Obamaman, And His Sidekick Monaco Girl, Out To Thwart Evil At Gitmo?

shutterstock_359560856

Obamaman and his trusty sidekick Monaco girl, the counterterrorism chief, are like a dark superhero duo who are determined to stop the evil United States from imprisoning or extracting information from the pesky terrorists determined to see all of Western civilization dead and buried. Has this awkward duo actually accepted as their mission, the doctrine of the very terrorists they are determined to release back into civilization? Are they set on their path of undermining the greatest nation on earth…the Force for Good?

The current evil doings of terrorism have included the annihilation of any human being; Christian, Muslim, Jew, man, woman or child, who does not embrace their evil ways, by bowing to their twisted will of Allah and the Quran. We have seen innocent human beings beheaded, set on fire, drowned, sold into sexual slavery and slaughtered along with the destruction of homes, villages, religious artifacts and anything that represents God-fearing or law-abiding, civilization. Yet with all these abominable acts of destruction, Obamaman and Monaco girl are determined to protect the rights of these barbarians even if it means the destruction of civilization right here at home in the United States. Although these terrorists do not see the rights of others as a viable option, Obamaman is determined to offer them the very rights they deny others. Although these evil doers would never allow the deniers of the twisted Allah Diety to escape torture or death, Obamaman is determined to release these barbarians and enemies of the globe back into civilization, while demonizing those who dare to extract and unveil their evil plans of destruction. Obamaman and Mococo girl will do whatever is necessary to protect the ever-growing power of the Dark Side.

Obamaman will use his assigned weapons, the pen and the phone, to follow in the footsteps of the enemy he protects….do what you want, regardless of the rule of law, against the wishes of the people, to achieve the final ends…the emasculation and termination of the Force in the spread of democracy around the globe, the purposeful illegal infiltration of evil doers and the continued dismantling of the very Nation that has represented truth, liberty and justice for all.

If Obamaman is unable to complete his mission, he is determined to hand over his weapons of destruction, the nefarious pen and phone, to the next evil doers groomed by the mutated liberal nation of Democrats,  ….Calamitous Clinton and Socialist Sanders….each who have sworn their allegiance to the Dark Side, by lying, corrupting and distorting the truth, breaking the law, demonizing, regulating and obstructing the free enterprise system into oblivion, while distracting the masses with promises of free stuff.

Will the Dark Side be able to complete their mission of fundamentally transforming the Force of Good, or will the Force be able to destroy the cancer of the Dark Side that has been growing by leaps and bounds, fed by Obamaman and his castle of evil transformers?

We must all get out our light sabers and commit to a fight at the polls, as only the elections of 2016 will determine our fate.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Obama Shuts Down Terrorist Investigations Calling It Racial Profiling.

shutterstock_84125155

A former employee of Homeland security is blowing the whistle on Homeland Security. He claims political correctness and the Obama Administration is preventing  Homeland Security from investigating terrorist organizations. Why would political correctness stop the investigation of potential terrorists? This administration calls it profiling and discrimination against Muslims.

In a speech after the San Bernadino attacks, President Obama made a speech citing,

“We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam….If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate….. it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination.  It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country.  It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently.”  

These words from our President sound reasonable. However, when the same administration defies reason by shutting down terrorist investigations by Homeland Security, because he feels it profiles Muslims, then you must ask yourself whether he is acting in the true interest of the United States and it people. Has political correctness taken over common sense and trumped our safety? At what point does the personal feelings of a group of terrorists become less important than the slaughter of innocent Americans going about their daily lives.

In a recent report on the Kelly File, the facts about political correctness and its negative effects into the investigation of radical Islamic terrorism was revealed.

[Philip Haney’s job with HSA was to investigate individuals with suspected radicalized ties to terrorism. He had received a commendation letter for successfully tracking down 300 terrorists. When he noticed a trend of people with radicalized ties coming into the United States, he began looking into a collection of global networks that were infiltrating radical Islamists into the U.S. A year into the investigation, he was visited by the State Department and the Homeland Security Civil Rights Division.  They said tracking these group and individuals was problematic because they were Islamic groups and it was considered profiling. A memo was sent out denying any investigation tied to Islamic groups. As a result, his investigation was shut down.  Sixty seven of his records were deleted. Among those records were investigations into the mosque in San Bernadino which was tied to Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, responsible for the terrorist attacks in the same city. Haney said if his work had continued he may have been able to thwart the attack in San Bernadino.  A year ago he notified Congress and Department of Homeland Security about these issues, yet the investigation was not re-opened and the HSA retaliated by pulling him from his duties and revoking his security clearance.]

Under the Obama administration, we have seen the dismantling of intelligence in Iraq, an executive order banning CIA “enhanced interrogations” and the closing of “black Sites.  Under the Bush Administration, three suspected terrorsts were waterboarded and as a result divulged information on other terrorists responsible for  the 2002 bombings in Bali and on Al Qaeda leaders. While over 100 prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have gone back to terrorism, President Obama is still determined to release the remaining prisoners and close Gitmo. Should the United States continue to “play by the rules” when our enemies refuse to do the same?

As all Americans have witnessed of late, President Obama has no problem working up a sweat over the gun rights of American citizens and has promised to pass, by executive order, strict gun laws bypassing Congress and our Constitutional rights. Still at the forefront is the administration’s view that Global warming is our biggest national security threat, and along with Bernie Sanders, and other Democrats actually believe that climate change is the main cause of terrorism today.

The real question is why President Obama has no problems calling out lawful gun owning Americans but still refuses to link self-professed Islamic terrorism to Islam. Now, he has gone so far as to shut down actual successful terrorist investigations because they happen to involve radical Islamic Muslims and calls it profiling. God help us all!

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Clearly The Pot Is Calling The Kettle Black!

88aa5a9708fe10faa3529b8420fc07aa

A Federal judge, James E. Shadid, a nominee of the Obama administration and the only Arab Federal judge in Illinois, was lucky enough to draw a case involving religious discrimination against Muslims.

Two Muslim drivers, hired by Star Transport, were fired for refusing  to transport alcohol as part of their job, and as a result were fired. They then sued the company for religious discrimination, supported by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and won a $240,000 settlement.

The question is not whether they were aware of the fact that Star Transport distributed alcohol, or whether or not there were alternate routes that did not involve alcohol. the real question is why the Obama administration supported this law suit?

We have seen over the past months, Christians persecuted and financially punished for religious objections involving marriage licenses and wedding cakes. When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples citing religious beliefs, she was sued by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) on behalf of all homosexuals. As a result, Judge Steven L. Bunning ordered Davis to issue the marriage licenses, threatening to hold her in contempt resulting in possible jail time and monetary fines. In the end, the court released its opinion, leaving Davis with the option of resigning her office, finding a compromise or being held in contempt of court.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry awarded $135,ooo to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, a lesbian couple, in a law suit filed by them against a Christian mom and pop bakery who refused to bake their wedding cake because of religious beliefs. A Lakewood bakery in Colorado experienced two protests, a Facebook driven boycott and a discrimination complaint from Attorney General Eric Holder , for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple because of their religious beliefs. This was also followed by the same results in cases in Gortz Haus,  Iowa,  Fleur Cakes in Oregon,  Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa, Masterpeice Cakeshop, Colorado, as well as many others. A Methodist owned event venue in New Jersey lost its state tax exemption and is currently being sued for refusing to host a gay wedding in 2007. Even religious institutions are not allowed to make decisions based on their religious doctrines and beliefs.

In Houston the mayor, Annise Parker, issued subpoenas, demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons involving homosexuality, gender identity or the fact that she, herself, was a lesbian. If they failed to turn them over, she would hold them in contempt of court.

The Obama administration’s attorney admitted that the “right” to same-sex marriage as determined by the Supreme Court, would result in the loss of tax exempt status of anyone or any religious institution who refuses to acquiesce.

“The tax-exempt status of churches which stick with their traditional beliefs on marriage in the wake of such a ruling won’t be an “issue” for the left. Instead, their elimination will become a goal.” (Tom Blumer @ Newsbusters)

Recently, a flight attendant, Charee Stanley,  who converted to Islam after taking the job, refused to serve alcohol on a flight and was placed on administrative leave, by her employer. In response, Mrs. Stanley said,

“I don’t think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living,” Stanley said. “I shouldn’t have to choose between one or the other, because they’re both important.”

When comparing the Davis and Stanley cases, we see Kim Davis became and remains the target of attacks and ridicule by Obama, Democrats and the mainstream media all while Mrs. Stanley is celebrated as a victim for hers.

President Obama  recently spoke at a Democratic LGBT gala and made it clear that the United States is a country where religious freedom is embraced and tradition is respected, but at the same time stated,

“We also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”

Has the United States now become a place where ones constitutional rights are realized on the backs of other’s religious rights? Will the Obama administration and Democrats continue to teeter back and forth on the “rule of law,” as it pertains to their agenda?

How can the administration stand up for the religious rights of Muslims while persecuting Christians for their religious beliefs? Obviously, Obama and Democrats have become the pot calling the kettle black!

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Political Correctness, Not Critical Thinking, Is The Key To Our Demise!

shutterstock_322803332

We have all heard it before. Students at colleges and universities around the country are demanding that anyone who has a differing opinion than their own should be tarred, feathered, banned and removed from their sight.  Student groups claim that inviting anyone with a differing opinion onto their campus threatens their very safety or well-being. Sound ridiculous? Leaders at these educational institutions are listening to these demands  resulting in the creation of a generation that is single-minded, self-absorbed, and intolerant of others all while the same generation demands a voice, respect and tolerance from others.

What happened to “teaching our kids how to think and not what to think?”  This old adage is truly at the core of critical thinking and should be practiced at all learning institutions around the country. When a university or college stops exposing our children to differing opinions or ways of life, then we are doomed to live a life that no longer offers diversity, but demands that we all live, act and believe the same.

In a recent article by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt,  on the September cover of the Atlantic,

“In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection form words and ideas they don’t like and seeking punishment of those who give even accidental offense. This is disastrous for education and likely to worsen mental health on campus.”

“Today , what we call the Socratic method, is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding. But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands the intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong….the new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.”

Can you imagine where the world would be if we all adhered to this thinking? Those who believed the world was actually round would have been ridiculed and Columbus would never have sailed the ocean blue. Other ideas that were ridiculed include the computer, the automobile, genetics, plate tectonics and the continental drift. If, throughout history, we all bought into this educational example of shutting down those who believe differently, the world would be a different place.

Where does this  “idea discrimination” originate? Dr. Richard Paul, Director of Research and Professional Development at the Center for Critical Thinking said,

“Many of our answers are no more than a repetition of what we as children heard from adults. We pass on the misconceptions of our parents and those of their parents. We say what we heard, not what we know. We rarely join the quest with our children. We rarely admit our ignorance, even to ourselves.”

Could this bashing of anyone who thinks differently and the polarization of ideas be contributing to the increased incidences of shootings around the country? Could this atmosphere of political correctness be giving offenders a justifiable reason to believe that those with differing opinions should be dealt with violently? If our children were taught to be open to others experience and opinions, could we, as a society, become more tolerant of others and in the end solve our own politically induced problems?

Universities and Colleges across the country should be rejecting the new status quo of bias and polarization and instead base their educational instruction on critical thinking.

A well cultivated critical thinker:

  • raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
  • gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
  • thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
  • communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native ego-centrism and socio-centrism.

As a society we must reject this pattern that has been developing and spreading like a cancer throughout our educational system. If the United States wants to remain competitive in the global market,  if our young generation wants to be successful within the workplace, we need get back to common sense, logic and critical thinking and it should begin at home and within our educational institutions.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

United States President Surrendering Flag to Our Enemies!

 

shutterstock_40811836

We have watched President Obama honor plenty of fallen Americans, but the majority of them just happen to be crooks, thieves, illegal aliens or followers of Islam!  What happened to honoring our fallen Military? The men and women who fight for our freedoms. What happened to honoring our fallen citizens? The hard-working Americans who have been killed as a result of our own President’s failed policies or his refusal to follow our rule of law?

President Obama wasted no time in shining the rainbow lights on the White House, at taxpayer’s expense, after the Supreme Court ruled on Gay marriage. Yet crosses around the country are being torn down in the name of political correctness and personal feelings.  The confederate flag has been under attack by the left and the administration as a symbol of hatred, yet symbols celebrating Islam have become more prominent, while Islamic terrorists continue to behead, imprison, drown and burn innocents,while setting dogs on fire, raping young girls, threatening to murder gays, Jews and Christians and laughing while they torture and murder babies and children.  Does Islam not represent hatred and disdain for all citizens of the world? Then why does our President continue to celebrate it?

Not more than 24 hours after 4 Marines were slaughtered by an Islamic terrorist, the Empire State building lights up in celebration of an Islamic Holiday celebration. The end of a Holiday that demands a recommitment to Islam. However, Obama refuses to fly our flag at half mast in honor of the five Americans gunned down by an Islamic Terrorist on US soil.

Obama and Michelle did not hesitate to celebrate and announce their good wishes to all Muslims for a happy Ramadan, within hours of the slaughter of our Marines in Tennessee.

“Michelle and I would like to extend our warmest wishes to Muslims in the United States and around the world celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr. As Muslims mark the end of the month, they are reminded that Ramadan is a time to reflect spiritually, build communally, and aid those in need. While Eid marks the end of Ramadan, it marks a new beginning for each individual — a reason to celebrate and express gratitude on this holiday.”

The Administration also actually postponed the celebration of  the United States Independence Day, our fourth of July, in order not to offend Muslims celebrating Ramadan.

Meanwhile on the holiest day of Christians, Obama, at a prayer breakfast,   reminds us of the brutality of Christians during the Crusades and the issuance of Jim Crow laws in the name of Jesus Christ, while suggesting Christians get off their high horse.

While countries around the world are stepping up in the face of Islamic terrorism and taking action against it, our President continues to make excuses for Islam, refuses to identify them as a source of terrorism,  and will not assist our strongest allies in the fight against ISIS/ISIL.

He disrespects our ally, Israel, while supporting the Islamists, who scream death to Israel and America. He has agreed to a deal with Iran to create Nuclear bombs within our lifetimes making the survival of our children and grandchildren questionable at best. While our representatives consider the consequences of this deal, he pushes it through to the United Nations for approval completely disregarding the wishes and fears of the American citizens who he is supposed to protect.

Since the beginning of his term as President, Obama has not only refused to follow our Constitution or enforce our rule of law, he ignores the death of an American Citizen, Kathryn Steinle, killed by an illegal alien who had been deported five different times. And this as well as thousands of other murders committed by illegal felons, while Obama assures us he has secured our sovereignty mocking Republicans who demand more security.

His administration has become a mockery as he attends funerals and speaks out against our police while supporting criminals, baits protesters to burn down their own cities, invites Al Sharpton to participate in advising him on race relations, yet will not take a moment to offer condolences to the family of a young expectant mother murdered as a result of his own failed policies.

Obama has demanded gun control by taking away the rights of many Americans to own guns through back door legislation, while refusing to enforce the gun laws that are already on our books. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are demanding that Obama and the DOJ actually start enforcing the laws that Congress has already enacted before enacting new ones. Obama has actually prosecuted 25 percent fewer cases referred by the law enforcement agency charged with reducing firearms violence.

We have seen our Ambassador and three other Americans killed in Benghazi because of an arms deal gone wrong. No help was sent obviously to help cover up the fact that this administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department proffered an arms deal with the very people who murdered our Americans. Add insult to injury, they lied and continue to lie in order to cover up their participation in this tragedy.

Let us not forget “Fast and Furious,” The IRS targeting of conservatives, the punishment of whistle blowers, the continued abuse of our Veterans, the NSA spying, and a long list of other atrocities committed by this administration with no consequences.

President Obama, in many speeches has asked Americans to respect people of all faiths, yet like his narrative regarding “white on black” racism, he refuses to acknowledge the atrocities that are committed by blacks against whites or the barbaric murders and atrocities that are advertised daily through social media by the followers of Islam.

Without a doubt, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to those who continue to follow him blindly, refusing to see the evil he continues to perpetrate on his path to fundamentally changing the United States.

Richard Nixon was impeached for much less. Have our morals, ethics and standards fallen so low today that we cannot even acknowledge evil when it is standing proud and tall on the steps of our White House cloaked in our American Flag?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Marriage: A Ceremony Complicated By Government Interference

shutterstock_130862363The Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is the new norm.  But the real question is, should the government have any say in what constitutes marriage at all? What if there was a way to stop the controversy? What if we took government out of the business of marriage completely?

We have seen, over the past 6 years, government remove any signs of “Faith” from our schools, our government offices, our memorials, our military and our foreign policy.  But why then, are we allowing the government to make a decision about what most believe is a religious ceremony?

How can a government who claims to support the “freedom of religion,” threaten to take away tax exempt status and any and all government benefits due under the law, because religious beliefs don’t align with the government’s new regulations or interpretations of the law? Are we now going to allow our government to define and regulate our religious doctrines? Hillary Clinton and President Obama have both suggested that religious organizations and believers need to change their views regarding marriage and abortion. However, they don’t seem to understand that our religious beliefs come from God not the government and therefore cannot be regulated or mandated.

How did the government get involved in marriage in the first place?  In an article by Stephanie Coontz, titled “Taking Marriage Private,” she says,

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

So in history, marriage was not a complicated thing, until Uncle Sam decided to regulate it.

The word marriage should be replaced with “unions,” in the eyes of the government. Unions between two people who want to spend their lives together. Ceremonies then are chosen based on personal or religious beliefs and/or preferences. No ones belief system trampled or punished.

Today, some “relationships,” may have nothing to do with a life long commitment, love, or even children, but a necessity of life. In order for the government to keep track of unions for beneficiary information, why not apply for a “benefit distribution license.” All Americans would then have the right to determine who can and will receive the benefits they have worked for and earned, without complicated regulation by the government. Whether it be a husband, wife, sister, brother, cousin or friend. As we have all seen, the more government becomes involved the more complicated it becomes and the more regulations it requires.  Therein lies the problem…government interference.

Government cannot continue to step on the rights and beliefs of others while enforcing laws that they conveniently  label as “tolerance,” when it is anything but tolerant. Those who believe in gay “marriage” cannot force those who believe in traditional marriage to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and a right to a union of your choice should not morph into a mechanism to destroy those who believe differently.  How can anyone who has fought for their rights be content to strip others of their rights in order to realize their own?  Ben Carson asked a very relevant question,

“What position can a person take who has absolutely no animosity toward gay people but believes in traditional marriage that would be satisfactory to them?”

My answer would be to take government out of the equation and offer up “Civil Unions,” “Free Choice” and “Benefit Distribution Licenses.”

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Liberals and Islam; Just A Misunderstanding?

Unknown

Who is Eric Allen Bell?  He is a Liberal described as slightly left of center. I recently came across a video via social media where he was filmed discussing the meaning of Liberalism and his “counter jihad” cause. After listening, I felt it was important to share it. Could it be possible that when it comes to Islam and Muslims that liberals and conservatives  might be on the same side, but just don’t understand each other? If we were not all so polarized, might we have a discussion and discover that we agree on more than we disagree? One issue is Islam and the views that all Muslims support terrorism.  Below is the transcript of the video, but you can also watch by clicking on the link above. It is well worth the listen.

“The tendency of most well meaning moderate liberals is to look at the world through a collectivist’s lens. So when I say Islam they hear Muslim.. If I say I am against Islam they hear you’re against Muslims. The tendency then is to identify with, protect, sympathize, with who ever you perceive to be the minority or the victim. If I say I am against the belief system of Islam,  a collectivist is hearing that I am against an individual and so they say you must be a hate monger, a bigot, an  Islamaphobe and why not throw in right winger? What we have is a perceptive disability.  If we are to succeed in the counter jihad movement, instead of saying, ‘well they should just think differently,’ we need to speak their language. We need to explain that counter jihad is about human rights. If you are a real liberal you are against Islam. If you are a real liberal and you care about women’s rights, gay rights, and free speech and religious freedom you must be against Islam. If you are against xenophobia, nothing is more xenophobic than Islam. So to truly be a liberal, you have to be counter jihad or you are just a phony.”

What is distinction between counter jihad and counter Islam?

“There is no distinction [ between jihad and counter Islam] at all because Islam and jihad are inseparable. There is no such thing as radical Islam. It is a complete myth. Thank God the majority of the worlds 1.6 billion muslims are not devout. Thank God, Because the devout ones are the terrorists.”

“Islam has not been hijacked by radicals. The ideal man in Islam, the highest moral example is Mohammed. He married a 6 year old girl, had foreplay with her for 3 years then had sex with her when she was 9. He beheaded poets who offended him. He killed an entire Jewish tribe. He was a slave owner.  He was a blood thirsty tyrant. This is the ideal man who all Muslims are supposed to emulate? How do you find a moderate Islam in there? It doesn’t exist.”

Unfortunately, Liberalism is connected at the hip with multi-culturalism. So you have to believe that there is such a thing as superior and inferior, not racist, but belief systems are cultures.  And its a lie. Now we have one or two generations that have been educated and indoctrinated into that lie through our public education system and our culture and our media. So that’s a problem. Also to so many liberals to think to yourself that a minority group could possibly be in the wrong, I can’t even have that thought.  No one is more victimized by Islam than Muslims. Hundreds of millions of Muslim women live under Islamic gender apartheid.  So when we talking about humans rights, first and foremost, the people who are victimized by Islam is Muslims. we are standing for their humanity, their rights and their dignity in “counter jihad.”

Who is Eric Allen Bell?  He was hired as a screenwriter by John Leguizamo and Dennis Brooks to rewrite dialogue. He went on to become a working screenwriter, including adapting two novels – one of which was a best seller, for an Oscar winning Producer and a major studio. His directorial debut was in 2004 with “Missing Sock,” which was named by Film Threat on the “Top 10 Short Films” that year. Bell went on to write, produce and direct “The Bondage,” and directed the documentary “American Infidel,” which caused a great deal of controversy and was written about in USA Today, The Huffington Post, Breitbart, Examiner, Front Page Magazine, The Blaze, Media Matters and numerous other publications.

American Infidel is a documentary by Eric Bell that originally started out as a film about, what he considered, “Southern Christian Bigots,” who were protesting a planned mosque being built in Murfreesboro, North Carolina, but ended up joining the anti-Islam movement. “I want to communicate that the biggest threat to human rights is Islam,” he said.

“When the self-proclaimed “prophet” of Islam wrote the Quran one thing he did not count on was the information age.  Why are the Taliban fighting so hard to stop girls from going to school?  The enemy of Islam is truth.“- Eric Allen Bell

“Liberty and Islam cannot coexist. Free Speech and Islam cannot coexist. Women’s Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Human Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Critical Thinking and Islam cannot coexist. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Islam cannot coexist. The future and Islam cannot coexist.”- Eric Allen Bell

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Full Disclosure For All!

shutterstock_144659312

Our government has pushed food labeling to the extreme. Demanding that calories, fat, sugar and other ingredients be fully visible to the public in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about the food they eat. But what about informing the public about the news they receive on a daily basis? Does the public deserve the same transparency about their news sources that the government is now demanding from food manufacturers and restaurants?  After all, if how the public is informed  will affect the way this country is governed, shouldn’t the they be informed what political party a news anchor, reporter or station supports before they get their daily dose of political propaganda?

Have you ever wondered about the news anchor or the station that you watch on a daily basis? Do you know the political party of the owner of the news station you listen to on a daily basis? Do you ever wonder whether the political leanings of reporters actually affects the news they report? When a nightly news anchor choses the stories they report on a daily basis, do they choose them or alter them according to their political leanings? Does the public now receive the news in a completely unbiased format? We have all seen the political polarization that has intensified in this country over the last several years. Lines have been drawn between friends and family, relationships strained, friends lost and unfriended on Facebook over political opinions and leanings. But what about the very people who are supposed to inform us, without personal feelings, about the most important events happening around us on a daily basis?

Did you know that all journalists are required to follow a Code of Ethics? As part of these ethics, news anchors are supposed to  “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,” while simultaneously “seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”  But, is this what they do today? Are you actually receiving a fair and comprehensive account of the news or are you receiving political propaganda and half-truths according to the political leanings of the station and reporter feeding you the news on a daily basis? Are they using the news as a platform to further the political agenda of the party they support?

The American people used to count on the press to act as a check and balance with our political leaders. To question motives, decisions, actions and ethics. Would President Nixon have resigned  because of Watergate had Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein not investigated and exposed his illegal actions? Has it become obvious that this era of reporters and so-called journalists no longer honor their ethical responsibilities over their personal beliefs and views?

As we are now headed into a big election year, 2016 stands to be the most important election this country has seen in years. It is not only about which party will lead us the next four years, but which direction this country will be headed.  The Democratic and Republican parties have chosen polar opposite directions in which they believe the country should be headed. It is imperative that the public be fully and correctly informed about the platforms that each party supports. It is imperative that the public be fully and correctly informed about the actions the Democrats and Republicans have taken and will take in order to follow the platforms they support and further the agenda they have chosen to follow.  So should we, the people, be given full disclosure about the very people and stations that deliver the news?

George Stephanopoulos:  Host of Good Morning America and This Week with George Stephanopoulos. George is a Democrat, and served as communications director for Bill Clinton and later became his White House communications director.  It was recently discovered that he donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation all while he grilled Peter Schweitzer on his recent book, Clinton Cash, which casts a shadow of doubt on the source and use of  Clinton charity funds.

Christiane Amanpour: Anchor CNN. Christiane is a Democrat and is married to former US Assistant Secretary of State, James Rubin, a democrat and an informal adviser to Hilary Clinton, presidential candidate.

Chris Cuomo: Democrat and former host of Good Morning America, 20/20 and currently CNN’s morning show, “New Day.” Chris’s father, Mario Cuomo was the former Democratic Mayor of New York. His brother, Andrew Cuomo is the current Democratic New York Governor.

Brian Williams:  Anchor ABC and Democrat. He began his career as a White House intern under Jimmy Carter. Recently, he was suspended for 6 months due to fabricated news stories.

Savannah Gutherie: Co-anchor of the Today Show,  and co-anchor of the MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown,  Savannah is currently married to Democratic political and communications consultant, Michael Feldman.

Rachael Maddow: Anchor of the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said that she was able to deliver news “with agenda, but not hysteria.” A Newsweek profile noted, “At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence… But for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan.”

Bill O’Reilly:  Anchor of the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, a conservative station, is a registered “independent” yet a traditionalist. He is married to Maureen McPhilmy, a public relations representative.

Megyn Kelly:  Anchor of the Kelly File on Fox News considers herself to be a moderate and reasonable. She often speaks in ways that run counter to Fox’s image. She is married to Douglas Brunt, who is a full time writer and novelist.

Did you know?

  1. ABC News President, Ben Sherwood, is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national security adviser to President Obama.
  2. CNN’s deputy Washington Bureau chief, , is married to Tom Nides, who was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Clinton.
  3. Former White House press secretary, Jay Carney’s wife, Claire Shipman, is a veteran reporter for ABC, and currently is the senior national correspondent for Good Morning America.
  4. NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to Michael Gottlieb, who is currently employed at the Obama White House counsel’s office.
  5. Michele Norris of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” is married to Broderick Johnson, who worked for Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign and then moved on as an unpaid adviser to Obama’s campaign in 2008, and full-time advisor in 2011.
  6. The Post’s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services under the Obama Administration.
  7. David Rhodes, CBS news division president is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign policy specialist under Obama. Both David and Benjamin also work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi.

Let’s go even further and disclose that only six corporations own and control the majority of mass media outlets in the United States.

  1. Disney
  2. CBS Corporation
  3. News Corporation
  4. Viacom
  5. Time Warner
  6. Comcast

So what happens when a news story involves bad publicity for one of these companies, or goes against the political agenda they are pushing? Could the story be shut down or underplayed in the media? The Telecommunication Act of 1996, signed into effect by then President Bill Clinton, enabled this handful of corporations to expand their power and enabled tighter control of information. Chris Hedges argues that corporate media control “of nearly everything we read, watch or hear,” is an aspect of what political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. This is defined as a situation “where every natural resource and every living being is commoditized ad exploited to collapse as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism.”

As the sources for all our news gets smaller and smaller, and the majority seemingly controlled by one political faction, it is time to demand full disclosure before every news cast so the public is truly informed who is spoon-feeding them their news for the day.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

The Chains of Government Strengthens as our Morality Weakens”

imgres

 

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”- Benjamin Franklin

What has happened to the United States? Many say that it is a natural progression that is inevitable, but is it actually the breakdown of our morals, our ethics, our family structure and our school systems? Is it the inevitable “chains of government,” that have slowly but surely bound us with the very freedoms we claim to embrace?

In the name of progression, we have thrown out the very things that made this country great. Our leaders have shunned the very thought that the United States is a Christian Nation and our freedoms are slowly being taken from us on a daily basis. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, exists no more!  We are now being ruled by the political elite who have adopted  “political correctness,” as the new rule of law.

Writer Malcomb Muggeridge (one time editor of Punch magazine) wrote,

“It is difficult to resist the conclusion that 20th century man has decided to abolish himself . Tired of the struggle to be himself he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength, He himself  blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down until at last having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction, he keels over, a weary old brontosaurus, and becomes extinct.”

In a recent speech, Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias,  speaks of the progressive movement and secularism.

“It proclaims the gospel [bible], as the last hoorah of an antiquated outlook, to a generation who is intellectually unkept, morally unzipped and volitionally uncurbed. They reveal their sickness of soul by derogating terms like morality, piety, family, work, patriotism, born again, theology , evangelical and christianity. They dismiss [the bible] as middle class hedonism, declaring it intellectually inadmissible while meanwhile, they espouse a life that neither reason nor conscious nor spirit can support or condone……”

Is Christianity so intimidating that our government must stop it at all costs? Why does the progressive movement so determined to redefine our morals and replace them with a sense of self-importance with no sense of shame or responsibility? Is the United States truly a autonomous culture? Do we really respect the right of everyone to believe as they choose? Live and let live? Although we pride ourselves as being autonomous,  has it become a bait and switch society?  We are told that we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, however, the moment our views do not fit the dialogue taught by the progressives, we are forced, through new government laws and regulations, to change our beliefs. If we are truly an autonomous culture, we must be mutually respectful and civil towards others views and life choices.  However, we are now at the mercy of political correctness which is quickly becoming forced integration.

Recently, Fairfax county in Virginia voted to allow transgender bathrooms in our schools and our communities. This is becoming the norm in cities and states across our nation. Is this progression, or does this fall under the definition of a free society? If an individual has been born with the desire to be a different gender, should we force society to acquiesce to that need? Should our government decide at what age our children should, learn about, experience and accept the definition of transgender? Does this infringe on the freedoms of parents to make a decision regarding the age appropriateness of the subject? Have we taken “freedom” too far? If you choose a lifestyle, you are free to live it. However, should we force everyone to accept it and embrace it?  This is where our society has taken a turn away from common sense. Must we now label bathrooms with every sexual preference regardless of how it infringes on other’s rights?  Will they be labeling bathrooms with a long list of those who are allowed to enter at their own risk? What happened to the simplicity of “Men” and “Women” bathroom signs, and allowing the individual to decide which applies to them? Why must we label every sexual preference on our bathrooms and then force society to embrace it? What is next?

Should we rule that pedophilia is no longer a sexual deviation, but sexual liberation? Believe it or not, progressives are actually debating this issue as we speak.

In an article by The Guardian, “Pedophilia: bringing dark desires to light,” it says,

“The reclassification of pedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls “the sexual liberation discourse”, which has existed since the 1970s. “There are a lot of people,” she says, “who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about pedophilia.”

The United States is a country founded on freedoms. However, have we taken leave of our senses? Have we taken “political correctness” to a level that we must allow, accept and embrace any and all behavior, no matter the deviation from the norm? Under the new progressive movement, must we allow babies to be ripped from their mother’s wombs up to and including 9 months of gestation, in order to allow freedom of choice for women?  Must we educate our young children on the different sexual lifestyles; heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, through the public school system, in the name of sexual freedom?  Must we embrace the destruction, looting, burning and violence that comes with protests in order to support the freedom of speech? Must we point the finger of blame for the sins of the past, demand restitution while enduring reverse discrimination in the name of equal rights? Must we quiet the voices of Christianity, while lifting up Islamic extremism, in the name of religious freedom? Must we, not only welcome, and pay for illegals but allow them a voice in our elections in the name of voter rights? Must we accept the NSA into our bedrooms, homes, computers, bank accounts, phone calls and every aspect of our personal lives in the name of national security? Must we accept the audits and persecution of the IRS when our political beliefs and voices go against the beliefs of the political elite? Must we all follow the dietary rule of law set by government because they say we simply do not know better? Must we allow the political elite to indoctrinate our children through a government controlled education system that will ensure the decline of our competitive standing in the world and the continued control of the masses? How long can we continue to allow our constitutional republic to be turned into a tyrannical system of government? If  Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry, then we are seeing our country fundamentally changed against our will every day.

Must we accept the mutilation of our constitution and accept lies and deceit in place of truth all in the name of politics and power? Must we accept that we are no longer the electorate and the elected, but the ruling and the ruled? It is time to stand up and break the chains of government that have bound us all and get back to the basics on which this country was founded. Family, hard work, an understanding of right and wrong, and common sense freedoms that were intended by our Founding fathers.

“When secularism has evicted everything that is sacred and made a free for all grab for sensation and feeling alone it will ultimately irradiate a feeling of shame in a culture. Shame is a desperately needed sensation when things are wrong deep within you. Show me a man or a woman or a culture without shame and I will show you monstrosity in the making. If secularism leads to a society without shame, society cannot survive.”- Ravi Zacharias

‘If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear a state of emergency…. sniper kills, youths go looting, bomb blasts school…. it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.”-Steve Turner.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

I’m Mad As Hell And I’m Not Going To Take It Anymore!

 

 

iStock_000010295104_Small“The president has far exceeded his constitutional authority. … We all want to do things to stop the president from his illicit activity.” – House Speaker John Boehner

“It is time to allow this Homeland Security funding measure to come to the floor. This is our colleagues’ chance to do exactly what they led their constituents to believe they’d do: defend the rule of law, without more excuses.” – Mitch McConnell

“It’s important for people who agree with us that the president doesn’t have this ability to put illegal immigration laws in place executively.” – Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, the House GOP whip.

“The president chose to use an authority that he said 22 separate times he didn’t have the authority to do.” – House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Each of these representatives voted today to fully fund the DHS and President Obama’s unconstitutional, illegal amnesty.  Each of them promised voters in November that they would not allow Obama to get away with passing illegal amnesty with his pen and phone.  They lied!

How many times will voters allow this to continue? When is the lying going to stop? Why are politicians allowed to use “bait and switch” and get away with it?

The Republicans that voted to pass this legislation are as bad as President Obama and need to be taken out of office.  What makes them any different from Obama?  Frankly they are worse. Why?  At least we all know Obama planned on “fundamentally changing” America. He admitted it and was voted into office anyway.  He has constantly told us over and over of his intentions. He promised to use his pen and phone to pass laws that he wants passed, regardless of the system of government our Republic demands.  At least he told the truth. They lied!

Republicans have lied and lied over and over again to their constituents. They promise to stand up to Obama’s illegal, unconstitutional executive orders, yet again and again they cave. They lied to get into office and then do exactly what Obama and Democrats tell them to do.

What are the people to do when their elected officials refuse to carry out their wishes? What should the people do when the government takes control of every aspect of our lives, against our will? What should the people do when the government of the people, by the people, for the people becomes of the government, by the government, for the government? When our voices and our votes no longer matter, what are we to do?

It is time to stand up and say enough!!! The 2016 Presidential election is around the corner. At this point, it seems our choices will once again be a  Clinton or a Bush. AGAIN!  The establishment has taken over our lives and forgotten their place.  They are elected by us, paid by us, and yet they have chosen to believe that we are their pawns to move around as they please. They do this all while stealing our hard-earned dollars, destroying the American dream, empowering illegals by forcing us to pay their way and allowing them a vote that will eventually move Americans right out of our own country!

They barely work, yet complain that there $174,000 salaries along with their ill-gotten millions through insider trading, isn’t enough to fund their multimillion dollar homes, jets and vacations, all while telling the American people that “income inequality” is our problem.  They claim we are “racists” and “bigots” all while they fuel the “divide and conquer” mentality. They point the finger of blame at each other while behind closed doors they make secret deals going against the very wishes of the American people. They take away our rights to our own property, take our jobs and give them to immigrants, refuse to seal our borders, expose us to terrorism by refusing to fight it or call it by name. They take control of our air and water and call if conservation. They tell us what we can eat and what we can drink because we don’t know any better. They take over our healthcare, charge us more, reduce the services, and require us to pick up the tab for those who don’t want to work. They take away our full-time jobs and replace them with part-time, under-employment and call it recovery. They take over our internet, saying they will protect us from the big, bad internet companies. They spy on us through our phones, our televisions, and our computers and call it protection,  they decide what news we watch by allowing one political faction to control the media, and threaten anyone who stands against them.  They use the IRS to punish any American who tries to enact change. They pledge allegiance to the United States and our flag, promise to uphold our Constitution and protect the American people, yet defy those pledges on a daily basis.

They criticize Russia because Putin has remained in control  for over 24 years, but the Clintons and the Bushes have controlled the Presidency for over 24 years and after the 2016 election, probably another 8, meaning only 2 families will have controlled our country for over 32 years.  When is it enough? When is it time to tell the establishment to go to hell?

We, the American people need to let our government know we will no longer accept the status quo! It is time to elect a President that does not represent Republicans or Democrats. It is time to rid ourselves of the two party system. It is time to elect an American who believes in the Constitution, the American Dream and the rule of law!

It is time to stop putting career politicians and lawyers into office.  No more criminals allowed in office. If you don’t pay your taxes, you’re fired! If you don’t do your job, you’re fired! If you take a bribe, you’re fired! If you lie to get elected, you’re fired!

It is time to do what our founding fathers meant for us to do. Everyday, hard-working Americans should represent our country for a short period of time, then go back to their jobs and their lives. Only then will the people’s voice be heard!  It is time for term limits, a balanced budget, and common sense.  No more Department of Education, no more Department of Human Resources, no more IRS, no more Federal Reserve Bank, no more Energy Department, no more stealing, cheating, fraud, and NO MORE LIES!!!

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Trickle Down Hatred and Contempt”

COMIC white house _edited-1 copy copy

Trickle down hatred and contempt. Is it real? Is it being used to control us?  Where does the buck stop on this issue, or more importantly, where does it begin?

We have all heard of trickle down economics, but what about trickle down hatred and contempt?  Can a leader set the stage and simply, imply by their action or non action, that they will tolerate hatred and contempt of a specific group in order to further their own agenda? Can negative comments by a leader regarding specific groups of people influence how those people will be treated or seen by others? Should the president of the United States be  representing only the portion of the public that believes as he does? How do our leader’s comments and actions influence the level of tolerance or acceptance exhibited by the American people?

The International Journal of Leadership Studies released a study by Diane J. Chandler from the Regent University School of Divinity, United States titled, “The Perfect Storm of Leaders’ Unethical Behavior: A Conceptual Framework,

“We can and do condemn the actions of leaders who decide to lie, belittle followers, and enrich themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.”  Unethical leadership behavior is, therefore, defined  as the organizational process of leaders acting in a manner inconsistent with agreed upon standards of character, decency, and integrity, which blurs or violates clear, measurable and legal standards, fostering constituent distrust because of personal interest.”

“Unethical behavior and its persistence must have a catalyzing starting place, a tipping point moment that prompts all subsequent unethical behavior, similar to the vortex of a tornado drawing everything into its fury.”

“Unethical charismatic leaders select or produce obedient, dependent, and compliant followers. Consequently when leaders deviate from ethical norms, compliant followers tend not to critique leaders’ decisions, since leaders are considered to be the standard bearers for moral conduct. The downside of charisma concerns possible negative consequences, including abuse of personalized power, the nurture of blind loyalties, and the inhibition of any criticism.”

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, many of his speeches have resulted in great condescension towards Americans who disagree with his policies.  Obama has claimed that Americans who don’t agree with his administration on climate change are “a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future,” and “we don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.” In another speech,  “You go in to small towns in Pennsylvania and it’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to their guns and their religion.”  In another, “Ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent in the Republican party.”   Obama has made negative inferences regarding Fox News on more than one occasion, and a top official in his cabinet called Netanyahu a “Chickens**t.” In a ‘hot mic’ moment, Obama was caught calling tea party members, “dangerous extremists.” Is calling out those who disagree with his policies the proper behavior for the President of the United States? Are those who disagree, really a threat to society, racists, naysayers, flat-earthers, terrorists and extortionists?

When the president demonizes groups that disagree with him is he encouraging the mistreatment and exploitation of these groups? Do his comments influence and encourage the press and his public supporters to treat members of the tea party as extremists,  small town Americans as crazy and christians as religious fanatics? Is it right for the President of the United States to single out members of American society for disdain, ridicule or potential retaliation?

In June of 2013, according to a Rasmussen report, one in four voters who supported Obama reported believing that the tea party was the biggest terror threat to the United States. The most surprising aspect of this poll was that one in four believed that tea party members were not only the biggest threat to the United States, but a bigger threat than terrorists.

What about the race card?  Has the president and his team, used race as a tool to garner support for their policies, elicit votes or basically stir up opposition and in turn create more racial divide?

In October, in the Review and Outlook section of the Wall Street Journal, it was said,

“All this brings to mind a young presidential candidate named Barack Obama, who warned in 2008 that Republicans would play the race card. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” he told a rally. Mr. Obama won, and won again, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from rolling out that same racism charge at any opportunity, using it in particular as a tool to drive minority turnout in elections….But Democrats do themselves no credit and the country no good by playing up racial divisions for partisan ends. Alas, they’ll keep doing it until voters stop rewarding them with votes.”

Are there still racial issues currently in the United States? As long as there are people in the world, there will always be differing opinions and therefore discrimination against many races and religions.   However, in the United States, we have made giant steps towards resolving these issues since Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. In 2008, we elected a black president.  According to exit polls, President Obama did better with white voters than the past 2 democratic nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore. However, even with such great support from whites, Democrats still blame racism for the downward spiral of support for Obama.  Did every white person who voted for Obama suddenly turn racist? Or could it possibly be attributed to a failure in his policies and the continued stagnation of the economy and job creation among other heated issues?

In his recent speech to the UN, Obama compared the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson to the situation the world faces with ISIS. Does this place mis-founded ideas about racism over and above the threats by ISIS? Do his comments supporting Michael Brown over the police, prior to the completion of an investigation, cause distrust of our police by other communities, therefore encouraging unnecessary protests and dissension?

Does Obama’s silence on the slaughter of Christians around the world, represent a trickle down condemnation, and therefore, without words, send a message that Christians are no longer a group that we, as Americans, should support?

Ben Carson a pediatric neurosurgeon, and current candidate for the 2016 presidential election said,

“We need to understand that we are not each others’ enemies in this country. And it is only the political class that derives its power by creating friction. It is only the media that derives its importance by creating friction…that uses every little thing to create this chasm between people. This is not who we are……I think one of the keys to leadership is recognizing that everybody has gifts and talents. A good leader will learn how to harness those gifts toward the same goal.”

Martin Luther King said,

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

As Americans we must not allow our leaders to use polarization for their own political ends. We must work towards a common goal and find solutions to make the country stronger.  Having an open mind and listening to all sides is a true sign of maturity, broad mindedness and tolerance. If we can all learn to co-exist and attempt to understand the position of others, instead of demonizing those who think differently, the country will be able to heal itself.   If you preach tolerance, and expect other to be tolerant, then you must be tolerant yourself. If you preach divisiveness, then you must expect divisiveness from others, therefore prohibiting the very tolerance we all so desperately  want.
 We must recognize, that when we support leaders who use polarization to their own political ends, then it will, one day,  be our own beliefs that will be at the receiving end of the trickle down hatred and contempt.
Links: (http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol5iss1/IJLS_Vol5Is1_Chandler%20(2).pdf)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society
http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/08/09/obama-calls-democrat-position-common-sense-trashes-republican-view-wacky-nonsense-new-york-times-interview/

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Separation of Church and State?

shutterstock_41791735

Is there really a separation of church and state and has the current administration honored it? Have Democrats around the country been stepping on our rights to Religious freedom?

In February, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and said,

 “It’s also clear that around the world, freedom of religion is under threat…..No society can truly succeed unless it guarantees the rights of all its people, including religious minorities.”

 But is that being practiced here in the United States? Are our religious freedoms being taken from us one day at a time? We continue to see case after case where this “separation” has been challenged.

Recently in Houston, the mayor, Annise Parker, started quite a firestorm when she demanded local pastors be served with subpoenas in regards to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, (HERO), signed into law in May. The subpoenas were issued after a law suit was filed by the pastors over a provision in the ordinance which would allow men, who identify as women, to use women’s bathrooms.

In a recent article by Dylan Baddour of PolitiFact, Texas,  the mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, instructed officials to issue subpoenas to local pastor’s requesting,

  • “All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, (HERO), the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”
  • “All communications with members of your congregation regarding HERO or the petition.” (writings, notes, diaries, electronic or videotape recordings, emails, instant messages, text messages. ) Jared Woodfill, who is representing the pastors said,

“This is a mayor who has waged a full-scale war on the churches in Harris County. These pastors are standing up and saying enough is enough and we are not going to allow it to happen on our watch.”

In response to the mayor’s actions, more than 1,000 bibles were sent to Parker’s office in protest.  In a press conference today, Parker announced that she is directing the legal department to withdraw the subpoenas.

Meanwhile in California, Governor Gerry Brown is demanding that all employers, including churches, offer and pay for elective abortion through their health insurance policies. The LifeLegal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom are representing 7 churches in a lawsuit against the requirement. Casey Mattox, an attorney with Alliance said,

“Forcing a church to be party to elective abortion is one of the most unimaginable assaults on our most fundamental American freedoms. California is flagrantly violating the federal law that protects employers from being forced into having abortion in their health insurance plans. No state can blatantly ignore federal law and think that it should continue to receive taxpayer money.” 

In Idaho, city officials have demanded that ordained ministers must celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time. One case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of the Hitching Post Chapel. They refused to marry a same-sex couple and as a result are now facing a 180 day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they refuse to marry the couple. The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, has a non discrimination statute and recently the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage between and man and a woman. Based on this, the city feels the Knapp’s should be forced to perform the marriage even though it goes against their religious beliefs. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion arguing that this action,

“violates first and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process and equal protection.”

In 2011, family members, visiting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, were prohibited from bringing Bibles or any religious reading materials to their loved ones.  When the policy was challenged by Representative Steve King, (R-IA), the medical facility rescinded the policy.

In 2013, The Alliance for Religious Liberty outlined many examples where the military restricted religious expression. In one extreme example, thousands of soldiers received “equal opportunity training,” where “Evangelical, Christians, Catholics and Orthodox Jews were classified as “Religious Extremists” comparable to the KKK and Al Qaeda. Those attending the training were also told, in writing, that they could not support these extreme organizations by fund-raising, recruiting, attending meetings, organizing or distributing literature.” In a letter by the Alliance, they stated,

“In other words, thousands of soldiers were told that they could not go to church, lead Sunday School, tithe, share their faith, or give out Bibles.”

Congressman John Fleming, (R-LA), introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to ensure religious freedom for service members and chaplains. The Amendment passed the House Armed Services Committee and another passed the Senate Armed Services Committee. However, President Obama said the additional provisions were  “unnecessary and ill-advised.” His advisors recommended he veto the Religious Liberty Amendment.

We, as Americans must understand and demand that our constitutional rights be upheld by the very government, that was elected by the people, and for the people.  The United States Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and edited by the Committee of five, states,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Have these infringements on our religious rights been equally enforced? Have the same demands been made on local Mosques or Temples? Has our government become so politically correct that they create special privileges for some while infringing on the rights of others?

As Americans, we must insist, even with changing times, that the constitutional rights granted us by the founding fathers of this great nation, must remain intact. Our government must protect the “unalienable rights.” without caving to special interest groups, political favor, or a deteriorating morality. We must not allow the government to enforce or mandate any religious doctrines, nor tell us how or what to believe. Although it is not written in the constitution, we have the unalienable right to a separation of church and state.

 

Links:

  • (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/06/president-obama-praises-freedom-religion-national-prayer-breakfast)
  • (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/oct/23/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-houston-city-attorney-subpoenaed-/)
  • (http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/News/Detail?ContentID=80997)
  • (http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/government-ordained-ministers-celebrate-sex-wedding-go-jail/) 
  • (http://cpcfoundation.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/military-warriors-denied-religious-freedom/) 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

A Politicians Real Truth Exposed!

Unknown

 

Where will the country stand after the midterm elections? Where will Virginia stand after the next election? How about Kentucky, Colorado, or a host of other states around the country?  Should we have to wait until after the midterm elections to find out exactly who we just voted into office?

I sure hope not, because we all know the outcome to “lies first” and “facts later.” Remember Nancy Pelosi’s now famous line,  “we have to vote for it to find out exactly what is in it?”   How did that turn out? Over a trillion hard-earned taxpayer dollars wasted, millions of Americans losing their policies, insurance rates through the roof and deductibles unattainable.  Millions more set to receive their cancellation letters before Christmas.  But, how did that turn out for our elected officials? They kept their Cadillac insurance plans, subsidized 75% by the taxpayer, no interruption to their daily lives, all while we scrambled around in the mud trying to regain some sense of order to the disastrous mess they made at our expense.  Should we really wait until after the midterms to find out where the United States is headed, or should we grab that bull by the horns and decide which direction is best for the American people and not our politicians?

How much better off would we be, if we could actually hold our politicians responsible for the promises they make?  What if we could throw them out of office, without any fanfare, without any questions or excuses, if we found out that they lied to their constituents? I’m not talking about small untruths, or embellishments,  I am talking about purposeful, bold-face lies that have been told to the American people, in order to further political  careers, embolden political parties and fatten wallets while selling the American people down the proverbial drain?  How many politicians would lose their jobs today, if we were to hold them accountable for the bold-face lies they told? Unfortunately for us, too many to count.

Recently, the Democratic candidate for Kentucky, Alison Grimes, was caught like a deer in the headlights lying to the people of Kentucky. She claimed she was a supporter of the coal industry and  promised to fight for them, against President Obama’s “war on coal,” if elected. Unfortunately for her and fortunately for the people of Kentucky, it was discovered that she, in fact, bold-faced lied!  A major donor to her campaign admitted,

“Grimes is faking her support of the coal industry, and will f**k em as soon as she gets elected.”(http://youtu.be/L4sn-jI12_8)

What about the promises that were made to keep our borders secure? What about the promises that were made to keep our children and our communities safe from infectious diseases?  What about the promises made to send illegals back where they came from? What about the promises made to fight terrorism? As we have discovered, on so many fronts, our politicians refuse to tell us the truth. They bold-face lie! They refuse to answer simple questions on exactly where they stand on the issues.  They refuse to answer questions regarding their actions. We are exposed to evasion, avoidance, manipulation, denial, misdirection, and the ever-present distraction. Yet, predominantly, we see our current politicians bold-face lie to the American people, and meanwhile, mainstream media remains cooperative, collaborative, collusive and completely hand in glove with the political machine. The only truths are discovered through sleuth, by everyday Americans determined to expose our so-called public servants for who they really are.  Is this starting to sound like a conspiracy?  But what do they have to gain from deceiving the American people?  Power and money….it makes the world go round!

Mark Warner, incumbent senator running in Virginia, promised he would never vote for a health insurance bill if it did not allow  you to keep your policy or doctor if  you liked them. He voted “yes” for Obamacare, and he continues to support the failing ACA bill, knowing full well Americans cannot keep their policies or their doctors.  His current ads proclaim him as a successful small business owner, who has proven that he can work across party lines to get things done. But is that true? Mark Warner is currently the second richest Senator on the Hill. His net worth is estimated at over $270 million. Did he earn that by working hard to make his small business a huge success,  or did he use insider information while working with Chris Dodd, Democrat for Connecticut, about the newly emerging wireless industry and spectrum licensing to get a jump on the rest of Virginians? Does he support amnesty? Does he really support the “right to work state,” while pushing for bills that actually support big Unions and hurt the “right to work” cause? Has he really reached across the aisle, or has he voted with President Obama 97% of the time? What is the truth?

Recently, Harry Reid’s body guard physically attacked a “non-mainstream,” reporter for simply asking how Reid could be worth over $10 million on a public servant’s salary of $194,000 a year. If you believe he made it honestly, I have some land that I want to sell you in order to build a bridge across the Colorado River that is a priority to no one but Harry Reid’s bank account.

Last, but definitely not least, It has been proven that President Obama has told countless bold-face lies, in order to be elected and re-elected.

Is this legal? Can our politicians actually bold-face lie to us and get away with it? What if the lies result in disaster for the voting public?

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 9-0 decision determined that political ads are protected by the First Amendment. In other words, our politicians are legally allowed to lie to the American people, and mainstream media is allowed to further those lies, refusing to uphold their oath to actually inform the American people, in order to further their political agenda.  However, in the same breath, 46 Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, decided that the First Amendment was actually an impediment to re-election for them. As a result they decided it would be a good idea to regulate the amount of money everyday citizens could spend advocating for the political candidates of their choice. President Obama even conceded, in an oral argument, that the law being pushed by democrats would in fact, allow the government to ban political books or pamphlets. Imagine if this law had passed. Not only would we not be able to promote our political choices, but the government would have been able to stop American citizens from printing or distributing  any publications or pamphlets promoting our beliefs, all while upholding their right to purposefully bold-face lie  to the American people. The height of hypocrisy!

So what happens when lying is upheld in our court system, and the media, owned in a 75% majority by the Liberal left, promotes these lies that eventually thwart the truth that is necessary for the informed voter to make an educated choice in the voting booth?

If truth be told, the American people are F****D!

Dig deep for the truth, and go to the poles on November 4th and say enough is enough!!!

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“An Angry Republican” Part 2

 

 

iStock_000010295104_SmallI received a response from the very person that inspired  me to write “An Angry Republican.” I began to reply and decided that the comments made and my response were worthy of another article, which follows. 

In accusing me of sounding like an “angry republican”, I am wondering why you automatically assume I am a republican? Why is it that anyone who believes in our free enterprise system, the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution and small government, must always be “angry republicans?”

 

There are many Americans who are sick and tired of the “fundamental transformation” of a nation that once was the envy of the world. Obama has spent the past 6 years breaking down the constitutional rights that guarantee us our freedoms, transforming the United States into a government conglomerate, run by corrupt bureaucrats determined to turn us into a nanny state that has no sovereignty and can no longer be trusted by its allies and no longer feared by it’s enemies.

 

Milton Friedman once said,

 

“Ever since the first settlement of Europeans in the New World, American has been a magnet for people seeking adventure, fleeing from tyranny, or simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their children.”

 

I still believe that we are the envy of the world if for nothing than the entrepreneurial spirit that remains the backbone of this country.  It is well researched that entrepreneurship empowers all, regardless of education, sex, color of skin and nationality. As we have seen,  many nations have adopted this philosophy and realized great success as a result. We remain the envy of the world because of our constitution and the freedoms we offer our citizens.  The United States has always been regarded as a nation of immigrants and have more than four times as many immigrants than any other nation in the world. We must be doing something right!  And regardless of what Obama says,  I believe we are exceptional!

 

Yet, you are correct, that the United States and its standing around the world in regards to foreign policy has dropped significantly. President Obama took office determined, despite his ignorance, that the world could all join hands, sing kumbaya and automatically “the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and our planet would begin to heal.” However, as “angry americans” recognized from the beginning, his philosophy would never succeed. As Albert Einstein said, “So long as there are men, there will be wars.”

 

I think most  “angry Americans,” recognized the fundamental transformation that began under Obama and as a result have logically become very “angry!”  We have lost our voice in government. Our career politicians no longer understand what it means to take a risk and start a business, run a company, hire employees and make a profit. The word profit and anyone who works towards that end is evil and never pays their fair share.  Our career politicians no longer listen to or represent the people. They make laws that benefit themselves and then pick and choose who will be required to tow the line. The majority lie, cheat and steal in order to keep their jobs and they refuse to live under the very laws they force on us. This has become the rule instead of the exception under the Obama regime.

 

Why is it that so many Americans are uninformed or misinformed? Could it be that the very media that are supposed to keep politicians and government honest have been inundated with liberals who support the fundamental transformation of our nation and as a result mislead and misinform the populace purposefully? Have we become a nation where lies are the new norm and the truth no longer matters? A nation where all you have to do is repeat the lie enough and it will eventually be believed? Is Fox the only answer? No.  To really be informed, you must get your news from many sources including those with whom you disagree. You claim a major international newspaper, who you failed to identify, called Fox News “brash, bombastic and biased,” yet they refuse to comment on the lies, omissions and distortion of the so-called news by the liberal media? And they consider that fair and honest reporting?

 

And let’s not forget John Stewart a liberal who takes every opportunity to twist and turn news stories into funny comedic acts that just further the liberal agenda all under the auspices of comedy.  This is just another way of slowly integrating the beliefs of the left onto the unsuspecting public. He obviously has garnered  a following who believe he is a real news guy who tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth, all while allowing you to laugh and believe you are being informed.  This along with our current government-run education system that continues to slowly dumb down the public; add in the war on women and the constant recruitment of  government entitlement participants, and you have a population of people who will not and cannot survive on their own and have therefore surrendered their lives, their rights, their power  and their very freedoms to the United States government.  Flood the borders with illegals, grant them amnesty and the right to vote and you have liberals in control for ever. We all know you never bite the hand that feeds you!  Long live Socialism!

 

And now, my vote for the absolute worst comment of the day?

“Our right of free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, however, and has little to do with our veterans. This is not to take away the sacrifices our veterans have made, however, but it has nothing to do with the point at hand. These are the kind of comments that politicians make to grab votes.”

These remarks about our Veterans, obviously mimic the feelings of the Obama administration and most liberals regarding our military.  So easily deployed when you need them, but so quickly dismissed when they no longer serve your purpose. You forget that they, on a daily basis, fight for us to keep the very freedoms our forefathers guaranteed under the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.  Your knowledge of our history is seriously lacking if you believe that our Veterans have little to do with the defense of our freedoms. They are the only wall of defense, outside of an informed populace that protects our freedoms and our constitution. It is this very mindset that has so many on the left refusing to stand for the rights of our Veterans. When the people are told that our Veterans made no sacrifices in the name of freedom and our youth are no longer educated on the sacrifices made by our Veterans, then this country will  cease to exist as our forefathers intended. I ask you, if our Veterans do not fight for our very freedoms, then what do they fight for? We are well on our way to an uneducated and misinformed public. Now, let our Veterans die from poor healthcare, send them pink slips on the battlefield, fire all the Generals who do not subscribe to the liberal agenda and soon enough, you have no one to defend our Nation and those who have always wished us harm have exactly what they wished for….no more America, land of the free and home of the brave!

 

We all know that every President makes mistakes that affect the administration that follows.  We all know that George Bush made mistakes, as did most Presidents before him. But when you have an administration, that is incapable of accepting responsibility for its own failed polices and actions and continues to blame others, you must recognize that we have no real leader. We are well into the sixth year of Obama’s presidency and I would like to know at what point Obama plans on becoming the leader of the United States? At what point will he stop blaming Bush and pick up the gavel and lead this country? All I have seen so far is the total takeover and control of our healthcare system, the land we live on, the air we breath and the water we drink, all in the name of global warming and environmentalism. When will it stop? At what point will the economy, jobs, energy independence, freedom of religion, speech, the press and the sovereignty of this nation become more important to Obama than politics, fundraising, golf, and vacationing?

 

Finally your definition of a Liberal,

 

“Read the Constitution again, the sum and substance of which is the people should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don’t interfere with the lives of others, which is the definition of a Liberal if ever there was one.”

 

Ironically,  I will leave the response to this one up to a self-professed liberal….. Alan Clifton, who said,

 

“I’ve written numerous articles defending women’s rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, minority right and equality, and I’ve fiercely opposed racists bigots and intolerance in general. Yet, I’ve been called a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobic woman-hater – all by liberals.”  “Then there are the ‘PC police” types. These are the people who essentially find almost everything offensive. Basically they want a society where everyone better watch what they say or do because you never know who you just might offend.”  “It’s getting to a point where some are going from passionate activists fighting for a good cause to over sensationalized complainers who just want to go around judging anyone and everyone for everything they do.”

 

Finally, something said by a liberal that I can believe in!  Well said Alan, well said!

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“An Angry Republican”

iStock_000010295104_Small

I recently had someone accuse me of sounding like an “angry Republican.” As a result,  I have decided to write a response to this accusation and set the record straight!

Let’s get one thing clear….. I don’t consider myself a republican, a tea partier, or a libertarian. What I do know is that I am NOT  a racist or a flat-earther or a bigot or a terrorist, as the President of the United States has described me. I am a concerned American that believes in our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, the rule of law, the free enterprise system, a days pay for a hard days work, the three arms of government that were put into effect to keep any one from taking too much control, a valid and honest voting booth, a free press that actually reports the facts and not just political rhetoric, the sovereignty of our borders, the compassion, ingenuity and exceptionalism of the American people, who make up a country considered the melting pot and envy of the world.

 

If you still want to call me an angry republican, that is your right, because of course you have been given free speech by the blood of our Veterans, who lost their lives so you can speak your mind.

 

But, the truth is, YOU would be an angry American if you had a clue about what is really going on in this country today.  You do not have to be a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian or any other party you might happen to follow, to recognize that we are being fundamentally changed, against our will, by an administration who chooses not to follow the rule of law, who ignores the very Constitution and Bill of Rights that this country was founded on, and who stands up everyday and LIES to the American people.

 

Now, I am sure I have graduated from “angry Republican” to just plain “politically incorrect.” And guess what? If you did just call me “UN PC”, then you are probably part of the problem.

 

You might be one of those people who listen to the nightly news on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or maybe even one who thinks Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are actually “real” news people and couldn’t possibly have an agenda.  You then sit back with a smug smile thinking you are informed, and even got a good laugh while getting your daily dose of the “real” news.

 

When you read facts reported by anyone in the know, because they actually do hours and hours  of research, you can smugly call them “Angry Republicans,” while you bask in your own ignorance.

 

Wake up, open your eyes and watch as the Liberal left led by their king and savior, Barack Obama, take away your rights one at a time, while you are being promised that ,

 

“This is the most transparent government in the history of the United States and that the world is less violent than it has ever been, it is healthier than it has ever been and it is more educated, better fed and more tolerant than it has ever been. That generations from now, we will all be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” – Barack Obama

 

And if you are truly informed and still believe that, then Barack Obama IS the savior and I am just an Angry Republican!!

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Lies; the New Truth?”

Unknown

Sandra Fluke. Who is she? Do you know what she stands for?  What do you know about her qualifications? What does she have to do with Hobby Lobby? Does she speak the truth or does she tell Lies; the new truth?

In March of 2012, Sandra Fluke was a student at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, and spoke before an unofficial hearing convened by Democrats. At the hearing, she criticized  Georgetown University because they would not pay for or cover her birth control, and she made the following statement,

 “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them — them, not me — to be heard.” I am an American woman who uses contraceptives!”

Enter Rush Limbaugh, who responds on his radio show by saying,

 “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

Because of Limbaugh’s comments, Sandra Fluke became an overnight sensation. She was suddenly the expert on contraceptives and women’s healthcare rights. Immediately she began touring colleges and universities around the United States talking to young girls and women about empowerment and how Republicans were purposefully taking away women’s access to healthcare and contraceptives.

She was then invited to speak at the Democratic  National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. After her speech, which wrongly accused Republicans of mentally, emotionally and physically abusing women, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote,

“Seriously, the party of Andrew Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman chose to showcase someone whose claim to fame is that she demands that somebody else pay for her birth control.”

Erick Erickson of CNN said,

“Of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats’ position is on this. It’s what he does and does quite well. And in the process he’s exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting? Her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves.”

Is contraception really unaffordable? Lets look at the cost.  As reported in US News, Money and Personal Finance, the cost runs between $15 and $50 per month depending on your insurance coverage. This amounts to $150 to $600 per year. The cost of condoms, which also prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, runs from 20 cents to $2.50 a piece. Depending on your personal taste in condoms, a max of about $150 per year.

Now, let’s look at the TRUTH behind the Hobby Lobby case that went before the Supreme Court and the FACTS surrounding their decision.

First, the actual complaint (reader’s digest version directly from the court documents):

 “The Green Family’s religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices.”

What does that really represent?  Below is a list of exactly what Hobby Lobby now and will continue to cover and offer all its employees:

  1.  Male condoms
  2. Female condoms
  3. Diaphragms with spermicide
  4. Sponges with spermicide
  5. Cervical caps with spermicide
  6. Spermicide alone
  7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
  8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
  9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
  10. Contraceptive patches
  11. Contraceptive rings
  12. Progestin injections
  13. Implantable rods
  14. Vasectomies
  15. Female sterilization surgeries
  16. Female sterilization implants

Below is a list of  exactly does Hobby Lobby does not want to  cover or offer all its employees based on their religious beliefs:

  1. Plan B (“The Morning After Pill
  2. ”Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
  3. Copper Intra-Uterine Device
  4. IUD with progestin

What is the difference between these two lists?

The first list is currently what Hobby Lobby offers to all its employers and is considered “contraception.” The items in this list PREVENT pregnancy.

The second list is what Hobby Lobby will not offer its employees based on their religious beliefs. The four items listed are all ABORTION INDUCING devices or medications. These are used AFTER pregnancy is achieved.

In conclusion, Hobby Lobby has no issues supplying its employees with coverage for the PREVENTION of pregnancy, i.e. contraception, nor does it interfere with a woman’s healthcare.

The Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby.

So now lets go back to Sandra Fluke, a woman who graduated from Georgetown University, with a degree in law, and a double major at Cornell University.  After the Supreme Court released its findings, Sandra Fluke interpreted their ruling and made the following statement,

“What this is really about at its base is trying to figure out as many ways as possible to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare.”

Did I miss something? Did Hobby Lobby refuse to pay for any contraception or healthcare for women? Did the Supreme Court decide that religious organizations did not have  to pay for ANY women’s healthcare or contraception? Why is she misrepresenting the findings? The only thing that is being limited in regards to women is abortion inducing drugs or procedures.

Did Sandra Fluke really learn the law at Georgetown or is she purposefully distorting the truth in order to tow the party line and support  the agenda of the Democratic party?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Party’s national chairwoman said,

 “This is going to turn the dial back. Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the long hand of business, reach into a woman’s body and make healthcare decisions for her.”

Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said,

“ Today’s Supreme Court decision unfortunately jeopardizes basic healthcare coverage and access to contraception for a countless number of women.”

Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid said,

“Our party must now fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage.”

Hillary Clinton chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that an employer can refuse to provide women with contraception on religious grounds.

CBS reported,

“The Supreme Court as pitted women’s rights against religious freedom. It upheld a challenge to a key provision of Obamacare—the one that requires coverage for birth control.”

Is that really what the ruling said?  Or has this just become another witch-hunt to distract voters from the real issues and to garner votes for the Democrats? Another “War on Women” campaign?

Is it just a coincidence that mainstream media along with Democrats are screaming from the rooftops that the Republicans have taken away the rights of women to receive healthcare and contraception?

As a taxpayer, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, why should our employers or we be responsible for picking up the tab for an abortion when a woman fails to protect herself during a sexual encounter? Is that really our responsibility? Is it okay to demand rights for yourself while stomping on the rights of others?

Have we seen a pattern established in this country under the current administration that has taken hold? A pattern where no one is held responsible or accountable for his or her own actions? Where the taxpayer is responsible for putting up their hard earned dollars to cover everyones bad decisions?  Have we seen our government and our media distort and misrepresent the truth in the name of politics? Is it okay to lie, cheat and steal in order to get the votes needed to win?

What happened to honor and truth and facts? Or have Lies become the new truth?

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Redskins; What’s in a Name Anyway?

washington

 

How did the Redskins get their name anyway?  They named the team the Redskins to honor their coach Lone Star Dietz, a Native American, when they moved the team from Boston to Fenway Park. Then in 1937, Marshall had the team moved to his home in Washington, D.C.

Flash forward to today. The Washington Redskins lost their trademark after a federal agency ruled that the football team’s name was “disparaging to Native Americans.”

Interestingly enough, back in 2009, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a group of Native Americans who thought the name, “Redskins” was offensive. That was the end to the latest round in the 17 year court battle between the Redskins and Harjo and her fellow plaintiffs.

In October of 2013, President Obama made statements regarding the Washington Redskins,

“If I were the owner of the team, and I knew that the name of my team, even if they’ve had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”

What is the definition of “sizeable”?

A poll conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 90% of Native Americans were not offended by the name “Redskins” while only 9% said they found the name offensive.

What does losing your trademark mean?  Basically, it does not require that the Redskins change the name of their football team. It means that they no longer will have exclusive rights to that name. Therefore, anyone, including vendors, football fans, t-shirt makers, etc., will have the right to sell products under the Redskins name and logo without the team’s permission.  Does losing the trademark solve the problem? Does it satisfy those who oppose, if the team name itself is not changed? Is losing the trademark just a financial punishment by government or a show of power and control?

What about other teams such as the Florida State Seminoles, the Utah Utes, the Cleveland Indians or the Atlanta Braves?  Tribes themselves endorsed the two college team mascots, therefore protecting their trademarks. In 1947, Florida State University made their mascot the Florida State Seminoles. In the 1980’s when Native American names became controversial, the University consulted with the Seminole Tribe of Florida and with the approval of a few representatives of the tribe, they were given an exemption even though other state Seminole tribes disagreed. Is that fair?

Senator Harry Reid said his state has 22 tribes and that the only tradition behind the Redskins’ name was one of racism. However, he has failed to condemn the Red Mesa High School “Redskins” in his district whose entire student population is Navajo Indian.

This is an interesting point that has received very little attention, but the fact is there are many schools on Reservations with Native American Mascots.  So if they find Native American mascots offensive, then why would they give their own team mascots a Native American name?

Adrian Jawort is a freelance journalist, writer and poet and a lifelong resident of Montana as well as a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. He wrote a wonderful article, titled, “Redskins Not So Black and White.”  In it he says,

 “I can’t help but think how the banning of all Native American-related mascots would go over in my home state of Montana. It’d undoubtedly be ironic seeing as the reservation schools have names like the Browning and Lodge Grass Indians, the Heart Butte and Pryor Warriors, as well as the off-reservation but predominately Northern Cheyenne attended school of the St. Labre Braves just to mention a few. Go figure, the Navajo school in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona is called the Red Mesa Redskins, and there’s a 2002 Chris Eyre film that takes place on the Pine Ridge Reservation called “Skins.” And although I don’t believe the redskins and scalp theory was contrived with devious intent, remember, in the study of history, one should not let their own passions of today override existing facts of the past just because they don’t fit our own modern version of political correctness.

If you bought a sports team or you started a new business, would you give it a name that you and others considered disparaging? Or would you give it a name of honor?

Currently the United States Patent and Trademark Office has over 600 active trademarks that feature Native American men and women. So are all these other patents not considered disparaging to Native Americans?

Are they planning on cancelling all these patents?

What if your name is your identity? How will that affect your business?

If you have a successful business that has been around for 20 years, 50 years, 75 years, will you lose business if you are forced to change your name because someone or some group finds it offensive? Who will be the judge of what is offensive?

Recently, we have seen many examples of words that are now no longer “politically correct” and if used, you could be classified as a racist, a bigot, a homophobe or a multitude of other “politically correct” names. Here is a list of some of my favorites from the Global Language Monitor:

*”Peanut Butter Sandwich”: A Portland grade school principal found it to be culturally insensitive to children of other cultures.

*”Normal”: Normal persons in the presence of people with disabilities should now be referred to as “non-disabled persons.”

*”Pet Owner”: We should not be able to “own” pets, so we are now “pet guardians”

*”Dutch Treat”: Offensive to the Dutch, since it portrays them as either thrifty or stingy.

*”Swine Flu”: insensitive to pigs

*”Holding down the fort”: offensive to Native Americans, since we all know who the forts were being held down against.

In the state of Washington, governor Inslee recently signed legislation requiring the state to rewrite its laws using gender-neutral vocabulary.

Terms such as “fishermen” and “freshman” are now “fisher” and “first year student,” “penmanship” is now “handwriting.”  The real estate market wants to phase out the term “master bedroom.” How ridiculous is this becoming? Soon enough, we will be forced to re-write the entire Webster’s Dictionary, because someone will be able to find something offensive or “politically incorrect” with every word in it.  When is enough, enough? When will it stop?

Should the President of the United States get involved with law suits over trademark names? Should the President have the power to use an agency to interfere in the free market system for one individual group while ignoring others doing the same?  Can the government at their whim, decide who can keep a name and who cannot? Who is the judge of what is offensive and what is not? How many people have to be “offended” for your business to be forced to change its name?  One? Ten? Two thousand?

A Native American group associated with the Chiricahua Apache is planning on filing a federal lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians. They are asking for $9 billion dollars. Will money solve the problem?

These cases are currently in the court system, where they should be. Washington and government have no place in this argument. Doesn’t this administration have enough on its plate dealing with unemployment, terrorism threats, the invasion of our borders, IRS targeting, to name just a few…..?

I recently saw a poster on Facebook that said,

“Washington Redskins drop the word “Washington” from their name because it’s embarrassing.”

Now that makes much more sense to me!

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of U.S. Immigration Laws”

 

images

Congress has passed a total of 7 amnesties since 1986.  Each one gave blanket amnesty to illegals that were residing within the United States.  Each time, the public was promised that border control would be stepped up. But has the border really been secured? Based on an agreement reached in Congress in 2011, President Obama said the fence along the border of Mexico is “now basically complete.”  In his speech on May 10, 2011, in El Paso, he further said,

 

“We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goals posts on us one more time. They’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”

 

I have one question after reading his comments on border security. If the border is secure, then how have thousands and thousands of illegals been able to cross the border into the United States? Now, thousands of minor children are flooding into the United States. Are our borders secure or are we looking at yet, another untruth told by this administration?

 

I found an article on PolitiFact.com that answered my question.

In their article, the following was said,

 

“Department of Homeland Security officials told us they have finished 649 our 652 miles of fencing (99.5 percent) which includes 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence.”

But the same day, Senator De Mint said,

 

“The Obama administration has not done its job to finish the border fence that is a critical part of keeping Americans safe and stopping illegal immigration. Five years ago, legislation was passed to build a 700-mile double layer border fence along the southwest border. This is a promise that has not been kept. Today, according to the staff at the Department of Homeland Security, just 5% of the double layer fencing is complete, only 36.1 miles.”

 

So, does that mean that President Obama is lying? Are you having flash backs to the promise, that you could keep your insurance and your doctor if you liked them?

 

Let’s flash back to President Obama’s Dream Act of 2012.

The president used his pen and phone to pass the Dream Act, which allows children of illegal aliens bought into the country, legal status in the US, without fear of deportation, and eligibility to receive instate tuition.  This law will impact approximately 800,000 illegal immigrants from the ages of 16-30. The Dream Act was passed without Congressional or Senate approval. President Obama said he passed it because Republicans were blocking the act. In fact it lost the vote in the Senate because 5 Democrats voted against it. Had they followed party lines, the Dream Act would have been approved.  Why did Obama not get the support he needed in order for the act to pass through constitutionally?

 

After his announcement, that he alone had passed the Dream Act without legislative support, a reporter asked the President,

 

“Mr. President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?”

 

President Obama told the reporter not to interrupt. The question was never answered.

 

Now, lets flash-forward to today at our borders.

 

President Obama is prohibiting Border Patrol Agents from talking to journalists about the thousands of minors crossing into the United States.  Why is he denying them the right to tell the public what is really going on at the border? What happened to being the most transparent administration in history? The AP recently obtained an email from an assistant patrol agent ordering more than 3000 agents not to speak to reporters about what was going on at the border or face disciplinary action or be charged criminally.  Why?

 

Representative Steve King said,

 

 “I’m afraid President Obama is going to do nothing to secure our border with Mexico. Right now, the United States effectively has no border with Mexico and the borders in Central America all the way down to Panama appear to be wide open as well.”

 

Why the sudden insurgence of minors across the border?

This is happening because of the President’s de facto amnesty for children who are in the United State illegally. President Obama recently renewed the Dream Act legitimizing juveniles who are in the US “illegally and unaccompanied.

 

When agents at the border asked over 200 non-Mexican immigrants why they were entering into the United States, 95% said they headed to the U.S because they had been told they could get a free pass simply by showing up at the border. A large percentage also said that their family members in the US told them to travel immediately because the government was issuing immigration passes until the end of June. These children and adults are not scaling the fences, they are surrendering to border control agents, because they know they will not be turned away.  They are all giving the same answer, “if you go down there, the chances of you getting sent back or deported to your native country are slim to none.” “It’s a free ticket.”  “Obama will never deport us and we can receive welfare for life. “

 

The question of the day is how these thousands of children are able to travel approximately 1800 miles through Mexico’s rough terrain to Texas? We know they would never be able to do it on their own as the majority are under 12 years of age and a lot of these kids are arriving with measles, tuberculosis and scabies. Who is helping them reach the border? How are these children crossing the Mexican border? Is Mexico intentionally letting them in and why?

 

So what is the Obama administration offering to the unaccompanied kids flooding in to the United States?

 

Mattresses have been ordered along with medical supplies and other basics. Vendors are being contracted to provide the children with nutritional meals and FEMA will provide counseling and recreational activities. There are makeshift cafes and medical centers and telephone banks and computers have been set up so they can reach other family members already in the United States. Three military installations are being used to house the immigrants.  A border patrol agent said the government is chartering airlines to fly the children form Texas to Arizona.

 

Attorney General Eric Holder announced a new program called “Justice AmeriCorps,” which will provide free lawyers and paralegal services to the illegal’s flooding the border. This program alone  is costing approximately $2million of taxpayer dollars. But that is just the beginning.

 

The Obama administration says,

“They need to defend a vulnerable population from discrimination based on their immigration status.”

 Who is paying the tab for the chartered planes, food, medical care, beds, facilities and lawyers?  Plain and simple…The US Taxpayer.

Vice President Joe Biden said,

 “The U.S. needs a constant, unrelenting stream of new immigrants to buttress the national economy.”

 Representative Henry Cueller, a Democrat, but overall critic of how Obama has handled the crisis said,

 “If we don’t send the message that they can’t just come in and stay here, its gonna continue, this wave of humanity.”

 The National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents said,

“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes.” Certainly we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States Government. This campaign is a political deception and the responsibility rests with the political leaders who support a path to citizenship, regularization or any other form of amnesty for illegal aliens before providing for full protections for national security and public safety. Non-enforcement of immigration laws is the next step in becoming a failed state.”

Gil Kerlikowske, a commissioner of U.S Customs and Border Protection said Friday,

“Border Patrol agents are changing diapers and heating baby formula in order to care for some of the youngest children. “

 

Other agents have said,

 “ After they have crossed the border they are processed and bused or flown to another state like Arizona, Virginia or Maryland where they are given a court date and dropped off in hope they might actually show up. They hardly ever do and court dates can be as far away as three years.  Many of them are in advanced stages of pregnancy and will likely have a child that will become an American citizen.”

A border patrol agent, stationed in South Texas, whose name is being withheld in fear of retaliation, sent a letter to journalist Adan Salazar, saying,

Good Morning,

I am a Border Patrol Agent in the Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV), south of Corpus Christi, Texas.  Thank you for your continued support and coverage of the ongoing crisis on the border.  I would like to take a moment to convey the absolute desperation that we are reaching down here.  We have been ordered to release thousands of Family Units (Parent/Child), and thousands of teenage unaccompanied juveniles (Under 18).  We have encountered numerous instances of fraud, kidnapping, and exploitation where adults are claiming that very young children are their own, when in fact they are not.  Many of the unaccompanied juveniles are claiming that they have a responsible parent to be released to, when in fact they do not.

As a Border Patrol Agent, I can tell you as an eyewitness that we are currently losing more than we are catching.  On a good day, we catch approximately 30 to 40 percent of all crossers while the rest simply get away.  In the RGV, we have been averaging around 10,000 apprehensions per week.  That means we are losing well over 10,000 aliens per week.  And the aliens that are getting away are not the juveniles or the family units because they are turning themselves in at the first sight of agents.  The ones we are losing are convicted felons, aliens from special interest countries, and other high-risk individuals.  We are so overwhelmed and preoccupied by the flood of juveniles and family units that we cannot use our resources to catch the more serious aliens.

In the RGV, we have been releasing aliens, through ICE, in Brownsville, Texas and McAllen, Texas.  We have been ordered to go out of our way to bus them to those locations for release because they are cities of mostly Hispanic heritage, so fewer people will notice or care.  We have been doing that for months before the stories broke in Phoenix, Arizona a couple of weeks ago.

We cannot get any attention or relief down here.  We desperately need immediate manpower, resources, and a firm support of Americans.  This is de facto amnesty.  The President and the Secretary of Homeland Security will ignore this issue as long as possible in order to let as many illegal aliens gain entry into the United States.

Again, thank you for your undying support and patriotism.  You have no idea how much my fellow agents and I appreciate it. God bless America.

If we can afford to charter planes to fly the illegal immigrants to Arizona, then why can’t they be flown back home and put into the care of their own country?

Why would anyone believe that asking illegals to return for their court dates in 90 days would in anyway force them to show up, especially when we will supply them will all they need to stay here and live comfortably?

The question of the day is why would President Obama open our borders and invite thousands and thousands of minors and adults to cross the border illegally into the United States?

Representative King said last week that Obama has manufactured the crisis in an attempt to overload the social welfare system.

 “I do feel this attempt to flood the border with illegals is a playing out of the Cloward-Piven theory.”

 “In 1960, Professors Richard Cloward and Francis Piven of Columbia University, Obama’s alma mater, devised a plan to provoke chaos by deliberately overwhelming governmental systems and the U.S. economy to the point of collapse, paving the way for state intervention that would ultimately replace America’s free enterprise republic with a collectivist system.”

 “If you don’t see them bring reinforcements down there to seal the border, that means that, yes, it’s a Cloward –Piven maneuver to flood the country until we get to the point where we are an open-borders country that welcomes everybody, legal and illegal.”

 Representative Steve Stockman agreed that Obama, who studied the chaos strategy (Cloward-Piven) at Columbia, according to a classmate, “is trying to do a Cloward-Piven thing with the border. This is a crisis the White House intends to create.”

 Will it overwhelm our system? When Obama took office, we had 13 million Americans on food stamps and now a record 47 million are using SNAP cards. We have almost 13 million Americans on Welfare and close to 6 million on Unemployment.  In almost all of our states, welfare pays more than minimum wage and in some cases as much as $24 per hour.  Almost 30% of welfare recipients receive benefits for 3-5 years and 20% over 5 years. Unemployment rates have stayed close to 7% with 3 times as many people dropping out of the labor force then joining it.  In April alone, 288,000 jobs were created while 806,000 people gave up looking. In April, 92,594,000 dropped out of the labor force and that was 1 million more then the month before. The number of women not in the labor force has risen to an all time high, there was a huge loss of jobs in the 24-54-age range and in 20% of American families no one works, and the majority of jobs being created are low wage, part time and temporary jobs.

Then we can look to the growing number of scandals besides the ignoring of our immigration laws; IRS targeting of Americans, Fast and Furious, the NSA spying on Americans, the spying on the conservative media and their sources, the lack of reporting by the left leaning media, the negotiating with terrorists and trading of 5 Taliban leaders for one deserter, the drawing of red lines in the sand , the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea, Russia, the questionable deals with Iran, the constant political correctness forced on all Americans, the constant regulations placed on small business, the failed website and lies around Obamacare, the accusations of working Americans never paying their fair share, the demonization of anyone who disagrees with the current agenda, the War on Coal, the government takeover of American lands, the Climate Change lies, the over-reaching of the EPA and the FCC, the killing of Christians across the globe, the constant attack on our Constitution,  and you have to ask yourselves, ”is this the fundamental transformation that President Obama promised?

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Freedom of Religion Trumped by Sensitivity Quirks?

file0001076040425-2

Do you think that your First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion are being protected by the powers at be, or are they being sidetracked by sensitivity quirks?

Let’s talk about the First Amendment to the Constitution and how it applies to Religious Freedom.  What does the amendment say?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Four year ago, in Morgan Hill California, four students were told by school administrators to cover up the American Flag on their t-shirts because it was Cinco de Mayo. Some Hispanic students were offended that they would wear the American flag shirts on a day they were celebrating their own heritage. They complained to school officials and they asked the students wearing the flags to turn them inside out, or leave school. The action led to a lawsuit, and the appellate court backed the school administrators. One of the students is now at the University of Nevada and is an Army reservist. Despite the amount of time that has elapsed since the incident, he is still ready to appeal the case.
Two Baptist chaplains said they were forced out of a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program after they refused orders to stop quoting the Bible and to stop praying in the name of Jesus. When the men objected to those demands, they were subjected to ridicule and harassment that led to one of the chaplains leaving the program and the other being ejected. A federal lawsuit has been filed.
A grieving mother erected a roadside cross where her son, Anthony Vincent Devaney, was killed crossing the street in May, 2012. The American Humanist Association filed a complaint and demanded that the cross come down.  They say the display of these crosses around the country remembering those killed offend them and cross the line between church and state. This is the same group that filed a legal action against the Lake Elsinore’s proposed veterans memorial that would have depicted a soldier kneeling in front of crosses and Stars of David. Anthony’s cross has been taken down.
Within the Military we have seen many examples of actions against Christians.  Atheists are battling over a cross that was placed at Camp Pendleton in California, there is a continued push for non-believing chaplains , a cross was removed from an interfaith military chapel in Afghanistan and the U.S. Air Force Academy backed out of a toy drive because it was sponsored by a Christian group, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center implemented a policy that prevented family members of wounded soldiers from bringing Bibles and other religious materials to their loved ones.
In Florida, at Park Lakes Elementary School,  a school teacher told Giovanni Rubeo he was not allowed to read his Bible during “free reading time” in the class. As a result she called his parents in front of the class and left the following message,
“I noticed that he has a book, a religious book, in the classroom, He is not permitted to read those books in my classroom.”
The Rubeo family is currently being represented  by the Liberty Institute.
In Lake City Florida, a Christian ministry who has been providing food to the poor and hungry for 31 years, had a state government worker tell them
“They would not be allowed to receive USDA food unless they removed portraits of Christ, the Ten Commandments, a banner that read “Jesus is Lord” and to stop giving Bibles to the needy.”
 Daly and her staff were stunned when the government officials also informed them that the Christian Service Center could no longer pray or provide Bibles to those in need. So, faced with a choice…God or government food, they chose God.
 “We decided to eliminate the USDA food and we’re going to trust God to provide.” “If God can multiply fish and loaves for 10,000 people, he can certainly bring in food for our food pantry so we can continue to feed the hungry.”
 Churches across Lake City have filled the void left when the government took away their food.
In 2011, Mark Mackey and Bret Coronado were arrested and charged with misdemeanor offenses for reading the Bible outside a DMV location. A Superior Court Judge, found the men not guilty of any offenses and also pointed out that what the prosecutors tried to invoke was unconstitutional.
Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk found himself relieved of his duties because his Air Force Base Commander wanted to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to gay marriage. She demanded  Monk share his own personal views on marriage. When he said he disagreed with her opinion, he was relieved of his duties. His beliefs are a court martial offense in the Air Force and it is quite possible that the 19 year veteran with a spotless record could be booted out of the military because of his Christian beliefs. He is being represented by the Liberty Institute for religious discrimination.
A professor at Florida Atlantic University told his students to write “Jesus Chirst” on a piece of paper, throw it on the ground and stomp on it. When a student refused to do the assignment, a formal disciplinary action was started against him. When the word got out, Christians became enraged and the University changed its mind and the professor was put on administrative leave.
There was a complaint in Arizona from an Atheist that she was offended by the Bible in the nightstand at her hotel near two public universities.  Rather than protecting constitutional rights, the universities removed the Bibles. Alliance Defending Freedom argue that removing the Bibles is actually discriminating against religion. The Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned efforts to exclude or restrict religious materials and activities as viewpoint or content discrimination at universities and elsewhere.  A law suit will be filed against the universities.  David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice said,
 “Incidents like this will continue to unfold against religious expression in the public sphere as long as a “quirk” in the law provides “special privileges to offended citizens.”
 
The list of examples of discrimination against Christians and persons of faith continues on a daily basis. Is the punishment of those who choose to practice their faith an infringement on their rights to exercise their freedom of religion? Can the government and private organizations make laws prohibiting the practice of religion when the Constitution “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion? “
Are these examples truly concerns over the separation of church and state, or just intolerance from those with sensitivity quirks?
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather