Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘First Amendment’

Ann Coulter: ‘Woke Corporate America’ Is ‘Our Number One Enemy’


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK |

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/06/25/ann-coulter-woke-corporate-america-is-our-number-one-enemy/

Ann Coulter / AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

“[Republicans] suck up to the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson [and] woke corporate America, which is our enemy,” Coulter said. “Our number one enemy probably is not even the universities or the social justice morons running around on college campus. It really is corporate America, but Republicans just have it in their heads, ‘Ooo, it’s capitalism. We support corporations.’”

LISTEN:

Coulter predicted an acceleration of political censorship on the Internet, including social media deplatforming and domain deregistration, as November’s elections near.

“I have been predicting for years that the Internet is too free,” Coulter said. “We can communicate with one another. We can get information that the New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN simply will not report. They’ve got to shut down the internet to conservatives, and what better time to do it than the year of Trump’s reelection.”

Coulter warned, “As the election gets closer, there are going to be more and more soldiers falling … Where are Republicans on this?”

Internet censorship is a matter of free speech and expression, Coulter held. “That’s what was so great about the internet,” she said. “Even the nutty stuff, it was the Wild West and this is the idea behind free speech, that the truth will rise.”

Coulter added, “They’re not worried about people being misinformed. Nobody gets misinformed except by MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, ABC, CBS. What they’re worrying about is people being persuaded, and their argument is that anything they disagree with is hurtful, is hate speech, and it must be stopped.”

Democrats are courting political forces beyond their control, assessed Coulter, referring to rioters, looters, and vandals operating amid recent unrest following the death of George Floyd.

Coulter said, “You can’t call the mob off, ‘Okay, boys. It’s November 4th. We’ve defeated Trump. Now everybody settle down.’ That doesn’t happen. You’ve unleashed this beast, and there’s no one there to stop it.”

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

Former NYC Top Cop Kerik Blasts Officials Using COVID as Excuse To Take Americans’ Freedoms


Authored By C. Douglas Golden | Published April 13, 2020 at 9:07am

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/former-nyc-top-cop-kerik-blasts-officials-using-covid-excuse-take-americans-freedoms/

A teen being given a citation for merely driving in her car. Hiking trails closed. Church congregants for Easter services having their license plate numbers taken down by the police so that they can be told to be in quarantine for 14 days no matter what kind of social distancing was being practiced. That’s where we are now, and former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik isn’t particularly happy about it.

In a tweet Thursday, Kerik blasted officials who are using the coronavirus outbreak as a pretext to clamp down on freedoms that wouldn’t necessarily affect the spread of the virus.

“Yesterday, governors/mayors shut down walking trails,” Kerik tweeted.

”Some police have been ordered to arrest people for walking outside their homes. The government is considering a #coronavirus surveillance system.

“WTF! Americans better start paying attention and getting vocal! #Constitution.”

He went on to criticize New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, for his decision to stop construction projects.

“Today @GovMurphy stopped all non-essential construction,” he tweeted.

“Construction is a profession in which many will not be able to receive government assistance.

“Instead of mandating by order that they wear protective equipment and follow CDC directives, this will destroy them/families.”

Murphy had announced the halt to construction the day before Kerik’s tweet.

“We must continue to work together to flatten the curve of new COVID-19 cases in New Jersey,” Murphy said in a statement.

“By ceasing all non-essential construction projects and imposing additional mitigation requirements on essential businesses, we are furthering our aggressive efforts to enforce social distancing and limiting our public interactions to only the most essential in order to reduce the spread of COVID-19.”

In the executive order, Murphy also limited the number of customers who could be in an essential retail outlet at any given point in time and required those outlets to mark 6-foot increments on the floor in order to indicate how to socially distance, among many, many other things.

Park systems, meanwhile, have been shutting down across the country.

Here’s part of Oregon’s explication for closing its state park system late last month: “A single person walking on a trail is fine. There are a few million people in the west who are thinking the same thing, and then next thing you know, people are parking alongside roads to get into a park. That’s bad for you, it harms other people, and it puts stress on local groceries and health care systems.

It’s not just the hiking trails that have been shut down. The status of churches varies from state to state, with some listing them as an essential service and others shutting them entirely. Kentucky is one of the states in the latter category — and it managed to make a show of it this weekend when police took down the license plate numbers of the 50 people worshipping in the Maryville Baptist Church and put quarantine notices on their car, according to USA Today.

Newly elected Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, has engaged in a high-profile battle with a handful of churches that are still holding in-person services. In a move that absolutely won’t escalate the situation, state police threatened “further enforcement measures” for individuals receiving the quarantine notices if they decide not to quarantine.

At least there was some good news in this department last Wednesday, though: A 19-year-old Pennsylvania woman who was cited for “going for a drive”will have the ticket dropped, according to the York DispatchAnita Shaffer became one of the most prominent victims of over-officiousness in the time of coronavirus when Pennsylvania State Police hit her with a $200 ticket because she needed to get out of the house. She was the first person ticketed under Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s stay-at-home order. A few days later, officialdom decided it was probably best not to pursue the case.

Beside the fact that the troopers cited her under the wrong statute, York County District Attorney Dave Sunday felt that ticketing Shaffer didn’t serve “the interests of justice.”

“Ironically, if Ms. Shaffer had lied to the [trooper] and stated that she was driving to obtain food, medicine, or to a path to engage in outside exercise, Ms. Shaffer could not have received a citation for violating the stay at home order because no facts would exist to support its issuance,” Sunday wrote in his request to have the charges dropped. A district court judge granted the request.

I suppose kudos are in order to Mr. Sunday, a man who can probably figure out how to be six feet away from someone on a hiking trail. Alas, we live in a time when the government can’t trust us to hike or shop or drive correctly.

Mind you, this isn’t to say that all of this is smart.

No matter how much social distancing you practice and how much closer you feel to God when you go to church, you’re significantly better off if you decide to just go online. That said, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of religion are both enshrined under the First Amendment, so I wish Kentucky good luck defending that quarantine in court.

Kerik, by the way, isn’t exactly a wild-eyed libertarian. This was the top cop in New York City under Rudy Giuliani and during 9/11. That’s not the kind of resume that leads one to flights of anarchist fancy. He’s bringing up a very real concern that our rights have taken a backseat to trying to beat this disease. In some respects, that’s understandable. However, we’re about to be met with very sticky constitutional issues, including contact tracing and coronavirus “passports” to prove someone has antibodies and can re-enter society.

If the Constitution takes a backseat here, there’s the inevitable slippery slope: It can take a backseat anywhere. The fear is understandable, but fear cannot be allowed to set our rights afire.

Following are some images that, hopefully, will get you active in the fight for freedom. – Jerry Broussard

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

After Trump Invites Him Onstage, Activist Reveals Truth Behind What’s Happening to Conservatives on College Campuses


Reported By Alec Schemmel | Published March 2, 2019 at 2:16pm | Modified March 3, 2019 at 2:12pm

During President Donald Trump’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, he took a moment to recognize the discrimination conservative students face on college campuses.

“I turn on my television the other day and I saw somebody that was violently punched in the face,” Trump said to his audience at CPAC.

“The man’s name is Hayden Williams,” Trump added. “Hayden come up here please.”

Williams jumped onstage to say a few words, but he refused to use his several seconds of fame to talk about himself.

“It’s great that I’m being recognized,” he said, “but there’s so many conservative students across the country who are facing discrimination, harassment and worse if they dare to speak up on campus.”

Williams is a field representative at the Leadership Institute, a non-profit organization based of Arlington, Virginia, which aims to help fight the liberal bias that has infested America’s campuses. Williams was on UC Berkley’s campus on Feb. 19 helping local student activists when Zachary Greenberg, 28, allegedly assaulted him. Greenberg was arrested by UCPD on Friday afternoon and was being held on a $30,000 bond at Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland.

“It’s as important now than ever the work at Leadership Institute and Campus Reform exposing these liberal abuses to the public,” said Williams, “and these students do it because they have a love of our nation and freedom.”

Williams said that if progressive socialists had their way, the Constitution would be put through a paper shredder.

“If you keep defending us, we’ll keep defending you,” Williams said of Trump.

The audience roared in approval as Trump announced a new executive order which requires colleges and universities to support free speech.

“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden, and many other great young people … to speak,” Trump said.

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.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

Recent Posts Contact

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 25-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller News Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit providing original investigative reporting from a team of professional reporters that operates for the public benefit.

Antifa Shut Down Major Intersection, Threaten Citizens with Violence If They Don’t Obey


Reported By Jack Davis | October 8, 2018 at 5:48pm

Antifa protesters holding a vigil for a man shot to death by Portland police made it clear Saturday that they were taking over, and there was no room for anything else but obedience to mob rule.

The raw violence was captured by Brandon Farley, who in his Twitter profile says he captures “disruptive events in downtown Portland, Oregon.”

Warning: the following embedded videos contain strong language.

At one point, protesters blocked off an intersection as though they were the police and refused to let drivers pass.

A woman, asked by a driver why traffic was rerouted, had no time to explain.

“Because I told you to,” she said.

Various videos posted to Twitter show protesters threatening elderly drivers who did not understand what was going on.

Antifa protesters swarmed one car when it did not comply.

“Yeah brother, yeah you little white little f—er,” said one protester. “The First Amendment. Get the f— down the road.”

In the video, he appeared to notice that the car was registered in North Carolina and called the driver a “little white supremacist.”

“Go back to North Carolina where you came from. We don’t need your KKK in Portland, Oregon,” the protester said.

Meanwhile, drivers were frazzled.
“I’m in the middle of the intersection and (the protesters) are blocking traffic,” one confused driver says into his phone.
“We’re not here to riot. We’re here for justice,” said Charles Kimmons, who is related to victim Patrick Kimmons, according to Oregon Live. “We need to fight this all the way to the end. These cops need to be locked up.”

Police have said that Patrick Kimmons was shot at about 3 a.m. on Sept. 30 when police, responding to a call of a shooting, encountered Kimmons, who was armed.

Antifa has been on a rampage in Portland since June, when protesters blocked the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and neither city officials nor police did anything to help the federal workers targeted.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jack Davis is a free-lance writer. Writing as “Rusty” Davis, he is a Spur Award-nominated writer whose first two novels, “Wyoming Showdown” and “Black Wind Pass” were published by Five Star Publishing.

Anti-Gunner Students Allowed To Edit US Paper, End Up Humiliating Themselves


Authored By Cillian Zeal | March 26, 2018 at 2:19pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/anti-gunner-students-paper/

Publications have editors. Real ones. As in, those whose experience is commensurate with the paper, magazine or website they’re working for. They’re not just there to make sure their staff don’t “wreite like” th1s. Their function is edit for style, to check facts, to see if arguments cohere. For this, they’re paid handsomely. (Well, by the standards of the industry, anyhow.)

I mention this all because on Friday, the U.S. edition of The Guardian allowed the staff of the Eagle Eye — the official newspaper of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, site of one of the most horrific acts of evil we’ve witnessed on school grounds in many a year — essentially to write and edit their own piece detailing their recommendations to “halt mass shootings.” 

It’s worth noting that the paper’s parent publication, the London Guardian, is easily the most liberal mainstream publication in Great Britain. That certainly explains why they would engage in an experiment like this.

And, common sense unfortunately dictated exactly how the experiment went. The piece — which I’m sure did very well in terms of readership, given the quasi-celebrity nature of the authors and the fact that it was published a day before the March for Our Lives — is a farrago of unresearched errors, logical fallacies and appeals to emotion so threadbare and maudlin you wish that a real editor would have saved them from themselves.

Here are a few “highlights” from the piece, titled “Our manifesto to fix America’s gun laws.”

“We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce.” 

This is in the introduction and it sets the tone for what’s to come. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: neither surviving a mass shooting nor being a student journalist makes you an expert on either firearms or public policy.

In the latter department, it shows in this very sentence: the movement they are supporting (and the manifesto they wrote) wishes to place more — not less — power in the hands of those whose gross incompetence and political inaction caused the Parkland shooting in the first place.

“Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds: Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment. (sic) These weapons were designed for dealing death: not to animals or targets, but to other human beings. The fact that they can be bought by the public does not promote domestic tranquility. Rather, their availability puts us into the kind of danger faced by men and women trapped in war zones.

“This situation reflects a failure of our government. It must be corrected to ensure the safety of those guaranteed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

This is the kind of misinformation from which an actual editor — one who works for The Guardian as opposed to the Eagle Eye — would have saved these individuals. Hunting rounds available to the general public already fire at higher velocity than some ammunition used in military rifles, because hunters often shoot at moving targets.

So, in fact, they were mostly designed for “dealing death” to animals. They’re often for varmint control. However, in a mass shooting situation, they would actually have little practical advantage over most other guns (but more about this later).

While there may be the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, there is also the right to bear arms (which “shall not be infringed upon”) in the Constitution. Nowhere in these documents, it must be noted, is the promotion of “domestic tranquility” (again: this kind of clubfooted phraseology is why you let professionals edit your work) guaranteed.

The most sadly laughable line, however, is the part about “a failure of our government.” The government has failed in so many ways in Parkland, but in ways where handing more power over to them would only exacerbate the problem. I know these students write and edit a newspaper; perhaps they should read a few, as well.

“Ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons: High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17 others were injured. This is unacceptable.

“That’s why we believe that bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories that simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons should be banned.

“In the 2017 shooting in Las Vegas, 58 people were killed and 851 others were injured. The gunman’s use of bump stocks enabled vast numbers of people to be hurt while gathered in one of the most iconic cities in America. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. That’s why action must be taken to take these accessories off the market.”

Let’s start here with the idea that bump stocks “simulate automatic weapons.” They allow weapons to fire more rapidly — and very inaccurately. In the case of Las Vegas, it was a unique situation where accuracy didn’t matter to the gunman because of the press of the crowd into which he was firing. In most mass shootings, bump stocks would be useless. They also do not “simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons.” 

As for the high-capacity magazines, this is again something that anyone familiar with guns would know to be useless. In a soft-target situation like a school where security either cannot or refuses to engage a shooter, a handgun with a regular magazine would be more than enough to inflict the kind of damage the shooter did, irrespective of the size of the magazine. And, if targets were hardened, the size of the magazine wouldn’t matter; a student would likely be either stopped or deterred before it made a significant difference.

Nowhere is evidence provided for any of their claims in this department, likely because none exists.

Oh, and speaking of security:

“Increase funding for school security: We believe that schools should be given sufficient funds for school security and resource officers to protect and secure the entire campus. As a school of over 3,000 students, teachers and faculty, Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school (sic) was only supplied funds to hire one on-campus armed resource officer by the state. 

“Without backup, this officer’s hesitation proved to be disastrous and allowed for the senseless deaths of people who were killed on the third floor of the 1200 building. Though this idea has been proposed in the past, these funds should not be appropriated from the already scarce funding for public education. Governments should find resources to secure the millions of children that attend public schools without taking away from the quality of education that is offered at these institutions.”

Given the scarce resources, you mean a plan like, I don’t know, training and arming already-extant faculty members at your institution to back up armed resource officers? Like the president proposed? Probably not, given that one of the soi disant leaders of Stoneman Douglas gun control posse (who, in fairness, is not an editorial member of the Eagle Eye) has called that idea stupid.”

“Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be allowed to conduct research on the dangers of gun violence. The fact that they are currently prohibited from doing so undermines the first amendment.(sic) It also violates the rights of the American people.

“It is hypocritical to rally people to protect the second amendment, (sic) while remaining silent on the ways that blocking research violates one of our most basic constitutional freedoms.” 

At least someone from The Guardian should have had the basic kindness to explain how incoherent this would sound. The Centers for Disease Control is a government organization. If it is commissioned by the government to provide gun death research — and the omnibus bill authorizes that — it can conduct said research. It would then present its findings.

Nowhere is a taxpayer-funded organization granted the right to officially opine on any issue without legislation or regulations that prompt it, under the First Amendment. This would be patently absurd — and, by the way, since the CDC is currently headed up by an appointee of the Trump administration, I seriously doubt the editorial members of the Eagle Eye would exactly be in favor of the CDC somehow utilizing the First Amendment to remark on how they feel about the Second Amendment.

Other arguments that you may have heard before that are included in the piece are the proposal to raise the minimum age for firearm purchases from 18 to 21, greater sharing of mental health information between mental health care providers and law enforcement, the “gun show loophole” argument and calls for more stringent background checks.

No particularly new points were contributed to the discussion and none of the arguments were rendered more astutely than they have heretofore been.  There is no unique perspective brought to anything (aside from the idea that government agencies ought to have autonomous First Amendment rights to speak however they want), and certainly no particular view expressed in the article is unique to an individual who has survived a mass shooting.

Instead, it is an exploitative document (on the part of The Guardian) riddled with poor reasoning and nonexistent research (on the part of the students) which only exists in mass media circulation because of who wrote it.

You may feel that I am being inordinately cruel and unjust by attacking what these students have written. They are, after all, survivors of an unspeakable tragedy. They are also public figures and have made themselves so by their decision to lecture Americans on what constitutional and legal rights they should and should not have. The expectation that those they have chosen to lecture ought to sit down and stay silent ignore the fact that the media is using these teenagers as cultural satraps to weave a proxy narrative of their own. 

If the media is going to engage in such puppetry, the very least they could do is give these kids a decent editor.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday March 19, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday March 5, 2018


Supreme Court to Review Case of a Baker Told He Must Bake Gay Wedding Cake


Reported by  Ryan T. Anderson / / June 26, 2017 /

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/

A lower court ruling had forced Jack Phillips to choose between obeying the government and following his religious beliefs. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Today was a good day for religious freedom at the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld religious liberty by saying that a state cannot exclude a church from a public program just because it’s a church. That was the big case at the court.

In a less-noted move, the court also agreed to review (“granted cert” in the legal jargon) a case about religious liberty, free speech, and government coercion to support gay marriage. The case involves Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and whether he must create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, even if doing so violates his beliefs. 

The case goes back to 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said.

The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.

Phillips is right. As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book from Oxford University Press, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with “discrimination.”

This overbroad definition of “discrimination” is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech. And here a pattern holds: Legally coercing professionals serves no serious need, but works serious harms.

Conservative wedding providers are few and dwindling due to market pressures—and most important, they don’t refuse to serve LGBT patrons. In case after case, bakers have had no problem designing cakes for gay customers for every other occasion. It’s just that an exceedingly small number can’t in good conscience use their talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings by baking a cake topped with two grooms or two brides—or, as in this case, with rainbow filling.

Coercing these cultural dissidents has vanishingly small effects on the supply of products for any given couple, but it impinges seriously on particular vendors’ freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion. If any harm remains in leaving these wedding professionals free, it is only the tension we all face in living with people who disagree with us on the most personal matters.

As Girgis and I explain in our new book, America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Such a ruling would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement. It would protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Hypnotic

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/20/hypnotic-media/#ydcqktuSlcVq4v2E.99

Democrats and the media, engage the Joseph Goebbels tactic of repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!


TODAY’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS FROM TOWNHALL.COM

High School Grad Defies Administrators After They Told Her to Remove Jesus From Speech


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/high-school-grad-jesus/

For the past few years, there has been a disturbing trend in schools all across America where administration officials have attempted to silence those who want to talk about their Christian faith. The latest example of this repression of Christian beliefs occurred at Beaver High School in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, where the school officials tried to stop a student from including references to God in her commencement speech, Faithwire reported.

The administration initially wanted graduate Moriah Bridges to “remove all religious references” from her commencement address, including the words “God,” “Lord” and a prayer she had included. Effectively, they wanted her to silence Jesus.

The administration’s plan backfired though, because when Bridges actually gave the speech on June 2, she defied the administration and included a well-phrased reference to Jesus Christ.

“I’ve always been a rule follower,” Bridges stated at the end of her speech. “When they said not to chew gum, I didn’t chew gum. When they said not to use your cellphone, I didn’t use my cellphone. But today, in the spirit of defying expectations, and for perhaps the last time at this podium, I say, ‘in the righteous name of Jesus Christ, Amen.’”

You can watch the key part of Bridges’ speech here:

WTAE noted that Bridges is now being represented by “First Liberty,” a religious freedom law firm, which is demanding a meeting with school administration officials to change school policy.

The Beaver Area School District Superintendent, Carrie Rowe, released a statement on June 13th where he defended the actions of the administration.

“In Moriah’s case, the district could not approve a speech written as a prayer, but did approve a second version that she submitted,”  Rowe explained in the statement. “As superintendent, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of this commonwealth.”

Rowe went on to state that she had been advised that prayer during a commencement address was “not permitted,” and that she “cannot choose which laws to follow.”

Bridges managed to silence the administration for 11 days. It took them that long to come up with a response to her act of defiance. You can read the full statement here.

It took a lot of courage for Bridges to stand up and profess her faith after the administration had instructed her not to. This world could use a few more people like Bridges who aren’t afraid to stand up for what they believe in.

H/T TheBlaze

 

The United States of…Not America


waving flagAuthored By: David Barton | Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:40 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/2017/02/the-united-states-ofnot-america/

Here’s a simple question: “What is America’s first-protected, most-important, and longest-cherished politically-protected right?” The answer? The rights of religious conscience. But the Supreme Court of Washington State just became another in the line of recent courts who know nothing of, or don’t care about this inalienable right.

The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.

The Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”

In 1776 when America separated from Great Britain, the rights of religious conscience were once again promptly preserved in the new state constitutions and then in the federal Constitution. According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:

“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.” “[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted.” “It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences.” Thomas Jefferson

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” James Madison, Signer of the Constitution

“The rights of conscience and private judgment…are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left.” John Jay, an Author of the Federalist Papers and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

“Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.” “The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?” William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution

Based on this long tradition, today . . .

Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;

The Amish are not required to complete the standard twelve years of education;

Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;

Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday;

And there are many additional examples.

It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states—such as that of Washington, which declares:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion . . .

But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Baronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist… was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist’s rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington’s so-called “public accommodations law,” which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers “regardless” of their sexual orientation.Big Gay Hate Machine

Several things are wrong with this decision.

First, Baronelle has been economically-fined and governmentally-coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Second, the explicit wording of the Washington State constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because they don’t want to uphold its provisions.

Third, the court elevated a state law (their “public accommodations law”) above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws—always.

Fourth, John Adams described us as “a government of laws and not of men,” but decisions like this make us just the opposite: the personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.

Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that “the comparison of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell,” but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled in order to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.amen

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Barton Author of numerous best selling books and Founder and President of WallBuilders More Articles
 

The culture war comes to a Tennessee high school football game


Football leaning on a football helmet in the grass / David Lee | Shutterstock

The scene: A high school football player lies injured on the ground. Just minutes before, he was doing the thing he would almost certainly choose to do above all else. Now he is seemingly paralyzed and unable to move his legs. The clock ticks. Nothing changes. A half hour passes, with the young man still lying on the field as the crowd looks on and grows increasingly uncomfortable with what the fates have in store. The situation appears hopeless.

Then, into that breach, steps another player. He asks a youth pastor in attendance at the game to offer a prayer. Gridiron opponents quickly become brothers-in-arms as players and coaches from both teams bow their head and call down aid from above. There is light in the darkness, and after the impromptu prayer huddle breaks with an “Amen,” the grateful crowd applauds.

But in that crowd is also someone for whom the consolations of God are a grievous offense. Where others see peace and possibility, they see a dire need to make the world flat. And so, anonymously of course, like a certain serpent in the garden, they make a call to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). A group based in Wisconsin that has been remarkably successful at doing what should be impossible: Convincing people that our country’s founding was based on godlessness.picture6 picture7

The prayer, the FFRF has charged along with the male complainant, is a violation of the Constitution. No matter that there is nothing even remotely resembling the establishment of a religion going on here. Or that this is exactly what the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is designed to protect.

Evil is on the march, and marching out in the open.

Because we don’t do open-and-shut cases anymore when it comes to the foundational principles of our country. We choke the life out of them.

We’ve been down this road over and over again. In case you haven’t heard, we even sue nuns now for not paying for other women to have sex. This is what eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ultimately looks like in a culture bent on committing suicide, via the joyless crusade of the God-haters. They have traded a righteous inheritance for a cesspool and called it the dictates of “reason.” Yet that word most certainly doesn’t mean what they think it means. For these types of fools never seem to run out of ways to torpedo dignity and civility with their ugliness and folly. There’s nothing “reasonable” about that. Only sadness and wickedness.

Such a bad tree will produce bad fruit. Like a new investigative video, which revealed Planned Parenthood implementing abortion quotas to increase the number of dead babies at the hands of their modern-day holocaust. Including the use of pizza parties to motivate employees to sell and perform more murders. That is the pitch-black utopia the God-haters seek to sell us.

What a vile trade the usurpers of liberty are making. Prayer is oppression, while promoting violence against the innocent is lionized as fundamental to the future of democracy. And they’re not even pretend to hide it from us anymore. Evil is on the march, and marching out in the open. combined

The devil is telling us exactly who he is, and showing us the ash heap of history he desires to jettison us. Sadly, some of our fellow countrymen thunderously applause at this ode to the macabre. The Declaration of Independence is a dead letter to them, and the most fundamental right is to strip the world of any ultimate meaning other than the whims of the self.

“Ye will be like God,” said the serpent, with forked tongue. The same forked tongue being used to lie to us now. There’s always fine print, though, when it comes to that sort of Faustian bargain. And rest assured, the devil is always in those details.

Which brings me to another man of faith, who once said a prayer in the face of the laughter of those who did not believe. He uttered the phrase “Talitha Koum,” and a little girl rose from the dead to the wonderment of all. Good thing that didn’t happen on a public high school football field, or Jesus could have expected a strongly worded letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. And maybe even a court injunction to go along with his scourging and crown of thorns.

There are simply moments that belong to God alone to bring light to the darkness in our midst. Those in attendance at that high school football game in Tennessee recognized just such a moment when they fell on bended knee and sought out God’s mercy, and my prayer for them is this: May their righteous response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s jihad be to pray all the louder and all the more publicly in the future, and may that include praying for the souls of the God-haters who seek to persecute them. For God is just, and His justice cannot sleep forever.

amen

Will the Church Come Alive in 2017?


waving flagAuthored By: Walker Wildmon / Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Walker Wildmon Assistant to the President FollowMore Articles

While there is much work to be done in order to bring spiritual revival to America, I believe an awakening Church is the first step in this endeavor.

– Walker Wildmon

Most of us have ideas about how we’d like 2017 to look. Some would like to study Scripture on a more frequent basis.  Others would like to spend more time with their spouse or kids and some would like to improve their physical wellness by exercising. These are all great goals some of which I might actually be participating in myself. In general, I’d like to see myself become a better steward of my spiritual and physical well-being.

Along with these goals, I also have things that I’d like to see the Church in America move towards and see our country fulfill when it comes to public policy.

For years it has seemed as though the Church in general has been asleep. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of vibrant churches across this great land. For the past several decades a war has been fought over the forced acceptance of homosexuality and abortion. Since the dawn of creation God’s people have viewed all forms of sexual deviancy and the murder of innocent life as two horrific sins that cannot be accepted in the public square, much less in our churches. Christians have been in the cross hairs of this agenda and in return it has caused some to shrink back in order to avoid public shaming. I do not blame the world for our passiveness but I place the blame solely on the Church’s shoulders. The Bible mentions over and over again that we will face trials and difficulties because of our faith and that we must not grow weary (Galatians 6). I’m hopeful that the Church in America will come alive spiritually in the near future and become more engaged in making disciples (Romans 13).AMEN

Along with the Church coming alive spiritually, I’m hopeful that believers will activate themselves in the public policy arena to see laws passed which reflect constitutional, and more importantly, biblical principles. Some policies that come to mind regard abortion, school choice and religious freedom.

life-begins-at-conception

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

Abortion, while unconstitutional and barbaric has been legal since 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled on the well-known Roe v. Wade case. Simply because it is legal according to the Supreme Court and has been so for over forty years doesn’t mean we can’t fight to end abortion and save countless babies. Currently, the Supreme Court is split 4-4 between liberal and conservative justices but all it takes is President Trump appointing pro-life justices to one or two present and future vacancies on the high court to give us a pro-life constitutional majority. Assuming this occurs, Americans have a strong chance of seeing Roe v. Wade overturned and in return granting states the sole authority to regulate or outlaw abortion. In the meantime, Americans can pressure their congressmen and women and their senators to defund the largest abortion provider in the United States. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates perform more than 300,000 abortions per year, which amounts to approximately one out of every three in the country according to a Heritage Foundation report. The American Family Association issued a call to action recently which equips you with the proper tools to see that this organization receives no more taxpayer subsidies. Click here to take action.AMEN

School choice is a fairly simple issue. Families shouldn’t be stuck in a failing school system simply because of their zip code. If the federal government will remove itself from local education and allow states to enact school voucher policies, families will have more opportunities to excel in education. A voucher program will also create necessary competition between schools and districts that will almost instantly raise the bar higher, which will in turn improve the educational quality for our children. Taking a free market approach to schooling is necessary if we expect our schools and students to thrive. The Daily Signal published a great article titled “Education Made Simple: What is School Choice?”AMEN

Lastly, it is time for the marginalization of Christians by government officials and offices to end. Over the past eight years we’ve had florist, bakers, and pastors driven out of their occupation or even placed in jail (Kim Davis) for their beliefs. Members of congress have proposed legislation called the First Amendment Defense Act or FADA that “Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” In essence, this would put an end to federal judges and local courts forcing people of faith to either compromise their religious beliefs or face government sanctioned fees and penalties.AMEN

If the Church in America will awaken spiritually and become engaged, not only in the local church but also in the public arena, we could see some positive changes take place in America in the near future. Changes such as defunding Planned Parenthood, allowing school choice and advancing religious liberty will surely lift the weight of spiritual darkness that has covered this land for the past several decades. While there is much work to be done in order to bring spiritual revival to America, I believe an awakening Church is the first step in this endeavor.AMEN

On October 1st the USA Will Hand Over Control of the Internet, Endangering Free Speech – Call Congress Now!


waving flagBy Bethany Blankley September 7, 2016

obama- Marxist tyrantObama has once again broken federal law by instructing the U.S. Dept. of Commerce to relinquish U.S. control of the Internet’s Domain Name System to a ‘privatized’ international body, which will take place on October 1, 2016.

  • Call your senators: 202-224-3121.

  • Tell them to pass S.3034,“Protecting Internet Freedom Act.”

  • The United Nations and other countries have no authority to control access to information and eliminate Americans’rights protected by the First Amendment.

  • Obama broke the law. Americans have a constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press.

Tyrant Obama

icann

Here’s what happened.

Congress ordered a federal agency (NTIA) to not let a government contract lapse– especially one that includes the IANA function (comparable to an “Internet phone book”), which has been managed by a non-profit organization in California since 1998. The agency chose not to comply with a Congress mandate. Meaning, a federal agency run by unelected bureaucrats ignored elected members of Congress, which is illegal. And Obama is doing nothing about it.

Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA (National Telecommunications & Information Administration) Administrator, Lawrence E. Strickling, confirmed that “the NTIA intends to allow the IANA functions contract to expire as of October 1.” Because the agency did not comply with Congress, and failed to renew its contract before the end of this month, the government will be illegally allowing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to take over management of the IANA function.
(ICANN is “the private (non-government) non-profit corporation with responsibility for IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions, the services previously performed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).”) The Commerce Department does not have the authority to “turn over control of the Internet to ICANN.” It’s against federal law.

The Washington Examiner reports that:

“the feds are constitutionally prohibited from transferring federal property without approval from Congress. A coalition of 25 advocacy groups like Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Action sent a letter to Congress making those points last week.”

In response, the coalition of 25 advocacy groups maintain:kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204

“Congress twice enacted appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds ‘to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] … with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] functions.’

“We agree that Internet governance should work from the bottom up, driven by the global comm- unity of private sector, civil society and technical stakeholders. But that “multi-stakeholder” model is fragile. Without robust safeguards, Internet governance could fall under the sway of governments hostile to freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

“If NTIA allows the contract to lapse, it will have violated federal law (31 USC § 1341(a)(1)(A). See also 31 U.S.C § 1350).”

Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) – R introduced S.3034 on June 8, 2016. The bill has been read twice and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which is ridiculous. It’s now the first week in September and the Senate still has not acted. If the Senate does not act they will be allowing a government agency to again break federal law and the very system the U.S. government created. This will end the U.S. government’s “historic role as a guarantor of Internet governance,” and eliminate any constitutional protections of free speech and freedom of the press.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bethany Blankley

Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America from the perspective of an evangelical and former communications staffer. She was a communications strategist for four U.S. Senators, one U.S. Congressman, a former New York governor, and several non-profits. She earned her MA in Theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her BA in Political Science from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley facebook.com/BlankleyBethany/ & BethanyBlankley.com.

House Panel Set To Consider Law Protecting Religious Americans From Discrimination


waving flagAuthored by Randy DeSoto June 30, 2016

Over a year after it was introduced, the First Amendment Defense Act, designed to protect Americans from being discriminated against by the federal government based on their religious beliefs, will soon get a hearing in the House of Representatives. The Daily Signal reports that the hearing is set for July 12 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.Happy Happy Joy Joy

The proposed legislation, H.R. 2802, prohibits;

“The federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that:

(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or

(2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

 

H.R. 2802 lists specific discriminatory acts the federal government may not take, including:

  • Altering the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person.

  • Disallowing a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person.

  • Withholding, reducing, excluding, terminating, or otherwise denying any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment or similar position or status from or to such person.

  • Withholding, reducing, excluding, terminating or otherwise denying any benefit under a federal benefit program.

 

The bill currently has 171 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republican, save Rep. Daniel Lipsinski, D-Ill.

Dan Holler, with the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action for America, is encouraged that the committee is finally moving forward with a hearing and hopes the legislation will now be expedited. “Given the bill’s broad support, both on the committee and within the Republican conference as a whole, there is no reason for delay,” he said.

Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign, said of the bill when it was introduced, “Once again, House Republicans are pursuing an extreme agenda that is designed to harm LGBT families under the guise of religious freedom. The right to believe is fundamental. The right to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate is not.” Leftist Propagandist

Clearly, the organization would not be willing to accept the federal government denying a businesses or individuals contracts or tax benefits because they believed in or advocated for LGBT issues; however, it is supportive of allowing the federal government to do just that to people of faith.

A related issue came up in the House of Representatives in May when Rep. Sean Maloney, D-N.Y., offered legislation seeking to codify an executive order by President Obama barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers, with no exception for those with sincerely held religious beliefs.

The amendment passed with 40 Republicans joining the Democrats in a 223-195 win for Obama; however, the overall bill it was attached to was soundly defeated, so the amendment did not become law.

H.R. 2802 may be able to garner broader support because it zeroes in on specific discriminatory acts by the federal government against religious Americans. Liberal objections to religious liberty measures passed in certain states in recent years have centered on concerns that business owners, based on their religious beliefs, would be allowed to discriminate against LGBT customers.

fight Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Liberal Gun Control Arguments SHUT DOWN With 1 EPIC Meme


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on June 23, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/gun-control-shut-down/

In the social media gun control wars of 2016, the great liberal argument has been that the Second Amendment was designed by founding fathers who simply couldn’t foresee a gun like the AR-15 being invented.

Never mind, of course, that the AR-15 wasn’t used in the Orlando terrorist shooting, or the fact that Democrats and liberals know so little about guns that they can barely talk about them without making a serious mistake.

There’s also the fact that they’re discounting that the founding fathers didn’t put it that way when they wrote the Second Amendment, as a new meme pointed out.

Exactly:

musket meme eric

The Second Amendment does not read“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless the gun looks really scary and fires bullets that aren’t musket balls, and you can load more than one bullet at a time, and — really, why do you need a gun? Let’s pass some gun control laws.”

The Second Amendment wasn’t just an afterthought for the founding fathers. It was one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights — the one amendment that would make sure all of the others weren’t violated.

The founders weren’t ignorant men, either. They studied military history and knew the pace of progress. They knew that more advanced firearms were coming, and they hoped that they were writing a document for a nation that would survive hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

To say that they hadn’t seen weapons like the AR-15 coming is to dramatically underestimate their foresight.

And yet, nobody challenges the Bill of Rights on any of the other counts. Free speech is so much freer in 2016 than it was in the 1700s, but most of us don’t believe it’s time to do away with the First Amendment.

So, as this meme demonstrates — if you want to complain about the Second Amendment not being designed for modern weapons, get off the computer and write me out a letter. Or, better yet, stop complaining.

Hey Leftist Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Calif. school calls sheriff to stop 7-year-old from handing out Bible verses


waving flagBy Joe Newby – June 4, 2016

BibleIt seems the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion is officially dead, at least in one California school district.

On Thursday, Liberty Counsel said that officials with the Desert Rose Elementary School were so upset over notes containing Bible verses they called the local sheriff to make it stop.

According to Liberty Counsel:

The situation started with an encouraging note and Bible verse from mom Christina Zavala, tucked into a packed lunch for her little boy (“C”). The seven-year-old boy read the note and verse, and showed them to his friends during lunch time at school.

Mrs. Zavala’s daily note for her son soon turned into an expectation by the other children during lunch, who excitedly begged C for copies of the notes, which grew to include short stories from the Bible to provide context for the verses.

However, when one little girl said “teacher – this is the most beautiful story I’ve ever seen,” “separation of church and state” was the response, and the notes were banned from lunchtime distribution. C was told that the school gate was the only location at which he could give the Bible verses to his friends, and only after the bell rang.Combined

In April, Liberty Counsel said, Mrs. Zavala wrote to say the situation was corrected, but the school informed her that her son was reprimanded in front of the class and ordered to stop talking about his religion or sharing her notes.

The story continues:

The Zavalas and C complied with the school gate directive, and soon, as many as 15 fellow students looked forward to the after-school Bible notes. However, on May 9, 2016, Principal Melanie Pagliaro approached Mr. Zavala at that location, and demanded that C only hand out the notes on a public sidewalk, far from the exit, off school property. The family immediately complied.Gaged by the Left

But it got a whole lot worse (Emphasis added):

Later that day, however, a Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff knocked at the door of C’s home, demanding that C’s note sharing cease altogether because someone might be offended.” C’s family then asked Liberty Counsel to help protect their child’s constitutional freedoms.

“This is a clear, gross violation of the rights of a child,” Liberty Counsel said.  “That the CP 01school district enlisted a police officer to intimidate C and his family makes this case even more outrageous.”

“I would expect something like this to happen in Communist Romania, where I went to elementary school, but cops don’t bully 7-year-olds who want to talk about Jesus in the Land of the Free,” said Horatio “Harry” Mihet, Esq., Vice President of Legal Affairs & Chief Litigation Counsel of Liberty Counsel.

Liberty Counsel has sent the Palmdale school board a letter demanding they correct this breach of the boy’s Constitutional rights.

Freedom is never free Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Liberals FREAK After Vets Set Up “Muslim Free” Zone… Cops Issue EPIC Response


waving flagBy: V Saxena on April 12, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/vets-set-up-muslim-free-zone

Unfortunately for them, the authorities in resident Troy Maxham’s town of Roxbury refused courtesy something proud patriots like to call the First Amendment.

“Local officials have said there’s nothing they can do about the sign because it’s considered free speech protected by the First Amendment,” The Barre Montpelier Times Argus explained.

Sorry liberals, but what’s good for the Black Lives Matter movement is also good for Maxham, a veteran who said he distrusts Muslims.

The issue originally arose because the U.S. Army veteran lives close to a major state highway, meaning a lot of people see his sign every day.

Still A Muslim Free Zone Sign

“While the sign is on private property, it is in public view, and its message is in direct conflict with the values we as Americans are supposed to hold dear,” Regina Logan, who lives in the nearby town of Braintree, complained in a letter to The Times Argus.Militent Radical liberalism socialism

So what? The sign’s message only applies to Maxham’s home. Moreover, forcing him to remove the sign would be a violation of his First Amendment right. Yeah, sorry, but Americans also value the right to free speech, Miss Logan.

Speaking of which, one resident responded to the veteran’s sign in a far more ingenious way — by making his own signs that promote tolerance and asking residents throughout town if they would put one up on their property.

Let this guy’s behavior serve as a fine example to all Americans. When you see a sign that you find offensive, you have two options: Whine like a baby, or exercise your own First Amendment rights and put up your own sign with a counter-message. It’s that simple and that easy.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagGuard On Duty

Scalia The Guardian of the 1st and 2nd amendment, how will Obama’s choice measure up?

Scalia The Guardian / Political Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2016.

More A.F.Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

 A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204 Imperial President Obama obama- Marxist tyrant Tyrant Obama Cloward Pevin with explanation Free Speech Definition Clinton Democrat Party Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies Picture1 democrat problem Indenification of Obama destruction unfit Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Christians! We Don’t Live Under Caesar


waving flagWritten by Gary DeMar, Feb 1, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/christians-we-dont-live-under-caesar

Every political year, religion becomes an issue. It’s been that way since the founding of our nation. There’s no escaping religion and politics. Everyone is religious. Every law on the books is an application of someone’s view of religion (the ultimate basis of a person’s belief system) and an expression of their view of morality.

What is the source of a person’s worldview, their ultimate commitment? It’s a question that’s rarely asked. And yes, atheists are just as religious as the most fundamentalist Christian. Atheists are fundamentalist materialists, and so-called Progressives are fundamentalist secularists. What they believe is fundamental to their worldview.

There are Christians who are calling on their fellow-Christians to disengage from politics or to acquiesce to the political status quo and suffer under its oppression because we are just wanderers in this world on our way to the next world. Secularists also want Christians to disengage, and will often quote Jesus’ words “to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”

No doubt Christians prefer to live a quiet life, as the apostle Paul wrote (1 Tim. 2:1–4). They would prefer not to have to expend time, energy, and money to fight laws that one day could end up limiting their freedoms.

These instructions to the young pastor Timothy did not stop Paul from challenging political reprisals raised against him (Acts 22:23-30). He even appealed to Caesar in a time when the majority of Jews had no political standing (25:11-12). Paul made use of his Roman citizenship (22:28), something few Jews had, as we should take advantage of our own citizenship rights. Christians aren’t second-class citizens or subjects to a foreign power (at least not yet). We’re not devoid of a political right to act, either biblically or constitutionally.AMEN

What about the argument that we are to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:21)? First, this statement tells us that not everything belongs to Caesar. Second, Jesus also says that we are to “render to God the things that are God’s.” Caesar is equally obligated.

Third, we don’t live under Caesar, a king, or governors sent by a king (1 Peter 2:13-14). We live under the Constitution of the United States that gives us the right — as the First Amendment states — to speak, write, and assemble to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It would not be inappropriate to render Matthew 22:21 like this: “Then render to the Constitution the things that are the Constitution’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”AMEN

The Constitution is our Caesar, and those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution must render to it. In addition, we have a right and duty to hold our elected officials accountable to their oath. And unlike most Jews in the Apostle Paul’s day, we have the ability to change our government (Caesar) every two years at the national and local levels.

Reverend Jacob Duché (1737–1798) and the First Prayer of the Continental Congress (1774)

There used to be a time when we did live a quiet and tranquil life because Christians engaged their world culturally and politically. The goal has never been to save the world through politics but to define civil government’s limited political role. Christians who refuse to engage politically by default turn over the reins of authority and power to those who believe in a secular theocracy where civil government becomes the new god, and the laws of this secular god are imposed on the citizenry.

What if a government starts molesting people for their beliefs or actions? What should a Christian do? The slave trade, the holocaust, and racial discrimination come to mind. The anti-slave trade was headed up by Christians. Study the life ofWilliam Wilberforce(1759–1833). So was the civil rights movement. Were Christians wrong to oppose these moral evils? Why was Israel judged if the people were not to be involved politically?: 

How the faithful city has become a harlot,
She who was full of justice!
Righteousness once lodged in her,
But now murderers.
Your silver has become dross,
Your drink diluted with water.
Your rulers are rebels
And companions of thieves;
Everyone loves a bribe
And chases after rewards.
They do not defend the orphan,
Nor does the widow’s plea come before them (Isa. 1:21-23).

Resistance movements like those practiced by Christians during World War II have been accepted as morally justified by nearly all ethical thinkers. Thomas Kineally’s Schindler’s Ark (later made into the film Schindler’s List by Steven Spielberg) shows the highest praise for those who defied what was a “legal” government policy.

Corrie ten Boom and her familycome to mind:

“Corrie ten Boom has long been honored by evangelical Christians as an exemplar of Christian faith in action. Arrested by the Nazis along with the rest of her family for hiding Jews in their Haarlem home during the Holocaust, she was imprisoned and eventually sent to the Ravensbruck concentration camp along with her beloved sister, Betsie, who perished there just days before Corrie’s own release on December 31, 1944.”

In Give Me the Children: How a Christian Woman Saved a Jewish Family During the Holocaust, Pola Arbiser describes how her nanny defied the law and hid her and her sister from Nazi officers. The Jewish community of survivors has described these resistors as “righteous gentiles” ((As reported in Catherine E. Shoichet, “Christian nanny hid Jewish family from Nazis,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution (August 27, 2003), E1 and E6. See Pola Arbiser, Give Me the Children: How A Christian Woman Saved a Jewish Family During the Holocaust (Altona, Manitoba, Canada: Friesens, 2003).)) or simply “Christian rescuers.” ((David P. Gushee, “Christians as Rescuers During the Holocaust,” Must Christianity Be Violent?: Reflections on History, Practice, and Theology, eds. Kenneth R. Chase and Alan Jacobs (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2003), 71.)) These actions were considered to be moral even though they violated Nazi Reich law.

When the allied troops liberated the death camps and saw the atrocities, the soldiers went into the surrounding towns and forced the citizens to walk among the corpses. It was happening right under their noses and they did nothing to stop it. That wasn’t the “tranquil and quiet life” Paul was talking about.

AMEN

Tree of Liberty 03 Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Young Boy Stands Up For Trump- Then His Teacher Does Something Sickening In Response


waving flagReported by Kevin Whitson January 25, 2016

Western Journalism has reported in the past on liberals who target conservatives’ exercising of their freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press on college campuses. Now, according to one 11-year-old caller to the Rush Limbaugh show, liberals are apparently going after pre-teens’ exercise of their freedom of speech.

An 11-year-old named Matthew, whose last name has not been released, spoke to Limbaugh on his radio show Friday. According to Matthew, his teacher asked for students to write the names of visionaries on the board. Some students wrote down names like Pope Francis and Rosa Parks, but Matthew chose Donald Trump. The student said he was immediately accosted by his teacher, who demanded that he erase Trump’s name from the board.

Matthew said his teacher then asked him what Trump ever did for anyone. He responded by saying that Trump was a successful businessman, and had built many beautiful buildings all around the world. He defended his view that Trump was a visionary, specifically mentioning his plans to close the borders by building a border wall with Mexico, and to put an end to ISIS.

Matthew had to erase Trump’s name, and was taken aback by the experience. He also said his classmates called him an idiot for supporting Trump.

“And she made me erase it. I’m thinking like, ‘Wait, why is…? I thought I had freedom of speech.  I mean, an anchor baby gets citizenship. Why don’t I?’ I kind of got mad after that. And people are targeting me, they’re saying, ‘Donald Trump’s sucks and you do too,’ and I really don’t know what to do,” he recountedATTA BOY

Stating that he didn’t want to disobey his teacher, Matthew told Limbaugh, “Well, she forced me to erase it because I didn’t want to disobey the teacher. But, I mean, I don’t exactly like backing down that much and I was kind of disturbed by that.”

Limbaugh encouraged Matthew to stay strong: “Well, it’s an honor to have you in the audience, and there’s no question about that. You’re very, very mature. Your parents gotta be so proud of you. You just continue to stay — I can’t believe I’m saying this to an 11-year-old — you just stay dedicated to what you truly believe, understanding that all kinds of people are gonna insult you or tell you you’re wrong.”

Different Free Speech Ideologies Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Amherst Activists Demand Re-Education For Students Who Celebrated Free Speech


waving flagReported by Blake Neff, Reporter; 11/13/2015

Burning_Constitution

Burning_Constitution

A group of protesters at Amherst College in Massachusetts has released a set of demands that include punishing students who produced a poster celebrating free speech by subjecting them to re-education for the sake of “racial and cultural competency.”Delusional Mental Illness Gibberish

In response to ongoing protests at the University of Missouri, which saw an attack on journalists Monday trying to cover the event, some students at Amherst this week put up small posters on campus. The posters read “In memoriam of the true victim of the Missouri protests: Free Speech (1776-2015),” and included a short “eulogy” which reads as follows:

Who is constrained by the invisible barriers of our generation’s safe spaces.

Censored for the open forum of non-conflicting opinions.

Trod upon to build a community of comfort.

And violently persecuted for a safer, less vitriolic world.

Let us honor the life of the first amendment, and the heroes that it protected:

Journalists, Educators, Philosophers, and Free Thinkers everywhere.free speech

The poster never mentions race, and ends with a short quip “If you want to protest this sign, feel free. Because that’s why the First Amendment exists.”Different Free Speech Ideologies

But Amherst activists want to do far more than proest. They want the people responsible for the poster punished, along with those responsible for producing signs which said “All Lives Matter.” A coalition of more than 50 campus groups held a “sit-in” Thursday night, which led to them producing a lengthy list of demands that includes punishing anybody who made the signs:

“President [Biddy] Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted the ‘All Lives Matter’ posters, and the ‘Free Speech’ posters,” the list of demands says. “Also let the student body know that it was racially insensitive to the students of color on our college campus and beyond who are victim to racial harassment and death threats; alert them that Student Affairs may require them to go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed, and that they will be required to attend extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”foolishness

Let that sink in: A poster celebrating the First Amendment was “racially insensitive” and requires “extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”

Students demand a great deal more as well. They request that Amherst’s honor code be updated to include “reflect a zero-tolerance policy for racial insensitivity and hate speech,” meaning students could be punished and perhaps expelled for racial insensitivity, which apparently includes defending free speech. They also demand that the school suppress its unofficial sports mascot Lord Jeff, whom they say has an “inherent racist nature.”What did you say 07.jpg

The demands are endorsed by students from more than 50 Amherst student groups, including the Black Students Union, Amherst United Left, and Amherst Christian Fellowship.More Liberal Gibberish

Amherst has been given until Nov. 18 to respond to the student protesters. If the school considers any punishment of faculty, staff, or administrators who support them, they warn it will “result in an escalation of our response.”

mob rule tyranny
Alibi Alinsky affect In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

shall notVigilance-2

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

  • First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
  • Second: “Shall not be infringed”
  • Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
  • Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
  • Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
  • Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
  • Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
  • Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
  • Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.tie it down

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.Tree of Liberty 03

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”christianity

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,  pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

two ways to enslave a nation theBible moral people John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1 John-Adams-Poster-Principles-of-Freedom JohnAdamsFaithQuote4 freedom democracy freedom combo 2

Bill of Rights’ Most Important Liberty: Religion


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, listed non-negotiable constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in specific order, unchanged since 1791. James Madison, its chief architect, listed freedom of religion first; then speech, press, assembly, petition, right to keep and bear arms, and freedom from forced quartering of military members in one’s home.

Freedom from civil government overreach and interference was essential to establishing sustainable civil order and a just rule of law; the first ten amendments — only 468 words — were added to protect what the founders considered “preexisting rights” from federal government “encroachment.”

Freedom of religion was un-mistakenly listed as the first freedom of the Bill of Rights. And the term “religion” was well understood from its original context derived from the State of Virginia’s Bill of Rights. In Article 1, Section 16, Virginia’s Bill of Rights defines “religion” as “the duty which we owe to our Creator… the manner of discharging… [of which] can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”

(Many significant words and phrases used to write the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution were selected from preexisting documents and individual state constitutions’ declaration of rights, which provided more detailed definitions.)

Virginia’s Bill of Rights legally defined “religion” as a means to secure freedom from government coercion, which enabled a foundational protection for other freedoms. The Bill of Rights, by defining religion, allows people to believe and act by “reason or conviction” without fear of being coerced to violate their “dictates of conscience.” In this way, religion is jurisdictional– the Bill of Rights ensures that the government cannot force a citizen to violate his/her conscience.AAA02

James Madison articulated in Memorial and Remonstrance:

“The Religion … of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as they may indicate. This right in its nature is an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men … cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. … This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”GOD

Madison believed that citizens were first “subject[s] of the Great Governor of the Universe,” who must first make his/her “allegiance to the Universal Sovereign” before they could consider being a “member of Civil Society.”ONE NATION

He considered religion first and foremost “immune” from any and all civil authorities. The wording used for the First Amendment’s two religion clauses were specifically straightforward: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” All matters of religion were exempted from civil authority.

Madison asserted:

“In matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.”

want_rel_liberty_rAs a legal and jurisdictional matter, Madison asserted that all men are first subject to God as an immutable fact based on the Christian worldview (Mark 12:17, Psalm 24:1). It was imperative to specify that no government could ever have authority over one’s relationship with God. Understanding that even governmental authority itself originates from God (Romans 13:1) — moral standards could not be mutually exclusive from rule of law.

Furthermore, freedom of conscience, under the jurisdiction of freedom of religion, established the next four freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. They include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These four freedoms granted constitutional security for “residual sovereignty” of the people, not the government. The Bill of Rights ensured freedom of religion as the foundation for all other liberties. No other amendments were possible if freedom of religion had not first been guaranteed as an unalienable right.One Nation Under God

Bethany Blankley; http://BethanyBlankley.com

Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America. She worked on Capitol Hill for four U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman, for a former New York governor, and for several non-profits. She earned her masters degree in theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her bachelors degree in politics from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley & BethanyBlankley.com.049590d9aa5e45170821a5ba6f11ac12  SCOTUS Death lost forever liberty 

freedom combo 2

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”


waving flagWritten by  , Friday, 10 July 2015 

URL of the original posting site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21236-kansas-gov-brownback-issues-order-protecting-beliefs-of-clergy-about-same-sex-marriage

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued an executive order on July 7 that prohibits the state government from taking any action against any individual clergy, religious leader, or religious organization that “acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” The governor said his order protects “Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”

Brownback issued the executive order, entitled “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” in response to last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, mandating recognition of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. In the order, he cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Section Seven of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (which he signed in 2013), all of which protect the religious liberty of Kansans. He quoted from the latter, which provides that state government shall not “substantially burden a person’s civil right to exercise of religion.”

Building on that legal foundation, Brown noted that “the recent imposition of same sex marriage by the United States Supreme Court poses potential infringements on the civil right of religious liberty” and that “government actions and laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.”burke

Getting down to specifics, Brownback ordered:

The State Government shall not take any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader on the basis that such individual declines or will decline to perform, solemnize, or facilitate any marriage, based upon or consistent with the individual’s sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction

The four Catholic bishops in Kansas issued a joint statement urging state officials to make the enactment of new legal protections for those who are opposed in conscience to same-sex marriage a top priority in coming months. The bishops praised Brownback’s order and said in a statement: “Generations of Americans have taken freedom of conscience for granted. We, sadly, do not have that luxury anymore.”It HasNever Been About Marriage

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently issued a similar memo to all agency heads in his state, granting state employees who object on moral grounds to same-sex marriage some protection against the ruling. Abbott’s memo stated: “All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief.”Big Gay Hate Machine

While orders such as Brownback’s and Abbott’s mitigate some of the most harmful effects of the Supreme Court’s overreaching decision on same-sex “marriage” — about which Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State” — they fall far short of other remedies available to the states. One such remedy is nullification, a little-used technique in recent history, but a viable one nevertheless. As Joe Wolverton noted in a recent article for The New American on the prospect of states using nullification to resist the application of Obergefell v. Hodges within their borders:Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Nullification, whether through active acts passed by the legislatures or the simple refusal to obey unconstitutional directives, is the “rightful remedy” for the ill of federal usurpation of authority. Americans committed to the Constitution must walk the fences separating the federal and state governments and they must keep the former from crossing into the territory of the latter.

Wolverton cited no less an authority on the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson to support the legitimacy of nullification, quoting from the Founding Father’s statement in the Kentucky Resolutions:

That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Though nullification is a valid, constitutional option, no state has thus far made an attempt to apply the principal to Obergefell v. Hodges. Granted, it has been only a few weeks since the decision was made, and such matters take time. However, that is all the more reason why serious discussions to consider that possibility should now be taking place.SCOTUS GIANT

One of the strongest statements suggesting nullification came from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said on Newsmax TV’s The Steve Malzberg Show shortly before the High Court handed down its decision that the states should ignore any Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. “A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but an opinion if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it,” said DeLay. “Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy a ruling by the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear.”

What DeLay described regarding telling the federal courts which cases they can hear is governed not by the 10th Amendment, which protects the sovereignty of the states, but by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to make exceptions to and regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) attempted to utilize this power when he introduced his We the People Act in 2004 and 2009. The bill, if it had passed, would have removed jurisdiction of federal courts from cases involving the establishment of religion, sexual orientation, abortion, and marriage.

Invoking such power made more practical sense when DeLay mentioned it prior to Obergefell v. Hodges being decided. Since the court has now ruled, it would be difficult to rescind its jurisdiction to decide on marriage cases retroactively. However it is not too late to use the other tool that DeLay recommended, the 10th Amendment, to which Justice Alito alluded when he said, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”

If the decision should be decided by the states, then the states must declare that the power usurped by the Supreme Court in rendering that decision is null. Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Related articles:

Political Leaders Voice Discontent With Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

Catholic Leaders Vow to Stand Against Contraception Mandate, Same-sex Marriage

Texas AG: “Reach of Court’s Opinion Stops at the Door of the First Amendment”

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Rome: Hundreds of Thousands Protest Against Same-sex Unions

Marriage Can’t Be Redefined

Sen. Lee and Rep. Labrador Propose Protection for Religious Liberty

Southern Baptist Leader: Prepare for Civil Disobedience Over Gay Marriage Ruling

As Gov. of Texas, Would Abbott Continue to Stand for States’ Rights?

freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagArticle One

Franklin Graham decries Christian bakers’ beat-down


waving flagPosted By Cheryl Chumley On 07/06/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL of the original posting site: http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/franklin-graham-decries-christian-bakers-beat-down

aaron_melissa_klein

Samaritan’s Purse president Franklin Graham, who also heads up the world-wide Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, called the recent ruling against a husband-wife Christian cake-baking team an utter travesty for the First Amendment, and said the plaintiffs in the case – two lesbians – ought to be the ones paying the government-issued fine.

Graham was reacting on his Facebook page to the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries ruling against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” who, in 2013, declined to make a cake for a lesbian wedding. The lesbians turned to the government for redress, and last week, after two years of fighting, the Kleins were ordered to pay $135,000 to the lesbians, in part to account for their stated pain and suffering, as WND previously reported.

Graham found the ruling ludicrous.

He wrote: “This is unbelievable! … Brad Avakian, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor & Industries Commissioner, upheld [the previous] ruling that the Kleins have to pay the lesbian couple $135,000 for a long list of alleged damages including:

  • ‘acute loss of confidence,’

  • ‘high blood pressure,’

  • ‘impaired digestion,’

  • ‘loss of appetite,’

  • ‘migraine headaches,’

  • ‘pale and sick at home after work,’

  • ‘resumption of smoking habit,’

  • ‘weight gain,’ and

  • ‘worry.’

Give me a break. In my opinion, this couple should pay the Kleins $135,000 for all they’ve been through!”cp 11

Graham also pointed to another facet of the ruling as potentially dangerous to the future of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause.

On that, he said: “Even more outrageous is that Avakian has also now ordered the Kleins to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. This is an outright attack on their ‪#‎freedomofspeech‬. A senior attorney with the The Heritage Foundation was absolutely right when he said, ‘It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America.’”Leftist Giant called Tyranny

He called for believers to pray for the Kleins, who are planning an appeal, as well as for other Christians who are currently fighting to maintain their religious freedom rights in the supposed “land of the free” known as America, he said.


It HasNever Been About Marriage burke freedom combo 2

What founders want to teach Obama this July 4


waving flagPosted By author-image Chuck Norris On 06/28/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/what-founders-want-to-teach-obama-this-july-4

I commend President Obama for giving the eulogy at the funeral of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was gunned down along with eight other precious souls during a Bible study at their Charleston Church. Obama said some honorable and moving words about the fallen. He also spoke at length about amazing grace – and even sang about it.

But then he stirred what I call the nebulous and confusing religious pot by stating: “If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we contacted that grace – can tap that grace, everything can change.”

“If we can find”? “If we contacted … can tap”? “If”?

The president is right that “anything is possible” and “everything can change” with God’s amazing grace. But he ought not to have spoken with such ambiguity, doubt and conditionality as “if” finding grace were wishing upon a star or discovering a needle in a haystack.

America’s founders – as well as most presidents throughout history – were unequivocally certain about the role of faith in our republic. They were without hesitation or doubt when they spoke about the bedrock of religion in society and human hearts. Our founders knew without it, they were sunk as well as our nation.

On the eve of another Independence Day, I think it’s critical that we reconsider exactly how our founders expected religion to breathe life into our nation and play out in society. If we don’t, we run the risk of crippling our country and shredding it at its seams. Indeed, we’ve already traveled too far down the road of religious degradation by omitting God from classrooms to historic monuments. We have also bastardized our founders’ first tenet of religion (First Amendment) and totally abandoned their understanding and call for its primary purpose in our republic. Let me explain.

Our founders’ first tenet of religion is captured in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, religious liberty will reign in our new nation. Congress shall protect individuals from forced sectarianism unlike it was done in England, and choice and freedom are to be protected and secured from the tyranny of government.burke

Well, that isn’t our First Amendment today, or at least how most secular progressives interpret it. They explain and use it solely as a buffer from keeping religious opinion or discussion – in any way, shape or form – out of every governmental or public arena. But that is the polar opposite of the First Amendment’s very purpose, which was to protect and preserve religious practice and liberty in any place, including in the halls of government.

As I wrote in my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” though Jefferson is generally hailed as the chief of church-state separation, proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from these facts: He endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salaries of the church’s priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the “wall of separation between Church & State,” he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation’s government was used for sacred purposes. The Library of Congress’ website notes, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.”

President John Adams spoke about how central God was to be in our republic, when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And to what religion was Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.”

Our Founders believed religion (specifically Christianity) would serve as the basis for morality and decency. They warned us specifically that, to abandon that foundation for our ethics, would leave society in civil unrest—just as we see today in run amuck classrooms and homes across the nation and people treating one another with such malevolence.

George Washington also warned future Americans of this very problem in his presidential farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Well, the present leaders of our nation (including the Supreme Court) have turned a deaf ear to Washington’s warning and taken him up on his challenge to try to maintain “morality … without religion.”tyrants

America is now like it was in the time of the Judges in the Old Testament: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). That’s how it is today – with God being abandoned, so is our moral basis, and everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. We’ve lost our moral compass, and that includes our president.

As a result, the president is as lost as the most wayward and rebellious youth. Instead of conveying any form of positive Washington conviction about the role of religion, President Obama casts conditional clauses (“If”) and doubt. He might have sounded like a preacher this past week in Charleston, but the truth is he is a charlatan chameleon when it comes to religion and specifically Christianity. Indeed he’s been known to mock it as he did in 2006 when he gave the following secular progressive diatribe against it.

As my friend and editor of WND, Joseph Farah, noted in 2012, Obama’s speech was given before an audience led by socialist Jim Wallis at the Call for Renewal conference. It starts getting interesting around the 26-minute mark, when Obama first made the point publicly that “whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Obama went on, “Even if we had only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama asks rhetorically. “Would it be James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK – and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”muslim-obama

Regarding Obama’s words, I conclude not with my comments but those of John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the College of New Jersey (1768-94; now Princeton University), who said, “He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”You cannot be right for America if you're wrong with God

(Next week, I’ll expand on my thoughts here in my Independence Day weekend column, “In God we still must trust.” In the meantime, I highly encourage your reading of my New York Times bestseller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” where you will find loads more about what our founders actually thought, practiced, and wanted for our country)

Newspaper faces firestorm after attempted crack-down on anti-gay marriage op-eds


waving flagPublished June 27, 2015, FoxNews.com

A Pennsylvania newspaper is facing a firestorm of criticism after the editorial board said it would “very strictly limit” op-eds and letters against same-sex marriage on the heels of Friday’s historic Supreme Court ruling. PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg has issued a string of statements on its opinion page policies since the ruling — which legalized gay marriage nationwide — and by Saturday morning, appeared to have softened its op-ed restrictions on the subject.  But the newspaper initially took a hard-line stance. Editorial Page Editor John Micek tweeted shortly after the ruling that the newspaper would “no longer accept” or print op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.

He then tweeted:

tw03

The editorial board then began to dial back, in the face of apparent criticism from readers.

A newspaper editorial published online was updated Friday afternoon to clarify the board’s op-ed policy. In the editorial, which cheered the decision and said majority opinion author Justice Anthony Kennedy “nailed it,” the board issued the following statement:

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. 

“These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. 

“We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court’s decision and its legal merits.” 

Micek also tweeted:

tw04

Picture4This apparently did not satisfy readers, who posted a cascade of critical comments online. One read: “Clearly, PennLive’s policy is not to limit criticism of settled law, but rather to limit criticism of settled law that its editors like.” 

Saying he had been inundated with critical emails and phone calls, Micek then apologized in a column on Saturday morning — saying they had made a “very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion” but recognize that “there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday’s high court ruling.” you think

He wrote: “They are, and always will be, welcome in these pages, along with all others of goodwill, who seek to have an intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of the day. These pages, I remind myself finally, belong to the people of Central Pennsylvania. I’m a conduit, I recognize, for them to share their views and to have the arguments that make us better as a people. And all views are — and always will be — welcome.” Different Free Speech Ideologies

Micek stressed that nobody at the newspaper is an opponent of the First Amendment. But he stressed that a civil debate is important, and the opinion page would draw the line when it comes to offensive speech. “More than once yesterday I was referred to as ‘f****t-lover,’ among other slurs,” he wrote. “And that’s the point that I was trying to make with our statement: We will not publish such slurs any more than we would publish racist, sexist or anti-Semitic speech. There are ways to intelligently discuss an issue. The use of playground insults is not among them. And they are not welcome at PennLive/The Patriot-News.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

WATCH MEYGN KELLY’S BROADCAST BELOW:

foxvid

Big Gay Hate Machine freedom combo 2

 

Teacher Tells Girl Bible Quotes Banned From School


Posted on May 22, 2015Tad Cronn

 Different Free Speech Ideologies

Freedom of expression. It’s not a difficult concept. Basically, every human being has the right to speak his mind without fear of government punishment or penalty. Accepted, reasonable restrictions on speech are generally very loose, like no yelling “fire” in a crowded auditorium and no speech that is genuinely disruptive like standing up and reciting the Communist Manifesto while the teacher is trying to conduct class.

Yet somehow, school officials across this land often seem to forget that the right to freedom of speech, particularly religious speech, does not end at the classroom door. The latest example comes from Somerset Academy near Las Vegas, Nevada, where sixth-grader Mackenzie Fraiser was given an “All About Me” report assignment that was supposed to include an inspirational quote. When Mackenzie wanted to use John 3:16, however, her teacher said that biblical quotations and quotes from the Book of Mormon were forbidden by the school.

The incident might not have even come to light except that some months later, the same teacher made an assignment about self-esteem, and Mackenzie’s parents suggested using a Bible quote, reasoning that the reason Mackenzie has strong self-esteem is that she is made in God’s image. At that point, the sixth-grader spilled the beans about her teacher’s prohibition of things scriptural.

Mackenzie’s father, Tim Fraizer, the pastor of Grace Point Church, fired off an email to his girl’s teacher, certain that there must have been a miscommunication. The reply he received, however, was an email from an assistant principal, Jenyan Martinez, confirming that Mackenzie recalled the incident correctly and that the teacher was, in fact, enforcing school policy. In her response, Martinez suggested that the reason for banning the biblical quote from the original assignment was because, as an oral report, the assignment would give Mackenzie a, quote-unquote, captive audience for her religious beliefs.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Liberty Institute attorney Jeremy Dys told The Blaze, “When students go to school they do not lose their First Amendment rights. It chilled her speech and, as such, what the school is teaching these kids right now is that it is wrong to reference their faith at school. If they don’t apologize for this mistake … then the lesson that these students will take away is that it is wrong to reference their faith in school.”first-amendment-flag

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the academy said in a statement that it values students’ rights and the incident was under review.

The Mackenzies are asking for the school to apologize and allow their daughter to submit her original assignment with the quote for a grade, which seems very reasonable. Had the situation been inverted, and an atheist student found herself banned by a Christian academy from using, say, a Richard Dawkins quote, the fireworks would be seen far and wide.Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

So why is it considered acceptable by so many government officials to impose on Christians’ rights while asserting a position of de facto atheism? The right to freedom of speech should preclude any policy of selective “diversity.”cause of death freedom combo 2

NAACP Loses Battle to Silence Black Pro-Lifer Who Bashed Its Pro-Abortion Stance


waving flagReported by Steven Ertelt, May 19, 2015, Washington, DC

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/19/naacp-loses-battle-to-silence-black-pro-lifer-who-bashed-its-pro-abortion-stance/

The NAACP has lost its legal battle to silence a black pro-life writer who parodied its pro-abortion stance by referring to the NAACP as the “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.”Which kills more blacksAfter LifeNews.com blogger Ryan Bomberger published his article at LifeNews, the NAACP threatened to sue LifeNews.com and Bomberger over the column that took the civil rights organization to task over its abortion position. The NAACP is upset about a column Bomberger wrote at LifeNews titled, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” and a legal battle between it and Bomberger ensued.

Last year, a judge issued a ruling in the NAACP lawsuit against Bomberger. The judge indicated that Bomberger had no First Amendment right to lampoon the NAACP by calling it the “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” in an effort to mock its pro-abortion position and opposition to pro-life legislation.

Today, the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned that decision and ruled in favor of full free speech rights for its timeBomberger, his group the Radiance Foundation, and LifeNews.com. Judge Harvey Wilkinson wrote the opinion on behalf of the three-judge panel that unanimously ruled against the NAACP.

The ruling upheld Bomberger’s and LifeNews’ “expressive right to comment on social issues under the First Amendment.”

“We vacate the injunction against Radiance entered by the district court and remand with instructions that defendant’s counterclaims likewise be dismissed,” the court ruled, adding that it rejected the NAACP’s attempt to “obstruct the conveyance of ideas, criticism, comparison, and social commentary. Political discourse is the grist of the mill in the marketplace of ideas.”

As far as calling the NAACP the “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” – the appeals court even went as far as saying Bomber’s piece at LifeNews wasn an inventive and effective parody. “Biting, surely; distortive, certainly; Radiance’s ploy was nonetheless effective at conveying sharply what it was that Radiance wished to say,” it said. “The use of the satirical modification of the true NAACP name was designed, as many titles are, to be eye-catching and provocative in a manner that induces the reader to continue on.”

Before the decision, Bomberger said he was surprised the venerable civil rights group would sue him, a black pro-life person. “This lawsuit should be shocking to any American who values truth and the First Amendment,” explains Bomberger. “The irony is painful. The NAACP is suing me—a black man—for exercising my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech.”

Rush Limbaugh has parodied the NAACP’s name since Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation,” Bomberger points out. “But the NAACP hasn’t sued a wealthy broadcaster, with an audience of millions, for parodying them every time he refers to them. I’m honored they feel threatened by a small, life-affirming organization’s illuminating words.”

The ACLU has officially sided with The Radiance Foundation stating: “…the right to parody prominent organizations like the NAACP is an essential element of the freedom of speech.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which joined the ACLU in the Amicus Brief, expressed deep concerns “because a decision holding [The Radiance Foundation] liable for trademark infringement threatens a huge range of expression…Judge Jackson’s decision misreads both trademark law and the First Amendment.”

Bomberger says the real problem is not his free speech but the NAACP’s abortion advocacy. “Abortion doesn’t advance people of color,” he said. “The NAACP is on the wrong side of this human rights issue, and they are wrong to try to silence our free speech, too.”Gruber-Abortion

Following the piece, the NAACP sent Bomberger, the director of the Radiance Foundation, and LifeNews a threatening letter claiming infringement on its name and logo for including it in the opinion column. The letter accuses Bomberger and his group, the Radiance Foundation, of “trademark infringement” over an ad campaign that exposes the NAACP’s pro-abortion position. Stating that while “you are certainly entitled to express your viewpoint, you cannot do so in connection with a name that infringes on the NAACP’s rights,” the letter demands a response within a self-imposed time period.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

In response to the letter, Bomberger asked a federal court to declare that the First Amendment protects his and the Radiance Foundation’s exercise of free speech and that his speech does not infringe on any of the NAACP’s trademarks or other rights. The lawsuit does not seek any damages.

In its countersuit, the NAACP’s counterclaim denies that the NAACP is pro-­-abortion or has even taken a position on the issue.

Despite the fact the LifeNews article in question simply parodied the NAACP’s name, criticized the organization’s documented pro-abortion actions, and used the NAACP’s unaltered logo to identify the civil rights group the judge refused to dismiss the case as a First Amendment issue. Although the NAACP took offense at the article, Bomberger has frequently spoken out about the NAACP’s pro-abortion stance and its ignoring how abortion disproportionately targets black unborn children. The NAACP recently came under fire for opposing a bill to ban abortions based on race.

“The damage done is the loss of over 15 million black lives to abortion,” Bomberger, an adoptee and adoptive father., told LifeNews previously before the ruling. “How can the NAACP possibly claim neutrality over the abortion issue if they’re financially profiting from annual sponsorship from the nation’s largest abortion chain?”mommy can you feel me

Despite the NAACP suit, Bomberger says the Radiance Foundation’s www.TooManyAborted.com abortion awareness campaign will continue to expose failed leadership in the black community on the issue of abortion. Abortion alone has taken the lives of over 16 million black children. For every 100 live births in the African American community, another 77 are aborted. African-American teenage abortion rates are more than twice as high as the national average, according to a new study. The African-American abortion rate, according to the study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, is 41 per 1,000 women among the 15-19 year old age group. The national average abortion rate is 18 per 1,000 women among 15-19-year-olds.National death rate percentages

Alliance Defending Freedom allied attorney Charles M. Allen with the Glen Allen, Va. firm Goodman, Allen & Filetti PLLC is defending Bomberger and Radiance in U.S. District Court in The Radiance Foundation v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division.

OARLogo Picture6

Gay Mafia Targets Christian Pastors, Ignores Muslim Imams Calling For Their Death


waving flagReported by Bethany Blankley April 22, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/gay-mafia-targets-christian-pastors-ignore-muslim-imams-calling-for-their-death/

Image credit:  Erika Cross / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: Erika Cross / Shutterstock.com

Gay MAfiaIn 2015 America, a remnant of faithful Christian pastors, not imams, are being targeted by gay activists. No Christian pastor I know has ever proclaimed or financially supported the beheading of anyone, let alone gays. The “Gay Mafia,” as Bill Maher calls them, are like fools flouting their own folly. They impose standards (that they don’t follow) solely on Christians through discriminatory legal measuresbut completely ignore imams who advocate their death.

Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption… No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.

There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases … It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life.

Muslims who follow the Qur’an understand its words as literal, from Allah. The Qur’an states that those who act on same-sex attraction and behavior make a “god (ilah) of there own lusts,” reject Allah’s will, and practice “wickedness” (Qur’an 26.165-166; 27.055; 29.028-29). There is no such thing as a gay Muslim. Nor is there any public acceptance for the gay lifestyle in any Muslim majority country—or in any Muslim neighborhood or no-go zone in a Muslim minority country. According to Shar’ia law, the sodomizer and the sodomized both deserve death. Likewise, the rules and punishment for zina (adultery) are applied to lesbians—death for married, lashes for unmarried.beheadding collection

It is common knowledge throughout the Muslim world that no one can be gay and follow Allah. It is also widely acknowledged that the “people of the book,” Jews and Christians—whose laws actually seek to safeguard human rights—must be killed. Yet, no gays are protesting, subpoenaing, or asserting the arrest, for example, of Imam Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi of Memphis, Tenn., who publicly asserts: “Jews and Christians are filthy; their lives and property can be taken in jihad by the Muslims.”against America

Anyone who believes they are immune from the outworking of Islamic ideology does not understand it. Qadhi asserts, according to the Qur’an, that everyone–not only in America, but worldwide– “must bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah”; and because of this “principle of monotheism … the prophet has been commanded to do jihad.”

Likewise, Brooklyn, N.Y., Imam Tareq Yousef Al-Masri recently declared at the Oulel-Albab mosque: “We, the Muslims … the Muslims of the religious sector are time bombs.”

These imams are not alone.

According to the Mapping Sharia Project, 51 percent of mosques in America had “texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari’a-based political order or advocated violent jihad; another 30 percent had texts that were moderately supportive of violence.” Distribution of anti-Western literature, videos, and textbooks is documented, as are the Islamic centers that operate as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Imam advocacy for the extermination of non-Muslims has existed in America for decades; yet these imams have not been deported, let alone investigated by the IRS or any other government organization for their alleged constitutional violations.muslim-obama Islamapologist Obama Muslim collection

In 1999, Naqshbandi Sufi Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified in front of the State Department that eighty percent of mosques in America had “extremist leaders.” In 2006, Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom exposed widespread dissemination of hate ideology in literature and sermons by mosques nationwide. And in 2007, during the Holy Land Foundation trial, perhaps one of the most important documents discovered—the Muslim Brotherhood’s manifesto—revealed its “General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” to destroy it from within.

Gays’ civil rights, human rights, or even lives for that matter are irrelevant to imams. If gays want to live, they should consider redirecting their vitriol toward imams who preach their death, and toward a silent—yet active—political and legal system perpetuating and enabling treasonous hate speech to their detriment.OARLogo Picture6

Understanding religious liberty and free speech compliant with sharia law


– – Monday, April 20, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/bethany-blankley-understanding-religious-liberty-a/ 

Libyan followers of Ansar al-Shariah Brigades and other Islamic militias hold a demonstration against a film and a cartoon denigrating the Prophet Muhammad in Benghazi. (Associated Press)
Libyan followers of Ansar al-Shariah Brigades and other Islamic militias hold a demonstration against a film and a cartoon denigrating the Prophet Muhammad in Benghazi. (Associated Press)

The diurnal interminable squabbling about First Amendment rights intentionally and ironically ignores the concerted effort to ensure its compliance to Shari’a law. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” Islamic organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood such as the Islamic Circle of North America, the Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have devoted millions of dollars and resources to a well coordinated campaign to ensure American laws, including judicial proceedings and state constitutions, be Shar’ia compliant. Shari’a (“legislation”) is rooted in the Qur’an, the foundation of Islamic law; non-compliance is punishable by death (3:85; 4:65). Christian Persecution

Such efforts are curious however, in light of Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) assertions. Islamic scholars, who draft opinions on issues concerning American Muslims, advocate no conflict exists “between Islamic teachings and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.”culture of deceit and lies

FCNA asserts, “it is false and misleading to suggest that there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims Imperial Islamic President Obamacommitted to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens. Islamic teachings require respect of the laws of the land where Muslims live as minorities, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God. The primacy of obedience to God is a commonly held position of many practicing Jews and Christians as well.”

But, if Shari’a doesn’t contradict American law, why vigilantly advertise, lobby, award “educational grants,” and fund political campaigns, to implement Shari’a compliant American law? 

The answer is quite simple. Groups like FCNA may use terminology like “religious freedom” but their definitions of religion and freedom can only be rightly understood within the context of Islamic ideology—not from western law or culture. 

FCNA’s assertion is obviously false when understood from within the context of taqqiya, Qur’an sanctioned deceit, and the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (2:106; 3:185; 16:101).  Shari’a law is in fact what the European Court on Human Rights ruled more than once: “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” Shari’a actually rejects Constitutional rights, legislating restrictions and punishments against them.

Consider how First Amendment rights fare under Shari’a law.

  • Under Shari’a, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam. Muhammad ordered, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). Likewise, Muslims are instructed to murder, crucify, and dismember those who reject Islam, “wage war against Allah and his apostle and strive to make mischief in the land” (2:191, 5:32,33; 9:5, 123, 29).beheadding collection
  • According to a 2012 Pew Research Report, 60 percent of Middle Eastern and North African countries criminalize apostasy, the act of abandoning one’s faith. Apostasy laws also exist in Asian-Pacific and sub-Saharan African countries. Examples abound in America, however, just consider Ground Zero’s Imam Abdallah Adhami’s assertion that Muslims who leave Islam should be imprisoned. (He also stated on his organization’s website that “being gay is a ‘painful trial’ caused by past trauma.”)
  • Likewise, blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad. Seventy percent of Middle Eastern and North African countries, 31 percent of countries in the Americas, and 16 percent of European countries criminalize blasphemy. Those who correctly claim the word “blasphemy” cannot be found in the Qur’an exclude the fact that blasphemous acts are easily identifiable. Any “offensive” speech is illegal, which is why Dutch filmmaker van Gogh was brutally stabbed to death and French Charlie Hedbo satirists were gunned down; all victims were unarmed. These violent acts were not random, extreme, or isolated, but examples of following the Qur’an’s instructions.
  • Discrimination against all non-Muslims exists under Shari’a — because the underlying concept of equality does not. In fact, inequality, slavery, and murderare enforced through theIslamic construct ofdhimmitude.
    • Under dhimmitude, non-Muslims are divided into two groups. The polytheists, “pagans, idolaters and heathens” are given a choice to convert to Islam or die. Jews and Christians, known as “people of the book,” dhimmi, and/or kuffar, are legally classified as third class citizens. They first must be humiliated and subjugated to pay a tax (Jizyah) in increasing amounts to Muslim-majority rulers. Next, they are given time to convert or leave their town, region, and eventually, country. If the Kuffar can’t or don’t pay the Jizyah, convert to Islam, or move, Muhammad states that peace is impossible and the kuffar must be caught and beheaded (9:29; 22:19; 47:4).
    • Under dhimmitude no non-Muslim can freely practice his/her religious beliefs publicly. Shari’a forbids all public displays of crosses, mangers, Christmas trees, stars of David, Menorahs, ringing of church bells, singing of Christmas carols, or any other act considered “offensive” to Muslims. Shari’a also prohibits peaceful assembly. Non-Muslims cannot repair, rebuild, or build new places to worship, nor can they bury their dead near Muslim graves.
  • Shari’a law first imposes unequal legal status for non-Muslims; then eliminates them. The near extinction of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries evidences the stark reality that no First Amendment rights exist under Shari’a. Instead, Muslims are instructed to “terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” and punish non-Muslims with “garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies” (8:12; 22:19). The Qur’an incontrovertibly clarifies that conflict not only exists “between Islamic teachings and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,” but also exists infinitivally.muslim-obama

OARLogo Picture6

White House: Obama to restrict media’s reporting of anti-jihad articles


By Michael DorstewitzMichael Dorstewitz on January 14, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/01/14/white-house-obama-restrict-medias-reporting-anti-jihad-articles/#1AwESo67hIi7ZlSj.99

Josh-Earnest-620x429

Source: Legal Insurrection

At Monday’s White House press briefing, chief spokesman Josh Earnest indicated that in light of the terrorist raid of Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices by jihadists, President Barack Obama would be taking a serious swipe at the First Amendment freedom of the press as it pertains to future anti-Jihadist articles.

The Daily Caller reported:

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.Imperial President Obama kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204

Back in Sept. 2012, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney criticized Charlie Hebdo for its publication of cartoon images lampooning Mohammad. He said, according to White House Dossier:

Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.cropped-freedom-is-not-dictator-friendly.pngObama Muslim collection

It’s obvious that the White House, as of Monday, hasn’t backed off from this position.

The First Amendment, as it pertains to the press’ reporting and analyzing of events, provides, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press….”

But over and above those rights that are guaranteed and protected under the Constitution, something else is at play here — something advanced by Ross Douthat in his Jan. 7 New York Times commentary:

“If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more….”

Stated differently, when journalists back off of a story or sanitize its reporting and commentary of events out of fear of terrorist attacks, the terrorists have already won.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Michael DorstewitzMichael Dorstewitz is a recovering Michigan trial lawyer and former research vessel deck officer. He has written extensively for BizPac Review.

More by Michael Dorstewitz

 

 

 

Freedom with Prayer

Examples Of The Tolerant Left **Graphic**


090309_joe_plumber_297Regardless of what you may think, I care about the victims and their families. That is why I fight for the 2nd Amendment. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Such was the case with Elliot Rodger.

If you think for one second that guns are the problem then you are being misled and are now part of the problem. This was my objection to the father of one of the victim’s blaming gun owners for his son’s death.

There is absolute right and wrong, there is good and evil, unfortunately society tries to redefine right and wrong as it gets in their way.

What happened this past weekend was a tragedy, and the powers that be will USE this tragedy to try and control us a little more.  What about the American soldier that died defending our rights? Is there death any less tragic? Let me say this again – they died defending our rights. Why would we allow the politicians to make a mockery of their sacrifice to a take away our rights?

Think about it…

For you on the left, your tolerance is overwhelming.

What follows are just a very tiny portion of comments at my website, Tweets directed at my account, received emails and entries posted on my Facebook page. Although these are *Not Safe For Work* – I cannot print half of the ones I receive due to their extreme nature, in sexual content, profanity and outright violence.

I’m used to the revulsion and racist, vile, almost inhuman hatred which liberal’s spew forth on a daily basis – but I thought you might be interested in just a taste of what we’re really dealing with here. People who stand up in public and say conservatives are bad people? I’d like you to know they are not dealing straight with you. Ever.

** THOSE SENSITIVE TO GRAPHIC PROFANE, SEXUAL, OR VIOLENT SPEECH DO NOT CONTINUE**

Steven Weeks

May 27th, 5:01pm

Fuck you asshole . I hope your daughter gets raped by a dick so big it splits her in two the shot. As for your boy kill him slowly one shot at a time limb by limb Fuck you and your chicken ass rights only pussies need guns so that means you are a pussy. In fact I’ll pay to fly you to California so I can fuck you up. I bet you won’t even answer this if you do you will hide behind your guns. You see asshole I’m no pussy I don’t need a gun to fuck you up got it. Again I can only hope that one day I read about your kids being fucked up and beg to die but only slowly. Oh by the way motherfucker I am a plumber too. You don’t know how to use a set of irons . I would enjoy destroying your credibility concerning the plumbing trade what’s a figure 5 fitting, what’s a durum system probably have to look it up so you do look as stupid as you really are go fuck yourself and fuck your family . If your mom is still alive maybe she will get shot Dad, Grandparents, sisters, brothers, anyone of your low life family. Hey, there your rights; right motherfucker. you piece of shit . In retrospect may be you are a plumber because are a piece of shit. And I am also a vet what about you. Do you have your DD214 I sure do want to se it.

 

Steven Weeks

May 28th, 5:08pm

I hope you get heckled and heckled along with the kids, wifie yo mama, which by the way should have aborted your ass it old her to. She has some nasty pussy but an inbred like you probably already knows that

 

Jason Thomas

May 29th, 9:58am

May you drown in your own excrement.

 

Patti Mullin

May 28th, 7:59pm

Next time you are sucking out someone’s septic system why don’t you stick your head down the hose. Because you really are a piece of shit!!!!!!!!!!

 

Matt Simmons

May 28th, 5:29pm

You’re a repellent fuck. Just thought you should know! You should kill yourself!

 

Jerry Gregory

May 28th, 4:08pm

I hope someday you are on on the bad end of a mass shooting. If our paths ever cross I am going to stick my 45 up your penis whole and pull the trigger. You complete piece of horse crap.

 

Bria Fey

May 28th, 8:07am

You dumb piece of shit. How DARE you pretend to know what it’s like to lose a child? After your idiotic and ignorant comments about “your dead kids don’t blah blah blah my constitutional rights” (seriously, you don’t even deserve to be quoted, so I won’t), people are honestly questioning your sanity, you sanctimonious prick. You aren’t morally superior though – you are morally vacant. You are a liar and a fraud and a sad excuse for a human being. You spread hate and you are pro-violence and you are what is wrong with humanity. Fuck. You.

 

John Seitz

May 28th, 2:00am

I will pray every night that the day comes when you have to go to the morgue to identify your murdered child or grandchild. I would never harm another human being, except in self defense, but I will donate to the defense fund of anyone who makes you suffer.

 

Bill Jonke

May 27th, 9:45pm

May one of your own children, if your limp dick was capable of helping to conceive, receive the same fate as those “dead children” who don’t trump your rights, you BASTARD! And get your balls shot at too while you’re at it. You deserve it and without a 911 call.

Bill Jonke

May 28th, 12:28am

Fucking prick, if you can even find one without a microscope or apply a 2″ strap-on!

 

Steve Small

May 29th, 10:50am

I hope someone knocks you right the fuck out, you miserable asshole!

 

Misch JinxJoe the Plumber

22 hrs ·

I said it once and i’ll say it again .. i hope you have eyes in the back of your head cause by the time you hear the sound it will be to late

 

Joanne McIntyreJoe the Plumber

May 27 at 5:56pm ·

Joe hope somebody comes along and shoots your dumb ass.

 

Harry BallzackJoe the Plumber

May 27 at 5:07pm ·

Livestock humping, inbred southern trash

 

Bill JonkeJoe the Plumber

May 27 at 4:28pm ·

You, a poor excuse for a plumber, need to be shot in the balls and left to live!

 

So there you go – the tolerant left and their love for humanity. There are literally thousands more everyday… sad to think these people are even out there. Now do you think you should have the right to protect your family? I sure do.

Keep in mind that these are the same folks criticizing me for insensitive remarks! – JTP

VOTE 02

Be Very Careful How You Read the Following.


Church condemns planned satanic mass at Harvard

http://www.wcvb.com/news/church-condemns-planned-satanic-mass-at-harvard/25928594#ixzz31Wx1ElIu

Event part of series exploring different cultures, religious traditions

Published  6:41 AM EDT May 12, 2014

“Please read the entire article first, and then let’s discuss this at the end.” JB

Controversial Black Mass planned at Harvard

Transcript of television news report:

RIGHT NOW WITH THE THE PLAN. THIS SATANIC MASS IS NOT WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. TONIGHT THE ARCHDIOCESE WILL BE HOLDING A PROCESSION AS WELL AS AN HOUR OF PRAYER AS A COUNTERMEASURE. ORGANIZERS OF THE SATANIC MASS SAY IT’S NOT INTENDED TO BE A RESULT BUT FOR PEOPLE TO EXPLORE OTHER FORMS OF WORSHIP. THE BLACK MASS RE-ENACTMENT IS SPONSORED BY A CULTURAL STUDIES CLUB. IT INCLUDES SATANIC RITUALS AND MOCKS A TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC MASS. CATHOLICS ARE TAKING OFFENSE AS WHAT THEY SEE AS RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. IF SOMEONE WERE GOING TO DO A K.K. RE-ENACTMENT OR A MIN STREL SHOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT HARVARD, WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION OF THE HARVARD COMMUNITY? I WOULD HOPE THE REACTION WOULD BE OUTRAGE. IN A STATEMENT THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON CONDEMNS THE RE-ENACTMENT SAYING IT PLACES PARTICIPANTS DANGEROUSLY TO DESTRUCTIVE WORKS OF EVIL. THE ARCHDIOCESE WILL COUNTER THE BLACK MASS WITH AN HOUR OF PRAYER. THE CLUB IS DEFENDING THE MASS SAYING THE PERFORMANCE IS DESIGNED TO BE EDUCATIONAL. IT’S PRECEDED BY A LECTURE THAT PROVIDES THE HISTORY, CONTEXT AND/OR GIN OF THE BLACK MASS. SOME STUDENTS SAY THEY’RE OPEN TO IT. I THINK EDUCATION SHOULD BE ABOUT TRYING OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND TALK ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES AS LONG AS IT’S DONE IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER THERE’S TO PROBLEM. A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CLUB SAY THEY DO NOT INTEND TO INSULT THE CHURCH DURING THE MASS TONIGHT.

 

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. —The student organizers of a planned satanic mass at Harvard University say their intent is purely educational, but the Roman Catholic church says participants are putting themselves “dangerously close to destructive works of evil.”

The student club said in a statement that “the performance is part of a larger effort to explore the religious facets that continue to influence contemporary culture.”

“Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes, but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices,” the statement said.

The Harvard Extension School said it supports “the rights of our students and faculty to speak and assemble freely,” and noted that the group also plans Shinto, Shaker and Buddhist events.

The Boston Archdiocese, however, says the mass mocks the Catholic Mass.

“For the good of the Catholic faithful and all people, the church provides clear teaching concerning satanic worship,” the archdiocese said. “This activity separates people from God and the human community, it is contrary to charity and goodness, and it places participants dangerously close to destructive works of evil.”

The Rev. Michael Drea, senior chaplain at the Harvard Catholic Center, said the academic freedom argument is a smoke screen.

“The black mass is a contradiction to the Catholic faith and is rooted in hatred and bigotry,” he told the Boston Herald. “The university shouldn’t tolerate something like this under the guise of academic integrity.”

“My first reaction was outrage. Then I was given this thought by the Holy Spirit of God. Any attempt to silence, or censor their First Amendment Right of Free Speech will ADD to the persecution of the Evangelical Church by the extreme Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Democrats/Liberals. Silencing them gives the Left ammunition to silence us.’

“I’d rather fight to my own death their right to do this, so that my rights as a Evangelical, Pentecostal Christian can continue a little longer. It is okay to disagree, and even hate what someone else is saying, doing or believing, and still fight for their right to do so.’

“Silencing them silences us.’

“What do you think?” JB

FreeSpeech1-300x204VOTE 02

More News From the Growing Obama Administration Police State


Dad Arrested for Speaking Up About Pornographic Content in Required Reading for 9th Graders

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/dad-arrested-speaking-pornographic-content-required-reading-9th-graders/#r1ulJ5tfVOQfgUjt.99

Reported by

A reading assignment has some parents in New Hampshire confused and upset.

The controversial book “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult is required reading for some 9th grade students at Gilford High School. The book is a fictional story about a school shooting and has been part of the curriculum since 2007.

The book was assigned to students last Monday, but the school failed to give parents of freshmen students notice of the sexually explicit content in the novel. One page of the book contains a graphic description of rough sex between two teenagers.

Some parents are outraged, and attended a school board meeting to make their feelings known.

William Baer, whose 14-year old daughter is a student at the school, was one of the parents who spoke out at the meeting. He was promptly arrested for doing so: PLEASE SEE THE VIDEO FOR YOURSELF

dad 

EAGnews spoke with Baer about the incident, and he explained what made him so upset:

Baer tells EAGnews he became aware of the book’s objectionable material purely by chance. A family friend was visiting last Wednesday and talking to Baer’s 14-year-old daughter about how things were going in school. When she mentioned that she’d just been assigned the novel, the friend picked up the book and casually opened it to page 313 which contains a very graphic description of a sexual encounter between two adolescents. The friend was aghast as he read the passage, and asked Baer if he was aware of the book’s content.

“I was shocked when I read the passage, and not much shocks me anymore,” Baer says. “My wife was stunned by the increasingly graphic nature of the sexual content of the scene and the imagery it evoked.”

Here is an excerpt from the book. We considered omitting it from this article, but, if it is okay for 14 year olds to read…

Warning: Explicit content:

“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach.

” … She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer.

“‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and her pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs. … (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

During an interview with another news outlet, Baer asked them to print that passage:

Baer asked that The Daily Sun print the passage. Otherwise, he expected readers would dismiss his response as that of “an uptight, over-protective, over-reacting parent.”

Editor Ed Engler declined, saying he thought some of the description rendered were not suitable for publication in 99 percent of daily newspapers in America, “Maybe 100 percent”.

Baer noted that the (Manchester) Union-Leader, too, flatly refused to print it, asking “it’s not fit to print, but it’s okay for my daughter to read it and discuss it? My goal is to have everyone in the United States read what’s on page 313 of that book,” he declared, “except my daughter.” (source)

Baer, who is an attorney, told EAGnews that the school “has no business introducing such themes” to students, and questioned why it is acceptable for “the state, through its schools and agents,” to mandate reading and discussing this kind of material.

In a written response to EAGnews, Gilford school leaders admitted they didn’t warn parents of the book’s controversial nature like they have in previous years, and promised to send a letter to the home “of all students who are currently assigned the book.”

It’s a little late now, isn’t it?

Baer suggested that the notice include the passage on page 313:

“If the text were not included, do you know any parent ,or student, for that matter, who could reasonably expect such content to be in a 9th grade assigned book? I think if they put that text in the notice, the vast majority of parents and possibly students would opt out.”

Baer told EAGnews that this is just more evidence that public schools are indoctrinating our children:

Baer believes the politicians and educators running the public school system want to dismantle the family unit, and undermine traditional morality, “though they’re never going to admit this.”

“Many people in education and government truly believe our children are theirs. That parents are only the custodians who feed them and put a roof over their head. These school incidents are a byproduct of this ‘we know best’ philosophy. They believe they have the authority to do this. If people were more complacent, which is hard to imagine, it’d be even worse.”

He’s right. Earlier this year, Paul Reville, the former secretary of education for Massachusetts and a Common Core supporter, spoke at a panel in support of the curriculum:

He shared his thoughts on opponents of the curriculum, stating that critics were a “tiny minority” who opposed standards altogether, which was unfair because “the children belong to all of us.”

The incident at Gilford isn’t unique: reading assignments that contain pornographic material seem to be more and more of a “normal” occurrence, especially since the introduction of Common Core curriculum in schools.

In his article Sex and the Public Schools, Michael Snyder discusses ways schools are sexualizing our children at younger and younger ages. Some public schools are mandating sex education for kindergarteners. Earlier this year, a middle school in Kansas decided that adding anal sex, oral sex, and touching were appropriate topics to add to their health class curriculum.Really 01

If your child must attend public school, you may want to pay close attention to the assignments they being given.

VOTE 02

 

 

Supreme Court rules prayer before public meetings is constitutional


http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-rules-prayer-before-public-meetings-is-constitutional/

Supreme Court rules prayer before public meetings is constitutional

In a decision that is likely to guide how local governments throughout the United States handle the question, the court said on a 5-4 vote that officials in the town of Greece did not violate the law when picking prayer-givers, who were overwhelmingly Christian.

Even the plaintiffs challenging the practice in Greece, a Rochester, New York, suburb of 100,000 people, conceded that some types of nonsectarian prayers are permitted under the Constitution. The difficulty facing the justices was how to decide how courts should consider when a prayer could violate the First Amendment calling for separation of church and state.

The court was divided along ideological lines, with the conservative wing of the court saying the prayers were acceptable, while the liberal justices said the practice violated the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, wrote the majority opinion, saying that the town’s prayers are consistent with the high court’s 1983 precedent in a case called Marsh v. Chambers. That case allowed prayers before legislative sessions based in large part on the historical nature of the practice.

Although the policy in the town of Greece does not embrace a particular religion, in practice all members of the public who gave a prayer were Christians until some residents filed suit in 2008.

Kennedy wrote that public prayers need not be nonsectarian.

“To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech,” Kennedy wrote.

An awful lot of these epochal decisions boil down to a battle for the heart and soul of Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy (that really should be his official title) but his reasoning here seems sound enough.  The path of least government intrusion against religious freedom clearly lay with overturning the appeals court decision against the town of Greece, whose prayers before meetings clearly did not constitution the government’s establishment of an official religion.

As the Supreme Court’s decision notes, the prayers at these town hall meetings were “given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in a local directory,” and while the program was officially open to all creeds, “nearly all of the local congregations are Christian; thus nearly all of the participating prayer givers have been too.”  In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito notes that even if the town of Greece is lumped in with its entire county, which includes the city of Rochester, only 3 percent of county residents with a listed religious affiliation proclaim themselves to be Jewish, “and for other non-Christian faiths, the percentages are smaller.”

Kennedy points out that the district court ruling overturned by the Supremes “found no authority for the proposition that the First Amendment required Greece to invite clergy from congregations beyond its borders in order to achieve a minimum level of religious diversity.”

Alito mildly chastises the town council of Greece for not reaching a bit outside its boundaries to include the Rochester synagogues where its Jewish residents worship on the list of invited clergy, but he characterizes this as the sort of very minor complaint upon which much of the Court minority’s dissent rests.  He also writes of the difficulty in designing a truly “non-sectarian” prayer that would be completely acceptable to the members of every religion practiced in the United States, whose very diversity and inclusiveness make its religious tapestry a most complicated and colorful weave.  It is perverse to suppose that the First Amendment should then be interpreted as a gag order against speech the government decides is not sufficiently diverse.

In other words, there is nothing structurally exclusionary about the program, and the Court majority observed that it was not oppressive against non-Christians in practice:

The prayer opportunity is evaluated against the backdrop of a historical practice showing that prayer has become part of the Nation’s heritage and tradition.  It is presumed that the reasonable observer is acquainted with this tradition and understands that its purposes are to lend gravity to public proceedings and to acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many private citizens.

Furthermore, the principal audience for these invocations ins not the public, but the lawmakers themselves.  And those lawmakers did not direct the public to participate, single out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicate that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity.  Respondents claim that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected, but offense does not equate to coercion.

That sounds like a slap against the entire modern culture of hyper-sensitivity, in which “offense” is entirely in the mind of the offended.  It doesn’t matter what the speaker means, or what the historical context of his speech might be, if someone with a bit of political or legal pull declares themselves insulted, and calls for silence.

This is also a decidedly “conservative” decision, given the emphasis it puts upon historical precedent and common-sense understanding.  Justice Alito, who observed that the authors of the First Amendment certainly didn’t seem to think chaplains offering prayers at the beginning of legislative sessions were a violation of it, pronounced himself “troubled by the message that some readers may take from the principal dissent’s rhetoric and its highly imaginative proposals” – in other words, the liberal justices’ tendency to cook up fanciful scenarios that have nothing to do with practices in the town of Greece, or anywhere else in America, such as a polling place conveying “the expectation that citizens wishing to vote make the sign of the cross before casting their ballots.”

Alito worried that some will interpret the liberal justices’ dissent as a warning that Monday’s decision would lead “to a country in which religious minorities are denied the equal benefits of citizenship,” a train of thought he described as going “far astray” from what the majority actually ruled.  That’s another rebuke to the cult of perpetual outrage and its insistence that American society should be fenced in until there are no more hiding places for their bugbears and hobgoblins.

VOTE 02

 

Mayor ordering raid on Twitter troublemaker riles free speech defenders


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/mayor-ordering-raid-on-twitter-troublemaker-riles-free-speech-defenders/?intcmp=HPBucket

Ardis_twitter.jpg

<<<<<Ardis at a City Council meeting in Peoria, Ill.AP

Tyranney Alert

A police raid to learn who was behind a Twitter account that mocked an Illinois mayor has so far resulted in one arrest, but officials said Monday the investigation continues, as free speech advocates express concern.

The account — @Peoriamayor — was created about nine weeks ago and had about 50 parody tweets, mostly about Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis supposedly using illegal drugs and associating with prostitutes, before Twitter suspended it in mid-March.

The Star Journal of Peoria reports the warrant and raid were ordered by Ardis, who is now facing a public backlash, largely on social media and in editorial pages where he is being accused of trying to step on First Amendment rights.

A resident of the home told the newspaper that police seized computers and smart phones in the raid, in an apparent attempt to learn who was behind the Twitter account.

Tyranney Alert

The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $2,500 fine and one year in jail.

Three people at the home during the raid were taken to a police station for questioning. Two other occupants were visited at their workplace, then taken in for questioning.

A Peoria Police Department spokesman confirmed to FoxNews.com that one resident was charged in connection with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. However, the investigation is ongoing, which prevents officials from discussing whether police will make additional arrests, he said.

“I find it very troubling,” said Angela Campbell, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. “It chills people’s First Amendment rights to criticize officials … whether it’s through parody or just  calling somebody a jerk.”

Campbell, a First Amendment specialist, also questioned whether the charge of unlawfully impersonating a public official applies, since its intent is stop somebody from, for example,  posing as a police officer to extract money or sex in exchange for ignoring a traffic violation.

Aaron Caplan, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, raised similar concernsabout free speech and the impersonation issue.

“This absolutely raises concerns for me,” he said. “Under the Constitution, you can criticize people in power. It’s how you can tell the difference between a democracy and a police state. And you can do it through humor.”

However, he also has concerns about First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment issues regarding the search warrant.

Caplan says executing a search warrant is unusual in the case of a misdemeanor, although he is not an expert on Illinois state law.

“I need more facts, but it smells a little like retaliation,” he said.

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard told the newspaper the intent of the account, which also included tweets about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, was not clearly identified as satire.

“In fact it appears that someone went to great lengths to make it appear it was actually from the mayor,” he said.

 

What Legislation Is Glenn Beck Denouncing as ‘Nazi Stuff’?


http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-legislation-is-glenn-beck-denouncing-as-nazi-stuff/

Tyranney Alert

 

In reaction to the Kansas shootings this week, two Democrats are pushing for legislation to come up with a government report looking at the perpetuation of hate speech in the media. The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 would update an old report on the role of the internet, radio, and television in “encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.”

FreeSpeech1-300x204

Senator Ed Markey argues the purpose of the bill is to make sure anyone using any of those outlets is not encouraging hate speech “outside the protection of the First Amendment.” The bill has gotten a mixed reception, with liberal radio host Alan Colmes speaking out against it, and now Glenn Beck has jumped into the fray.

Beck, who was very outspoken against an FCC proposal to look into American newsrooms, decried the bill as Nazi-style tactics. He said, “Forget about the Fairness Doctrine, this is Nazi stuff.”

He showed off an old German SS-approved radio that cut off access to certain radio stations, saying “we’ve been down this road before.”

Watch the video below, via BlazeTV:

Beck

Air Force: Christians’ Religious Speech Not Legally Protected Right


Bret BART

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/16/Air-Force-Christians-Religious-Speech-Not-Legally-Protected-Right

by 16 Mar 2014

Christians in the U.S. military are being told they must forfeit their First Amendment rights. Bible verses are being erased from cadets’ personal dorm-room white boards, and military lawyers claim that legal protections for religion only pertain to matters such as clothing and growing beards but do not extend to any religious expression such as talking about one’s faith or posting a Bible verse.

Last year Breitbart News broke the story of a campaign by anti-Christian extremists to suppress traditional Christian expression within the U.S. military. There were conflicting stories regarding the possible court martial of service members who share the gospel of Jesus Christ and confirmed reports of military chaplains being officially censored, as well as Bibles temporarily banned from the Walter Reed military hospital.

After these stories went viral on the Internet, Republicans in Congress launched an investigation, then introduced legislation to specify that religious expression is a protected right for men and women serving in uniform. Although President Obama originally threatened to veto the legislation, those protections were signed into law in December 2013.

Now these new protections are being put to their first test. Military officers at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs are saying that the Obama-Hagel Pentagon does not regard these new protections as encompassing religious speech or writing. As such, cadets are not allowed to post Bible verses on their personal white boards in their dorm rooms.Cadet,

This latest incident occurred when a cadet (whose identity we are not disclosing) posted Galatians 2:20 on his personal whiteboard, posted outside his living quarters in a residential dormitory. That verse reads, “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

According to media reports, several people at the academy contacted Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the radical anti-Christian group that had been in communication with the Defense Department under President Obama regarding adopting new policies for religious expression in the military. Weinstein claimed that he called the Air Force Academy to complain about the Bible verse and further claims that two hours and nine minutes later, the verse was gone.

Sources quote Weinstein as saying that having this verse on the outside of the dorm room “clearly elevated one religious faith over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution.” He is quoted as adding, “It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny…”

Contrary to existing reports, Academy personnel did not erase the Bible verse or order the cadet to remove it.

Breitbart News spoke with Mike Berry, an attorney who is director of military affairs with Liberty Institute. Berry traveled to the Academy last week and met with cadets of different religions. These cadets say these personal messages are traditionally allowed on cadets’ whiteboards. A message might ask to meet for a basketball game or root for a favorite sports team. They claim it is a meaningful exercise in which many cadets include spiritual or inspirational quotes, whether Bible verses, a verse from the Quran, or from football legend Vince Lombardi.

Berry exclusively tells Breitbart News:

We met with Col. Paul Barzler, the Air Force Academy Staff Judge Advocate, to find out what really happened and to ask about the Academy’s policy on religious exercise. It turns out that, contrary to Mikey Weinstein’s claims, the cadet may have voluntarily removed the Bible verse from his white board. But I was stunned to find out that, had the cadet not removed the verse, Academy officials would have ordered him to do so. I asked why, and Col. Barzler explained that, because the cadet held a leadership position, it could create the perception that he was forcing his religious beliefs on subordinates. I pointed out that under the Constitution, federal law, and military regulations, cadets have the right to religious exercise. I was shocked when he responded that Air Force policy, from the Pentagon, is that the term “religious exercise” does not include written or verbal speech. [emphasis added]

Berry then reminded the colonel regarding the specific legal protections service members have, from the Constitution itself, to Acts of Congress, to military regulations. He says of the colonel’s response:

He went on to state that the Air Force interprets [Department of Defense] Instruction 1300.07 to only apply to religious grooming and apparel matters, but not writing a [Bible] verse on a white board or even verbally sharing a verse. This means that, under Air Force policy, cadets and airmen are not free to express their religious beliefs through words or writing. This policy appears to come from a March 2013 Air Force JAG memo that interpreted federal law in that way.

Last week, on Mar. 14, 2014, the Air Force Academy issued a press release regarding this situation. It says, “While we swear an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, Airmen are also bound by [military policy].” It references Air Force Instruction 1-1, which was adopted several years ago once President Obama took office and is frequently used to suppress religious speech, especially by Christians. The press release then adds that “sometimes we must put the good of the entire unit before the good of any single individual.”

This press release only makes the situation more alarming to a legal analyst. An Air Force policy instruction carries some force of law, but it is trumped by a Defense Department regulation. Those regulations, in turn, are subordinate to federal statutes adopted by Congress, which for over three months now has expressly provided that religious expression is a protected right. All of those must follow the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, where the First Amendment makes both free speech and free exercise of religion fundamental rights for all Americans.

As Berry summarized, “This is a stunning development because it is now clear that the Air Force is interpreting federal law and military regulations in an unlawful way. And it is absolutely shameful because the brave men and women of the U.S. Air Force who make huge sacrifices for our religious freedom are having theirs stripped away.” Hinting at legal action that could be forthcoming, Berry concluded, “This is not only morally wrong, it’s illegal.”

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

FAITH UNDER FIRE


http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/no-separation-of-church-and-state/#ooDRLFXqp8vdYsqh.99

No separation of church and state

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow examines roots of rallying cry ‘radically changing America’

Published: 1 day ago

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. His latest book is “Black Yellowdogs.” He was the long-time co-host of CBN’s “The 700 Club” television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.
  • An organization that had been feeding the poor and helping the homeless for more than 30 years was told by a state agriculture department official that they would not be allowed to receive USDA food unless they removed portraits of Christ, the Ten Commandments, a banner that read “Jesus is Lord” and stopped giving Bibles to the needy.
  • In 2011, two men were arrested and charged with misdemeanor offenses for reading the Bible outside a DMV location.
  • The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and have closed their business after they simply declined to make a cake for a gay wedding because it conflicted with their Christian beliefs. They learned that’s now illegal.
  • A student was told by his professor to write the name “Jesus Christ” on a piece of paper and stomp on it. The student refused, and in retaliation a formal disciplinary action was started against him.
  • A public schoolteacher was forbidden to leave a Bible sitting on his desk “where students might see it.”
  • A 10-year-old girl who brought her Bible to school to read on the bus was told by the school principal to “leave your Bible at home.”
  • A fourth grader was told she could not draw crosses in her art project.
  • A 17-year-old was caught passing a note to a friend between classes. An assistant principal saw and demanded the note (an invitation for the friend to attend an off-campus meeting of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes). The “guilty” student was threatened by said principal with suspension from school for “possession of Christian materials.”

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Lest we forget, let us look back at the origin of what has become the rallying cry of a relatively small minority that is radically changing America.

In 1962, a parent, Steven Engel, alleged that a neutral, nonsectarian 22-word prayer violated his child’s First Amendment rights. His attorneys argued this (completely voluntary) prayer constituted “an establishment of religion.” Long story short, the Supreme Court ruled for him in the 1962 Engel vs. Vitale case and God was officially removed from schools, and now He is being banished from every inch of the public square.

Of course, since we all know exactly what the Constitution says, let me ask a question: Where are the following two statements found?

1) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

2) “In order to ensure citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship is recognized for all citizens.”

When asked this question, many people who saw the phrase in statement 2 which reads, “the church is separated from the state,” concluded this is the famous “separation of church and state” principle they have heard about ad nauseum. Facts of the matter are,

  • statement 1 is, indeed, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  • Statement 2, “the church is separated from the state” is also from the constitution – the constitution of the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, a political system specifically founded on atheistic principles.

After an objective look at what is happening in many of our courts and schools today, one might be forced to conclude the U.S. Supreme Court and other institutions are basing their decisions on the constitutional principles of the old USSR.

Let me reiterate – nowhere in the U.S. Constitution can you find the phrase “separation of church and state.” It simply is not there. Instead, a careful and unbiased reading clearly reveals the founders’ intent –

  • not two separate clauses but one simple statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
  • OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added).

The moment you tell me I cannot have free, voluntary acknowledgement of God, under the “establishment clause” (so called), you immediately violate my right to do so under the “free exercise” clause.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law passed by a state legislature that allowed privately funded posters of the Ten Commandments to be hung in classrooms to “acquaint students with the moral pillars of the legal code of their culture” (not promote religion).

The Supreme Court struck down the law, and the real irony is, guess what is inscribed on the east side of the building where they read their decision: Moses holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.

First-grader told to stop talking about Bible


Christian Persecution is growing in America. Here is more proof. MrB

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

  • Brynn Williams.jpg
    Advocacy for Faith & Freedom

The parents of a 6-year-old girl said their daughter was humiliated when a teacher interrupted the child’s one-minute speech and told her to sit down because she’s “not allowed to talk about the Bible in school,” attorneys for the California family allege.

The incident occurred Dec. 19 inside a first grade classroom at Helen Hunt-Jackson Elementary School in Temecula, Calif. The previous day the teacher instructed boys and girls to find something at home that represented a family Christmas tradition. They were supposed to bring the item to school and share the item in a classroom presentation.

How would you feel if Brynn was your daughter?

Brynn Williams decided to bring the Star of Bethlehem that adorned the top of her family’s Christmas tree. She also worked on a one minute presentation to explain that her family’s tradition is to remember the birth of Jesus at Christmas time.

“Our Christmas tradition is to put a star on top of our tree,” the little girl said. “The star is named the Star of Bethlehem. The three kings followed the star to find baby Jesus, the Savior of the world.”

Before the child could utter another word, the teacher intervened, according to Robert Tyler, the general counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom – the law firm representing the Williams family.

“Brynn’s teacher said, ‘Stop right there! Go take your seat,’” Tyler said. “Brynn was not allowed to finish her presentation by reciting the Bible verse, John 3:16.”

Tyler said the little girl was the only student in the class not allowed to finish her presentation.

“After Brynn took her seat, the teacher explained to Brynn in front of all the other students that she was not allowed to talk about the Bible or share its verses,” Tyler said.

Gina Williams learned about the incident after she picked her daughter up from school.

“She thought she had done something wrong,” she told me. “She thought she was in trouble. I told her she was not in trouble and I was proud of her. I tried to comfort her on the way home.”

The following day Williams met with the principal.

“The principal confirmed that Brynn’s teacher did the appropriate thing by stopping her mid-presentation and there are specific education codes that protect the school,” Williams said. “

The principal then asked Brynn, who had tears in her eyes, to come into her office and deliver the same presentation that was censored in the classroom. Afterwards, the principal stood by her decision.

“She confirmed there was no way Brynn could finish that presentation,” the disappointed mom told me. It was to protect the other students from being offended by Brynn’s presentation.”

The principal reportedly told her that Brynn could write about her beliefs in a journal but she was not allowed to share her beliefs aloud to any other student.

Tyler sent a letter to the school district demanding they apologize to Brynn and change their policies limiting religious liberty.

“The disapproval and hostility that Christian students have come to experience in our nation’s public schools has become epidemic,” he said, warning that should the school district ignore their concerns, they will file a lawsuit.

The school district sent me the following statement:

“The Temecula Valley Unified School District respects all students’ rights under the Constitution and takes very seriously any allegation of discrimination. Due to the fact that District officials are currently investigating the allegations, it would be inappropriate to provide further comment at this time.”

It’s not the first time the school district has found itself in hot water over religious liberty violations. Last October, a seventh grade student was publicly ridiculed by a teacher for reading the Bible. The classroom assignment had been to read a non-fiction book. The teacher told the student in front of the class that the Bible was fiction and refused to give him credit for the assignment.

Tyler said it’s clear that the district violated Brynn’s constitutional rights.

“Any act to suppress a student’s free speech, in this case censorship of Brynn’s presentation of her family traditions, has violated Brynn’s constitutional rights unless the school district can reasonably conclude that Brynn’s speech was going to materially and substantially disrupt the school’s work or discipline,” he wrote in a letter to the school district. “Here, the school district cannot reasonably come to that conclusion.”

So here’s the way I see it. The school district either:

  1. Made a gross mistake;
  2. Is ignorant of the Constitution;
  3. Is infested with radical secularists who like to bully Christian children:
  4. All of the above.

What happened inside that classroom is nothing short of un-American. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of my tax dollars being used to pay the salaries of public school teachers who humiliate and bully Christian boys and girls.

How would you feel if Brynn was your daughter?

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is “God Less America”.

BEWARE the Belief Vigilantes! (It’s not about the guy with the beard)


They created a gi-normous list of blacklisted words. (Whoopsie! DUCKS #1 BLACKLISTED glasses & words“Blacklisted” became the first offensive words to be b****listed because it implied a racist belief). The thin-skinned ones also created a rather short list of acceptable, non-offensive words. They became the “Word Gestapos,” and roamed the land to ensure that seldom was heard a discouraging . . . or offensive word.

Then someone pointed out that words were not the problem. In fact, they had never, ever been the problem. Words were nothing more than proof positive of beliefs held by the person speaking the words. Therefore, in order to eliminate offensive words, it would be necessary to change the offensive beliefs that had caused them to be spoken.

And so, the thin-skinned and much-too-sensitive folks re-branded themselves as The “Belief Vigilantes,” and launched a national campaign to guarantee correct and non-offensive beliefs. CHILDREN DRESSED AS HIZBOLLAH GUERRILLAS MARCH DURING PARADE TO CELEBRATE JERUSALEM DAY IN BEIRUTThey enlisted Hollywood celebrities, film industry moguls, and left-stream media and lobbied for mandatory “belief correction” classes and rehab programs (covered by government-approved health insurance) for everyone over the age of 6.

Next, the Belief Vigilantes launched a massive PR campaign focused on correct beliefs regarding racism, sexism, feminism, same-sex marriage, birth and climate control, Judeo/Christian beliefs, the obsolete Constitution, home schooling, red or white wine, etc., etc., etc.

But, drats and darn (the only approved words to describe disappointment), citizens continued to live their lives, using the b***klisted words, unaware of and unaffected by the Vigilantes’ correct-belief campaign.

In became obvious that in order to capture national attention to their cause, the Belief Vigilantes needed a scapegoat.

Shazam! Along came a magazine interview with the perfect candidate: a bearded, self-made millionaire, reality TV star, and straight-talking founder from the Duck Kingdom. DUCKS #3 rubber ducksWhen a reporter had asked for an opinion, the Bearded One responded by expressing his beliefs regarding sexual preference and various body parts.

Whoopie Ki Yea! The Belief Vigilantes sprang into action, screaming and yelling about how his Neanderthal comments had offended them. The brouhaha became a breaking-and-non-stop story across the country. Millions of citizens, for the first time, began discussions about how, when, where, and “IF” it was appropriate to express deeply held beliefs that might differ from deeply held beliefs of others.

The Belief Vigilantes jumped up and down in celebration and clicked together the heels of their all-natural, handmade hemp sandals. “At last, citizens are beginning to understand the importance of correct beliefs (which we determine) and correct speech (which we also determine).”

Empowered by the prospect of a national referendum on correct beliefs, the Vigilantes lobbied the network to demand a public apology and command the Bearded One to shut the heck up and accept suspension until it was decided if he could/would/should return to his own reality show.

However, attempts to shame and quiet the Bearded One ran off him like water on a duck’s back. He stood tall and acknowledged that he was entitled to express his beliefs whenever, wherever, and however he wanted to, and he affirmed that same right for everyone.

Then, an unexpected phenomenon occurred. Millions of good and decent people spoke up. “You don’t want people to express beliefs that are different from yours? Well, tough beans! We have freedom of belief and freedom of speech in this country and we’ll speak our truths whether you trolls like it or not!”

The Belief Vigilantes whined, “Your comments have offended us.”

Pissed-off citizens responded with, “Who the duck cares?”

And then, in a show DUCKS #4 BO & Mof support for the Bearded One and his right to speak his beliefs, millions of moms and dads and grandmothers and grandfathers and uncles and aunts bought Duck Kingdom products and began to wear camouflage hats, scarves, and fake beards.

A duck kazoo song-and-dance routine became wildly popular, went viral and was performed spontaneously in shopping malls around the country.

Supporters of freedom of belief and speech had won. Broken hearted and dispirited, Belief Vigilantes suspended their activities. Many of them enrolled in de-sensitivity training. Others received thick-skin transplants (covered by government-mandated health insurance). 99% of the former Vigilantes graduated from rehab and lived happily, happily, happily ever after as productive members of society.

What about the 1% who dropped out of rehab and retained their thin-skinned attitudes? Determined to live in a country dominated by belief control, they immigrated to North Korea and lived unhappily ever after.

The end.

THIS JUST IN:  Friday PM:  A&E has bowed in deference to commerce and are allowing Phil to return to filming which begins in the spring. Hmmmm.

Molli for JoeMolli Nickell, a commentator for TheBlaze, posts additional fables at her webside: www.grannyguerrillas.com.  To look inside her book, “Uncle SCAM’S Book of Politically Incorrect Fables,  CLICK HERE. This quick-read, 96-page book will entertain, educate, and amuse the patriots as well as the low-information voters in your personal universe. Pass it around! Save 25% off the cover price of $7.95 when you order through createspace (the e-commerce division of Amazon.com). Use discount code TG4NRPFB.

Another Attack on Christmas!


http://eaglerising.com/3178/another-attack-christmas/#c8WxOg2WurWP3BQQ.99

By / 26 November  2013

What is it that secular humanists have against Christmas? It seems that every  year there are at least a handful of stories about some secularist Grinch’s who  are out and about seeking to ruin everyone else’s holiday fun. In a culture that  has turned its back on the God of the Bible and the morality taught in His Word,  you would think that the secularists would have already claimed victory and  moved on. But nothing could be further from the truth; instead they continue  their attacks on the last and simplest vestiges of Christianity in our culture – our holidays.

This year’s earliest contender for “the  Grinch that stole Christmas” is the American Humanist Organization. A  charter school in Colorado, the SkyView Academy, is being sued by the humanist  organization because of their decision to participate in Operation Christmas  Child, a ministry of Samartian’s Purse. Operation  Christmas Child takes shoeboxes filled with goodies (toys, school and  toiletry supplies, and other necessities) and hands them out to children living  in poverty in third world nations. In short, they give Christmas to hundreds of  thousands of needy children every year.

operationchristmaschildThe humanists just couldn’t have that, could they?  So they sent a letter to SkyView Academy (as well as another school in South  Carolina) demanding that they cease and desist or they would be sued. “Because they don’t like the message that we convey under our religious  liberty, they have to shut us down and that is a tactic of bullying,” she said. “They don’t believe in equal access. They believe in shutting down anybody who  doesn’t comply with their view of what society should be – and that is  completely godless.”

Knowing that they didn’t have the wherewithal to fight a court battle,  SkyView (and the school in South Carolina) both called off their efforts.  However, that didn’t stop the kids and families at SkyView from getting  involved.

… The students at SkyView decided to defy the humanists.

On Wednesday afternoon, hundreds of students and parents and well-wishers  staged a grassroots act of defiance. And while they meant to send a message to  the humanists – it was really about making sure poor children had toys on  Christmas day.

“The young people weren’t concerned about the politics of it,” Unruh told  me. “They were asking, ‘what about the kids?’”

Instead of collecting the shoe boxes inside the school – the students just  moved their entire operation outside – on a public sidewalk.

Volunteers loaded shoe boxes into trucks and vans, while students held a  religious liberty rally – hoisting signs condemning the humanists.

colorado-toy-driveThe humanist group attempted to defend itself from  cries of being a “Grinch.” They claimed that it was all about upholding the  constitution and everyone’s freedom of religion. Sadly, their rhetoric is simply  a lie. The drive to participate in Operation Christmas Child was student led,  not school led. Participation was voluntary, and in no way affected the  religious liberty of any students. Most importantly, there is no Constitutional  imperative separating public entities from religious activities. It’s just not  there. The Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an  establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s  very different from some school allowing its students to collect toys and  sundries for poor children in the third world. Sadly, this is how the humanists  operate – they twist words, and threaten those who cannot defend themselves, to  get their way.

Thankfully, the good families of SkyView Academy in Colorado didn’t let those  threats stop them from making sure that some poor children a world away could  have a Merry Christmas.

Attacks on Christians in America Grow as Islam Gets Special Protection


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/attacks-on-christians-america-grow-islam-gets-special-protection/

According to information released at a May 9, 2013 press conference by the families of Navy SEALs killed in an August 2011 helicopter shoot-down in Afghanistan, “military brass prohibited any mention of a Judeo-Christian God” and “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 them as infidels to Allah.”

The accusations arose over a “ramp ceremony” held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as flag-draped caskets of the dead soldiers were loaded onto a plane for transport back to the United States.  The shocking words of the Muslim cleric, revealed in later translations, were spoken at a memorial service meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.  They were yet another example of the abject disrespect of Christians and Christianity endemic to the Muslim world.

445865468791056_1665221906_nvi-vi3

Here at home, Christianity and Christian religious practices are also under attack, but in more subtle ways and under a misinterpretation of the principle of freedom of religion.  In the United States, that legal doctrine is cited to marginalize Christian prayer and traditions, while, at the same time, dramatically accommodating and even expanding Muslim religious practices.  Myriad examples exist.

During the recent government shutdown, Catholic priests were warned that they could be arrested for celebrating Mass, even if performed on a voluntary basis.  Under Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s direction and determination was that priests do not “contribute to the morale” and “well-being” of military personnel.”  Thus, offering of the sacraments was prohibited and the Eucharist placed under lock and key.  Curiously, no mention was made of curtailing religious freedom for Muslim service members or furloughing imams.

This prohibition against Christian religious practice is not limited to the military.  Police throughout the land also frequently come down hard against Christians.  In 2010, a group of students from the Arizona-based Wickenburg Christian Academy were ordered by a police officer to cease their quiet prayers on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.  The officer cited a statute that prohibits demonstrations on the steps, but no official policy bars prayer at that location.

In June of 2010, David Wood and two other Christian missionaries were arrested by Dearborn, Michigan, police at the annual Arab festival for discussing Christianity on a public sidewalk outside the event. The men, who have since been acquitted, were charged with disturbing the peace and spent the night in jail.

Contrast these incidents with a massive public display of praying Muslims during the annual Muslim Day Parade in New York City. Muslims, who are protected each year during the event by Muslim NYPD officers, are free to engage in mass prayer, even prostrating themselves on the streets of midtown Manhattan. Vehicular traffic halts and participants freely harass non-Muslims who attempt to pass through the area on foot.

Meanwhile, the ACLU has been at the forefront of an extensive effort to ban Christian prayer from public schools under the “separation of church and state” provision of the First Amendment.  This is a signature issue for the “civil rights” organization.  However, for Muslim prayers, the organization reverses its interpretation and fights for student rights to engage in prayer.

For example, when Carver Elementary School in San Diego instituted a 15-minute prayer period during class time for Muslim students in 2004, the ACLU endorsed the practice.  ACLU spokesman Kevin Keenan said the group supported Muslim prayer under the First Amendment’s prohibition against impeding religion.  In this way, the ACLU was “honoring constitutional standards for freedom of religion.”

Meanwhile, in Michigan, Dearborn public schools have a policy of accommodating Muslim prayers at school during school hours, as well as ignoring unexcused absences for Muslims to leave school early for Friday prayers.  Yet, in 2009, after a Muslim organization complained about permission slips given to Christian students to attend off-site after-school Bible study, issuance of the slips was discontinued.

In addition to police, the ACLU, and schools, U.S. courts have also sided with the Islamic religion and against Christianity.  In 2001, the Byron Union School District in Byron, California instituted a three-week unit on Islam for 7th-graders.  Students took Muslim names, recited Islamic prayers, and celebrated Ramadan.  When parents sued the school on the grounds that the course was “officially endorsing a religion,” the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their appeal, leaving intact an earlier ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed that the unit did not violate the Constitution and had an “instructional purpose.”

In 2009, the same court of appeals upheld a ban by Henry Jackson High School officials in Everett, Washington against an instrumental performance of Ave Maria at a 2006 commencement ceremony.  A student futilely challenged the school’s determination that the song was “an obvious religious piece” at a graduation that should be “strictly secular.”

Government entities also bear down on the Christian religion.  After allowing baptisms in Sinking Creek in the Ozarks for an almost uninterrupted 50-year span, the National Park Service in August notified Gladden Baptist Church in Salem, Missouri that permits would now be required in advance of baptism ceremonies in the waterway.  The requirement was later rescinded in response to the intervention of local Congressman Jason Smith.

And this month, in Ovid, Colorado, the director of a city-owned cemetery initially refused to inscribe the Ichthus or “Jesus fish” on the tombstone of a local preacher’s wife on the grounds that some people might be offended.  Despite the fact that the cemetery is filled with headstones inscribed with religious symbols and Biblical verses, city officials refused to come to the family’s aid.  The cemetery director defended his position with a logic-defying hypothetical: “What if someone wanted to put a swastika?” — Thereby disrespectfully equating a representation of Christ with a symbol associated with Nazi Germany.  The city reversed itself only after public outcry and media attention.

The instances listed above make it readily apparent that the First Amendment is often conveniently misinterpreted to buttress the assault on the Christian religion and its expression, practice, and traditions.  In this way, Christianity is being insidiously expunged from public life using false legal pretenses.  The legitimate interpretation of the provisions of the First Amendment, which include prohibitions against government interference in public religious expression and the establishment of a national religion, has been twisted to prohibit Christian prayer in public places and schools.  This is a false reading of “separation of church and state.”

Yet, as the instances listed above and many others illustrate, this interpretation doesn’t apply to “mosque and state.”  Freedom of religion has come to mean no freedom for the practice of Christianity but ample freedom to practice Islam.  If the war on Christianity in America isn’t halted soon, Barack Obama’s statement that “[w]hatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” will certainly become a reality.

About Janet Levy

Janet Levy, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/attacks-on-christians-america-grow-islam-gets-special-protection/#ixzz2in4FggtQ

Media Shield Law Heralds the Death of the 1st Amendment


By http://eaglerising.com/1785/media-shield-law-heralds-death-1st-amendment/#Xu8A6M6vQeb5ttHO.99 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a new “media shield” bill, and will now ask the Senate to take the bill up for a vote. In the wake of the Justice Department’s recent attacks on the freedom of the press, many members of Congress seem ready to take up the cause and support the media shield law. At first glance a new media shield law would be a positive development, because it would imply that our Congress took our press freedom seriously. However, that is just not the case. This media shield law is not just a bad idea, but a dangerous one.

GrahamLet’s begin with the most basic argument against the media shield law. It is unnecessary because the Bill of Rights offers us complete coverage on freedom of the press. “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. So the real issue here is not that we need a media shield law (we already have the 1st Amendment), but that someone at the Justice Department needs to go to prison for their roles in the AP scandal and in the Fox News and James Rosen case. The likely jailbird should be Attorney General Eric Holder, because he signed off on both investigations. In addition, the Justice Department should have to pay hefty restitution to both organizations for their heavy handed attack on free speech.

The first argument was easy – we already have a media shield in the First Amendment and the real problem is that the Justice Department broke the law, so they should be punished. But the next argument gets a little more nuanced.

FeinsteinThe second argument here is that by allowing Congress to pass a media shield law we are allowing them to decide who is a journalist. Congress will not pass a bill that gives blanket protection to any Tom, Dick, or Harry’s free speech or press freedom. Their concern is that someone blogging out of their mom’s basement will get a hold of classified information, publish it and then be covered by the media shield law… and Congress just cannot risk any more Edward Snowdens. So in the bill that has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have drawn lines to show who is and isn’t a “real” journalist. An example – an 80 year old retired English teacher working for a small town newspaper (or newsletter) is a journalist… but Matt Drudge who publishes the Drudge Report and is read by millions may not be covered. A reporter with a college paper may be covered, but one of the writers for this site might not be. This begs the question… where is Congress given the authority to decide who is and isn’t a journalist? The answer is, that Congress has no say in that question whatsoever – because the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. In fact, the 1st Amendment strictly prohibits Congress doing anything to draw lines on free speech or press freedom. The very notion of passing a media shield law that applies only to some is Congress doing exactly what the First Amendment says it CANNOT do.

So… Congress passing a shield law for some but not for all, and putting conditions on the information covered by said law – is unconstitutional and therefor illegal.

The last argument I want to make is about precedent. If we allow Congress to move forward with a media shield law that protects some citizens at a greater level than others, who’s to say they won’t use similar tactics to weaken other freedoms? For example, could we next see a Religious Practice shield law? Perhaps it will allow only practitioners of certain government recognized religions to practice freely. Or maybe a Firearm Shield law, which will say that the government cannot prohibit the use of certain firearms, while at the same time effectively saying that other firearms can be legislated against? Do you see the danger? Do you see how thin the razor’s edge of our liberty is?

A media shield law sounds like a good and noble idea, and maybe some legislators are well intentioned as they seek to pass the law. But you know the old saying about good intentions don’t you? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s often true, and this law is no exception.

This is a dangerous bit of legislation and those of us who value our freedom of speech and our free press, should stand against it.

Million Muslim March Planned in DC on Anniversary of 9-11


The Conversation

A group called The American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) is planning a one million Muslims march to Washington D.C. on September 11th. The timing of the group’s march is seen by many as tasteless (to say the least) considering it is scheduled for the anniversary of the worst domestic massacre in American history perpetrated in the name of Islam. AMPAC ups the tasteless quotient by issuing “demands” for the American government:

We at AMPAC (American Political Action Committee) are planning an historic event for 9.11.13 where one million Muslims will march to Washington D.C. and demand that our civil rights be protected by our government.

We are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our 1st amendment . We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly we are asking for the release of the 9/11 commission report to the American people.

The group seems to rationalize the date chosen for their march by claiming that the media has been lying to the American people with regard to the role Islam played in the 9/11 attacks:

On 9.11.01 our country was forever changed by the horrific events in New York. The entire country was victimized by the acts done on that day. Muslim and Non Muslim alike were traumatized but we as Muslims continue 12 years later to be victimized by being made the villains. To this day every media outlet and anti Islamic organization has committed slanderous and libel statements against us as Muslims and our religion of Islam.

Yet our Government either sits idly by and does nothing to protect our freedoms or it exacerbates the problem with its constant war on terrorism in Islamic countries, congressional hearings on Islam in America, and its changes to the NDAA law.

These lies told to the American population has made it impossible for us to do true Dawa**. Why do we have to defend our religion while doing Dawa**? Why can’t we just share the perfection of the Quran and the beauty of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (SWS)?

**Noun 1. dawah – missionary work for Islam

missionary work, mission – the organized work of a religious missionary

But now comes the Obama Administration to tell you that Yes, you just might be imprisoned for something you say online, so you’d better Watch What You Say.


by Ace Of Spades31 May 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/31/US-Attorney-Bill-Killian-Posting-Something-Mean-About-Muslims-on-Social-Media-Might-Be-a-Criminal-Action-Under-Federal-Civil-Rights-Laws

US Attorney Bill Killian: Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be a Criminal Action Under Federal Civil Rights Laws

The First Amendment served us well for a time, but now it’s outdated.

Remember reading that England had arrested a guy for anti-Muslim Twitter postings in the aftermath of the Woolrich slaughter? And remember thinking, “Well, this is America, that can’t happen here”?
Oh yes it can. Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee wants you to know that if you say something untoward about Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” … Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

The posting he offers as a “for instance” is an egregious one. And yet this country has long protected, absolutely, egregious speech, such as hardcore pornography, for a simple reason: Either you are at liberty to say what you will or you are not. If you are constantly double-thinking every word you might say, for fear of being prosecuted, you are self-censoring, in anticipation of a possible prosecution by the government.

Rather than having a system in which people were constantly worried about imprisonment for speech, our country has evolved a simple bright-line code: Speech of all kinds, with a few exceptions that can be counted on three fingers, is absolutely protected.

Remember, the importance of this bright-line, no-exceptions rule of free speech was preached to us, even when some of us might not have liked it so much, as when hardcore pornography was afforded absolute protection under the First Amendment. In the case of hardcore pornography, it was argued — successfully — that having each artist weigh the possibility of an obscenity prosecution was too much of a burden on his free speech rights, and would have, unavoidably, a chilling effect on speech.

That was the rule then, and that was the rationale.

vampire_obama-275x300But now comes the Obama Administration to tell you that Yes, you just might be imprisoned for something you say online, so you’d better Watch What You Say.

Remember when Ari Fleischer said that, without suggesting any kind of legal penalties? Remember how the media freaked out?

But now comes the US Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee explicitly telling you that you may be imprisoned if a political appointee decides your political speech has crossed a line.

Somehow, I don’t think Tim Robbins will be portentously howling us that a “chill wind” is blowing across our rights of free expression this week.

Successful Defense of First Amendment Rights


Student’s First Amendment Rights Violated by School Says U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The Pocono Mountain School District believes elementary school students should have their First Amendment rights greatly limited.

In December 2010, a fifth grade girl at Barrett Elementary Center in Cresco, Pennsylvania went to school carrying flyers for a Christmas party at her church.  Although other students have passed out flyers and invitations to other out-of-school events like scouting and various clubs, school officials stopped the girl from handing out her flyers because it contained elements of religious faith.  The Pocono Mountain School District stood behind the school’s decision, claiming they have a policy that forbids anything being handed out that mentions religious faith in any fashion.

In March of 2011, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Pocono Mountain School District on behalf of the student, claiming that her First Amendment rights of free speech had been violated.  The school district not only cited their policies but argued before the court that elementary students are young enough to have their First Amendment rights greatly limited.

A lower court heard the case and ruled that the school had indeed violated the student’s First Amendment rights.  The school district appealed the case to the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals who just issued a ruling that backs up the lower court’s decision that the school district did in fact violate the student’s First Amendment rights.  The Appeal Court also ruled that the two policies the school used as their defense were unconstitutional when applied in this form of student expression.  In their decision, the court wrote:

“It is difficult to identify a constitutional justification for cabining the First Amendment protections … to older students.  The fact that [the student] was only in the fifth-grade and the invitation originated from her church does not mandate a different approach.”

David Cortman, Senior Legal Counsel for ADF who filed the original lawsuit on behalf of the student, commented about the latest ruling:

“In this day and age, when our younger students are subject to so much that comes from both the school district and outside sources, it’s certainly important that they’re able to speak about their own faith and not be subject to censorship for it.”

“In this case, the school district tried to argue that for some reason the Constitution doesn’t apply to younger students, but the court rejected that theory – and that’s certainly good for all students.”

This is not the first time that a school district trampled on a student’s First Amendment rights only to have the courts rule in favor of the student.  The Candy Cane Case from Plano, Texas, was fairly similar to this one and ended with a similar court ruling in favor of the student.

If you find that your child’s school is bullying them about their Christian faith, church or the like, check into it and if need be contact someone like Alliance Defending Freedom.  Schools must be stopped and taught that they are not as powerful and privileged as they think they are.  If you don’t take action, the school will continue to bully other kids and violate their First Amendment rights, so you owe it not only to your child, but all of the others as well.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: