 1 Peter 2:13-17 Explained for only 99 cents for your Kindle.

New International Version Romans 13

Romans 13: 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”   10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.   (NIV)

“The Message” Version Romans 13

Rom 13: 1 Be a good citizen. All governments are under God. Insofar as there is peace and order, it’s God’s order. So live responsibly as a citizen. 2 If you’re irresponsible to the state, then you’re irresponsible with God, and God will hold you responsible. 3 Duly constituted authorities are only a threat if you’re trying to get by with something. Decent citizens should have nothing to fear.

Do you want to be on good terms with the government? Be a responsible citizen and you’ll get on just fine, 4 the government working to your advantage. But if you’re breaking the rules right and left, watch out. The police aren’t there just to be admired in their uniforms. God also has an interest in keeping order, and he uses them to do it. 5 That’s why you must live responsibly — not just to avoid punishment but also because it’s the right way to live.

6 That’s also why you pay taxes — so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. 7 Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders.

8 Don’t run up debts, except for the huge debt of love you owe each other. When you love others, you complete what the law has been after all along. 9 The law code — don’t sleep with another person’s spouse, don’t take someone’s life, don’t take what isn’t yours, don’t always be wanting what you don’t have, and any other “don’t” you can think of — finally adds up to this: Love other people as well as you do yourself. 10 You can’t go wrong when you love others. When you add up everything in the law code, the sum total is love.

11 But make sure that you don’t get so absorbed and exhausted in taking care of all your day-by-day obligations that you lose track of the time and doze off, oblivious to God. 12 The night is about over, dawn is about to break. Be up and awake to what God is doing! God is putting the finishing touches on the salvation work he began when we first believed. 13 We can’t afford to waste a minute, must not squander these precious daylight hours in frivolity and indulgence, in sleeping around and dissipation, in bickering and grabbing everything in sight. 14 Get out of bed and get dressed! Don’t loiter and linger, waiting until the very last minute. Dress yourselves in Christ, and be up and about!
(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)


Why is This Important? Read on for the answer

Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat

By / 9 May 2013 / 147 Comments

Screen Shot 2013-05-09 at 3.34.55 PMAccording to voter registration records, Ariel Castro, the Cleveland kidnapper, is a registered Democrat.  He was also the alleged leader among the three Castro brothers, who were arrested this week, and the owner of the house at 2207 Seymour Ave., where the three abducted local women had been kept in captivity for over a decade.

Why is this important?  Whenever a crime or a scandal captures national attention, the pattern in the mainstream media is to either identify the culprit as a Republican or hold silence — in which case we can rest assured that the culprit is a Democrat.

When the identity or the party affiliation is yet unknown, the pattern is to speculate publicly about the possibility of the criminal being a conservative, Christian, white, Republican, and a Tea Party member — and never that he could be a Hispanic Democrat voter playing bass in a meringue band.

In today’s divisive climate, the identity of a perpetrator is always a political issue, especially when a crime is committed by men against women.  According to the Daily News, “What the neighbors saw was terrifying and dehumanizing: Naked women on dog leashes, crawling in the dirt. A lady clutching an infant and pounding on a window for help.”

If any of the brothers were a Republican, this news would have been trumpeted by the mainstream media as tangible proof of the Republican War on Women — a narrative invented by Democrat strategists and maintained by the media in a successful effort to defeat Republican candidates in the 2012 election cycle.

Read more:

Muslim Cleric ‘Damned’ Dead Navy Seals at Ceremony

Military Families Allege Muslim Cleric ‘Damned’ Dead Navy Seals at Ceremony *UPDATED*


Family members of Navy SEALs who died on duty in Afghanistan claim that an Islamic cleric “damned” the servicemen’s bodies at their memorial ceremony.

Three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, appeared at a press conference on Thursday. They revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others were killed in a chopper crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011, a few months after successfully raiding Osama Bin Laden’s compound and killing the 9/11 terrorist mastermind.

The families of the servicemen say that America’s enemies were determined to strike back at our special forces for Bin Laden’s death, so they are questioning why military brass sent their sons into battle “without special operations aviation and proper air support” immediately after President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden announced to the world that SEAL Team VI killed Bin Laden.

Karen Vaughn, who lost her son Aaron, told reporters the area of Afghanistan that the SEALs were shot down in was hostile territory. Flying in a Chinook chopper named Extortion 17, the SEALS, according to Ms. Vaughn were going into danger in using an “antiquated” air vehicle:

We learned that this valley [in Afghanistan] was an incredibly hostile territory which our military had cleared on seven prior occasions and then turned it back over to the Afghanis who could not maintain its stability. We learned that night that the mission was so dangerous, that it had to be authorized out of theater, but even then the following took place. The most elite lawyers in our nation’s history and now unfortunately not so secret SEAL Team Six were flown into battles, Billy said that, on a CH47 Chinook Chopper.

This conventional airframe that these American were forced to do battle in that night was built in the early 1960’s and last retrofitted in 1985. We demand to know who made the call to send our sons into hostile territory or evidence proves a shoot down attempt had been in full force for weeks in less than adequate antiquated airframes documented to be in very poor condition.  We also demand to know who made the call to mix conventional aircraft and forces with special warfare operations. In our search, we also discovered that Extortion 17 entered the battle field that night completely unescorted with no pre-assault fire paving the way for that school bus to make it slow contemplated landing in that pitch black hostile territory. A territory that had been engaged in a military battle for three and a half hours.

Family members of the fallen say certain members of Congress and the administration have either been unresponsive or restrictive about any information they have requested about the deaths of their sons.

Additionally, Billy and Karen Vaughn described to reporters how the military Rules of Engagement likely contributed to the death of their son and the rest of his team.

A video of the ramp ceremony intended to honor the fallen American and Afghan servicemen shows an Imam praying over the caskets. According to the Vaughns, a certified translation of the Imam’s remarks revealed he “desecrated” and “damned” the bodies of the Americans in Arabic.

Military brass prohibited “any mention of a Judeo-Christian God” at the ceremony the press statement says, but “invited a Muslim Cleric to the funeral for the fallen NAVY SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning as infidels to Allah.”

DAMNING: The Complete Benghazi Timeline in Spreadsheet Format



After viewing this timeline you will gather the following:

a) Hillary Clinton lied under oath to Congress.
b) Barack Obama went to sleep knowing that a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans were under terrorist attack.
c) Barack Obama awoke refreshed the next day to begin fundraising.
d) The entire Executive Branch lied repeatedly to the American people to save Obama’s chances for reelection.


This timeline and gathering is located on


benghazi timeline



DAMNING: The Complete Benghazi Timeline in Spreadsheet Format

I Know Who I Am and Whose I Am

By Stan Toler, as published in, “The Ministers Little Devotional Book”

“I’m part of the fellowship of the unashamed. I have Holy Spirit power. The die has been cast. I have stepped over the line. The decision has been made. I’m a disciple of His. I won’t look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still.’

“My past is redeemed, my present makes sense, and my future is secure. I’m finished and done with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tamed visions, mundane talking, cheap living, and dwarfed goals.’

“I no longer need preeminence, prosperity, position, promotions, plaudits, or popularity. I don’t have to be right, first, tops, recognized, praised, regarded, or rewarded. I now live by faith, lean on His presence, walk by patience, lift by prayer, and labor by power.’

I won’t give up, shut up, or let up, until I have stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and preached up for the cause of Christ. I am a disciple of Jesus. I must go till He comes, give till I drop, preach till all know, and work till He stops me. And when He comes for His own, He will have no problem recognizing me – my banner will be clear!”

7 Things We Learned from the Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing

In case you missed the Congressional hears yesterday, here is a summary.


Bryan Preston



The Republicans mishandled the Benghazi whistleblowers’ hearing. What should have been stretched across several days to give the nation time to digest it all, was instead packed into a single day filled with an overwhelming amount of information. The media’s attention span is not that long. The verdict in the Jodi Arias trial came along in the afternoon and blew Benghazi off the networks, most of which didn’t want to cover it at all. Even Fox joined the drive-by media, taking Benghazi off the air in favor of the irrelevant Arias trial. Following the announcement of the Arias verdict, charges were read in the Cleveland kidnapping case. Those were aired live as well, relegating Benghazi again.

Nevertheless, for those who slogged through the entire day of hearings and ignored local crime stories, new information was there to be learned.

1. There were multiple stand-down orders, not just one. Special operations forces were told, twice, by their chain of command not to board aircraft to Benghazi to rescue the Americans then under attack. The U.S. deputy diplomat, Greg Hicks, testified that the military commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, had his team ready to go twice. They were on the runway about to board a flight to Benghazi in the middle of the attack. They were ordered to stand down and remain in Tripoli to receive wounded who would be coming out of Benghazi. One of the orders came in the middle of the attack, the other came toward the end after Hicks’ team had traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi. The fact that Hicks’ team was able get to Benghazi before the end of the assault strongly suggests that the special operations team could have made a real difference.

At the same time, the State Department’s commander on the scene, Hicks, ordered his personnel into Benghazi and went there himself. Hicks testified that Gibson never told him who issued the stand-down orders. He commented that Gibson told him that the military stand-down was a shock: “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than someone in the military.”

Hicks also testified that the U.S. government never even requested military overflight to support the Americans in Benghazi. The U.S. had an unarmed drone overhead and could have gotten permission to fly fighters over the scene, at least, but never asked.

2. Ambassador Stevens’ reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up. Hicks testified that Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi to fulfill one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s wishes. Despite the fact that security was worsening in Benghazi for months leading up to the 9-11 attack, Clinton wanted to make the post there permanent. Her State Department had denied repeated requests from the U.S. team in Libya to upgrade security there, but she wanted to use the permanent post as a symbol of goodwill. Stevens was committed to that goal and told Clinton he would “make it happen.” He was in Benghazi on 9-11 furthering Clinton’s goal. She had denied requests to beef up security at Benghazi and then blamed his death on a YouTube movie. Hicks’ testimony raises the question of Clinton’s competence and grasp on reality, strongly suggesting that she put political perceptions ahead of the facts on the ground in Benghazi.

3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway. Hicks also testified that he was shocked when Ambassador Susan Rice blamed a YouTube movie for inspiring the 9-11 attack. He testified that he had briefed Secretary Clinton directly via phone at 2 a.m. and told her that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He never mentioned a YouTube video, which he never once believed had anything to do with the attack. But Clinton shocked him by blaming the movie on Sept 12. She would blame it, again, while standing before the coffins of the slain Americans, on Sept. 14. During the attack, Clinton told Hicks that no help would be on the way to relieve the Americans under sustained assault.

4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence. Hicks testified to a pattern of behavior that leads to the reasonable conclusion that many officials within the State Department wanted him to remain silent after the Benghazi attack. He said that on the night of the attack he was personally commended both by Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama. But he later questioned why Ambassador Rice blamed the YouTube movie, and from that point on his superior, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones, questioned his “management style” and told him directly that no one in State should want him on their team in the field again. He was eventually demoted to a desk job after having been deputy to Ambassador Stevens, and remains in that post. Hick also testified that the Accountability Review Board, convened by Clinton last fall allegedly to determine the facts of the attack, never had stenographers in the room during his tw0-hour interview. Nordstrom concurred. Thompson was not even allowed to testify to the ARB despite having direct knowledge of the attacks due to his position on the U.S. Foreign Emergency Support Team. Thompson testified that the FEST was designed to go from zero to wheels up very quickly but was not deployed at all. He wanted to tell his story to the ARB, but was not allowed to. Hicks also testified that for the first time in his career, the State Department assigned a lawyer/minder to attend witness interviews with the ARB. He also testified that Jones told him not to be personally interviewed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican House member who was investigating the attack on behalf of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee. It all adds up to a pattern of witness control and intimidation.

5. “The YouTube movie was a non-event in Libya.” Hicks directly testified that the YouTube movie, for which a man remains in jail, was not in any way relevant to the attack in Benghazi. Why Obama, Clinton, Rice et al blamed that movie for the attack remains an unanswered question. Hicks said that no American on the ground in Libya that night believed the movie was to blame. He also testified that there was no protest prior to the attack. When the attack began, he was in Tripoli. He texted Stevens, who was in Benghazi, to advise him of the riot in Cairo at the U.S. embassy. In that riot, jihadists had stormed the walls and replaced the American flag with the black flag of Islam. Stevens had not been aware of the Cairo situation at all, but shortly after Hicks texted him about it, Stevens called and told Hicks that the Benghazi consulate was under attack. He never mentioned a protest.

Hicks also testified that blaming the movie had strongly adverse real-world effects. According to him, it humiliated Libya’s president, who had correctly stated that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Blaming the movie, Hicks said, did “immeasurable damage” to our relations with Libya and delayed the FBI investigation. On Sept. 12, Ambassador Susan Rice told the first of her many untruths, claiming in an email that the FBI investigation into the attack was already underway. It would not actually get underway for 17 days after the attack, by which time the scene of the attack had been compromised and contaminated.

We still do not know who decided to change the original CIA talking points and blame the movie, but the finger is pointing directly at Hillary Clinton. She was briefed by Hicks during the attack, the movie was never mentioned, but in her first public statement on September 12, she blamed the movie. Her subordinate, Ambassador Susan Rice, also blamed the movie the following weekend. The fact that Obama himself blamed the movie repeatedly, though, strongly suggests that he took part in the decision as well.

6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) set the tone for the Democrats’ angle on the hearings in his opening remarks. He used his opening to attack the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, and to pre-question the witnesses. Most of the Democrats who followed him failed to ask many questions of the witnesses. Instead, they delivered speeches or blamed budget cuts, an argument that has already been debunked by the State Department itself. One sadly hilarious moment came during Rep. William Clay’s questioning. The Missouri Democrat blamed the repeated denials to enhance security at Benghazi on budget cuts. Issa reminded him that the State Department has debunked that line, in the person of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb. She testified last fall that budget cuts had not impacted the decisions not to enhance security at Benghazi. Clay claimed not to remember Lamb’s testimony, then moved quickly to cite the ARB, which backed his side. His selective memory proved politically, if not factually, reliable.

Mark Thompson, member of the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) testified that his section had been cut out of decision making during the attack. The Democrats consistently circled on him to try to get him to contradict himself or attack his boss, Daniel Benjamin, who has claimed FEST was included throughout the attack. They never really succeeded, and now Benjamin will be called to testify in a future hearing to clear up the dispute. The heads of the ARB, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, will now be called as well.

7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack. The Republicans, as I said, should have broken today’s hearing out across several days. When they did question the witnesses, they kept their speeches short and focused on getting answers. Their Democratic counterparts consistently gave speeches and raised red herrings. They were able to waste time and stall long enough for the Arias trial to push the hearing off the TV, and for energy to flag and boredom to set in. The Benghazi attack needs to be properly investigated by someone outside the political process and outside the Obama administration. State cannot be trusted; its own investigation failed even to interview Clinton. Defense may also have officers and political appointees to protect. A special prosecutor is in order and should be appointed.


Coulter: Beware of Liberals who come in Evangelicals’ clothing

Ann Coulter Letter

Coulter: Beware of Liberals who come in Evangelicals' clothing

Every few months since at least 2006, The New York Times takes time out from brow-beating Evangelicals to praise them for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens.Most of the “Evangelicals” the Times cites are liberal frauds, far from “unlikely allies” in amnesty, as alleged. It is a specialty of the left to pose as something they’re not in order to create the impression of a zeitgeist. The only one I haven’t seen quoted yet is the ACLU’s minister, Barry Lynn.The Times keeps touting Evangelicals for Amnesty as evidence of a “shift,” a “change of heart” and a “secret weapon.” Breaking the same news story every two months since 2006 isn’t a shift; it’s propaganda.

Any Evangelical promoting the McCain-Rubio amnesty plan has the moral framework of Planned Parenthood. Like the abortion lobby, they have boundless compassion for the people they can see, but none for those they can’t see.

One Evangelical after another told the Times that they no longer believe Americans should have control over who immigrates here on the basis of having met illegal aliens in their pews. The millions harmed by illegal immigration are left out of the equation. They don’t go to church here.

Similarly, the pro-choice crowd is brimming with compassion for girls who have gotten pregnant by accident. They’re in high school, their whole lives are ahead of them, it’s one mistake! The babies don’t count because they’re out of sight.

The Rev. David Uth, head pastor of First Baptist Orlando, said that based on “the stories out there in the pews” from illegals who “have made friends and who have become close with people here,” there was momentum in his church to “do something to address their needs.”

Mr. Uth and his parishioners will never hear stories from the thousands of Americans killed every year by illegal aliens. They won’t be sitting in the pews with those murdered and maimed in Boston last month by a conspiracy of immigrants.

They won’t hear from hospitals and school systems in border states forced into bankruptcy because they have to provide free services to illegals. They won’t hear from farmers and ranchers whose livestock and property are stolen or destroyed by illegal aliens.

Jay Crenshaw, a parishioner at First Baptist Orlando, told the Times that he was a conservative Christian, but his views had changed “as a result of personal encounters with immigrants in church.” After a fellow parishioner was arrested for driving illegally, “Mr. Crenshaw said he realized that his friend, an active church member who was supporting his mother and a brother” — by the way, so are you, readers! — “could be deported.”

(You know who else’s views changed as a result of a personal encounter with an illegal alien? The 31-year-old mother allegedly shot to death by illegal immigrant Jose Zarate in Arizona earlier this year because she wouldn’t allow the 25-year-old to date her 13-year-old daughter.)

Noting that he had “a lot of compassion,” Crenshaw explained that once you have “walked with someone and put a face and family behind the immigration issue, it very much personalizes it.”

Unfortunately for educated Europeans desperate to escape their collapsing socialist societies being overridden with Muslims, Mr. Crenshaw has not met them and therefore cannot “personalize” their troubles. They’re barred from coming here, and he’s fine with that.

This new Christian ethic of compassion-by-personal-encounter is also bad news for the millions of American blue-collar workers unable to find work because of the massive influx of unskilled immigrants.

And there will be no compassion for the tens of millions of Americans who will never see a dime of their promised Social Security payments, even as their taxes go through the roof, because Mr. Crenshaw’s compassion requires that this country turn itself into the welfare ward of the world.

This is the same moral courage that allows some of these ministers to rain fire and brimstone on gays, while never getting around to criticizing divorce. They don’t know any gays — but they have lots of divorcees in their pews.

Principles do not vary depending on personal circumstances. But these so-called Evangelicals wouldn’t know a principle unless it sat next to them in the pew.

Another Christian interviewed by the Times, Stewart Hall, also restricts his Christian compassion to those he can see. “It occurs to me,” Hall said of the illegal immigrants in his church, “that if Jesus was sitting next to me, he would not care whether they were illegal or legal.”

Would Jesus care if they were gay? Would he care if they’d had abortions? Because if that’s the test for public policy, it’s abortion-on-demand and gay marriage all around!

Moreover, it’s not clear that Jesus wouldn’t care how people came to this country. Did they come here in disobedience of the laws of God and of man? Was their first act on American soil to defy the law of the nation?

And why can’t Jesus love them if they’re back in Mexico? Does the Bible say that Christ died only for U.S. legal residents? Maybe that passage is buried in the Book of Malachi. (I never read that one carefully!)

Adopting a classic liberal trait, these Christians incapable of abstract thinking seem to believe that true compassion consists of giving away something that isn’t theirs. They repeatedly cite the biblical passage about treating the stranger as you would yourself. But I note that they don’t invite strangers to move into their houses, sleep in their beds, eat their food and have sex with their wives.

No, they demand that we transform our country into a bankrupt, Third World hellhole so that they can feel good about themselves. But every American has an interest in what kind of country this is. America isn’t theirs to give away out of phony “Christian” compassion.

Is This Man The Mastermind Behind The Benghazi Cover Up?



National Security Council speechwriter B

I wrote yesterday about how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives. We know the Obama White House put out the story for nearly a week that it was just Muslims upset over a benign YouTube video. In spite of knowing what was going on and having the ability to intervene, the Obama administration did nothing to stop or assist Americans who they knew were being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Instead, they chose to cover it up and intimidate witnesses. Stephen F. Hayes has an excellent piece at the Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, in which he fingers the man he believes is the main person behind the Benghazi cover-up, Ben Rhodes.

Of course, one would immediately have to wonder about those who would be around a man who has vowed to stand with the Muslims instead of America. If you recall, Barack Obama made a speech in Cairo, Egypt to an audience which included the Muslim Brotherhood, in which he distorted the Qur’an to put it in a good light and then attempted to make out like Islam had made great contributions to both America and the world. That speech was written by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter and now a part of a his National Security Council.


Hayes writes in his article about the talking points that were first put out to officials. He writes:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.


There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests. 

Ed Lasky writes concerning Rhodes, “Ben Rhodes should be called to account for trying to divert blame away from Islamic terrorists and the Obama team members whose feckless negligence led to the Benghazi massacre.”

“I have previously written about Ben Rhodes and his role in the Obama White House,” writes Lasky. “It is shameful that this ‘kid’ (he is all of 35) has been given any responsibility at all in our government. In ‘Does it bother anyone that this person is the Deputy National Security Adviser?’ I noted his problematic background for someone given so much power by Obama. But then again he does specialize in fiction-writing. He earned a master’s degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago . He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called ‘The Oasis of Love” about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance. ”

Lasky concludes that Ben Rhodes is the man that attempted to whitewash Islamists and the Obama administration, not only in the Cairo speech, but in the talking points promoted by the Obama White House in the days following the attack on Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

I guess we’ll wait and see if he is even called as a witness this by the House in this week’s hearings.

Read more:



Time to Set the Captives Free

Man in Stocks

By Jerry Broussard

You’ve heard of the “Proverbial-Feather that broke the camel’s back”? Well, for me that feather hit this weekend, as I was force fed another T.V. commercial that makes the man of the commercial appear to be some sort of idiot. For me, (only because I have not heard any of you other guys out there) I am fed up with the commercialization that marginalizes men, leaves a rational, loving, caring father figure out altogether, or makes the male in the commercial a barbarian, interested only in sports, or what type of beer to drink, or sneaky, or dumb, or _________. I realize that much of this is “payback” for how women were likewise presented in the 50’s and 60’s. Enough is enough. It’s time to set the captives free.

As I was pondering all this the following analogy came to me. The women’s movement back in the 70’s put men in the proverbial “Stocks” used in the early colonies to shame those caught in crime. In all these Cartoon man in stockyears no one has ever let the poor guy go. It’s time to set the captives free.

Even a casual perusal of our “Socially Engineered” society will result in the conclusion that the male and father figure has been horribly damaged in America. Male figures have been so negatively depicted that young males are having a very hard time understanding what a man is, let alone his role in society. Yes, we do have a massive list of examples of men that have failed the family and society poor with poor choices and conduct that ranges from forsaking his family to rape, murder, theft and a long list of crimes. Has there been a time in history that such men has NOT existed? To the feminist, that does not matter.

Originally, their efforts were righteous. Women were not paid equal to what a man was making doing the same job. My wife was a perfect example of that. Women were discriminated against, they were held back, they were made to be sexual objects with no thought for their feelings, emotions or needs. Like most other efforts to right wrongs, the efforts went too far, and absolute power became absolutely corrupted. They put men in stocks. They never let them go.

Medevil StockNow we have commercials, print ads, television shows, movies, et al depicting a single mother raising a socially acceptable male-child-citizen who contributes positively to society. That is a wonderful thing.  Where’s the father? Where is the male figure who contributed to the child’s balanced development as a living example of what a man is supposed to be, and that is NOT what the social engineers want me to be, but what God has ordained men to be.



I am a man without excuses. The messes in my life are self-made without any negative influence from those that had a hand in raising me. I was raised in a Christian family. Not religious Christians, but Christians that take their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ seriously. They were, and are, some of the nicest, friendliest people you’ll ever know. No judgment, no condemnation and no prejudice of any kind.

My entire family was that way. Because my dad came from a large family, I was raised around all my cousins, and we all attended the same church. I was raised to say “Yes sir; No Sir”, “Thank You”, “Please” and respect all elders which included using the sir names “Mr., Mrs., and Miss”. I did not need the military to teach me these social graces, I was taught them by my parents, grandparents and related family. No inconsistences, no dysfunction, no bigotry, no prejudices and no hatred of any kind. Our family served the community and church every opportunity they could. Not wealthy in riches, but extremely rich in love and grace. Now you understand why I said, I am a man without excuses. My blunders, mistakes and failures are my own. They cannot be blamed on anyone, or anything.

I had great male role models in my upbringing. I was very close to my grandfathers and their living examples of what a man is supposed to be, how families should be cared for, how to respect your spouse and how to live for God were consistent and from the heart. I am blessed abundantly to have such a testimony.

The boys I grew up knowing had the same family structure. I never knew dysfunction. I heard about divorce and family problems, but not in my family. Even the coaches I had in football and baseball displayed the same positive role models I had at home.

It wasn’t until I was in the Marine Corp that I began to see the results of other men who did not share my experiences. They struggled with authority and rebellion seemed like a normal response for them. Relating to them was tough, and at times, trusting them in battle was impossible. Their lack of respect for authority and rebellious attitudes created an atmosphere of distrust and concern. Some of those men did make positive adjustments to the structure of the military and transformed into fantastic male role models.

Over the years, I have found to be true that men and women who grow up without positive male and female role models have the hardest time with relationships, societal pressures and constructive contributions to society in general. Adding to that are the special interest groups, like the women’s movement, who apply their private social engineering to society to reshape in their own image. Never interested in just improving their particular societal struggles, they tend to go too far producing damaging influences on male and female role models. Rather than understanding how God programmed the differences in men and women, these groups strife to reprogram men and women. Like any other efforts to change what God has created, detrimental changes are made and disaster is the end result.

Now we have mass murders, “suicide-by-cop”, transgender confusion, “sexual orientation” and “Occupiers”. Respect for authority is gone, male female role models are lost, or at best foggy, and values that influence a positive society and country are at a rapid decline. It’s time to stop the slide. It’s time for revival in multiple areas;

  • Spiritual Revival
  • Respect for everyone Revival
  • Social Graces Revival
  • Positive Male Female Role Models
  • Original Constitution Revival
  • Original Constitutional Outlined Governmental Representatives Revival
  • Governmental Fiscal Responsibility Revival
  • Patriotic Revival
  • Genuine Love for Your Neighbor Revival
  • Take Your Feelings Off Your Sleeve Revival
  • The Nuclear Family Revival
  • And I am sure there are many more Revivals

Can we start with unlocking the stocks and let the men go free?Stock with lock

Decapitated Head Found Left in Womb

Abortion Horror Hits Michigan When Decapitated Head Found Left in Womb

By now you’ve seen and heard about the House of Horrors as it has been referred to in the news.  Abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia ran a clinic in the poorer area of the city and preyed upon thousands of young women who couldn’t afford to go anywhere else.  He has been charged with the death of one woman and four newborns, although reports from different sources clearly indicate that he has killed many more than four live born babies.

Last July we learned about 24 year old Tonya Reaves who went to a Chicago area Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion.  Not only was her unborn murdered at the clinic, so was Tonya.  She was hemorrhaging after the procedure but the staff at the clinic failed to call for help until several hours later.  But by the time help arrived and she was transported to a hospital, it was too late.  Her one year old son will never know his mother and it seems no one at the clinic was ever punished for their neglect.

Other women have died at the hands of abortion doctors and clinic workers, but that rarely ever makes the news.  In fact, Tonya Reaves death at the Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic happened on the same day that James Holmes went into the theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire.  We heard lots about that, but virtually no media covered the murder of Reaves because it would paint a negative image on abortion and they can’t let that happen, can they?

Now we are hearing about another abortion horror story, only this time it’s coming from Muskegon, Michigan.  Dr. Robert Alexander, the abortionist in question, has had several of his patients sent to the emergency room after botched abortions.  According to one OB/GYN who has seen several of Alexander’s victims:

“Dr. Alexander perforated the woman’s uterus so badly that it was hanging on by two blood vessels.  The decapitated head of a fetus was in the woman’s abdomen and the large intestine had been grasped and pulled away from its blood supply and into the vagina. The woman required a hysterectomy, colonoscopy [colectomy?], and several units of blood to save her life.”

The worse part of this is that there were multiple complaints filed against Alexander for his negligence, but those complaints were not taken seriously by the Michigan Board of Medicine.  In 2009, Dr. George Shade, chairman of the board responded to a complaint by stating that no investigation was needed.  Further investigation revealed that Alexander had served time in prison for selling illegal prescriptions and had his medical license suspended.  Upon his release from prison, Dr. George Shade helped Alexander get his license re-instated by becoming his mentor and helping him.

Eventually in December 2012, Alexander’s clinic was shut down.  When police entered the clinic to investigate a break-in on Dec. 26, 2012, they found what they described as unsafe and unsanitary conditions, not too dissimilar to that of the clinic that Gosnell operated in Philadelphia.  They found blood dripping from the p-trap of a sink, dirty and stained medical equipment, improper storage of needles, a leaking ceiling and bags of trash next to lab equipment.  The fire department also discovered that the clinic had been illegally dumping chemicals and other liquids down the drain.

Fortunately, Alexander is no longer murdering babies in Muskegon, but that doesn’t mean he can’t go elsewhere and start again.  The OB/GYN doctor that reported finding the decapitated head in the mother’s womb commented about the clinic being shut down, saying:

“I, for one, was very happy to hear he is no longer practicing in Muskegon, but I fear for women anywhere this man would go.”

In this case, it was Alexander’s connection to Dr. George Shade, that allowed him to continue to butcher women and babies and run another House of Horror.  All it takes is one or two shootings for liberal Democrats to react and take action against guns.  How many of these incidents will it take before they take action to shut down the bloody institution of abortion?  Sandy Hook saw the death of 20 kids.  Abortion kills between 750,000 to 1,300,000 kids a year.  You weigh the difference and tell me there isn’t an agenda on both issues.

Read more:

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up



Teen Attempts To Join Al-Qaeda – Gets Home Confinement



In what has to be one of the most bizarre things I’ve heard, a federal judge ordered terrorists suspect Abdella Ahmad Tounisi, 18, to be released to home confinement while he awaits trial on charged that he signed up to fight in Syria for a terrorist group tied to Al-Qaeda.

The U.S. attorney’s office appealed the decision which put a hold on the release. Another judge is to consider Tounisi’s bail today.

Federal prosecutors said that he was a flight risk and a danger to the community. He was arrested April 19 at O’Hare International Airport.

The Chicago Tribune reports,

Prosecutors allege that Tounisi posted messages on a phony website set up by the FBI agreeing to travel to Syria to fight with the Al-Nusra Front militant group. According to authorities, Tounisi has links to a second Chicago-area terrorism suspect, Adel Daoud, who was arrested in September after he tried to set off what he thought was a bomb outside a downtown bar. The two were close friends and plotted the bomb attack together, prosecutors allege, but Tounisi backed out when he suspected law enforcement was on to them.

In ordering Tounisi’s release, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Martin repeatedly called the decision a “close, close” call but said that pretrial detention is intended to be an “exceptional step.” Martin also said he was convinced in part by a courtroom packed with family members and leaders from Tounisi’s religious community. The judge also cited Tounisi’s lack of criminal background.

Martin’s voice shifted to a stern tone as he directly addressed Tounisi, warning him not to break any of the rules he had set for his release. Martin acknowledged the rare opportunity he was giving him, noting the seriousness of the charges and the allegations that Tounisi intended to harm people here and abroad.

Judge Martin names the boy’s father as his custodian and wanted to make sure that he followed the court’s orders. I’m guessing someone had not thought all of this out, seeing that the boy was ready to fly to Syria and join a terrorist group. Did anyone think to see if the father approved?

While Tounisi’s attorney, Molly Armour, denied he was a flight risk, saying that neither he nor his family had the resources to help him flee Chicago, and that he had already tendered his passport, that doesn’t exactly seem like a problem for someone with connections to terrorist groups does it? Those organizations have tremendous resources.

Armour said Tounisi had about 30 supporters that had pooled their resources to come up with $1,200 for bail.

Remember that part I asked above about the father? Well low and behold, Assistant U.S. Attorney William Ridgway argued that the evidence indicated that not one of the adult’s in Tounisi’s life could dissuade him from engaging in violent jihad, including his father.

In fact, one family member recalled how Tounisi, even though he hoped to die a martyr in Syria, was told he would not.

According to Ridgway, the relative told Tounisi, “You will die like roadkill.”

“One would have hoped this chapter would have ended,” said Ridgway. “It didn’t.”

His resources were exposed by Ridgway as well. Despite the lack of finances, he was able to purchase an $850 plane ticket to Turkey to meet the handler that would help him cross the border into Syria.

Perhaps it’s time this judge was relieved of his position for making incompetent decisions such as this, but then again, it is Chicago.

Read more:


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: