A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
Just earlier this month on September 13th, Joyce Meyer released her new book entitled “Seize The Day.” As it seems to be the case more and more every form of a distributor that can distribute anything seemingly “Christian” is jumping on the bandwagon of this nomenclature of sub-Christian literate.
Over the past couple of week’s Joyce Meyer has been releasing tweets on Twitter to draw attention to the publication of her book. She has been promoting her book with colorful, but often inaccurate statements. One of those more theologically inept utterances was tweeted out on September 22nd. The shallowness of these 140 words pulls back the curtain and allows us to see one of the biggest lies in the Word of Faith theology and the movement itself — Self-Entitlement.
Teaching such as found above by Joyce Meyer in her tweet are sadly becoming more numerous by the day. These statements by these false proclaimers of twisted truth, who worship a god, not of the Bible need to be exposed for what they are. It is not only the tweets put out by false teachers like Joyce Meyer but her books that do extensive damage by deceiving countless numbers of people into thinking that they are following the God of the Bible, but in reality, they are following a God of their making.
As gathered from the above screenshot of Joyce Meyer’s “#SeizeTheDay” tweet we can see that it is problematic at best and heretical at worst. The meaning behind this tweet is duplicitous in its representation of God. The meaning behind this statement is simple. Joyce Meyer’s message takes and elevates man above God. It is this premise of self-entitlement puts God in the position of owning man something for man following God. In the simplest terms, it comes down to a mentality of “God owes us.”
This self-indulgent attitude towards our position before God is contrary to Scripture. We are told in Scripture (Matthew 5:12) our reward is eternal, not earthly. We are not told to “have what belongs to me as a child of God!” It is that very principle that undermines who we are in Christ. This self-indulgent attitude is a very commonly taught misconception among Word of Faith teachers and followers, the elevation of man’s position above that of Christ and even God. The Bible clearly states the opposite of what is taught by people such as Joyce Meyer. We better understand where we stand before Christ and God when we look at these verses, 1 Corinthians 7:22; Ephesians 6:6; and 2 Timothy 2:24. It is made evident in these verses that we are “bond servants to Christ.” The biblical position of man in relationship to Christ is quite different than that of the position held by Word of Faith teachers.
While Word of Faith teachers like Joyce Meyer promotes a man-centered theology that concentrates on the fulfillment of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Biblical theology proclaims our need for a Savior and the need for our self-actualization to be found in not choosing an attitude of self-entitlement, but in on of humbleness towards our Lord and Savior. Those who understand their position before Christ rightly know that we are “slaves” to Him who has saved us. We realize that we are owed nothing here on earth, that our greatest “entitlement” here on earth is to pick up our Cross and follow Him daily.
France has the largest Jewish population in Europe, estimated at 500,000 to 600,000 people, and a growing number of them have effectively become internal refugees. People like Alain Benhamou, who decided to move from his home of 40 years after his second break-in, are fleeing insecurity and seeking protection in numbers in an atmosphere they say is increasingly hostile, and often expressed in relation to conflict in the Middle East.
Why 10,000 French Jews Will Move to Israel This Year
James Comey was called before Congress again today in the face of continuing cover-ups and suspicious granting of immunity. He told the committee to stop calling him “a weasel” as he continues to prevaricate about Hillary’s felonies. We look at his ties to Hillary, and his politicization of the FBI as another Clinton surrogate uses the hearing to push for an FBI investigation of Roger Stone’s activities as a journalist.
Trey Gowdy Finds Out Department Of Justice Has Been Covering Up Hillary Clinton’s Lies
Trey Gowdy Wants To Ask FBI Director James Comey If Justice Is Still Blind
Gohmert RIPS Comey: You Gave Immunity To People Who Could Have Made Your Case!
Breaking: Jason Chaffetz Proves Cheryl Mills Lied To FBI About Clintons Private Server
MICHAEL SAVAGE CENSORED AS POPE CALLS JOURNALISTS “TERRORISTS”
Published on Sep 29, 2016
Michael Savage & Alex Jones spoke 2 weeks ago about the coming censorship and 2 days ago we saw it in action as Savage had his show shut down when he began talking about Hillary’s health. But he’s not alone. Donald Trump Jr.’s social media post was censored over “copyright” 10 days after it caused a stir. And the Pope has labelled as “terrorism’ any journalism he subjectively labels as “gossip” or “rumor” (think “conspiracy theories” or “deplorable”).
Alleged Bill Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick reacted to Chelsea Clinton’s complaint about people attacking her family by reminding Chelsea that her father is a “sexual predator”.
After Donald Trump took the high road by refusing to bring up the plethora of sexual abuse accusations against Bill Clinton during Monday night’s debate with Hillary, Chelsea Clinton used an interview with Cosmopolitanas an opportunity to play the victim.
“Candidly, I don’t remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren’t being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately. And what I find most troubling by far are … Trump’s continued, relentless attacks on whole swaths of our country and even our global community: women, Muslims, Americans with disabilities, a Gold Star family. I mean, that, to me, is far more troubling than whatever his most recent screed against my mom or my family [is],” she said.
Broaddrick responded to Chelsea’s lament that she couldn’t remember a time when her parents weren’t under attack with a terse rebuttal.
“There’s a very good reason for this – your parents are not good people,” tweeted Broaddrick.
“Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator. Your mother has always lied and covered up for him,” she added.
“I say again “I was 35 when Bill Clinton Raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. It never goes away”.
“The truth is what has brought the attacks on your family and you are smart enough to know that by now,” she concluded.
Broaddrick (pictured above) alleged that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her during an April 1978 incident that took place in a room at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas.
During the assault, Broaddrick claims Clinton bit down on her lip, causing her to bleed.
She also alleges that Hillary Clinton later approached her at a Clinton fundraiser and subtly threatened her to keep quiet about the attack.
Bill Clinton denies the allegations and refuses to comment on them. In his book, No One Left to Lie To, acclaimed author Christopher Hitchens documents how Broaddrick’s claim is credible and has many similarities with Paula Jones’ later allegation of sexual assault against Bill Clinton.
Clinton eventually agreed to pay Jones an out of court settlement of $850,000.
________________________________________________
Bill Clinton ‘rape’ accuser Juanita Broaddrick lashes out at Chelsea Clinton
Published on Sep 29, 2016
A former Arkansas nursing home administrator who has accused Bill Clinton of raping her nearly 40 years ago lashed out at Chelsea Clinton on Wednesday for minimizing her father Bill’s past sex scandals. ‘Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator. Your mother has always lied and covered up for him,’ Juanita Broaddrick wrote on Twitter.
Bill Clinton Rape Victim Juanita Broaddrick Fears For Her Life
Published on Aug 25, 2016
During the half hour interview Josh Sigurdson conducted with Juanita Broaddrick who was brutally raped by Bill Clinton during his time as attorney general in Arkansas as well as threatened subsequently by Hillary Clinton, Juanita admitted that she does indeed fear for her life and her safety. So much so that she is selling her home so she can build on her son’s property to stay close to others. She says living alone frightens her, especially with her name in the media so much and the potential the Clintons have if Hillary Clinton becomes president. In the 90s, Clinton enemies dropped like flies. The list is extensive and Larry Nichols backs up much of it. Recently, once again, countless Clinton enemies are ending up dead under extremely mysterious circumstances. Many freak accidents as well as point blank murders have happened in recent months. 7 people who either worked with the Clintons at the DNC, served lawsuits against them or were due to testify against them have ended up dead over the summer season this election year. After a while it’s unreasonable NOT to question such a large number of freak accidents. We wish Juanita Broaddrick all the best. She’s a very kind woman with a record of doing great things for those that need it the most. On top of that she’s a proud grandmother and a vigilant voice.
You can find our FULL interview with Juanita Broaddrick on our channel!
Video edited by Josh Sigurdson
Featuring: Juanita Broaddrick Josh Sigurdson
Graphics by Josh Sigurdson Visit us at www.WorldAlternativeMedia.com
The Greek physician Hippocrates of Kos (c. 460-370 B.C.) is known today as the Father of Western medicine. His own writings and teachings — shrouded in the mists of history — can be synthesized in the subsequent research and practices of the Hippocratic School, which revolutionized and professionalized the study of medicine in ancient Greece, charting a course that doctors have followed for more than 2,000 years. In the Hippocratic Corpus — a collection of 70 or so medical works collected or collated in Alexandria in the 3rd century B.C. — can be found the Hippocratic Oath, a vow made to the gods to observe ethical standards in the pursuit and application of medical science. Modernized versions of the oath, stripped of religious sentiment, are still adhered to by medical practitioners across the globe. And though the phrase “first do no harm” does not always appear as such in modern versions of the oath, injunctions for doctors to “reject harm or mischief,” or to “not harm the patient” have always been part of the Hippocratic mandate. The first obligation of the physician is to cause no unnecessary damage or suffering. Yet some doctors now cause lethal damage to end suffering — viewing their actions as “mercy killing.”
“Euthanasia” is also a Greek word, meaning “good death.” In its ancient contexts, the word meant simply dying peacefully, as in its earliest recorded use, in Suetonius’ biography of Augustus, where the emperor died serenely, achieving the “euthanasia” he desired. In the 17th century, Francis Bacon became the first philosopher to use the term in a medical context, suggesting the responsibility of physicians to relieve physical suffering as much as possible during the process of death. Today “euthanasia” has come to take on many meanings and associations, from the cultural and theological to the philosophical and juridical. Legislatively and politically, especially across the Western world, the word has come to mean the deliberate cessation of a human life by a physician at the request of his or her patient. For the past decade, euthanasia has been among the most researched topics in modern bioethics, with most studies calling for greater freedom for patients to request and doctors to practice euthanasia. Ominously, the debate over euthanasia is increasingly divorced from moral considerations and co-opted by legislatures and governmental committees, paving the way for a new type of tyranny that strips away the rights of individual conscience in the pursuit of death on demand. Doctors, pharmacists, and institutions are now increasingly being forced against their will to help kill people. The results of this legislative overreach carry staggering consequences for liberty, individualism, and self-determination.
Oh, Canada! How the Right to Die Became a Mandate to Kill
In Canada prior to 2015, active euthanasia (intentionally killing a person to ease pain and suffering) was illegal, while passive euthanasia (removing or withholding life-sustaining support or nourishment) was both legal and common. In March 2014, Winnipeg Tory MP Steven Fletcher introduced two influential pieces of legislation. The first allows doctors to help patients end their lives in restricted circumstances. For instance, the individual must be of “sound mind,” and possessing “an illness, disability, or disease that causes physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to that person and that cannot be alleviated by any medical treatment acceptable to that person.” The other bill, predictably, calls for the creation of a “commission” to monitor the system. Most remarkable is the first measure, which includes the possibility of doctor-assisted suicide for non-life threatening psychological disorders that are deemed unbearable by the individual. Equally eye-popping is the suggestion that doctor-assisted suicide is feasible for patients who reject medical treatments that they deem not “acceptable.”
In June 2014, the National Assembly of Quebec passed Bill 52 — the “Dying with Dignity” law — which enabled terminally ill patients to have medical assistance in dying. The bill was modeled after loosely defined, long-standing European laws that authorized physician-assisted suicide in a wide range of instances that went beyond the terminally ill. At the time, a 2014 poll found that 84 percent of Canadians supported the idea that a doctor “should be able to help someone end their [sic] life if the person is a competent adult who is terminally ill, suffering unbearably and repeatedly asks for assistance to die.” Then, on February 6, 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court unanimously overturned even the minor limits on doctor-assisted suicide that the National Assembly had built into the law — creating out of thin air the Charter right to death in the face of a very broad definition of illness — and ruling that the law should be amended to permit doctors to assist suicides in certain “situations.” The rub came — as it always does — in trying to define, let alone legislate, those “situations” that allow physicians to participate in euthanizing their patients. As a safeguard, the government tried to be more specific about when physician-assisted suicide might be allowed to occur, adding the idea that a patient’s death must be “foreseeable” to justify recourse to physician assistance. Thin gruel, as far as limitations go — indeed all deaths are “foreseeable” in the sense that they are inevitable. But even such weak efforts at setting boundaries were too much for a Court of Appeals in Alberta, which struck down the provision, voting 3-0 that a woman with a non-terminal disorder has a constitutional right to assistance in dying. Canada’s The Globe and Mail reported:
The proposed new law … was not directly at issue before the Alberta Court of Appeal. But its substance was very much before the court in the case of E.F., a 58-year-old with a diagnosis of “severe conversion disorder” — formerly known as “hysteria” — which means she has severely disabling neurological problems with no physical explanation for them.
In a similar case challenging the government’s position, Grace Pastine, a lawyer with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, denounced the law as “unconstitutional,” arguing that it “deliberately excludes a class of people: those who are suffering with no immediate end in sight…. How can we now turn away and ignore their pleas?”
According to the Alberta court’s ruling, the government’s position was out of step with the Supreme Court’s actual intent in establishing a constitutional right to an assisted death for mentally competent adults suffering from a “grievous and irremediable” condition. The decision — made possible by the Supreme Court’s own ill-conceived and hastily rendered verdict — now puts the government and its commissions at odds with judges, the courts granting greater and greater latitude for doctors to euthanize their patients, even for non-terminal complaints. The Alberta decision asserts:
As Canada fairly conceded, the language of the declaration itself is broad and rights based. Nowhere in the descriptive language is the right to physician-assisted death expressly limited only to those who are terminally ill or near the end of life. Canada accepts that a dictionary definition of “grievous and irremediable” medical condition could include conditions that are not life-threatening or terminal.
Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a contributor to National Review, sums up the consequences: “So, there you have it. Judges have decided that there is a ‘right’ to death on demand if one has a diagnosed condition the patient believes warrants her or his killing. Even weak political attempts to make the radical euthanasia license seem a bit limited are more than the culture of death, once unleashed, can handle. Democratic processes be damned.”
In very short order, the Pandora’s box that was the Supreme Court ruling unleashed a rash of consequences, not all of them unintended. To call such arguments a slippery slope is surely an understatement, as evidenced by the avalanche of challenges, accommodations, and mandates that are undercutting restrictions on when and how Canadian doctors may assist patients in dying. As Smith puts it, “Assisted suicide advocates pretend it is about terminal illness as a political expedience…. The need for euthanasia advocates’ deploying this tactic was obliterated in Canada when the Supreme Court conjured a right to be lethally injected if one has a medically diagnosed illness causing irremediable suffering — as defined by the patient. That goes way beyond a terminal illness, perhaps to the mentally ill (as allowed in Belgium and the Netherlands). Now, euthanasia advocates, freed from having to persuade the public, have revealed their true goals, pushing for the most radical and broad license to be killed in the world.”
In Quebec — where the progressive push to broaden right-to-die legislation in Canada is strongest — the province’s health minister is now compelling dissenting physicians and medical personnel to participate in euthanasia, whether such procedures violate individual conscience or not. McGill University Health Centre has been forced to repeal its long-standing refusal to allow euthanasia within the confines of the palliative care clinic — even though euthanasia is permitted elsewhere in the Health Centre. Physicians and nurses devoted to alleviating suffering for the dying must now participate in euthanizing those patients, if called upon to do so.The Montreal Gazette reported the change in policy, as overseen by Health Minister Gaétan Barrette:
“This morning, I met with Mr. (Normand) Rinfret and he told me that as of this very moment, the policy has been repealed,” Barrette said, referring to the MUHC’s executive director. “As we speak today, no patient can be transferred out of the palliative care unit at the MUHC, and medical aid in dying will be made available in the unit itself.”
Dr. Manuel Borod, director of the Division of Supportive and Palliative Care Programs at the MUHC, argued that according to the World Health Organization, palliative care “does not hasten death” and that MUHC’s policy of prohibiting euthanasia within the confines of the palliative care clinic “did not seem unreasonable when we were creating our policy that a patient on a palliative care unit within an institution could be transferred to another room.” Barrette, who claims it is within his power to force the hospital to change policy, called the ban on euthanasia in the palliative care clinic “totally illegal” because hospital personnel cannot decide which departments may offer medical aid to die.
So eager is Minister Barrette to implement physician-assisted suicide on demand that he waived the prescribed waiting period between requests to die and the administering of the lethal injection. CBC News explained:
The federal assisted-dying law requires a 10-day delay between a patient’s request for doctor-assisted death and the administration of the procedure. Quebec’s law doesn’t stipulate a waiting period before a doctor-assisted death is administered, though patients have typically received the procedure within 48 to 72 hours. “They changed the law by simply sending out a letter,” said [Véronique] Hivon, who is among five candidates campaigning to become the new [Parti Québécois] leader.
The imposition of waiting periods, offering time for reflection and consultation, is designed to protect patients against abuse and inefficiency in seeking assisted suicide. Waiting periods also provide time to evaluate alternatives and make sure the process is transparent and necessary. In Barrette’s Quebec, the “right to die” supersedes such oversight concerns, and the administration of lethal drugs becomes no different than any other routine procedure.
In many ways, radical Quebec is the California of Canada — and what transpires there soon casts a shadow across the country (and perhaps the continent). Following Quebec’s lead, Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons has required all Ontario doctors to participate in euthanizing their patients, by extension, if not by direct action. According to their policy statement, “Medical Assistance in Dying,” the college — which is Ontario’s official provincial medical organization — stipulates, “Where a physician declines to provide medical assistance in dying for reasons of conscience or religion, the physician must do so in a manner that respects patient dignity. Physicians must not impede access to medical assistance in dying, even if it conflicts with their conscience or religious beliefs.” (Emphasis added.) Further, when “a physician declines to provide medical assistance in dying for reasons of conscience or religion, the physician must not abandon the patient. An effective referral must be provided. An effective referral means a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician, nurse practitioner or agency. The referral must be made in a timely manner to allow the patient to access medical assistance in dying.” An “effective” referral, of course, is one that results in the patient’s speedy termination, even if — as we have seen — it is a non-terminal patient who must be referred. The irony that the referral must be made “in good faith” is clearly lost on technocrats who systematically seek to prohibit faith-based objections to euthanasia in any and all circumstances.
To the surprise of no one, now that Canada has ceded the Charter right to die — no questions asked, no conscientious dissent allowed, and with virtually no discretionary period — other non-governmental and non-medical organizations are pushing the envelope even further. According a Canadian Press report, the Canadian Bar Association is urging the federal government to “expand its restrictive new law on assisted dying, allowing mature minors, people suffering strictly from psychological illness and those diagnosed with competence-eroding conditions like dementia to get medical help to end their suffering.” And who exactly will get to decide what constitutes a “mature” minor? How can we be sure that people with dementia and diminished competence possess the ability to actually choose euthanasia? The answer, of course, is that government panels will end up making those decisions, regardless of the wishes of spouses, parents, or even physicians.
EU-thanasia: Europe and the Culture of Death
As suggested above, the swift move toward death on demand in Canada — and increasingly the United States — has its origins in Europe, especially Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian nations. Belgium and the Netherlands in particular are expanding the reach of physician-assisted suicide under the broad ideological banner of social justice, allowing, in some instances, psychiatric patients to end their lives with the assistance of a physician or even a mental health “expert.” In a recent study, researchers examined online case summaries posted before 2015 from Dutch euthanasia review committees, including 66 summaries of psychiatric euthanasia occurring between 2011-2014. Reuters reports on the findings: “Overall, about a third of the people helped to end their lives were age 70 years or older, 44 percent were between ages 50 and 70 and about a quarter were 30 to 50 years old. Seventy percent were women.” Fifty-five percent of these physician-assisted suicides were diagnosed with depression, with others experiencing such treatable conditions as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, and even prolonged grief: “About a quarter of patients’ suicides were assisted by psychiatrists, and about one in five patients were treated by unfamiliar doctors — the majority from a mobile assisted suicide clinic funded by a Dutch right to die organization.”
Alarmingly, about 10 percent of these patients received no outside treatment or diagnoses from psychiatrists, and about 25 percent of cases involved disagreement among various doctors treating the patients. According to an accompanying editorial from Dr. Paul Applebaum, this research raises “serious concerns about the implementation of physician-assisted dying for psychiatric patients.” Applebaum noted that more than half of these cases also possessed personality disorders, questioning the “stability of the expressed desires to die.” And as Wesley Smith points out, the Netherlands “is following Belgium by conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting, raising the prospect that the mentally ill will come to see their deaths as having greater value than their lives.”
Further, the Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) is now urging members to assist “anyone” in committing suicide by starvation. Their document “Caring for People Who Choose Not to Eat or Drink so as to Hasten the End of Life” argues: “Consciously choosing not to eat and drink to hasten the end of life is a choice each and everyone can and may make for themselves. Consciously choosing not to eat and drink is comparable to refusing a treatment which will result in death. This is not regarded as suicide but rather as the patient exercising their right of self-determination, particularly the right to refuse care.” There is no mandate or even guidance requiring patients to meet with physicians or mental health experts before making the fatal choice. Doctors no longer have an obligation to prevent suicide — let alone the option to intervene — but must assist or quickly refer the patient to physicians who will help carry out the patient’s wishes.
The extent to which the Dutch have normalized physician-assisted suicide is foregrounded in the recent lethal injection of a woman in her 20s. The woman, who was sexually abused as a child, was euthanized after doctors and psychiatrists decided her post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments were incurable. According to the Daily Mail, the termination of life proceeded “despite improvements in the woman’s psychological condition after intensive therapy two years ago, and even though doctors in the Netherlands accept that a demand for death from a psychiatric patient may be no more than a cry for help.” Not surprisingly, the relative ease in acquiring consent to euthanasia and the speedy dispatch of lethal drugs have made Belgium and the Netherlands tourist spots for euthanasia enthusiasts. The International Business Times reported, “Tourists are flocking to Brussels to get a lethal dose. Doctors at hospitals and clinics at Belgium’s capital are seeing an increase in number of euthanasia tourists who are travelling from across the world to their accident and emergency rooms…. In 2015, a whopping 2,023 people were medically killed in Belgium. The number has more than doubled in five years.”
America Alone: Can States Protect Rights of Conscience and Religious Liberty?
As the popularity of death on demand makes its way across America — California recently joined four other states in legalizing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally competent patients — a host of moral and ethical questions remains. The relatively new experiments with right-to-die legislation in Canada and Europe confirm that helping the terminally ill die during the last stages of their diseases is just the tip of the iceberg. Doctors are rapidly losing the right of conscience, as the Hippocratic Oath is turned upside down.
Still, there is hope that America can temper the ghoulish zeal of activists, legislatures, and misguided civil-liberties groups. Recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that there is no state constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. Reacting to California’s new legislation, hospitals in Santa Barbara and Palm Springs have “declined to participate in all activities” pertaining to the new law. And the Los Angeles Times reported, “Medical leaders at Huntington Hospital in Pasadena voted … for the facility’s hundreds of doctors and affiliated personnel to opt out of California’s assisted suicide law…. If the proposed amendment to the hospital’s medical rules is approved by the board of directors … Huntington will become one of the largest non-religious medical institutions statewide to turn its back on a law that Gov. Jerry Brown called ‘a comfort’ to anyone ‘dying in prolonged and excruciating pain.’”
It goes without saying that the threat to religious liberty facing our Christian hospitals and clinics is daunting. If there is no freedom of dissent, no ability for doctors, caregivers, and hospice workers to refuse to participate, there certainly is no mercy in mercy killing.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The opening shot in a widely anticipated establishment crackdown on educational freedom may have been fired last week. Speaking at a breakfast with reporters, Obama's controversial Education Secretary, pro-Common Core activist John King (shown), said he was “concerned” that some home-educated children were not getting the “breadth of instructional experience” they would get at a traditional school. While the senior Obama bureaucrat acknowledged that many homeschool families are doing it well, he also repeated the debunked smear that homeschooled children lack opportunities for socialization.Experts and critics, though, promptly lambasted King for his naive or malicious comments, suggesting that, if anything, he ought to be far more concerned about children in public schools. Some experts even offered to help educate Obama's education chief on the issue.
Secretary King's controversial remarks about home education were made during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. While the Monitor's website did not report about the home-education comments, several other outlets, including Politico, did so. According to Politico, King said he was “concerned” that homeschooled students are not “getting the range of options that are good for all kids.” He also claimed to worry that “students who are homeschooled are not getting kind of the rapid instructional experience they would get in school,” unless parents are “very intentional about it.” He said the “school experience” includes building relationships with “peers, teachers and mentors,” something that he claimed was “difficult to achieve in homeschooling unless parents focus on it.”
More of his anti-homeschooling comments were reported by the Washington Examiner. “I worry that in a lot of cases students who are homeschooled are not getting the kind of the breadth of instruction experience they would get in school, they're also not getting the opportunity to build relationships with peers unless their parents are very intentional about it,” King was quoted as saying in response to a question about home education. “And they're often not getting those relationships with teachers and mentors other than their parents. I do worry whether home school students are getting the range of opportunities we hope for for all kids.”
Despite his supposed concerns, King did concede that he was aware of some homeschooling families who were “doing it incredibly well.” He also said he knew of home-educated students in college who had “very tremendous academic success.” Also, he noted that research showed homeschooling was growing in popularity. Estimates suggest as many as four percent of American children are homeschooled. The number is estimated at close to 2.5 million. For now, at least, King even acknowledged that education decisions are a matter for families to decide. “Obviously, it’s up to families if they want to take a homeschool approach,” he was quoted as saying in media reports. Legally, that is, of course, true — thanks to the hard work of many activists, lawyers, and parents, homeschooling is legal in all 50 states. It is also increasingly mainstream.
While homeschooling experts and advocates appreciated that King was willing to acknowledge many facts about the success and popularity of home education, they also expressed concerns about King's supposed concerns. One of the leading experts in the field, President Brian D. Ray, Ph.D., of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), countered much of the narrative pushed by King. In an interview with The New American, Ray explained that home-educated students actually have far more options than children in traditional schools.
“What he is saying is just factually incorrect,” Ray said. He pointed to all the options homeschooling families have, including home-education co-ops created by parents to join forces, free and paid tutoring services, mentorships, classes at local libraries, “everything imaginable.”
“It's just not true,” said Ray in response to a question about whether socialization options were more limited for home-educated children. “But even if it were true, why is he [Secretary King] worried about it when we know from 30 years of research that homeschoolers do significantly better academically and socially than those in institutional schools?” Indeed, Ray, who also serves as editor-in-chief of the academic refereed journal Home School Researcher, said there was massive amounts of evidence showing that homeschoolers perform better on essentially every metric — a fact that is increasingly being recognized across America and around the world, and certainly by colleges that are actively recruiting homeschoolers.
There are two possibilities to explain King's dim view of the options available to home-educated children, Ray said. “His comments are based on either a very minimal and skewed understanding of home education, or he is purposely not learning about homeschooling and misrepresenting what happens in homeschooling,” the researcher explained in a phone interview. “And I'm trying to be generous here. The reality is, if you're in public school, in elementary school, you basically get the same teacher every day for the whole year. In middle school, you get different teachers for a little while each day, and you generally do not develop deep relationships with those teachers.”
By contrast, with home education, the possibilities for children and relationships with adults and other children are basically endless. “Most homeschooled parents have their children engaged with a variety of adults — scouts, sports, soccer teams, co-ops, and on and on,” Dr. Ray continued. “It's a rare homeschooled student that doesn't have interactions with a broad range of adults and children. King's also implying that students need to be with 28 other children of their age all day to grow up to be good adults. That is simply untrue.”
Indeed, King omits the fact that the modern understanding of “school” is a relatively recent phenomenon. “He just slapped in the face the large majority of Americans who lived in this country from colonial times up until about 1900,” Ray explained about King's comments. “It was not until then that most of them were in institutional schools for several hours a day for most months. Institutional schooling for the masses was not the norm until 1900 or even later. So he's just ignoring history. He is ignoring the reality of history in America — we had creators, inventors, artists, authors, homemakers, businessmen and women, farmers, and all kinds of successful people socially, emotionally, and intellectually without the institutional schools that he seems to be promoting.”
Perhaps more importantly, even the briefest examination of the federal government's own data shows that, if anything, King ought to be much more concerned about the victims of government education. One in five do not graduate high-school. Less than a third of students in eighth grade can read proficiently, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In places such as Washington, D.C., more than two-thirds of residents over the age of 15 — virtually all of them victims of expensive government schools — are functionally illiterate, according to a State Education Agency report. Decades ago, the National Commission on Excellence in Education noted that if a foreign power had imposed the education regime then exiting in the United States, Americans might have considered it an “act of war.” It is even worse today.
And yet, King claims to be worried about the one group of students — homeschooled children — that is consistently at the top of the charts socially and academically. According to NHERI, home-educated students typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on the government's own standardized tests. And they save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars per year doing it.
Ray also touched on the absurdity of it all. “His comments, his veiled worries, raise the question: Compared to homeschooling, is he happy with the illiteracy rate coming out of schools, the drug abuse rates, the suicide rates, the rate at which public school students vote, and are interested in learning and reading real books?” Ray wondered. “If he's not happy with most of that — and I'm guessing he's not — what is his point in bringing up a tiny minority of homeschoolers who he thinks might not be doing very well.”
“Furthermore, is he implying that, if that tiny minority of homeschoolers were put in public schools, the public schools guarantee that they would do better?” Ray asked. “I face that in court all the time as an expert witness — the idea that if a child is below average on something, that he or she would be better in a public school. It's simply not true.”
The data backs him up. “We have over 30 years of research showing that homeschoolers do better socially and academically,” Ray said. “Look at how public school students are faring — not very well. Even if somebody wanted to argue that homeschoolers should be more controlled by government, there's no evidence that more regulation improves outcomes. This kind of commenting is really irresponsible. It feeds into the idea that if only government would get more involved and control private schooling, such as Catholic schools, agnostic independent schools, and homeschooling, they could guarantee that all the children could do well academically and socially. That's very misleading.”
Other experts also slammed King's remarks. “While Secretary King had some good things to say about homeschooling, I’m disappointed that his comments imply that public schoolers have a wider range of options in education, which is simply not true,” said Home School Legal Defense Association co-founder and Chairman Michael Farris. “Homeschoolers are far outperforming their public schooled peers, largely due to the fact that parents know what works best for their child instead of implementing an outdated, one-size-fits-all approach that Secretary King appears to favor.” HSLDA said it reached out to King in an effort to introduce him to homeschool leaders, parents, and students.
Whether King's attack is the opening salvo in an upcoming coordinated attack on homeschooling remains to be seen. What is clear, though, is that homeschoolers are doing far better than government-schooled children on every objective metric — and that is probably what has King and others more concerned than anything else. Fortunately, home educators have become an immensely influential political force in recent years and decades. And so, any effort to curtail educational freedom and rights is likely to be met with massive, organized, and fierce resistance.
Instead of being “concerned” about the best educated young Americans, there are many real, legitimate concerns. A far more important concern, for example, is that an unconstitutional bureaucracy is trying to hijack control of education in America from parents and local communities — further damaging millions of kids in the process. Another real concern is that, as this writer and veteran educator Dr. Sam Blumenfeld show in their book Crimes of the Educators, government “education” is permanently handicapping millions of young Americans, including through the use of ineffective “reading” methods debunked as quackery in the 1800s.
With all those real concerns, again, King has no business being “concerned” about home educators. Congress should do its duty by defunding and abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education he leads as soon as possible.
MY ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE SEE: http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin928.htm;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Chuck Baldwin
September 29, 2016 NewsWithViews.com
[NOTE:The opinion in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of NewsWithViews.com, it’s employees, representatives, or other contributing writers.]
I am one of these libertarian/constitutionalists who is still undecided as to who I will vote for for President this November. Obviously, I would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. She is a career criminal politician of the highest order. Putting another Clinton in the White House just might put the final nail in the coffin of America. She is a disgusting, despicable, deplorable degenerate. Hillary and Bill are no better than Bonnie and Clyde. Let me take that back. They are FAR WORSE than Bonnie and Clyde.
Hillary is a Neocon’s Neocon; she is a globalist’s globalist; she is rabidly anti-Second Amendment; she is a radical pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-transgender, pro-war, corporatist crony. Hillary represents ALL OF THE WORST in Washington, D.C.
That being said, it is my personal conviction to never vote for the “lesser of two evils” if both candidates are guilty of violating the core principles that I have determined to never compromise.
I haven’t voted for a major party presidential candidate in the general election since Ronald Reagan. I did cast enthusiastic votes in the GOP primaries for Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. Normally, the GOP nominates big-government Neocons like Bush I, Bush II, McCain, and Romney–and I refuse to vote for such candidates. Absent a principled Republican presidential candidate to vote for in the general election, I usually vote for the Constitution Party candidate. This year’s CP candidate is Darrell Castle: a very good man and a committed constitutionalist–a man I could easily vote for.
The confusion this year is that the GOP presidential candidate, Donald Trump, does not have a legislative track record. His personal rhetoric and contributions in the political arena are all over the board. One could just as easily put him in either the Democrat or the Republican camp (not that there is normally that much difference between the two major parties in Washington, D.C., anyway). At times, he has talked and acted like a liberal, while at other times he has talked and acted like a conservative. However, without a definitive voting record, the REAL Donald Trump is extremely difficult to nail down.
Trump is campaigning as a nationalist/populist conservative. He claims to be pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-less taxes, pro-less government regulation, anti-illegal immigration, anti-globalism, anti-establishment, pro-law and order, and pro-freedom. If that was all there was to it, I could easily support him. But that is NOT all there is to it.
There have always been several things about Donald Trump that I’ve been uneasy with. I have said that repeatedly, as faithful readers of this column know. I’ve said I think Trump might be a really good President or a really bad President. And, quite frankly, it appears to me as if it could just as easily be one as the other.
Therefore, I watched the first presidential debate this week between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with much interest. Truthfully, I was looking for Donald Trump to assuage my reservations about him. He didn’t. He only exacerbated them.
Let me begin with an objective and critical analysis of the debate: on the whole, I thought Donald Trump did poorly. He seemed ill-prepared and was not very good at thinking on his feet, albeit he did amazingly better in the polls afterward than I expected he would. This is a VERY BAD omen for Hillary Clinton. Trump’s performance was less than spectacular, yet the American people (a record 84 million watched the debate) gave him the post-debate nod. Hopefully, all of the scandals and criminality of the Clintons are finally starting to catch up with them in this election. Because of Hillary’s poor poll results following what was probably her best on-camera performance ever, it might even be safe to predict a Trump landslide victory in November. But I digress.
As Trump and Clinton went into the debate, Trump had all of the momentum. If he had had a strong performance Monday evening, he might have been able to seal a victory in November that night. Democrats were holding their collective breath hoping and praying that Hillary would not fall down during the 90-minute debate. Two-thirds of the American people now believe that Hillary is not physically capable of being President (another bad omen for her). That she stayed on her feet made it seem like a good night for her (and indeed it was). Trump entered the ring against a very weak and very unpopular opponent. But his mediocre showing allows Hillary’s candidacy to remain competitive. It could have been a knockout night for Trump; instead, he left his opponent standing to fight another day.
Donald scored well when he talked about Hillary’s email scandal, but he didn’t drive it home. He let her slip out of it. He scored well when he talked about NATO countries not paying up for their own defense. He scored well when he said America is not the policeman of the world. He scored well when he said we should have never invaded Iraq. He scored well when he talked about stopping the hemorrhage of America’s manufacturing jobs going overseas. He scored well when he forced Hillary to defend NAFTA. He scored well when he talked about reducing taxes and government regulation. He almost scored well when he tried to talk about Hillary and the career politicians in D.C. helping to create ISIS, but, again, he didn’t know how to drive it home. That had to be due to either a lack of preparation or a lack of understanding about the nuts and bolts of it all.
With the help of her debate assistant, moderator NBC news anchor Lester Holt, Hillary had Donald on the ropes much of the debate talking about his lack of paying taxes and his several bankruptcies. Trump’s lack of debating experience showed up when he fell into the trap of letting them put him on the defensive with those accusations.
Hillary Clinton is the quintessential corrupt politician. The way she sold access to foreign donors (especially the Chinese) via her crooked Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State and when Bill was President is infamous. Trump could have easily turned the tables on her by shifting the spotlight to the obvious financial improprieties of her criminal foundation, but he didn’t even bring it up.
The financial corruption of the Clinton Foundation makes Trump’s legal wrangling that allowed him to pay no taxes and business bankruptcies look like child’s play in comparison. But Trump let himself stay on the ropes by trying to defend himself instead of attacking the political bribes associated with the Clinton Foundation. That alone might have been a knockout punch for Trump. But he never threw it. That could be because he is reported to have donated to the Clinton Foundation in the past. If so, that sadly left him vulnerable on what would otherwise be a winning issue for him.
Trump also missed a huge opportunity to drive home Hillary’s corruption when the subject of cyber security came up. Clinton’s email scandal is the perfect example of how she willingly compromised our national cyber security as our Secretary of State.
Then there is Benghazi. Trump never broached it. Maybe he is waiting for later debates. But this is an issue he simply cannot ignore in prime time debates. He can bet that the pro-Clinton media moderators will never broach the subject, so he will have to.
But I thought the worst mistake of the night was Trump’s failure to highlight Hillary’s radical anti-Second Amendment agenda. He had a wide-open door, a golden opportunity to drive home the point that he was truly the only pro-Second Amendment candidate on the stage, and he blew it. BIG TIME.
The only thing Trump did to separate himself from Clinton’s radical gun-control agenda was to tout his endorsement by the NRA. How lame!
Not only did Trump NOT drive home his support for the Second Amendment, he spent quite a bit of time AGREEING with Clinton about “getting guns away from criminals.” At this point, Donald Trump sounded downright scary.
Trump went on and on talking about all of the shootings in Chicago. But he said NOTHING about the fact that Chicago is one of the most gun-controlled cities in the country. He could have used the shootings in Chicago as an example of how gun-control laws do not work and how gun-control laws make life more dangerous for law-abiding people. He had a golden opportunity to drive home the fact that gun-control laws do NOT keep criminals from having guns, that they will ALWAYS have guns (because they don’t care about obeying the law), and that it is the law-abiding folks who are at risk because they are disarmed and, hence, unable to defend themselves. But, again, he said nothing of the sort.
That’s when Trump got scary.
Instead of promoting lawful self-defense, Donald starting promoting Police-State-style “stop and frisk” laws. This was exactly what I DIDN’T want to hear from Donald Trump. It was very obvious at this point that Trump is quite ignorant of the Constitution. When he started talking about “stop and frisk,” he made Hillary look GOOD when she retorted that such laws are unconstitutional. THEY ARE INDEED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Geez! Did we have to have Hillary Clinton tell us that? UGH!
Police have NO authority to stop and frisk people without cause. America is not a Police State (at least not completely). This is one of my nagging questions about Trump: Does he even realize the constitutional constraints on government–including the executive branch of government? Should his “stop and frisk” policies become law, America will have pretty much officially crossed the Rubicon into a Police State. I have to tell you, this one scares me silly, because it portends MUCH MORE in the way of police abuse–and we already have WAY TOO MUCH of that.
And I don’t know if Trump was trying to draw in the Ted Cruz supporters (Ted having just recently endorsed Donald) or what, but he seemed to go out of his way to talk about his friendship with Israel’s Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That didn’t set well with me either.
Zionist Israel is NOT America’s friend and is certainly no friend to world peace. For all intents and purposes, the Zionist agenda in Tel Aviv and the Neocon agenda in Washington D.C., and New York City are one and the same: war and the financial profits that come from war.
One of the attractions to Trump’s campaign is his “outsider” status. The people of America are mostly fed up with the status quo in Washington. They are tired of endless wars of aggression; they are tired of war for profit; they are tired of American globalism; they are tired of our State Department and CIA meddling in the private affairs of foreign nations; and they are tired of America’s coercive, bullying foreign policies–including nation building and forced regime changes.
Donald Trump is 2016’s anti-establishment, anti-Neocon, anti-globalist candidate. But by identifying himself with the Zionist Netanyahu, Trump lumped himself in with the whole Neocon, Warfare State machine. I guess the question is: Does he realize it, or is he truly ignorant of who these people really are and merely trying to entice the Ted Cruz Israel-First Christians into voting for him? That’s another unanswered, nagging question I have about Trump. And all he did Monday night was, again, exacerbate my reservations.
And though it didn’t come up in this first debate, I am truly not certain where Donald Trump comes down on the whole wars of aggression issue. When he talks about it being wrong to have invaded Iraq, he sounds really good. But he has also talked before about nuking nations in the Middle East. Then he turns around and says in this first debate that nuclear weapons are the biggest problem in the world. So, again, which Donald Trump would occupy the White House if he were elected? More nagging questions.
The good news for Trump is, again, post-debate polls indicate that despite a mediocre performance, he still seemed to come out ahead of Hillary in the minds of the general public. However, I’m sure there are many libertarian/constitutionalists like me who came away with more questions than answers about Trump. And just to go on record, I will follow Ron Paul’s example and NOT endorse Gary Johnson, who is more liberal than he is libertarian–and his running mate even more so.
The other good news for Trump is that there are yet two more debates in which he will have an opportunity to try and assuage my reservations about him. Like the Zen master said, “We’ll see.”
Does Huma Abedin also believe that the state should enforce Sharia? Now that these statements by her father have come to light, will she repudiate them? Will any mainstream media reporter ask her to do so? Almost certainly not.
Syed Abedin, the father of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma, outlined his view of Sharia law and how the Western world has turned Muslims “hostile” during a wide-ranging video interview that shines newfound light on the reclusive thinker’s world views, according to footage exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Abedin, a Muslim scholar who was tied to the Saudi Arabian government until his death in 1993, has remained somewhat of a mystery as the media turns its eye to his daughter Huma, a top Clinton campaign aide who recently announced her separation from husband Anthony Weiner following his multiple sex scandals.
Syed Abedin explained his views on the Muslim world and spread of Islam during a 1971 interview titled The World of Islam, which was first broadcast on Western Michigan University television.
Abedin said that Arab states must police the upholding of Sharia, or Islamic law, and explained why the majority of Muslims view Israel and the Western world in primarily “hostile” terms.
The video provides a window into the Abedin family’s ideology, which has been marred by accusations it is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Abedin, who was then a professor in the university’s college of general studies, said that Western intervention in the Arab world has sparked a backlash among many faithful Muslims.
“The response to the West has been of two kinds,” Abedin said. “By and large the response has taken more of a hostile form.”
“The first impulse of the average Muslim in the Islamic world is that this kind of borrowing [culturally] would be somehow an alien factor into our social fabric and thereby destroying the integrity of our ethos … the integrity of our culture,” he added.
In a separate discussion on the state’s role in a person’s life, Abedin said it is necessary to police the application of Sharia law.
“The state has to take over” as Muslim countries evolve, he argued. “The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the Sharia.”
“Suspicion” runs rampant in the Muslim world, Abedin said, citing it as a reason why Western governing values have not been quickly adopted in the region.
“In the contemporary Islamic world, religious leadership is of very crucial significance because any change that will be abiding, that will make any positive contribution to the development of Muslim life, must come from that source, and that is one reason why ideologies like socialism or communism that have been introduced into the Muslim world have never really taken root,” Abedin said. “They have always been considered as foreign importations. … It’s a kind of suspicion.”
Abedin also discussed the clash between modernity and the Islamic world.
“When you talk of an Islamic state … does it have to have a caliph?” he asked. “What does it mean? What is the Islamic concept of good in the present day world?”
Any cultural change, Abedin concluded, will have to be validated by the tenets of Islam.
“The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam,” he said. “Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”…
Infowars reporter Joe Biggs discusses a new social media platform dedicated to the 1st Amendment that could soon be replacing both Twitter and Facebook.
GAB.ai First Look: A Social Network With a #SpeakFreely Mindset!
Published on Aug 28, 2016
Gab.ai doesn’t censor, doesn’t filter (unless you ask) and doesn’t mess with your life. If you follow something? You’ll see it. If you mute something? You won’t. That’s how it works.
Gab.ai CEO Andrew Torba-Everything you need to know about Gab.ai
Gab: A First-In Social Network Opportunity | Learn as I Learn – Digital Marketing 015
The march by a corrupt government to end the First Amendment protection of our God given right to religious freedom continues unabated. Last month, Massachusetts joins Iowa in commanding churches that their bathrooms must now allow delusional people who think they are of the opposite sex from what biology dictates, use the bathroom which they choose.
Video of the sermon
In July Governor Baker of Massachusetts signed the bill call “Keep Massachusetts Safe.” It is a public accommodation law forcing transgender bath-rooms on private establishments which includes all churches forcing them to adopt transgender bathroom rules. If the church is open to the public, the same public accommodation rules apply as to all other public accommodations. They defined a public accommodation as “any place whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits patronage of the general public.” This would include churches in the State of Massachusetts.
When the law of Our Creator is rejected, look out, no one anywhere will be safe from the anti-God persecution. Here’s how it works, myths are constructed and promoted by the media, by the government controlled academic institutions and even by big business. So history is rewritten to comply with the myth, the legislators spill ink on paper to codify the myth and then the Judges decree the new standards by which everyone must live.
So churches in Iowa and Massachusetts are on notice that the transgender bathroom insanity isn’t just for schools, it is now imposed upon them and all other so called places of public accommodation.
Then there is California, it is a bell weather state in many respects. What be-gins there is the first beachhead, which in time makes it to the other 49 States. Consider what has just happened in the courts there.
“The infamous and often-overridden Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has up-held state legislation making it illegal for pastors to counsel minors who are struggling with their sexuality and gender, according to Pacific Justice Institute.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco on August 23 upheld California’s wildly controversial Senate Bill 1172 that bars licensed counselors — including pastors — from assisting youth who want to change or reduce their same-sex attractions. The law also prohibits any counseling that would steer youth away from gender confusion.
Pacific Justice Institute filed suit against SB 1172 in 2012 and initially won a preliminary injunction based on free speech. But eventually the Ninth Circuit created a new approach to free speech that the excludes counseling about sex, and deems it to be unprotected speech.
The case then went back to the Ninth Circuit on to consider religious freedom and privacy claims that had not been previously ruled upon by the Court.
Pacific Justice’s lead plaintiff is both a pastor and a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist who oversees a counseling ministry in his church. Pacific Justice pointed out that the SB 1172 if applied would reaching over the walls of a church to prohibit what could be said during counseling by a pastor who is also a trained marriage and family therapist.
According to the law, “California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by sexual orientation change efforts … … Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.”
But the Ninth Circuit … waved away concerns about California interfering with pastors’ religious practice, while also declining to address legal decisions that previously rejected state interference with church counseling.
Pacific Justice had also pointed out to the court, that dozens of transcript pas-sages from SB 1172’s legislative record show the legislation is meant as a clear and direct attack against conservative religious viewpoints.
According to Pacific Justice attorney Kevin Snider, who argued the Ninth Circuit case, “The court today simply rewrote legislative history to avoid the uncomfortable reality that the California Legislature unabashedly targeted religious beliefs with this bill.”
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented:
We are deeply disappointed by today’s ruling because it represents a giant step backwards for religious freedom. A government that can tell a pastor what he can and cannot say during counseling is a government that can tell a pastor what parts of the Bible are off-limits. The court also reminded us today that this law lays the groundwork for further restrictions on parental rights.[1]
So the court has essentially ruled that it is illegal to proclaim repentance to sodomites of a certain age, even if they might want help to rid themselves of that same sex bondage. Now can you imagine them doing this for any other sinful bondage. Just consider drug or alcohol bondage.
What if an incessant drunk wanted help getting sober for good? This type of law would make it il-legal to help the drunk become sober even when he wants to go sober for good! So proclaiming repentance has been declared illegal by the Legislature of California as well as by the Federal Circuit Court.
Why is it they find it necessary to attack the proclamation of repentance? Be-cause as Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill he proclaimed, in Acts 17:30-31 “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained;” So the reason we are to call everyone to repentance is that there is a fearsome Judgment Day which is coming for all men. Jesus Christ Himself will be the Judge seated upon the Great White Throne. So while God commands all men everywhere to repent, regardless of age, regardless of what sin they commit, the Legislature of California and now the Federal Judiciary command all men everywhere to stop proclaiming repentance to a certain class of people. Who shall we obey? The wicked God haters, or God Himself? As the apostles said, “Let us obey God rather than men” – which means we need to understand repentance in order to proclaim it. We need to understand what it is as well as what it is not.
Learn more about your Constitution with Pastor David Whitney and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.
However, Amazon removed many of the negative reviews. By Thursday evening the number of reviews had been cut down to just 255, with many of the most critical gone, whilst 5 star reviews remained.
However customers, clearly incensed by Amazon’s actions, have responded by continuing to rip into the book, with the number of reviews now back at 1600 and the star rating at its lowest of 1.5.
Amazon owner Jeff Bezos is a prominent supporter of the Clinton campaign, and is the owner of the Washington Post, whose reporters have been tasked with investigating every aspect of Donald Trump’s history in an attempt to reveal inflammatory information.
Although not directly linked to the Clinton campaign, this is not the first time that Clinton’s supporters have attempted to modify people’s views. The political action committee Correct the Record previously spent over $1 million to hire online trolls in order to ‘correct’ Bernie Sanders supporters on social media sites.
Twenty years later, a movement grows to build an intellectual case for tolerance and respect for pedophiles — whom B4UAct calls “Minor Attracted People”
Seducing Boys into Sodomy: It is very hard to watch something so evil, but note how NAMBLA leader Leyland Stevenson–interviewed in the 1994 film, “ChickenHawk: Men Who Love Boys”–rationalizes and explains his methods for sexually seducing boys. See video below.
This award-winning documentary “ChickenHawk: Men Who Love Boys” was produced in 1994. It was directed by Adi Sideman, who allowed NAMBLA(North American Man/Boy Love Association) members (and leaders) to speak in their own words, describing their evil actions and thoughts involving boys.
Note how Leyland Stevenson, the über-creepy former NAMBLA secretary whose interview is at the center of this film, claims that the boys are looking for sexual contact with men. This is the central and sickening rationale of all “boy lovers.”
More than two decades ago, I met Stevenson in the course of Americans For Truth’s predecessor, Lambda Report’s, efforts to expose NAMBLA and pro-pedophile groups worldwide. AFTAH’s and LR’s investigative reporting inspired a 1994 American law barring U.S. taxpayer funding to any international organization with pedophile connections.
History note: NAMBLA was once allowed to march in homosexual “pride” parades.
One thing NAMBLA is right about: pederasty–sex between men and boys–has ancient roots and must be included in the history of (male) homosexuality.
Building sympathy
Two decades after the release of “ChickenHawk,” there is a growing effort afoot to encourage tolerance and a type of respect for pedophiles–renamed (note the softening language) “MAPs” (Minor-Attracted People”); see this B4UAct.org website. The “MAP” advocates are using the same strategies to gain recognition and build acceptance for this perverse “identity” as homosexual and “transgender” activists used to normalize their deviant identities and behaviors.
That means, in part, portraying adults whose “orientation” includes desiring sex with children–as a kind of “victim”; see B4UAct’s commitment to “stigma reduction”for MAPs (pedophiles/pederasts). That’s a very hard sell to Americans, but we would never doubt the tenacity of sexual revolutionaries in attempting to achieve it. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
WARNING: Some offensive sexual descriptions, but film is mostly interviews and shows nothing sexual in nature
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is scheduled to speak at the annual fundraising dinner for the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) this Wednesday, September 28. LCR has a long history of promoting homosexualism in the GOP and opposing most of the pro-family planks on “gay” issues that Gingrich supports. LCR supports homosexual “marriage” and strongly opposes a federal constitutional amendment preserving marriage as between a man and a woman. On July 12, just after the GOP Platform Committee passed a conservative, pro-family platform, LCR president Gregory Angelo sent out a press release/money pitch blasting the Committee:
“There’s no way to sugar-coat this: I’m mad as hell — and I know you are, too. “Moments ago, the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history. “Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of “pray the gay away” — it’s all in there.”
I will translate Angelo’s “gay”-activist-speak: he’s furious that the GOP:
opposes homosexuality-based “marriage”;
opposes men who live as “women” using public women’s restrooms inhabited by ladies and girls (note that many cross-dressing men, like this Idaho “transgender” miscreant voyeur with a video camera, still say they are sexually attracted to females); and
opposes laws banning sex-confused minors (including victims of child sexual abuse) from seeking pro-heterosexual-change therapy. (Note Angelo’s “pray away the gay” mockery of Christians who seek God’s help in overcoming the sinful pull of homosexuality; I assume here that most Republicans still support the notion that God answers prayers and helps people overcome besetting sins.)
Surely, Newt Gingrich agrees with those three GOP Platform points that made Angelo “mad as hell”–yet Gingrich is lending his conservative name to Angelo’s socially-left LGBT Republican organization that mocks Bible-believing Christians. Why? Newt is “growing” (liberals would say)
Over the years, Gingrich has slowly moderated his position and rhetoric against homosexualism. He told the Washington Examiner’sPaul Bedard, regarding his Log Cabin speech,“I am going to focus on national security and issues that bring us together.” However, as described above, LCR’s rhetoric and approach to social issues is hardly unifying. (Angelo’s inflammatory “pray away the gay” smear of Christians overcoming homosexuality is identical to that used by left-wing “gay” activists like Wayne Besen.)
In a radio interview today on Texas Pastor and radio host Greg Young’s program,“Chosen Generation,” I chided Newt–whom I have long admired–for failing what I call the “Sexual Sin Substitution Test,” by helping LCR’s cause:
“By speaking for the Log Cabin Republicans, which is a homosexual activist group that happens to be Republican — their priority is homosexual activism — Newt Gingrich is giving a coup to the homosexual activist lobby…Would Newt Gingrich speak at a group [called]…Republicans For Pornography Use? Would Newt Gingrich lend his name and his credibility as a conservative to such an organization? He would not, and yet here is speaking at Log Cabin….
To hear the interview, start at 100:30 for the entire segment, and around 118:00 for the portion about Gingrich:
The Politics In 2008, AFTAH reported that LCR boasted a membership of just 20,000, begging the question: how many millions of pro-family voters is the GOP willing to alienate to court the minuscule sliver of “gay Republicans”? In reality, Gingrich’s gambit–like the Trump/RNC “LGBTQ For Trump” t-shirts and Trump’s choice of openly homosexual businessman Peter Thiel to speak on the biggest night of the Republican convention–is more about remaking the GOP’s image in a “gay”-saturated culture than it is about winning a few thousand homosexual voters. (Besides, homosexual voters are notoriously Democratic.) Bottom line: savvy yet unprincipled Republicans are catering to post-Christian morality, rather than doing the tough work to actually expand the appeal of their party’s pro-family Platform. More on the GOP, the Log Cabin Republicans, and the LGBTQ agenda in upcoming posts.
Video does not mention ‘prostitution’ even though that is a major factor in violence against “male-to-female” transsexuals
Simplistic Stats: Criminal violence and abuse are always wrong, but the DOJ transgender police video never mentions the major role of prostitution in violence against “male-to-female” transsexuals. Above is homosexual D.C. cop Sgt. Brett Parson, who serves as narrator for the biased video. The above graphic (7:07 in the video) alludes to “1 in 4” transgender people being victimized in “hate crimes” allegedly “because of who they are.” This is simplistic and misleading since it ignores reckless behaviors and realities within the LGBTQ subculture–especially urban “transgender” (biological) men whoprostitute themselves posing as “women.” Click to enlarge.
So Obama’s DOJ worked hand-in-hand with D.C.-area “transgender” and homosexual activists–including narrator and D.C.’s top “gay” cop Sgt. Brett Parson(pardon the pun)–to produce this tendentious video with its misleading “trans” advocacy talking points. Your tax dollars at work.
Note the video’s manipulative bias and lack of context, for example: 1) the bathroom scene in which the hetero mom holding a baby is the villain (and what about localities and businesses where it is not legal or allowed for men to use the women’s restroom?); and 2) how the word “prostitute” is not mentioned even though street hustling is a major factor in violence against “male to female” transsexuals. Can you think of anything more dangerous than a biological man walking the street (or being an escort) as a prostitute pretending to be a woman–offering his services to strange men who may think they are about to commit sex acts with someone who is really a woman?!
I wonder: when will the DOJ produce a video teaching sensitivity toward people of faith and those defending biblical morals? It is a sad day when our men and women in blue become change agents for a lobby promoting disordered sex and gender rebellion. More on the Obama administration’s extreme (and unchecked) LGBTQ agenda coming. — @Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH [A full transcript follows after the jump]:
0:00 – [Historic photos gather to form CRS [Community Relations Service] logo] 0:07 – [Opening music plays] 0:29 – [Police siren sounds] 0:31 – [Narrator Sgt. Brett Parson–who is a homosexual activist and head of the [Washington, D.C.] Metropolitan Police Department’s Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit; see HERE and HERE] Your safety as an officer is always the first priority. 0:34 – However, in order to be safe and effective, officers must be able to distinguish between a threat and a stereotype. 0:40 – Under emergency circumstances, events always determine an officer’s response. 0:46 – This presentation deals only with non-emergency and non-crisis situations.
[Teaching scenario: cop pulls over “transgender” driver] 0:56 – Offer to person in car after being pulled over: “Driver’s license and registration please.” 0:57 – “Male-to-Female” Transgender (man in dress with long hair): “Yes, officer.” 1:02 – Officer: “Is this your most current identification?” 1:04 – Transgender person: “Yes it is. It needs to be updated.” 1:06 – Officer: “Do you prefer if I call you ma’am or sir?” 1:08 – Transgender person: “Ma’am, please.” 1:09 – “Ma’am, do you know why I stopped you here today?” 1:11 “No, officer.” 1:12 “The reason I stopped you is you have a tail light out on the right side.” 1:14 “Oh.” 1:16 “Wait right here while I verify your information.” 1:17 – “Yes, officer.” 1:20 – [Indistinct police radio chatter] 1:27 – [Police cruiser door closes] 1:31 Police officer: “All right, Ma’am. I’ll just be issuing you a warning here today. Just make sure to get that tail light fixed as soon as possible.” 1:36 – Transgender person: “Yes, sir, officer. Thank you.” 1:37 – “You’re welcome. Drive safe.” 1:44 – Narrating officer, Sgt. Brett Parsons: Hey, I don’t have to be in the room with you to know what probably just happened. Somebody just snickered, laughed or made a joke. Trust me, I know. I’m a cop, too. As police officers we use humor to deal with things that make us uncomfortable or afraid. We’re human, and we know we mean no harm. It’s our way of coping. But we have to admit it. To outsiders, its perceived as unprofessional and disrespectful.Remember, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. If someone feels disrespected, they’re less likely to trust us or cooperate… 2:16 – “Now, the previous scenario demonstrated a common way that many police officers come into contact with members of the transgender community.That officer handled it perfectly by asking clarifying questions that were relevant to his contact, respectful, and professional. The driver felt respected and cooperated, leading to an effective and safe encounter. 2:35 – Let’s start with some basics. Terminology. We need to take a closer look at three basic terms and the distinct differences between how we define them. 2:45 – They are [shown on slide]: Assigned Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity. 2:50 – “Assigned Sex” is also known as birth sex. It refers to the biological or physiological designation as male or female at birth, usually based on anatomy. 3:00 – Transgender individuals are people whose internal feelings of being male or female are not consistent with their assigned sex. 3:09 – Now, it’s estimated that about 700,000 transgender individuals live in the United States. They can be found in every walk of life, including law enforcement. 3:18 – “Sexual Orientation” refers to a person’s physical and/or emotional attraction to people of a specific gender. It refers to who someone loves, feels attracted to, or with whom they desire to have an intimate relationship. 3:31 – Heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian are all types of sexual orientations. 3:38 – Every person has an internal, psychological Gender Identity, a sense of who they feel they are in terms of gender, even if it’s not consistent with their assigned sex. 3:48 – Gender Identity is best viewed as a broad spectrum with stereotypical masculine male being at one end and stereotypical feminine female being at the other end. 3:58 – Some people identify at many points along that spectrum. Not just at the extreme ends. 4:06 – Just a few more tips to help you. You may hear the term “transgender male” or “transgender female.” 4:12 – Now, simply put, these terms refer to transgender individuals and describe the gender they are presenting and/or transitioning to. 4:20 – You may also see or hear the terms “male to female,” or “M to F,” or “female to male,” “F to M.” They mean exactly what they say. It identifies a transgender individual by stating to which gender they are presenting and/or transitioning. 4:36 – Lastly, the term “trans” is often used by some as shorthand to refer to transgender individuals or, by and large, the transgender community. While it may be acceptable to some, the safest term to use is the entire word, “transgender.” 4:51 – When in doubt, it’s always best to ask an individual what their preference is. Just simply ask, “How would you like to be addressed?” 4:59 – Using the correct, or preferred pronouns demonstrates respect and lets the individual know that you’re knowledgeable about their community, which is both reassuring and shows you are a true professional. 5:09 – If you remember to keep your questions relevant to the investigation or contact, respectful, and professional you should be fine, and experience a safer, cooperative encounter. 5:20 – [Cpl Evan Baxter, Prince George’s County, Maryland Police Department]:“When someone’s name or gender on a license is different from what you expect, how do you react? Is this person committing identity theft, are they a fugitive? Possibly they’re just transgender. 5:30 – “Officer safety always comes first, but as long as I can tell it’s the same person on a photo ID, I don’t get distracted. I just focus on the task in front of me, and on courtesy, and respect, and if you’re not certain what the proper way to address someone is, just ask.”
[Teaching scenario: police respond to “transgender” victim] 5:46 – [Knock on door] Prince George’s detectives. 5:48 – [Male in dress holding ice pack to the back of his head (after apparent hateful violent attack against him) comes to door] Yes, come in, please. 5:49 – Hi. I’m Corporal Burks. This is Officer Salvestrini. 5:52 – Hi sir. Hi Ma’am. 5:53 – What can we help you with today? 5:55 – Well, I was walking down the block and I noticed a man not too far behind me. After a few blocks I noticed he was following me. He started yelling things. Just words that I really don’t want to repeat. It’s- I really don’t feel safe walking in my neighborhood. 6:09 – [Cpl. Burks] OK, have you had anybody take a look at the injury on your neck? 6:12 – “Not yet. I did call my doctor, but I’m not going to be seeing him til tomorrow. 6:17 – [Cpl. Burks] OK, good. I’m going to have Officer Salvestrini take the report. 6:20 – [Cpl. Salvestrini] Do you have an ID or drivers license? It just makes it a little easier. 6:23 – I do, I do. There you are. 6:30 – [Cpl. Salvestrini has look of contempt on his face as he asks the victim] Sir, what were you doing? 6:33 – [Cpl. Burks interrupts] Can you excuse us for a moment? [Says to Cpl. Salvestrini] Just step over here for a minute. 6:39 – [Cpl. Burks] Sal, what are you doing? Don’t let the fact that she’s transgender throw you off, OK? Show her the respect that she deserves. 6:46 – [A chastened Cpl. Salvestrini] You’re right. I’m sorry. 6:47 – [Cpl. Burks] OK, so let’s show her that we’re a professional agency and we’ll go back out there and we can start from the beginning. 6:52 – [Cpl. Salvestrini] OK. 6:52 – [Cpl. Burks] All right, come on. 6:56 – [Cpl. Salvestrini speaking to victim] I want to apologize about before. How would you like me to address you, Sir or Ma’am? 7:00 – [“Transgender” victim] Oh, thank you for asking, and Ma’am will be fine. 7:03 – [Cpl. Salvestrini] Ma’am, great. Thanks. Could you tell me a little bit more about this person? 7:07 – [Narrator Sgt. Brett Parson] One in four transgender individuals reports that they have been the victim of an assault, a hate crime, because of who they are. There’s a perception among many transgender people that the police won’t take a crime against them seriously. That they’ll actually blame the victim for looking or dressing or being the way they are. And in recent surveys, some transgender people have reported that they have been assaulted by police officers. 7:30 – [Sgt. Parson, continues] Many transgender women, if they’re on the street at night, actually fear getting stopped for something we call “Walking While Trans.” The assumption by officers is that they’re soliciting, but they might just be hanging out or waiting for a ride. Just being transgender isn’t a reason to suspect a crime. So, as you can see, there’s an enormous need to repair this trust. 7:51 – [Sgt. Parson, continues] As officers, it’s our responsibility to show courtesy and respect and approach each new situation on the basis of doing our jobs and not making assumptions until we have the information we need to make the right call. 8:04 – [Debbie McMillan, “Male to Female” transgender activist, The Women’s Collective, Washington, DC] You know, so many women and people in the transgender community just see law enforcement as a non-ally. Things like “transgender while walking,” you know. Just because I’m a transgender, you see me as a criminal, or a commercial sex worker [prostitute].There’s just not trust in law enforcement, and that’s due to past treatments of us as a community. 8:34 – [McMillan continues] Well, I think the police need to have an understanding of what it means to be transgender. Have an understanding that I am not just a man with a wig on. We’re human. We’re just like everybody else. I think if police could understand that, that we’re no different, a wall would be removed. A barrier would be removed towards better communication and better relationships.
[Teaching scenario: Male-to-Female “transgender” uses women’s restroom at a restaurant; customer complains] 9:01 – [Two people talking: Female-to-male “transgender” (who is actually Maryland transgender activist Keith Thirion)] It’s 9AM, got slammed with a pop quiz, but, I feel like I actually did it really well. 9:05 – Oh [Other person at table, a man in a dress] Cool. All right, well, I have to use the restroom, OK? 9:07 – OK. 9:08 – I’ll be right back. 9:13 – Yes, hi. 9:14 – Um, I’d like to make a report of what I think was a man in the ladies’ bathroom. 9:21 – OK. 9:27 I’m back. 9:28 – Sorry, just finishing up an outline for a paper. 9:30 – That’s OK. What time is your next class? 9:32 – I have until 3:30. 9:33 – Oh, cool. 9:36 – [Officer arrives at restaurant, says to woman holding baby] Morning. Did you call the police? 9:39 – [Woman with baby] I did. I think I saw a man walk in to the ladies’ bathroom, and I don’t know what he’s doing there. 9:43 – [Officer] Other than being in the restroom, did the individual do anything to raise your concerns? 9:47 – [Woman] No, I just don’t think he belongs there, and he’s making me nervous. 9:50 – [Officer] Can you tell me what the individual looked like? 9:52.- [Back to table, where the two “transgender” people are talking–Female-to-male person talking] .. I’m majoring in business administration. 9:54 – [Other person at table–the man dressed as a woman] Oh, wow. 9:55 – How about you? 9:55 – Political Science. 9:56 – Cool. Is it hard? 9:58 – It’s– Some classes are really hard 10:00 – [Officer to Male-to-Female “transgender”] Excuse me. Do you have a minute? 10:02 – Yes, I do. 10:03 – Hi, I’m Corporal Dadzie with the Prince Georges County Police Department, and the reason I’m here is because we got a complaint in regards to a gentleman using the wrong restroom. Were you in the restroom? 10:13 -Yes, officer, but I’m a woman, I was just in there using the restroom. 10:16 – Was there anyone else in the restroom with you? 10:19 – No, I was in there alone. 10:20 – [Other “transgender” at the table] Officer, we’re just having lunch. 10:23 – Again, I’m sorry for the inconvenience. I apologize. Probably a misunderstanding. You both have a great day. 10:29 – T hank you. 10:31 – [Narrator Sgt. Brett Parson] As you probably already know, the key to any interaction is to be respectful, relevant and professional. If officers understand who transgender people are as a part of their community, interactions can go a whole lot better. Starting a dialogue and engaging proactively with transgender community members and community groups will be extremely helpful to your department now and in the future. 10:53 – [Sgt. Parson continues] Now, your state or department may have specific laws or policies on interacting with transgender individuals. They may specify, for example, that if a search is required officers should ask the person if they would prefer a 5 male or a female officer to conduct that search. If your department does not have a policy on issues like communicating with or searching transgender individuals, you may want to consider developing one with the help of community organizations. For policies on transgender people in custody, agencies can consult resources from the National Institute of Corrections and the Prison Rape Elimination Act resource center. 11:28 – [Sgt. Parson continues] Transgender people are just trying to be their true selves, and live their lives as members of our communities, just like anyone else. As law enforcement officers we must make every effort to collaborate and learn from the transgender community so we can better serve others today and in the future. 11:45 – [Sgt. Parson continues] Now these scenarios only cover some of the common interactions between police officers and transgender people. So, take a look at your department and your policies. Decide what can be done on your side to protect everyone. We know with this knowledge, you will be able to approach any situation with the professionalism, relevance and respect all people in this great country deserve. Thank you and be safe. 12:15 – [Closing music plays with credits]
______________________________
Published by DOJ Community Relations Service on Aug 24, 2016; CRS description:
This roll call training video, narrated by Brett Parson, features scenarios of three of the most common ways police officers encounter members of the transgender community and provides information, tools, and techniques to help ensure your interactions with them are mutually respectful and professional.
“[David Hall] is absolutely correct: LGBT ‘diversity’ sessions and films are NOT truly ‘diverse’ because they disrespect or ignore faith-based and moral opposition to homosexualism and transsexualism.”–Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
Folks, we can’t expect even a tiny minority of Christians to stand so resolutely for God’s Truth that they are even willing to lose their job over it. So when a man like Illinois government worker David Hall refuses to bow down to the modern idol of pro-perversion “diversity,” he deserves to be called the hero that he is. Pray for David and share this story far and wide! –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @Peter LaBarbera [under the WCIA video is a terrific LifeSiteNews article in which I am quoted]
The following is a report by the stellar pro-family news site, LifeSiteNews. Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera is quoted in the article (see bolded portion); to donate to LifeSite, go here. The video above is a newscast by WCIA-TV in Springfield, Illinois: _______________________________
Christian Could Be Fired for Refusing to Watch LGBT ‘Inclusivity’ Video
By Fr. Mark Hodges CHAMPAIGN, Illinois, September 15, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A Christian’s 14-year career is being threatened because he refused to watch a training video on lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and queer “diversity and inclusivity.” In April, the Social Security Administration announced all employees must be trained in LGBTQ “diversity and inclusivity.” Longtime information technology employee David Hall, whose Christian convictions do not consider sodomy healthy or normal or good for people, believed that the “training” was against his sincerely held beliefs. Specifically, Hall, 42, was told by his superiors to view a 17-minute video that includes “tips for increasing cultural awareness in a diverse and inclusive environment.” Hall refused, explaining that the training endorses sinful behavior. “I’m not going to certify sin,” he explained to WCIA-TV. Because he refused to participate in the LGBTQ agenda training, Hall was officially reprimanded and then suspended without pay. Hall explained that he thought the training was basically homosexual propaganda and said the First Amendment free exercise of religion gave him the constitutional right to not participate in “abomination” training. He shared that he has gay and lesbian friends, he holds no animosity against anyone, and he does not discriminate against anyone, but diversity “training” in sexual deviance went against his religious beliefs. Hall realizes that he might lose his job, but he believes Christians should take a loving stand against the gay agenda sweeping the nation. “This is something I want to fight and expose, to give other Christians the courage of their convictions,” he said, adding that several employees feel the same way but are “scared.” “David Hall is a hero,” Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews. “He is absolutely correct: LGBT ‘diversity’ sessions and films are NOT truly ‘diverse’ because they disrespect or ignore faith-based and moral opposition to homosexualism and transsexualism.” “Hall is also correct that this is pure propaganda, designed to legitimize a sin movement,” LaBarbera added. “Ironically, people are getting fired and disciplined simply for refusing to bend their faith to appease an Orwellian ideology that purports to be about — get this — ‘non-discrimination!’” “By calling out this forced group think, David Hall is helping to educate others — and ultimately standing up for our First Amendment freedoms,” LaBarbera concluded. “People like him willing to suffer for liberty’s sake keep us all free.”
Hillary champions LGBTQ “Equality Act,” is friends with HRC president Chad Griffin
Folks, homosexualism has not been a major issue in this presidential campaign–due mainly to the media’s suffocating political correctness and unprofessional pro-LGBTQ bias–and partly due to political cowardice. Nevertheless, the issue is extremely important to many millions of Americans. So it is stunning that the YouTube video below of Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at the Human Rights Campaign(HRC) on October 3, 2015 had only received 10,759 views as of the morning of September 23, 2016.
AFTAH is covering all major presidential candidates’ positions on homosexualism and transsexualism for this election–including when Republicans embrace or ignore the “gay” or “trans” agenda. (Some GOP political types hate us for that.) [See Hillary’s campaign partner Tim Kaine’s HRC speech HERE and Donald Trump’s past support of homosexualism HERE.] We are cleaning up the YouTube transcript of this speech and will provide that ASAP. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Registeron Aug. 15, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has moved to dramatically expand the power of the U.S. government over the lives of the American people. This may be the clearest example to date of an agency gone amok.
In a recent commentary on the NPRM, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), observed:
Today, the American people are challenged, as they have never been before, to confront the expansion of government authority over our bodies and the bodies of our children, specifically the exercise of police power to take us into custody and isolate us without our consent whenever public health officials believe we are sick or could become sick.
The CDC, with its NPRM, is seeking to “restrict the freedom of a person entering the U.S. or traveling between states if they believe the person is infected or could become infected with certain kinds of communicable diseases.”
Would this new authority open the way for the U.S. government health officials to eventually restrict travel via automobile, bus and train from state to state? Could state public health authorities eventually prevent me from walking across the street or riding my bicycle from one town to the next if I were found to have a cold or the flu? Where exactly would this new authority to control communicable diseases stop?
The NPRM calls for airline and cruise ship personnel to increase surveillance of travelers into the U.S. and those traveling between states, but states have the greatest authority under the Constitution to use police powers to control infectious diseases within state borders. The CDC also provides substantial funding to states to maintain high uptake of all federally recommended vaccines. So, as Fisher points out, the NPRM indicates the CDC plans to enlist the “participation of federally funded state health departments”2—which means that state policing authorities could eventually be doing a lot more detaining, isolating and quarantining of people in the U.S., who appear “unwell” but are otherwise simply going about minding their own business.
So, how would all of this work in real life in the event I had a rash or coughing fit while running into a federal or state public health official in the supermarket or at the gym? Were the NPRM to be implemented, it is certainly possible that we could, indeed, be “vulnerable to detention and quarantine if health officials decide you are, or could become, a transmitter of measles or other infections.”
Just how would public health officials make such a determination? Well, since our medical records are part of big electronic medical records and vaccine tracking systems accessible by government officials, they could simply take a peek at our electronic medical records and see if we have gotten every single dose of every single vaccine recommended by the CDC.
And what specifically is meant by “other infections“? How open-ended is this term?
Is the CDC trying to expand its authority to detain and quarantine people without their consent? Yes, says Fisher.
In a nutshell, the federal government is consolidating and strengthening power that was originally used to prevent persons with yellow fever and cholera from disembarking from ships entering U.S. ports in the 19th century and causing epidemics on land.For most of our country’s history, the list of contagious diseases that allowed government health officials to detain and quarantine people without their informed consent was appropriately very short, confined to a few very serious contagious diseases, including yellow fever, smallpox, cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, and the plague.
So, now what are we talking about? Anything that has the potential to infect others? As Fisher points out, there are “many viral and bacterial infections that occur quite often in our country, like bronchitis and the stomach flu.” And nearly every infection has the potential to spread and cause harm or even death to some people. But that does not mean that health officials should be empowered to “take you into custody and isolate you if you look sick or have been around someone who is sick.”
Some symptoms that “could get you detained” under the CDC’s NPRM include vomiting, diarrhea, and a fever of more than 100 degrees—symptoms that can be caused by everything from “allergic reactions, inflammatory bowel disease, salmonella and norovirus infections to hangovers and the common cold.”
It is not difficult to imagine all kinds of people who are simply not feeling well being rounded up by public health authorities under the assumption that they might have a “communicable disease” and thus pose a danger to society.
So, what would happen were you to be taken into government custody? The NPRM language suggests that you could be held for up to 72 hours without the right to contact a lawyer to appeal your detention. You would be asked to sign a contract with the CDC agreeing to submit yourself or your minor children to such “public health measures” as “quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”
And what if I don’t want to sign a contract with the CDC? Then what? According to Fisher:
[E]ven if you don’t voluntarily agree to sign that contract, public health officials can still do whatever they want to do to you because ‘the individual’s consent shall not be considered a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority’ by the CDC.And if government officials do release you from detention, you can be electronically tracked and monitored, including by electronic tracking devices you have to wear or by email, cell phone texts, video conferencing and voicemail.
Does any of this remotely sound like the United States of America? No. The NPRM is a blatant power grab by an agency that has seemingly lost its way, and it represents a serious threat to the American way of life as we know it.
The “Debate of the Century,” the first face-to-face match up between presidential contenders Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, quickly turned into a three-way affair, with NBC “moderator” Lester Holt (shown at left) repeatedly taking sides with Clinton and badgering Trump. The hour-and-a-half debate, broadcast live Monday night on all the major networks from the Hofstra University campus in Hempstead, New York, was expected to attract 100 million viewers, a new record for a political event, and second only to the Super Bowl. From tabulations now available, it appears the final viewer count may come close to those predicted numbers. Another even more important prediction also proved to be accurate: that debate moderator Lester Holt would follow the familiar path of liberal media moderators in previous debates and throw support to the liberal-left Democrat.
At the start of the event, Holt announced that the planned six 15-minute segments would be directed at exploring three topic areas: “Achieving Prosperity,” “America’s Direction” and “Securing America.” The debate, he explained, was being sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission had drafted the debate’s format, and the rules had been agreed to by the campaigns.
“The questions are mine and have not been shared with the commission or the campaigns,” Holt said. “The audience here in the room has agreed to remain silent so that we can focus on what the candidates are saying.”
Going into the debate there was ample cause for questioning the NBC anchor’s ability to be genuinely impartial. Like virtually all of his colleagues in the establishment media, Lester Holt tilts to the Left. Holt took over as anchor of NBC Nightly News last year, after Brian Williams was fired for misrepresenting his Iraq War reporting experiences. Following the September 2 announcement that Holt had been selected as the first debate moderator, the Media Research Center compiled an archive of video segments showing his bias regarding Clinton and Trump, as well as statements showing his bias on issues ranging from Obama Care to Syrian refugees to “Climate refugees” to illegal alien amnesty, etc.
The question in the minds of many critics was whether Holt’s partiality would result in a reprise of the infamous episode of the 2012 presidential debate cycle, in which CNN’s Candy Crowley stepped out of her official moderator role to help President Obama against his debate opponent, Governor Mitt Romney, on the issue of Benghazi and terrorism.
Lester Holt comes across as a much cooler, calmer, less jarringly partisan moderator than Candy Crowley, which lends an air of legitimacy to claims that he is objective and fair. However, after viewing the debate and reviewing the transcript, it is clear that Holt favored Clinton and leaned on Trump. He stepped over the line into the Clinton camp to challenge Trump on releasing his income taxes, on the issue of stop-and-frisk policing, on race relations, on his opposition to the Iraq War, and on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
He did not show any similar interest in asking Hillary Clinton about any of the many issues that are important to millions of American voters: her colossal Benghazi failure and cover up; the millions of dollars, scandalous deals, and conflicts of interest involved with the Clinton Foundation; the national security perils from her “lost” e-mails; her bailouts and sellout to Wall Street; her role (with husband Bill) in selling off America’s uranium to Russia; the cover-up of her medical problems; and much more. Holt’s adversarial probing of Trump would have been legitimate if he had shown a balanced inclination to do the same with Clinton. As it was, his one-sided hammering seemed to throw Trump off balance and help Hillary keep him on the defensive.
Many commentators and even many Trump supporters who were interviewed expressed the perception that Trump “failed to control the fight” and was always responding with counter punches to a more aggressive, in-control Clinton.
Clinton undoubtedly surprised a great many viewers (including this one) by not only lasting the full 90 minutes, but doing so without any major faux pas or meltdown. For weeks her health had become a major issue — and it still is. But, barring another collapsing/fainting, major-coughing attack, or neurological head bobbing incident, her performance on the stage last night will probably help to take the edge off that concern to some degree.
Who Won? A CNBC online poll of nearly one million respondents (960,300) found 67 percent saying Trump won vs. 33 percent for Clinton. A TIME Internet poll with 1.6 million respondents came out at 55 percent for Trump, 45 percent for Clinton. In fact, except for CNN — which is often called the Clinton News Network, due to obvious bias — most snap polls taken after the debate came out with Trump handily on top. The CNN poll, a survey of 521 registered voters — which CNN admits was top-heavy with Democrats — came out with Clinton winning the debate 62 percent to 27 percent.
The next debate, to be held at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri on October 9, will be co-hosted by CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Martha Raddatz, both of whom are at least as liberal-left and pro-Clinton as Lester Holt. Judging from the just-concluded debate, as well as the history of recent political debates, we can expect that the next match up will be a three-against-one tag team affair.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Kelleigh Nelson
September 28, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
The debate was structurally biased and Holt biased it. He repeatedly argued with Trump about the facts. Despite the ban on fact-checking, Holt attempted to debate Trump on the Iraq War and on the birth certificate. It was a disgraceful and a biased performance. It is a reminder that the structure of the debates must be changed to prevent mainstream media from dominating it. Every question was shaped to frame a left-wing agenda. Holt hurled numerous attacks at Trump. He only passingly offered Hillary a chance to address her emails when Trump had already brought it up. —Daniel Greenfield
The Biased Debate
I don’t like to watch debates, I never have, and having watched Hillary debate in high school and use tactics that were less than honorable, watching her lie through her teeth during this first debate, was enough to make me wretch. The above quote from Daniel Greenfield is so absolutely true. Lester Holt wanted to debate Trump himself! His bias was obvious as were his softball questions to Hillary. I thought as I watched it, that every time Hillary can’t really answer a question in one sentence or two, she rambles on, and you can tell she’s lying, she’s lying, she’s lying. Fifteen personal questions to Trump and only two to Hillary.
Democratic Socialist Moderators
I’ve mentioned in several articles that I’ve wondered why we cannot have someone like Lou Dobbs, Steve Malzberg, Laura Ingraham, Neil Cavuto or Sean Hannity as moderators instead of these Democratic socialists all the time. Unfortunately, Roger Stone told me that once a candidate signs on with the Debate Commission, they have no say as to moderators. We need to get this changed…it’s time our side actually gave some zingers to the candidates from Marxist hell. Sure wish Mr. Trump had been able to use “The Art of the Deal,” to get this changed prior to the debates.
Hillary Promotes Her Socialist Beliefs
Hillary did remain standing, and she didn’t cough or lose concentration. However, if you listened carefully, you heard her strong socialist beliefs come through. She wants to grab the guns, federalize law enforcement, steal from the "rich," with higher taxes, (sending them and their companies and monies to other nations), play nice with illegals and Muslim refugees, and give away a lot of free stuff with our tax dollars. Anything ring a bell with the audience? Probably not, because the goals of Marxism are no longer taught in American/government schools.
Obvious Lester Holt Bias
Clinton came across as smug, pompous, robotic and rehearsed to the point of memorization. Did anyone besides Devvy Kidd and me notice her drugged out look? The MSM of course saw Hillary as winning the debate, but she is losing ground with voters in swing states according to the Charlotte Observer.
Lester Holt shilled for Hillary Clinton. Obviously, he didn’t want the backlash he saw Matt Lauer receive when he moderated the Commander-in-Chief forum and actually allowed questions from the audience which put Hillary in a very uncomfortable state.
Rudy Giuliani asserted that Holt was “extremely unfair” and that his “fact checking” every time Hillary said the word “fact,” or the one time she mentioned, “fact check,” showed Holt’s obvious bias, especially over the “stop and frisk” issue which was completely inaccurate. Rudy should know, as he was the Mayor of New York when it was used.
The Daily Caller analysis said that Mr. Trump was interrupted 41 times by Lester Holt whereas he only interrupted Hillary seven times.
Holt really wanted to debate Trump, and challenged him six times on his answers, but Hillary was asked no follow up questions throughout the entire debate.
The Washington Times, agreed with me that Trump was forced to debate Lester Holt as well as Hillary.
The bottom line is that Holt was much harsher on Trump than Hillary, and anyone who watched could see the obvious bias. Holt only mentioned Hillary’s email scandal when he asked Hillary to respond to Trump rather than crafting a tough question himself.
The Donald needed to bring up Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and the entire Hillary email debacle, but wasn’t really given an opportunity.
Neil Cavuto exposed the bias of Lester Holt in this video where he shows that Donald Trump never supported the war in Iraq, an issue Trump had to defend against Holt.
Hillary Lies
Hillary Clinton’s litany of lies throughout the first presidential debate had me screaming at the television. Another reason my husband refuses to even watch them, they’re so scripted! Let’s just look at a few.
Hillary Clinton defended NAFTA, which her husband signed into law, and the accompanying unemployment as a good trade deal, in the face of attacks by Donald Trump. He said, “NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere but certainly ever signed in this country, and now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Trump also cited the 30-50 percent reduction in manufacturing in key states as being more than just an opinion.
Equal Pay for Women - In her opening statement, Hillary asserted that the nation needs to “finally guarantee equal pay for equal work” for women. The notion that women on average do not receive the same pay as men — the 77 cents to a dollar myth — has been proven false repeatedly. Women seldom work as long as men, and the statistic is a false one since it is already illegal to pay women less than men for the same position.
Tax the Wealthy – Really interesting Hillary, especially since while Secretary of State, you have colluded with foreign dignitaries to help them out if they make large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary advocates raising taxes on the wealthy because she doesn’t believe they pay enough. “I think it’s time to suggest that the wealthy pay their fair share,” she said.
The truth is that America has the most progressive tax system in the world — the top 10 percent contribute over half of all income tax revenue…and the top 10% are the ones who use their money to create businesses and jobs, but jobs aren’t really important to Hillary.
Slashing Taxes – Hillary Clinton claimed that "slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked." Her comment implied that slashing taxes on the wealthy is why the economy is in such poor shape currently. What a strange statement considering Obama has been in office for the better part of eight years and has increased taxes, and never thought of slashing them.
Anyone remember what Democrat President John F. Kennedy said about lowering taxes?
Kennedy proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Those figures for the early 60s are astronomical. Economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes. He was right.
Lowering Corporate Tax Rates - Hillary said: "We've looked at your tax proposals. I don't see changes in the corporate tax rates … you're referring to that would cause the repatriation." Well, Hill, you didn’t look closely enough now did you… Trump's plan to lower corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 is written quite clearly on the economic plan posted on his website.
The Rotten Iran Deal – Ms. Hillary also claimed that in being party to the Iran deal she helped "put the lid on Iran's nuclear program." But sources claim the deal guarantees no such thing. Indeed, it rests entirely on Iran's acting in good faith and upholding their end of the bargain. Are the American people ready to trust the Iranian Ayatollah who has stated time and again, “Death to America?” I’m certainly not, and giving away billions of dollars to this country who funds terrorist Islamic regimes, is beyond insane. Read General Michael Flynn’s book, The First in Fight.
Hillary’s Emails – Hillary said, “I made a mistake using a private email.” But she didn’t use a private email, she used multiple private email servers. She implied that she didn’t know she’d done anything wrong, but she was trained for two hours by the FBI before taking over the job of Secretary of State!
The word “mistake” implies Clinton didn't know she was doing anything wrong, a claim belied entirely by the fact that so many of her aides and associates pleaded the Fifth or were granted immunity by the FBI — not to mention the fact that many of them engaged in the destruction of evidence and that she herself made false exculpatory statements. (Remember the 13 cell phones and five IPADS destroyed by hammers).
Vladimir Putin
Clinton also claimed that "Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into
Americans." The truth, as is obvious from the context of his words, is that Trump was calling on the Russians to release Clinton's missing emails in the event that they already had them. He has never said he personally likes Putin, a lie put out by the MSM and Hillary. He has said that he believes he could work with Putin, and that there would be mutual respect because they are both strong leaders with spines of steel, unlike what we have in our White House now. Trump strongly believes that the two of them could have mutual respect, but that’s a lot different than honoring the former KGB man as Hillary insinuates.
Conclusion
Trump covered all the important messages asked in the debate, and he should have brushed aside the nitpicking and ignored it because the entire hour was spent attacking Trump.
Hillary may have looked as though she held her own against Donald J. Trump, but the reality of this debate is that she proved her complete disregard for truth and she lied through her teeth to the American people. Did she have the questions in advance? Who knows…a few websites believe she did.
Look people, the day of the first debate, the powers that be shut down Michael Savage’s affiliates when he started to speak about Hillary’s illnesses. We are living in a censoring tyrannical government like that of Communist Mikhail Gorbachev, the Baathist Saddam Hussein government, Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania, or the Peoples’ Republic of China. We should be shouting at the top of our lungs…The First Amendment of the Constitution is a God given unalienable right…the right to speak the truth as you see it.
CNN, (Clinton News Network) said that Hillary won the debate, but bottom line, all the polls say Trump won, (see today's JB William's article for all the Poll Results) despite the purposeful setup for destruction by the socialists in cahoots with Hillary. Trump has actually gained votes in the swing states.
[P.S. In order to wake up the population, we need to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs (like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh etc.) and mention NewsWithViews.com on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Chip McLean
September 28, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
“Why aren’t I up 50 points,” exclaimed an angry Hillary Clinton. The bizarre outburst came this week after nearly all polls showed the race to be basically even, with some swinging slightly in favor of Donald Trump.
The Hildebeast has reverted to total shrill mode – a shrewish side of her that former Clinton staffers have alluded to on numerous occasions but is almost universally ignored by the sycophantic MSM.
Hillary is angry because she believes it’s “her turn” to be president but Donald Trump and his supporters keep getting in her way. Of course, she also believed that it was “her turn” in 2008, when (in her view), she was robbed after Democrats decided that the “black card” – pardon the expression – “trumped” the “woman card”.
So Hillary instead became the most horrific Secretary of State in the nation’s history…
During her tenure, she compromised our national security with her illegal private email server. That would of course be the same server on which the emails were subsequently deleted with BleachBit - right after those emails were subpoenaed. FBI Director James Comey, in choosing not to charge her with a crime, was nonetheless forced to admit that almost anyone else would have been prosecuted for the sort of gross mishandling of classified material that occurred under Hillary Clinton.
Below is a great video that demonstrates the vast difference between what Hillary Clinton claimed, and what the FBI investigation actually found.
But as we all know, the Clintons have always viewed rules as being for “other people”.
Then of course there is the Benghazi scandal itself. Hillary’s meddling in Libya not only left diplomat Chris Stevens and three others dead, but it also paved the way for radical Islamists (a term she steadfastly – like Obama – refuses to use) to take over the region.
As Yogi Berra would have said, “it’s déjà vu all over again.” Didn’t we learn from our experience in Iraq that taking out dictators always leaves a vacuum – something that nature abhors? In the Middle East, that vacuum always seems to be filled by charming, peaceful, humanitarian organizations such as ISIS.
Hillary also favors open borders along with a 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of what Obama has already imported into our country. Everyone knows that these “refugees” are virtually impossible to vet. In fact State Department spokesman John Kirby admitted just this week that Islamic State terrorists are trying to mingle with refugee populations overseas in the hopes of making it to the U.S. posing as refugees. Hillary and Obama’s policies have made the entire world – including America – far less safe from terrorism.
We also know that Hillary used her office as a conduit for the money laundering, supposedly “charitable” Clinton Foundation to enrich Bill, Chelsea and herself. Perhaps Bill Clinton would try to parse the definition of “charity”, but what sort of “charity” only sees 6% of the contributions going to bona-fide recipients? Even notoriously inefficient government agencies have a far better track record of benefiting those in need.
Of course, I suppose rich foreign interests have “needs” as well – important things like obtaining the rights to nearly a quarter of our uranium is certainly a great Russian “need”. The Clinton Foundation has certainly assisted many such “donors” in “need”, thanks to much help from Hillary gal pal Huma Abedin. Huma’s “job” evidently consisted of arranging meetings between said “donors” and the then Secretary of State.
In fact, over half of Mrs. Clinton’s “meetings” with non-government personnel were with Clinton Family donors. Perhaps she was discussing renting out the Lincoln Bedroom if she’s elected, just like in the good ‘ol days when hubby Slick Willie was in charge of the White House.
Hillary’s obvious health issues represent just the latest in a forty year series of lies and cover-ups on the part of the Clintons. The Hillary campaign has been less than forthcoming on this, despite the fact that a number of respected medical practitioners have raised concerns. Hillary has tried to simply make this go away by snidely dismissing all questions about her health. But then, obfuscation has always been a part of the Clinton modus operandi, whether it’s about Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate, cattle futures, Vince Foster, missing Rose Law Firm records, not to mention what the meaning of “is”, is.
In addition, there’s the “war on women” where Hillary sends out the attack dogs to besmirch and threaten all of the women that Bill has harassed (or worse). This fine, family tradition has carried straight on through the twenty first century.
It’s a Clinton thing, lying. The Clintons would rather tell a lie than the truth even if the truth would benefit them. They just can’t seem to help it – it’s pathological. The Clintons have spent many years perfecting the art of lying. The problem for Hillary is that although she lies just as much as Bill, she is nowhere near as convincing. The chief reason is that she possesses all the charisma of a rotted tree stump.
And therein lays her problem - Hillary Rodham Clinton is not only one of the most corrupt politicians in American history, she is perhaps also the most singularly unlikable one as well. When she’s not busy referring to half the country as being a “basket of deplorables”, she’s using terrorism to once again push for more gun control. Disarming law-abiding American citizens in the face of the increased danger from Islamic terrorists is not only antithetical to the second amendment, it also flies in the face of logic. The fact is she seems to go out of her way to insult the intelligence of everyday, working Americans. She seems to have a special antipathy for coal miners.
So Hillary, believing once again that it is “her turn”, indignantly poses the question, “Why aren’t I up 50 points?”. What is sad that she actually believes she is entitled to a 50 point lead in the polls – that somehow the voters owe her. What she is truly owed is a 50 year stretch in prison.
By Roger Stone September 27, 2016 NewsWithViews.com
Prior to the financial crisis, banks were not a subject of political or public ire or focus. They were just companies. The biggest banks were east-coast and west-coast behemoths. When they lobbied, it was largely in coordination with thenation’s smaller community banks. While the smaller community banks have historically represented the political spectrum of the communities they serve, the Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) banks were aligned with Democrats, being headquartered in the “bluer” states of New York and California. As a result, the Democrats, and especially the Clintons, have always relied on the big banks to support their agenda, and in turn, they have enthusiastically supported the big bank’s agenda.
Unlike community banks, which serve local communities, know their economies and are committed to their neighbors, TBTF big banks don’t know their customers, serve themselves and could care less about their neighbors.
When the great financial crisis came, TBTF banks were largely responsible. The nation wanted justice. But it was time for payback, and the TBTF banks used their capture of the Democrats to extort protection.
Since the crisis, Hillary and her pals have helped to make sure that no real harm comes the TBTF banks. In fact, since the crisis – TBTF banks banks have dramatically increased in size, stifling the ability of smaller banks to compete.
(NOTE: The banks deemed too big by the Obama Administration when it pushed for enactment of Dodd Frank are more than 30% bigger than before the Act was passed in 2010, and 80% bigger than before the banking crisis of 2008. The six largest US financial institutions now have assets of some $10 trillion, amounting to almost 60% of GDP; and they control nearly 50% of all bank deposits. Even some well-heeled clients are being rejected. In an October 19, 2015 article titled “Big Banks to America’s Firms: We Don’t Want Your Cash,” the Wall Street Journal reported that some Wall Street banks are now telling big depositors to take their money elsewhere or be charged a deposit fee.
Municipal governments are also being rejected as customers. Bank of America just announced that it no longer wants the business of some smaller cities, which have been given 90 days to find somewhere else to put their money. Hundreds of local BofA branches are also disappearing.
Hardest hit, however, are the community banks. Today there are 1,524 fewer banks with assets under $1 billion than there were in June 2010, before the Dodd-Frank regulations were signed into law.)
Who loses? Communities, borrowers, competition and local economies.
To follow:
• The Clinton Foundation is Used to Benefit Big Banks • Big Banks, in Turn, Bankroll the Clintons
I. The Clinton Foundation Is Used to Benefit Big Banks
The Clinton Foundation appears more like a mafia bag-man operation than a reputable non-profit. It claims to be a voice for women and the oppressed, even while it takes billions of dollars from donors who are sexual predators, misogynists and tied to oppressive regimes that reduce the status of women. Only a small percentage of the money raised actually funds real assistance programs; most of the money goes to salaries, speakers and to the Clintons personal expenses.
If you look at the entire list of donors to the Clinton Foundation, you’ll see there are lots of individuals under indictment, lots of individuals and institutions currently embroiled in the Mossack Fonseca scandal, and lots of foreign officials who have been found to be corrupt. And the big banks are at the center of it all. Among largest donors to the Clinton Foundation:
• Barclays Capital • Citi Foundation • Standard Chartered • Goldman Sachs • Bank of America Foundation • Citigroup • HSBC • Itau Unibanco • UBS Wealth Management • Banco Santander Brasil • Deutsche Bank AG • Deutsche Bank Americas • Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund • Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Impact Funding Trust, Inc • Bank of America Corporation • BMCE Bank • JPMorgan Chase & Co. • Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, Inc. • Morgan Stanley • The Monte dei Paschi di Siena • Wells Fargo Foundation
Examples of how the Clinton Foundation Helps Big Banks to Cash in on “Philanthropy”
CGI Sets up Big Banks to Cash in on Retrofitting Buildings Worldwide
ABN AMRO, Citi(bank), Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and UBS have committed to arrange $1 billion each to finance cities and private building owners to undertake these retrofits at no net cost, doubling the global market for energy retrofit in buildings.
(HRC Senior Economic Advisor Gene Sperling pushed these initiatives while head of Obama’s National Economic Council. He is now a paid advisor to Renovate America Co. They would benefit from these programs as would the big banks who receive securitization and lending opportunities See ( Link )
CGI Helps Standard Chartered (Serial Violator of Iran Sanctions) with “Microfinance Finance Facility”
At the CGI Annual Meeting in 2006, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) made a commitment to provide development organizations and fund managers with $500 million worth of credit and financial instruments that they could use to finance microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Africa and Asia, benefiting 4 million people over the commitment’s five-year implementation.
As a result, the Bank has formed 48 microfinance partnerships in 15 different countries across these regions. The Bank’s portfolio has grown to $180 million, with investments of $280 million (including provision of credit and financial instruments).
“Renewable & Clean Energy Financing in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East” Commitment to Action by Standard Chartered Bank in 2007
At the CGI Annual Meeting in 2007, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) committed to take a leading role in the financing of new renewable and clean energy projects by arranging debt, advising on finance, or acting as an equity investor in wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and other areas with a total project value of $8-10 billion over five years. [Link]
II. Big Banks Are Bankrolling the Clintons
Financial institutions and their employees were Clinton’s biggest donors when she was in the Senate from 2001 to 2008. The top four banks were Citi(bank), Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley.
For 24 years the Clintons have orchestrated a conjugal relationship with Wall Street, to the immense financial benefit of both parties. They have accepted from the New York banks $68.72 million in campaign contributions for their six political races, and $8.85 million more in speaking fees. The banks have earned hundreds of billions of dollars in practices that were once prohibited—until the Clinton Administration legalized them.
Perhaps sensing the need to assure (Bill) Clinton’s re-election, Wall Street saw fit nearly to triple its campaign contributions—from $11.17 million in 1992 to $28.37 million in 1996. Here’s what the Big Banks got:
• Repeal of Glass-Steagall
• President Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This law ended the regulation of derivatives, freeing Wall Street to manufacture mortgage-backed securities and sell them without restriction; these complex derivatives would power the “subprime” swindle soon to commence.
• Clinton’s Justice Department a deputy Attorney General named Eric Holder in 1999 authored a memo entitled “Bringing Criminal Charges Against Corporations.” It became the Holder Doctrine, and after the financial crisis of 2008 it would be of incalculable value to the Wall Street banks. On leaving the Administration Mr. Holder joined Covington Burling, the largest law firm in Washington, D.C.. Among its clients were Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America.
• Sixteen days after leaving the White House, Mr. Clinton delivered a speech to the Wall Street firm of Morgan Stanley, for which he was paid $125,000. That was the first of many speeches he presented to Wall Street banks in following years. By May of 2015, Mr. Clinton had earned $1,550,000 from Goldman Sachs, $1,690,000 from UBS, $1,075,000 from Bank of America, $770,000 from Deutsche Bank,, and $700,000 from Citigroup. In total, $5,910,000.
• The Wall Street banks underwrote Ms. Clinton’s Senatorial ambition, contributing $2.13 million to her campaign. Among the congenial banks were Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, CIBC, and Credit Suisse.
• Wall Street was impressed with both candidates. Goldman Sachs contributed $1,034,615 to Mr. Obama’s campaign; JP Morgan Chase $847,855; Citigroup $755,057; UBS $534,166; and Morgan Stanley $528,182. $3.7 million in total. But Wall Street was more impressed with Ms. Clinton: her take from the banks was $14.6 million.
• A few weeks after her swearing in, Secretary of State Clinton was called to Switzerland by the Swiss Foreign Minister. They discussed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service against UBS, the Swiss banking international colossus (761 locations in the U.S.). Back in Washington Secretary Clinton interceded. The impact of the suit was reduced by 90%.
• In subsequent years UBS paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million in speaking fees, for eleven separate appearances. Hillary Clinton earned $225,000 for another one. Also in subsequent years UBS contributed $540,000 to the Clinton Foundation. [Link]
One of Clinton’s earliest votes in her Senate career provoked the ire of Elizabeth Warren, who was then a Harvard law professor.
Clinton voted with the big banks on a massive overhaul to the country’s bankruptcy laws, picking the financial services industry over consumers. Link
Elizabeth Warren — at the time a Harvard law professor — recounted for Bill Moyers how, in the 1990s, she wrote an editorial opposing a proposed piece of legislation tightening bankruptcy laws. Warren explained that it would disproportionately hurt single mothers. Hillary Clinton, at the time the first lady, read the editorial, and asked for a meeting with Warren. The meeting went well; Warren said she “never had a smarter student.” Afterward, Clinton returned to Washington and, according to her biography, persuaded Bill Clinton to veto the legislation.
But when Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate and another version of the same bill came to the floor, she did an about face:
ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It’s a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don’t realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.
BILL MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator.
ELIZABETH WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
BILL MOYERS: But what does this mean though to these people, these millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as favoring the middle class, and then are beholden to the powerful interests that undermine the middle class? What does this say about politics today?
ELIZABETH WARREN: You know this is the scary part about democracy today. It’s… We’re talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying, and as their profits grow, they just throw more into lobbying for how they can get laws that will make it easier and easier and easier to drain money out of the pockets of middle class families. [Link]
Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.” [Link]
Hillary Group Partnered With Company That Laundered $250 Billion For Iran And Violated Sanctions
On July 29, 2009, at a news conference in New Delhi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proudly announced that “Vital Voices Global Partnership,” an NGO that she said she had “founded”, had partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to promote women’s causes throughout Asia.
Unfortunately, Standard Chartered, which also donated generously to the Clinton Foundation Global Initiative, was charged by federal and New York State prosecutors of laundering over $250 billion for Iran and “deliberately” helping Iran circumvent sanctions imposed to cripple its nuclear program. In August and December, 2012 — Standard Chartered paid a total $667 million in fines to settle the cases and admitted its criminal activity.
First, the New York State Department of Financial Services fined Standard Chartered $340 million and, several months later, the Department of Justice negotiated a fine of $327 million in December of last year. Jaspal Bindra, the CEO of Asia Standard Bank, serves on the board of Vital Voices.
According to the New York State Department of Financial Services the ten years of illegal activity by Standard Chartered “left the US financial system vulnerable to terrorists, weapons dealers, drug kingpins, and corrupt regimes and deprived law enforcement investigators of crucial information used to track all manner of criminal activity.”
And all the while, Standard Chartered was funding programs related to the Clintons. The ties among former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative and Standard Chartered run long and deep. [Link]
The Clinton Global Initiative Helps Big Banks with “Cover”
In August of 2010, the Justice Department announced Barclays would pay nearly $300 million in fines for breaking sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Sudan and others. The next month, it was — for the first time — a “strategic partner” for that year’s annual Clinton Global Initiative event.
In 2012, the CGI annual event featured three major banking partners that were also facing penalties and investigations for breaking Iran sanctions:
Standard Chartered paid a total $667 million, when all was said and done, to various regulators to settle allegations it violated Iran sanctions. The first half of that fine was levied by the New York State Department of Financial Services in August 2012, and the next month Standard Chartered appeared as a “meeting sponsor” of the CGI’s annual meeting.
A late August 2012 New York Times report revealed Deutsche Bank was also under investigation for potential Iran sanctions violations. Days later, Reuters reported Credit Agricole was conducting an internal review of payments involving countries that may have been subject to U.S. sanctions, at the urging of the Manhattan District Attorney and other “American governmental authorities.” Deutsche Bank was a meeting sponsor and Credit Agricole was a partner at that year’s CGI meeting.
In December 2012, the Department of Justice and U.S. Treasury HSBC would pay $1.92 billion to settle allegations that the bank allowed drug cartels to launder billions of dollars and that the bank violated U.S. sanctions by illegally conducting transactions on behalf of customers in Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Burma.
It’s unclear whether HSBC or any of its subsidiaries gave to the foundation that year or prior, but records on the Foundation’s website that were recently updated indicate the bank contributed anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in 2014, when it was listed as a convening sponsor for that year’s CGI meeting, the highest level of support possible. [Link]
Hillary Bashes HSBC; Doesn’t Mention $81 Million Sent To Clinton Foundation From Secret HSBC Swiss Accounts; Doesn’t Return $2 Million In Fees And Donations To Clintons
By Eileen Mcgann On July 20, 2015
Hillary Clinton is shocked by the misconduct of many big banks and singled out HSBC for especially harsh criticism in her economic speech. She’s horrified about bank misconduct.
HSBC recently agreed to pay Swiss authorities $28 million for laundering money for sanctioned countries and drug cartels, as well as for helping wealthy clients conceal millions of dollars while advising them how to avoid taxes.
In December, 2012, HSBC paid a record $1.9 billion fine after a U.s. Department of Justice found the bank “violated federal laws by laundering money from Mexican drug trafficking and processing banned transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.”
So Hillary’s outrage is understandable. What’s not understandable is that the Clinton Foundation accepted a $500,000 contribution in 2014 – AFTER the settlement. And the money was never returned. Nor was the $1.5 million that the bank paid to Bill Clinton for speeches.
And Hillary never mentioned the $81 million in contributions that were routed through HSBC’s secret Swiss bank to the Clinton Foundation. [Link]
Jason Chaffetz We Hold Hillary Clinton’s Server Administrator In Contempt Of Court
Published on Sep 22, 2016
Jason Chaffetz Wants Bryan Pagliano Held In Contempt Of Court
The COKE Brothers! Bush & Clinton Linked Together in Drug Trade
Published on Sep 22, 2016
There is compelling evidence that suggests George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were once part of the largest drug smuggling operation in American history. Darrin McBreen and David Knight talk about the Bush and Clinton Crime Family connections with the CIA, Barry Seal, Oliver North and the Iran Contra Scandal.
Drug Trafficking And The Clinton Crime Family
Published on Sep 22, 2016
Why is the life and death of Baton Rouge, Louisiana born drug smuggler Barry Seal still relevant today? The revelations surrounding Seal’s involvement with the Vice Presidency of George H. Bush, the Arkansas Governorship of Bill Clinton, The DEA secret money laundering dealings and CIA Director William J. Casey shadow government of the United States paints a clear picture of the evolution of the current corruption that infests the highest of levels of government today.
News Channel 8 Reporter Theresa Dickie stumbled on what would become a goldmine of investigative journalism when she innocently went to report on what appeared to be a new initiative to bring good jobs to the people of Arkansas. To her surprise Theresa Dickie gradually uncovered a massive shadow government operation replete with illegal cargo plane modifications for drug running and money laundering that would have huge ties to the DEA. And in the center of that deliberate and illegal operation was Barry Seal a fearless drug smuggler and gunrunner for the DEA and the CIA.
After the Iran-Contra hearings detailed Oliver North’s diversion of funds to the Contras and all of the failed indictments to bring anyone to justice. President Bill Clinton denied any involvement in the clandestine Mena Operations. Regardless of the fact that it was Bill Clinton’s time as Arkansas’ Governor that oversaw the blocking of any funding or cooperation in an investigation into one of the largest drug and gun running and money laundering schemes America has ever witnessed. To this day the banks continue to launder the billion dollar drug cartel industry’s money. And when they are caught, they pay a fine and no one goes to prison. Corruption that has been normalized.
Trey Gowdy Finds Out Department Of Justice Has Been Covering Up Hillary Clinton’s Lies
Published on Sep 25, 2016
New FBI Docs Show that the department of justice have been covering up Hillary Clinton’s lies all along.
Hillary Funded By Saudi Arabia While Claiming She’s Tough On Terrorism: Debate Highlights
Hillary Admits She Wants To Confiscate American’s Guns With No Due Process
Published on Sep 26, 2016
Hillary Clinton admits she wants to take guns from people with no jury or no trial.
Crowd Applauds As Trump Calls Out Hillary On Deleted Emails: Debate Highlight
Published on Sep 26, 2016
Donald Trump is unrelenting, hitting Hillary Clinton on her scandals over and over, this time on her 33,000 deleted emails.
“Look people, the day of the first debate, the powers that be shut down Michael Savage’s affiliates when he started to speak about Hillary’s illnesses. We are living in a censoring tyrannical government like that of Communist Mikhail Gorbachev, the Baathist Saddam Hussein government, Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania, or the Peoples’ Republic of China. We should be shouting at the top of our lungs…The First Amendment of the Constitution is a God given unalienable right…the right to speak the truth as you see it.”
YouTube is set to ‘fight the trolls’ by giving an army of trolls the power to mass flag and delete content with which they disagree, opening the door to brazen political censorship in a move that has been slammed by numerous prominent YouTubers.
In a video posted this week, YouTube announced its “Heroes” program, which turns censorship into a game by allowing users to earn points and ascend to new levels. Once a user reaches the higher levels, they are given the power to report “inappropriate” videos, “mass flag” videos and delete comments.
The video features a cartoon portrayal of someone mass flagging videos for deletion via a dashboard.
The policy is so unpopular that it has received over 415,000 ‘thumbs down’ compared with just over 7,000 ‘thumbs up’. The backlash was so vitriolic that YouTube has disabled the comments on the video.
YouTube is apparently unaware of the fact that although censoring the Internet in countries like North Korea is tolerated, it’s extremely unpopular in the west.
YOUTUBE RECRUITS ARMIES OF TROLLS TO ENFORCE MEDIA SUPPRESSION
Published on Sep 23, 2016
Lee Ann McAdoo hosts the 4th hour of the Alex Jones show and discusses how the globalists use armies of trolls to shape public opinion.
ALEX JONES REPORTS:
MASSIVE CENSORSHIP OF SOCIAL MEDIA:
YOUTUBE’S SOCIALIST MILITARISTIC BRIGADES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS CALLED “HEROES”
“Football, beer… Filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.” —George Orwell
One day last week our family went to grab a bite to eat. We went to Maynards. We walked in, sat down, looked around and at a quick glance became angry with what we saw.
My family and I have been spent in ministry at every given moment of every given day over the last 20 years in service to God and man (1 John 5:2), and this is the people that we are serving and fighting for? The bar in the restaurant was full of grown men (the majority with their Viking jerseys with the name of their favorite player on their backs), partying it all away while watching the Minnesota Vikings’ game.
It was almost laughable if it were not so shameful (Jeremiah 6:15; 7:10).
A whopping 64,000 people were packed like sardines in the new US Bank Stadium. Eighty-six percent of these hypocrites that profess to be Christians cannot even name 3 of the 10 commandments (1 John 2:4).
Ticket sales ranged from $75.00 to $901.00 per ticket. As I said, 64,000 people jam packed that stadium, to watch a bunch of grown men, who feel that somehow or another it is a cool and an honorable thing to wear tights while bashing each other’s brains out while fighting over a pig ball (Jeremiah 8:5).
On the bleachers, you have men with their shirts off, painted in purple and yellow with Viking horns on their head giving up all dignity over a game that they will not be able to give you the score from in 3 weeks (Jeremiah 2:28; 11:13).
Somehow, the American people have deceived themselves into thinking that this is normal in a country that is being turned into hell (Psalm 9:17). Maybe they are just having fun, right? They are having fun while their country is being assailed from every front, both from without and from within.
I ask, is it honorable to live for idols while turning your back to those who fought, bled and died to give us the freedoms in which Americans enjoy? What a disgrace and a shame (2 Corinthians 5:15).
This also includes those who watch a man, who has practiced thousands of hours, hit a golf ball with a metal rod into a hole, or grown men hit a baseball with a piece of wood, or a little plastic hockey puck gets hit into a net by a fiberglass stick, or men will entertain themselves out of their blood-bought freedoms by watching cars drive in a circle over 500 times! Wow!
Furthermore, watch these hoodlum commentators, who sound like they are on a double shot of caffeine, react after a team scores. (Video is a must watch to get full effect)
During our family dinner, we also noticed that there were about 30 televisions round around us aimed at desensitizing and dumbing down the American people in hopes of them taking on an anti-Christ spirit (1 John 2:15-17).
During one commercial, there was a baby duck that was doused with oil from a broken oil rig on the coast. It went on to show the viewers that Dawn soap cared enough to care for these helpless animals (Proverbs 12:10), which within itself it was good. Yet, not when it takes precedent over human beings. As the next scene flashed up on the screen, there were seals and seagulls being released back into nature from their cages after having care given to them. It ended with the statement that Dawn had been “Saving wildlife for over 30 years.”
On the heels of that commercial came another commercial from MSNBC with their communist slogan “Forward.” The commercial showed some manatees washed up on shore while a group of people frantically tried to save these helpless mammals. At the end, it shows everyone with a sigh of relief that these mammals were spared and then released back to their natural habitat.
All of this is going on while America’s jihadists, who work for Planned Parenthood, are beheading, dissecting and even selling that which has been fearfully and wonderfully created by God (Psalm 139:14).
Wickedness, violence, and spoil are all at the feet of those who have forgotten that their love for God and country should be the ruling influence of their conduct (Matthew 22:36-40).
As a fountain casteth out her waters, so she casteth out her wickedness: violence and spoil are heard in her; before me continually is grief and wounds. Jeremiah 6:7
But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. Jeremiah 7:23
I ask, will not God be avenged on such a nation as this? Yes, He will be, and rightly so. To say otherwise, shows the lack of understanding concerning the character of a Just and Holy God (Jeremiah 9:24). Apparently, the American Church has failed in its mandate to convey to the world the message, “Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). Why? Because,
“Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.” Proverbs 28:5
What is it that makes God good in the sight of His church? It is the fact that He is a good Judge (Isaiah 26:9), and will not acquit the wicked (Nahum 1-7).
Who are the wicked? Those who know to do right and don’t do it.
Listen to Bradlee Dean on The Sons of Liberty Radio Here
Hit ABC comedy Modern Family will become the first television show to feature a transgender child actor in an episode slated to air this week.
In the eighth-season episode “A Stereotypical Day,” gay parents Cam (Eric Stonestreet) and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) invite their daughter Lily’s transgender friend Tom over for a playdate, according toVariety.
“Both parents are filled with pride that they have done well in raising an accepting and open-minded child. But that pride quickly diminishes when Lily insults her friend, which they use as a teachable moment,” the outlet reports of the episode’s synopsis.
Transgender actor Jackson Millarker, 8, will reportedly play Lily’s friend.
Transgender characters have increasingly appeared on television in recent years, though none have been played by a transgender child actor.
Perhaps the most famous transgender character on television is Transparent‘s Maura Pfefferman, played by male actor Jeffrey Tambor (who has won two Emmys and a Golden Globe for the role). Transgender actress Laverne Cox has played Sophia Burset in Netflix’s Orange is the New Black and is set to become the first transgender actress to play a transgender lead role in a television series when the CBS legal drama Doubt debuts this year.
Other transgender actors on television include 15-year-old Jazz Jennings, star of the TLC reality series I Am Jazz, and former Olympian-turned-reality TV star Bruce Jenner, whose reality series I Am Cait about his transition to become Caitlyn Jenner was recently cancelled by E!.
Modern Family‘s “A Stereotypical Day” airs Wednesday, September 28 on ABC.
DENVER, Co. —A graphic artist in Colorado has filed a preemptive lawsuit to challenge a state law that she says forbids her from turning down orders to create websites in favor of same-sex “marriage.”
Lorie Smith runs 303 Creative, where she creates custom websites for clients. Smith, who identifies as a Christian, believes that God has called her to “promote and celebrate His design for marriage by designing and creating custom wedding websites.” This would therefore not include designing websites pertaining to homosexual nuptials.
But Colorado law states that it is “unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”
Businesses are also prohibited from publishing or posting any information that advises their intent to refuse such accommodation. Smith had planned on outlining on her website why she could only accept site creation orders pertaining to the union of a man and a woman..
Smith is consequently concerned that the Colorado civil rights law both criminalizes her speech and forces her, against her convictions, to accept site creation orders related to same-sex “marriage.”
“If Lorie and 303 Creative were to convey their desired messages and decline to convey objectionable messages, they would face costly and onerous investigations, fines of up to $500 for each violation, and oppressive mandates—such as staff re-education training—that can themselves compel objectionable speech,” her complaint, filed on Tuesday by the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), outlines.
Smith is seeking a declaratory judgment that the Colorado civil rights law violates the free speech, free exercise and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as well as a preliminary and permanent injunction against its enforcement.
“Every American, including artists, should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of unjust punishment by the government,” remarked ADF Legal Counsel Samuel Green in a statement.
“Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean Colorado can require her to express all viewpoints,” he said. “It’s unlawful to force an artist to create against her will and intimidate her into silence just because the government disagrees with her beliefs.”
But Amanda Henderson, the executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, told the Denver Post that she doesn’t think Smith should be able to decline the custom site orders.
“Nobody should be turned away from a business or denied service simply because of who they are,” she remarked in a statement. “Allowing business owners to refuse service to customers whom they dislike, or disapprove, will open a can of worms and make it more difficult to enforce Colorado’s laws that ensure businesses are open to everyone.”
Smith says that she has received a number of hateful and vile messages following the filing of the suit.
“I am very sorry that some people are so intolerant of my beliefs—beliefs shared by many Jews, Muslims, Christians, and nonreligious people in this country and the throughout the world—as to harass you,” she has written on her business site. “If we disagree, we should be able to do so civilly. That is the mark of a healthy and free society.”
WESTON, Fla. – A Weston mother who refused to have her twins take the Common Core tests required to move up a grade celebrated after she took on the system – and won.
Brandy Paternoster has been fighting the school board and the state for months and took her case to court.
“We are proof that change can happen,” Paternoster said.
Paternoster’s twins, Jadyn and Dylan, were allowed to go the fourth grade at Manatee Bay Elementary after the school unlawfully retained them in the third grade when Paternoster opted them out of taking the controversial Florida Standards Assessment testing tied to national Common Core initiative.
“I never imagined that my refusal would snowball into my children being wrongfully retained or us being part of a lawsuit against the School Board of Broward County or the Florida Department of Education — but it did,” she said.
Paternoster was one of six plaintiffs across the state challenging the FSA tests in court.
Last month, a judge ruled that the school board acted unlawfully in retaining the children – harming them — and last week the board gave up the fight, allowing the twins, who had been home-schooled, to enter the fourth grade
“I want to the classrooms back to the teachers, I want my children to be able to learn real material every day instead of being taught a test,” Paternoster said.
Shafeza Moonab, of the Broward Teachers Union, couldn’t restrain her emotion. She has a third-grade daughter who is stressed by the test.
“It’s amazing, Brandy is a super hero and her kids are just absolutely amazing,” Moonab said.
Union President Anna Fusco called for more children to act.
“They don’t need to be forced to take an unnecessary test to show that their kids are proficient to move on to the next grade level,” Fusco said.
Pasternoster said the current testing practices do not “benefit our children and does nothing to benefit our teachers.”
“The current testing practices only serve to line the pockets of the testing companies and the bureaucrats,” she said.
The lawsuit regarding Common Core testing against the Florida Department of Education is far from being settled, officials said. The Broward School Board did not provide a comment for this story.
September 28, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
Hillary Lies
