Overblog Follow this blog
Administration Create my blog
March 10 2015 3 10 /03 /March /2015 13:37

 

Intro to ‘Islamophobia’

Edited by John R. Houk

Intro © March 10, 2015

 

This editorial by Shamim Masih is actually entitled “Status of Religious Freedom in Pakistan”. However the subject line of the email was “Islamophobia” so I went with that title whether intended or not.

 

As I read Shamim’s editorial I became intrigued to the reason for the Islamophobia subject line. The editorial emphasizes the Civil Rights and Human Rights violations that the Muslim community and politics of Pakistan continuously inflicts upon Christians and other religious minorities in the Sunni majority nation.

 

Islamophobia is typically the negative intoned accusation leveled against those that at worst hate Muslims and at best those like myself that views Islam as a threat to Western culture and an enemy of Judaism and Christianity in particularly.

 

The irony is “Islamophobia” more literally means an unnatural fear of Islam rather than the hatred of the Muslim practitioners of that theopolitical religion. In my case, I do not hate or fear Muslims. BUT I do regard the principles and dogmas of the Quran, Hadith, Sira and how that all affects the Muslim respect for Sharia Law as an innate human evil programmed into the mindset of its followers.

 

Most of Shamim’s past articles and editorials intimate that the only hope for religious minorities in Pakistan is for all religious faiths including the Sunni majority learn to accept each other in harmonious tolerance regardless of religious differences. AND in most cases I would agree to mutual tolerance; however the problem I have is that Islamic revered writings specifically encourages violence up to and including death to all unbelievers (define as kafir in Islam) who refuse to subject and submit their beliefs to Islamic Supremacy. On a personal level then I am not going to tolerate a religious faith that will not tolerate my faith just because I refuse to shut up about Jesus Christ being the Son of God.

 

JRH 3/10/15

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

Islamophobia

Status of Religious Freedom in Pakistan

 

By Shamim Masih

Sent 3/9/2015 9:06 PM

 

ISLAMABAD: On the third death anniversary of my mother, we arranged a prayer meeting in our house, where only our family members participated. As we were praying, somebody knocked at the door like he wanted to break it up at once. I went outside and found that our landlord was there. At once, he started shouting, why are you people praying at home, it is not church etc., etc. I humbly clarified that I knew it was not a Church and we didn’t invite other people to pray. It’s our family prayer meeting as it is my mother’s death anniversary. So we gathered in tribute to her [memory]. He strictly cautioned me not to do this again in the house. All the services should be performed in the Churches. This is just one example, there are many like this. Restrictions on building new Churches, registering a new Church based organization etc. even in Islamabad. There are only two properly constructed churches, while there are thousands of the mosques and madrassas (seminary). Reportedly, it is mentioned in the map of Islamabad, there should be one Church in each sector of the capital. But the Capital Development Authority (CDA) doesn’t allow you [Christians] build a Church in the capital.

    

Despite the first democratic transfer of power in the country’s history, from one civilian government to another, the exceedingly poor religious freedom environment worsened. Recent and previous rulers engaged in and tolerated systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief. Despite democratic institutions, Pakistan’s legal environment is particularly repressive due to its blasphemy laws and other religiously discriminatory legislation and constitutional provisions. Authorities failed to protect citizens, minority and majority alike, from the sectarian and religiously –motivated violence and courts have not consistently brought perpetrators to justice or taken action against societal actors who incite violence. There are many examples to it. I will just quote one, i.e. two years past when hundreds of the Christian houses in Joseph Colony were burnt. During this particular case, only Sawan Masih [Dawn.com] was sentenced to death but the rest of the perpetrators were set free to go for others [i.e. Christians].

 

Unfortunately Pakistani religious minorities are facing the worst situation in the world for religious freedom. In the past few years, conditions hit an all-time low due to chronic sectarian violence targeting not only Shia’s Muslims but also Christians, Ahmadis and Hindus. Pakistan’s repressive blasphemy laws and anti-Ahmadi laws are widely used to violate the religious freedoms and foster a climate of impunity. During 2014, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCRIF) again recommended that Pakistan be designated as a “country of particular concern” (CPC).

 

Muslims not only from Pakistan but from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and everywhere else have done enough to deserve hatred. They have been killing innocent children, attacked schools, burnt Christian villages, torn down Hindu temples, mutilated journalists, shunned scientific laws and flogged enough bloggers for free thinking to deserve this acrimony all around the world. Many of them claim that version of Islam is peaceful, a version that promotes brotherhood and peace. Unfortunately, that version of Islam is only found in books now.

 

Pakistani Christians live under the fear of religion, our churches, our kids and our lives are not secure. Converting to another religion is out of the question. Honestly speaking, at this very moment, Pakistan is not fit for Shia Muslims or non-Muslims alike. We are not against Islam but against this Mullaism*** (Islamophobia).  

 

Be Blessed,

Shamim Masih

 

Diplomatic Correspondent, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, UN, F & S, MOST, CADD & Human Rights Activist

 

Daily Khabrian – in Urdu (PakBiz.com description – in English) & Channel - 5 (A project of Khabrian Group of papers)

 

For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone - +92-300-642-4560

 

[***Blog Editor – Mullaism: I had to get a handle on Shamim’s concept of “Mullaism”. Here are some excerpts from three different websites that might be what Shamim had in mind:

 

Join us to stop religious harassments and terrorism in Pakistan, so that our country can move forward with peace and prosperity. (Stop Mullaism & Religious Terrorism In Pakistan; About Page; Facebook Community)

 

Mullaism is an industry in Pakistan. If the Mullahs reform themselves then their madrassa incomes and Saudi donations would stop. They do not want to be penniless after all. Their influence has been strong even in liberal times. During President Ayub khan’s rule from 1958 to 1968, he wanted to get rid of the word “Islamic” attached to Pakistan’s name in the constitution. This was opposed by the Mullahs who warned the President to refrain from doing so or face consequences. The President cowed down before them.  Ayub khan also wanted the role of Mullahs to be restricted to mosques. Sadly, he could not do this. (Do Mullahs Represent Islam? By Farooq Ahmad Khan; Pak Tea House; 6/3/12)

 

Kashmiryat - the lofty notion of belonging to one region - flourished by Kashmiris, irrespective of their faith, for centuries despite gravest provocations lies bruised in the wake of the current phase of secessionism in the Valley. Terrorist outfits groomed by the Jamaat- e-Islami (Jamaat) have outwitted those who professed their allegiance to secularism.

 

The Jamaat presents Islam as a political ideology - and not as religious pedagogy concerned only with the relationship between man and God. Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat, had no hesitation in making it explicit that Islam was a political ideology comparable to Communism and Fascism. According to him, it covered all departments of life, whether private or public.

 

The Jamaat also presents Islam as a creed whose mission is to fight all other creeds because it believes Islam to be the only true creed - all other creeds being flawed or false. Maududi reasoned that just as God has made the laws that govern physical nature, He has also made laws that govern social relations. The first set of laws can be ascertained by observation and experimentation. But God conveys the second set of laws concerning man's duties towards God and his fellow human beings only through revelations. Accordingly, divine messages have been transmitted to mankind from time to time through prophets.

 

 

Another feature of Maududi's ideology is that he singles out secularism as the chief adversary of Islam. He argues that secularism makes a distinction between the personal life of an individual and his public life, and banishes religion from the latter. Hence, anyone who believes in secularism will inevitably allow his secular values to influence his social, political and economic behaviour and thus violate the teachings of Islam, which draw no line between the domain of the spirit and that of the flesh.

 

Some ideologues of the Jamaat go a step further and argue that secularism is the road that leads to atheism because when you separate your personal beliefs from your social and political principles, the latter develop their own momentum and eventually dominate the former.

 

The Jamaat is not only communal in its outlook, it teaches militancy as well. Communalism of a minority community often centres on grievances of a political or economic nature and tends to be paranoid.

 

The Jamaat brand of communalism, however, is not concerned about immediate or short-term gains for the community. It projects Islam as an ideology and calls upon Muslims to organise themselves into a revolutionary party with the object of capturing total power. It is not bothered about jobs for Muslims or for a share in the power pie. On the contrary, the Jamaat requires its members not to hold any office under an unholy political system or alliance.

 

Maududi was the first noteworthy religious figure in the history of Indian Islam to propound the thesis that the supreme purpose of Islam is not the spiritual salvation of mankind; but to establish the sovereignty of God on earth or an Islamic state. All other purposes are secondary and subordinate to that of establishing an Islamic state. Before launching the Jamaat, he did a great deal of preparatory work which … There is MORE (Mullaism; Kashmiri Overseas Association)

 

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor

 

© Shamim Masih      

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Christianity
write a comment
March 9 2015 2 09 /03 /March /2015 09:32

 

Dajjal made a passionate comment to the post “Europe: Nordic Supremacism vs. Counterjihadism”. Dajjal comments most frequently on my NCCR blog. The spam protection on NCCR is oft times hyper-sensitive which is something I do appreciate. Unfortunately the WordPress spam software for NCCR marks some of Dajjal’s comments with an approval stamp. It doesn’t do that to all of Dajjal’s comments. Well, Dajjal’s comment to “Europe: Nordic Supremacism vs. Counterjihadism” was one of those comments so marked.

 

If I had to guess the reason I suspect it is because Dajjal will back his thoughts with authoritative links. When those links are numerous evidently the software raises a red flag. Also I suspect the software raises a red flag in the face of profanity. When Dajjal becomes impassioned on a point he does have a tendency toward profanity.

 

Dajjal made his comment on March 2, 2015. I discovered it needed approval on March 9. Sorry about that Dajjal.

 

Now my post on Nordic Supremacism vs. Counterjihadism was in regard to an open letter by the Nordic Supremacist Norwegian butcher Anders Breivik that murdered 76 people mostly at a Norwegian political party youth camp located on Utoya Island about 25 miles from Oslo. Breivik’s demented thinking was to kill white Norwegians and blame Muslims with the hope of causing like-minded racists to rise up to topple European governments and replace them with a Nordic Supremacist government that deports Muslims back to Muslim dominated lands.

 

My first paragraph after offering a quote from Breivik sums up the post “Europe: Nordic Supremacism vs. Counterjihadism”:

 

The above translated to English quote defines the real difference between Europe’s Neo-Nazi/Fascist movements and the nationalistic Right Wing Counterjihadist movements. The first is nationalistic racism politically and the second is nationalistic cultural preservation that is anti-Islamic (but not maliciously violent racist) and not antisemitic.

 

To get a more concrete idea what set off Dajjal perhaps read the entire post, but in lieu of that I think the summation paragraph could be enough. I am going edit Dajjal’s more colorful language with asterisks. Clearly Dajjal aligns himself with the Counterjihadists.

 

JRH 3/9/15

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

Expose Islam and Racists by Shining Bright Sunlight

[Title by Editor]

 

Dajjal

Original date: March 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM

 

There is one proper way to deal with s**t: expose it to the bright sunlight, let the birds pick out the worms and till it under so that it will nourish crops without being seen or smelled again.

 

I view supremacism as s**t. Nordic, N*gg*r, Arab, Asian; any and every kind & combination. Flush it or plow it under, don’t eat it.

 

I view authoritarian government: top down, might makes right fascism as another form of solid excrement. I object equally to national & international Socialism, Communism, cronyism and corruption whether imposed by individuals, cliques, minorities or majorities.

 

I take a firm stand on the solid foundation of the Declaration of Independence & Constitution. That government is best which governs least.

 

I do not give a damn about skin pigment, hair or facial features. It’s what’s on the inside that counts.

 

It’s the belief that they [Muslims] have a divine mission to conquer me ‘cuz I do not kiss their idol’s ass that I strenuously object to. That includes imperialism, conquest, occupation, exploitation, enslavement, murder, rape, plunder & extortion.

 

The proponents of that evil philosophy are called Muslims. Their ideology is called Islam. Their actions are atrocious and entirely unacceptable. Their goals, objectives and aspirations are intolerable regardless of the means used to realize them.

 

Supremacism & imperialism cannot be accepted; neither from Breivik nor Qaradawi. I do not accept it from the Democrat Party, Republican Establishment, SPLC, United Nations, Ecclesiastic authorities, academics or editors. They can all go to Hell.

 

My stand is on the rights of free men and their violation by authoritarian regimes including Islam. At present, Islam is the worst of them, and I concentrate on exposing it, turning the clods and separating the turds so that they can be clearly seen, smelled and identified.

 

Whomever labels me ‘racist’, ‘extremist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ thereby exposes himself as a slanderous liar, unable to contest verifiable facts and logical opinions clearly stated.

 

Let those in need of facts choose one of three books to read, checking their Qur’an & hadith citations with these search engines:

 

http://www.quranbrowser.com/

 

http://www.sunnah.com/

 

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/jihad/

 

http://wolfpangloss.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/malik-quranic-concept-of-war.pdf

 

http://api.ning.com/files/qnlif5STwXWJllDpiD8eR4ZJaME0iAeChqROisCh9REBFkr*W8yLdvIgQU-DjaJtNHTh1BG5Tmz20bVZDZmrci6TNPb5lEYS/MashariAlAshwaqilaMasarialUshaaqRevisedEdition.pdf

 

_____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor

 

© Dajjal

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment
March 8 2015 1 08 /03 /March /2015 15:08

 

Justin Smith provides some very legitimate thoughts on President Barack Hussein Obama’s unconstitutional actions with his pen and phone. Just a heads up there is a section in Justin’s essay that addresses the wealthy elites of the late 19th and early 20th using their Capitalistic attained riches to advance socialistic agendas in Great Britain (these days now more often referred to as United Kingdom).

 

The families Justin writes about are the Morgans, Rockefellers and Rothschilds. These three names are high fruit on the Conspiracy Theory tree. The Rothschild family holds a particular venom from antisemitic Conspiracy Theorists. (Debunking the NWO spun by Rothschild family: HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE. Promoting Rothschild family NWO laced with antisemitism: HERE and HERE.)

 

I am certain that the Conspiracy Theorists will come out of the word work with Justin’s post. (Incidentally on a personal level I believe there are some facts involved in the theories, but that the theories too often go off into a ditch on the Left or the Right side of the road.) Justin’s essay is specifically an attack on Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders.

 

JRH 3/8/15

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

Long Live Freedom 

 

By Justin Smith

Sent: 3/7/2015 10:33 PM

 

"Es lebe die Freiheit" [Long live freedom] - Hans Scholl's [Jewish Virtual Library] last words (White Rose opposition to Hitler)

 

American freedom and liberty, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers' Original Intent, are being rapidly destroyed by Obama and the Progressive Democrat fascists, who are advancing the U.S. government towards autocratic and dictatorial rule. They are destroying our Shining City on the Hill, through statist policies rife with the cancers of economic and cultural Marxism and other insidious tactics that are eradicating our traditions, national sovereignty and the historical memory of the American people, and Americans must find the determination and courage to fight this anti-American Progressive movement through every means available.

 

Too often, the Republican Party advances the Progressive agenda, inadvertently or not, through its own statist propensity and love of protected markets and monopolies, despite its protestations of being completely "conservative" and 100% for free market capitalism. During the 2008 economic crisis, fascism became the rule of the day, and the interests of the American people were sacrificed in order to save huge economic conglomerates like AIG, which were deemed "too big to fail."

 

In 1920, H.G. Wells explained: "Big Business is in no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger the business grows the more it approximates Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to collectivism."

 

Many men, such as the Morgans, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, funded the socialist takeover of Great Britain, and these very same men helped President Woodrow Wilson create the Federal Reserve Bank (centralized credit) and a heavy progressive income tax, two of the Ten Tenets of Communism; in this context, control of one-sixth of the United States economy through the Affordable Health Care Act by the federal government and future Progressive regimes, like Obama's, puts us all on an open road to serfdom and a new authoritarian world in America.

 

Mayer Amschel Rothschild often stated, "Let me issue and control a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

 

In this sense, one must question the moral clarity of vision and the political and legal understanding and knowledge of Republicans, such as Representatives Bruce Polinquin (Maine), Bob Dold (Illinois) and John Katko (New York), since they voted against the repeal of the ACA [Obamacare] in February. They were more interested in "fixing" its flaws and having replacement legislation ready. These politicians are symptomatic of the problem America faces.

 

Who do these Republicans represent after all? Certainly not conservative America.

 

Free market economies do not need the imprimatur of any government in order to decide what is acceptable to the people. Consumers must be free to decide on purchases for themselves, and health care providers should supply plans that are acceptable to the free market. If they cannot, the consumers’ purchases will guide the market, without government collusion or coercion.

 

In a July 2012 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell contradicts his October 2014 assertion that 60 votes would be needed in the Senate to repeal Obamacare, as he states: "The Chief Justice said (Obamacare) it's a tax. Taxes are clearly reconcilable (in the budget). That's the kind of measure that can be pursued with 51 votes in the Senate."

 

Shortly after the House voted to repeal Obamacare (239 to 186) on February 3rd, 2015, Senator Ted Cruz told CNS News: "If it can be passed with reconciliation, it can be repealed with reconciliation. And we need to use every procedural means possible to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare."

 

Following the G.B. Shaw template to advance a Utopian Hell in America [“Bernard Shaw and Totalitarianism” and “The Language of Degeneration: Eugenic Ideas in…”], Obama has used deception and subverted U.S. law. He has also formed a despotic habit of legislating from the Oval Office, which is not a legitimate and Constitutional function of the Executive Branch.

 

Far from "prosecutorial discretion", Obama's most recent executive order grants five million illegal aliens "executive amnesty", social security cards, three years of Earned Income Credit back-payments and $25,000 each from U.S. taxpayer money, even though they never paid any taxes. This is illegal and unconstitutional, and Obama is breaking U.S. law, as he helps other criminals in the process.

 

Obama's illegal "executive amnesty" is an overt attempt to change the face of America and legitimize a mass of people, who are greatly inclined to vote Democrat. This is, in large part, aimed specifically at turning Texas into a Democrat majority state, ensuring that Progressives will be virtually unstoppable election after election and far into the future.

 

Where is the aggressive action against Obama's "executive amnesty" that Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner and many other establishment Republicans promised?

 

Sadly, America learned on March 3rd that 75 pathetic Republicans had joined 182 more pathetic Democrats to fund the Department of Homeland Security, as the succumbed to the false narrative that refusing to fund DHS and Obama's executive amnesty would adversely affect national security. This legislation also funds Obama's executive amnesty, and in the process, it severely damages Congressional power for years to come.

 

Didn't any of these 75 republicans consider that the large number of crimes committed by these illegal aliens against U.S. citizens is a matter of national security?

 

A brilliant thinker and founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly recently exclaimed: "It's an insult to everyone who voted to elect the Republicans in the last Congressional election. The American people clearly voted against Obama's illegal, unconstitutional bills of all kinds ... He's a disaster for our country, and he doesn't have our national security at heart."

 

And now, Obama is planning an egregious infringement on our Second Amendment rights by banning 5.62 mm M855 ammo through executive order, because it pierces soft-body armor. This is a deception aimed at the eventual ban on all firearms and ammo, since 168 other rounds (e.g. .308, .223, 30.06) also pierce soft-body armor. If he proceeds, everyone should fill the Oval Office with .223 ammo, by way of UPS or 3000 feet per second muzzle velocity, depending on one's vision for America - Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide.

 

Even in America vigilance is required to keep freedom and liberty alive. The Progressives of both parties hold, in part or whole, post-Constitutional ideas that advance Obama's fundamental transformation, which eradicates our Founding Principles and traditional precepts concerning the rule of law. They are advancing this Progressive agenda through illegitimate, extralegal and illegal means, as they assault our American Heritage and place many Americans in an unendurable situation, which will eventually lead to armed rebellion, unless any future Statesmen can successfully repel this tide of fascism: If not, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty will fight once more in order to restore Constitutional governance and the Republic in Our Beloved America.

 

Justin O Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text and/or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith  

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
March 7 2015 7 07 /03 /March /2015 13:31

 

 

Robert Smith has a short and sweet opinion about sharing points of view. Indeed Robert’s opinion is almost too short to post independently; however the nuggets of wisdom are so valid I feel the necessity to post. So, read and enjoy and comment your thoughts.

 

JRH 3/7/15

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

Opinions

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/7/2015 8:15 AM

 

In this era, when censorship seems to be making a comeback, I feel it is more important than ever, that all sides of any debate on any issue be heard.


Opinions are the thoughts, views and ideas that we all hold, and they vary in a great many ways; possibly the most controversial opinions concern politics and religion.

Some of us endeavor to share our opinions with others, which is usually an attempt to get them to agree with us, or to inspire debate with those people who hold opposing views, in an attempt to change their minds and have them accept a better solution for any particular issue being debated.

Most of us are of the mind that our opinions have merit and valid points, and we express these views through conversations with our friends and neighbors and other people we may encounter daily. However, the best vehicle for presenting our views to the public is the media, such as talk shows and the hosts, who have their own agendas; many hosts will only present your views if those views are in agreement with theirs. There are also the Op-Ed sections of magazines and newspapers, which also have an agenda.

These talk shows, magazines and newspapers are business oriented and dependent on advertisement sales, and all too often they fear that if they print a subject that is highly controversial, the public will think that they are in agreement with that particular viewpoint. They are mainly worried that those in opposition to the viewpoint presented in any article may quit purchasing their product. This may be true in some cases, but most readers of most Op-Ed sections are broad minded and read the Op-Ed sections to learn what others are thinking; and good debates inspire interest and increase advertisement sales and product sales. So, in the interest of inspiring more lively debates and increasing sales, print all opinions, with no regard to how controversial they are!

 

 

PSG [ret] R.G. Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Robert G. Smith

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
March 7 2015 7 07 /03 /March /2015 07:42

John R. Houk

© March 7, 2015

 

Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-R) is the Chairman on the Select Committee on Benghazi (Benghazigate). In previous hearings in Congress I recall Gowdy reading the riot act to stupid answers and obvious answer obfuscations. So when Boehner FINALLY Ok’d a Special Investigation in an obvious Obama Administration cover-up, I was a bit excited. Of course the Dems and the Leftstream Media were extremely critical and whining that a Special Investigative Committee was even formed. SO you know there is something to hide when Obama acolytes start pitching their prevaricating two-cents.

 

The email below from Senator Ted Harvey which is leading the Stop Hillary PAC, he brings up the media vilification of Rep. Gowdy. AND that is the primary reason I am sharing this email. Another reason has to do with conducting private business on government emails and using private email servers apart from official secured emails that were hacked. The in-the-tank-Obama media is actually reporting on the scandalous and probably criminal usage and withholding of emails from Hillary Clinton’s private Internet servers.

 

Now I am reading of suspicions that the Obama White House is leaking about the private servers to derail a future presidential campaign:

 

Or to put the question another way, why did Hillary Clinton become the Obama administration’s bête noire this very week, the same one during which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled all of the world’s focus onto the issue of the administration’s negotiations with Iran?

 

The answer is because the two are related: This week’s tarring of Hillary Clinton is part of the White House’s political campaign to shut off debate about its hoped-for deal. It’s not hard to see why they’re anxious. With Netanyahu’s speech forcing lawmakers and editorial writers to face up to the proposed agreement’s manifest problems, the administration fears the prospect of Democrats jumping ship and signing on to Kirk-Menendez sanctions legislation that also would give Congress oversight on the deal. So far, the White House has managed to keep Democratic lawmakers in line, no matter how much they seem to question the wisdom of the proposed deal. Hillary Clinton, gearing up for a 2016 run in which she is likely to put some distance between herself and Obama’s dubious Middle East policies, is the one major national Democratic figure who can give Democrats in Congress cover.

 

… Secretary of State John Kerry, told reporters Thursday during a trip to Saudi Arabia that the State Department will move immediately to review the emails. … Nonetheless, Kerry warned, the process of sorting through and releasing Hillary Clinton’s personal and work-related emails will take time—presumably about the amount of time it will take to make sure the Iran deal gets through unobstructed. (Did the White House expose Hillary’s e-mails this week to protect their deal with Iran? By Allahpundit; HotAir.com; 3/6/15 1:21 pm)

 

More Obama throwing Hillary under the bus speculation:

 

… However, the scandal surrounding the former secretary of state’s use of a private, unsecured email account to conduct official business has only deepened. More importantly, signs exist that the Obama administration is trying to throw Hillary under the bus. Clinton is, of course, trying to return the favor.

 

Hillary Clinton has caused and weathered so many scandals before, ranging from Whitewater to Benghazi, that she evidently believes that Emailgate is just one more speed bump on her way to the Oval Office. One difference exists, however, between the current dust up and all the others. Hillary’s husband was president of the United States during most of the other scandals. The only reason she survived Benghazi is that it had to be swept under the rug to ensure Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012.

 

Now Clinton is in private life and the president of the United States, by all accounts, detests her and her husband. The White House is distancing itself from the former secretary of state, claiming that it just found out about her email practices along with everyone else. It does not pass the laugh test, but that is the official story. (Obama throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus over Emailgate; By Mark Whittington; Examiner.com; 3/5/15 10:17 AM MST)

As wickedly Leftist that both Obama and Hillary are neither are stupid. I suspect if Obama is clandestinely throwing Hillary under the bus then I also suspect Hillary isn’t simply going to the middle of the street for the bus to run her over. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have managed to dodge as many scandals as Obama if not even more. If you think the Clintons are merely lucky or actually clean from the multiple scandals you would be greatly mistaken. If Hillary goes down, you know she’ll pull Obama under the bus with her or even twist around to become Teflon like her hubby and still throw Obama under the bus.

 

As to the email below highlighting the obstructions and walls set up by Dems and the Leftstream media, Rep. Gowdy probably has his best opportunity to crack Benghazigate open due to the dissension among the pack of Leftist hyenas.

 

Now allow me to warn you about this email. As informative as it is it appears to me that the Stop Hillary PAC feels the need to ramp-up some fund raising. Every single link in the email story itself collects your email and then sends you to a donation web page. On a personal level I would love to chip in some do to the worthy cause to derail Hillary; however I am one lonely blogger that can’t spare the extra dough at the moment. If you are in my boat you may wish to not click any of the ten links that eventually leads you to a donation page. BUT Senator Harvey’s message is very valid. Trust me, both the Obama acolytes and the Hillary acolytes do not want any success from the GOP managed House Select Committee on Benghazi. So if you don’t trust the Stop Hillary PAC, find a group – social or political – to either donate money or time in spreading the support for answers exposing the cover-up.

JRH 3/7/15

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

Support Trey Gowdy

Emergency Update -- Trey Gowdy 

 

By Senator Ted Harvey

Sent: 3/6/2015 11:57 AM

Sent by Stop Hillary PAC

 

You know House Republicans finally created a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks -- and the deaths of four Americans.

South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy is leading the investigation.

And he has come under tremendous attack from Hillary Clinton, her campaign apparatus, and the left wing elite media -- he needs your immediate support.

That's why I'm leading the charge to support Trey Gowdy. Will you please stop what you are doing right now, and pledge your support by signing your "Statement of Support for Congressman Trey Gowdy?"

 

You and I both know Congressman Gowdy has shown a talent for tough questioning of administration officials. The select committee under Trey Gowdy's leadership was the first to discover Hillary's use of her own hidden/personal email server.

It's only taken Gowdy a few months to find what other investigations were unable to reveal after years of "oversight." Perhaps, finally...Americans will find the truth out about the Benghazi attacks. That is...only if we can keep the committee doors open.

As you know, previous attempts to uncover the truth were met with stonewalling by Hillary Clinton and Obama administration apologists.

Make no mistake: this stonewalling has EVERYTHING to do with protecting Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming President in 2016. You could hear the desperation in Hillary's own voice when she shrilly yelled, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!!" at an earlier fact-finding hearing.

When it comes to going after Bill and Hillary Clinton, you can never hope to defeat them in the news media -- the elite media loves them. And the Clintons and their friends in the news media will do everything they can to discredit and Trey Gowdy and his Committee investigating Benghazi.

That's why you and I -- and the American people -- must stand up and stand behind Trey Gowdy and the efforts of his committee.

Will you stand up for Congressman Gowdy by signing your "Statement of Support for Congressman Trey Gowdy?"

 

Clearly, Hillary Clinton and those surrounding her think the deaths of four brave Americans makes no difference. Clinton simply cannot be troubled with anything that might stain the red carpet that has been rolled out for her Presidential run by the liberal elite and their accomplices in the media.

John, now that Trey Gowdy's Congressional fact-finding mission has begun to uncover the truth...Gowdy is under tremendous attack from Hillary and the Left, squarely in the crosshairs of the Clintons and their political war machine.

Gowdy needs your immediate support. Democrats are going all out to shut down the Benghazi hearings.

Let me explain:

 

  • Democrat leaders in Congress are pressuring the House Administration Committee to tarnish the Benghazi panel's credibility by questioning the committee's spending in an effort to cripple and even SHUT DOWN Trey Gowdy's Select Committee on Benghazi.

 

  • In an attempt to prevent Hillary Clinton from testifying, ranking Democrat members of the panel sent Chairman Gowdy a blistering round of letters accusing him of showmanship and improper hearing procedures.

 

That's why Stop Hillary PAC is leading the effort to build a grassroots army to defend and support Congressman Trey Gowdy's efforts to uncover the truth.

This effort starts with your signed personalized "Statement of Support for Congressman Trey Gowdy." Will you sign so that I can personally deliver your signature along with hundreds -of-thousands of others to Congressman Gowdy's committee and let Congressman Gowdy know you have his back?

 

Remember, those that dared to uncover the truth about the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton affair and Clinton's lies under oath about it? The Clinton's and their friends in the media methodically destroyed the careers and reputations of those that dared to lead the impeachment proceedings, including Congressman Bob Livingston, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Helen Chenoweth, and Dan Burton.

Bottom line? If Americans want Congressman Gowdy to uncover the truth about Benghazi and Hillary's role in it, Gowdy will need our support. So please, take just a second of your time to sign the "Statement of Support for Congressman Trey Gowdy."

Here are just a few examples of the attacks on Trey Gowdy so far by the Clinton apologists:

 

  • Gowdy is a lunatic: Left-wing publication Mother Jones has called Gowdy a lunatic because he is a "tea-party true believer."

 

  • Gowdy is politicizing Benghazi: Democrat Campaign chief, Congressman Steve Israel, and Nancy Pelosi are accusing Gowdy of politicizing Benghazi saying, "House Republicans are spending all their time trying to invent new ways to politicize the Benghazi tragedy."

 

  • Gowdy is stupid and confused: Ranking Democrat member Elijah Cummings believes Trey Gowdy is stupid and confused saying, "I do not understand what the House Republicans are doing on Benghazi, and apparently they don't either."

 

  • Gowdy's hair is unacceptable: MSNBC is attacking Gowdy's hair. That's right, far-left cable news outfit MSNBC is even attacking Gowdy's hair -- mocking his hair as "unkempt, multi-directional silver locks."

 

These are just a few of the outrageous attacks Trey Gowdy is experiencing on a daily basis.

That's why your personalized "Statement of Support for Congressman Trey Gowdy" is so important. Please click here immediately and let Congressman Gowdy know you have his back.

 

We need to let him know he has the support of Americans across the country and that we will have his back when faced with the mudslinging onslaught that is sure to come his way.

If Congressman Gowdy can finally uncover the truth, then, perhaps we can stop Hillary once and for all...because, she MUST BE STOPPED.

And in order to achieve that goal, WE NEED YOU ON OUR TEAM TODAY.

Here's how you can help:

 

  1. First, go here and sign the "Statement of Support for Congressman Trey Gowdy." It's important that Congressman Gowdy knows that we have his back.

 

  1. Tell your friends! Please forward this email to every friend or family member that agrees with you that we MUST stop Hillary tomorrow by supporting Congressman Trey Gowdy today. Also, post on facebook, twitter, and every other social media outlet to spread the word.

 

3.Make a donation. We simply cannot achieve our goals without building a substantial war chest. Hillary and pro-Hillary PAC's have already raised millions to propel her to office. We MUST match that dollar for dollar. So, please, make a donation today. If you can afford a donation of $50, $100, $250, $500 or more, I would encourage you to do so today. However, a smaller symbolic donation of $20.16 will go a long way in helping pay for our efforts.

 

[Reader]... the choice is clear. Do we want our next President to be a solid conservative Republican with a fresh and vibrant voice to lead our country? Or do we want the ultra-liberal, retread that is Hillary Clinton?

Please, don't delay, join our team by signing the "Statement of Support for Congressman Trey Gowdy" and making a donation today.

For America!

 

Senator Ted Harvey

P.S. Trey Gowdy is our best hope to finally get the answers Americans deserve, but he needs our help now more than ever. Chip in just $5 (or more if you can afford it) so we'll have the funds to support Gowdy and protect him from the Clinton media machine as he digs to clear the federal stonewall!

______________________________

Benghazigate, Gowdy, Hillary and Obama

John R. Houk

© March 6, 2015

__________________________

Support Trey Gowdy

 

Paid for by Stop Hillary PAC
Contributions from foreign nationals or entities are prohibited.
Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.

www.StopHillaryPAC.org

 

About StopHillaryPAC

 

Stop Hillary PAC was created for one reason: to ensure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.

 

The American way of life is under attack. Hillary Clinton is the liberal standard-bearer for the next generation of liberal creep on our Constitutional rights. Stop Hillary PAC is committed to saving America from this destructive far-left, liberal cancer that's trying to move our country further to the left.

 

Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful – and liberal – politicians today. She has staked out very liberal positions since her early days in Arkansas. While in the White House, Senate, and Obama administration, Hillary led the charge to transform America into a bastion of liberalism. Now, she has set her eyes on the presidency.

 

Today there is not a more powerful, well-connected politician in America than Hillary Clinton. As president, her power and liberal stances would threaten to do real harm to the American way of life.

 

Take a quick look at her record on these important issues:

 

  • Hillary voted for and supports huge budget deficits that are bankrupting America.

 

  • Hillary is anti-gun. She supports Bill Clinton's gun ban legislation, banning assault weapons and creating a national gun registry.

 

  • Hillary supports amnesty for illegal immigrants

 

  • Hillary is at the center of the Benghazi disaster, the first killing of a US Ambassador in over 30 years – yet uttered the infamous words… "what difference does it make."

 

  • Hillary's career has been marked with scandals, from Whitewater to Benghazi.

 

  • Hillary has supported higher taxes on virtually every segment of society justifying them by saying, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

 

  • Hillary supports forcing workers to join unions as a condition of their employment.

 

  • Hillary supports late term and taxpayer funded abortions.

 

 

We could go on and on and on… the bottom line is America can't survive more Obama-era radical liberal policies. Another four years a Clinton White House is simply an extension of Obama's disastrous tenure.

 

Right now, wealthy progressives are raising millions of dollars for Hillary Clinton's impending 2016 campaign. They want their liberal utopian vision to become an American reality.

 

That's why we cannot sit idle.

 

We must stand together to stop Hillary Clinton right now. Because in 2016...it will be too late.

 

Click here to support Stop Hillary PAC today!

 

Click here to learn about the Stop Hillary PAC leadership team.

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Conspiracy Theory Politics
write a comment
March 6 2015 6 06 /03 /March /2015 12:21

Bill Chandler provides Franklin Graham’s thoughts on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. Those thoughts support the Prime Minister’s analysis of Iran, nuclear weaponry and Radical Islam as embodied by Daesh (ISIS) followed by contempt on how President Barack Hussein Obama is handling Islamic terrorism and a nuke deal with Iran.

 

JRH 3/6/15 (Hat Tip: TPNN)

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

Franklin Graham Warns Obama “Mr. President, Wake up to the Very Real Threat of Islam.”

 

By Bill Chandler

March 5, 2015 

Viral Buzz

 

Reverend Franklin Graham weights in to response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress warning of the dangers of “militant Islam” from both Iran and the Islamic State. Reverend Graham then called upon President Barack Obama to:

 

“wake up to the very real threat of Islam.”

 

Reverend Graham also called upon all Americans to “pray that our president and our leaders will wake up to the true threat of Islam.”

 

“In a Mar. 4 Facebook post, Rev. Graham quoted from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Mar. 3 speech before a joint meeting of Congress, in which he said, “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.”

 

“March 3, Reverend Graham writes in his facebook, “In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone,” Said Netanyahu. “The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.”

 

“And he follows up on March 4,”Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a powerful speech today before a joint session of Congress. He made the case that the greatest threat to the world is the marriage of militant Islam and nuclear weapons. He called for an end to Iranian aggression and contrasted America with Iran–“America’s founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad.” Let’s pray that our president and our leaders will wake up to the true threat of Islam.”

 

“Israeli Prime Minister said it well: “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone…The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.”

 

Source: facebook

______________________________

ABOUT BILL CHANDLER

 

Inventor, patent holder, entrepreneur, and international invention development specialist, Bill Chandler has reached thousands through his work as an advertising agency executive, professor, private marketing consultant, author, and celebrated public speaker.

 

Bill has the answers to every question an inventor has from the first idea, to the final check! This no-nonsense guide to invention development covers: patents, licensing, marketing, negotiating, financing, valuing your invention, and much, much more. Complete with worksheets, forms, charts, questionnaires, financial statements, a sample patent, and resources! Visit: BillChandler.net

 

© 2014 Glengary Inc., All Rights Reserved

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Israel Counterjihad
write a comment
March 5 2015 5 05 /03 /March /2015 18:30

 

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.” – Benjamin Netanyahu before U.S. Congress 3/3/15

 

Now that was politically gracious from Israel’s Prime Minister. To those of you who the truth, President Obama has been selling out Israel and pushing PM Netanyahu under the bus for quite some time.

 

AND that bus pushing apparently something politically Obama continues through his Leftist acolytes among the Democrats and the Left Wing Media. Consider this Politico headline:

 

Bibi speech was an 'insult' to America and President Obama, Democrats say
 

By Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim

3/3/15 2:35 PM EST

Updated 3/3/15 4:36 PM EST


Scathing Democratic reviews of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress came pouring in just minutes after the address ended: An “insult to the intelligence of the United States.” A “stick in the eye of the president.” An exercise in “circular reasoning.”

Netanyahu’s address to Congress did little to move Democrats toward his position of rejecting a nuclear deal with Iran that is nearing completion, and for many members deepened the rift between the Democratic Party and Israel’s political leadership under Netanyahu.

 

“This speech was straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat. The Jewish lawmaker added: “I resented the condescending tone that he used, which basically indicated that he didn’t think anybody in Congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear, weaponized Iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world.”

 

The Democratic reactions to Tuesday’s address were far more diverse than the response from congressional Republicans, who were uniformly united in their vigorous support of Netanyahu’s speech and his hawkish message.  There was more

 

I am very grateful to Ari Bussel for sending Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the joint session of the U.S. Congress  below, but Obama, the Dems and the MSM irritate me greatly.
 

JRH 3/5/15

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

PM Netanyahu's Speech to a Joint Session of the US Congress

 

Benjamin Netanyahu Speech

Sent by Ari Bussel

Sent: 3/3/2015 1:03 PM

Sent via Government Press Office News

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

 

"Speaker of the House John Boehner,

 

President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch,

 

Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,

 

And House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy,

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet. I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.

My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress. I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel. The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. 

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel. Now, some of that is widely known. Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

 

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well-known. I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists. In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

 

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome. Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as Prime Minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated – he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots – religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to 'export the revolution throughout the world.'

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply. Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!  Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever. Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America. Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember – I'll say it one more time – the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it. Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. Breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's breakout time would be very short – about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that breakout time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions – 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. Now, I know this is not going to come as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught – caught twice, not once, twice – operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, 'If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one.' Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount – 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reaching corners of the Earth, including to every part of the United States. So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would only whet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors, Iran's neighbors, know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb. And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires. If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. 

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plane can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.

Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table – and this often happens in a Persian bazaar – call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal: a better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time; a better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends; a better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb; a better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country has a greater stake – no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen,

 

History has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace we all desire.

My friends, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, 'Never Again.' And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

This is why as Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel. You stand with Israel because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land. And before the people of Israel entered the Land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, 'Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.'

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the State of Israel and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you.  You're wonderful.  Thank you, America."

_______________________

About GPO

 

The Government Press Office (GPO) is responsible – on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office – for coordination between the Government of Israel and the community of journalists and media personnel working in Israel. For the foreign press corps, the GPO serves as the central address for contact with the government and the Israel Defense Forces.

 

The GPO works to facilitate appropriate media coverage of key elements in Israel, state visits and foreign VIPs visiting Israel. The GPO issues press cards for permanently stationed and visiting journalists, as well as a range of cards for other media personnel (broadcast technicians, documentary film producers, media assistants, etc.). The GPO offers media representatives a sophisticated briefing room, television studio and professional support materials.

 

The GPO is equipped to operate in Hebrew, Arabic, English and Russian, thanks to the professional staff in its various departments. A separate department deals with the economic press. The GPO regularly monitors articles in the overseas press regarding the State of Israel and forwards a daily summary to the relevant Government offices. It also distributes READ THE REST

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Israel
write a comment
March 4 2015 4 04 /03 /March /2015 16:45

 

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

 

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

 

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

 

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influencel of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

 

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

 

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. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

 

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

 

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

 

New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

 

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

 

 

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." …

 

 

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson's Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders--a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

 

On New Year's Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a "fan" letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the "chief Magistracy in the United States." They celebrated Jefferson's zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him "as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

 

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists' aspirations for religious liberty:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[3]

 

 

Jefferson's Understanding of the "Wall"

 

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

 

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

 

 

The Wall That Black Built

 

The phrase "wall of separation" entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured."[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson's letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson's language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

 

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: "In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State'.... That wall," the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, "must be kept high and impregnable.  …

 

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court's ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia's disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that "separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle," attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the "wall of separation" image. …

 

The trope's current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson's figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

 

The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

 

Jefferson's wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels--federal, state, and local.

 

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

 

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

 

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

 

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

 

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

 

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

 

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

 

See Also:

 

Annotation 13 - Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW; FindLaw.com.

 

What It Means to "Interpret" the US Constitution; Lawyers.com.

 

Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage FoundationRule of Law.

 

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; LII – Cornell University Law School.

 

JRH 3/4/15

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

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM

 

The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.

 

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.

 

The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.

 

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.

 

It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.

 

The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

 

Chapter 18

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Chapter 20

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV)

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)

 

Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10

 

Chapter 1

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

 

Chapter 13

 

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)

 

1 Timothy 1:10-11

 

10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

 

Mark 10:6-9

 

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

 

What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.

 

In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.

 

This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.

___________________________

Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

_______________________

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

© Robert Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Christianity
write a comment
March 4 2015 4 04 /03 /March /2015 08:55

 

Here is an essay that demonstrates the political side of the Obama/Democratic Party inspired FCC rules changing the Internet from a truly Free Speech zone into a government controlled entity that will be regulated according to which Political Party dominates the FCC federal bureaucracy. Jonathan Emord shows us how the FCC can regulate its displeasure with how an Internet Provider deals with its customers. The government’s pitch of net neutrality is double-speak for Big Brother Internet despotism.

 

JRH 3/4/15

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

F.C.C. TAKES OVER THE INTERNET

 

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and
"Global Censorship of Health Information" and
"Restore The Republic"
March 2, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

 

At the behest of President Barack Obama, the Federal Communications Commission voted this past Thursday, 3-2, on party lines, to impose FCC control over access to and charges by internet service providers. This is the beginning of the end of freedom over the internet. So-called net neutrality is not neutral at all, but is a regulatory schema that imposes federal oversight and control over what was but a moment ago the last remaining example of largely unfettered freedom and free enterprise left in the world.

 

Longing for the power to force internet service providers to bend to the will of government masters, the Obama Administration aimed to get the proverbial camel’s nose into the tent, anticipating that its whole body would come next. Using the pretext of ensuring consumers had more rapid internet connections, the new regulations promise to do much more, essentially rendering all internet service providers common carriers subject to the same kind of innovation and competition stultifying regulations that made the old Bell system such an archaic, byzantine bureaucratic mess.

 

On the road to a better internet, now architects of systems and markets will have to stop at a government toll booth. There they must satisfy the subjective dictates of FCC commissioners or else they will not be allowed to proceed. One of the greatest, most powerful and far reaching technological achievements of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries is now to be but another utility where rates, service plans, and technological advances will not be allowed unless first approved by the politicians who populate the Federal Communications Commission.

 

The FCC has just denied liberty and free enterprise its essential place in that medium which holds out more promise for the advancement of mankind than any other. The FCC has learned through broadcast, cable, and telephone regulation that structural controls beget in time near total control over a medium. By lording it over on the internet service providers in the years to come, the FCC will coerce and cajole them into implementing the political dictates of FCC Commissioners in a manner akin to FCC’s long and sordid history of control over the broadcast media.

 

Displeasing a regulator who has subjective power over the structure of media invites retaliation. What former FCC Chairman Newton Norman Minow referred to as “regulation by raised eyebrow” in broadcast regulation is now applicable in the internet context. The mere hint of an FCC Commissioner’s dissatisfaction with the operations of an Internet Service Provider will cause that provider to appreciate all too well that the regulator’s displeasure makes essential approvals far more difficult to obtain. Instead, most will alter their business plans to avoid regulatory payback, even if that means constricting access to some in favor of others, thereby affecting who may speak and what may be said.

 

In that single instance, the First Amendment’s command that government be disarmed of power over speech and press is eviscerated. The ultimate control over the structure and content of the medium has passed from private to public hands. Now the politically appointed, unelected heads of the FCC, will call the shots over the internet. In this one vote of the FCC, everyone in America, indeed in the world, has lost freedom and opportunity. February 26, 2015, is the blackest day so far in the history of the internet.

_____________________________

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved

 

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of TyrannyGlobal Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit Emord.com, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).

 

Website: Emord.com

 

E-Mail: jemord@emord.com

 

About NWV

 

NewsWithViews.com is dedicated to revealing lies, innuendo and agendas - wherever they may be.  Our political affiliations are not to the left or the right, but to "what is right and true."

  

Our goal is to bring you the best news and commentaries on current events that may be manipulated or controlled by the mainstream media. 

 

Our aim is to enlighten, educate and awaken people to the real issues facing this country and the world today.

 

NewsWithViews.com started publishing June of 2001. We noticed that there were websites that were the mouthpieces for the Republican party, the Democratic party, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, the Christian Right, etc., Everyone was in someone's corner. The Left points a finger at the right, the right points a finger at the left. Neither side sees their own evil and hypocrisy, they escape the truth about themselves by blaming and pointing a finger at the other.

 

It's not a Jewish, Christian, or a Muslim issue, neither is it a conservative or a liberal issue, nor a Republican or a Democrat issue, it's a Right or Wrong issue. Truth is UNIVERSAL. Everyone can recognize it but, some reject it. Truth and honesty unite, lies and deception divide. Bare in mind that Truth is hate to those that hate the Truth.

 

NewsWithViews.com is NOT affiliated with any religious organizations or groups. We believe in God and our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior of mankind.

 

We run a small operation with a dedicated unpaid staff. All donations are appreciated. Click here if you wish to donate.

 

Disclaimer:


The views and opinions held by our writers and contributors are their own, and not necessarily the views of our advertisers, NewsWithViews.com or its staff.

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
March 3 2015 3 03 /03 /March /2015 14:09

 

As much as Leftists, Mainstream Media, Establishment Republicans and even some relevant Conservatives want nothing to do with Sarah Palin, on a personal level I believe she is Presidential material. Her detractors insult her intelligence. Let me tell you something President Ronald Reagan endured the very same insults toward his intelligence. AND after never giving up on races for President, he eventually won two conservative terms as President of the United States of America. President Reagan (although Leftists hate it) has already gone down as one of the best Presidents in American history. Get over Palin’s detractors and realize this gal is a charismatic leader with a lot of electoral influence.

 

I didn’t hear much praise from Conservative circles on Palin’s CPAC 2015 speech. Thanks to Stephanie Hahn Nolan and her post to the Facebook group Sarah Palin’s EARTHQUAKE 2016 I found a summary and a Youtube video of her entire speech. The speech is highly critical of President Barack Hussein Obama’s handling of global Islamic Terrorism. She could have also included BHO’s idiocy in making an Iran deal allowing nuclear arms which definitely leads to an existential threat to Israel. (One reason Obama hated head of government Prime Minister Netanyahu giving a bicameral speech to Congress which undoubtedly exposes that Foreign Policy idiocy.)

 

Below is the NewsWire.net summary followed by the roughly 24 minute video that has Medal Honor winner Sergeant Dakota Meyer introducing Sarah Palin.

 

JRH 3/2/15

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

Sarah Palin Suggests How the US Should Deal With ISIS

 

By Tyler Jones

February 27, 2015

NewsWire

 

Sarah Palin said in a speech before Republican activists that there is a solution to the problem with ISIS. We just should kill them all “like Nazis.”

 

(Newswire.net -- February 27, 2015)  -- Former GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin blamed the Obama administration for the rise of ISIS in the Middle East. In an emotional speech about American war veterans, the former Alaska governor seized the opportunity to critique Obama’s administration.

 

In the speech in National Harbor, Maryland, Palin accused Obama of failing to destroy Islamic State militants and for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, because he pulled American troops out of the country.

 

“The rise of ISIS is the direct result of this administration's refusal to heed that warning,” Palin said. “The Middle East is a tinderbox and it's coming apart at the seams...as ISIS expands, it takes back land we just spilled blood to secure.

 

Palin blamed Obama for the casualties that died in vain in Iraq and in the Afghanistan because the situation in the Middle East is now worse than ever.

 

"Did we actually win in Iraq and Afghanistan before we waved that white flag? The jury is still out. But when evil Islamic terrorists are on the march screaming 'Allahu Akbar' from Syria to Iraq to Libya and Yemen and the streets of Paris, well it doesn't look like victory," she added.

 

Palin criticized Obama's conciliatory comments calling on him not to equate Islam with terrorism.

 

"Lecturing Christians to get off our high horse about radical Islam won’t stop the Islamists from killing Christians," Palin said. "Stop blaming the victim and wake up, Mr. President. While Christians bow their heads to pray for you, radical Islamists want to cut off your head," she said in a speech.

 

Referring to recent comments by State Department representative Marie Harf, who said that the US could not beat Islamists simply by killing them, Palin took completely opposite stand.

 

"They say we can’t kill our way out of war,” Palin said. "Really? Tell that to the Nazis. Oh wait, you can’t because they’re dead. We killed them,” she said.

 

VIDEO: Governor Sarah Palin CPAC 2015

 

 

Published by The ACU

Published on Feb 26, 2015

 

______________________

©2015 Newswire.Net, All rights reserved.

 

Newswire.net Home Info Page

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
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