URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/09/lid-just-got-ripped-hell-senator-rand-paul/
Trophies of The Modern Women’s Movement
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” – Eric Hoffer
The Feminist Cause began as a fight against what they believed was systemic oppression. After the Roe v. Wade decision, the widespread legality of abortion upon demand made the profit motive increasingly paramount as Planned Parenthood cornered the market on aborting fetuses. As the movement increasingly gained power and effected the regulatory capture of the authorities that were supposed to make sure Women’s Health Centers were at least somewhat healthy, the chop-shop clinics of sadistic killers like Kermit Gosnell proliferated across the land.
We all know, in the back of our minds, that this travesty occurs hundreds of thousands of times every year in America. We’ve seen the dry, emotionless statistics, heard the screech of the harpy when we fight it, and given in to a certain cynical realism. As long as it’s happening to the type of baby that ends up in Kermit Gosnell’s sort of a clinic the republic will survive even if the poor, defenseless fetuses don’t.
That veil of truculent, sullen dispirited surrender got ripped from the eyes of those who could see. A reporter went after Senator and aspiring GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul on comments he had made that suggested he favored restrictions on late term abortions. He responded with condign redirection.
The ball was now in the court of Democratic Leader Congresswoman Deborah Wasserman-Schultz. She gave an honest expression of what 
the Progressive Left truly feels.
“Here’s an answer,” she said in an emailed statement. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)”.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) gave the following response.
“Sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby,” he said.
According to YouGov.com, this is a fairly vanilla and plausible position for a Democrat to take. They asked people when they believed life began and offered them three options: at conception, at fetal viability, and at birth. The results by partisan affiliation follow below.
Thus, you could reasonably surmise that 31% of Democrats, 13% of Independents and 7% of Republicans could justify snuffing a 7Lb baby 
like an unwanted puppy under virtually any circumstance. You could probably jawbone at least 51% of Democrats, 35% of Independents and 24% of Republicans into doing it if you were overbearing and obnoxious enough. Only 39% of Democrats, 52% of Independents and 71% of Republicans would express a significant and principled objection regarding a typical day in the professional life of Kermit Gosnell. Out of that, perhaps one individual in twenty has the actual courage to stand up and rage against the Abortion-Industrial Complex that has made a mockery out of most debates over so-called women’s issues.
So if Rand Paul comes off as a wee bit petulant or ungentlemanly during these discussions excuse me while I go find an air sick bag. He didn’t even originally bring up the topic of abortion in his New Hampshire meeting with the presstitutes. They asked. He answered. The scab got picked and the lid got
ripped off of Hell. No matter how hard Planned Parenthood, Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz, the academic lefty lickspittles who tried to sell abortion as a form of Pre-Crime insurance against the dirty unwashed of America’s lower classes, and no matter how hard “ethicists” from the great and renowned Oxford University tell us it’s perfectly ok to execute inconvenient or economically marginal newborns due to their close resemblance to fetuses; we all know it’s murder.
This is why Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz talks about privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality. Opening this entire process to the sort of sunshine we get from Project Veritas would not be much different than what we all got to be sickened by when we opened Kermit Gosnell’s refrigerators at his abortion clinic. I’m certain the odor that came out of those charnel iceboxes was not the smell of feminine empowerment in the morning.
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/bearing-the-cross/
As I pointed out in a “When Gays Fire-Bombed a Church: ‘Gay Rights or Gay Riots,’” Christians have been the target in the homosexual debate going back more than 30 years. Homosexuals learned that by attacking one church or one person at a time, they could get pro-homosexual precedents established. They also learned that there was never much of a groundswell of support for the victims who opposed same-sex sexuality. Churches didn’t want to get involved, so many of those who were attacked were left defenseless. Because of the lack of broad Christian support, groups like Alliance Defending Freedom and Liberty Counsel were founded, as well as other legal advocacy groups, to defend the victims of same-sex bullying.
These groups had a lot of catching up to do. The ACLU, founded in 1920, has had a 60-year head start. It has more than 500,000 members and an annual budget of over $100 million. Local affiliates of the ACLU are active in all 50 states and Puerto Rico and have their own budgets.
How did we get in the situation where those who identify as LGBTQQA* make up around three percent of the population and are setting the agenda when Christians make up around 35 percent? Homosexuals have been successful in redefining everything, so much so that using Husband/Wife; girlfriend/boyfriend; mom/dad is now considered a form of “heterosexism.”
A tiny minority of woman are claiming that it’s “sexist” to refer to Hillary Clinton as just “Hillary” even though there is a “Ready for Hillary” super PAC and posters with her image with only “Hillary” identifying her. Double standards and hypocrisy are rampant among liberals. But that’s another story.
In addition, homosexuals have taken over the courts by getting their lawyers in places of legal power to impose a radical sexual agenda on America.
So where have tens of millions of Christians been? They’ve developed their own self-defeating narrative that keeps them out of the fight. Here is some of their warped theology:
The way things are going, churches may lose their tax-exempt status anyway if homosexuals continue to press their agenda and a majority of Christians try to stay “neutral.”
“This is the only logical end for militant gay activism. Now a gay/LGBT group in Wyoming is demanding that the government shut down any church that has the temerity to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Jeran Artery, the chairman of the gay group Wyoming Equality, posted the stunning statement to his Facebook page … but like all liberals quickly removed it hoping that it would go down the Internet memory hole.”
Artery said: “Churches that lobby to have freedoms and rights taken away from ANYONE should absolutely have their 501(c)3 status revoked!!”
He’s not the only one. New York Times columnist Frank Bruni and furniture tycoon Mitchell Gold “have agreed that Christian churches ‘must’ be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an ‘ossified’ doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.”
In the comment section of Facebook people claimed, “It will never happen.” I asked, “Ten years ago, who could have imaged that refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding would lead to fines and the loss of a business?”
W. James Antle III, Managing Editor, 04/08/2015
In various countries and states where gay marriage exists, churches have generally not been forced to recognize them. Churches in the United States refuse to celebrate weddings for people whose marriages would be legal under civil law all the time. Plenty of heterosexuals who can legally marry cannot get married in the Catholic Church, or can only do so with special permission. The government has never treated this as discrimination.
But the two minutes of hate against Indiana revealed that a fairly narrow conception of religious freedom has gone mainstream, while some people seem to have a fairly narrow conception of freedom, period.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat is likely correct when he says that if conservatives had offered legal same-sex marriage throughout the country in exchange for Christian wedding vendors being allowed to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act process to possibly (not definitely) decline to participate, as late as Barack Obama’s first term, most liberals would have taken that deal. As what’s politically possible has changed, so has what liberals have demanded on this issue. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. No political movement is required to either accomplish all its long-term goals at once or accomplish none of them.
On this issue, however, there has been a teensy bit of duplicity involved. In a relatively short period of time, the president went from saying;
When Republicans proposed a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, many Democratic senators, including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, said they opposed gay marriage too but we didn’t need the amendment because the federal Defense of Marriage Act was so great. It took less than a decade for their position to morph from “the Defense of Marriage Act is great” to “the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and unjust.” Again, there’s nothing wrong with changing one’s mind. But this looks a bit more calculated.
Prior to 2010, nobody thought the country was a theocracy because Little Sisters of the Poor didn’t have to pay for IUD coverage.
For the moment, taking away the tax-exempt status of most churches and other houses of worship in America would probably trigger a political backlash too large for any sane politician to contemplate. But if political conditions change? It’s easy for gay marriage and religious freedom to coexist if you believe gay marriage is simply a good and fair policy. But if you sincerely believe that traditional religious teachings on marriage and sex are totally indistinguishable from racism, it becomes untenable to treat those teachings differently than you would treat racism. At that point, it’s even possible houses of worship will run afoul of public accommodations laws. After all, religion was often invoked in defense of racism, right? (Religion was often invoked against racism too and the church was actually ahead of the curve on abolishing slavery.)
Politically, yanking the tax-exempt status of an outlier like Bob Jones University (the school didn’t admit blacks until the 1970s and prohibited interracial dating until 2000) is one thing. The largest denominations in America do not recognize same-sex marriage. The churches that do perform such marriages are much smaller than the ones that don’t. But while there is safety in numbers, the size of these denominations might also make challenging their practices more appealing. The Catholic Church and the United Methodist Church, for example, have both lay members and clergy who dissent from their teachings on marriage. Smaller, more marginal faiths might be easier to push around. They also are likely to have fewer members who will want to revise their denominations’ position on marriage.
Bottom line? Expect no change in how the government deals with churches that don’t do gay marriage for the foreseeable future. But should there be a change, what the journalist Rod Dreher calls the law of merited impossibility will apply: “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”
W. James Antle III is managing editor of The Daily Caller and author of the book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? Follow him on Twitter.
Posted by Barbara Boland | 24 hours ago
Rottdawg April 7, 2015URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/04/votd-ohio-dreams-slip-n-fly/
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/trust-but-no-verify/
CAIR was designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. It was also listed by the US government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in American History.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has called the film “Islamophobic,” attempting to label Clarion Project “anti-Muslim bigots.” … “We’re talking the worst form of anti-Muslim bigotry couched in terms of a legitimate issue,” he said. Although he stated that one could talk about these issues, he posited that Honor Diaries was not the appropriate vehicle, despite the fact that the film was made in part by Muslims and in partnership with a coalition of women’s rights groups. “You don’t have to help promote the agenda of Islam haters,” he said. “That’s what you do when you promote this film.”
Migdela Sternadori, the women and gender studies coordinator is refusing to cancel the film despite the pressure. “It’s just the wrong thing to do to censor a movie,” she said.
Cindy Struckman-Johnson, a professor of psychology and one of the original founders of the women and gender conference which started in the mid-1980s said she had never experienced such pressure to cancel any event at the conference in the past. “I’m just absolutely stunned,” Struckman-Johnson said. “I just couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe that a chair of a committee would be literally bullied. They kept saying, ‘It’s not censorship,’ and we kept saying, ‘Yes it is.'”
According to the local newspaper Argus Leader, a complaint against the Honor Diaries screening was initially lodged by a professor in the health department, Musheera Anis Abdellatif who alleged that the film violates USD’s policy of “inclusive excellence.”
A student group called the Association for Advancement of Women’s Rights originally sponsored the screening but later pulled its support after being pressured.
Baron Von Kowenhoven — April 6, 2015Are you sick of seeing “welfare leeches” in the grocery checkout line with carts stuffed full of junk food snacks, soda and even porterhouse steaks and crab legs?
So is Missouri House Rep. Rick Brattin, who has begun pushing for legislation prohibiting welfare abusers from buying foods that most hard-working Americans can’t always afford. After Brattin heard a food stamp recipient say, “This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” he knew something needed to be addressed.
“The intention of the bill is to get the food stamp program back to its original intent, which is nutrition assistance,” Brattin said. The program is called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, not the “buy junk food and fresh Maine lobster program.” The bill would ban the purchase with food stamps of “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak.”
“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards. When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either,” Brattin added.
Welfare recipients in the State are none too happy..
Progressives in Missouri are already trying to demonize Brattin and accuse him of starving the poor, but common-sense thinkers know that this is exactly the right kind of legislation to get behind. Welfare abuse has to be reined in quickly, as it’s already an incredible strain on a difficult economy.
Americans have grown tired of welfare recipients who can afford to have their nails done or tattoos inked or put worthless rims on their cars yet ask for “help” feeding their families. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker has mandated that if you want taxpayer dollars, you are going to be drug tested.
Not only that but Walker is seeking a time limit of 4 to 5 years maximum, that a person could receive benefits.
“With this budget, we are addressing some of the barriers keeping people from achieving true freedom and prosperity and the independence that comes with having a good job and doing it well,” said Walker.
Wisconsin isn’t the only state looking at reforms of welfare. Eleven other states already require drug testing of applicants. The testing would apply to able-bodied individuals that have no children and are receiving benefits including Medicaid, unemployment, and food stamps.
Citizens who fail the drug tests will be offered drug-treatment and job training. Wisconsin hopes to save over $3 million over two years, thanks to the program.
Not everyone is pleased, though, especially Democrats who see it as somehow unfair or racist that taxpayer dollars can’t be wasted. Democratic minority leader, Rep. Peter Barca said that the program would only, “…hurt people striving to get to the middle class.”
Drug abuse is a prerequisite for joining the middle class? What are you, high?
Too bad we all know that liberal wheel goes round via entitlements like welfare – you vote blue, we’ll give you “free” money.
The thing is, doing so is what actually hurts the American people.
We should be enabling citizens to find a job and earn for themselves, rather than train them to sit by the mailbox on the first of the month.
However, as previously noted, there is a need for the welfare system here in America in order to provide for those, who can’t do so for themselves, the ability to survive. The problem lies with those who are able to work and are just too lazy to do so.
These are the parasites of society and would likely go find a job if they weren’t being given so much money. Those on welfare should not be able to afford the extras, like designer clothes, designer bags, and illegal drugs – period.
Walker turned down federal funds to expand Wisconsin’s Medicaid program for the 2013-15 budget. Instead, he extended coverage to all those at or below the poverty line and encouraged all those above that line to buy health plans offered through the federal health exchange marketplace.
The Department of Health and Human Services defines the poverty level for a family of four as making $23,850 annually.
Baron was just a shy kid with a dream, growing up in the 40’s with a knack for story-telling. After a brief career in film, Von Kowenhoven went to Europe in search of fringe-scientific discoveries and returned in the 90’s to unleash them on the entertainment and political landscape of America.
Papa Mc was “runnin’ the pews,” and this four-year-old was scared to death. Runnin’ the pews? Yep, that’s what I said. Papa Mc was caught up in the Holy Spirit at Cliff Springs Methodist Church revival. His big feet landed lightly only on the backs and seats of the pews as he raced from the back of the little church to the front and back again, lifting his arms and shouting all the way. I hovered horrified in the pew where he had left me.
My granddaddy Thomas I. McWaters was my best buddy in those post WWII days. He and Mama Mc kept me company while Mom and Dad taught school. I didn’t know it was child care. I thought they wanted to hang out with me. Those were halcyon days. Revival with Papa Mc. Lunch at Mama Mc’s kitchen table. On warm days, Papa Mc sat in a straight chair leaned back against the outside wall, supervising my creative corncob construction of houses and forts, winding highways, and city streets. (No Legos in my time.)
On the morning of the Cliff Springs revival, Papa Mc and I had walked a mile up the dusty road to attend morning revival services. I remember two things about that morning: his big hand holding mine as we walked and the performance he put on in the church. I don’t recall that we ever talked about it afterward. I wouldn’t have had the courage to ask him about it.
Papa Mc died about a year later. I’m grateful I got to spend a lot of time with him during my childhood. Through the years, I was witness to more revival services in which men and women were filled with the Spirit in extraordinary ways, people spoke in tongues, and God moved in great ways. For me, they validated Papa Mc’s reckless worship that had frightened me as a child. As I grew into adulthood, however, our little country churches grew more and more inclined toward restraint and “proper” decorum in worship.
I wonder if today’s church needs a little dose of Papa Mc’s Holy Spirit. Clearly, the church in our nation needs spiritual CPR. No follower of Christ can look about in our chaotic, confused, and morally challenged culture and not recognize our desperate need for revival. I use that word – revival – in its literal sense. I’m not talking about evangelism, local church outreach, missions, or personally sharing our faith with others – though all of those are needful for a vibrant body of Christ.
I’m talking about the church as a whole. The Western arm of the body of Christ needs to return to a walk with Jesus Christ that depends on Him, not our own devices and strategies. A walk that demonstrates humility, not pride. A walk that is others-centric, not self-centered. A walk that reveals godly love, not human lust. A walk that shows restraint, not selfish gratification. A walk that illustrates obedience to God, not obeisance to our own desires.
The Bible is well seasoned throughout with stories of dramatic revival, both on the personal plain of individuals and on the corporate plain of God’s people. We’re well familiar with the Old Testament cycle that recurs through the generations. God’s people draw close to Him. They thrive and grow and prosper. They rebel and turn away from God. Their spiritual life takes a nosedive. They repent and turn back to God. He restores. They thrive. They rebel. They fall away. They repent. He restores. Thrive. Rebel. Fall away. Repent. Restored.
I don’t think there’s any debate that Western culture is living in blatant and proud rebellion against God and godly principles. Unfortunately, the church too often reflects the culture rather than being a light to bring it back to God. Are we, too, living in rebellion against Him?
God’s warnings to the seven churches in Revelation should melt our hearts and rattle our conscience. He described the church at Sardis this way: “I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent” (Revelation 3:1-3, NASB).
A number of key words in that passage pinpoint elements that either lead to or are inherent in revival:
No, it isn’t a packaged, perfect formula, but it does describe a path to revival for God’s people, one at a time and all together.
Papa Mc, my parents, and my generation all grew up with William P. Mackay’s 1863 hymn “Revive Us Again.” Haven’t heard that one in my church in decades. The chorus uses both praise and pleading: “Hallelujah! Thine the glory. Revive us again.”
Stephen Olford (1918-2004), pastor and Christian leader, once said, “It is my conviction that we are never going to have a revival until God has brought the church of Jesus Christ to the point of desperation.”
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
Kirk and other lawmakers are citing the stark differences between what Iranian and U.S. officials each say is in the deal, in questioning the Obama administration’s sales pitch — and demanding a say on any final agreement. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told “Fox News Sunday” that Iran is touting “sort of the mirror image opposite of what’s being reported here.”
Harvard University’s Belfer Center put out a translated version of Iran’s fact sheet, which Kirk cited. Key differences include:
U.S.: The U.S. fact sheet says Iran will “receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments” — asserting sanctions relief would kick in only once conditions are met.
OBAMALAND FARSE Fact Sheet says: “U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.”
Further, it says: “All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns.” 
The translated fact sheet says: “According to the reached solutions, after the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of the UN resolutions will be revoked and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions by the EU and the unilateral ones by the US will be annulled.”
OBAMALAND FARSE Fact Sheet says: The U.S. statement says Iran won’t use its advanced centrifuges for 10 years and can do “limited” research before that. It says: “Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years. Iran will engage in limited research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1.”
OBAMALAND FARSE Fact Sheet says: The U.S. statement says “Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years,” and to “reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years.” It also says Iran will only enrich uranium, using first-generation centrifuges, at its Natanz facility for 10 years.
OBAMALAND FARSE Fact Sheet says: The U.S. statement says the Arak heavy water reactor will be redesigned and rebuilt, and will not produce weapons grade plutonium. The statement says, “The original core of the reactor, which would have enabled the production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be destroyed or removed from the country.”
Corker, in questioning the discrepancies on Sunday, underscored the need for legislation he has co-sponsored that would demand congressional review of any nuclear deal.
President Obama opposes the bill, but in a troubling sign for the administration, even some in his own party support it. Most recently, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. — who is Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s choice to succeed him after his retirement — told Politico he supports the Corker bill.
Administration officials, meanwhile, have downplayed the discrepancies between how the U.S. and Iranian governments are portraying the framework — which would be the basis for a final deal all sides are trying to reach by June 30. An administration official said on a conference call last week that Iran’s foreign minister will have to sell the deal just like the U.S. will. 
Asked Monday about the discrepancy over the timing of sanctions relief, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged that the issue “still needs to be negotiated.” … “There are still details about the phase-out, if you will, of the sanctions that have not yet been agreed to. And it is the strong view of the administration that it would not be wise, and it would not be in the interest of the international community, to simply take away sanctions … on day one,” Earnest said.
Liberals love freedom their way. Bobby Jindal points out why Christians now need to have their first amendment rights protected. 
An angry mob in the Upper Egyptian village of Al Our – the proposed site of the church because it was home to 13 of the 21 Christians murdered in the mass “beachfront” decapitation – descended on the community’s current church after the midday Islamic prayer Friday and chanted that they’d never allow construction of the new place of worship to begin, witnesses told Egyptian activists in the U.S.
“There were already cars on fire. Peoplehad been bloodied. Stones and brickshad been thrown.”- Mina Abdelmalak, Coptic Christian
Things turned far uglier after nightfall, the witnesses said, as a smaller number of individuals threw Molotov cocktails and stones at the church, injuring several people, and setting cars ablaze, including one that belonged to a relative of one of the victims of the Libyan massacre.
“The police came, but after the attack,” said Mina Abdelmalak, a Coptic Christian living in Washington who is in close contact with the witnesses to the events in Al Our. “There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.”
Some protesters also appeared at the family home of massacre victim Samuel Alham Wilson, but, in a gesture that provided some hope, were chased off by Muslim neighbors when the protesters started throwing stones.
Copts are the native Christians of Egypt, accounting for about 10 percent of the country’s 88 million people.
While they have traditionally faced varying levels of persecution in the mainly Muslim country, the Copts of Al Our — a village on the Nile about 125 miles south of Cairo — have additionally been in deep mourning since the Islamic State released its video Feb. 15 showing the beheading of the Christians — 20 of them Copts, the other from Ghana.
The 13 from Al Our – like their fellow Christians with whom they died – had gone to Libya to seek work because their poverty-stricken home communities offered none or little that was viable. Abdelmalak told FoxNews.com that the Al Our Copts had sought permission from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to build a church to honor the loss of their loved ones and the others who died with them. Until recently, such high-level permission was necessary to carry out even minor repairs on churches in Egypt, while similar permissions are not necessary for the building of mosques.
But the Friday attacks on the Copts have driven a further wedge between the village’s Christian and Muslim communities — and are seen as particularly insensitive in light of the losses suffered because of the massacre in Libya. “This is a classic issue in Egypt,” said Abdelmalak. “Even after you struggle to get permission from the president to build a church, you still have to face the mob, which rejects the idea of having a church built in their neighborhood.”
A Coptic news Facebook page displays pictures of men with facial injuries it says they suffered during the attack on the church.
“I fear that the security [services] will as usual issue a report saying that the situation in the village [is so bad] that [they] will not [now] allow us to build a new church,” says the author of the entry, according to a translation from Arabic.
After receiving presidential permission for construction, the Coptic community bought some land, but local Muslims objected to its positioning at the entrance to the village, according to Daily News Egypt, which publishes in English. A new location outside the village is now eyed following a meeting between Muslim and Coptic residents that the regional governor brokered. “This has been effectively imposed on the Coptic residents,” Abdelmalak said. “Dictates to the Christian community are always presented as agreements.”
A report in Arabic in the al-Masry al-Youm newspaper said “tens of residents” protested against the building of the new church, despite presidential approval for the project. “Witnesses from the village said protesters repeated chants saying, ‘Whatever you do, there won’t be a church on the ground.’” Abdelmalak said the words in original Arabic rhymed and would have instilled fear by sounding like the aggressive chants heard in European soccer stadiums. He added that police arrested several members of the mob, but released them a few hours later.
Follow Steven Edwards @stevenmedwards and contact him at stevenedwardsnyc@gmail.com
The issue currently consuming America is whether wedding vendors — and, bizarrely, small-town pizzerias — must be forced to provide goods and services for gay weddings when doing so is a religious burden. Many outraged supporters of gay marriage, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, whose company does business with Saudi Arabia, have flogged an Indiana law which would protect religious adherents.
These critics may want to limit protection to gay marriage, but legal principles work in strange, creeping ways. Forcing work on small business owners despite their objections is highly unlikely to stop at gay weddings. Other groups will want their special, carved-out protections, too.
As George Washington University Law School professor John Banzhaf has insightfully observed, there could come a day when;
That day may be very far off. Or perhaps it will come very soon.
In any case, YouTube has foreseen it. The prophetic YouTube clip below comes from “California Reich,” an Academy Award-nominated 1975 documentary about pathetic neo-Nazi groups in three California locales: San Francisco, Los Angeles and the inland town of Tracy.
Here, with step-by-step instructions from a Nazi mom next door, is an example of the cake the Jewish baker might have to make once religious freedom is sufficiently diluted:
It seems like the party of “the people” can only win by lying to “the people”.You see he is the ONLY Democrat to really come out after being caught and basically say… yup, I did it and I got what I wanted, so sue me. He knew the information on Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney was false. There was no “insider” at Romney’s company. But he, and the rest of the Dems, were OK with lying about it.
The Democrats should change the name of the party to the “Whatever it takes to win” party. Tell the people whatever it takes to get them “in bed” with you and then you can say “I didn’t mean it that way.”
The now ever-famous and haunting words, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was clearly a LIE! “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” also a LIE. Then he tried to “clarify” with “What I meant was, if it fit our parameters,” yet another LIE!
I think when the NEW edition of “The Book of Lies” gets published the first group of pages will be all Democrats, and mostly Mr. Oblamo! It will be followed closely behind by Billy “where’s the free sex island” Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “it depends of what the meaning of is, is.” Not far behind is the oh-so-loving spouse, Hillary “what difference does it make” Clinton.
If a Republican did one-tenth of what the Clintons have done to the public there would be rioting in the streets, courtesy of the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson.
Recently, Representative Gutierrez from Illinois said, “If the Republicans got in the way of the amnesty order there would be militant action from the immigrants.” WHAT?! Hey, Mr. Gutierrez;
A bunch of Democrats screamed “discrimination” about Indiana’s new law protecting peoples’ religious beliefs and the practice thereof. Interestingly enough, it’s the same reason the original settlers came here… to get away from religious persecution. This group of Dems said no one should patronize, support, or take part in any event or action to support Indiana. Curious! Some of these same Dems made a trip to Cuba to support the illegal actions of President Obama. In case you haven’t figured it out, Mr. Obama and clan believe the Constitution and the laws of this country don’t apply to them. They let the Castro Crew know they are in support of Cuba normalizing relations with America. Well, if the Dems hold true to their belief system then will that would only occur AFTER the Castro regime changes its laws and treatment of homosexuals, right? And after they change their laws on treatment of political prisoners. But the Democrats are telling us that our sanctions aren’t working and simply normalizing relations with Cuba will fix all that (just like it’s worked in the Middle East?)
And then there’s Iran. The president wants us to believe that the deal (non-deal) he made with Iran was good for everyone involved. It was so good that even the French walked away stating what a bad deal it was. Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu says it the beginning of the end. The Russians and Chinese left because there was no movement. But our ever-loving, “alternate universe reality,” President Obama said we were staying at the table because we were making progress. Usually when one person in the room sees a situation one way and the rest see it another, odd man out under the influence of narcotics (or some other delusion!)
The president televised his usual rah-rah speech about how happy and proud he was of his team and this non-deal. Sure, the Iranians got sanctions lifted and all they really had to agree to do is come back to the table with a real plan by June! They also agreed to have open weapons inspections, you know, the kind they’ve agreed to many times in the past and ignored many times in the past with little (or no) consequences. But, President Obama says, it’s a good deal for ALL if Iran does what they say.
I’m taking bets, anyone else?
I often wonder why Mr. Obama chooses the most communist, hate-filled, anti-human rights countries to build alliances with, all the while shunning and getting In the way of progress with our allies all across the world. Any thoughts? Keep it clean!
We have been blatantly lied to and threatened by, President Obama, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, Al Gore, and Representative Gutierrez just to name a few. In the time of our Founding Fathers every one of these individuals would have been brought up on treason charges and disposed of accordingly.
My real issue is that the America-loving Democrats don’t come out against their own. It takes an act of God to get them to move. And don’t us Senator Menendez as the ONE example. He is just a casualty after daring to question the President. Are there no others? Or are they just too afraid after seeing what happened to Menendez. DOJ says they will not prosecute Lois Learner. They know they are required to under the law but are choosing to ignore it. Menendez, an enemy of their party is a YES, and Lois
Learner, an enemy of the people but a good “party” soldier is a NO!
Republicans go after themselves to a fault. The Dems never spend money on opposition research because they know they can get all of that from Republicans during primaries! Most of the time we take our own people to the woodshed and perform public floggings. Just look at what is being said from within the party about current candidates for the upcoming presidential race.
Obama, Holder, Clintons(s), and many others at the top have lied and cheated on the American people. Is that because they know their message is old and can’t win? Is it really the only way they CAN win? Have they solidified themselves as the party of the untruth?
By their actions, the Dems appear to be “over it” with our laws, our rules, and our protocols. And we really do absolutely nothing to stop them. Democrat leadership is 100% sure they are smarter than us and know what’s better for us, so they just repeatedly sidestep the laws. Be honest with yourselves people, even those of you on the Left!
They care more for non-American, lawbreakers than they do for the people who were born here, have paid taxes (their salaries!) and voted them in! Sadly, it seems the Dems are willing to do anything they can to prove they are right, even if it brings this country to its knees. The question is, are you going to sit idly by and just let it happen, or are YOU going to do something about it?
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/easter-donkey-crack-up/
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Iran’s state-run Press TV reported that the agreement allowed for Iran to continue enriching uranium, and none of its facilities would be shut down. “In the framework of the agreement, none of Iran’s nuclear facilities as well as the previous activities will be stopped, shut down or suspended and Iran’s nuclear activities in all its nuclear facilities including Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak will continue,” said the Iranian media report.
Iranian media also reported that all of the UN Security Council, United States, and European Union sanctions against the regime will be lifted immediately, once the Joint Plan of Action has been implemented.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not commented on the agreement that required his authorization for Iran’s negotiating team to sign off on the accord. As dictator of Iran, Khamenei doesn’t answer to anybody, and has no checks on his power, so it remains unclear whether he will weigh in on the nuclear framework.
”Regarding this next item, I’m not at all pleased. I am getting the picture that when you meet together it brings out your worst side instead of your best! First, I get this report on your divisiveness, competing with and criticizing each other. I’m reluctant to believe it, but there it is. The best that can be said for it is that the testing process will bring truth into the open and confirm it.’
“And then I find that you bring your divisions to worship — you come together, and instead of eating the Lord’s Supper, you bring in a lot of food from the outside and make pigs of yourselves. Some are left out, and go home hungry. Others have to be carried out, too drunk to walk. I can’t believe it! Don’t you have your own homes to eat and drink in? Why would you stoop to desecrating God’s church? Why would you actually shame God’s poor? I never would have believed you would stoop to this. And I’m not going to stand by and say nothing.’
“Let me go over with you again exactly what goes on in the Lord’s Supper and why it is so centrally important. I received my instructions from the Master himself and passed them on to you. The Master, Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, took bread. Having given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, broken for you. Do this to remember me.”’
“After supper, he did the same thing with the cup: “This cup is my blood, my new covenant with you. Each time you drink this cup, remember me.”’
“What you must solemnly realize is that every time you eat this bread and every time you drink this cup, you reenact in your words and actions the death of the Master. You will be drawn back to this meal again and again until the Master returns. You must never let familiarity breed contempt.”
“Anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Master irreverently is like part of the crowd that jeered and spit on him at his death. Is that the kind of “remembrance” you want to be part of? Examine your motives, test your heart, come to this meal in holy awe.”
“If you give no thought (or worse, don’t care) about the broken body of the Master when you eat and drink, you’re running the risk of serious consequences. That’s why so many of you even now are listless and sick, and others have gone to an early grave. If we get this straight now, we won’t have to be straightened out later on. Better to be confronted by the Master now than to face a fiery confrontation later.”
“So, my friends, when you come together to the Lord’s Table, be reverent and courteous with one another. If you’re so hungry that you can’t wait to be served, go home and get a sandwich. But by no means risk turning this Meal into an eating and drinking binge or a family squabble. It is a spiritual meal — a love feast.’
“The other things you asked about, I’ll respond to in person when I make my next visit.”
(1 Corinthians 11:17-34; from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)
In an age of grace, it is possible to lose sight of the notion of judgment. At least five judgments apply to all Christians:
The judgment of highest priority is self-judgment, the confession of our sins, and turning from them, so as not to face judgment from other sources (1 John 1:9). It is this judgment that Paul exhorted the Corinthian Christians to make when he discovered they were dishonoring the Lord’s Table, or communion, in the church. Because they failed to judge themselves—repent of their carnality and disorder—God had visited the church with sickness and death (1 Corinthians 11:30).
Self-judgment, the examination of our life, should be a daily discipline based on the promise of God’s gracious forgiveness.
© 2014 Turning Point with Dr. David Jeremiah
Edith Burns was a wonderful Christian who lived in San Antonio, Texas . She was the patient of a doctor by the name of Will Phillips. Dr. Phillips was a gentle doctor who saw patients as people. His favorite patient was Edith Burns.
One morning he went to his office with a heavy heart and it was because of Edith Burns. When he walked into that waiting room, there sat Edith with her big black Bible in her lap earnestly talking to a young mother sitting beside her. Edith Burns had a habit of introducing herself in this way: “Hello, my name is Edith Burns. Do you believe in Easter?” Then she would explain the meaning of Easter, and many times people would be saved.
Dr. Phillips walked into that office and there he saw the head nurse, Beverly. Beverly had first met Edith when she was taking her blood pressure. Edith began by saying,”My name is Edith Burns. Do you believe in Easter?” Beverly said, “Why yes I do.” Edith said, “Well, what do you believe about Easter?” Beverly said, “Well, it’s all about egg hunts, going to church, and dressing up.” Edith kept pressing her about the real meaning of Easter, and finally led her to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Dr. Phillips said, ” Beverly , don’t call Edith into the office quite yet. I believe there is another delivery taking place in the waiting room.
After being called back in the doctor’s office, Edith sat down and when she took a look at the doctor she said, “Dr. Will, why are you so sad? Are you reading your Bible? Are you praying?”
Dr. Phillips said gently, “Edith, I’m the doctor and you’re the patient” With a heavy heart he said, “Your lab report came back and it says you have cancer, and Edith, you’re not going to live very long.”
Edith said, “Why Will Phillips, shame on you. Why are you so sad? Do you think God makes mistakes? You have just told me I’m going to see my precious Lord Jesus, my husband, and my friends. You have just told me that I am going to celebrate Easter forever, and here you are having difficulty giving me my ticket!”
Dr. Phillips thought to himself, “What a magnificent woman this Edith Burns is!”
Edith continued coming to Dr. Phillips. Christmas came and the office was closed through January 3rd. On the day the office opened, Edith did not show up. Later that afternoon, Edith called Dr. Phillips and said she would have to be moving her story to the hospital and said, “Will, I’m very near home, so would you make sure that they put women in here next to me in my room who need to know about Easter.”
Well, they did just that and women began to come in and share that room with Edith. Many women were saved. Everybody on that floor from staff to patients were so excited about Edith, that they started calling her Edith Easter; that is everyone except Phyllis Cross, the head nurse.
Phyllis made it plain that she wanted nothing to do with Edith because she was a “religious nut”. She had been a nurse in an army hospital. She had seen it all and heard it all. She was the original G.I. Jane. She had been married three times, she was hard, cold, and did everything by the book.
One morning the two nurses who were to attend to Edith were sick. Edith had the flu and Phyllis Cross had to go in and give her a shot. When she walked in, Edith had a big smile on her face and said, “Phyllis, God loves you and I love you, and I have been praying for you.”
Phyllis Cross said, “Well, you can quit praying for me, it won’t work.. I’m not interested.”
Edith said, “Well, I will pray and I have asked God not to let me go home until you come into the family.”
Phyllis Cross said, “Then you will never die because that will never happen,” and curtly walked out of the room.
Every day Phyllis Cross would walk into the room and Edith would say, “God loves you Phyllis and I love you, and I’m praying for you.” One day Phyllis Cross said she was literally drawn to Edith’s room like a magnet would draw iron. She sat down on the bed and Edith said, “I’m so glad you have come, because God told me that today is your special day.”
Phyllis Cross said, “Edith, you have asked everybody here the question, “Do you believe in Easter but you have never asked me.”
Edith said, “Phyllis, I wanted to many times, but God told me to wait until you asked, and now that you have asked.” Edith Burns took her Bible and shared with Phyllis Cross the Easter Story of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Edith said, “Phyllis, do you believe in Easter? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is alive and that He wants to live in your heart?”
Phyllis Cross said, “Oh I want to believe that with all of my heart, and I do want Jesus in my life.” Right there, Phyllis Cross prayed and invited Jesus Christ into her heart. For the first time Phyllis Cross did not walk out of a hospital room, she was carried out on the wings of angels.
Two days later, Phyllis Cross came in and Edith said, “Do you know what day it is?” Phyllis Cross said, “Why Edith, it’s Good Friday.”
Edith said, “Oh, no, for you every day is Easter. Happy Easter Phyllis!”
Two days later, on Easter Sunday, Phyllis Cross came into work, did some of her duties and then went down to the flower shop and got some Easter lilies because she wanted to go up to see Edith and give her some Easter lilies and wish her a Happy Easter. When she walked into Edith’s room, Edith was in bed. That big black Bible was on her lap. Her hands were in that Bible. There was a sweet smile on her face. When Phyllis Cross went to pick up Edith’s hand, she realized Edith was dead. Her left hand was on John 14: “In my Father’s house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” Her right hand was on Revelation 21:4, “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, there shall be no more death nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
Phyllis Cross took one look at that dead body, and then lifted her face toward heaven, and with tears streaming down here cheeks, said, “Happy Easter, Edith – Happy Easter!”
Phyllis Cross left Edith’s body, walked out of the room, and over to a table where two student nurses were sitting. She said, “My name is Phyllis Cross. Do you believe in Easter?”
If you believe in Easter, ask everyone you meet today if they also believe in Easter. God works in wonderful ways, and to believe in his power is to truly be free.
“Father, bless this person in whatever it is that You know he or she may be needing this day. In Jesus Name, Amen.”
Circumstances surrounding the arrests or the alleged plot were not immediately clear, but NYPD Deputy Commissioner John Miller said the arrests were part of a local and federal investigation. “What I can confirm is that arrests were made by the JTTF and NYPD in a national security investigation earlier this morning in New York City,” he said.
The two suspects have been identified as Noelle Velentzas, 28, and Asia Siddiqui, 31. Velentzas purportedly idolized Osama Bin Laden, and kept pictures and video of the Al Qaeda mastermind on her cell phone. The complaint stated, “The investigation has revealed that Velentzas espouses violent jihadist beliefs and has repeatedly expressed an interest in terrorist attacks committed within the United States.” U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch said the pair studied how to carry out what could have been a deadly attack, and became obsessed with creating a pressure cooker bomb after the deadly 2013 Boston Marathon attack.
“We are committed to doing everything in our ability to detect, disrupt and deter attacks by homegrown violent extremists,” Lynch said. “As alleged, the defendants in this case carefully studied how to construct an explosive device to launch an attack on the homeland.”
It was not clear what the specific target of the alleged plotters was and the public was never in any danger. Both women, who could face life in prison, are due to appear at federal court in Brooklyn on Thursday afternoon.
Limbaugh noted that gay-rights advocates argue against the law saying, “Why are you so upset just because of who people love? … It’s discriminatory to care about who people love . . . Why are you objecting to it?”
Limbaugh said the phrase works both ways, because people who have strong religious convictions love their Lord. “I can tell you right now, I could mention I love somebody and it wouldn’t be accepted,” he told his audience. “I would be called a bigot and any number of other bad names. All I would have to do is say, ‘I love Jesus Christ.'”
—
Breitbart News reached out to Sally Kohn for comment. Always a great sport, she told us…
“Any business can already discriminate in any way it sees fit — as long as it’s not discriminating on the basis of a protected identity. Period. So, for instance, a restaurant can say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or even “no people wearing blue shirts” as long as the reasoning or motivation isn’t a protected identity. So you can’t deny service based or race or religion. That’s the law.”
Kohn adds that she “wants gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans to have that protected legal status — which they do under the laws in some states, but not most, and not at the federal level.”
She added, “I can’t refuse to give a speech to a group based on religion for instance. That would be illegal (and immoral). But I can refuse to give a speech based on a group’s viewpoints on an issue. Because for instance, whether you’re against *or* for abortion is NOT a legally protected class of identity.”
“Even still, incidentally, under my understanding of the law, if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to come to my bakery and buy the same cake I sell everyone else, I’d have to sell them one. BUT I wouldn’t have to write “God Hates Fags” on it, just like I wouldn’t have to write a curse word on it if I didn’t want to. Because that’s not form of discrimination we legally/constitutionally protect against.”
“Free speech by the way doesn’t legally apply here because the government isn’t compelling any speech.”
“In sum, if you run a bakery and don’t want to follow the laws of our country and serve all people equally, get out of the bakery business. Certainly no one is forcing you to run a bakery.”
When I asked if like her right to not write “God Hates Fags” on the cake if a Christian baker was protected from the act of adding a same sex couple figurine and the name of the same-sex couple to the cake, she said she didn’t want to go into that.
“I don’t want to quote law,” Sally said, “but I’d be happy to refer you to a Constitutional lawyer who could explain this better than I could.”
Breitbart News politely declined the offer.
Michael Becker — April 1, 2015 Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, calls out his former boss for creating “incredible … confusion” in Washington and the Middle East over US policy in the region.
Nobody knows which side we’re on. We’re not even sure if Obama knows which side we’re on.
Flynn notes that the “old order” in the Middle East is gone and the countries in the region are clearly struggling to redefine the region. They’re doing that with Iran “on the march.” Iran is advancing in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Yemen, in virtually every swing country in the region.
He notes that radical elements have taken over both major sects of the Muslim religion. Here, we disagree with the General, it’s our view that the so-called “radical elements” are, in fact, central to and the mainstream of the Muslim faith. They’ve been ruling the roost for 1,400 years.
The key point Flynn makes is this.
“One of the things that we have to keep in mind on Iran is, Iran is also a country with ballistic missiles, cyber capabilities. They are also still a state-sponsor of terrorism. And here we are dealing with them as though we’re going to give them a carte blanche,” he said.
[…]
“And I — so, I don’t trust Iran. And I have seen a lot — what I know, Chris, about what I’ve seen over certainly the last 10 years, if not the last 30, they are not a nation to be trusted.”
General, you may not trust Iran, but the President certainly does. He needs them to sign the equivalent of Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” agreement with Hitler so he can cement his legacy. John Kerry, who, as a Naval Reserve Officer, sat on the North Vietnamese side of the table in Paris in 1973, is working overtime to make that happen.
Obama said he wanted to remake America. He’s not just doing that, he’s remaking the world. And not in a good way.
Michael Becker is a long time activist and a businessman. He’s been involved in the pro-life movement since 1976 and has been counseling addicts and ministering to prison inmates since 1980. Becker is a Curmudgeon. He has decades of experience as an operations executive in turnaround situations and in mortgage banking. He blogs regularly at The Right Curmudgeon, The Minority Report, Wizbang, Unified Patriots and Joe for America. He lives in Phoenix and is almost always armed.
Ann Coulter Follow @AnnCoulter | 
Evidently, the sole function of the media these days is to subject the public to a steady stream of manufactured events: “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”; nuclear power kills; Lena Dunham’s rape by a college conservative at Oberlin; the “mattress girl” raped at Columbia University; Jon Stewart is funny; a fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia; and a law protecting religious freedom will lead to separate water fountains for gays in Indiana.
The whole country has to keep being dragged through these liberal hate campaigns, but as soon as the precipitating event turns out to be a gigantic hoax, the truth is revealed like a bedtime story being read to a child: The ending is whispered and the narrator tiptoes out of the room.
Here’s a time-saver: Whenever one of these conscience-shocking stories is promoted to front-page status by The New York Times and involves:
… you can be pretty confident it’s a hoax. As the saying goes, it didn’t happen until it’s reported by The New York Times, and not even then.
And this week, we all have to be in a panic about Indiana passing a measure that enshrines a basic principle of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, because of the utterly apocryphal assertion that the law will be used to turn gays away from restaurants.
The idea that generally applicable laws may, in certain circumstances, be required to accommodate individual religious beliefs has been around for centuries. That’s why priests don’t have to reveal penitents’ confessions to the police and Quakers don’t have to join the military.
Having won the war on gay marriage (by judicial fiat), now some liberal zealots insist on going house-to-house and shooting the survivors. They seem to seek out Christian businesses to provide floral arrangements and cakes for gay weddings so they can call the cops if the Christians try to pass. A roomful of gays would say, “Why don’t you guys just go to one of the nine out of 10 florists who would be happy to have your business?” (My guess is, if the zealots looked really hard, they might even be able to find a gay florist!)
That is all the religious freedom laws do: Encourage steely-eyed activists to stop requiring every last Christian to celebrate gay marriages.
Right now, in states that don’t have religious protection laws, Christians are being compelled, by general non-discrimination laws, either to participate in gay marriages — or go out of business. With the law, the Christian gets a legal argument. He might win in court or he might lose, but he’d at least have an argument, thus encouraging the kill-the-survivors nuts to go to another shop for their gay weddings and stop doing their victory dances on top of Christians.
It’s utter nonsense that any shopkeeper, least of all a nice Christian, would turn away a customer for any reason other than a deeply held religious belief, such as not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, a Planned Parenthood gala or any event involving Bill Clinton.
Do not assume that because liberals are in an absolute panic over Indiana’s law, they must have a point. To the contrary, the more hysterical they are, the more you should assume the whole story is a sham.
When the journalist Richard Bradley raised questions about Erdely’s Rolling Stone gang-rape story, Anna Merlan responded at Jezebel, calling his questions a “giant ball of sh*t,” in an article titled “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?’ Asks Idiot.” Even after Rolling Stone had retracted the story and Charlottesville chief of police Timothy J. Longo confirmed that the man Jackie accused of precipitating the gang-rape didn’t exist, his department merely “suspended” the investigation. I’m going to call Chief Longo with a complaint that I was raped by a unicorn to see if we can get him to actually “close” a case.
It’s one thing to treat disturbed girls falsely crying rape with kid gloves. (Though the boyfriend of the Duke lacrosse false-rape accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, might have wished she’d been held a little more accountable: Mangum was never prosecuted for her lies and she later murdered her boyfriend, thus dashing her hopes for a primetime show on MSNBC.)
But why do we have to treat liberal fantasists in the media as if they’re children, too? Believing there’s a monster under the bed is cute. Falsely accusing cops of murder, men of rape and an entire state of homophobia is not.
Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn’t happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of “liberal” is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts.
“Are we prepared to handcuff a feminist photographer who won’t take pictures at a strip club?”
In the name of nondiscrimination, Republican governor Mike Pence has surrendered to the angry mobs that erupted like the Sandinistas’ turbinas divinas. Despite RFRA’s similarity to a 22-year-old federal statute and laws in 18 other states, liberal activists and journalists have distorted Indiana’s measure into an alleged anti-gay hit list.https://embed.reembed.com/conservativebyte.com/3lsEru0Rl9hG07r2f51zfi0nhttps://t.reembed.com/3lsEru0Rl9hG07r2f51zfi0n”>
It never helps that laws like this one focus solely on the rights of religious people. As vital as religious liberty is, what about the rights of the 25 percent of Americans who have no faith? The safe harbors that these laws attempt to dredge should not, themselves, discriminate against nonbelievers.
The sorts of freedoms shielded by Indiana’s new law — and nearly identical pieces of legislation heralded by the ACLU, signed by President Clinton, and supported by Obama in the Illinois state senate — should be protected for all Americans, be they religious, agnostic, atheist, confused, or otherwise. Freedom of Association belongs to all Americans, via the First Amendment, not only those who happen to be religious.
What if you are an atheist who really objects to gay marriage? Must you still bake cakes for gay weddings, or will pro-shariah Muslim bakers be the only ones who can walk into court and ask to be excused from doing so?
The oft-screamed battle cries of liberals, feminists, and gay-rights activists vividly illustrate the implications of what Pence’s critics demand. If every business in Indiana must do business with everyone who walks through the door because, as Pence said today, “this law does not give anyone the right to discriminate,” then:
If these examples sound absurd, are they really that much crazier than a gay couple’s demand that an evangelical Christian baker produce their wedding cake against her will, when other bakers are eager for their business? Also, it is crucial to remember that behind each of these scenarios lies something deadly serious: a gun.
Government equals force. Its ultimate authority stems from its ability to use coercion or blunt force to deprive lawbreakers of their freedom. Why, ultimately, do people pay their taxes? Funding schools, courts, and atomic submarines has its charms. So does staying out of jail. As George Washington reportedly said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
So, the real question in each of these cases is:
In the public sector, the government must administer equal justice under the law and treat all Americans equally. Thus, the anti-gay discrimination of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” deserved to end. Likewise, conservatives such as Ted Olson and I believe that government should not discriminate against gay couples when handing out marriage licenses. (Obviously, other conservatives disagree.)
At least that’s what the First Amendment says — such as it is.
Freed of most restraints against government action and populated by citizens increasingly oblivious to this nation’s founding principles, America is slouching into tyranny. Little by little. Day by day. This is incredibly depressing. And to see gay people lead this charge into bondage may be the saddest sight of all.
Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
What is there not to like about Emperor Obama’s global warming plan, which he submitted to the United Nations on Tuesday?
It’s going to directly cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, untold billions or trillions more in economic growth.
White House flying monkeys have already announced it’s going to be put into place by a series of executive orders and agency-level rules that His Majesty will pluck out of the executive filing cabinet — you know, the one Obama sits on?
The rules will raise the costs of oil and gasoline; reduce your freedom to travel; keep you colder in winter, hotter in summer; raise the cost and lower the accessibility of electrical power; eliminate jobs, particularly in the energy industry; and have you living like a virtual caveman.
And for all that low, low cost, you will see a potential drop of 0.001 degrees Celsius in annual warming — a potential savings of one-tenth of a degree over a short little century.
Of course, that makes at least two very generous assumptions, the first being that the warmistas are to some extent correct in having observed one or two degrees actual average warming over the past century and that therefore the relationship between carbon dioxide and warming is valid and potentially calculable.
The second big assumption is that, despite the past 15 years of “hiatus,” there actually is a global warming trend going on that will at some point resume, as opposed to the multidecadal cycle of cooling some scientists are predicting.
And realize — this can’t be stressed enough — Obama’s plan would not cool the planet one lick; it just might slow any warming by one-thousandth of a degree per year.
Even that’s pretty generous, because if you crunch the numbers yourself, add up the human contribution to the total amount of CO2 produced naturally by the Earth each year and compare to the actual claims and predictions of warming by the bad-science crowd, one-thousandth to a few thousandths of a degree of warming is about what could actually be attributed to humans over the course of more than 100 years — maybe.
All of which is to say that taxing future generations into extreme poverty and bringing a halt to human progress is totally worth it to save the Earth from having more free water for agriculture and drinking, and to keep rich people’s beachfront properties above sea level.
A little-noted provision of President Obama’s highway funding proposal would lift the federal prohibition against states imposing new tolls on existing interstate highways. The GROW AMERICA Act would eliminate restrictions held in place since the creation of the Federal Interstate System, according to a summary of the plan’s provisions, allowing states that receive permission from the Secretary of Transportation to toll existing Interstate highways “in order to make improvements or to manage congestion.”Since its creation in 1956, interstates have been funded primarily through fuel taxes, with tolls banned on all sections of highway built after that date, according to The Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates (ATFI). The only exception is a 1998 program available to three states, none of which have taken advantage of it to date.
The exact criteria by which the Secretary would evaluate such requests will not be known until they are published for public comment in the Federal Register, but that has not stopped organizations on both sides of the issue from opining.
“Tolling interstate lanes which drivers now freely access is an inefficient financing mechanism that is the worst possible approach to raising transportation revenue,” ATFI spokesman Julian Walker said Monday in a press release, noting that “the idea has already been rejected by lawmakers, the public, and community leaders in the few states with a federal exception to the tolling prohibition.”
Walker argues that tolls not only “divert heavy highway traffic onto secondary streets,” leading to higher road maintenance costs, but also “endanger public safety when rescue workers are delayed in responding to emergencies,” though the latter concern would be only be temporary under the Obama proposal, which requires cash-free, electronic tolling after Oct. 1, 2016.
The free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, on the other hand, says in a blog post that although Congress is unlikely to pass the GROW AMERICA Act, the tolling provision is one of two “very smart elements that Congress should attach to their own reauthorization package.” … “Contrary to popular belief, the states, not the federal government, own and operate the Interstate Highway System,” CEI notes, adding that because of this local dynamic, “tolling offers a number of advantages over fuel tax or non-user funding.”
Most importantly, according to CEI, no federal funds can be used for maintenance on any tolled segments of the Interstate, ensuring that those costs are borne exclusively by those who benefit from using the roads.
Walker, however, counters that this would not necessarily be the case under the Obama plan, which would “let states redirect toll revenues to completely unrelated projects, abusing public trust and exploiting highway drivers with a tax on interstates to pay for trolleys, public transit, and unspecified environmental projects, all without solving the transportation funding problem.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Updated 3/31/15 6:28 PM EDT
POLITICO illustration — Getty and iStock images.
Clinton’s attorney David Kendall on Friday wrote Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), declining the committee’s request for the server to be turned over to an independent third party. The committee said it wants a third party to verify that all Benghazi-related emails were in fact turned over to the panel—especially after Clinton acknowledged deleting anything determined to be “personal” messages. Kendall called the request pointless, saying Clinton’s IT staff had confirmed to him the messages are gone for good.
But permanent deletion is extremely difficult to achieve, the experts said. Enterprise servers built in the last decade or so are increasingly designed to preserve emails more rigorously, either as a document trail in case of a lawsuit, to comply with industry regulations or to allow system administrators to “idiot proof” their systems so they can save the day when non-technically proficient executives accidentally delete emails. The key principle of digital forensics is “Delete doesn’t and restore won’t,” said Mark Rasch, a former federal prosecutor who worked on computer crimes.
A telling precedent is the case of former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner, who came under scrutiny over charges that the IRS targeted tea party groups for heightened scrutiny. The IRS said that a 2011 hard-drive crash rendered her emails irretrievable. The agency trashed the hard drive and said it had over-written back-up tapes. But the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found a pile of several hundred old back-up tapes and hired an outside forensic expert to recover the old messages. It’s taken them eight months — and a sum of money that TIGTA has repeatedly refused to disclose — but they believe they’ve discovered the missing correspondence.
In the Hillary Clinton matter, House Republican investigators have bickered with the State Department over Benghazi documents since soon after the 2012 attack and formally subpoenaed all correspondence and other documents in 2013. But it only came to light this month that the State Department did not have copies of Clinton’s emails because she used a personal account and server to conduct official business — instead of a standard government address. The House Benghazi committee subpoenaed Benghazi correspondence from Clinton’s personal email March 4, and Gowdy followed up March 20, formally asking Clinton to turn her server over to the State Department inspector general or another neutral third party to assess whether any of the ostensibly personal emails contain government business.
The subpoena, which deadlined Friday, requested only documents. But after Clinton refused to hand over the server, top House Republicans are coalescing around a plan to talk to her first before they consider subpoenaing it, according to someone familiar with the conversations.
In the letter Friday, Clinton’s attorney said there was no legal authority to force Clinton to turn over the server and that any arguments related to public access to federal records were addressed because she turned over her work emails to the State Department.
The experts interviewed by POLITICO said the amount of information that can be retrieved depends on the type of server Clinton used, its control settings and the rigor and expertise of the people who pressed the delete key. “Obviously Clinton has someone with technical capability to run a mail server for her. Whether that person is actively capable of interfering with an investigation, I don’t know. That’s another technological step up.” said Hal Pomeranz, founder of Deer Run Associates, a computer forensics investigation firm.
Rasch, the cyber-crimes prosecutor now in private practice, compared deleting an email in standard email systems, such as Microsoft’s Outlook or Google’s Gmail, to placing a computer desktop item in the recycle bin. In other words, the item can still be recovered until you do something else, such as empty the bin. With most email systems, that something else would be putting another email in the deleted email’s place, a process called “overwriting.” A file may need to be overwritten multiple times before it’s totally gone. It may fast begin to look like a piece of Swiss cheese, however, with section after section degraded or missing.
On a busy corporate network, a deleted email might be overwritten within a few hours because emails are constantly coming in and going out and system administrators are regularly compressing email storage to save space, said Jake Williams, a principal consultant at Rendition Infosec. On a personal server with only one or a few users, however, it could take months or years to overwrite that space, said Williams, also a computer forensics consultant at the SANS Institute, a non-profit computer security training center.
Clinton’s statement from her March 10 press conference – “at the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails” — suggests that the emails were not deleted sporadically over the course of the last several years but all at once a couple of weeks ago after she stopped regularly using the server or the email system. That would indicate that most of the emails are likely intact and in good shape, Williams said. That’s provided, of course, that whoever deleted the emails simply pressed the delete key rather than running a more complex command, such as ordering the computer to “wipe” or “burn” its email contents or using a plug in that ensures deleted emails are rapidly overwritten.
Clinton Spokesman Nick Merrill declined to say what kind of server the former secretary used or the year it was built. He also declined to comment on the server’s e-discovery settings or the specific deletion protocol. Even if Clinton’s staffers successfully wiped all emails from her server, there are other places they could show up, forensics experts said, such as in a temporary file elsewhere on the server, in a file on her computer hard drive, or on her BlackBerry. There also are likely logs of emails sent and received elsewhere on the server or on Clinton’s devices, separate from the emails themselves, forensics practitioners said.
Finally, of course, the emails themselves may be stored in the computers, phones and servers of people Clinton corresponded with – and who might be identified in email logs. “It’s an obvious point, but you can’t delete email,” Rasch said. “By definition, I have sent my emails to or received them from someone else, which means…someone else has a copy…Deleting emails is really not an effective way to conceal what you’re doing.”
Rottdawg March 31, 2015
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.