Overblog Follow this blog
Administration Create my blog
August 12 2017 7 12 /08 /August /2017 09:44

John R. Houk

© August 12, 2017

 

In full disclosure, I left the Republican Party after Mitt Romney proved he couldn’t stand up to the lies of Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election cycle. Since those days I have registered as an Independent. It’s true that I continue to vote GOP, because in my State most Republican candidates are Conservative.

 

As an Independent I keep my eyes open for a new Political Party to knock out the GOP much like the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party and eventually elected Abraham Lincoln as its first Party President in 1860.

 

The only way for a Political Party to replace the GOP is for Conservative Republican Congressional members to abandon the Republican Party. Until that day, any Political Party formed to attract Conservative voters will be considered also-ran Third Party political hacks with no national coalition to make a difference.

 

Now after my full disclosure, I want to share an American Family Association (AFA) email alert that shows 30 Republican Senators joining the Democrats to keep an obsolete Senate rule (as in not in the Constitution) that forces 60 votes to end a filibuster.

 

As a political in the Senate the GOP is the Majority Party with 52 members. But each time the Dems want to obstruct the Trump they pull a filibuster which they know can’t be stopped by 52 votes. Now it has become worse for the President’s agenda to make America great again because there are THIRTY Republican Senators that refuse to reform the 60-vote rule by changing it to a simple majority.

 

30 GOP Senators Supporting Dems – Photo from AFA email alert

 

If you are a Conservative voter that has become fed-up with a Congress that is opposing President Trump at every turn, examine the photo of 30 to discover if your Senator is amongst them. If your Senator is there Google their contact info and write, phone or both to express your displeasure. If they respond with a form letter or email trying to push some political hocus pocus about Senatorial tradition in their rules. Former Dem Majority Leader didn’t hesitate to suspend the 60-vote threshold when they rammed Obama agenda legislation down Conservative throats.

 

It’s time to toss out the 60-vote rule in favor of majority rule except for where the Constitution specifically calls for a super-majority.

 

For your convenience, the AFA has provided a method to contact your Senator even giving you the text to work from:

 

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR COURTESY OF THE AFA

 

JRH 8/12/17

**************

30 Senate Republicans defending Democratic Obstruction

 

By Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

 

Sent August 10, 2017

Sent from American Family Association

 

The U.S. Senate has a 52 Republican majority that can get a conservative agenda through the Senate, but 30 of these Senators have declared they support the obstruction of Democrats. These 30 establishment Republican senators oppose putting an end to the ongoing obstruction of Democrat's legislative filibuster. As U.S. Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) recently said, "It is time for America to abolish the 60-vote Senate rule" to end the filibuster.

Urge your senators to end Democratic obstruction and end the legislative filibuster.

In fact, they signed on to a letter authored by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), stating they are "opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives (including the 60 rule vote to end the Democrat filibuster) of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we (the Senate) consider legislation before the body in the future." Sen. McConnell agrees with them.

Regarding the letter, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) noted that "Democrats want the Senate to work, and we are willing to partner with our colleagues across the aisle if we can get things done for the American people. We have a long way to go to heal the wounds between our two parties, but this letter is a small first step towards that important goal." (Emphasis added.)

These 30 Senate Republicans, by refusing to stop the Democratic filibuster, want to allow the ongoing obstruction of Democrats in the name of "healing." Conservative Republicans know that Democrats will not cross the aisle to help pass a conservative agenda.

Democrats oppose a conservative agenda that includes repealing Obamacare, funding the border wall, defunding sanctuary cities, passing Kate's Law, defunding Planned Parenthood, and applying the Hyde Amendment to ensure federal tax dollars do not fund abortion.

Senate Democrats have been obstructionists to a conservative agenda. Sen. Coons' statement that Democrats "are willing to partner with our colleagues (Republicans) across the aisle if we can get things done for the American people" is political posturing and an empty promise to pass conservative legislation. Keeping the filibuster is nothing more than a mechanism for Democrats and liberal Republicans to further capitulate to the left. This is not by accident, but by design.

Tell your senators to end Democratic obstruction and end the legislative filibuster.

 

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

 

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

__________________

Tell Your Senator to Keep His Promises

John R. Houk

© August 12, 2017

________________

30 Senate Republicans defending Democratic Obstruction

 

American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440  |  Tupelo, MS 38803  |  1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2017 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved

 

AFA Mission

 

The mission of the American Family Association is to inform, equip, and activate individuals to strengthen the moral foundations of American culture, and give aid to the church here and abroad in its task of fulfilling the Great Commission.

 

PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT 


The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.

 

ACTION STATEMENT

 
The American Family Association acts to:

 

  1. Restrain evil by exposing the works of darkness

 

  1. Promote virtue by upholding in culture that which is right, true and good according to Scripture

 

  1. Convince individuals of sin and challenge them to seek Christ’s grace and forgiveness

 

  1. Motivate people to take a stand on cultural and moral issues at the local, state and national levels

 

  1. Encourage Christians to bear witness to the love of Jesus Christ as they live their lives before the world

 

To that end, AFA spurs activism directed to:

 

  • Preservation of Marriage and the Family

 

  • Decency and Morality

 

  • Sanctity of Human Life

 

  • Stewardship

 

  • Media Integrity 

 

We believe in holding accountable companies that sponsor programs attacking traditional family values. We also believe in commending those companies that act responsibly regarding programs they support. 

 

It is AFA’s goal to be a champion of Christian activism.  If you are alarmed by the increasing ungodliness and depravity assaulting our nation, tired of cursing the darkness, and ready to light a bonfire, please join us.  Do it for your READ THE REST

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Christianity
write a comment
August 11 2017 6 11 /08 /August /2017 10:10

 

Unsurprisingly, the Middle East Forum (MEF) has been the recipient of Fake News lies all based on the Multiculturalist accusation of Islamophobia. Evidently the lies have become so huge that the MEF has decided to answer those lies with a Top Ten List.

 

Below is an email alert introduction to that Top Ten List which I will follow with cross post of that list.

 

JRH 8/11/17

**************

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

By Greg Roman

Sent 8/9/2017 3:22 PM

Sent by Middle East Forum

 

Dear Reader:

As the Middle East Forum’s reach and influence expands, so too does the flurry of ad hominem, distorted, and plainly false attacks on the organization, mostly from Islamists and the far Left.

Institutions leading this assault include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, and most recently the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has a special place in our hearts for funding anti-MEF research.

Our opponents attack us for different reasons. Islamist activists loathe our national security views, advancement of women’s rights, and efforts to protect freedoms of moderate Muslim authors, activists, and publishers. Israel-haters oppose our efforts to puncture Palestinian illusions. Academics want to discredit our efforts to improve Middle East studies in North America. America-haters can pretty much take their pick of reasons.

Regardless of their motives, they all draw on the same tired canards that we so often refuted on an ad hoc basis. To save the curious some legwork, we are publishing a list of the top ten falsehoods, refuting them all at once, and maybe once and for all. Please take a look.

Regards,
 
Gregg Roman
Director Middle East Forum

 

+++

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

August 9, 2017

Middle East Forum

 

The Middle East Forum (MEF) is the object of repeated falsehoods. To clear the record, here follows the top ten and our corrections.

 

Falsehood 1: The Middle East Forum is anti-Muslim, or "Islamophobic."

 

False Statements

 

Center for American Progress: "The Middle East Forum is at the center of the Islamophobia network."

 

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Daniel Pipes is "considered by many Muslims to be America's leading Islamophobe."

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Daniel Pipes is "at the center of what is a large and evolving network of Islam-bashing activists."

 

Fact 1: Far from being biased against Muslims, MEF challenges a radical ideology responsible for unfathomable Muslim suffering, and one which most Muslims reject. Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes has been emphasizing the distinction between Islamism and the Islamic religion – and between the "completely justified fear of Islamists and unjustified fear of all Muslims" – for decades.

 

The only people who maintain there is little or no distinction between detesting Islamism and detesting Muslims are Islamists themselves and fellow travelers of the sort quoted above. The "Islamophobia" accusations they level at MEF and others are designed to conflate Islamism and Islam, claiming an attack on one is an attack on the other.

 

This conflation also attempts to delegitimize non-Islamist Muslims working to free their faith from the grip of extremists, and it is no coincidence that Muslim reformers are often viciously attacked. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left organization known for its often inaccurate claims, lists Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation alongside Mr. Pipes as an "anti-Muslim extremist."

 

The SPLC has branded Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim extremist."

 

A lot of money finances these allegations. The Center for American Progress, for example, received a $200,000 grant from George Soros' Open Society Foundations (OSF) to "research and track the activities" of the Middle East Forum and other NGOs working to combat the spread of radical Islam in America. The Brookings Institution's recent focus on so-called "Islamophobia" in America likely has much to do with its decade-long partnership with Qatar, which provided it with a $14.8 million 4-year grant in 2013.

 

The latest organization to level the "Islamophobia" accusation at MEF is the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), which lashed out after we revealed publicly that it had provided $330,524 to two extremist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief. It turns out SVCF is getting paid too. According to its 990 form, the extremist International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) provided SVCF with $500,000 in "program assistance" in 2015.

 

Falsehood 2: Daniel Pipes regards Muslim organizations as subversive.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: "Pipes views almost every possible Muslim activity as subversive and threatening."

 

Center for American Progress: "The alarmist rhetoric of Daniel Pipes ... brand[s] Muslims, Sharia, and even the instruction of Arabic as affronts to American freedom.

 

Fact 2: In keeping with Mr. Pipes' oft-repeated belief that "radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution," MEF's Islamist Watch project was established with a mission to "expose the Islamist organizations that currently dominate the debate, while identifying and promoting the work of moderate Muslims."

 

MEF has a long history of supporting, employing, and collaborating with Muslims working to free their community and faith from the grip of Islamists.

 

See a list here of Muslim organizations the Forum regards as vital allies in this fight, some of whom it helps fund.

 

Falsehood 3: Pipes supports interning Muslims, akin to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: "The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that 'Pipes endorsed the internment of Muslims in America,' referencing WWII Japanese American concentration camps as a model to be used against Muslims today."

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: "Daniel Pipes, president of Middle East Forum, has written in support of the model of Japanese internment camps in relation to American Muslims."

 

Fact 3: This canard is a paradigmatic example of how charges initially levelled by one radical organization metastasize through repetition by others. The SPLC report misquoted at right by Jewish Voice for Peace actually states, "In 2004, Pipes endorsed the internment of ethnic Japanese in American prison camps in World War II and held that up as a model for dealing with Muslims today."

 

But even this isn't true. In 2005 an Islamist organization in Canada had to apologize and make a charitable donation to the Middle East Forum for making this claim.

 

The original article did not argue for internment camps as a model (a follow-up explaining how CAIR and others distorted Pipes' position can be read here), but rather concluded with support for author Michelle Malkin's thesis about threat profiling: "She correctly concludes that, especially in time of war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies."

 

Falsehood 4: MEF is wrong to label CAIR as "terrorism-linked."

 

Clockwise from top left: Randall ("Ismail") Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Bassem Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, Nabil Sadoun, and Muthanna Al-Hanooti

 

Fact 4: Here are many reasons why MEF can reasonably describe CAIR as "terrorism-linked."

 

· CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.

 

· During that trial, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis concluded that, "The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR...with Hamas."

 

· In 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim ally of the United States, designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

 

· Six CAIR leaders have been arrested, convicted, or deported for terrorism-related crimes: Randall ("Ismail") RoyerGhassan ElashiBassem KhafagiRabih HaddadNabil Sadoun, and Muthanna Al-Hanooti.

 

· CAIR itself implicitly acknowledged the truth when it settled a 2004 libel lawsuit against a group making this allegation called Anti-CAIR, with no apology, retraction, or removal of offending Internet materials.

 

Falsehood 5: CAIR, Islamic Relief, and other Muslim groups criticized by MEF are respectable civil rights organizations.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: "Contrary to the Middle East Forum's smear campaign, CAIR is a nationally-recognized civil rights organization that has received praise from seventeen U.S. Senators and 85 U.S. Representatives from both sides of the political aisle."

 

Fact 5: CAIR and Islamic Relief are focused on promoting social insularity and distrust of authorities among U.S. Muslims, not defending their civil rights. In fact, both groups frequently host and promote extremist speakers who advocate against civil rights as most Americans understand them.

 

Siraj Wahhaj, for example, preaches that homosexuality is a "disease" of society, that the punishment for adultery is death, and that Muslims shouldn't have non-Muslim friends. Omar Suleiman has rationalized honor killings, telling women thinking of promiscuity that they could be killed by their fathers for "offending Allah." Jamal Badawi has said that men have a right to beat their wives. Abdul Nasir Jangda has argued that they have the right to rape their wives.

 

Falsehood 6: CAIR and Islamic Relief have clean bills of health on links to terrorism from the federal government and from charity watchdogs.

 

False Statements

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: "The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief ... are nonprofit organizations in good standing with federal agencies, and do not appear on any U.S. government list as having been tied to terrorism."

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “GuideStar reports ... whether a nonprofit organization is identified as a 'Specially Designated National' on the Office of Foreign Asset Control's list. In simpler terms, this is the list of U.S. organizations designated as having links to terrorist organizations. Neither CAIR nor Islamic Relief is on this list."

 

Fact 7: MEF is a research institution that promotes American interests. Islamist Watch presents factual research on the influence and activity of non-violent U.S.-based Islamist groups and their leaders. Some oppose Israel, to be sure, but most are more focused on targeting women, homosexuals, and others.

 

Campus Watch researches, analyzes, and critiques the academic study of the Middle East. It argues against "analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students," but it accepts divergent perspectives. Campus Watch recently published a favorable review of a lecture at the City University of New York (CUNY) by Sari Nusseibeh, a former senior PLO representative under Yasser Arafat whose views hardly qualify as pro-Israeli. A cursory examination of the project's research articles demonstrates that the characterization of Campus Watch as Israel-centered is false. As for the "dossiers," CW took down those initial eight profiles 15 years ago in favor of an institution-focused survey method.

 

Falsehood 8: Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum have funded the political campaigns of Dutch right-wing leader Geert Wilders.

 

False Statements

 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes are reported to have put some $150,000 of foundation money into his campaign."

 

Fact 8: Not a penny from Daniel Pipes or the Middle East Forum has gone to Wilders personally, his political party, or his campaign.

 

MEF did provide a grant to pay legal bills in Mr. Wilders' trial over his film on radical Islam.

 

As the New York Times notes: "the funds that were sent to Geert Wilders were to help him in his legal cases and were not political donations."

 

Falsehood 9: Campus Watch seeks to stifle academic freedom.

 

False Statements

 

CAIR: Campus Watch [is] part of a larger anti-intellectual campaign aimed at regulating discourse on the Middle East.

 

Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, The Nation: Campus Watch is "neo-McCarthyite" and part of the "New McCarthyism" that seeks to silence anyone with whom it disagrees.

 

Fact 9: Campus Watch critiques contemporary Middle East studies, which years ago jettisoned rigorous scholarship and teaching for politicized, biased, and inferior work. There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing and criticizing academic research.

 

No cliché is more hackneyed, no charge intellectually lazier than that CW engages in "McCarthyism" (see right). Unlike the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Campus Watch—a private organization—neither possesses nor seeks the ability to silence or persecute anyone.

 

Only in the fevered imaginations of some professors do rigorous critiques by outsiders equate with an anti-Communist witch-hunt.

 

Falsehood 10: Daniel Pipes has lost the support of his former academic colleagues

 

False Statements

 

Al Jazeera [interviewing a spokesman from the Center for American Progress]: Pipes has a "scholarly background, but ... he has lost the support of many of the people he used to work with, and associate with, when he was a well-respected scholar."

 

Fact 10: Mr. Pipes never stopped being a "well-respected scholar" When President George W. Bush nominated him to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, 30 academics signed a letter in support of the appointment. For a more recent example, Professor Edward Alexander of the University of Washington lavished praise in 2016 on Pipes' Nothing Abides.

 

That said, it is true that a radicalized academia condemns Pipes and the Forum for their mainstream outlook – and especially for their role in exposing the failure of Middle East studies.

_________________

©1994-2017 The Middle East Forum  

 

MEF About Page

 

With roots going back to 1990, the Middle East Forum has been an independent tax-exempt 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia since 1994.

 

Mission

 

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

 

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.

 

In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.

 

At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.

 

Methods

 

The Middle East Forum realizes READ ENTIRETY

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Politics
write a comment
August 10 2017 5 10 /08 /August /2017 10:57

John R. Houk

© August 10, 2017

 

This tidbit of AWESOME information hasn’t the MSM yet. Apparently, according to a Newsmax story, Crooked Hillary is about to experience Attorney General Jeff Sessions reopening an investigation into her illegal email server while Secretary State.

 

The limited info available claims the DOJ has offered Crooked Hillary a plea agreement. If accurate, the agreement would let Crooked Hillary of the hook for further investigation, including pay-to-play investigations, if she admits she committed a prosecutable offense over the emails.

 

If true, and she goes along with it the plea agreement, the Clinton Crime family gets a pass on accountability. So far people in the know seem to believe Crooked Hillary may have too much hubris to admit a criminal offense.

 

Frankly, I hope a hubris issue is true. The Clinton Crime family has operated too long without criminal accountability. I hope the investigation is true. If there was a plea offer, I hope Clinton arrogance refuses it. AND I hope a thorough investigation proceeds that leads to the entire crooked swamp, up to and including Barack Hussein Obama!

 

VIDEO: BREAKING NEWS: Hillary Clinton to be Offered a Plea Deal by AG Jeff Sessions DOJ

 

 

Posted by Golden State Times

Published on Aug 9, 2017

 

The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney

Subscribe for more: http://bit.ly/2ul0Cqo

SIGN UP to our Newsletter Here: Goldenstatetimes.com

If you would like to help us out on PayPal: 
paypal.me/GSTLIVE


Thank you In Advance

SOCIAL MEDIA:

Like us on Facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/GoldenStateTimes


Follow us on Twitter: 
http://www.twitter.com/GST_Politics

 

JRH 8/10/17

*****************

Report: Hillary Clinton email investigation reopened — Clinton purportedly offered plea deal

 

By Sarah Taylor

Aug 9, 2017 7:43 pm

The Blaze

 

The investigation into Hillary Clinton's email servers has reportedly been reopened, and the former presidential candidate has allegedly been offered a plea deal. (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

 

A Tuesday report published on conservative website, Newsmax, has many people questioning the validity of claims made against Hillary Clinton and reports that the email server investigation has been reopened.

 

The article, titled, “Hillary’s Plea Bargain,” was penned by Ed Klein, former New York Times Magazine editor-in-chief, and claimed that not only had the Clinton email investigation been reopened, but that Clinton was offered a plea bargain if she will admit that she “committed a prosecutable crime.”

 

Klein claimed that the report came from one of Clinton’s attorneys.

 

From Newsmax:

 

The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney.

 

The discussion of a plea bargain took place late last month and was offered by a high-ranking Justice Department official to the Clinton lawyer.

 

During the exploratory talks with the prosecutor, the Clinton attorney was told that despite former FBI Director James Comey’s decision last July not to prosecute Hillary, the Justice Department has reexamined the email case and believes there are ample grounds for prosecuting Hillary on a number of counts.

 

Under the Justice Department’s plea offer, Hillary would be required to sign a document admitting that she committed a prosecutable crime. In return, the DOJ would agree not to bring charges against Hillary in connection with the email probe.

 

Also as part of the agreement, the Justice Department would not proceed with an investigation of Hillary’s pay to play deals with foreign governments and businessmen who contributed to the Clinton Foundation or who paid Bill Clinton exorbitant speaking fees.

 

The Clinton attorney cautioned that normally a plea is offered by a prosecutor only upon arraignment, and Hillary has not yet been charged with any crime.

 

Klein on Tuesday also noted that he didn’t think Clinton would take the plea bargain.

 

Speaking with “America Talks Live’s” Miranda Khan, Klein said, “Sometimes she has trouble admitting that she’s Hillary Clinton, you’re absolutely right. This is a woman who never, ever admits that she did anything wrong.”

 

“We’ve all seen how she has blamed everybody but herself for her loss in 2016 at the presidential election. So you’re right, I totally agree with you that the chances of her accepting such an offer are practically zero,” he said.

 

Despite doubling down on his remarks about the Clinton investigation, there seemed to be a discrepancy in communication, because after the article was published, he told Khan that the Department of Justice was “considering” reopening it, not that they had reopened it.

 

“They are seriously thinking of reopening this investigation and therefore if she doesn’t take the plea agreement, which I agree with you, she almost certainly won’t, I think they will then proceed with this investigation and this is going to drag on for a long time and in a way balance the investigation that’s going on with President Donald Trump and his campaign advisers regarding so-called collusion with the Russians.”

_____________

Lock Her UP Redux

John R. Houk

© August 10, 2017

____________

Report: Hillary Clinton email investigation reopened — Clinton purportedly offered plea deal

 

© 2017 TheBlaze, Inc.

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Crime Politics Conspiracy Theory
write a comment
August 9 2017 4 09 /08 /August /2017 13:56

John R. Houk

© August 9, 2017

 

If you haven’t already heard, Loretta Lynch has been caught using an alias in communicating about her meeting with former President Slick-Willie Clinton on an airport tarmac right smack in the middle of the 2016 Presidential campaign and the investigation – er I mean the “matter” – of Crooked Hillary’s easily hacked private email server.

 

Slick-Willie/Loretta Lynch

 

Once Lynch has been outed in suspicious emails with a clandestine email handle connected to the tarmac meeting, the Conservatives (including me) pointed the “I knew it finger”. Unsurprisingly the Leftist pundits claim, “nothing to see here”. As if because many Obama Administration used email aliases explains everything. BULL MANURE! The email aliases point to hiding a nefarious Obama communication system to hide unseemly activities.

 

In introducing a Fox News story on these Lynch shady activities, D. Jolly writes:

 

If someone didn’t do anything wrong, then is there any reason to use an alias when referring to what you did? That’s the question that Congress needs to be asking former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

 

On June 27, 2016, in the heat of the presidential campaigns and during the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, Lynch met with and talked with Bill Clinton on the tarmac as Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. This was quite unusual and drew many questions, but Lynch and Clinton swore that it was just a friendly meeting with no discussion about the campaign of email scandal. RIGHT! (WHY DID LYNCH USE ALIAS IN REFERRING TO CLINTON TARMAC MEETING? By D JOLLY; Great American Politics; 8/8/17)

 

This means Lynch committed perjury at her Congress testimony:

 

VIDEO: Loretta Lynch Guilty of Perjury?

 

 

Posted by Mike Cernovich

Published on Aug 6, 2017

 

It looks like Loretta Lynch lied but will it matter?

Check me out of Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MikeCernovich/

 

As the video shows, Lynch lied about using government email for only official business. Lynch lied! Will she be prosecuted? I’m thinking this is a great drain the swamp opportunity to give her immunity in exchange for at least the true conversation between her and Slick Willie. If Lynch continues with the crapola that the conversation was about family matter, prosecute her for lying. No one happens to be at an airport tarmac to speak with an ex-President merely on family matters!

 

Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit provides a great outline of Lynch’s Deep State corruption.

 

JRH 8/9/17

******************

Boom! Loretta Lynch Used Alias Email for Alibi the Day After She Was Caught Meeting with Bill Clinton on Tarmac

 

By Jim Hoft

August 7th, 2017 5:23 pm

Gateway Pundit

 

On Friday internet sleuth Kim Dotcom dropped a bomb on Twitter.

 

Kim posted an email Friday showing Loretta Lynch using an alias to contact DOJ officials.

 

The Department of Justice released hundreds of emails to the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) this week in the investigation of former AG Lynch’s secret meeting with former President Bill Clinton.

 

One email shows Loretta Lynch hiding her identity from Department of Justice officials. 

 

Elisabeth Carlisle Email

 

Melanie Newman from the Department of Justice leaked it in the email.


And— AG Lynch (Elizabeth Carlisle) then responded with a “thanks to all who worked on this.”

 

Here is Kim DotCom’s tweet:

 

 

 

MORE— Another message from June 29 to the Attorney General was sent to the Elizabeth Carlisle account.

 

Melanie Newman to Elizabeth Carlisle

 

Now this


Reddit The Donald users discovered that Loretta Lynch used her grandmother’s maiden name “Lizzie Carlisle” as her alias.

 

Loretta’s grandmother’s name is Lizzie Carlisle Harris.


Loretta’s mother’s name is Lorine Harris Lynch.

 

Here is her grandmother’s death certificate.

 

 

It looks like the deep state forgot to cover that up in the emails they released to the ACLJ.

 

Now this.

 

AG Loretta Lynch told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) under oath that she only uses official email in November 2016 — after these above emails were sent.

 

Lynch-Carlisle photo

 

Rep. Trey Gowdy: So you use official email to conduct official business?

 

AG Loretta Lynch: Yes sir. I do.

 

That was a complete lie under oath.


Loretta Lynch committed perjury.

 

Via Reddit The Donald.

 

VIDEO: Trey Gowdy Smashes Lying Loretta Lynch For Protecting Hillary Clinton

 

 

Posted by Amicus Humani Generis

Published on Nov 28, 2016

 

trey gowdy puts AG in her place.

follow on twitter! https://twitter.com/AmicusGenerisYT

Channel Merchandise Has READ THE REST

 

Now this


Lynch’s attorney confirmed on Monday that Lynch emailed under that pseudonym.


The Daily Caller reported:

 

“Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, confirmed to TheDC on Monday that Lynch emailed under that pseudonym. He pointed to an article published in The Hill last February in which the Justice Department acknowledged that Lynch was using an email handle that was not her given name.

 

“That address was and is known to the individuals who process [Freedom of Information Act] requests; the practice, similar to using initials or numbers in an email, helps guard against security risks and prevent inundation of mailboxes,” Raben said.

 

And Lynch used the alias email the day after she was caught meeting with Bill Clinton on on a private plane in Arizona.

 

Lynch said she and Clinton talked only of grandchildren, golf, and their respective travels but the documents that were released to Judicial Watch are highly redacted confirming none of that was true.

 

Lynch used her Carlisle address on June 28th — the day after her infamous meeting with Bill Clinton.

 

Carlisle to Newman email

 

Loretta Lynch lied about not using an alias email while under oath, she lied about the nature of her conversation with Bill Clinton on the Arizona tarmac and now she was caught using her alias email the day after her infamous tarmac meeting to decide on how she would lie to the lapdog media.

___________________

Drain Swamp – Prosecute Lynch

John R. Houk

© August 9, 2017

_________________

Boom! Loretta Lynch Used Alias Email for Alibi the Day After She Was Caught Meeting with Bill Clinton on Tarmac

 

2017 theGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.

 

About The Gateway Pundit

 

In late 2004 I started The Gateway Pundit blog after the presidential election. At that time I had my twin brother Joe and my buddy Chris as regular readers. A lot has changed since then.

 

Today The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. The Gateway Pundit has 15 million visits each month (Stat Counter – Google Analytics). It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.

 

Jim Hoft was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013. Jim Hoft received the READ THE REST

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Crime Conspiracy Theory Politics
write a comment
August 8 2017 3 08 /08 /August /2017 16:15

No Government Influence, but Plenty of Religious People Influence Toward Government

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2017

 

Interesting thoughts from “christine andme” at the G+ Community The United States Of America - 2ND REVOLUTION on my post ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’ posted at the NCCR blog.

 

Her thoughts are based on a 12/2016 video essay by the Youtube channel Call of Duty Goddess. The video title is “How America Passed a Law to Ban Islam”.

 

To the Shores of Tripoli

 

The Call of Duty Goddess outlines very coherently how Islam is incompatible with American Constitutional Law. She brings President Jefferson into her line of thinking based on the first Barbary Pirate was that occurred during Jefferson’s Administration. You should take the time to Google the two Barbary Pirate wars on which Jefferson failed to bring a total victory for the USA. Jefferson’s military action was successful but instead of forcing a complete capitulation from the Muslim pirates, Jefferson tried a diplomatic mission thinking like a Westerner and tried a peace that attempted a mutual common good. Meaning Jefferson gave cash and more to the Muslims and in return the U.S. received some freed American slaves (as in White people captured) and American prisoners. Jefferson’s largesse only temporarily placated the Muslim pirates because they upped their raids of American ship again including making crew and passengers slaves and/or prisoners.  

 

The video’s is a bit misleading because there was no 1786 law prohibiting the practice of Islam on American shores. Rather the Call of Duty Goddess using an experience that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a meeting between then Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adj, Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain to fellow Ambassador John Jay. Jefferson quotes the Tripoli Ambassador informing:

 

“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Obama Could Learn From Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 Response to Muslims During the Barbary Coast War; By Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers; 10/14/14)

 

The Call of Duty Goddess (and apparently several other historical pieces I have perused) believes this early experience with Islam was the push that the later President Jefferson to take military action against the Barbary Pirates.

 

After outlining the incompatibility of Islam with the American Constitution coupled with Jefferson’s presumed mindset on Islam, the Call of Duty Goddess this is the reasoning there is a Separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

 

I can only concur with the Call of Duty Goddess ONLY in the sense that government is separated from religion, BUT religion is not separate from being an influence on government. AND since a significant majority of the Founding Fathers (yes even American Deists like Jefferson) were quite amiable to Judeo-Christian morality, this was the influence expected to keep America good.

 

Since christine mentions Slovakia banning Islam in her post, I thought I’d provide a bit of an update on the Slovakia law. It is true such a ban was passed by the Slovakian legislature on 11/30/16. However, Slovakia’s President Andrej Kiska vetoed the Slovakian legislature on 12/20/16. Fox News reports on 1/31/17 that the Slovakian legislature overrode Kiska’s veto.

 

JRH 8/8/17

*********************

Agreeing with Main Point- ‘Fallacy of Church/State Separation’

 

By christine andme

August 7, 2017

The United States of America – 2nd Revolution

 

I totally agree with the main point of that message.

 
I want to mention one interesting notion regarding 'separation of church and state'. The creator of the below video believes it was meant to protect Americans from religions such as Islam. That became law in 1786, which was the same year Thomas Jefferson met with 'barbaric pirates' to discuss the jizya (tax that infidels had to pay to Muslims) which was as large as 6% of total budget then. Jefferson studied Koran and figured Islam is intertwined with politics because it comes with Sharia law, and that pushed founding fathers to establish the law to 'separate church and state'. The video publisher says that is her opinion, and actually that notion is the supporting argument of hers to ultimately assert 'U.S. passed a law in 1786 to ban Islam from being registered as a religion' 'just as Slovakia recently did'.

 
I have heard that 'separation of church and state' is meant that churches wanted to make sure that government would not interfere with churches, which I believed. I also agree that what ACLU etc. is trying to do is simply wrong based on their misinterpretation of the 1st amendment. I don't know why the factor of Islam has not been discussed by more scholars (well, I think I know: it is the same reason why the fact that Jihad killed 270 million people has not been taught in the US History textbooks...) Anyway, I thought 'Islam' being one reason for the 'separation of church and state' was interesting perspective.

 

VIDEO: How America Passed a Law to Ban Islam

 

 

Posted by  Call of Duty Goddess

Published on Dec 3, 2016
 

Slovakia Passes Law to BAN ISLAM from Being Registered as a Religion
http://freedomoutpost.com/slovakia-passes-law-to-ban-islam-from-being-registered-as-a-religion/

Islam: Governing Under Sharia
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islam-governing-under-sharia


Islam 101 - 7 – Sharia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdKSgIwK_6U


Understanding Islamic Law
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/52-understanding-islamic-law.html


Muslims Want Sharia Law in Non-Muslim Countries Robert Spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0FpDCZdvHk [Blog Editor: This Youtube account was terminated by Youtube]


YOUR RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom [Blog Editor: Always be wary of ACLU hatred of Christianity]

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html


Religion and the Founding of the American Republic [Pt 2]
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01-2.html

Cornerstone Documents in Virginia and American History: An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
https://youtu.be/KwAxl701RUo


THE TRUTH OF THE MARINE CORP ANTHEM AND THE UNITED STATES WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAM
https://whtwolf74.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/the-truth-of-the-marine-corp-anthem-and-the-united-states-war-with-radical-islam/

Image 2 of American Peace Commissioners to John Jay, March 28, 1786
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.005_0430_0433/?sp=2

When Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur’an
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/03/26/when-thomas-jefferson-read-the-quran/

 

___________________

Religion & Government-

No Government Influence, but Plenty of Religious People Influence Toward Government

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2017

__________________

Agreeing with Main Point- ‘Fallacy of Church/State Separation’

 

Blog Editor: The title is by the Editor. Christine’s post is edited. Text and links in the video quoted material enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Politics
write a comment
August 7 2017 2 07 /08 /August /2017 14:41

On July 19, 2017 I cross posted the Clarion Project notifying readers the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) was shut down by Facebook without explanation. As of today, 8/7/17, Facebook still has not taken CJC out of its jail - CJC Facebook.

 

Just as a side irony, there is a Facebook community with a similar name CounterJihad.com. Wisely, like CJC, this Facebook group has a website as well by the same name – CounterJihad.com. CJC Facebook was undoubtedly shut down by a Muslim complaint trying to prevent the Truth about Islam. I advise massive support for CounterJihad.com Facebook to hopefully counter dhimmitude censorship.

 

 

NOW I am finding out that CJC live community efforts to enlighten Americans about the truth of Islam in Cerritos, CA has been shut down because a couple of loud-mouth Muslims caused a public disruption at the mall of the same name as the city.

 

Rather than escorting a couple of noisy Muslims off the mall premises, Cerritos Mall officials forced CJC to close their both inside the mall.

 

Here’s the story at Jihad Watch.

 

JRH 8/7/17

***************

California: Muslims Attack Counter Jihad Coalition, Law Enforcement Caves to Muslims

 

By STEVE AMUNDSON

AUGUST 6, 2017 6:31 PM

Jihad Watch

 

 

At first I thought that the two Muslims shouting at us would leave, as they have done in the past. I was wrong; it played out differently on Saturday. They were there to stay with their loud, obnoxious voices until they could get us shut down. The crowd started growing due to the commotion. Soon it numbered in the hundreds.

 

The cause of all of this was that the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) was out on a public outreach in the Cerritos Mall in Cerritos, California, educating the public on the truth of Islam. The CJC was formed several years ago to get the truth into the hands of people, since most of the mainstream media paints Islam as the religion of peace.

 

 

We have developed over 30 brochures on different aspects of Islam. All are factual and true, not our opinions. They are all based on the doctrines of Islam as set out in the Quran and the Sunnah. On a typical day, we pass out 1,500 or more of these brochures to people, who for the most part are thankful for what we are doing.

 

We saw an increase in Muslim pushback right after the Islamic State (ISIS) made the news, and then a huge increase in their aggressiveness after President Trump was elected. They will go to great lengths to keep the people from knowing the violence, oppression and brutality that are inherent in what they believe. And now more than ever, they are on the warpath to shut down these truths.

 

This past Saturday, at this venue where we have been going to for a year, Muslim anger came to a head. I called security when things started to get unruly. Soon officers from mall security, along with several Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies, arrived to try and restore calm and sort things out.

 

To show you how upside down our society is, the mall manager said to me that he was going to have to shut us down early. What? Everything had been going along smoothly until the two Muslims started yelling, shouting at us and creating the hostile environment. They knew if they disturbed and disrupted, that they would win. They shouted at me that they would be there every day looking for us, and would do whatever they had to do to shut us down.

 

It was only a few weeks ago that the Sharia police on Facebook banned our Counter Jihad Coalition Facebook site, and took it down. To this day, I have not received an explanation from them for their action. Facebook is simply Sharia-compliant. Not only us, but many other counter-jihad groups have recently been shut down on Facebook. Our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us by the leftists who are in control of the means of communication.

 

In a similar vein, do you think the Sheriff Deputies escorted the obnoxious, hateful, foul-mouthed Muslims out of the mall? Not a chance! When I asked one of the Deputies if they were going to escort out the unruly Muslims, their response to me was they were waiting to hear from the mall management and what they wanted to do. So much for our law enforcement officials protecting law-abiding citizens. Every time we want to have a public outreach at this mall, we turn in an application and wait until it is approved.

 

After the Deputies failed to escort out the Muslims who were causing the disruption, the mall manager came over to me and said, “We are going to have to shut you down early today.” When I

suggested they usher out the unruly Muslims instead, I was told that they have a right to be there and said they would not leave until we left. Did we not have a right to be there? Our dhimmi law enforcement, mall security and mall management seem to be willing to cater to Muslims anytime they are called upon to do so.

 

We will see what happens next week, when I turn in a new application to exercise my right of free speech. Americans better wake up fast and start pushing back on this encroachment of Sharia before our freedoms and rights are gone. Then it will be too late.

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Originally the Cerritos Mall photos were posted at the end on Jihad Watch. I decided to move them in more strategic locations.

 

Jihad Watch Copyright Info

 

 

Why Jihad Watch?

 

Why Jihad Watch? Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and impose Islamic law upon them — and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

 

Jihad (Arabic for “struggle”) is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology. Many passages of the Qur’an and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

 

In Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur’an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the “Verse of the Sword”: “Then, when READ THE REST

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment
August 7 2017 2 07 /08 /August /2017 09:02

Political humor in pictures. And when I say humor, I mean Hilarious humor!

 

JRH 8/7/17 (Hat tip Paul S)

****************

Hillary's Late Night Phone Call To the President

 

August 1, 2017

DiogenesMiddleFinger.com

 

Hillary Clinton phoned the President’s office shortly after midnight. “I need to talk to President Trump, it’s an emergency!” exclaimed Hillary. After some cajoling, the President’s assistant finally agreed to disturb his boss’s important study time.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank You MJA for the Linkage!

_______________

Diogenes' Middle Finger / Middle Finger News Service © 2010-2017. 

 

Diogenes Sarcastica

 

is a brilliant, fabulously talented and visually stunning example of a placental mammal, who casually shrugs off a promising career as a technical innovator and major driving force in the recording industry to throw rubber chickens at the leftist loonies on the interwebz. Also, she is very modest, and truthful. She presently resides in a broken down voodoo shack somewhere in the wilds of Northwest Louisiana.

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
August 6 2017 1 06 /08 /August /2017 12:20

 

The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of "separation of Church and State" is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

***************

The Fallacy of "Separation of Church and State"

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government's role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law" either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

 
Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of "separation of church and state." Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court's excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute "separation of church and state" and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL 'RELIGION'; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]


On New Year's Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."

 
The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.


It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar's and what was God's. The whole point of the First Amendment's attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.
 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, "I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained." If Justice Black, the author of the court's majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?
 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one's home.


Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" [Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn't the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of "natural rights" in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: "... this Court's nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections ... It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court."
 

In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
 

For eight decades, the ACLU has been America's leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America's core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion --- civilizing forces in any society --- are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers' own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
 

Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of "separation of Church and State" is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Christianity
write a comment
August 5 2017 7 05 /08 /August /2017 16:11

Troy Newman & Judge William Orrick

 

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

 

On July 14, 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released its first undercover Planned Parenthood video, blowing the whistle on the abortion industry’s practice of illegally harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies.

 

Just 17 days later, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed a lawsuit against CMP and ultimately secured a preliminary injunction against lead investigator and CMP founder David Daleiden. The injunction prohibited him from releasing any footage obtained during NAF conferences and meetings, which David had attended undercover with the goal of exposing illegal activity by the abortion industry.

 

Fast forward almost two years—and the lawsuit is still ongoing. Meanwhile, Daleiden’s footage from the NAF conference remains under lock and key, leaving some to wonder what secrets NAF is trying to hide. (Abortion Industry’s Interests Should Never Outweigh Public Concerns or First Amendment Rights; By Marissa Mayer; Alliance Defending Freedom; 4/21/17)

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick violated the First Amendment Rights of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) by gagging all undercover videos exposing the murderous intent by National Abortion Federation (NAF) in trafficking aborted and live birth baby parts for profit. Planned Parenthood was stung the same way. Leftists in law enforcement are doing their best to cover-up these nefarious murders and felonious activities with baby part trafficking.

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who granted the preliminary injunction in favor of the National Abortion Federation to halt the release of the videos, ordered any links to the video to be removed after it was published by the Center for Medical Progress on Thursday.

 

Judge Orrick also ordered CMP lead investigator David Daleiden and his attorneys to appear in court June 14, The Associated Press reported, for a hearing where he will consider holding them in contempt for releasing the footage.

 

Mr. Daleiden has been charged with 15 felonies in California stemming from his undercover investigation into the abortion giant. His attorneys have called it a “witch hunt” that flies in the face of the First Amendment.

 

YouTube has not responded to a request for comment.

 

The three-minute video showed top Planned Parenthood executives joking about severed fetus heads, admitting to altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal organs and conceding that clinics have a financial incentive to sell the human remains from abortions. (YouTube removes latest Planned Parenthood video on judge’s order; By Bradford Richardson; Washington Times; 5/26/17)

 

Judge Orrick took advantage of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court’s unfavorable ruling to make that gag order.

 

The abortion industry has desperately tried to suppress and delegitimize the work of CMP, including through the use of litigation. We represent former CMP board member Troy Newman – who is also the President of Operation Rescue – in lawsuits filed by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) as well as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates, and we recently filed briefs in both cases.

 

In the NAF case, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the defendants from publishing videos or materials relating to NAF conferences, or sharing such information with anyone, including state Attorneys General or local law enforcement officers, while the case moves forward. The defendants have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and we recently filed a reply brief (under seal by court order) that emphasizes that government investigators, and the general public, have a compelling interest in being able to review the videos and materials themselves.

 

In the PPFA case, we recently filed a reply brief supporting our motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Our brief explains that all of the claims – such as wire fraud, racketeering, and breach of contract – are meritless, so the case should be dismissed. (Two Briefs Filed in Fight to Expose Illegal Abortion Practices; By ACLJ.org; 7/2016)

 

One of the founders of CMP, Troy Newman, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to win back the First Amendment Right to expose the crimes of Planned Parenthood.

 

Here is the Press Release that I first received in my Inbox from Operation Rescue; however, I’m cross posting the PR from ChristianNewsWire.com.

 

JRH 8/5/17

*****************

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

PRESS RELEASE

August 4, 2017

ChristianNewsWire.com

 

Contact: Troy Newman, President, 316-683-6790 ext. 111; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President , 316-516-3034; both with Operation Rescue,  info.operationrescue@gmail.com   

 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ -- Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and a founding member of the Center for Medical Progress, filed a petition yesterday to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionality of a preliminary injunction that prohibits the release of undercover videos recorded at National Abortion Federation (NAF) meetings - even to law enforcement when they contain evidence of crimes.

 

The petition, captioned Newman v. National Abortion Federation, states:

 

This Petition stems from an injunction forbidding the voluntary disclosure to law enforcement agencies, other governmental bodies, and the general public of recordings and other information that the enjoined individuals and entities-as well as Congressional investigators-believe are evidence of widespread criminal, illegal, and unethical conduct, including felonies.

 

Newman is represented by Jay Sekulow, who leads Newman's team of attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

 

During Newman's tenure on the Board of the Center for Medical Progress, the NAF, and later Planned Parenthood, filed suits in a San Francisco Federal Court against Newman and others in an effort to prevent the release of further undercover videos that exposed the illegal trade in aborted baby body parts.

 

And it is little wonder that the NAF would not want the videos released.

 

Newman's Supreme Court Petition notes that Congressional investigations conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives referred members of the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

Newman argues that the enjoined recordings corroborate the determination of the two Congressional investigations, which found evidence that NAF members (including several Planned Parenthood organizations) were engaged in the following criminal conduct:

 

  • Profiting from the sale of fetal organs;

 

  • Altering abortion procedures for financial gain;

 

  • Performing illegal partial-birth abortions;

 

  • Killing newborns who survived attempted abortions;

 

  • Failing to obtain informed consent for fetal tissue donations;

 

  • Violating federal regulations regarding Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and

 

  • Fraudulent overbilling practices.

 

Newman's petition further states:

 

It has long been a tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence that individuals who believe that they have information concerning criminal or illegal activities should be permitted, and encouraged, to voluntarily provide such information to government authorities. Similarly, investigative journalism concerning matters of public concern, including the uncovering of illegal, unethical, or troubling activities, is a constitutionally protected, venerable undertaking.

 

Newman's unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth Circuit was joined by state 14 Attorneys General, led by Arizona, who are seeking to review the evidence contained in the recordings.

 

As the most important abortion case currently under litigation, Newman v. NAF could have profound implications on the future use of undercover investigative techniques and the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence in criminal investigations.

 

Read the Petition in Newman v. NAF

 

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation and has become a strong voice for the pro-life movement in America.  Click here to support Operation Rescue.

____________________

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

__________________

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

About Operation Rescue

 

Who We Are

 

History

 

Endorsements

 

What Others Say About Us


Contact

 

© Christian Newswire 2017. All Rights Reserved. | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW - Washington - DC - 20006 | 202-546-0054 

 

Christian Newswire Services:

 

Christian Newswire is the most used and most recognized distributor of religious content news releases in the nation.

 

Over 2100 public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, religious organizations, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates use Christian Newswire to distribute their news releases.   Click to see our client list. 

 

How much does it cost?

 

$75 is what we charge to transmit your 400-words-or-less() news release to our exclusive national media list.  Our competitors charge from $295 to $395, yet they do not have the direct contact with reporters and news producers that we have.

 

You do not need to use a credit card.  We will send you a bill.  It is that easy.  Just email us your news release, or use the form on this website and tell us to send it out.  No membership fee. You are not required to purchase any additional services.

 

Want to know more about where your news release will go and who will see it?

 

National list of over 2500 reporters and news producers whose beat is "conservative & family issues" ($75 for up to 400 words)  These are TV, radio, wire-service, and print reporters/producers that cover family and conservative issues, that READ THE REST

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Christianity Crime
write a comment
August 4 2017 6 04 /08 /August /2017 18:17

 

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) just became one of my new political heroes. He berated Congress in session (7/27/17) over ignoring ALL the Dem Party corruption while being hot to sick Robert Mueller on witch hunt to take down the Trump Administration.

 

Check it out:

 

VIDEO: BREAKING: [VIDEO] CONGRESS DEMANDS THE INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY CLINTON

 

 

Posted by Trumpet News

Published on Aug 1, 2017

 

The Gateway Pundit summarizes King’s message this way:

 

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) addressed Congress last Thursday in support of legislation that requires the Attorney General to turn over documents regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s involvement in various controversial cases.

 

The legislation passed 16-13 with King voting in favor of it. King addressed Congress with an impassioned and detailed inquiry/speech.  (Rep. Steve King Calls for Full Investigations Into Obama, Clinton, Comey, Soros, Lynch, and Others (VIDEO); By Carter; Gateway Pundit; 8/1/17 4:36 pm)

 

Below are the talking points in the AWESOME video you just watched from Rep. Steve King’s website.

 

JRH 8/4/17

***************

King Calls For Wider Investigations of Obama, Clinton, Comey, Soros, Lynch, Abedin, and Weiner Scandals

 

Jul 27, 2017

Press Release

SteveKing.House.gov

 

Congressman Steve King released the following video of statements he made during Judiciary Committee debate of legislation requiring the Attorney General to provide copies of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or other communication that refers or relates to a number of troubling aspects of James Comey’s tenure as FBI director.

 

In the course of his remarks, Congressman King recounted a litany of facts and events that reveal the corruption that surrounds many of the nation’s most prominent Democrats, as well as their disturbing pattern of using American taxpayer money to interfere in foreign elections. King’s entire remarks can be viewed here.

 

King concluded his remarks by asserting the trail of Democratic election corruption leads to Barack Obama, and that the examples he cites should be investigated fully.

 

Excerpted remarks:

 

On Barack Obama’s election interference in other countries:

 

“It’s pretty clear the Obama administration sent their people over to Israel to work against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pretty much openly. Significant dollars invested in that campaign over there. The President of the United States, with at least the moral support of the people that had worked for him, in the country of Israel, [sought] to shift the results of the election against the seated Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu.”

 

 

“The Obama administration is a long ways from clean on this, as far as being involved in elections in other countries.”

 

On George Soros’ Use of Taxpayer Money to interfere in election in the Balkans:

 

learned the United States government, borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia, had handed over at least $5,000,000 in contracts transferred through USAID into George Soros’s organizations that were used to manipulate elections in the Balkans.”

 

On the need to reopen investigations into Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner:

 

The long string that we should be looking at with this investigation and special counsel that is our request here goes a long ways back. It goes clear back to Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, 650,000 emails, which we still have access to.”

 

On James Comey’s sham investigation of Hillary Clinton:

 

This [Comey’s Investigation of Clinton] is what looks like, on its face, a sham investigation. Plus, they destroyed a tremendous amount of information: at least 30,000 emails, crushed hard drives, bought bleach bit, hired outside contractors to scrub emails up. And we’re to take James Comey’s word for this, that there wasn’t enough substance there to bring a prosecution, even though a year ago, July 5th, James Comey delivered 15 minutes of a summary of prosecution that was completely convincing to me until we got down to the last couple sentences of that presentation which was, ‘well, we can’t prove intent.’ Well, curiously there is no requirement for intent in the two statutes that appear to be violated.”

 

I look back in the records to the previous October and previous April, Barack Obama stated into the news media record ‘Hillary Clinton would never intend to put our national security at risk; Hillary Clinton would never intend to harm America’s security. That’s the previous October and April. Well, James Comey latched onto that word, ‘intend’, and they made up new law and gave Hillary Clinton an exemption for this intent that they said they couldn’t prove which is absolutely proven by the facts [Comey] delivered to us in the summary that day.”

 

On Loretta Lynch:

 

“Not only does this trail lead through Hillary Clinton and James Comey, but the Loretta Lynch component of this as well. When you put this in place, and look at the example of them on the tarmac, it’s hard to imagine they sat there for 45 minutes and discussed grandchildren.”

 

On allegations Democratic Operatives went to the Ukraine to get dirt on Candidate Trump:

 

“That brings me to Alexandra Chalupa who went off as a DNC contractor to Ukraine to try to gather dirt on the Trump people. So, bringing this around, Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude with this: the trail leads also to Barack Obama and we need to investigate all of this.”

 

________________

Steve King Bio on House Page

 

Steve King grew up in a law enforcement family in Storm Lake, Iowa. He attended Denison Community High School, where he met Marilyn Kelly, whom he married in 1972. They have lived in Kiron since 1976 and are members of St. Martin's Church in Odebolt. Steve and Marilyn have three grown sons and seven grandchildren.

King studied math and science at Northwest Missouri State University. He started King Construction in 1975 and built the business up from one bulldozer. He brings valuable knowledge to Congress as an agribusinessman and a small business owner for 28 years. King's oldest son now owns the construction business.

He served in the Iowa State Senate for six years. He was a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Judiciary Committee, Business and Labor Committee, the Commerce Committees, and chair of the State Government Committee. He worked in the State Senate to successfully eliminate the inheritance tax, enforce workplace drug testing, enforce parenting rights, including parental notification of abortions, pass tax cuts for working Iowans, and pass the law that made English the official language in Iowa. 

King was elected to Congress in 2002 to represent Iowa's Fifth Congressional District. During the 2012 election cycle, Iowa was redistricted to four districts. King now represents the Fourth Congressional District in the 114th Congress which includes: Ames, Fort Dodge, Mason City, Sioux City and Spencer. He brings personal experience, Constitutional principles, traditional marriage and family values and the perspective of representing one of the top producing agriculture districts in the nation to the people of Iowa's Fourth Congressional District.

King serves on the Agriculture Committee. He has long been dedicated to adding value as close to the corn stalk and bean stem as possible, as

 

 

King is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where he sits on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee and the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee. He believes the Constitution means what it says and that it should be read with the intent of our Founding Fathers in mind. King is never caught without a copy of the Constitution in his coat pocket. He is a strong advocate of the Rule of Law and enforcing our borders. King is a full-spectrum, Constitutional Conservative. 

King, for more than a decade, has chaired the Conservative Opportunity Society, a powerful and legendary House caucus that has become the conscience of Constitutional conservatives in the U.S. Congress. (
READ ENTIRETY)

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Crime
write a comment

Overview

  • : ubiquitous8thoughts
  • ubiquitous8thoughts
  • : This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.
  • Contact

Search

Links