EDUCATION BILLS SOLIDIFY FEDERAL CONTROL OF SCHOOLS & CHILDREN~CHARLOTTE ISERBYT SPEECH AT MAINE STATE HOUSE & COMMENTS ON PASSAGE OF BILLS

EDUCATION BILLS SOLIDIFY FEDERAL CONTROL OF SCHOOLS & CHILDREN
BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/21293-education-bills-solidify-federal-control-of-schools-childrenrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In brazen defiance of the enumerated powers listed in the U.S. Constitution that all lawmakers swore an oath to uphold, both houses of Congress passed massive “education” bills packed with attacks on real education, local control of schools, student and family privacy, and the rights of parents. Despite false campaign promises by Republicans to rein in the Obama administration, the legislation passed by the GOP majority purports to reauthorize a dizzying array of unconstitutional federal “education” schemes — including draconian tools Obama has lawlessly used to nationalize education through thehugely unpopular Common Core standards. The White House has already indicated that it supports the legislation and will sign it, but critics are up in arms.  
Perhaps the most important element of the legislation is that it reauthorizes the anti-constitutional Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — the primary mechanism used by Washington, D.C., to usurp control over education from parents and communities. In essence, the measure opened the floodgates of federal funding for government schools, and with those funds, which come with “strings” attached, D.C. politicians and bureaucrats formally launched their plan to federalize public schools. The ESEA scheme was amended and made even more draconian by the almost universally reviled “No Child Left Behind” Act, implemented by a coalition including Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush. That program was crucial in forcing states to impose a radical testing regime that was ultimately used to federalize what is taught in schools.   
Legal authorization for No Child Left Behind actually ended in 2008, yet Congress continues to appropriate funds for it. Just as importantly, the Obama administration continues to exploit the non-existent authority to usurp even more control over schools and the minds of children — offering “waivers” from the “mandates,” along with bribes, to state governments that agree to impose the Obama-backed Common Core regime.
In Ronald Reagan’s day, abolishing the federal role in education was the Republican position. By contrast, the GOP majority in Congress today seems determined to expand that giant D.C. boot print, as is shown clearly by the “education” bills, which further empower Obama. The latest bills even purport to legitimize the White House’s previous usurpations of power in violation of the law.
Ironically, much of the present Republican establishment’s rhetoric focused on pretending that the legislation would “give” states authorities and “flexibility” on education — powers the states already had and still have under the U.S. Constitution and the 10th Amendment, and powers that are not the federal government’s to “give” in the first place. “The needs of a student in eastern Kentucky aren’t likely to be the same as those of students in south Florida or downtown Manhattan,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on the Senate floor. “This bill would give states the flexibility to develop systems that work for the needs of their students, rather than the one-size-fits-all mandate of Washington.”   
Of course, Washington has no authority to “mandate” anything on education, because the states never delegated any power to Washington over education in the U.S. Constitution. That means the 10th Amendment specifically prohibits any federal involvement in education at all, and especially purported “mandates.” To anti-constitutional politicians in Washington, though, the Constitution they all swore to uphold and defend apparently means nothing — assuming, of course, that they have even read it.
Regardless, the bills that advanced in Congress would expand controls and federal funding for “charter” schools, unleash intrusive bureaucracies seeking insight into your child’s mind via psychological and psychiatric testing, push to get even younger children in government hands, and much more.    
On July 16, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed S. 1177, more commonly referred to as the “Every Child Achieves Act” (ECAA). Just 17 senators, mostly conservative- or libertarian-leaning Republicans, voted against the bill. Before that, on July 9, the U.S. House narrowly approved the “Student Success Act,” described by American Principles Project Education Executive Director Emmett McGroarty as “one of the most far-reaching pieces of domestic legislation.” Now, the massive, radical bills go to conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions so a final package can be sent to Obama to be signed into law.
The White House is pleased and plans to sign it, despite Congress not giving the administration the full range of powers it was demanding. “S. 1177, the Every Child Achieves Act, is an important step forward in the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB),” the White House said in a statement. “The Administration appreciates the bipartisan effort that produced this legislation.” The White House also said it “applauds the bipartisan commitment in S. 1177 to expand opportunities for America’s children to attend high-quality preschool.”
Critics, though, are raging against the legislation. Liberty-minded Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.), for example, said in a statement that he was honored to stand up for parental rights by voting against it. “The bill increases federal control of education,” he explained, noting that the bill reauthorizes the lapsed No Child Left Behind scheming, with some modifications, for the first time in years, and that Congress should instead simply stop funding it all. He pointed out that the key selling points being touted by Republicans to advance the bill — that it “prohibits” using funds to coerce states on Common Core and that it allows parents to “opt out” of federal testing mandates — would both be accomplished by voting no on the bill. The Senate version does not include the “opt out” provision, which was voted down.  
In the Senate, liberty-minded Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) also blasted the federal control over education purportedly authorized in the bill. “Not only did the Senate miss an opportunity to put states back in control of education policy, but the Every Child Achieves Act also expands the Department of Education’s role in early education policies,” he said in a statement. “Some have argued that this bill creates new protections for states who want to resist Washington dictates on curriculum or testing. But current law already includes similar protections and the Obama administration has already blatantly ignored those.… Utah parents have been asking for a new direction on education, but unfortunately this bill only gives them more of the same.”
In one of the broadest widely circulated criticisms of key elements of the legislation, education activist Christel Swasey outlined six specific “evil” elements of the bill — any single one of which should have been enough to quash the bill, at least if lawmakers were serious about their oath of office, the Constitution, or the wishes of their constituents. Among the chief complaints, which she lists along with the relevant sections of the legislation, are: “The bill aims to kill parental rights in the parental opt-out movement”; “The bill’s master-servant relationship between Fed Ed and State Ed is unconstitutional”; “The bill will suppress student expression of religious and political values”; “The bill sees government, not families, at the center of the universe — for younger and younger people, for more and more of the time”; “The bill promotes federal definitions of mental health and promotes collection of mental health data”; and “Toddler Snatching.”
“In my own mind I have given all its versions this name: Nasty Orwellian Progressive Education (NOPE) — a convenient, more honest, and recyclable title,” Swasey wrote in the Education Without Representation blog in her analysis of the 800-page Senate version of the legislation. “The hide and seek that readers must wield with the real purposes and powers of this bill is ridiculous. Clearly, the authors of S.1177 aim to obscure its true purposes, which I now see only serve the Obama-UN agenda for education. The media’s calling S.1177 ‘a bipartisan compromise’ but that’s far from true. It’s all part of the Common Core bipartisan profiteering scheme that aligns federal tests and standards, but elbows out parents and voters.… The power struggle is no longer between the Republicans and the Democrats. Bipartisan means almost nothing. The fight is between voting families — We the People, whether Democratic, Republican or other — versus the clique of profiteering businessmen and politicians.”   
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America author Charlotte Iserbyt, also a former senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of Education, sounded the alarm on the charter-school component of the legislation. Blasting as the “huge elephant in the Senate and House chambers” the agenda behind tax-funded school-choice and charter-schools, which do not have elected boards yet use public funds, Iserbyt said the real goal was to prepare Americans for global tyranny. “HR 5 and S. 117 are not education bills. They are communist limited learning for lifelong labor bills,” she said, citing a wide array of publications on the issue going back generations. “We need people to start using proper adjectives, and then we will start winning,” she told The New American in a phone interview. “This is communism.” Indeed, more than a few foreign governments have used exactly the same strategy — tax funding for supposedly non-government schools — to usurp full control of education and quash all available alternatives. Even homeschoolers will be impacted, Iserbyt said.   
By stuffing the radical bill with handouts and benefits for special-interest groups with powerful lobbyists — and especially tax-funded “charter” schools and crony-capitalist testing mega-companies — proponents of the agenda to federalize schools and further dumb down Americans have made great progress. The agenda is clear: D.C. wants to decide what your children learn and how they learn it, at younger and younger ages, and it wants to know every detail about your child’s views, attitudes, psychological profile, and beliefs so “interventions” can change them. The agenda to shower crony special interests with public funds is transparent, too, and should be firmly resisted — especially considering that the federal government is already drowning the American people in impossible-to-pay debt.   
Republicans ran on a platform of reining in the White House, and yet, these education bills hand the administration virtually everything it wants — and then some — all in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of passing a “compromise” bill once the House and Senate versions are put together, members of Congress should obey their oath of office and get the federal government completely out of education. That can happen by stopping all funding for federal education bureaucracies and programs — no bill is even needed, so Obama cannot veto it. At the state level, meanwhile, activists concerned with proper education should ensure that state and local officials refuse federal bribes and the mandates attached to them. They should also work to abolish state education agencies, as well. Not only do those federally funded bureaucracies serve as conduits for federal mandates to be imposed on local schools, they also usurp communities’ rights to self-government and to provide real education without external meddling. The federal government and its allies have done enough to destroy education. It is time for real change — and real education.
 Related articles:
Common Core: People vs. Big Government, Big Business, and Billionaires
___________________________________________________________

CHARLOTTE ISERBYT’S STATEMENT 

ON S1177 PASSAGE

SEE: https://ratherexposethem.org/2015/07/charlotte-iserbyts-statement-on-s1177.htmlrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
#NoWayESEA

CHARLOTTE ISERBYT’S WARNING ON S1177 PASSAGE 7-18-15

Charlotte Iserbyt’s Warning On S1177 Passage

http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Iserbyt_071715.mp3

All information regarding this bill is at abcsofdumbdown.blogspot.com (the last two posts) and at Rense.com, scroll to “America’s Tragedy” and “Death of Local Control”.  

S1177, the Every Child Achieves Act, received 81 yes votes, 17 no votes, and 2 not voting.

The following Senators voted NO:  Blunt, R/ MO; Booker, D/ NJ; Crapo, R/ID; Cruz, R/TX; Daines, R/MT; Flake, R/AZ; Lee, R/UT; Moran, R/KS; Murphy, D/CT; Paul, R/KY; Riseh, R/ID; Rubio, R/FL; Sasse, R/NE; Scott, R/SC; Shelby, R/AL; Vitter, R/LA; Warren, D/MA; NOT voting were Graham, R/SC, Nelson, D/FL.

We should thank those voting NO since S1177 is NOT an education bill.          

We should also thank the thousands of grassroots Americans who did everything possible to get a NO vote on both Rep. Kline’s HR5 and Sen. Alexander’s S1177 legislation.  We almost killed HR 5; lost by 5 votes.  
I personally, for the grassroots, want to thank Jeff Rense for allowing the grassroots NO WAY ESEA message to get out.Without Jeff, we would never have come so close to defeating HR 5.  

 HR 5 and S1177 ARE NOT EDUCATION BILLS. THEY ARE COMMUNIST LIMITED LEARNING FOR LIFELONG LABOR BILLS! which originated in  Carnegie Corp. books (1934), in the United Nations, UNESCO and the Office of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.   They are part of UN Agenda 21.

The global workforce training agenda was resurrected during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, later supported by Clinton and Bush,Jr. and now Obama.  Workforce training is a major part of the world government/UNAgenda 21 plan.
As C.S. Lewis said:  When training beats education civilization dies.

The goal is to use the world’s children to spin off profits for the global elite.
This international workforce training agenda is for ALL children on this planet.
Homeschooled children are targetted in  original New American School Development Corp  documents related to charter schools.  

This agenda is supported by the national and international chambers of commerce, the CFR, the multinational corporations, both political parties at the top,  the leadership of teachers unions (not teachers) and neoconservative organizations.  The Archbishop of Omaha, Nebraska, George . bishop, Chairman, Committee on Catholic education, an address to House of Representatives, and in a letter dated 2/23/15, recommended passage of  Republican Rep. Kline’s HR 5, the Student Success Act.  Other Protestant religious groups, etc. have expressed support for these bills.

The National Alliance of Business in the nineties called for Kindergarten-Age 80 workforce training and community service.

S1177 includes, aside from workforce training, a heavy emphasis on  Communist Core Marxist curriculum and testing. THE TRADITIONAL ACADEMIC CURRICULUM HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 10% OF WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS.  I BELIEVE THE COMMON CORE IS THE LATE UN UNDERSECRETARY ROBERT MULLER’S WORLD CORE (NEW AGE) CURRICULUM. 

S1177  includes provision of all community services (lifelong), especially mental health services (brainwashing for correct political values) birth through death, and “Soviet-style” early childhood education,  under the unelected school superintendent.  These hub of community schools are going in all over the country.    They are Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes A village to Raise a Child” philosophy. Google Georgia Visions.

S1177 includes extensive privacy-invading data collection related to Communist Core Assessment/mental health remediation.  This data will be used for employment and other purposes. 

The unelected council form of government (regionalism/communism) is a requirement.  The call for tax-funded school choice and charters with unelected boards is found throughout S1177.   
Tax-funded school choice and charters without elected school boards are necessary for the workforce plan to be implemented.  
Tax-funded school choice and charters are also international and are found all over the world.

The call is also being made, in other prominent circles, (Marc Tucker, Carnegie)  to move education funding from the local property tax to the state level to be administered by unelected council, and to get rid of locally elected school boards; recommendation to move decision making to the state level.

STATE EDUCATION CONTROL IS MORE DANGEROUS NOW THAN FEDERAL CONTROL.   HR. 5 AND S1177 ARE BOTH ABOUT GIVING POWER TO THE STATE DEPTS OF EDUCATION, UNELECTED WORKFORCE TRAINING BOARDS AND  COMMISSIONS.   THIS MAKES MUCH SENSE IF EDUCATION IS NO LONGER EDUCATION, BUT IS WORKFORCE TRAINING WHICH HAS TO BE MANAGED FROM THE STATE LEVEL WITH COOPERATION OF CORPORATIONS AND UNELECTED COUNCILS.

Neoconservative organizations withheld their opposition to HR 5 and S1177 until the very last minute when they felt the bills might be killed.  Their coming on board at last minute was simply to take credit for killing them.  HR 5 passed by only 5 votes!!!!!!!I understand the same neoconservative organizations that did not oppose HR5 and S1177 until the very last minute are planning a campaign to abolish the U.S. Dept. of Education. 

Why now when the federal Dept. of Education, after 35 years, has accomplished its job of funding and controlling all the State Depts of Education?   Where were these groups in the early 80s when Reagan was supposed to abolish the Department of Education?  Why now when most power has been shifted to the states? 

DO NOT RESPOND TO THEIR SLICK PLEAS FOR DONATIONS TO BRING DOWN THE U.S. DEPT. OF EDUCATION.
Here is a partial list of neocon groups:   Heritage, Eagle Forum, Heartland, Freedom Works, American Principles, Women on the Wall, Pioneer, et al.  Many of them funded by the Koch Brothers.  These are Trotskyite organizations.   Trotsky was a communist, not a conservative.          

Americans must cease their affiliation with and financial support for the neoconservative organizations that support tax-funded school choice and charter schools with unelected boards and the school-to-work agenda.  Concerned Americans must work as individuals, NOT in a group that can be infiltrated.  That does not mean you cannot have a very loose knit organization that cannot be identified.  Please contact me for help on this score.

Concerned Americans should  focus instead on getting legislation passed in their states to abolish their State Departments of Education which have been financially and politically enabled since 1965.  They take their orders from the Carnegie Corporation, the National Governors Association,  the Education Commission of the States, and many other lesser known associations.  

LOCAL CONTROL IS NOT STATE CONTROL.    SENATE HEARINGS ON S1177 INCLUDED MULTIPLE COMMENTS FROM SENATORS TO EFFECT POWER MUST BE RETURNED TO THE STATE LEVEL.  STATE LEVEL IS NOT LOCAL LEVEL.          

KEEP IT THAT WAY.  GET LEGISLATION PASSED IN YOUR STATES TO ABOLISH YOUR STATE’S DEPT. OF EDUCATION!!!!

KEEP EDUCATION AT THE LOCAL, LOCAL LEVEL WITH  ELECTED BOARDS AND FUNDING THROUGH THE PROPERTY TAX.

AMERICA HAS LOST HER CONSCIENCE 

RED ALERT RED ALERT RED ALERT #8 

WAKE UP HOMESCHOOLERS: THEY’RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN !!! 
____________________________________________________________
CHARLOTTE ISERBYT SPEAKS 
AT MAINE STATE HOUSE
FEBRUARY 17, 2015
Published on Mar 1, 2015
Videographer: Hal Shurtleff

AUGUSTA, ME– Charlotte Iserbyt speaks at the Maine State House on the dangers of the Article V Convention of States (con con) and touches upon HR5 legislation, which is the reauthorization of ESEA and continuation of the federal takeover of education. February 17, 2015

H.R. 5 does not enable states to completely opt out of the programs that fall under No Child Left Behind. The bill does not include language that would allow states to opt out of all the programs that fall under NCLB, along with the law’s mandates, and utilize those dollars for any lawful education purpose under state law.

H.R. 5 does not eliminate programs or reduce spending. The bill consolidates more than 65 programs into a Local Academic Flexible Grant, which requires states to submit detailed documentation, follow prescriptive rules, and comply with onerous reporting requirements. This is not a block grant. Furthermore, H.R. 5 does not appreciably reduce spending in relation what was actually spent.

H.R. 5 does not eliminate all the burdensome federal mandates. Although the proposal wisely eliminates counterproductive and prescriptive Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) mandates, H.R. 5 maintains the current NCLB mandates for states to establish standards in reading and math and to test kids annually between grades 3-8 and once in high school. H.R. 5 orders that academic achievement standards “include the same knowledge, skills, and levels of achievement expected of all public school students in the state.” States must also use “the same academic assessments…to measure the academic achievement of all public school students in the state.” Taken together, these twin mandates direct the state to establish a single uniform assessment, limiting the ability of local schools to determine their own curriculum.

H.R. 5 does not provide states the option of full Title 1 portability. H.R. 5 provides increased portability, but only to public schools and public charter schools. Adequate portability would extend to private schools of choice, if a state chose.

Source: Heritage Action
http://heritageaction.com/key-votes/n…

Lobbying against the ESEA reauthorization:
http://abcsofdumbdown.blogspot.com/20…


ATF & FBI GUN GRABBERS PREY ON VETS, ELDERLY~POLICE “WELLNESS CHECKS” (RAIDS) TRIGGERED BY YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS CREATE AN EXCUSE TO ILLEGALLY ENTER YOUR HOME


Government Gun Grabbers Prey on Vets and Elderly;
Threats Made Against Military Recruitment Centers Across America
YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS WILL BE USED TO RAID YOUR HOME & SEIZE YOUR GUNS
BEWARE OF POLICE “WELLNESS CHECKS”

Published on Jul 22, 2015
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is involved in a government effort to disarm America’s veterans and seniors who may lack the capacity to manage their finances.

And it’s not just veterans facing this scrutiny: now it’s anybody who gets Social Security.

New documents obtained by The Daily Caller reveal that ATF, a division of the Department of Justice, is working with the FBI and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to enter veterans who get VA benefits into the government’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

UN Calls for RFID Chips and Biometric Tracking of Guns and Ammo

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

At a recent meeting of government representatives of nations participating in the United Nations’ Programme of Action (POA), the focus was on tracking of civilian weapons, component parts, and ammunition, and how the United States should spend more money helping foreign countries accomplish those goals.
At the Second Meeting of Governmental Experts (MGE2) held at the UN headquarters in Manhattan, the globalists discussed a couple of agenda items that should give pause to Americans.
First, the delegates at the MGE2 deliberated on how to eliminate the threat of technologically advanced weapons, including so-called polymer firearms and 3D printed guns, as well as the tracking of materials used in the “craft-production of small arms and light weapons.” 
Not surprisingly, the representative from China called for increased UN-mandated regulations on 3D printers and the weapons they produce.
In the Chair’s Summary, the group united in a call for “strengthening 3D printing regulations in the context of 3D weapon printing,” for “ensuring export licenses [are] in place for 3D printers,” for drawing global attention to “the need to pay attention to the resale of such printers,” and for “strengthening controls over 3D printing technology.”
No one is shocked, of course, that the globalists at the UN want to draw up comprehensive plans to take guns — any and every variety of gun — out of the hands of civilians.
After discussing similar strategies to lock down the manufacture, purchase, sale, and transfer of polymer weapons and modular weapons, the next item on the MGE2 attendees’ agenda warrants an immediate withdrawal of the United States from the world body.
Paragraph 33 of the Chair’s Summary of the meeting calls for urgent tracking of civilian-owned firearms, recommending that manufacturers be forced by the UN to install “RFID and biometric technologies in limiting the access to the weapon to authorized users only,” with authorized users defined as state actors (UN member nations).
That’s right. As part of the Programme of Action (the foundation upon which the Arms Trade Treaty is built), the United States has committed to passing legislation that will require domestic firearms and ammunition manufacturers to equip their products with RFID chips and biometric technologies that will help the government slowly but surely disarm civilians.
That’s not all. At the end of that paragraph, the UN suggests states (member countries) look into combining RFID chips, biometrics, with GPS tracking technologies to be sure to prevent regular people from getting their hands on guns.
Next, in the overview of the published summary of the conference, the UN looks to one source to help pay for the implementation of these new disarmament policies: increased foreign aid.
Specifically, the unelected, unaccountable UN globocrats call for greater “international cooperation and assistance” (read: American taxpayer dollars) to offset the massive cost of the “transfer of technology and knowledge” necessary to make the proposed gun grab a reality.
It should be noted that Paragraph 42 of the summary proposes funding this fascism “through the UN regular budget,” 22 percent of which is paid by the United States, through a process that can be described as nothing less than legalized theft of the wealth of the American worker.
As if the point was already made, the document calls for the cultivating of a “culture of peace,” which is certainly shorthand for flooding the United States with UN-created propaganda linking the civilian ownership of firearms with homicide and other violent crimes. 
In the wake of the horrific Chattanooga murders, it doesn’t take too much foresight to predict a panoply of renewed calls for controlling and regulating civilian access to firearms.
Finally, according to the text of the latest draft of the agreement, the POA will serve as an “international instrument to enable states to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner,” the small arms and light weapons that are the subject of the scheme.
In practice, this means that the governments of member nations (including the United States) will soon create a massive, all-inclusive database of all parties that manufacture, own, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition.
If recent history is a reliable indicator of how such data would be used, after the catalog is complete, Congress could pass a law (or the president could issue an executive order) compelling “voluntary” surrender of privately-owned weapons, ammo, parts, and components (including reloading equipment). If, after a statutorily-set window, citizens don’t turn in these items to their local law enforcement, then officers will be sent to remind violators of their responsibility under the law to disarm.
Paragraph 32 of the Chair’s Summary lays out the plan for “real-time tracking” of firearms and ammunition “from manufacturer to storage and from storage up to the individual users.” 
Once the governments of the member nations begin tracking and confiscating weapons from civilians, the Programme of Action (paragraphs 30 and 31) mandates that member governments take “direct control over transfers of small arms and light weapons.” 
This control will require the federal government to begin stockpiling these items and making a database of the recently impounded guns, bullets, 3D printers, plastics, polymers, and component parts.
This database must include "the marking, record-keeping and tracing of weapons, and in this regard considered barcodes, radio frequency identification (RFID) and biometrics for purposes of electronically identifying stored items, collecting data on them and enabling the data to be entered automatically into record-keeping systems."
It is evident from a reading of this latest UN disarmament publication that despite the rhetoric related to ”promotion of a culture of peace,” there are only two reasons the UN is making every effort to disarm the population of the United States: to weaken our sovereignty, and to take from our people their ability to resist those despots (at home and abroad) who would place us under the boot of tyranny and demote us to the ranks of slaves on a “sustainable” global plantation.
The next round of meetings for hammering out the details of the Programme of Action is scheduled for 2016. That gives Americans almost one year to convince their representatives in Congress to pass legislation defunding the UN and forcing the world-government-in-waiting to relocate to a more hospitable home.
Americans interested in joining this fight are encouraged to look into The John Birch Society (JBS). For nearly four decades, the JBS has worked to “Get US out of the UN.” Therefore, the group is uniquely equipped with the resources necessary to finally achieve this urgent aim.

SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS: ALL GUNS WILL BE TAKEN!~BIG BROTHER BARACK WANTS YOU IN A RACE DATABASE TO DETERMINE RACIAL DISPARITIES

Social Security Recipients!
All Guns Will Be Taken! Disabled, Mentally Ill, Troubled, Just Too Old? You Must Surrender Them!

Published on Jul 22, 2015
With the clock ticking on 18 months left in his Presidency, President Obama is determined to cause considerable damage to the second amendment rights of the good citizens of the United States before he leaves office.

The LA Times reported, “The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others. A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

Roughly 4.2 million will be dropped into the same database system that the Veterans Administration is using to come and take it.
Determining whether someone is unfit to carry a gun will be open to sloppy interpretation as it could include those who don’t pose a danger to anyone, but may not be able to remember names quickly or balance their checkbook.

Data bases are being created on every red blooded American whether you own a firearm or not.

The New York Post reported, “Unbeknownst to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.”

While our borders are wide open and we are increasingly under attack by foreign and domestic terrorism. Not by Veterans or Grandpa protecting his small piece of the American pie. But by radicalized muslim extremists and pharmaceutical induced psychotic Americans. Obama wants our guns? I can’t think of a time when Americans needed them more. And according to the recent explosion of gun sales, neither can Americans.

________________________________________________________
DETERMINING RACIAL DISPARITIES
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD FAILS THE INTEGRATION SCORE


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK CALLS FOR PREEMPTIVE CAMP INTERNMENT OF AMERICAN “WOULD BE” RADICALIZED TERRORISTS EVEN BEFORE ANY ANTI-AMERICAN ACTS ARE COMMITTED~NO MENTION OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THOUGH

YOU FIT THE PROFILE OF A WOULD BE RADICALIZED TERRORIST, AND YOU WILL BE INDEFINITELY HOUSED AT A CAMP BUILT JUST FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU

MODELED AFTER THE WORLD WAR II CAMPS FOR JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS

General Clark Calls for WWII-type Internment Camps for U.S. Citizens

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“If these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right, and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.”
Thus spoke retired General Wesley Clark, a former Democratic Party presidential candidate, in an interview on MSNBC this past Friday.
Back in 2004, Clark, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, was harshly critical of what he considered the Bush administration's excessive response to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
But since then, he has drastically altered his position, now strongly supporting the use of domestic internment camps, specifically citing those where Americans of Japanese ancestry were sent during World War II. (There were also camps for Germans and Italians, but in much smaller numbers.)
While many would have agreed with Clark's earlier assessment that Bush went too far in his reaction to the 9/11 attacks, citing actions such as the PATRIOT Act’s reduction of civil liberties, Bush never suggested anything nearly as sweeping as that now proposed by Clark.
One can certainly understand arresting, trying, and incarcerating any person conspiring to commit acts of violence inside the United States; however, Clark’s proposal is chilling to constitutionalists. He is advocating going after those who are not only not involved in a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, but who have not even yet been radicalized. “We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized," he asserted. "We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning."
“I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists,” Clark added.
Americans are understandably concerned about Islamic terrorism. Those who either commit  or conspire to commit acts of violence should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the idea of sending to internment camps those who might become radicalized, and might conspire to commit violence is absolutely chilling.
Once such a precedent has been set, who might the next target of the federal government be? The Obama administration considers members of patriotic organizations such as The John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, and the Tea Party to be extremists. Some even regard pro-lifers or evangelical Christians as “radicals.”
Who would decide which individuals would be sent to these internment camps? During World War II — Clark’s model — it was one man: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, commanding that Japanese Americans be relocated away from the West Coast and into internment camps — without any due process, proof of disloyalty, or regard to American citizenship. This draconian policy led to the eventual incarceration of over 100,000 people, 62 percent of whom were U.S. citizens.
After Japan's “Meiji Restoration” in 1868, in which Emperor Meiji wrested power back from the warlords and began the modernization and industrialization of his country, many Japanese had taken advantage of the opportunity to emigrate to the United States.
In 1936, as relations between the United States and Japan were souring, Roosevelt directed the Office of Naval Intelligence to create a list of “those who would be the first to be placed in concentration camps in the event of trouble” between Japan and the United States.
However, as the two nations moved closer to war, Charles Munson of Naval Intelligence delivered a report on November 7, 1941, that “certified a remarkable, even extraordinary degree of loyalty among this generally suspect ethnic group.” FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover supported Munson’s findings, contending to Roosevelt that the Japanese posed no espionage threat.
Despite this, FDR issued his order and appointed Lt. General John DeWitt, head of Western Command, the administrator of the internment program. “A Jap’s a Jap,” DeWitt explained, when reporters queried him about “loyal” Americans who just happened to have Japanese ancestry. DeWitt told Congress, “I don’t want any of them here. They are a dangerous element.... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen; he is still a Japanese.... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.”
The attorney general of California — Earl Warren, later the chief justice of the Supreme Court — argued for the federal government to remove all Japanese from the West Coast. On February 2, 1942, the Los Angeles Timeseven editorialized of those Americans of Japanese ancestry, “A viper is nonetheless a viper, wherever the egg is hatched.”
Some of the interned Japanese chose to join the U.S. armed forces, ironically to “fight for liberty,” and were sent to the European theater. The bulk of them fought in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which emerged from the war as the most highly decorated U.S. military unit of its size, earning the nickname “the Purple Heart division.” Historian John Toland tells the story of an American prisoner of war who witnessed a battle between Germans and the 442nd. When a German soldier expressed to him surprise that they were having to fight Japanese, the American soldier advised the German that he'd been taken in by Hitler’s propaganda. The Japanese, he informed the German, are really on “our side.”
While the 442nd fought for America, most Americans of Japanese blood languished in the camps, which were cramped, with little room for privacy. One camp in Wyoming even had unpartitioned toilets. As the war progressed, conditions did improve in the camps, and life went on, with schools, such as they were, activities, including baseball games, and the like.
Eventually it became obvious that the incarceration had no good purpose; however, FDR opted to delay the release of the interned prisoners until January of 1945, so as not to endanger his reelection chances in 1944. In this decision he ignored the advice of both FBI Director Hoover and War Relocation Authority (WRA) director Dillon Myer that the internment should end in 1944.
The WWII internment camps are just what General Clark has in mind as a model for today. And he is not alone. Prominent neoconservative Daniel Pipes has called internment “a good idea” which offers “lessons for today.” And Michelle Malkin, in her book In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, was blunt, declaring: “Civil liberties are not sacrosanct.”
Despite the clear protections of civil liberties in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in 1944 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of Korematsu v. the United States that the internment camps did not violate the Constitution.
Former Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark, who assisted the U.S. Department of Justice in effecting the “relocation” of the Japanese, addressed this issue in the epilogue of his 1992 book, Executive Order 9066: The Internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans:
The truth is — as this deplorable experience proves — that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves.... Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment’s command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of the constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066.
The actual “lesson for us today” is not that we need to reimplement internment camps, but rather that all American citizens must develop a renewed respect for the protection of their civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

ANOTHER STING VIDEO OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD NEGOTIATING FOR INFANT BODY PARTS

PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S MEDICAL DIRECTORS’ COUNCIL PRESIDENT

MSNBC SHILLS FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD AS SECOND DAMNING VIDEO IS RELEASED

Footage shows official haggling over price of baby body parts; jokes about buying a Lamborghini with profits
BY STEVE WATSON
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-shills-for-planned-parenthood-as-second-damning-video-is-released/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A second sting video has been released showing a Planned Parenthood official haggling over the price of aborted baby tissue and body parts. During the gruesome conversation, Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, even ‘jokes’ that she wishes to buy a Lamborghini with the profits.

“WHAT ARE YOU USED TO PAYING?”

Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods

INFOWARS ARTICLE CONTINUED BELOW VIDEO NOTES:
______________________________________________________
Published on Jul 21, 2015
EMBARGOED UNTIL 8:00 AM ET, 21 JULY 2015

#PPSellsBabyParts SECOND PLANNED PARENTHOOD SENIOR EXECUTIVE HAGGLES OVER BABY PARTS PRICES, CHANGES ABORTION METHODS
President of PPFA Medical Directors’ Council Mary Gatter Doesn’t Want to “Lowball” Price, Suggests “Less Crunchy” Technique, Says She Wants a Lamborghini

Contact: David Daleiden, david@centerformedicalprogress.org, 949.734.0859

LOS ANGELES, July 21—A second undercover video shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

It is similar to last week’s viral video showing PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola admitting to using partial-birth abortions to get intact parts and suggesting a price range of $30 to $100 per specimen.

Gatter is a senior official within Planned Parenthood and is President of the Medical Directors’ Council, the central committee of all Planned Parenthood affiliate medical directors.

Actors posing as buyers ask Gatter, “What would you expect for intact [fetal] tissue?”

“Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying!” Gatter replies.

Gatter continues: “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?” She explains, “I just don’t want to lowball,” before suggesting, “$75 a specimen.”

Gatter twice recites Planned Parenthood messaging on fetal tissue collection, “We’re not in it for the money,” and “The money is not the important thing,” but she immediately qualifies each statement with, respectively, “But what were you thinking of?” and, “But it has to be big enough that it’s worthwhile for me.”

Gatter also admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost: “It was logistically very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. So there was compensation for this.” She accepts a higher price of $100 per specimen understanding that it will be only for high-quality fetal organs: “Now, this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that someone volunteers and you can’t find anything, right?”

By the lunch’s end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Gatter also suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses: “I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen.”

Gatter seems aware this violates rules governing tissue collection, but disregards them: “To me, that’s kind of a specious little argument.” Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

The video, like last week’s featuring Dr. Nucatola, was produced by The Center for Medical Progress and is part of CMP’s nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study, “Human Capital.”

CMP’s Project Lead David Daleiden notes, “Planned Parenthood’s top leadership admits they harvest aborted baby parts and receive payments for this. Planned Parenthood’s only denial is that they make money off of baby parts, but that is a desperate lie that becomes more and more untenable as CMP reveals Planned Parenthood’s business operations and statements that prove otherwise.”

Seven State Governments have opened investigations into Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts, as have three Congressional Committees. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has called PPFA’s Senior Director of Medical Services to testify this month about the organization’s fetal tissue harvesting.

###

See the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_…

Tweet: #PPSellsBabyParts

For more information on the Human Capital project, visit centerformedicalprogress.org.
The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.
________________________________________________________________
INFOWARS ARTICLE CONTINUED:
If you wrote a horror script where abortionists haggle over baby body part prices over wine and Lamborghini talk, nobody would believe it.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 21, 2015
The footage, released by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, sees Gatter literally haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens.
Gatter also promises to talk a surgeon and see how he feels about “using a less crunchy technique to get more whole specimens.”
Gatter is seen asking a CMP member posing as a “buyer” what amount they usually pay for aborted tissue.
“We’re not in it for the money,” Dr. Gatter says. “We don’t want to be in a position of being accused of selling tissue and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space and all that kind of stuff. So what were you thinking about?”
Eventually Gatter suggests that $75 per specimen is a fair price. The CMP actor replies, “Oh. That’s way too low.”
“The money is not the important thing for me,” but it has to be enough so it’s worthwhile, she says.
“It’s been years since I’ve talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up,” Gatter says, adding “I want a Lamborghini,” while cackling with laughter.
“Planned Parenthood’s only denial is that they make money off of baby parts, but that is a desperate lie that becomes more and more untenable as CMP reveals Planned Parenthood’s business operations and statements that prove otherwise,” said CMP’s Project Lead David Daleiden in a statement.
Planned Parenthood were aware that the video was going to be released this time, and had already set about damage control by providing scripts to their corporate media mouthpieces.
MSNBC was reporting for hours before the footage was released that a new “racially-charged” video is coming.
Using exactly the same talking points as Planned Parenthood did in a senior counsel statement to a congressional request, MSNBC reported:
Planned Parenthood, under fire for a heavily-edited video suggesting the organization violated federal law in facilitating the donation of fetal tissue, says it believes future videos may make racially-charged claims. The health provider and advocacy group also says the anti-abortion group posing as a medical research procurement company may have had access to the inside of its clinics, jeopardizing “our patients’ privacy and dignity.”
Twitter responded by calling out MSNBC for repeating Planned parenthood’s script as “news”.
It remains to be seen how MSNBC will spin the Lamborghini comments.
In a desperate attempt at damage control, Planned Parenthood is also claiming that CMP obtained the footage “illegally” as part of a decades-old illegal smear campaign.
“From all that is known today, it appears that the only people who have broken laws are the extremists who have been hounding women and Planned Parenthood doctors for years,” said Roger Evans, the organization’s senior counsel, in a meeting with House Republicans on Monday.
Evans also accused CMP head David Daleiden of “attacks” on Planned Parenthood and of using “a false California driver’s license in gaining access to Planned Parenthood facilities.”
Planned Parenthood claims that obtaining fetal tissue from abortions is vital for conducting medical and scientific research. However, Pediatric neurosurgeon and GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson noted this week that the claim is “spurious.”
“There’s nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue,” Carson said on Fox News Channel’s The Kelly File. “[I]t’s been over-promised what the benefits of fetal research would be. And very much under-delivered.”
______________________________________________________________________

Illegal Abortionist Activity Exposed

ROGER EVANS, SENIOR COUNSEL, PLANNED PARENTHOOD:

Senator Lankford Speaks about the Planned Parenthood Video on the Senate Floor

BABY PARTS ARE HUMAN, BUT THE WHOLE BABY IS JUST TISSUE?

26 REASONS TO NOT TRUST THE POLICE

26 REASONS TO NOT TRUST THE POLICE
SEE: http://filmingcops.com/dont-trust-police/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The police aren’t making too many friends these days. It seems like there isn’t a day that goes by where some tragic and outrageous story comes out involving the the cops and somehow violating somebodies rights, or even killing them. But, no matter how much we see this behavior, no matter how frequent it becomes, there seems to be an army of ignorant, dependent, terrified people who will jump in to defend the police from any criticism, because, you know, they are heroes…. Next time you encounter somebody like that, show them this article, and if they still dismiss it, just move on, there’s plenty of people with eyes to see and ears to hear if you aren’t wasting your time with the willfully apathetic.
But first off, I want to give a shout out to all of the alternative media outlets that tirelessly cover issues of police abuse, and show us just how common these violations are:
Now, just why should we be skeptical of the police? Well where do I begin….
1. The Police Have No Duty To Protect You
It’s plastered right on the side of many police cruisers: “To Protect And to Serve”, but this serves as little more then a PR slogan for the public to feel more comfortable and trusting of the police. In 2005 the supreme court ruled in a case titled Warren Vs The District of Columbia it was ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect, all the way to and including against a women who has a protection from abuse order from a husband and is being attacked by said husband. Being stalked? No duty to protect. Locked away somewhere by an attacker. No duty to protect. Being raped? Well, you get the point, unfortunately. The court went as far as to say “”[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. ”. Supporters of this verdict will tell you that it is because individuals are expected to protect themselves and their loved ones, which is true, but many states such as New York, and New Jersey get in the way of that with their draconian gun laws, effectively making them reliant on police, who then have no duty to oblige. A viscous cycle indeed.
2. Private Prisons Have “Lockup Quotas”
In 2011 Management & Training Corp threatened to sue the state of Arizona over a line in the contract between the two that required that the prison remain 97% full. The lawsuit threat was spurred after 3 murder convicts escaped from the prison, and the state found the prison to be “dysfunctional” and thus stopped sending inmates to the facility. The state caved and paid 3 Million dollars in tax payer dollars to a prison that let 3 murderers escape from their facility to cover the losses created by the diverted prisoner population. This notion of “lockup quotas” or “guaranteed occupancy rates” has actually found to be a common practice after analyzing over 60 contracts between states and prisons, with some Arizona prisons having an expectation of 100% occupancy!
This could help to explain why even though Crime is consistently falling over the past 20 years, The U.S continues to maintain the worlds largest prison populations as lawmakers look to write laws to appease prison contracts instead of serving the people. There are more prisons then schools in this country. Think about that for a second.
3. Police Profit From Enforcing the War On Drugs
Did you know that when the police arrest somebody for a drug charge, even marijuana, they actually earn money? Yup, for any low level arrest, a department can make $153 per arrest in federal grants, called Byrne Grants. This totally changes the incentives for what police work is. When you combine this, with the fact that drugs are widely available, hugely demanded, very profitable, and in some states, marijuana is becoming legal, the fact that there are lockup quotas, this makes the average citizen a fish to be baited into the system for profit, more then a master that is to be served, as all government is supposed to be. Then there is asset forfeiture, another very profitable revenue stream. This is where alleged drug dealers have their property stolen under the suspicion that they got that property from nasty drug money. It’s literally legal theft. It’s such an unsustainable method of revenue generation that many departments have a blanket opposition to legalized marijuana, despite its overwhelming medical potential in addition to the moral hazard of assuming what control over what people can do with their own bodies, that departments have even expressed that the stability of their budgets is dependent on this insane practice.
4. SWAT Teams Are Corporations, And Are Used VERY Commonly
In a 2014 report on police militarization, the ACLU was effectively told by Massachusetts SWAT agencies, that they are private corporations, and thus are not subject to open records requests, and generally not obligated to answer to the public. The report went on to find that SWAT are overseen by LECs or Law Enforcement Councils made up of police chiefs in the surrounding area, and funded by these same departments. Somehow, even though it’s a police agency made up of police departments and police officers, these LECs were able to incorporate into 501(c)(3) status, granting them corporate privacy.In Massachusetts alone 240 of the existing 351 departments belong to these LECs, effectively creating a blanket of secrecy over SWAT and it’s operations.
This is met with a dramatic rise in the use of SWAT teams over the past 25 years. It is commonly thought that SWAT are used for hostage crises and other extreme situations, but more often then not, they are used for suspected drug raids. And as we have seen, they often get it tragically wrong. The methods used for a lot of these drug raids are overwhelmingly forcefulusing no knock, forced entry, flash grenades, and other excessive shows of force, even for $2 worth of marijuana. Some studies have shown that SWAT teams are called out as much as 40,000 Times a year.
5. Police Can, And Do, Lie To The Public
Many people think that as “authority figures” that police have an obligation to be honest, but that is untrue. The most common example of this is undercover police telling suspects that they are not undercover. But this extends quite a bit. Police commonly use intimidation tactics in order to scare or trick you into giving up your rights to privacy and not to incriminate yourself. They can tell you that a witness has seen you that hasn’t, that a confession was made that never was, that you are legally obligated to do things that you aren’t, like submit to searches. The most effective defense is knowledge, courage, and a camera.
6. The Police Kill Far More People Then Commonly Thought
The FBI reports that in 2013 they killed only 461 People, with an average of about 400 people killed per year since 2008. It has been found that this is inaccurate. First of all, these numbers are based on what are considered to be “justified homicides”. Thats right, the FBI is not interested in telling you about police murders, just police homicides. If that wasn’t bad enough, the data given to the FBI is turned in on a voluntary basis. In other words, if a police department like, oh I don’t know, the Albuquerque police department decides that such disclosure is bad for business, then they can keep the information to themselves.
On the flip side of this, several independent efforts, such as Fatal EncountersDeadspin , and my personal favorite because of it’s simplicity, Killed By Police have taken a crack at getting the real number, and with legitimate sourcing, have come up with over 1000 people killed both in 2013 and 2014.
7. Police Officers Are Not In The Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs
Many people will claim that the police are selfless heroes who put their life on the line on a regular basis for your safety. Much like the PR slogan of “protect and serve”, this is another inaccurate factoid that serves to suppress criticism of police officers. Data from the bureau of labor statistics shows that being a construction worker, roofer, or truck driver are much more dangerous then being police officers. In fact, you are statistically safer as a cop then as a civilian, with 2013 being one of the Safest years on record for police. This is in stark contrast to the perilous dangers that police would have you think they encounter every day.
8. Police Kill A Lot of People’s Pets
While it is unclear exactly how often it happens due to a lack of data, through the use of cell phone video’s and the alternative reporting, we are getting a glimpse of how often police kill man’s best friend. A development team is currently working on a documentary entitled ”Puppycide” tackling the issue in depth, with the website claiming that a pet is killed every 98 minutes.
9. Police Will Share Private Photographs With Each Other For Amusement
Last October, Officer Sean Harrington of the California Highway Patrol was arrested after after a DUI suspect that he had arrested alleged that he had gone through her phone without her permission, and then proceeded to send himself nude photos of her. After a search warrant was served, it was found that Harrington was not alone in this behavior, and several other officers were identified who not only admitted to doing this multiple times, but called it part of “a game”. Later evidence showed several police commenting on the photos with each other. Harrington, an Dublin, CA officer, claimed to have learned this “game” from LA, and that it was a common thing among police officers. It’s anybodies guess how many police officers can figure out they can victimize women like this across the country.
10. Police Can Enforce Laws They Don’t Know
2015 Started off with another blow to freedom, as the Supreme Court, in Heien Vs. North Carolina ruled A police officer can stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law without violating the Fourth Amendment. This arose after a man was found with cocaine in his car following a search, based on a stop where the suspect had a tail light out. Only problem is, no law exists making that a crime, or a reason to get a search. The officer was mistaken, which lead to the defendant motioning to dismiss the cocaine as evidence as it was the result of an illegal search. The supreme court sided with the officer. This creates a double standard in the application of law. If you or I are guilty of a crime that we legitimately did not know we have committed, ignorance of the law is no excuse and we have our lives torn apart. A police officer does it, and it’s “valid” and your life is still ripped apart.
11. Police Have Technology That Greatly Infringes Our Right To Privacy f
Everybody knows that the TSA has been data mining us through our phones, and our computers for years now. But it’s not just the TSA that is collecting data, but maybe even your own local police department. Many police departments are making use of what is called Stingray technology without a warrant to track peoples cell phones for anything that might lead to a drug bust. LAPD has even used the technology on non suspected neighbors of suspects in search of info! And of course, this has all been found to somehow be constitutional according to the Arizona Superior Court
Some Police Departments, such as NYPD have taken to use TSA like Naked body scanner technology to scan people and their cars in search of guns in New York, where guns are unconstitutionally illegal. Not only do these scanners present a serious threat to every person’s right to privacy, but also a serious health threat
In addition to this, A RAND Corporation study has found that 70% of police departments use license plat scanners. These are scanners that scan your license plate information, allowing full access to it for the officer, usually without knowledge, consent, warrant, or even a traffic violation.
Many of these departments work hand in hand with fusion centers, with the federal government via the Department Of Homeland Security being able to take over local departments, so any information that a police department has is liable to end up in the hands of the federal government as well.
12. Police Will Potentially Kill For Even The Most Minute Laws
All police encounters are potentially deadly. As the Eric Garner case has shown to the whole country, the police will escalate any situation to maintain control and dominance. If it came down to it, they would kill you for a seatbelt violation if you don’t comply with them how they want you to. Any law, ordinance, or statue is essentially a death threat to disobedience. If you get a ticket, they demand money at gun point, you don’t pay, you get a warrant and they will come to put you in a cage, you resist the cage and they will hurt or kill you. That is how it works. ALL laws are enforced at gun point, and there are so many laws that you can be put in the cross hairs at any given moment and not even know it.
13. Police Unions Keep Violent Police On The Street
It doesn’t happen often, but sometimes you see a story where a cop is overtly abusive, obviously in the wrong, and definitely undeserving of a badge, and that cop is fired. And to many people, justice is served and that is the end, but in many cases, it isn’t. The Atlantic has compiled a list of examples of how police unions will go to bat for people who have been investigated by internal affairs and fired, and get them their job back or get their punishment reduced. This list is just the tip of the iceberg. Unions are known for protecting and shielding police from criticism, no matter how outrageous they behave.
14. The Police Have Their Own Secret Society Called The Fraternal Order of Police
Like it’s name suggests, the FOP is a fraternal organization that has hundreds of thousands of members who meet up only with each other, in private, in thousands of lodges across the country. It’s cops meeting with other cops to figure out how to push forward their interests. The FOP lobbies a good bit of money to their friends who then cover their backs in the police unions. The FOP gets involved in a lot of reactionary measures, such as Security and fundraising for Darren Wilson, even as the case publicly became little more then a sad joke to usher in the inevitable judgment. Now they are Calling for ‘Waze’ to be disabled, even though the app and the technology are an extension of free speech.
15. They Can Discriminate Against New Hires On The Basis of Too High Of An IQ
In September of 2000, The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision that was being contested by Robert Jordan, an aspiring NYPD officer. He scored 33 points on his police exam, which corresponds to an IQ of about 125, but NYPD was only interested in hiring people that scored around the 22 point area, corresponding to about a 104 IQ. That’s right, NYPD is NOT interested in hiring the best man for the job. They claimed that this score mean that Robert would get bored with the job.
But let’s be honest here, this has little to do with Robert “being bored”. The court even admitted that it was an unwise procedure. No this is more about making sure that free thinking people, people who might question orders, who might morally oppose enforcing certain laws, people who might expose corruption, or blow the whistle on police abuse, or any other crossing of the thin blue line, are kept out of police work.
16. Even Small, Local Police Departments Have Received Military Equipment
It is no secret that police departments across the country have received a frightening amount of military equipment. Fully automatic rifles, anti mine tanks, grenade launchers, you name it, many police departments have it. What is not quite as well known is just how wide spread this has become. Very, Very small police departments all over the country.
17. Cops Are Going Out Of Their Way To Hire Returning Veterans
Now this can get touchy, as it is well known that veterans have a high unemployment rate. That being said, I think the argument can be made that in many cases the role of a combat veteran is only appropriate for police work if the police have become seriously militarized, and that the role of the police has switched from protect to serve to something more closely resembling that of a military platoon. Posse Comitatus strictly forbids the military from being used as a police force (but of course, it has been violated). The reason for this is that having a standing army in your own country enforcing laws with the kind of firepower that the military has is by definition a military occupation, which I would argue the police have become. NYPD has already proclaimed to be able to shoot down a plane, for example.
The Justice Department are offering “COPS grants” to police departments that hire veterans, and where incentives are, people follow.
Another troubling aspect of this is that many many veterans suffer from PTSD, (which, by the way, the federal governmentcould massively reduce by repealing federal drug laws.). It Is hard to know just how many of them actually have PTSD. Many have chosen to hide their symptoms from the VA because in a lot of cases PTSD is being used to take away the gun rights of veterans. On top of that, police are required to do extra psych evaluations to tackle PTSD if there is a history of it in the applicant, but if the applicant has never reported it, there is “nothing to worry about” from the hiring department’s point of view. Between the grants incentivising veterans towards police work, the number of homeless vets there are, and how many who are more in need of help then a new war zone on the homeland, and it’s not hard to imagine that there are at least some combat veteran police officers who should not be in that job.
18. Police Have Little To No Real Accountability
So who arrests the cops? Other cops, after and internal investigation turns up wrong doing first, of course. So after the police investigate themselves, guess how often they find themselves to be in the wrong? Not very often at all.
Grand Juries vote to indict the defendants almost every time. But if the defendant is a police officer, it magically becomesvery difficult to indict them.
In the event that cops do have body cameras, they simply can Turn them off. As we saw with Eric garner, and I know frompersonal experience, that cops will lie under oath, conveniently “lose” evidence, fabricate charges, lose their footage and the list goes on and on of all the tricks they can and will pull to keep you down. In 2 cases, both for summary offense violations, I had 2 separate lawyers tell me, essentially that I am innocent, and I have a great case, but that its the police and there just isn’t hope. Cops word are automatically taken as truth in court, putting the defendant in a position where they must prove their innocence, turning the justice system on its head.
20. Many Police Departments Have A Culture Of Racism
This is something that the black community has, for good reason, been screaming about for decades. The subject reached a bit of a head last year with Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner all morally unjustifiably being killed by the police. Statistics show that You are more likely to get arrested as a black drug dealer then a white one, even though there are more white drug dealers. They are more likely to be arrested for Marijuana Related Charges, they are for more likely to be subject to Stop and frisk, which is essentially random, and warrantless searches. With 25% of black males entering the justice system, they are way more likely to be arrested by police. Former police officers have gotten on the record about just how racist and sexist many of their co workers were.
21. They Have No Mercy For The Homeless
The country is in economic doldrums that the government would like to have you believe have been on an upswing, but sadly It’s getting worse. There are over Over 600,000 homeless at any given moment, and economic trends ensure that that will probably rise. Starting with the Occupy raids in 2011, there has been a trend of police raiding homeless encampments and displacing already displaced people. In Some cases they run blanket background checks on all of the residents of a homeless shelter. other times they just force the people out, or even shoot them.
22. Some Police Departments Do Weapons Training With Targets Depicting Pregnant Woman, Children, And The Elderly
It’s truly chilling, and bizarre, but it’s true. The targets were made by a company called “Law Enforcement Targets Inc”, all targets include whoever imaged, whether it be a pregnant woman, or a child, with a gun pointing back at them. This line of targets is called the “Zero Hesitation” series, what hesitation is looking to be eliminated, I’m sure you can figure out just by looking at the images. With $5.5 million worth of targets sold, at 99 cents a piece, it’s safe to say they have been spread to police shooting ranges all over the country.
23. They Will Plant Evidence On People
The Walter Scott video served as a major wake up call to people all over the country to the corruption of the police force. Not only was Michael Slager found to be lying when he said that he “feared for his life” from the fleeing Walter Scott, who he shot in the back, but the video also showed Slager planting a taser in order to “prove” that there was a threat when there wasn’t. To make matters worse, the senior officers assured him that he would have days before he would be asked any questions about the shooting, assuring him that he could come up with any story he needed to. The department also backed his story that Scott had fought with him and brought the shooting on himself, before the video came out and put egg on the entire department’s face.
Unfortunately, this does not appear to be an isolated incident of an officer planting evidence and framing his victim to take the fall. On a segment on “Fox and Friends”, for District Attorney Arthur Aidala, who has been on Fox news many times as an expert analyst on legal matters, said in no uncertain terms that over the course of 30 years that planting evidence on somebody that was killed by police was a common occurrence, saying:
When I was in the DA’s office in the 80s and 90s, that was standard operating procedure. Police officers — I hate to say this — would keep a second gun that nobody knew about on their ankle, so if they ever killed someone they shouldn’t have they would take that gun out.
I’m talking about dirty cops in the 70s and 80s.
As a DA, he must have sided with such cops many, many times over the course of his career to have this information.
It doesn’t stop at the 90’s though. Earlier this year, a former Philadelphia cop, Jeffrey Walker, who was on trial for years worth of embezzlement, false arrests, false charges, corruption, had testified against his fellow officers in order to avoid a life sentence. Yes, a cop on trial for life and it wasn’t murder, the level of corruption was THAT bad and sustained for THAT long. He went on to detail how they would target “White males, college boys, wearing khaki pants, easy to intimidate”, sometimes even holding victims over balconies, to extort money and drugs from them. He once carried a safe full of drug money down 17 flights of steps to avoid the cameras on the elevator. He was just one member of a inner circle mafia within the Philadelphia Police Department.
Also this year, another video surfaced of a police officer planting drugs inside a man’s car after that man had been brutally beaten and choked. His “crime” was running a stop sign 
A simple youtube search yields a frightening number of results.
24. They Have Ready Made Stories Designed To Clear Them Of Wrong Doing
This is another area where the Walter Scott case destroyed the facade of the police as honest and trustworthy. In the time immediately after, the police backed Michael Slager’s story without question. It wasn’t until the video surfaced that the entire situation was found to be full of holes and lies.
Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, in an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, titled Why Cops Lie, wrote:
“Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”
He goes on tie the culture of lying within police departments with the war on drugs, because narcotics officers have incentives, as outlined above, to make as many drug related arrests as possible at all costs. The result is persecution of poor and minority communities who are unable to defend themselves.
Because police have set themselves up as the arbiters of the law, average people on the jury are quick to take their side in a case where its a “their word against mine” type of scenario, basing judgment solely on police testimony, even if there is a total lack of any other type of evidence. This gives police officers a “too big to fail” type of safety when it comes to honesty in the courtroom. More often then not, the cops have what they would call a “working relationship” with judges, prosecutors and even defense lawyers. To everybody else it much more closely resembles a “conflict of interest”. Judges have an incentive to lock people up to fulfill the aforementioned prison occupancy quotas, prosecutors want to have a good record, and defense lawyers want a play to get the most money for the least amount of work. Not to mention, infamously, arrest quotas from the police.
Another great article on this issue can be found Here
25. If Things Get Bad In Your Area, They Will Simply Stop Responding To “Lesser Crime”
To Protect And To Serve….. Unless you aren’t a big enough victim to be worth our time. That’s right, in areas all over the country, the police have announced that they simply will not respond to certain crimes like vehicular theft or burglary. Granted, these areas are some of the most violent in the whole country, and the cops claim they are doing this so they are more able to respond to shootings and other violent crimes, but I think I speak for most everybody when I say that we would prefer that they would then just not enforce frivolous laws such as those for drug possession, but of course that is noticeably absent from the list of crimes that these departments have said they will no longer be responding to. Areas that have followed this policy include
ChicagoOaklandDetroitLas VegasSan Jose and others.
26. They Would Rather Go After Drug Users Then Violent Criminals
When examining violent crime clearance rates, that is the percentage of cases that are closed due to arrest, or “exceptional means”, we find that Cops are horribly inefficient at making arrests having to do with violent crime, as well as property crime. The highest clearance rate, according to the FBI is murder at 60%. That means that only slightly more then half of all murders have an arrest made to close the case. But the focus comes when you look at the sheer numbers. The most recent numbers I could find were from 2012, in that year over 1.5 Million people were arrested on drug charges, with just over 500,000 were arrested for violent crime. Obviously, with such low clearance rates and such high number of drug arrests, there is a huge missed opportunity by the police to actually administer justice for people that are victims of actual crime.

MOHAMMOD ABDULAZEEZ FAMILY: DRUGS AND MENTAL ILLNESS BEHIND CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING~GENERAL WESLEY CLARK WANTS “RADICALIZED EXTREMISTS” IN INTERNMENT CAMPS

MOHAMMOD ABDULAZEEZ FAMILY: 
DRUGS AND MENTAL ILLNESS BEHIND CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A representative for the family of Mohammod Abdulazeez says the 24-year old Chattanooga shooter had abused both prescription and non-prescription drugs, including sleeping pills, opioids, painkillers, marijuana and alcohol.
Abdulazeez’s diary reveals he was suicidal and entertained thoughts of “becoming a martyr” after losing a job due to his drug and alcohol abuse.
Moreover, Abdulazeez was thousands of dollars in debt and was considering bankruptcy before he attacked two military targets in Tennessee.
His family attempted to get Abdulazeez help for mental illness and tried without success to keep him away from friends who drank and smoked marijuana.
Prior to the emergence of the dairy the corporate media portrayed Abdulazeez, a naturalized American citizen, as a radicalized Muslim.
The SITE Intelligence Group said Abdulazeez blogged that “life is short and bitter” and Muslims should not miss an opportunity to “submit to Allah.”
The blog posts have yet to be independently verified and the FBI has said it has yet to find a link between Abdulazeez and ISIS or any other extremist group.
The Search for International Terrorist Entities Intelligence Group (SITE) was co-founded by Rita Katz and consists of her and two “senior advisers,” one of whom is Bruce Hoffman, the Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation and former director of the RAND’s Washington DC office.
In 2003 and 2004, SITE received financial support from the US government. Also in the early 2000s SITE was on contract providing consulting services to the FBI.
Over the weekend Infowars.com reported that retired US Army General and the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO Wesley Clark advocated rounding up “radicalized” and “disloyal” Americans and putting them in internment camps for the “duration” of the war on terror.
____________________________________________________________

WORLD WAR TWO JAPANESE INTERNMENT CAMPS

FEMA Identifying Potential Extremists: Wesley Clark Proposes Internment for the “Disloyal”
Published on Jul 21, 2015
HR 2899 introduced by Rep McCaul on June 25, 2015 would expand counter-propaganda efforts targeted at those the government would label as potential “violent extremists”. The bill would place funding & grants under FEMA. David Knight is joined by Lee Ann McAdoo & Jakari Jackson to discuss the bill & the proposal of former Presidential candidate, Gen Wesley Clark, retired, for pre-crime interment of those guilty of “disloyal” speech.

General Clark Calls for 

WWII-type Internment Camps for U.S. Citizens

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“If these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right, and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.”
Thus spoke retired General Wesley Clark, a former Democratic Party presidential candidate, in an interview on MSNBC this past Friday.
Back in 2004, Clark, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, was harshly critical of what he considered the Bush administration's excessive response to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
But since then, he has drastically altered his position, now strongly supporting the use of domestic internment camps, specifically citing those where Americans of Japanese ancestry were sent during World War II. (There were also camps for Germans and Italians, but in much smaller numbers.)
While many would have agreed with Clark's earlier assessment that Bush went too far in his reaction to the 9/11 attacks, citing actions such as the PATRIOT Act’s reduction of civil liberties, Bush never suggested anything nearly as sweeping as that now proposed by Clark.
One can certainly understand arresting, trying, and incarcerating any person conspiring to commit acts of violence inside the United States; however, Clark’s proposal is chilling to constitutionalists. He is advocating going after those who are not only not involved in a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, but who have not even yet been radicalized. “We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized," he asserted. "We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning."
“I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists,” Clark added.
Americans are understandably concerned about Islamic terrorism. Those who either commit  or conspire to commit acts of violence should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the idea of sending to internment camps those who might become radicalized, and might conspire to commit violence is absolutely chilling.
Once such a precedent has been set, who might the next target of the federal government be? The Obama administration considers members of patriotic organizations such as The John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, and the Tea Party to be extremists. Some even regard pro-lifers or evangelical Christians as “radicals.”
Who would decide which individuals would be sent to these internment camps? During World War II — Clark’s model — it was one man: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, commanding that Japanese Americans be relocated away from the West Coast and into internment camps — without any due process, proof of disloyalty, or regard to American citizenship. This draconian policy led to the eventual incarceration of over 100,000 people, 62 percent of whom were U.S. citizens.
After Japan's “Meiji Restoration” in 1868, in which Emperor Meiji wrested power back from the warlords and began the modernization and industrialization of his country, many Japanese had taken advantage of the opportunity to emigrate to the United States.
In 1936, as relations between the United States and Japan were souring, Roosevelt directed the Office of Naval Intelligence to create a list of “those who would be the first to be placed in concentration camps in the event of trouble” between Japan and the United States.
However, as the two nations moved closer to war, Charles Munson of Naval Intelligence delivered a report on November 7, 1941, that “certified a remarkable, even extraordinary degree of loyalty among this generally suspect ethnic group.” FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover supported Munson’s findings, contending to Roosevelt that the Japanese posed no espionage threat.
Despite this, FDR issued his order and appointed Lt. General John DeWitt, head of Western Command, the administrator of the internment program. “A Jap’s a Jap,” DeWitt explained, when reporters queried him about “loyal” Americans who just happened to have Japanese ancestry. DeWitt told Congress, “I don’t want any of them here. They are a dangerous element.... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen; he is still a Japanese.... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.”
The attorney general of California — Earl Warren, later the chief justice of the Supreme Court — argued for the federal government to remove all Japanese from the West Coast. On February 2, 1942, the Los Angeles Timeseven editorialized of those Americans of Japanese ancestry, “A viper is nonetheless a viper, wherever the egg is hatched.”
Some of the interned Japanese chose to join the U.S. armed forces, ironically to “fight for liberty,” and were sent to the European theater. The bulk of them fought in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which emerged from the war as the most highly decorated U.S. military unit of its size, earning the nickname “the Purple Heart division.” Historian John Toland tells the story of an American prisoner of war who witnessed a battle between Germans and the 442nd. When a German soldier expressed to him surprise that they were having to fight Japanese, the American soldier advised the German that he'd been taken in by Hitler’s propaganda. The Japanese, he informed the German, are really on “our side.”
While the 442nd fought for America, most Americans of Japanese blood languished in the camps, which were cramped, with little room for privacy. One camp in Wyoming even had unpartitioned toilets. As the war progressed, conditions did improve in the camps, and life went on, with schools, such as they were, activities, including baseball games, and the like.
Eventually it became obvious that the incarceration had no good purpose; however, FDR opted to delay the release of the interned prisoners until January of 1945, so as not to endanger his reelection chances in 1944. In this decision he ignored the advice of both FBI Director Hoover and War Relocation Authority (WRA) director Dillon Myer that the internment should end in 1944.
The WWII internment camps are just what General Clark has in mind as a model for today. And he is not alone. Prominent neoconservative Daniel Pipes has called internment “a good idea” which offers “lessons for today.” And Michelle Malkin, in her book In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, was blunt, declaring: “Civil liberties are not sacrosanct.”
Despite the clear protections of civil liberties in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in 1944 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of Korematsu v. the United States that the internment camps did not violate the Constitution.
Former Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark, who assisted the U.S. Department of Justice in effecting the “relocation” of the Japanese, addressed this issue in the epilogue of his 1992 book, Executive Order 9066: The Internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans:
The truth is — as this deplorable experience proves — that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves.... Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment’s command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of the constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066.
The actual “lesson for us today” is not that we need to reimplement internment camps, but rather that all American citizens must develop a renewed respect for the protection of their civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


TLC: PERFECT TRANSGENDER FAMILY REPLACES PERFECT CHRISTIAN FAMILY~POLYGAMY & NECROMANCY FOR VIEWING TOO!

TLC Cancels ’19 Kids and Counting’ While Adding Transgender Reality Show to Lineup

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2015/07/16/tlc-cancels-19-kids-and-counting-while-adding-transgender-reality-show-to-lineup/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Duggars

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The Learning Channel (TLC) announced today that it will no longer air the popular reality television show “19 Kids and Counting,” while recently announcing the addition of its transgender series “I Am Jazz.”
“After thoughtful consideration, TLC and the Duggar family have decided to not move forward with ’19 Kids and Counting,’” it said in a statement. “The show will no longer appear on the air.”
The decision comes after the revelation that eldest Duggar son, Josh, now 26, inappropriately touched several girls—four of his sisters and a babysitter—at the age of 14 and was required by his parents to obtain help. Duggar, who confessed to his parents about his actions at that time, later repented of his sins and became a born-again Christian.
While Duggar says that he turned away from that sin years ago, a police chief who was soon to retire decided to release the 2006 documents surrounding the matter to the media this past May, which then sparked a firestorm of controversy nationwide in learning of his past. Duggar resigned from his position in ministry at the Washington-based Family Policy Council, stating that he did not wish to be a distraction from its work, and moved back to Arkansas with his wife and children.
Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar also appeared on national television to explain how they dealt with their then-teenage son, as did Duggar’s sisters Jessa and Jill, who stated that while their brother’s “curious” touching was inappropriate, they were upset that the police chief and the media dug up the past and violated their personal privacy.
“If you’ve had failures in your past, it doesn’t mean you can’t be changed,” Jessa Duggar told Fox’s Megyn Kelly. “I think the real issue is people are making this sound like it happened yesterday.”
Jessa’s courtship, engagement and marriage to her husband Ben had been among the last episodes featured on “19 Kids and Counting.” Both Jill and Jessa had communicated on their show the importance of purity and both saved their first kiss for their wedding day. Josh Duggar and his wife Anna had done the same in 2009, which was likewise televised.
The Duggars reiterated in a statement on Thursday that the situation with their son is a matter of the past, but that they hope it can be used to help other families whose children are heading down a path of sin.
“With God’s grace and help, Josh, our daughters and our entire family overcame a terrible situation, found healing and a way forward. We are so pleased with the wonderful adults they have all become,” they wrote. “It is our prayer that the painful situation our family went through many years ago can point people toward faith in God and help others who also have lived through similar dark situations to find help, hope and healing, as well.”
While the Duggars have been removed from the TLC lineup, the network has recently added the transgender reality show “I Am Jazz,” featuring 14-year-old teen Jazz Jennings, a male who identifies as female. The 11-episode series features the teen’s life as living as the opposite sex.
“Parents Jeanette and Greg have spent the years finding doctors to treat their daughter, while fighting the discrimination and misconceptions associated with what it means to be transgender,” TLC describes the show on its site.
“Not only does Jazz face the normal struggles of a 14 year-old girl; boy crazy friends, mood swings, and body image issues, she must also contend with the unique challenges of being a transgender girl,” it continues. “Jazz is on a regimen of hormone therapy so that she can look and develop like the other girls in her school. But, Jazz struggles with comparing herself, and the lagging pace of her breast development to her friends.”
TLC also airs the reality show “Sister Wives,” which features a polygamist Kody Brown and his five “wives,” as well as “Long Island Medium,” which follows the psychic work of Theresa Caputo, who claims to communicate with the dead.
___________________________________________________________
NO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING NOW:
FROM WIKIPEDIA: 
“The channel has been criticized as a classic case of channel drift for departing from the original nature of its programming, by airing shows of a controversial nature with what is described as having no educational value. TLC programs that have come under fire from critics and the media include Toddlers & TiarasSarah Palin’s AlaskaLA InkExtreme Couponing19 Kids and CountingKate Plus 8Sister WivesLong Island MediumHere Comes Honey Boo BooMy Big Fat American Gypsy WeddingAll American Muslim and My Husband’s Not Gay.
In April 2012, TLC and Long Island Medium won the James Randi Educational Foundation‘s annual Pigasus Award, a tongue-in-cheek award for blatant promotion of paranormal or psychic claims. The show’s star, Theresa Caputo, won the award for Best Performer.”
SISTER WIVES:
LONG ISLAND MEDIUM:

OBAMA’S AFTERTHOUGHT: HONORS ISLAM BEFORE DEAD MARINES KILLED BY ISLAMIC TERRORIST; AMERICANS FURIOUS

OBAMA: RAMADAN FIRST; 4 DEAD MARINES AN AFTERTHOUGHT

OBAMA HONORS CLOSE OF RAMADAN ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE “EULOGIZING” MARINES WITH THIS:
“IT’S A HEARTBREAKING CIRCUMSTANCE”
AND THAT’S ALL!!!

OBAMA HONORS ISLAM BEFORE DEAD MARINES KILLED BY ISLAMIC TERRORIST; AMERICANS FURIOUS

White House sent out ‘happy Ramadan’ statement before commenting on Chattanooga attack
by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/obama-honors-islam-before-dead-marines-killed-by-islamic-terrorist-american-furious/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
President Obama issued a statement yesterday urging Americans to respect the religion of Islam before he even commented on a terror attack by an Islamic extremist in Chattanooga which killed four Marines, prompting widespread anger.
The White House tweeted out a statement wishing Muslims “Eid Mubarak!” as Ramadan came to a close, adding that, “the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs.”
The statement was tweeted hours after the Chattanooga shooting and after it had been established that the culprit was 24-year-old Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a Kuwaiti Muslim whose blog revealed that Islam played a central role in his ideology.
It was only after Obama had lectured Americans about respecting Islam that he paid tribute to the four dead Marines killed by an Islamic terrorist.
Reaction to the timing was brutal.
Obama has been widely criticized for his refusal to even use the term “Islamic” when referring to Islamist terror attacks, an illustration of the stifling political correctness that surrounds discussion of Islamic-inspired atrocities.
In the aftermath of the shootings, the leftist media, which immediately exploited the Charleston attack to collectively demonize all white Americans, is noticeably shy to discuss Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s motivation.
Salon.com, which said that “white America must answer for the Charleston massacre,” has as its top story this morning a piece about drafting Al Gore. There are no mentions of Chattanooga until you scroll well down the page.
Donald Trump also took Obama to task during a Fox News appearance last night, slamming his fear of using the term “Islamic terrorism.”

Donald Trump Lashes Out at Obama after Chattanooga Islamist Murders 4 Marines

______________________________________________________

Obama’s Silence is Deafening

SEE: https://thecausticconservative.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/obamas-silence-is-deafening/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
It’s been over 24 hours since four Marines were slaughtered by an Islamic terrorist in Chattanooga, Tenn. Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan of Springfield, Mass.; Lance Cpl. Skip ‘Squire’ Wells, of Marietta, Ga.; Sgt. Carson Holmquist, of Grantsburg, Wisc.; and Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, of Chattanooga were all murdered by a cold-hearted terrorist. For their families, the loss of these four men will forever leave a hole.
The silence from the Obama administration is truly sickening. President Obama’s Twitter account, which is apparently how leaders release statements these days, couldn’t be bothered to send out anything after the shootings. Not even a “praying for the victims” or “thoughts go out to Chattanooga.” Instead, he found the time to post a message wishing Muslims around the globe a happy Eid Mubarak. That was posted at 4:48pm ET.



Nearly AN HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES LATER at 6:08pm ET, President Obama’s Twitter finally posted a message about the “heartbreaking circumstance” that occurred in Chattanooga. Is that the new name for terrorism?



Thanks for nothing.
There is nothing wrong with wishing people a happy holiday. However, America’s Commander in Chief was elected to protect Americans, to put this country ahead of the rest of the world, not behind it. President Obama knew all the details of this terrorist attack long before the rest of us. He said nothing. He did nothing. It’s a question of priorities. He showed us what his were.
It gets worse. There has been no federal order to fly flags at half staff to remember those four brave Marines who died. No speeches. No vows that America will not rest until anyone and everyone involved with the planning of this attack is brought to justice. President Obama has treated this act of terror as if it never happened. He doesn’t even care enough to give a public address about it.
The contrast is infuriating.
Thirteen hours after the Charleston shooting, President Obama took to the stage decrying gun violence in America and saying that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” President Obama couldn’t wait to jump right into this debate. He called for gun control, he called for a reexamining of the Confederate Battle Flag. He essentially called America racist. He did everything in his power to address the tragedy. He went above and beyond in order to make sure that the Charleston shooting would never forgotten. He succeeded.
What about Chattanooga? Where are his calls to stop radical Islam? Why isn’t he condemning an entire people because of the actions of one terrorist, the way he did with white Southerners? Why hasn’t he vowed that everything will be done to prevent another act of terror on American soil? Why hasn’t he addressed the nation? Where are the calls to ban the flag of ISIS? Why can’t he be bothered to even pretend he gives a damn that four Marines who would have given their lives upon his command were just killed in an act of terrorism?
Waiting for all the facts to come in has never stopped President Obama before. He has always been willing to wade into controversy if it will score him a few cheap political points. Now, he is silent. Is it because he can’t blame this on a flag? Is it because he doesn’t want to offend the Muslims to whom he kowtows by calling this what it is; an act of terror? Or is he simply too cowardly to stand up and admit that he was wrong. ISIS isn’t diminished. ISIS can hit us. His attempts to limit their spread have failed. War has come to America’s shores, on his watch. He has failed.
Four good men are dead. Some of them survived multiple tours of duty in the Middle East, only to be cut down in their own country. It’s time for President Obama to man up — for once.  It’s time for him to go in front of America and address this tragedy.
We’re waiting.
___________________________________________________________________

WEREWOLF LASHES OUT: 
THE TWO SIDES OF THE KILLER;
FULL MOON OR SOME OTHER NATURAL EVENT BEYOND HIS CONTROL CAUSED IT?
COULD IT BE “GLOBAL WARMING”, WHITE FLIGHT FROM THE CITIES, OR RACIAL PREJUDICE AGAIN?

OBAMA & HIS MEDIA SYCOPHANTS PORTRAYAL:
GENTLEMANLY “ALL AMERICAN LONE WOLF” 
WITH ISLAMIC SUPPRESSED JIHAD ON THE INSIDE
TRANSFORMED SOMEHOW INTO A KILLER?
HAVE WE SEEN THIS RE-RUN BEFORE?


A GUN FREE UTOPIA WHERE YOU LET GOVERNMENT MAKE ALL YOUR DECISIONS FOR YOU; EXCEPTIONS OF COURSE FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, ILLEGALS, GAYS, ABORTIONISTS & LIBERAL SOCIALISTS WHO CAN HAVE ARMED GUARDS OR CARRY GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM VETERANS, CONSERVATIVES & CHRISTIANS
THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA OF A DICTATOR; 
AND THE MEDIA DOES HIS BIDDING
WOW!

Behind Chattanooga: Radicalization, 

Gun-free Zones, and U.S. Foreign Policy

BY BOB ADELMANN
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/21273-behind-chattanooga-radicalization-gun-free-zones-and-us-foreign-policyrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Narratives that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a nice, polite, well-behaved, friendly, and funny young man of 24 appeared all across the mainstream media following his murderous attack on a military recruiting center in Chattanooga on Thursday that left four dead and three wounded. According to the media and the president, he was “acting alone” as a “lone wolf.”
Precious little was being said about the possibility of him being influenced by radical elements of his faith calling for Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. The media focused instead on his background: a Jordanian born in Kuwait in 1990, moving to the United States a few years later and becoming a naturalized citizen. He attended Red Bank High School in Chattanooga, where he enjoyed wrestling and making videos. He went on to graduate from the University of Tennessee with a degree in electrical engineering, and interned briefly at the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The New York Times said he “seemed to be an all-American boy, handsome and polite,” usually dressed in a T-shirt and jeans.
He did a little blogging, said the media, leaving cryptic messages that the world “is a prisoner for the believer [Muslim] and a paradise for the unbeliever [non-Muslim],” while adding the warning: “Don’t let the society we live in deviate you from the task at hand,” and “This life is short and bitter and the opportunity to submit to Allah may pass you by.”
The media said they could find, at this writing, no links to ISIS, confirming their conclusion that this was a “one-off” event. No links, that is, if one ignores orders issued by ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani last October calling for individual acts of violence such as this one against soldiers and civilians in “countries that entered into a coalition” against ISIS, and encouraging them to “kill them wherever you find them.”
No links if one ignores the “lone wolf” strategy adopted even earlier by al-Qaeda in the late 2000s and repeatedly encouraged by Anwar al-Awlaki, the Islamic imam and senior terrorist recruiter for al-Qaeda before his death in September 2011. Proclaimed al-Awlaki: “It is better to support the prophet [Muhammad] by attacking those who slander him that it is to travel to the land of Jihad like Iraq or Afghanistan.”
No links if one forgets that ISIS has been calling for “lone wolf” attacks on U.S. military bases during the month of Ramadan, which ends today.
No links if one forgets the long train of other “lone wolf” terrorist attacks by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad in Arkansas in June, 2009, or that of Major Nidal Hasan who killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in November, 2009, or that of Arid Uka who shot two U.S. airmen in at the Frankfurt airport in March, 2011, or that of Mohammed Merah who killed seven in Toulouse, France, in March 2012, or that of the brothers Tsarnaev killing three and injuring 260 in the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013, or the killing of a British soldier in London in May 2013 by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale who had converted to Islam, or that of Mehdi Nemmouche who attacked and killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in May, 2014.
All this must be forgotten or deliberately ignored in order to conclude that Abdulazeez was acting apart from any outside influence. 
And such attacks will likely continue until such time as their targets are allowed to arm themselves. Making military recruiting centers gun-free zones is certainly part of the problem. The federal government should repeal the Clinton-era military recruiting center gun ban that currently prohibits those targets from being able to defend themselves and consequently turning them into sitting ducks for attackers such as Abdulazeez.
Another preemptive measure that the U.S. government would be wise to take in this regard would be to stop its interference in Muslim-dominated countries across the Middle East and North Africa. Much of the recent “jihadist” ideology calling for attacks on the United States and U.S. interests can be attributed to “blowback” from an interventionist U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East dating back to at least the early 1950s. Also, any shooting or “terrorist” attacks can be used as excuses for the further federalization and growth of the police state along with more military intervention in the Middle East.
While Americans should not be ignorant of the “jihadist” mentality, they must also be aware of the fact that any government can use such radicalization to its advantage in order to consolidate more power. And such consolidation of power in the hands of the federal government is arguably a much greater threat to the freedom of American citizens than any “jihadist,” lone-wolf or otherwise.
_____________________________________________________________

ISIS-Connected Shooter Kills 

Four U.S. Marines in Chattanooga

EXCERPT:
According to initial reports, ISIS, which identifies itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, had Tweeted about Chattanooga just minutes before the attacks were carried out, but the Tweet may have actually been sent out hours after the attack due to it being from the Pacific time zone.
“O American dogs, soon you will see wonders,” it read, with the hashtags #Chattanooga, #USA and #ISIS. The Tweet included a photograph that resembled “Jihadi John” from ISIS’ Iraqi beheading videos.
The first incident occurred this morning shortly after 10:45 local time at the Lee Highway Naval recruiting center, where Abdulazeez then led police on a chase. Two hours later, he carried out a second attack at a Amnicola Highway military installation.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam also decried the shootings.
“I know the whole rest of the state joins me in just a feeling of being sick in our stomach for the lives lost and the senselessness of this,” he said.
________________________________________________

No Such Thing as ‘Lone Gunman’ in Radical Islam

Published on Jul 18, 2015

Armed Americans now protecting military recruitment centers
http://www.infowars.com/armed-america…
OBAMA HONORS ISLAM BEFORE DEAD MARINES KILLED BY ISLAMIC TERRORIST
http://www.infowars.com/obama-honors-…
CRUZ: NO SUCH THING AS ‘LONE GUNMAN’ IN RADICAL ISLAM
http://www.infowars.com/cruz-no-such-…
LEFT MEDIA THAT BLAMED WHITES FOR CHARLESTON PETRIFIED OF TALKING ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
http://www.infowars.com/left-media-th…

DRUGS AND MENTAL ILLNESS BEHIND CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING

FBI: no link found to ISIS




THOUGHT POLICE: FACEBOOK CENSORS GMO LABELING ARTICLES

Facebook Censors Post Revealing Secret Bill to Ban GMO Labeling
Facebook Censors GMO Labeling Articles

Published on Jul 17, 2015
Alex Jones and Anthony Gucciardi go over some breaking news of how Facebook is censoring one of Anthony’s latest anti-GMO articles.

Read more:
FACEBOOK CENSORS POST REVEALING SECRET BILL TO BAN GMO LABELING – http://www.infowars.com/facebook-cens…

SEE ARTICLE BELOW; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
VIDEO: 

BY by ADAN SALAZAR & ANTHONY GUCCIARDI 
Facebook is actively censoring shares of an article regarding a federal bill aiming to ban GMO food labeling.

Multiple users of the social media platform are finding themselves unable to share an article entitled, “This New Bill Could Ban GMO Labeling For Good,” which discusses H.R. 1599 – a bill known as the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.”
Instead of allowing immediate shares, Facebook prompts users with an error that reads, “This message contains content that has been blocked by our security systems,” according to a screen capture provided by author Anthony Gucciardi.
natural-society-anthony-gucciardi-post-e1437153310187
Other users are required to answer “security check” questions in order to share the article after a message prompt reads, “It looks like a link that you’re sharing might be unsafe.”
sec-check1
The official March Against Monsanto Facebook page is also filled with comments from people who say they were initially prevented from sharing the story.
Infowars.com mirrored the article, and was also prevented from sharing it on their Facebook page.
aj-share
The apparently-controversial report, posted yesterday to NaturalSociety.com and published on Infowars.com as a featured story, breaks down how the bill, sponsored by Monsanto supporter Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), could soon ban all mandatory GMO labeling in the US.
“More precisely, it has been dubbed to be the‘Monsanto Protection Act’ on steroids,Gucciardi states in the article, describing how the bill “was drafted up by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), and pushed on us by all the usual suspects. All the ones who are afraid of you actually knowing what’s in your food.”
According to Gucciardi, Facebook’s efforts to prevent the spread of information represents a sinister suppression of ideas, and only serves to magnify the importance of the article.
“We’ve seen thousands of reports regarding the censorship of content by Facebook and others regarding the TPP, Monsanto, and similar topics,” says Gucciardi.
“The bottom line here is that this article is being blocked across numerous platforms under the guise of a ‘security’ threat, when we know full well that these sites are perfectly safe.
“This content blocking only further acts to highlight the powerful message behind the secretive bill being put forth by congress to ban GMO labeling and dismantle the opposition against Monsanto.”

UN AIMS TO TRACE THE TRANSFER OF ALL GUNS AND AMMO

UN AIMS TO TRACE THE TRANSFER OF ALL GUNS AND AMMO
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21263-un-aims-to-trace-the-transfer-of-all-guns-and-ammorepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The United Nations is waging a multi-pronged attack on the right to keep and bear arms and the forces of disarmament are marching to America.
Recently, a board of “government experts” approved a report on the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) to implement the group’s “Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects (PoA).”
They certainly weren’t exaggerating when they gave that title to the scheme. It certainly does cover “all aspects” of gun ownership.
To get an idea of the trajectory the program will take, one needs only look at the list of the speakers called upon to discuss the disarmament deal’s progress. From the record of the meeting published on June 19:
“Statements were made by the representatives of Costa Rica, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Colombia, the United States of America, the Republic of Korea, the Sudan, New Zealand, Kenya, Mali, Iraq, Kuwait, Sierra Leone, Japan, Nigeria and Pakistan.”
That reads like a roster of who’s who of dictators and socialists.
Apart from the ongoing effort to abolish the Second Amendment through a multitude of multi-lateral international agreements, there was one item on the UNODA agenda that should bolster the resolve of all those who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms.
Agenda item Number 8 at the June meetings focused on “training for the full and effective implementation of the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument.”
What is the International Tracing Instrument (ITI)? This is the description published by the PoA:
“Undertaking effective measures in marking, record-keeping and tracing is vital for curbing the illicit trade and combating the diversion of small arms to unintended users. Although many weapons are marked when produced and some when imported, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.”
That means that the UN will not only track the buying, selling, transfer, and trading of small arms, light weapons, and ammunition, but it will continue developing technology that will help trace firearms and ammunition from the factory by way of “readable microchips” implanted at the factory. The UN will literally be able to trace every round and every weapon from factory to end user.
Such a plan was hatched during the convention on the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty held in March 2013 and attended by this reporter. During a conversation between committee meetings, the ambassador to the UN from Spain told me that there was a plan to equip ammunition with a microchip that would enable global tracking and destruction of individual rounds, if need be.
With regard to the marking and tracking of weapons, paragraph 24 states that members “reaffirmed the need to further strengthen national measures on the marking of small arms and light weapons.”
The United Nations demands that national legislatures (Congress) beef up laws pertaining to the placement of markings and microchips that will enable “appropriate law enforcement channels” to maintain lists of those who possess the small arms and ammunition that must be eradicated.
Nothing demonstrates the global gun grabbers’ haste to get firearms out of the hands of civilians like the following paragraph from the draft agreement: “States highlighted the utility of online technologies for further improving the effectiveness, efficiency and speed of tracing illicit small arms and light weapons.”
Governments, in other words, should take advantage of the Internet to speed up the process of tracing weapons and ammunition and identifying those unauthorized individuals or entities that are attempting to buy, sell, transfer, or trade them in violation of the POA.
Given the scope of the NSA’s online surveillance operations as revealed by Edward Snowden, it isn’t hard to imagine just how thorough the tracking program could be! Any mention of the purchase or use of guns or ammo on Facebook or in a text message or in an e-mail could potentially trigger the type of tracing the UN undoubtedly has in mind.
The preamble to the ITI declaration makes particular note of the fact that the mandates of the PoA and the ITI are “not limited to those manufactured to military specifications,” making it very clear that despite what proponents of the agreement might claim, the program is not restricted to trade and transfer of military-style weapons.
Also specifically targeted in the ITI preamble is the prevention of unapproved selling or buying of “ammunition and component parts” intended for use in small arms and light weapons.
History is instructive on this point as readers should remember that the “shot heard ‘round the world” on Lexington Green was fired because King George sent British troops to seize the patriots’ ammunition stockpile stored outside of that small Massachusetts village.
Perhaps the least shocking of all the provisions in the Programme of Action’s ITI is the identification in the document of just whose rights will be protected in the post-PoA world:
“This instrument does not restrict the right of States to acquire, manufacture, transfer and retain small arms and light weapons for their self-defence and security needs, as well as for their capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations, in a manner consistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”
Of course the “right” of states to buy, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition is protected by the UN. A house divided against itself cannot stand, after all.
An irrefutable fact of armed violence unaddressed by the UN in its gun grab is that all the murders committed by all the serial killers in history don’t amount to a fraction of the number of brutal killings committed by “states” using the very weapons over which they will exercise absolute control under the terms of the Programme of Action.
That’s not surprising given the focus on the language of the UN’s founding document, rather that on that of the Declaration of Independence.
Article II of the UN Charter declares that all men have rights as a result of “membership” in the United Nations.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Replacing the Creator with the “state” as the source of rights is the ultimate aim of the United Nations and will ultimately aid them in eliminating the right of Americans to own weapons, the one right that would prevent them from being completely conquered by the globalists.
Within the terms of the PoA and ITT is also found the definition of what kind of weapon or ammunition would be considered “illicit” for purposes of the program. These prohibitions include those weapons, small arms, or ammunitions that:
are transferred in violation of arms embargoes decided by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, or,
not marked in accordance with the provisions of this instrument, or,
manufactured or assembled without a licence or authorization from the competent authority of the State where the manufacture or assembly takes place, or,
transferred without a licence or authorization by a competent national authority.
Take note of just who decides whether a firearm transaction is approved or not. The Programme of Action and its associated International Tracing Instrument are no less than a wholesale replacement of the sovereignty of the United States and the Bill of Rights with the United Nations Charter, international agreements, and the elimination of the centuries-old recognition of natural rights for the concept of a limited number of rights given and taken by an all-powerful world government.
President Obama and many members of Congress are in favor of fast-tracking these fundamental changes to the Constitution and heritage of Americans.
As I reported a few weeks ago, using the president’s new power to unilaterally negotiate and contract trade agreements with foreign powers, these “executive agreements” can cover any topic that the White House considers “trade.” 
That includes firearms.
In this post-TPA era, the PoA, the ITI, and the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are no longer subject to senatorial debate. In fact, these binding agreements are not up for debate at all. TPA permits only a simple up or down vote on such presidentially brokered international agreements.

OREGON HAS BEEN SECRETLY ALLOWING 15 YEAR OLDS TO GET STATE SUBSIDIZED SEX CHANGE OPERATIONS WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION UNDER MEDICAID

Oregon allowing 15-year-olds to get state-subsidized sex-change operations

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
foxnews.com
The list of things 15-year-olds are not legally allowed to do in Oregon is long: Drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo — even go to a tanning bed.
But, under a first-in-the-nation policy quietly enacted in January that many parents are only now finding out about, 15-year-olds are now allowed to get a sex-change operation. Many residents are stunned to learn they can do it without parental notification — and the state will even pay for it through its Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan.
“It is trespassing on the hearts, the minds, the bodies of our children,” said Lori Porter of Parents’ Rights in Education. “They’re our children. And for a decision, a life-altering decision like that to be done unbeknownst to a parent or guardian, it’s mindboggling.”
In a statement, Oregon Health Authority spokeswoman Susan Wickstrom explained it this way: “Age of medical consent varies by state. Oregon law — which applies to both Medicaid and non-Medicaid Oregonians — states that the age of medical consent is 15.”
While 15 is the medical age of consent in the state, the decision to cover sex-change operations specifically was made by the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC).
Members are appointed by the governor and paid by the state of Oregon. With no public debate, HERC changed its policy to include cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and gender-reassignment surgery as covered treatments for people with gender dysphoria, formally known as gender identity disorder.
HERC officials refused repeated requests by Fox News for an interview and even gave Fox News inaccurate information about the medical director’s work schedule.
Oregon Health Authority officials directed Fox News to their website. It shows transgender policy was discussed at four meetings in 2014. It was passed without any opposition or even discussion about teenagers’ new access to undergoing a sex change.
Gender dysphoria is classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder in which a person identifies as the sex opposite of his or her birth. It is rare, affecting one out of every 20,000 males and one out of every 50,000 females.
According to a 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, “most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty.”
Dr. Paul McHugh, who led the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department and still practices, said Oregon’s policy amounts to child abuse. “We have a very radical and even mutilating treatment being offered to children without any evidence that the long-term outcome of this would be good,” McHugh said.
Dr. Jack Drescher, a member of the APA who worked on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, says treatment for gender dysphoria has received a lot more attention in recent years. He said this year New York changed its policy to cover cross-sex hormone drugs and sex-reassignment surgery for Medicaid recipients who are at least 18 years old. He thinks Oregon is offering the treatment too early.
“Children age 15 may not fully understand all the consequences of the procedures they are undergoing,” he said.
Jenn Burleton disagrees. She underwent a sex-reassignment surgery and started the Portland non-profit group TransActive. She said requiring parental consent would lead to more suffering and teen suicide attempts.
“Parents may not be supportive,” Burleton said. “They may not be in an environment where they feel the parent will affirm their identity, this may have been going on for years.”
The science is unsettled. A 2010 Murad study concluded “very low quality evidence suggests sex reassignment … improves gender dysphoria and overall quality of life.” The authors admitted the evidence was “sparse and inconclusive.”
Lisa Maloney, a parent and Scappoose, Ore., School Board member, is outraged.
“To know that taxpayers are now on the hook for that, that a child can do that without their parent’s knowledge or information or consent, parents have absolutely no say, that’s appalling,” Maloney said.
The Oregon Health Authority could not say how many Medicaid recipients have been treated for gender dysphoria since the new policy took effect in January. Oregon has 935,000 people enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan. HERC assumes between 14 and 112 of them may be gender dysphoric. It estimates the total cost of adding cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and sex reassignment surgeries to the coverage will be no more than $150,000 per year.
But HERC also believes the state will save money due to fewer suicide attempts. It estimates there will be one less suicide attempt per year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the average cost per suicide attempt in the U.S. is $7,234.
But Dr. McHugh says a sex-change operation, especially for young people with gender dysphoria, is never appropriate.
“We can help them if we begin to explore with them and their families what they’re fearing about development, what they’re fearing about being a young boy, a young adolescent appropriate to themselves.”
_____________________________________________________________
FOX NEWS INTERVIEW: 

“BORN AGAIN” JIMMY CARTER SURMIZES JESUS WOULD APPROVE GAY “MARRIAGE”~BUT CAN’T FIND THE BIBLE VERSE TO SUPPORT IT~HAS A PROBLEM THOUGH WITH ABORTION, BUT NOT WHEN HE APPOINTED SARAH WEDDINGTON IN 1977

THRILLED THE CROWDS BY WALKING PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. TO HIS INAUGURATION, JANUARY 1977
THE LIBERAL PEANUT FARMER FROM GEORGIA
WHO PROMISED A LOT WITH A BROAD SMILE, BUT GAVE US HYPER INFLATION 
& 20% INTEREST RATES
40 YEARS LATER STILL TEACHING HERESIES IN SUNDAY SCHOOL & TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
“BORN AGAIN” (SO TO SPEAK?) BAPTIST JIMMY CARTER SAYS 
JESUS WOULD APPROVE GAY “MARRIAGE” 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

(Friday Church News Notes, July 17, 2015,www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - In a July 7 interview with HuffPost Live, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said: “I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else. I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage. That’s just my own personal opinion.” Jimmy Carter is a longtime Sunday School teacher at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia, though he doesn’t believe the Bible. In 1997, Carter rebuked the Southern Baptist Convention for targeting Mormons with the gospel. Carter loves modernistic theologians such as Barth and Brunner who denied the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, and other cardinal doctrines. After his election to the presidency, Carter appointed pro-abortion activist Sarah Weddington to the position of assistant to the president. He has been promoting homosexual rights since the early 1990s. To say that Jesus would approve of gay marriage is ridiculous, since Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman as “at the beginning,” referring to Genesis 2. “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 19:4-5).
_______________________________________________________
CARTER CLAIMS HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH ABORTION ON DEMAND, BUT APPOINTED SARAH WEDDINGTON AS ASSISTANT
LAWYER FOR "JANE ROE" IN ROE V. WADE
2011
FROM WIKIPEDIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Weddington
Sarah Ragle Weddington (born February 5, 1945), is an American attorney, law professor, and former member of the Texas House of Representatives best known for representing "Jane Roe" (real name Norma McCorvey) in the landmark Roe v. Wade case before the United States Supreme Court

After graduating, Weddington found it difficult to find a job with a law firm. She instead joined a group of graduate students at University of Texas-Austin that were researching ways to challenge various anti-abortion statutes. After deciding that a woman should helm a lawsuit to challenge Texas’ statute, Weddington volunteered.
Soon after, a pregnant woman named Norma McCorvey visited a local attorney seeking an abortion. The attorney instead assisted McCorvey with handing over her child for adoption, and after doing so, referred McCorvey to Weddington and Linda Coffee. In March 1970, Weddington and her co-counsel filed suit against Henry Wade, the Dallas district attorney and the person responsible for enforcing the anti-abortion statute. McCorvey became the landmark plaintiff, and was referred in the legal documents as "Jane Roe" to protect her identity.
Weddington first stated her case in front of a three-judge district court on May 1970 in Dallas. The district court agreed that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional, but the state appealed the decision, landing it before the United States Supreme Court.
Weddington appeared before the Supreme Court in 1971 and again in the fall of 1972. Her argument was based on the 1st4th5th8th9th and 14th amendments, as well as the Court's previous decision inGriswold v. Connecticut, which legalized the sale of contraceptives based on the right of privacy. Of the experience, Weddington later stated, "There was a sense of majesty, walking up those stairs, my steps echoing on the marble. I went to the lawyers' lounge — to go over my argument. I wanted to make a last stop before I went in — but there was no ladies' room in the lawyer's lounge."
The Court’s decision was ultimately handed down in January 1973, overturning Texas’ abortion law by a 7-2 majority, and legalizing abortion within the first trimester of a woman's pregnancy. By then, Weddington had been elected a state legislator. At the age of 27, Weddington remains the youngest person to argue a successful Supreme Court case.
In 1992, Weddington compiled her experiences with the case and interviews with the people involved into a book titled A Question of Choice.

“GAY MARRIAGE”: 
“THAT’S NO PROBLEM WITH ME”; “BUT I DON’T HAVE ANY VERSE IN SCRIPTURE FOR IT”:

President Jimmy Carter's Jesus "approves of gay marriage"


CHUCK BALDWIN: OPEN LETTER TO FELLOW PASTORS & CHRISTIANS

An Open Letter To My Fellow Pastors And Christians

SEE: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3340/An-Open-Letter-To-My-Fellow-Pastors-And-Christians.aspxrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
I was born and raised in a Christian home. I accepted Christ as my Savior at the age of five. I surrendered to the Gospel ministry at the age of eighteen. I attended or have diplomas and degrees from four Bible colleges. I started pastoring when I was twenty-three years of age. And I just observed my fortieth year of continuous pastoral ministry. As Paul said to his son in the faith, Timothy, so I can say, “And that from a child [I have] known the holy scriptures.” (II Tim. 3:15)
Obviously, I am no stranger to the work of God. I have been in church all of my life. Though my dad was not a full-time minister (even though he was ordained), his best friends were pastors.  As a result, I have been around pastors and Christian workers all of my life. So, I am not speaking as an outsider. I know church work from the inside out. I’ve seen it; I’ve been taught it; and I’ve experienced it. The good, the bad, and the ugly: I’ve seen it all.
We pastors and Christians are never going to agree on every nuance of scriptural interpretation or method of ministry. But the vast majority of us will agree that Christ alone is our Sovereign and the Bible is the rule for our faith and practice.
SO, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?
Caesar has demanded that we recognize the legal “right” of homosexuals and lesbians to “marry.” It will not be long before each and every one of us pastors and ministers will, first, be ASKED to “marry” same-sex couples, and, then, be REQUIRED to “marry” same-sex couples.
WHAT WILL WE DO?
Some pastors are waiting to hear from their denominational superiors for instructions. Some are, no doubt, trying to keep quiet about the subject and hope they can somehow avoid dealing with it. Some are now counseling with attorneys for guidance. But, in truth, our guidance and instruction do not come from denominational officers or lawyers; and it is a cold, hard fact that there is NO avoiding the issue. Sooner or later (probably sooner), each of us will have to make a conscientious decision that is based solely on our moral and scriptural convictions.
AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO?
For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of religion and conscience became a matter of state licensure in 1954 when churches were included in the Internal Revenue Code, section 501c3, as mere non-profit organizations. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom to pray and read the Bible was removed from our public schools in 1962 and ’63. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of God-ordained self-defense became a state-sanctioned license and privilege in 1968. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the God-ordained right to life of unborn babies was expunged in 1973. For the most part, our pulpits have been silent as our Natural rights of privacy and local autonomy began being stripped from us in 2001. And, now, the most important institution in human history, Holy Matrimony, has been “redefined” by Caesar’s court.
Will we pastors remain silent? Will we sheepishly submit to this egregious and tyrannical assault against the most fundamental institution created by God? Will we become willing accomplices to the formalization of egregiously unnatural perversion?
WHAT WILL WE DO?
Can we not see that what is at stake is the preservation of religious liberty and Christian conscience in our land? Radical secularists (and even some anti-Christian religionists) desire to expunge every semblance of Christian thought and ideology from our nation. The purge has already begun.
All over America, lawsuits against pastors who refuse to marry same-sex couples have already been filed. The same is true for Christians in various service industries that refuse to cater to homosexual “marriages.” Militant homosexuals have brought a $70 million lawsuit against the two largest publishers of the Bible (Zondervan and Tyndale), demanding that the Scriptures condemning sodomy be eviscerated.
It will not be long and cultural Marxists will see to it that the homosexual lifestyle will be promoted in every conceivable public venue. Movies, television (even children’s programs), books, music, magazines, etc., will openly promote the sodomite lifestyle. Common Core curriculum will certainly advocate for homosexual conduct in America’s public schools. Homosexuals will demand the right to flaunt their romantic proclivities in public. Restaurants, concert houses, theaters, meeting places, even churches, will be sued if they do not allow homosexuals to openly display their perversity. Again, this is already beginning.
And for pastors and churches specifically, the big intimidation factor is the IRS tax-exempt status. Already, some of the largest and most notable newspapers, periodicals, and newscasts are calling for the removal of tax-exempt churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples. Some are even calling for the removal of tax-exempt status of ALL churches.
If the “great recession” of 2008 and ’09 was the natural “correction” of a manipulated economic “bubble,” I submit that the Hodges decision is the natural (or maybe divine) correction of a manipulated spiritual bubble. For over a half-century, churches have been intoxicated with “success.” The Joel Osteen-brand of Christianity has obfuscated the true purpose of the church. Pleasing Caesar and maintaining tax-exempt status (at all costs) have supplanted pleasing God and maintaining Biblical status. The result is a church that is “increased with goods” but that is spiritually “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17)
In reality, the Hodges Supreme Court decision was inevitable. It was the result of the spiritually polygamous marriage between the church and state in 1954. It was the result of a church that, like the Jewish Pharisees of old, said, “We have no king but Caesar,” while pretending to be married to Christ.
Well, now God has forced his pastors and churches to take a stand. There is no beating around the bush anymore. There is no avoiding the issue. Pastors and churches will either submit to Christ or they will submit to Caesar. There is no middle ground. There is no more fence-straddling.
Again, the root cause of all of this is the church’s acceptance of state licensure, and, therefore, state authority. Churches committed spiritual adultery when they allowed themselves to take the 501c3 wedding band. By doing so, they became “creatures of the state” and ceased to be the “bride” of Christ. And, remember, our God is a jealous God. “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
Since the state has decided to repudiate the Natural authority of marriage as given by our Creator, it behooves us, as Christian ministers, to repudiate state authority over marriage. That means we should immediately cease and desist from officiating over any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, that includes a license from the state. That is exactly what I will do.
In terms of the history of the Church, as well as Western Civilization, state-licensure of marriages is very recent. For over 1,800 years, almost no marriages (if any) required state-licensure. A certificate of marriage or declaration of marriage or church approbation–or other such recognition–was all that was needed. I don’t know about all of the 50 states, of course, but in my home State of Montana, marriages do NOT require a State license. And that’s exactly the way it should be.
WHAT ABOUT IT, PREACHER? WHAT WILL YOU DO?
Is a state-created tax-exempt license more important than fidelity to Christ and the Scriptures? Let me speak plainly: so what if we lose our tax-exempt status?
I hear my brethren exclaim, “But, Brother Chuck, we will lose tithing members. If they cannot claim their contributions on their tax forms, they will stop giving to the church.” My response is: SO BE IT.
Our churches are filled with careless, insincere, half-hearted Christians. God promised to separate the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the chaff; I believe He is doing just that in the United States right now. America’s churches have been living in a manipulated spiritual “bubble.” The bubble is bursting. It’s long overdue.
Churches in oppressed countries around the world are not worrying about some kind of tax-exempt status. They are not creatures of the state. Many of them are not even recognized as being legal in their states. Many of them are “unofficial,” “unregistered,” “unlawful,” etc. But they are true to Christ and His Word–and their numbers are flourishing.
In just a few years, there will be more Christians in Communist China than in so-called “Christian” America–a first since America came into existence. And there is no tax-exempt status afforded them. At the same time here in America, Christianity is in steep decline. What’s the difference? In China, churches do not seek, nor will they accept, state recognition and endorsement, while here in America churches enthusiastically embrace state recognition and endorsement (licensure).  
It’s time we find out who is real and who isn’t.
And a question for those church members out there: What are you going to do if your pastor agrees to marry same-sex couples? If your pastor will not take a stand on this, he won’t take a stand on ANYTHING. And, if he hasn’t said anything from the pulpit already, why are you still there?
Are you not willing to give your tithes and offerings to a church even if those financial gifts are NOT tax deductible? If not, what is your real motivation for giving to begin with? Are you not willing to sit under the preaching of a courageous man of God who is the servant of God and not the servant of men–even men in government? If not, why are you even attending church?
Christians have been flocking to these “feel-good” churches for decades. They continued to support spineless pastors, who refused to take a stand for the God-ordained duty of self-defense; who refused to take a stand against the killing of unborn babies; who refused to speak out for religious liberty; and who are currently refusing to take a stand against an Orwellian Police State being created in front of our very eyes. Will they now continue to stay inside those churches whose pastors refuse to take a stand for God-ordained marriage?
I submit that either the Church in America repents and does the “first works” or it will quickly lose its “candlestick.” Truly, “the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.” (I Peter 4:17)
AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?
 
 

OBAMA INTRODUCES TRANSGENDER MILITARY

OBAMA INTRODUCES TRANSGENDER MILITARY
Published on Jul 15, 2015
On Monday Obama’s Defense Secretary said the Pentagon’s ban on transgender individuals is outdated and the administration has ordered a study to end the practice.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-readies…

OBAMA READIES A TRANSGENDER MILITARY

Pentagon may pay costs associated with gender “reassignment”
by KURT NIMMO 
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/obama-readies-a-transgender-military/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

On Monday Obama’s Defense Secretary said the Pentagon’s ban on transgender individuals is outdated and the administration has ordered a study to end the practice.
“The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions,” Ash Carter said in a statement.
“At a time when our troops have learned from experience that the most important qualification for service members should be whether they’re able and willing to do their job, our officers and enlisted personnel are faced with certain rules that tell them the opposite.”
Carter said a working group formed to study the policy will be led by his personnel undersecretary, Brad Carson. It will operate under the presumption so-called transgenders are capable of serving “without adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness, unless and except where objective, practical impediments are identified.”
The working group will also look at the possibility of the United States military paying for the medical costs of surgeries and other treatment associated with any gender transition or “reassignment.”
The move toward integrating transgender people into the military has support in Congress and is backed by Rep. Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
It is also supported by the former Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel. “I’m open to those assessments, because – again, I go back to the bottom line – every qualified American who wants to serve our country should have an opportunity if they fit the qualifications and can do it,” he said last May.
In December Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said “anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve,” adding that “times change.”
The move toward a policy shift follows a September 2011 decision to repeal a ban on gay men and women serving openly.
________________________________________________________

ACLU examines U.S. military’s transgender ban

White House Open to Lifting Transgender Ban

AMANDA SIMPSON
TRANSGENDER COMMERCE SECRETARY

Military to Allow Transgender Service Members



PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS BUT NOT BABY BUTCHERS, PERVERTS, ILLEGALS, NOR OBAMA THE LAWBREAKER

No law enforcement action taken against baby butchers while Christians like Kent Hovind go to jail for years for “unlawfully” withdrawing their own money from their bank accounts.

Planned Parenthood Breaks Law Sells Murdered Baby Body Parts To Mad Scientists

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/planned-parenthood-breaks-law-sells-murdered-baby-body-parts-mad-scientists/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Christiannews.net
WASHINGTON — The abortion giant Planned Parenthood is downplaying a video released this week by a pro-life group that shows a top Planned Parenthood director describing the organization’s harvesting and sale of fetal body parts and organs for medical research.
As previously reported, the Center for Medical Progress released the video on Tuesday as the next in its “Human Capital” investigative series, as it researches the organization’s illegal sales of fetal body parts in America. It features abortionist Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, who oversees the practices of all the 700-plus Planned Parenthood locations nationwide.
Nucatola thinks she’s having a business dinner with representatives of a fetal tissue procurement company, but what she doesn’t know is that the man and woman that she is speaking with are undercover investigators and are recording her conversation.
NUCATOLA: $30 TO $100 PER PRESERVED SPECIMEN
During the discussion, as she munches nonchalantly on salad, Nucatola explains that certain mothers who obtain abortions want the child’s parts to be donated to science, and that the abortion facilities wish to accommodate them, but “in a way that is not perceived as ‘This clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.’”
She then describes in detail how the organs and extremities of the aborted babies are decidedly removed intact so that they can be sold to buyers. She outlines that the organization is paid between $30 to $100 per “specimen.”
“How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?” the male investigator asks Nucatola, wanting to find out if Planned Parenthood can set aside certain organs for sale.
“It makes a huge difference,” she replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
“It’s very rare to have a patient that doesn’t have enough dilation to evacuate the other parts intact,” Nucatola explains.
“To bring the body cavity out intact and all that?” the man asks.
“Exactly,” she replies. “So then you’re just kind of cognizant where you put your graspers. You try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that—-you know. We’ve been very good at getting the heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so ‘I’m not gonna crush that part. I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.’”
She mentions a “list” that she refers to in supplying the body parts that are in demand.
“For example, I had eight cases yesterday. And I knew exactly what we needed, and I kinda looked at this list and said, ‘Alright, this 17-weeker has 8 LAMs and this one—so I knew which were the cases that were probably more likely to yield what we needed, and I made my decisions according to that, too. So, it’s worth having a huddle at the beginning of the day, and that’s what I do.”
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: WE’RE HELPING ‘LIFESAVING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH’
But Planned Parenthood released a statement on Tuesday following public disgust over the video, downplaying the matter by stating that the organization gives women the option of having their baby’s bodies donated to medical research.
“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different,” it wrote. “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.”
Contrary to Nucatola’s outline in the video that the organization is paid between $30 to $100 “per specimen,” Planned Parenthood asserted that the organization does not make money from the organs or body parts of the babies.
“There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood,” the abortion giant contended. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”
Planned Parenthood asserted that the video was created with malice as it believes that its involvement in “tissue donation programs”—or supplying aborted baby organs such as the child’s heart and liver—is actually doing the world an honorable service by supporting “lifesaving scientific research.”
“A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research,” it wrote.
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS: PLANNED PARENTHOOD TELLING PART TRUTH, PART LIES
The Center for Medical Progress likewise released a statement after Planned Parenthood downplayed the undercover video footage.
“Planned Parenthood makes two key admissions in their statement today: 1) aborted fetal parts are harvested at their clinics, and 2) money is exchanged in connection with this,” it wrote. “They also tell several lies: 1) That proper consent is obtained from patients, 2) That Planned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts, and 3) that everything is legal.”
Nucatola, the Planned Parenthood director featured in the video, deactivated her Twitter account following release of the footage.
The Center for Medical Progress had released the full nearly three-hour video with Nucatola in addition to the eight-minute version so as to counteract concerns about the first video being edited.
____________________________________________________________
IRS PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS/CONSERVATIVES
SEE HOW PASTOR KENT HOVIND WAS WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED FOR YEARS BY FALSE IRS CHARGES OF “STRUCTURING” ETC.

58 COUNT INDICTMENT
“THE MOST HATED CREATIONIST” YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
NINE YEARS IN JAIL

The Alex Jones Show Interview with Dr. Kent Hovind

IMPRISONED FOR EXPOSING DARWINIAN SOCIALIST RELIGION:

SHORT

LONG

Kent Hovind is Now FREE!! 7-8-2015

A word from a free man Kent Hovind


FULL FOOTAGE OF MEETING WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOCTOR OVER LUNCH~THE FULL DISCUSSION OF SELLING ABORTED FETUS PARTS

FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:





PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola, Other Planned Parenthood Leadership Documented Selling Aborted Baby Parts in 3-Year Investigative Journalism Study

Contact: David Daleiden, media@centerformedicalprogress.org, 949.734.0859

LOS ANGELES, July 14—New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”

“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”

Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).

Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”

The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its “Human Capital” series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”

###

See the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwV…

_______________________________________________________

Black Market Profiteering: Planned Parenthood Sells Aborted Baby Parts

BY STEVE BYAS
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/21254-black-market-profiteering-planned-parenthood-sells-aborted-baby-partsrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical sevices, didn’t know she was on camera when she disclosed that her organization regularly sells body parts of babies who have been aborted.
But an undercover video has revealed the shocking truth. Over lunch, Nucatola told actors who posed as potential buyers of body parts about the gruesome practice.
The Center for Medical Progress, a nonprofit organization, made the video, which reveals the extent of  Planned Parenthood’s lack of regard for the life of unborn children. The actors told Nucatola, who has had a supervisory role nationally for Planned Parenthood since 2009, that they needed the body parts for their human biologics company.
Nucatola assured them that would be no problem. “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
Planned Parenthood makes up to $100 per body part, and Nucatola told the undercover actors, “I’d say a lot of people want liver.” That is why, she explained, “most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”
At the beginning of each day, Nucatola said, she has “a huddle” with the abortionists to determine which baby body parts are in the highest demand, so they can utilize whichever procedure will work best to salvage them.
The selling of parts of the bodies of aborted babies is a violation of federal law — a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000. Nucatola told the “buyers” that the national Planned Parenthood office has concerns about its legal liability, which is why such things are discussed “behind closed doors.” Besides, she noted, “laws are up to interpretation.”
In another video clip, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richardson is seen praising Nucatola’s effort in this area. “She’s amazing,” Richardson exclaims.
Dr. Nucatola teaches new abortionists how to perform the various procedures, and carries out her own abortions at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Los Angeles on unborn children up to 24 weeks (six months) in term.
David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress called what Planned Parenthood was doing a “criminal conspiracy.”
Live Action President Lila Rose expressed similar sentiments. “This investigation by the Center for Medical Progress reveals the unimaginable horror that is Planned Parenthood. The exploitation of human life, the cover-up, and black market profiteering by America’s largest abortion chain is not only egregious and heartbreaking, but exposes how the abortion giant is corrupt to the core.” She called their practices “barbaric.”
The barbarism of Planned Parenthood is not new. Today, it is the nation’s largest provider of “reproductive health services,” performing around 300,000 abortions each year, and its history has always shown the same callous disregard for human life. Tax-funded Planned Parenthood grew out of the American Birth Control League, founded in New York by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who argued that the aborigines of Australia were “just a step higher than the chimpanzees” in that they had “little self control.” At least, she noted, compared to “normal men and women.” She founded the organization to eliminate people she described as “human weeds.”
Sanger’s pro-eugenics position, in which she supported compulsory sterilization for some individuals she contended should not be allowed to reproduce, remains a public relations problem for the organization. Despite this, the Margaret Sanger Award is still given to “individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.” Recipients of the award have included President Lyndon B. Johnson, John D. Rockefeller III, Jane Fonda, Ted Turner, and Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, said the undercover video was shocking, demonstrating the “grisly, inhumane business model of Planned Parenthood.” She called for the defunding of the organization, arguing, “The American taxpayer should not be in the business with such callous profiteers.”
But they are, and have been for decades. Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. He defended the funding, asserting that “No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic conditions.”
Planned Parenthood receives about one-third of its money from government grants and contracts. While federal money cannot be used directly in the performance of abortions, it is funneled to the organization’s other services such as breast cancer screening, thus freeing up privately donated funds for abortions in many of their 820 clinics throughout the United States.
As there is little doubt that the Obama Justice Department will refuse to file any criminal charges against Planned Parenthood, pro-life leaders across the country have called for an investigation by Congress. Now it remains for congressmen with a conscience to step up to the plate.

NAACP: CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS TO BE ERASED IN CLEAN SWEEP~DELAWARE ALREADY SECRETLY PURGING DOCUMENTS






STONE MOUNTAIN 
Confederate Monuments to Be Erased in 
“Clean Sweep”
Published on Jul 15, 2015
In attempting to wipe monuments and symbols from the pages of history, so-called “progressives” are appropriating a similar mentality to ISIS terrorists, who have spent the last year tearing down historical statues and monuments because they offend their radical belief system.

http://www.infowars.com/naacp-wants-s…
NAACP WANTS STARS & BARS REMOVED FROM ALABAMA TROOPERS’ VEHICLES
http://www.infowars.com/flag-purge-co…

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST ABOUT DELAWARE’S PURGING OF “TERRORIST” CONFEDERATE DOCUMENTS, SYMBOLS & FLAGS

ABORTED FETUS BODY PARTS FOR SALE THROUGH PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES DESCRIBED OVER LUNCH BY SENIOR DIRECTOR

ORGAN HARVESTING FROM ABORTED FETUSES

SUPREME COURT’S BLOODY EFFECTS 

OF AMERICAN GENOCIDE

PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S TRAFFICKING 
IN ABORTED FETUS PARTS

DEBORAH NUCATOLA, M.D.

Senior Director Medical Services, Planned Parenthood, 
434 West 33 Street, New York, New York, 10001
212-261-4632
deborah.nucatola@ppfa.org
400 W 30th Street, Los AngelesCA 90007
213-284-3200

323-697-9458 

Dr. Mengele’s Brunch Buddy
Federal law prohibits the sale of body parts of aborted babies. In fact, the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).


SANGER & HITLER SHARED COMMON GOALS TO EXTERMINATE 
“THE LOWER INFERIOR RACES” (UNTERMENSCH); 
A BI PRODUCT OF ACCELERATED DARWINIAN THEORY
       

SEE: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-new-york-city/who-we-are/our-history


DEBORAH NUCATOLA 

TALKING SHOP OVER SALAD LUNCH WITH UNDERCOVER REPORTERS;
BUFFET OR A LA CARTE ABORTION FETUS PARTS FOR SALE
The footage shockingly depicts the top medical official at the Planned Parenthood corporation munching on her salad while she discusses the sale of body parts of unborn children victimized by abortions. She brazenly describes how the heads of unborn babies killed in abortions command top dollar.
SELECT THE BODY PART YOU WANT TO ORDER FROM THE MENU:
ORDERS TAKEN BY: http://stemexpress.com/
_________________________________________________
“DR. MENGELE’S BRUNCH BUDDY”:
SEE: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/dr-mengele-dr-nucatola-planned-parenthood-abortion/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This is one of the most evil things I’ve ever seen. It’s a hidden camera interview of Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the medical director of Planned Parenthood, eating lunch and talking about how her organization’s abortionists take special care with how they kill unborn children so Planned Parenthood can sell the body parts of the dismembered babies.
We allow this in America.
But although Nucatola’s comments raise questions about the acquisition of fetal tissue and the ethical issues surrounding its collection, the transfer of human fetal tissue is not illegal in the United States. Women undergoing abortions sometimes choose to donate fetal tissue for scientific research and abortion providers do not facilitate these donations without their explicit consent.
The law cited by the Center for Medical Progress—42 U.S. Code § 289g—2—prohibits the acquisition and transferring of human fetal tissue “for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” A definition within the code notes that “‘valuable consideration’ does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
In other words, transferring human fetal tissue is legal in the United States provided that payments are for processing and transportation costs.
You have to watch the video to appreciate the full moral horror of this. That Nucatola ghoul masticates her salad while glibly talking about mining human body parts for resale. Amanda Marcotte — you knew she would chime in — concedes that this sounds incredibly horrible, but see, that’s only because we are hicks:
As someone who is squeamish, it was extremely difficult for me to listen to Nucatola talk about extracting liver, heart, and other parts to be donated to medical research. (I nearly fainted when a friend showed me the video of her knee operation once.) But people who work in medicine for a living do, in fact, become inured to the gore in a way that can seem strange to those of us who aren’t regularly exposed to it. She also thought she was speaking to people in her profession who would be similarly accustomed to this sort of thing.
Abortion is gross, no doubt about it. It becomes grosser the later in a pregnancy it gets. But so is heart surgery. So is childbirth, for that matter. We don’t deny people who need help in those cases because the help is gross. Nor should we deny people that help when it comes to needing abortion. We also shouldn’t deny women who want to donate fetal or embryonic remains to science any more than we would deny someone who wants to be an organ donor, even though the latter is also quite gross to ponder.
Is there any vile, inhuman thing people like Marcotte won’t embrace to defend the Sexual Revolution? Look, let’s say for the sake of argument that the undercover group gets the law completely wrong, and that what Planned Parenthood does is completely legal. Is it any less horrific? “Oh, it’s legal, so it’s fine.” Good grief. Selling slaves was once legal too.
______________________________________________________

REPORT: PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOCTOR ADMITS TO SELLING ABORTED BABY BODY PARTS

Director of LA chapter admits on film to selling hearts, livers and skulls harvested from babies killed
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/caught-on-tape-planned-parenthood-doctor-admits-to-selling-aborted-baby-body-parts/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A disturbing hidden camera video out of Los Angeles features a Planned Parenthood clinician discussing the practice of selling the body parts of aborted babies in blatant violation of federal law.
In the video, part one of a 3-part documentary series from The Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood Senior Director Dr. Deborah Nucatola explains to a male and female couple over lunch how the procedure goes down and which human organs are most popular.

Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Dr. Nucatola says. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
Dr. Nucatola nonchalantly describes that the “calvarium” fetches the highest price, and that prices for body parts generally range from $30 to $100, all while eating a salad.
“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact,” the abortion doctor says.
“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex [head-first],” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech [feet-first] presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
The video also reveals Dr. Nucatola is aware the practice of selling mutilated dead baby parts effectively violates a federal law which prohibits the sale of fetal tissue procured from partial birth abortions.
David Daleiden, the head of the non-profit Center for Medical Progress, says he’s floored by the admissions of criminal wrongdoing his team captured:
“Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization,” Daleiden said, according to LifeNews.com. “Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”
Following the release of the organization’s damning exposé, several pro-life groups demanded Congress immediately launch an investigation into the practices Dr. Nucatola discusses in the video.
After admitting to criminal wrongdoing on film, Dr. Nucatola deleted her Twitter account within 1.5 hours of the video’s release.

Caught on Camera: Planned Parenthood Harvesting Babies’ Organs

______________________________________________________

Eva Kor – Survivor of the Holocaust
and Nazi Experiments on Twins

Published on Nov 4, 2014
Her story begins with a number: A-7063. It is tattooed on her arm. Eva Kor is a Holocaust survivor who endured the Dr. Josef Mengele’s twin experiments at Auschwitz. In 1944, Eva’s family was packed into a cattle car and transported to the Auschwitz death camp. After 70 hours without food or water, Eva and her family emerged onto the selection platform at Auschwitz. Eva’s parents and two older sister were selected to be killed immediately. Eva and her twin sister Miriam were saved to be experimented on. Approximately 1500 sets of twins-3000 children-were abused, and all but 200 died as a result of these experiments. Eva herself became deathly ill, but through sheer determination, she stayed alive and helped Miriam survive. This is a picture of Eva and her sister being freed from the Nazis (the two in stripes). As they grew older, Miriam’s kidneys would fail, requiring a transplant. Committed to the survival of her sister, Eva donated a kidney to her. 

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

CMP Statement in Reply to Planned Parenthood’s Cover-Up of Baby Parts Sales

SEE: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2015/07/cmp-statement-in-reply-to-planned-parenthoods-cover-up-of-baby-parts-sales/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Planned Parenthood makes two key admissions in their statement today: 1) aborted fetal parts are harvested at their clinics, and 2) money is exchanged in connection with this. They also tell several lies: 1) That proper consent is obtained from patients, 2) That Planned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts, and 3) that everything is legal.

The Center for Medical Progress has obtained an advertisement to Planned Parenthood clinics (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/StemExpress-flyer.pdf) from StemExpress, LLC, one of the major purchasers of Planned Parenthood’s aborted fetal tissue. This flyer advertises 4 different times the financial benefit that Planned Parenthood clinics can receive from supplying fetal tissue, with the words: “Financially Profitable,” “Financial Profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” “fiscal growth of your own clinic.” The advertisement carries an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Medical Director Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.
None of this is standard across the mainstream medical field, but it is standard across Planned Parenthood’s insular and unaccountable abortion field.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
CECILE RICHARDS, PRESIDENT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD PRAISES DEBORAH NUCATOLA’S WORK:


RICK WARREN TO CO-PREACH KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT POPE’S USA VISIT IN SEPTEMBER

AND RICK WARREN TOO!
NEITHER PREACH BIBLICAL TRUTH

Rick Warren to Co-Preach Keynote Address at Pope’s U.S.A. Visit in September

From Lighthouse Trails Research at: 
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2015/newsletter20150714.htmrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Dear Lighthouse Trails:
I thought you might want to know that Rick Warren is going to co-preach the Keynote Address with a priest for Pope Francis’ visit in September 2015. Here is the link to the documentation on that meeting:http://www.worldmeeting2015.org/about-the-event/adult-congress-sessions-thursday-friday/
Thank you for continuing to warn about Rick Warren’s ecumenism, particularly with his joining hands with the current Pope and Catholicism. Thank you for informing your readers that on Nov.19, 2014, “a delegation of Catholic bishops sought ‘wisdom’ from Saddleback on how to use Purpose-Driven methods to propagate their ‘new evangelization,’ which is really no true biblical evangelization at all!” (See link:http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=16405).
In your Nov.19, 2014 blog post, it asked: “Did Rick Warren play a role in getting the Pope to the US, and will Rick Warren play a role in the Pope’s visit to the US. in 2015?”
The answer apparently is: “Yes!” as to whether Rick Warren is going to play a role in the Pope’s visit to the U.S. in September 2015.
Also in your same Nov.2014 blog post, it said that earlier in 2014, a “delegation of Catholic bishops visited Rick Warren and Saddleback to gain some ‘wisdom’ on how to accelerate the Catholic New Evangelization program using Purpose Driven methods.” That same blog also stated: “Perhaps the Pope will make a stop at Saddleback”…
Considering how most hyper-charismatics and heretical groups seem to be convinced a “global revival” will start in California, maybe the Pope might just stop by Saddleback . . . Perhaps a Papal visit to California might deceive more Christians into jumping on the spiritual bandwagon of this “revival” that supposedly will begin in California, as Bethel Church, Jesus Culture, the Sacramento pastors, etc. all have been pushing this false, ecumenical revival idea for quite a while already…
In Christ,
CONCERNED IN CALIFORNIA
LTRP Note: To understand more about Rick Warren’s global P.E.A.C.E. Plan, read Faith Undone by Roger Oakland and A “Wonderful” Deception by Warren B. Smith
_____________________________________________________

RICK WARREN “IMPRESSED” WITH POPE FRANCIS
JAMES WHITE, REFORMED BAPTIST:

“Our Pope” According to Rick Warren

Published on Jul 4, 2015
Rick Warren has been used in a Roman Catholic promotional video to white-wash the fundamental differences between Christianity and Romanism. Here is a brief response, shot in Irpin, Ukraine, challenging Warren’s capitulation to Rome’s claims. Presented by Dr. James White, Alpha & Omega Ministries

Rick Warren Preaches Address for Pope’s USA Visit

Published on Jun 23, 2015 by Keith Thompson
www.reformedapologeticsministries.com


“CHRISTIAN” COLLEGES FALLING DEEPER INTO APOSTASY BY ADAPTING TO GAY “MARRIAGE” RULING

QUICK TO JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON FOR ACCEPTING GAY LIFESTYLE
SCHOOLS DROP BANS ON HOMOSEXUAL ACTS;
OFFER “MARRIAGE” BENEFITS TO GAYS
Christian Colleges Falling Deeper into Apostasy As They Cave in to Supreme Court Ruling
Republished from Lighthouse Trails Research at:
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2015/newsletter20150714.htmrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Lighthouse Trails has been tracking Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries for many year now, documenting the steady decline into apostasy as the majority of them have now begun to embrace contemplative spirituality through their Spiritual Formation programs. You can read about this in our booklet/article “An Epidemic of Apostasy – How Christian Seminaries Must Incorporate “Spiritual Formation” to Become Accredited.” That special report we wrote explains how Christian higher-learning institutions are bringing Spiritual Formation into their schools so they can receive accreditation from religious accreditation organizations that are requiring Spiritual Formation. While that isn’t the only reason these Christian schools have succumbed to the dangerous teachings of contemplative spirituality, it certainly has been a main factor. Simply put, without accreditation, these schools won’t get certain benefits and recognition, including money in the form of donations, grants, etc. It also keeps their enrollment down as students typically want to attend schools that are accredited.
Lighthouse Trails has also pointed out on numerous occasions that once a church, school, ministry, or Christian organization begins embracing contemplative spirituality, it’s just a matter of time before that institution begins to change their views on topics such as creation, mysticism, the atonement, salvation through Christ alone, and homosexuality. That’s what getting involved in occultism does to people.
Couple all that with the recent Supreme Court ruling stating same-sex marriage must be recognized throughout America, you have the perfect recipe for the absolute falling away of the majority of Christian colleges.
Quick to jump on the band wagon for accepting the homosexual lifestyle is Baylor University, (the largest Baptist university in the world). According to a July 8th 2015 Time magazine article titled “This University Has Dropped Its Ban on ‘Homosexual Acts,’”  Baylor “dropped a prohibition on ‘homosexual acts’ from its sexual conduct policy”this past May.
But Baylor is not the only one. A Christianity Today article, dated July 8th 2015, titled “Hope College and Belmont to Offer Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses” explains how Belmont University (in TN) and Hope College (MI) are “extending benefits to same-sex spouses of employees after last month’s Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.” By the way, you can be sure Christianity Today isn’t too upset about these changes—they’ve been promoting the emerging church and contemplative spirituality for a long time.
Wheaton College has already headed down this path showing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, and many others will follow suit. And remember, those colleges are training the next generation of pastors and church leaders so the affects will undoubtedly be remarkable.
It appears it is too late to stop the tide of what is happening to Christian colleges. But at Lighthouse Trails, we will continue to send out a warning to parents and grandparents to keep their kids out of these schools and try to find ones that are in a fast-diminishing group of biblically based colleges. At the very least, we hope parents and grandparents will make sure their college-age kids and grandkids are well equipped to live in a world that rejects Christ and in a church that ignores spiritual deception.

DEMOCRATS MOVE TO STRIKE “HUSBAND” & “WIFE” FROM FEDERAL LAW

DEMOCRATS MOVE TO STRIKE “HUSBAND” & “WIFE” 
FROM FEDERAL LAW
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/21241-democrats-move-to-strike-husband-and-wife-from-federal-lawrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Wasting little time, Democrats in Congress are already proposing legislation to replace the words “husband” and “wife” in the federal code with gender-neutral language reflective of the Supreme Court’s June 26 pronouncement that married couples in the United States need no longer consist of a male and a female.
On July 8, Representative Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act, which she said in a press release “would strike the use of gendered terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from the federal code and replace them with more gender-neutral terms, such as ‘spouse’ or ‘married couple.’”
“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said.
In other words, the U.S. Code’s use of “husband” and “wife” — until recently, uncontroversial terms for the parties to the millennia-old practice of matrimony — is now evidence of bigotry that must be expunged.
“Our values as a country are reflected in our laws,” Capps continued. “I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages.”
That is, unnatural “marriages” blessed by five robed eminences are equivalent to traditional marriages, and thus the law must be changed to treat them the same. This means, of course, that same-sex spouses could be entitled to the same benefits under the law as opposite-sex spouses, such as Social Security survivors’ benefits, which would force taxpayers to bless, so to speak, same-sex marriage whether they agree with it or not. On the other hand, it could also subject same-sex spouses to the less marriage-friendly portions of federal law, such as the income-tax code’s penalty for spouses filing jointly.
The tax code, as it happens, is the subject of Senate Democrats’ pro-same-sex marriage legislation. Introduced July 9 by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and cosponsored by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus including presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Equal Dignity for Married Taxpayers Act “sets new precedent by removing gender-specific references to marriage, enshrining dignity and recognition for LGBTQ Americans in the tax code,” according to a Wyden press release.
“It’s about time that we update our tax law to reflect the institution of legal marriage,” said Wyden. “All married Americans deserve the same respect and dignity in the eyes of the law.”
Likewise, Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), in his own statement, said, “For too long, same-sex couples have been treated as second class citizens, and the onus falls on all of us to right this wrong. If the highest court in the land can stand by the constitutionality of all legal marriages, then we must fight to ensure our tax code justly affords all married people the same privileges.”
Despite these seemingly broadminded remarks, the Senate bill actually stops far short of full “marriage equality.” The act would replace “husband” or “wife” with “spouse” or “married individual” (one person) and “husband and wife” with “married couple” (two people). But why, by the Left’s logic, should marriage be restricted to two people? The Supreme Court stated in the Obergefell decision that Americans have a constitutional right “to define and express their identity,” so if, say, one man and six women wish to define their identity as a marital unit, why should the tax code — or, for that matter, the rest of federal law — continue to enshrine “prejudice and discrimination” against their desire for (as the court put it) “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family”?
Both the House and Senate bills reflect the outsized political power the homosexual lobby wields, particularly in the Democratic Party. How many other pressure groups could get their desired legislation introduced in Congress so quickly and with the support of so many lawmakers?
The House bill also reflects another political consideration. Capps’ press release claims her bill “would not only ensure that the code reflects marriage equality, but it could also make several positive changes to the U.S. Code by removing areas of gender discrimination written into federal law. For instance, it is currently illegal to threaten the President’s wife — but not the President’s husband. Capps’ bill would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the President’s spouse.”
This is an obvious reference to the likelihood that former First Lady, senator, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nominee. Democrats want to be sure that if she’s elected, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will be protected by law. But if Bill Clinton does move back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he won’t need protection; White House interns will.
________________________________________________________________________
                        LOIS CAPPS
I’m a proud supporter of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.”
                               

Happy LGBT Pride Month! From Lois Capps:

_______________________________________________________

             BOOKER, GAY MARRIAGE OFFICIANT PAR EXCELLENCE:
                                
            
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Booker Joins Senate Democrats to Call for Equal Dignity in the Tax Code

Introducing New Legislation to Modernize the Tax Code Reflecting the Supreme Court’s Favorable Marriage Equality Ruling

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) joined Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, (D-Ore)and other Senate Democrats to unveil legislation providing equal dignity for all legal marriages in the tax code. The bill, the“Equal Dignity for Married Taxpayers Act” sets new precedent by removing gender-specific references to marriage, enshrining dignity and recognition for LGBTQ Americans in the tax code.
“For too long, same-sex couples have been treated as second class citizens, and the onus falls on all of us to right this wrong,”Sen. Booker said. “If the highest court in the land can stand by the constitutionality of all legal marriages, then we must fight to ensure our tax code justly affords all married people the same privileges.”
“It’s about time that we update our tax law to reflect the institution of legal marriage,” Sen. Wyden said. “All married Americans deserve the same respect and dignity in the eyes of the law.”
This bill follows the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2015 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, striking down state-level bans on such marriages. The bill ensures that the nation’s tax law properly reflects the landmark civil rights decision, offering equal treatment to all married taxpayers.
Co-sponsors of the bill include: Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

			
		

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR COERCED RIGHTS, YOU LOSE YOURS

What Rights Will Others Lose When Homosexuals Gain Their Rights?

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Enlarged July 14 2015 (first published August 5, 2008)(David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)

If homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in Western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The rights to free speech and to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.  

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.  

 In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties. 

In 2000 Evelyn Bodett was fired by CoxCom Cable for expressing her biblical views against homosexuality to a lesbian subordinate. They claimed that she was thereby “coercing and harassing” the lesbian contrary to company policy. The lesbian, Kelley Carson, had sought Bodett’s advice in regard to a recent breakup with her homosexual partner, and Bodett gave her biblical counsel that homosexuality is a sin. Carson complained about the matter to a supervisor. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bodett’s religious discrimination suit. 

In 2001 Richard Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Peterson, who had worked for HP for nearly 21 years, posted the verses in response to the company’s diversity policy that requires acceptance of homosexuality. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that Peterson was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. Commenting on the case, Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law & Policy, said: “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out; diversity is in” (“Using Caesar’s Sword,” AgapePress, March 19, 2004). 

In 2002 homosexual activists tried to get the Ferndale City Council in Michigan to fire volunteer police chaplain Tom Hansen for stating his biblical views against homosexuality. The organization Soulforce claimed that Hansen, the pastor of a Baptist church, was committing “spiritual violence” against homosexuals by saying that it is sinful. The divided city council opted not to dismiss the pastor, but it did issue a resolution condemning him for his “anti-gay” views.

In 2002 Rolf Szabo was fired by Eastman Kodak for objecting to the company’s diversity policy. The program, which is called “Winning & Inclusive Culture,” allows no “negative comments” toward “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” employees. After the company sent out an email memo in October 2002 announcing “coming out” day for homosexual employees and demanding that they be given full acceptance and encouragement, Rolf replied to the same mailing list (1,000 employees), “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you.” For refusing to apologize and submit to diversity sensitivity training, Rolf was fired. He had worked for Kodak for 23 years. 

In 2002 in Saskatchewan, Canada, the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and Hugh Owens were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenixmerely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals (“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006). 

In 2003 the city of Oakland, California, labeled a flier posted on a workplace bulletin board as “homophobic” because it used the terms “the natural family and marriage” (“Suit to Decide Workplace ‘Hate Speech,’” The Washington Times, June 11, 2007). The flier, which was posted by Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, was removed after a lesbian complained to the city attorney’s office that it made her feel “excluded.” When Rederford and Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated, they lost at the local, state, and federal level, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against them. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. 

In June 2004 Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green in Sweden became the first pastor in the European Union to be charged under hate crimes. He was convicted for denouncing homosexuality as “abnormal,” “something sick,” and “a deep cancerous tumor in the body of society” and sentenced to one month in jail. The conviction was overturned by an appeals court.

In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.) 

In 2005 in Alberta Fred Henry, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman John Decicco of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” 

After he preached against homosexuality at a fellow officer’s funeral in September 2006, Sgt. Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department was removed from his position in community relations, moved back to patrol duty, and passed over for promotions and pay raises (“Police Office Sues LAPD and Los Angeles, Alleging Religious Discrimination,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008). In his eulogy, Holyfield, who is also a pastor, quoted Bible verses proving that homosexuality is an abomination before God and said that one must repent or be condemned to hell. Holyfield’s commanding officer, Charlie Beck, who was present at the funeral, filed a formal complaint against him. 

In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada targeting Catholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). 

In 2007 the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and its leader Ron Gray were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. The activist, Rob Wells, has also launched complaints against Craig Chandler in Alberta and Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDailyin America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues.  It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road. The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” (“Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission,” LifeSiteNews, Nov. 27, 2007). He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.” In June 2007 a coalition of protestant churches in Brazil was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family” and to remove billboards that said, “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!” “A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by the coalition to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was ‘homophobic’” (“Brazil Attacks against Family Defenders,”LifeSiteNews, July 30, 2007). 

In June 2008 Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who brought the complaint. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. 

In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008). Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”

In December 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland banned a newspaper ad by a Belfast church, claiming that it was offensive and indecent. The ad, entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy,” was run by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade. “The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had ‘caused serious offense to some readers’” (“Church Ad Banned,” Christian Post, Dec. 3, 2008). This government agency has therefore ruled that the Bible is offensive and indecent and that its statements can be banned if they cause “offense” to some. 

Also in December 2008, Graham Cogman was fired from the police force in Norfolk, England, for sending e-mails to colleagues quoting Bible verses and “suggesting that homosexual sex was sinful” (“Officer Forced to Quit after 15 Years,” Daily Mail, Dec. 6, 2008). Cogman, 50, had been on the force for fifteen years and had three commendations. He told the Daily Mail: “In the service in general there is a feeling of fear. There is a definite bias against faith--any faith--if it takes a critical view of homosexual sex. The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me. I don’t have any worries with what people do in their private lives--if they are gay, that’s fine. I haven’t gone after anyone maliciously.” He is appealing the verdict.

In August 2009, Peter Vadala was fired by the Brookstone Corporation for telling a lesbian co-worker that his Christian faith did not accept same-sex marriage. Two days after she contacted the Human Resources department, his job was terminated (“Massachusetts Man Fired from Corporation over Christian Belief in Traditional Marriage,” MassResistance.org, Oct. 30, 2009). The company told Peter that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal” and his actions were deemed to be “inappropriate” and “harassment.” He was accused of “imposing his beliefs upon others.”

In April 2010 Ken Howell was fired as adjunct professor by the University of Illinois for telling his Catholicism class that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Firing Follows Anonymous ‘Hate Speech’ Complaint,” OneNewsNow.com, July 14, 2010). Howell had taught at the university for nine years, and the complaint was made anonymously by a friend of a student who attended the class. 

That homosexual activists are trying to silence all Bible believers in the public arena with shrill brow-beating was evident in the March 2012 brouhaha following Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s bold defense of biblical marriage in his appearance on “Piers Morgan Tonight.” Asked for his views on homosexual marriage, Cameron showed more spiritual conviction and courage than the average preacher today by stating in a public forum: “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve--one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.” Mr. Cameron also said that homosexuality is “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” The response by homosexual activists and entertainment figures was hysterical. Some were nearly in a state of apoplexy. GLADD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) claimed that such comments “contribute to a climate of hostility” and “have no place in modern America.” Roseanne Barr said Cameron is “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Many have told Cameron to “shut up” in no uncertain terms and to keep his views to himself. In spite of the deluge of shrill criticism, Cameron hasn’t backed down. He said: “I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years--without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” Indeed.

After the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out in July 2012 for traditional marriage and against homosexual “marriage,” government leaders in four cities said the fast-food restaurants are not welcome in their territory. Asked about Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family, Dan Cathy said, ‘Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family--the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that” (“Chick-Fil-A Interview Triggers Media Storm,” Biblical Recorder, July 19, 2012). Speaking on the Ken Coleman radio program on June 16, Cathy said, “As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.” The response was loud and outrageous. The Human Rights Campaign--the nation’s largest gay activist group--posted a Chick-fil-A logo on its website with a fake tagline, “We Didn't Invent Discrimination. We Just Support It.” Boston Mayor Tom Menino said, “You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” Chicago Mayor said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” This ridiculous statement ignores the fact that larger numbers of Chicago citizens hold the same belief about marriage that Dan Cathy holds. Mountain View, California, is trying to block a new Chick-fil-A from opening. Homosexual activists announced that they would conduct “kiss ins” at Chick-fil-A stores. 

John Hayward correctly said that homosexual activists are trying to silence any dissent: 

“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game. Cathy isn’t allowed to encourage reverence and support for the traditional family, or even worse, put his money where his mouth is.  He’s not allowed to say that he finds moral or practical value in the time-honored definition of marriage, without feeling animosity towards gay people.  His ideas and principles are automatic thought crimes, no matter how gently and constructively they might be presented” (“The Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Controversy,” Human Events, July 24, 2012). 

After massive numbers of people visited Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country on August 1 to show their support for the company, homosexual activists continued to spew their vile thoughts and express their hatred of Bible-believing Christians. Many sent Twitter messages that wished for the death of Chick-fil-A supporters. The following were typical of those that were reproduced in a report entitled “Choke to Death on That LGBT Hating Chicken,” TheBlaze, Aug. 1, 2012. “Lets all go to Chick fil a today, lynch a fag or two, then hopefully all suffer major heart attacks and die.” “Oh please please let there be a news story about some bible thumper having a heart attack and dying in a chick-fil-a today fingers crossed.” “If you go eat at a Chick fil A today I hope you choke to death on that LGBT hating chicken.” “Buy ten bigot sammiches, eat em all, and die of a heart attack. Its all in the bible.” “At least we can take comfort in the fact that all the homophobes stuffing their face with Chick fil a will be dead sooner than later.” Many of the Tweets were too vile to reprint. 

In July 2012, Jane Pitt, mother of Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt, received a deluge of vicious responses, including death threats and an outpouring of filthy vulgarities, for simply expressing her opinion against abortion and homosexual “marriage.” In a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader in Missouri, Mrs. Pitt stated that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” which is the undeniable truth. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama even OPPOSED a bill that would have required that infants who survived abortion be given medical attention. With the liberal media as their gleeful helpers, homosexual activists have the objective of quieting every voice that is opposed to their lifestyle, and any time a prominent person utters so much as a peep against them, the response is immediate, outrageous, and vicious. In this case, it worked, as Mrs. Pitt has reportedly refused to make any further comment. There should be voices sounding everywhere in the “land of the free and home of the brave” in defense of Mrs. Pitt’s constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion, but even her famous son hasn’t said a word to rebuke his mother’s vile attackers. Her other son, Doug, though, spoke out in support, as did actor Jon Voight, the father of Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. Voight said, “Good for her” and expressed agreement with her point of view.

In January 2013 Pastor Louie Giglio was forced to withdraw from delivering the benediction at President Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony because of his opposition to homosexuality. In a sermon preached in the 1990s entitled “A Christian Response to Homosexuality,” Giglio said: “Homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a sexual preference. Homosexuality is not gay. Homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God and it is sin according to the word of God.” Giglio also said that same-sex “marriage” would “run the risk of undermining the whole order of society.” Because of these true words, Bible-hating homosexual activists demanded that he not deliver the address at the presidential inauguration, and the presidential inaugural committee withdraw its invitation. The growing power of the homosexual movement is evident in that four years ago it was not able to stop Rick Warren from speaking at Obama’s first inauguration, though they tried for the same reason that they opposed Giglio. Neither Giglio nor Warren is a staunch Bible believer or he would not have received such an invitation in the first place, but the vicious opposition even to milk-toast, rock & roll, ecumenical preachers such as these reveals the irrationality and intolerance of the homosexual agenda. And why are the enemies of truth so empowered today? Because of the milk-toast preachers in the pulpits who do not preach the fear of God in a scriptural fashion and therefore have filled the land with a nominal Christianity that has placed the nation under God’s curse. The solution is for God’s believing people to pay undivided attention to their individual lives, families, and churches so that for our sake God will bless instead of curse. We need to forget the politicking and get serious about obeying God’s Word. “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

In August 2013, a court in Scotland charged a man the equivalent of over $60,000 for criticizing a homosexual woman on Twitter. The following is excerpted from “Scottish Court,” ChristianNewsNet, Aug. 17, 2013: “The Court of Session in Edinburgh--known as the supreme civil court of Scotland--ruled that 54-year-old David Shuttleton should give Jaye Richards-Hill $62,000 as restitution for Tweets he posted last year. Richards-Hill is an open homosexual, described by some as one of Scotland’s ‘leading gay rights campaigners.’ Last summer, Shuttleton--an antiques-dealer--and Richards-Hill--an education technologist--exchanged heated messages on Twitter, with Shuttleton labeling Richards-Hill a ‘fraud’ whose homosexuality is ‘a danger to children.’ Eventually, Richards-Hill filed a lawsuit against Shuttleton, citing defamation of character charges. According to reports, the $62,000 fine was actually not decided by judges, but was instead a default punishment, since Shuttleton failed to file proper defense paperwork. He is vowing to appeal the decision, however. ... Shuttleton defended himself in a Daily Recordinterview, declaring that he was simply ‘an innocent Scotsman’ who is being attacked by ‘the homosexual machine.’ ‘It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community,’ he continued. ‘It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws. … We are talking about one of the most notorious and infamous extremist homosexual activist fanatics in the whole of Scotland here. She is an infamous, notorious Internet troll.’”

On August 16, 2013, a U.S. federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against an evangelist for allegedly stirring up hatred against homosexuals in another country can go to trial. SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda) filed suit against Scott Lively (Abiding Truth Ministries) for allegedly stirring up hatred toward homosexuals by teaching that homosexuality “is more destructive to society than abortion.” He taught this on trips to Uganda as well as on his web site. Last year SMUG accused Lively of “crimes against humanity of persecution,” using the Alien Tort Statute that allows foreigners to bring cases in U.S. courts when alleging violations of international law. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organization in its lawsuit alleges that Lively organized and carried out ‘strategies to dehumanize, demonize, silence, and further criminalize the LGBTI community’ in Uganda” (“Christian Evangelist’s Lawsuit Goes Forward,” The Christian Post, Aug. 16, 2013). “SMUG is seeking ‘compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages,’ a declaration that Lively’s conduct ‘has been in violation of the law of nations,’ and a court order prohibiting Lively from ‘undertaking further actions, and from plotting and conspiring with others, to persecute’ the LGBTI organization and those whose interests it represents in Uganda” (Ibid.). A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled last week that Lively’s attorneys have not proven that he was not partly responsible for inciting persecution and that the case can go to trial. The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lively, says, “The suit is a direct attempt to silence Rev. Lively and intimidate other pastors against teaching the Biblical position on homosexuality.”

In April 2014, Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla (maker of the popular web browser Firefox) because of his support for traditional marriage. In 2008, he contributed $1,000 to back California’s Proposition 8 referendum which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman. A firestorm of criticism by intolerant homosexual activists and supporters, like a bunch of howler monkeys, forced Eich’s resignation within two weeks of his election to head Mozilla. Newt Gingrich called the pressure against Eich as a “blatant example of the new fascism.” Pat Buchanan labeled it “the new blacklist.” RedState called it “a fascist purge.” Leftist comedian Bill Maher called the perpetrators the “gay mafia.” Even homosexual media personalities condemned the action. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce called it the “gay gestapo.” Andrew Sullivan condemned the “intimidating of free speech” and likened it to the inquisition of heretics. 

In May 2014, a Miami Dolphins player was fined and sent to “educational training” after he tweeted a negative comment about the drafting of the first homosexual professional football player. When Michael Sams was drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the seventh round, Don Jones tweeted, “OMG” and “Horrible” (“NFL Player Fined,” The Blaze, May 11, 2014). The speech Nazis didn’t waste a minute in condemning this “homophobic” behavior, and Jones quickly apologized, saying that his comments were “inappropriate.” 

In May 2014, AIDS expert Brendan Bain was fired for saying that homosexual sex acts are dangerous to those who practice them and to public health in general (“AIDS Expert Fired,” CharismaNews, May 21, 2014). In 2012, Professor Bain testified on behalf of a group of churches working to keep Belize’s sodomy law in place, showing from his own research that the risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. Because of this testimony, he was fired this month from his position as director of the regional coordinating unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. The homosexuals who are served by CHART believe that criminalizing homosexual acts forces the HIV epidemic underground and increases the HIV risk. The reality is that they don’t want to face the truth about their actions, so they seek to quiet every voice of opposition. 

In May 2014, Bob Eschliman, editor of a secular newspaper, was fired for airing his personal views against homosexual activism. The 41-year-old Eschliman had been editor-in-chief of the Newton Daily News (Newton, Iowa) for about two years when he was terminated for protesting the Queen James Bible on his personal blog. He accused the “Gaystapo” of trying to amend the Bible “to make their sinful nature ‘right with God’” (“Newspaper Editor Fired over Blog,” The Blaze, July 24, 2014). Though he removed the blog after someone in the community complained about it, he was fired anyway. John Rung, president of Shaw Media, which owns the Newton Daily News, said, “While he is entitled to his opinion, his public airing of it compromised the reputation of this newspaper and his ability to lead it.” Eschliman, who has been blacklisted and has been unable to get another job, has filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Commission for wrong termination. He is represented by the Liberty Institute.

In August 2014, a contractor for Ford Motor Company was fired for speaking against the company’s support of homosexuality (“Ford Contractor Says He Was Fired,” ChristianNews.net, Feb. 8, 2015). Thomas Banks was fired from his job as a design and release engineer after he responded to disagree with a company newsletter about the 20th anniversary of Ford’s Gay, Lesbian Or Bisexual Employees advocacy group (GLOBE). He wrote, “Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit to no one. This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and our survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote. Heterosexual behavior creates life--homosexual behavior leads to death.” He was notified in a voicemail that he had been fired. In January 2015, with help from the Liberty Institute in Texas, “Banks filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, contending that Ford had violated Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” 

In November 2014, Kelvin Cochran, fire chief of Atlanta, was “suspended without pay and ordered to undergo sensitivity training after publishing a book that contains quotes against homosexual behavior and other forms of sexual perversion” (“Atlanta Fire Chief Suspended,” ChristianNews.net, Nov. 26, 2014). The book, Who Told You That You Were Naked, contains lessons that Cochran prepared for men’s Bible study groups. Mayor Kasim Reed said: “I was surprised and disappointed to learn of this book on Friday. I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” In January 2015, Reed fired Cochran. At the press conference, Reed said, “I, too, am a person of very deep religious faith … 1 Corinthians 14:40 says, ‘Let all things be done decently and in order,’ and I want to make very clear in my judgment that was not done here. Chief Cochran’s book … was published in violation of the city’s standards of conduct, which require prior approval of the ethics officer and the board of ethics” (“Fire Chief Loses His Job,” The Blaze, Jan. 8, 2015). In fact, Cochran claims that he that he had verbal permission from Atlanta ethics officer Nina Hickson to write the book and that he had given Reed’s office a copy of the book in January 2014. It is obvious that this is religious persecution, and that it is pushed by homosexual rights activists. How ironic that Atlanta has an “ethics officer,” yet they persecute a Christian for quoting the Bible and teaching what it says. How amazing that America has arrived at the place where government workers must get approval for their speech even when they are off duty. The Christian’s constitutional liberties have been sacrificed at the altar of homosexual rights, and this is just the beginning of this phenomenon. Yet when we urge churches to have special prayer for the nation, the plea is met with a wall of silence, and in one case the plea brought a complaint from a pastor who charged me with interfering in his church’s business!

In November 2014, 71-year-old Bryan Barkely was dismissed as a volunteer by the British Red Cross for his stance on biblical marriage. Barkely has done volunteer work for two decades, but after he participated in a protest against legalized same-sex “marriage,” the Red Cross labeled his position “intolerable” and revoked his volunteer status “permanently and with immediate effect” (“UK Red Cross dismisses 20-year volunteer over same-sex ‘marriage’ stance,” OneNewsNow.com, Mov. 29, 2014). Barkely cannot fathom why the Red Cross would take such a position against his freedom of speech in the public square. Saying that his biblical viewpoint on marriage has nothing to do with his love and treatment of homosexuals and in no wise impeded the way he served families as a volunteer, Barkley rightly observed that “freedom of expression is being stifled in this country.” Andrea Williams of Christian Concern wonders why the Red Cross doesn’t extend its “founding principles of impartiality and neutrality” to Barkley. With legal assistance from the Coalition for Marriage, Barkley is appealing his dismissal.  

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, A BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIAN WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING 

In July 2008 Marcia Walden was fired from her counseling job with Computer Sciences Corporation after she referred a homosexual patient to another counselor for same-sex relationship advice (“Counselor Fired over Christian Beliefs,”OneNewsNow, July 18, 2008).

In 2010, Jennifer Keeton was told by Augusta State University in Georgia that she would have to change her Christian beliefs or be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program (The Christian Post, July 22, 2010). She was enrolled in the School Counselor master’s degree program since 2009. “She expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that particularly irked the faculty. According to the filed complaint, ‘She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a state of being.’ A Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Queer] populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations. When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Mary Anderson-Wiley [an associate professor who oversees student education and discipline] at one point responded, ‘Christians see this population as sinners.’” The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the school on July 21, 2010, but in June 2012 a judge of the Southern District of Georgia ruled against her. 

On July 26, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Eastern Michigan University was within its rights to dismiss a graduate student, Julea Ward, from its counseling program “because she chose not to counsel a homosexual patient” (“Christianity, ‘Gay Rights’ Clash,” Baptist Press, July 30, 2010). “Ward wanted to refer him to another counselor, but the school found her action insufficient. She was given three options: 1) going through a ‘remediation program,’ 2) voluntarily withdrawing, or, 3) going before a university panel. She chose to appear before the panel, which found she had violated the ACA’s code of ethics. The panel, made up of three faculty members and a student representative, even asked Ward if she viewed her ‘brand of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians who may not agree with her.’” 

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE 

The following is excerpted from Now It’s EX-‘gays’ getting pummeled,”WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:
“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. ...

“Griggs said at the time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.’

“The fair was one of the events to which PFOX was admitted. Several other major influences in America today, including the National Education Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association, simply refuse to allow PFOX to appear at their events.

“Those who condemn homosexuality also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle choice as a threat, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her. ...

“Griggs told WND the movement is becoming more aggressive in teaching that homosexuality is something people are born with, not something they choose for whatever reasons. 

“‘We have a school board teaching homosexuality is innate. We have judges ruling schools are not required to teach fact-based [sex education] information. Basically they are silencing anyone who holds a different opinion. Their sole concern is about advancing that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy and should have all the equal benefits of marriage. If you come at it from a Christian perspective, that makes you a homophobe,’ she said, citing the case of a University of Toledo administrator who was fired for expressing her personal Christian testimony regarding homosexuality. ‘They're not seeking equality; they're seeking total control,’ she said. ...

“‘Each year thousands of men and women with same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality by means of reparative therapy, ex-gay ministry or group counseling. Their choice is one only they can make. However, there are others who refuse to respect that choice, and endeavor to attack the ex-gay community. Consequently, ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment where they are reviled or attacked as perpetrators of hate and discrimination simply because they dare to exist,’ Griggs said.”

In Brazil, where the homosexual rights movement is very advanced, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a suit against Rozangela Alves Justino, a psychologist who offers therapy to homosexuals who want to change their orientation (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 29, 2007).

In August 2012 the California Assembly voted 51-22 to approve a bill that would forbid those under 18 to undergo sexual orientation change efforts “regardless of the willingness of a patient” or a “patient’s parent” (“Calif. Lawmakers Approve Ban,”Christian Post, Aug. 29, 2012). The bill must be voted on by the California Senate and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown. 

In 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California’s ban against “religious-viewpoint therapy for people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions.” And in January 2014 the federal court refused to review the case (“Federal Appeals Court Rules against Religious Liberty on Same-Sex Attraction,” Breitbart, Feb. 5, 2014). The court rejected the Liberty Counsel’s argument that the statue violates First Amendment rights of both counselors and patients. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. 

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE, BOY/GIRL 

The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife. 

The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B.” 

In Scotland, teachers in some major cities banned Father’s Day cards in 2008 so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interests of sensitivity’ over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households” (“Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008). 

In 2007, Scotland’s National Health Service approved a policy for hospital workers mis-titled “Fair For All.” In fact, the policy is “fair” for no one, because it destroys the right of free speech and forbids the use of historic and biblical terms such as “mother” and “father” (since some patients might have two mothers or two fathers) and “husband” and “wife,” labeling this “homophobic language.” Such terms must be replaced with “partner” or “they/them” (Ed Vitagliano, “There is only one acceptable way to talk about homosexuality -- SILENCE!” OneNewsNow.com, May 31, 2007). The policy is to be strictly enforced. 

In 2007 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California bill SB 777. It “prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from ‘promoting a discriminatory bias’ against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old. SB 777 means children will be taught that ‘gender’ is a matter of choice. When fully implemented, SB 777 will affect everything on campus--classroom instruction, instructional materials, textbooks, guest speakers, handouts, videos, sex education, drama, music, school assemblies, sports teams, homecoming games, school proms, school clubs, etc. There is no ‘opt out’ for parents” (“About SB 777,” rescueyourchild.com). Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families warns that references to “mother” and “father” would probably be banned (“Lawmakers Pass Redefinition of ‘Sex,” The Berean Call, June 8, 2007).

The following is excerpted from “‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ to Be Scrapped,” christian.org.uk, Feb. 11, 2013: “The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender-neutral term ‘parent.’ The proposals have been described as “politically stupid” by Gordon Wilson, the former leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr. Wilson said: ‘The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.’ Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust said: ‘The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.’” 

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education announced that its student loan applications have been redesigned to accommodate children brought up by homosexual parents. Beginning with the 2014-15 student aid form, the terms “mother” and “father” will be replaced with “parent 1” and “parent 2.”

The British government is changing the meaning of the words “husband” and “wife” so they can be used interchangeably for “people of either gender.” “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses. The landmark change is contained in the fine print of new official legal guidance drawn up for MPs and peers as the Government’s same-sex marriage bill is debated. It comes as part of a Government initiative to ‘clarify’ what words will mean when gay marriage becomes law. ... Previous legislation is to be amended sweep away the traditional understanding of ‘gender specific’ terms which could exclude those legally married under the new arrangements. ... ‘The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman),’ it adds, confusingly. ‘And “wife” will include a woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man) unless specific alternative provision is made.’ A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against the change, said: ‘We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created. This mangling of the English language shows what happens when politicians meddle with marriage. They’re in cloud cuckoo land’” (“Men can be ‘wives’ and women ‘husbands as government overrules the dictionary,”The Telegraph, June 27, 2013).

The following is excerpted from ChristianHeadlines.com, Oct. 13, 2014: “A school system in Lincoln, Nebraska is asking teachers to make their classrooms more gender-inclusive by avoiding the words ‘boys’ and ‘girls.’ ...  Instead, teachers have been told to creatively refer to their students. Examples include telling all students that like milk to line up, followed by students that prefer juice. When addressing the whole class, teachers are encouraged to invent a classroom name such as ‘purple penguins’ the handout said. The teachers were told to ‘Always ask yourself, Will this configuration create a gendered space?’ Lincoln County Public Schools coordinator of social workers and counselors Brenda Leggiardo said, ‘The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed. We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.’”

In June 2015, a corporate note to Goldman Sachs investment banking firm employees informed them that they must “help create an environment for open and honest dialogue.” This so-called open dialogue requires inclusive language and frowns upon descriptors such as “wife,” which should be replaced with “partner” (“Goldman Sachs Tells Employees ‘Wife’ Insults Gays and Transgenders,” Breitbart, Jun. 21, 2015). The corporate document also tells employees to “explore your personal beliefs, increase your awareness about issues impacting the gay community, include LGBT issues in your everyday life, attend events that celebrate diversity and inclusion, and speak out against hurtful comments.” In truth, an “open dialogue” gives liberty for the airing of all sides of an issue. There is nothing open or free about the homosexual agenda. 

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.  

 In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to her religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007). In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008). 

In 2005 a British Columbia Knights of Columbus council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In April 2008, Elane Photography was fined $6,600 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph the private “commitment ceremony” for two lesbians. Owners Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. After the Huguenins politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony” in 2006, one of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The Huguenins took the matter to court, but they have lost at every level. In June 2012, the New Mexico Court of Appeals plainly said that the state can discriminate against religious belief: “The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.” In August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court “ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies” (“New Mexico Court,” Breitbart.com, Aug, 22, 2013). The judges went so far as to say that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is the price of citizenship. Justice Richard Bosson said, “The Huguenins are free to ... pray to the God of their choice ... But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in December 2013 eight state attorneys general and 18 wedding photographers filed briefs in support of the Huguenins. But in April 2014, in an ominous ruling against first amendment rights, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, thus letting the lower court’s decision stand against Elene Photography. Legal pundits say that it is probable that the Supreme Court will wait until a federal appeals court rules on this issue before taking it into consideration, but it is ominous that the judges had no interest in giving immediate relief to Christians who are being oppressed by homosexual activists and by a government bent on advancing a “new morality.” This will create a climate in which it will be nearly impossible for a Bible-believing Christian to own a business or hold a job, particularly in government and education, if he or she is not willing to accept the government’s view of morality.

In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized same sex civil unions. 

Because of refusing service to a homosexual couple in 2008, the Christian owners of the Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall, England, were forced to hire legal representation and compensate the homosexuals, and in 2013 they had to sell the hotel because of loss of business and ongoing harassment and threats (including death threats) by homosexual activists. The owners, Hazelmary and Peter Bull, appealed the lower court decision against them to the U.K. Supreme Court, which ruled against them on November 27. The course said the court case was “a measure of how far we have come in the recognition of same-sex relationships” (“Christians who denied gay couple hotel room lose UK court case,” Reuters, Nov. 27, 2013). The court concluded, “Now that, at long last, same-sex couples can enter into a mutual commitment which is the equivalent of marriage, the suppliers of goods, facilities and services should treat them in the same way.”

Due to civil rights complaints and lawsuits brought by homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a same-sex service and pay heavy financial penalties. A settlement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights requires the company to establish a matching service for homosexuals, give the first 10,000 registrants a free six-month subscription, advertise the new service, and pay $5,000 to the homosexual who brought the complaint and $50,000 to the state for legal expenses (Christian News, Nov. 19, 2008). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the company spent to defend itself against the unjust charges over a three-year period. You would think that the homosexuals would be satisfied, but that is far from the case. They want to bleed the company even more, and the confused judges in the state of California are their abettors. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on November 20 that a class action lawsuit against eHarmony can go forward. Thus, every “gay, lesbian, and bisexual individual” that has attempted to use eHarmony since May 2004 can seek damages, and Judge Victoria Chaney said they do not need to demonstrate actual injury. They only have to assert that they visited the company’s web site to see a same-sex match and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).

When the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple in 2011 because of religious convictions against homosexual “marriage,” it was sued by the couple. The ACLU and the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined the suit. In August 2012, the resort agreed to pay $10,000 to the Human Rights Commission and to create a $20,000 charitable trust to be disbursed by Kate and Ming Linsley, the lesbian couple (“Lesbian Brides Win Settlement from Vermont Inn,” Reuters, Aug. 23, 2012). The resort also agreed not to host wedding receptions. Vermont legalized civil unions between same-sex couples in 2000 and legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2009, and the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act “prohibits public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.” 

The following is excerpted from “Christian Florist Slammed with Second Lawsuit for Declining to Decorate Homosexual ‘Wedding,’” Christian News, Apr. 22, 2013: “A Christian florist in Washington has been slammed with a second lawsuit for declining to decorate the homosexual wedding of a longtime client. Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit last month by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claims that she violated the law by not fulfilling the order. Stutzman had been approached in March by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event. ... After Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue--both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments. ‘It blew way out of proportion,’ Stutzman explained. ‘I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.’ ... Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington has also filed against the florist, this time on behalf of Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.”

In February 2015, a state judge ruled against Arlene’s Flowers, saying that Baronelle Stutzman’s freedom of speech and religion does not allow her to “discriminate” against homosexuals by refusing to decorate their wedding. “A state judge has determined that the government can force a floral designer to do custom design work and provide wedding support services even if she has a religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman. Barronelle Stutzman was found guilty for referring her friend and long-time customer to another florist because the customer wanted her to design floral arrangements and provide services for a same-sex wedding. Barronelle’s referral ensured the customer received the services he wanted, but has been labeled ‘discrimination’ under Washington law. The court also ruled that both the state and the couple may collect damages and attorneys’ fees not only from the floral shop, but also from Stutzman personally. The court said: ‘On the evening of November 5, 2012, there was no conflict … The following evening, after the … enactment of same-sex marriage, there would eventually be a direct and insoluble conflict between Stutzman’s religiously motivated conduct and the laws of the State of Washington

Stutzman cannot comply with both the law and her faith if she continues to provide flowers for weddings as part of her duly-licensed business, Arlene’s Flowers.’ 

For simply abiding by her faith and a view of marriage held sacred for centuries, the 70-year-old grandmother not only may lose her business, but also her home and savings. Contrast this reality to the same-sex couple, who not only obtained exactly what they needed for their ceremony, but were offered free flowers and wedding services by a multitude of florists. Yet the state attorney general sued her and then the couple, represented by the ACLU, filed a second lawsuit. Barronelle’s referral showed kindness and tolerance to her customer, doing as much as she could without violating her conscience.  But apparently there is no tolerance for her religious beliefs about marriage” (“Say it with flowers: Court Rules against Arlene’s Flowers,” Alliance Defending Freedom, Feb. 19, 2015). Stutzman plans to appeal.

The following is from “Court Orders Christian Bed and Breakfast to Accommodate Homosexuals after Denying Bed to Lesbians,” Christian News, Apr. 19, 2013: “A Christian-owned bed and breakfast establishment in Hawaii has been ordered to accommodate homosexuals who seek lodging for the night following a ruling by the First Circuit Court. Phyllis Young of Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Honolulu was sued in 2011 by two lesbian women from California, who claimed that Young violated Hawaii’s discrimination law by denying them a bed. Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford patronized the bed and breakfast in 2007 while visiting a friend in the area, and requested a room. According to reports, when Cervelli noted that the two only needed one bed, Young asked if the women were lesbians. When Cervelli admitted that it was indeed the case, Young explained that she did not feel comfortable with the arrangement because of her Christian beliefs. The women then reported the matter to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, who then came knocking at Young’s residence. According to the Commission’s report, Young told investigators that her convictions did not permit her to accommodate the women, and that homosexual behavior is a ‘detestable’ practice that ‘defiles our land.’ The Commission later joined the lawsuit, which was filed by LAMBDA, a homosexual legal organization, on behalf of Cervelli and Bufford. ‘We just want to be treated like everyone else,’ Bufford told reporters following the filing of the suit. ‘It’s not about changing her beliefs or changing her religion, it’s about accepting us like you’re accepting any other client that comes in [the door].’ Now, a judge in the First Circuit of Hawaii has ruled that Young violated Hawaii’s public accommodations law, which states that businesses may not ‘deny, or attempt to deny, a person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or disability.’ ... attorney Stephen Crampton with Liberty Counsel told Christian News Network that if the Supreme Court endorses homosexual ‘marriage’ in June, cases such as these will become more commonplace. ‘Not only will they not tolerate religious folks saying no to homosexuals, not only will they find or run out of business or force the little businesses to bow the knee, they will seek them out and target them,’ he said.”

The following is from “Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes,” KGW.com, Sept. 1, 2013: “A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read ‘Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.’ As first reported in Willamette Week, Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on its Facebook page, ‘This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery. I will post our new number soon.’ In January, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding. In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians. Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa,’ refused to sell the cake to one of the brides-to-be because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney Herbert Grey responded to. In his letter, Grey says the couple ‘elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs.’” In January 2014, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries determined that the bakery “violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple” (“Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Couple’s Civil Rights,” CBS Seattle, Jan. 21, 2014). Under Oregon law, citizens may not be denied service “based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The state is overseeing a conciliation process to see if the parties can reach a settlement. Owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told KATU-TV, “We still stand by what we believe from the beginning.” On their Facebook page they thanked people for praying for them and said, “It is the Lord’s fight and our situation is in His hands.” In February 2015, an Oregon judge ruled against the Kleins. In July 2015, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in damages to the lesbians for “emotional suffering.” The ruling states that citizens should have “the ability to enter public places, to shop and dine, to move about unfettered by BIGOTRY.” Todd Starnes writes, “Does The Bureau of Labor and Industry truly believe that Christians who want to follow the teachings of their faith are bigots? It certainly seems to me the only entity guilty of unfettered bigotry is the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry” (“Christian bakers fined $135,000,” Fox News, July 3, 2015). Starnes continues: “Mr. Klein said he plans on appealing the ruling and had harsh words for BOLI Commissioner Brad Avakian. ‘This man has no power over me. He seems to think he can tell me to be quiet. That doesn’t sit well with me and I refuse to comply.’ Mr. Klein accused the BOLI of ordering him to not speak publicly about the case--an order he said is unconstitutional. ‘When my constitutional freedoms have been violated by the state I’m going to speak out,’ he said. ‘That’s the way it is.’”

In December 2013 civil court judge Robert Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is guilty of unlawful discrimination for refusing to serve a homosexual couple who approached the bakery in July 2012 and ordered a cake for their “wedding.” Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity (“Court finds against baker,” Fox31, Denver, Dec. 6, 2013). 

In 2014, Cynthia and Robert Gifford were fined $13,000 for “discriminating” against two lesbians who wanted to have a “gay wedding” on their New York form. The lesbians approached the Giffords in 2012 to inquire about holding their “nuptials” at the Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York. When informed that the Giffords are Christians and believe that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman, the lesbians filed a complaint with New York’s Division of Human Rights, “claiming they had been discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation.” “A judge subsequently ruled in their favor, rejecting the Giffords’ argument that the family owns a private business that is legally permitted to issue such refusals.
Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that Liberty Ridge Farm is a public accommodation because it rents its space and regularly collects fees from the public” (“After Being Fined,” The Blaze, Aug. 29, 2014). The judge also required the Giffords to pay $1500 each to the lesbians. The Giffords have decided to stop hosting any weddings on their property.

When Victoria and Thomas Miller of W.W. Bridal Boutique, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, refused to supply wedding gowns to a lesbian couple in August 2014, they were bullied and threatened on Facebook. Miller said, “We feel we have to answer to God for what we do. And providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God’s law” (“No Gowns for Lesbian Couple,” Press Enterprise, Bloomsburg, PA, Aug. 7, 2014). Family Research Council (FRC) said, “Instead of showing the tolerance their movement claims to practice, the women turned to social media to bully the shop – trashing its online reviews and sparking a city-wide firestorm. Obviously W.W. Bridal Boutique isn’t the only wedding dress shop in town. These women could have easily taken their business elsewhere – but chose to retaliate instead” (“Bridezillas Bully Bridal Shop Owner over Religious Beliefs,”Breitbart, Aug. 12, 2014). In early September, the Town Council began meetings to propose an ordinance that would make it illegal for businesses to discrimination against “LGBT” customers.

In October 2014, a Kentucky Human Rights Commission ordered a Christian printing company to print t-shirts that bear pro-homosexual messages and undergo diversity training “for declining to make shirts for a ‘gay pride’ celebration two years earlier” (“Kentucky Commission Orders Christian Company to Print Pro-Homosexual T-shirts,” Christian News, Oct. 8, 2014). “The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington (GLSO) had wanted the company to print t-shirts for the 2012 Lexington Gay Pride Festival. When manager Blaine Adamson declined the order due to the company’s biblical convictions not to be partaker of another man’s sins (1 Timothy 5:22, Ephesians 5:7), GLSO filed a complaint with the HRC.”

In November 2014, Nang and Chris Mai decided to close their wedding photography business due to harassment from homosexuals. After T.J. Kelsall posted a comment on Facebook stating that Urloved Photography had declined to photograph him and his partner Thai Lam, the Mai’s were “flooded with hate calls, emails and accusations that inaccurately depict [their] business” (“California Photographers Decide to Close Business Rather Than Shoot Same-Sex ‘Weddings,’” ChristianNews.net, Nov. 18, 2014). The Mai’s said, “As wedding photographers, we directly take part in capturing a couple’s love and commitment for each other. We take the medical doctor stance of if we were emergency room doctors we would want to give our best to anybody that comes through our door. It is not photographing a couple who have different personal beliefs that we have difficulty with. We genuinely felt referring this couple to a photographer who does share their personal beliefs would provide them with the best service for their special day. We wanted to connect them with someone who did share their personal beliefs so that they could give them the service quality they deserve.” Of course, that wasn’t enough for the homosexuals, who appear bent on destroying freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

In June 2015, the Christian owners of the Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, announced that they were closing their business as a result of attacks by homosexual activists and a ruling by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. In 2013, Richard and Betty Odgaard refused to allow a gay couple to rent their facility for a wedding. The couple sued the Mennonite couple and the Civil Rights Commission ruled that they had discriminated and ordered a $5,000 settlement. “Inspired by their experiences, the Odgaards have organized God's Original Design Ministry, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, to advance Christian teachings, Biblical ordinances and natural laws as God intended, the gallery's website announces” (“Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing after Refusing to Host Gay Wedding,” Christian Post, Jun. 21, 2015).  

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB. 

In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the Vancouver Rape Relief Society for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a rape and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton. 
In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).  

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.  

 In June 2008 transgender activists removed their clothing in a public rally in Northampton, Massachusetts. They chose Northampton, because it is one of three cities in Massachusetts that have ordinances forbidding discrimination against transsexuals. Amy Contrada, a leader in the pro-family movement MassResistance, explained: 
“With anti-discrimination ordinances in place, there’s no way a policeman would arrest a woman for being shirtless, because she could say she’s not a woman, and under the ordinance, she gets to determine whether she’s female or not” (“Transgender Activists Remove Clothing in Public,” WorldNetDaily, June 17, 2008). 
Already in some American cities the public nudity laws are overlooked during homosexual fests. This is happening in San Francisco, for example. There are acts not only of public nudity but also of public sex during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” festivals, and the police simply stand by and observe. 
“Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

“The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called ‘Up Your Alley,’ which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city’s fall ‘gay’-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

“‘Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals,’ said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

“‘What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city's streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order," said the organizer's chief, Peter LaBarbera” (“San Francisco Fest Features Public Sex with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008). 

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS 

The Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a flurry of lawsuits against websites that exposed the fact that the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is a promoter of pedophilia and pederasty (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 30, 2007). “The sites, Media Without a Mask, the Christian Apologetics Research Center, and Jesussite, are accused of ‘charlatanism, infamy, defamation, and calumny,’ for having quoted Mott’s numerous statements endorsing sex with children and adolescents. The Association is asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.” 

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN-ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.  

 In June 2008 Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed a law making it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or even the “PERCEPTION” of gender identity (“Biblical Message Now Criminalized,” WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2008). James Dobson said: “Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation? Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.”

This type of thing is already happening in Massachusetts. Consider the public hearing at the State House on March 4, 2008. The hearing was of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on the “transgender rights and hate crimes bill” and it was dominated by homosexual activists. MassResistance reported: “We watched a parade of men dressed as women going into the State House ladies’ restroom, and women into the men’s room--while inside the hearing the activists were unusually honest about their belief that transgender ‘rights’ will trump the public’s comfort with their behavior” (“When the Wicked Seize a State,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com). 

In 2013 the Massachusetts Department of Education issued a directive stating that public schools must allow boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex to utilize whichever restroom and/or locker room they feel most comfortable using (“Boys Allowed in Girls’ Restrooms,” Baptist Press, March 1, 2013).

On February 26, 2013, the Phoenix City Council passed the so-called “Bathroom Bill,” which will allow not only “transgendered” men, but also any man who thinks he is a women to use many of the same public restrooms that women and young girls use (“Phoenix Mayor, Council Open the Women’s Bathroom Door for Men,”American Thinker, March 9, 2013). 

The following is excerpted from “California Lawmakers,” Christian News, July 5, 2013: “California lawmakers have passed a bill mandating schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identify with the opposite gender. As previously reported, AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ serves as an amendment to the Education Code and requires all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. ... Similar legislation recently passed in Delaware despite outcry from Christians, and in Colorado, the state Civil Rights Division ruled that a school district discriminated against a 6-year-old boy when it stopped him from using the girls’ restroom after he began to dress as--and identify as--a girl.”

In August 2013, California’s “Bathroom Bill” was made law. The following is from “Stage Set for Molestations,” OneNewsNow, Aug. 13, 2013: “With the stroke of a pen on Monday, California became the first state to enshrine rights for transgender students in state law--setting the stage, say pro-family leaders, for young girls to be molested in school locker rooms by boys who believe they are girls. Without comment, California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law a bill (AB 1266) strengthening the rights of transgender students (K-12) in the state’s public schools. It makes the Golden State the first state in the nation to allow participation in ‘sex-segregated programs, activities, and facilities’ in public schools based on a student's gender identity Under the new law, public schools will be required to allow the students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want--and it would allow boys to take showers with girls just because they say they feel they are female. ... Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute is among those reacting strongly to Brown’s signing of the measure. ‘It's an outrageous and egregious violation of the privacy and decency for young women and young girls all throughout the state of California,’ the attorney tells OneNewsNow. ... All under the guise of providing special rights and protections for children with a gender-identity disorder, and, if a boy wants to molest a girl, he can follow her into a restroom and violate her. Dacus vows that his legal group intends to defend individuals--particularly young girls and young women--who now face the real possibility of having their privacy rights trampled. ‘No young person should be expected to have to shower with the opposite sex, much less change in front of the opposite sex,’ he exclaims. ‘This is an outrageous piece of legislation and an outrageous violation of the right to privacy.’ But Dacus will have to wait until someone is harmed to file suit because a person must prove that they have been damaged.”

In February 2014, Maine’s supreme court ruled that a local school district discriminated against a fifth grade male student that “identifies as a female” when it refused to let him use the girls’ restroom (“Main Supreme Court Rules School Discriminated Against Boy,” Christian News, Feb. 4, 2014). The school offered to let the student use the staff bathroom, but on a 5-1 decision the court deemed that unacceptable. Lower courts had sided with the school district, but the state supreme court has overturned this ruling. Justice Warren Silver wrote on behalf of the majority. “Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination.” 

Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute observed, “It is imperative that parents in every state contact their elected officials to demand increased protections for student privacy. It is alarming that the Maine decision and similar pushes by transgender activists are blatantly ignoring the constitutional rights of the more than 99% of students who do not identify as transgender.” 

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. 

“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle--during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination’--Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

“A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California” (National Public Radio, June 13, 2008). 

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX. 

When the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, proposed in July 2007 that the city spend $250,000 on robotic toilets for the beach to curb homosexual sex in public restrooms and parks, homosexual activists were up in arms. (The doors of the toilets automatically open after a certain period.) The homosexuals accused Mayor Jim Naugle of “hatred” and demanded an apology. 

In response he did apologize, but not to the homosexuals. He said: “I was not aware of how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that’s taking place in bathrooms and public places and parks in Broward County and particularly the city of Fort Lauderdale. I’ve been educated on that, and I want to apologize to the parents and the children of our community for not being aware of the problem. This to me is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant any of us in the community should tolerate this” (“Fort Lauderdale Mayor Criticized,”Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 2, 2007). 

This further enraged the homosexuals, and they held a rally at city hall. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the mayor a “bigot” and said he should be “shunned everywhere he goes and not allowed at any gathering where decent people are.” City Commissioner Carlton Moore shouted, “We as a community must unite against hatred.” 

Some public parks are listed on homosexual websites as recommended locations for immoral liaisons. In June 2008 Pennsylvania state park rangers arrested three men at such a park and accused them of lewd acts (“PA Park Rangers Crack Down,” OneNewsNow.com, June 18, 2008). 

If homosexual activists get their way, and homosexuals are given license to act out their “lifestyle” as they please, the response given by the Fort Lauderdale mayor and the actions of the park rangers will be illegal.  

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.  

 In 2006 a librarian at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus was condemned by the faculty for simply recommending that the book The Marketing of Evil be placed on the required reading list for incoming freshmen. The librarian, Scott Savage, made the recommendation while serving on the First Year Reading Experience Committee. After a homosexual professor, J.F. Buckley, reacted to Savage’s recommendation by sending out “an obscenity-filled diatribe” in which he claimed that he felt threatened and intimidated, the faculty voted 21-0 to open a formal investigation of “sexual harassment” against the librarian (“Judge Rebuffs Christian,” WorldNetDaily, June 8, 2010). Though the university backed down and informed Savage that he was not guilty, the climate of intimidation continued and Savage felt it was necessary to resign. 

CONCLUSION 

In a nutshell, the thing that will be illegal when homosexuality is legal is Bible-believing Christianity, but none of this is surprising to the Bible believer. The Lord Jesus Christ likened the last days to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). And the apostle Paul prophesied:
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5). We are not surprised at the wickedness that is sweeping across the world, but it is our responsibility to take a stand for God’s Word until Jesus comes. 

If we take freedom of speech and religion for granted and do not use it to proclaim God’s Word, we don’t deserve it. 

And no matter how evil the hour is, we must not despair. We have all of the glorious promises of a God that cannot lie. Any trouble we face in this life is very brief and fleeting. Eternity is what matters. 
“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4). 
“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30).

“Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked” (Psalms 37:1-16).

OBAMA SIGNS EXECUTIVE NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN~”DEAL” BYPASSES AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO VOTE ON DE FACTO TREATY~OBAMA THREATENS VETO OF ANYTHING OPPOSING HIS DEAL

THE NEGOTIATORS SURVIVE 17 DAYS OF TALKS, BUT IRAN BENEFITS FROM WEAKNESS:

SOCIALIST SELL OUT MAKES IRANIANS HAPPY

‘New Hope’: Iran Signs Nuclear Deal;
Recalls Chamberlain’s Understanding
With Hitler

Published on Jul 14, 2015
Six major powers have reached a “historic” agreement with Iran on the country’s nuclear programme after years of negotiations.

The EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini made the announcement at a news conference in Vienna where foreign ministers had been meeting to ratify a deal that was thrashed out early on Tuesday.

Ms Mogherini said the deal provided an opportunity to open a new chapter in international relations.

As part of the deal, billions of dollars worth of sanctions are due to be lifted which will allow Iran to trade with the world in a way it has not been able to for several years.

Hassan Rouhani signs the agreement with the IAEA
The deal is signed in Vienna

Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif welcomed the deal, saying: “I believe this is a historic moment. Today could have been the end of hope, but now we are starting a new chapter of hope.”

President Barack Obama, appearing in an early morning US TV broadcast that was also shown in Iran, said that the deal will mean that Iran will destroy 98% of its stock pile of weapons grade uranium, adding that it currently has enough for 10 warheads.

Iran deal a ‘bad mistake of historic proportions’ says Netanyahu

“COLLECTIVE EFFORT” ANNOUNCED BY FEDERICA MOGHERINI:

IRAN’S “WIN WIN SOLUTION” ONLY FOR IRAN

_______________________________________________________
OBAMA: “I WILL VETO ANY LEGISLATION THAT PREVENTS THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS DEAL”

                         

McConnell: Iran Deal
‘Going To Be A Very Hard Sell’ In Congress

                           

DELAWARE DENIES ITS OWN HISTORY & FREE SPEECH: LIBERALS KEEP RACISM FRONT & CENTER~WILMINGTON MAYOR: “THE CONFEDERATE FLAG WAS ACTUALLY AN ACT OF TERRORISM”


CONFEDERATE FLAGS STILL FOR SALE IN MUSEUM STORE
in Georgetown, Delaware
MAYOR: CONFEDERATE FLAG 
“ACT OF TERRORISM”; 
IT WAS JUST A SYMBOL, NEITHER TERRORIST OR AN ACT OF TERRORISM
GROSS IGNORANCE OF HISTORY FUELS MORE RACISM 
BY BOTH WHITES AND BLACKS
DIVISIVE FALSE PROPAGANDA BY OBAMA’S ENABLERS
MAYOR DENNIS P. WILLIAMS OF WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

FREE SPEECH CENSORED BY LIBERALS WHO DEFINE WHAT’S POLITICALLY CORRECT & WHAT’S HATE SPEECH:

CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG 
OF GENERAL LLOYD TILGHMAN
THE DELAWARE GRAYS CELEBRATE SOUTHERN HISTORY; ONE OF MANY STATE GROUPS WHO KEEP THE MEMORY OF SOUTHERN HISTORY ALIVE
AND THAT’S NOT RACIST OR TERRORIST
ABOVE SCRUBBED FROM: veteransaffairs.delaware.gov

FORMER GOVERNOR RUTH ANN MINNER OF DELAWARE
AT MEMORIAL DEDICATION
ALL REFERENCES TO THIS EVENT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM DELAWARE STATE WEB PAGES

DELAWARE’S “CONFEDERATE HISTORY & HERITAGE WEEK” 
MAY 12-18, 2007
Monument to Delaware Confederates Unveiled Successfully May 12th
Contact: Terry Ayers & Wayne Yarnall
Publicity Co-Chairs, “Delaware Grays” SCV Camp #2068
Seaford, DE
410-829-7060
For immediate release: (May 21, 2007)
  Nearly 300 members of the general public and invited guests attended a Delaware Confederate soldiers monument unveiling ceremony sponsored jointly by the United Daughters
of the Confederacy “Caleb Ross” Chapter #2635, and the “Delaware Grays”, Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp #2068 on May 12
th at the Nutter B. Marvel Museum in Georgetown, Delaware.  The monument honors the state’ citizens and soldiers
who supported or enlisted in Southern armies during the “War Between the States” 1861-1865.
     The day’s highlights included proclamations by Georgetown, Delaware Mayor
Mike Wyatt and Delaware Governor Ruth Ann
Minner declaring that May 12-18 was “Confederate History and Heritage Week” in the town and throughout the state of Delaware.  There were musket volleys, cannon salutes, a wreath laying ceremony, and descendants of several of the soldiers on hand
to witness the event. Dirt from each of the Confederate states was spread at the base of the monument to give it a firm foundation in Southern soil.  The band “Breaking
Nu Ground” performed afterwards to entertain the crowd.
  Noted Southern Patriot H.K. Edgerton led the crowd in singing “Dixie” and performed his rendition of “I am their Flag”. He
spoke passionately about the need to preserve Southern History.
  The monument features the names of over 70 Delawareans who fought in Southern Armies or supported the Confederate war effort including
Lt. General Leonidas Polk and Delaware Governor William Henry Harrison Ross. There is a 9 foot obelisk and it is flanked by 25 foot flag poles on each side, one featuring the Delaware flag and the other featuring the Confederate
battle flag. A Confederate battle flag is inscribed upon the obelisk and features a 14
th star – for Delaware.
  Delaware, a border state during the war, never left the Union, but it is estimated up to as many as 2,000 of her native sons joined
Southern armies. There are monuments honoring those who joined the Federal armies, at Gettysburg and Sharpsburg Battlefields as well as other places, but none – until now – recognizing the sacrifices of Delawareans who
supported the Cause of independence and efforts of the Confederate States between 1861-1865.
  More names of many Delaware’s Confederate soldiers will be added to the monument as research reveals their identities. Anyone with names
of possible Delaware Confederate soldiers is asked to contact the Monument Committee through the “Delaware Grays” website at
www.DESCV.org.
  The monument is located at the non-profit Nutter B. Marvel Museum, 510 South Bedford Street, Georgetown.

 ______________________________________________________
DELAWARE POLITICIANS ATTEMPT TO REVIVE WHITE GUILT BELOW THE MASON DIXON LINE
“Delaware officials agree: racism still a struggle”
BY JENNA PIZZI
SEE: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2015/07/13/delaware-officials-agree-racism-still-struggle/30114891/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
PHILADELPHIA – Delaware is still learning, healing and evolving to deal with racism and inequalities that still exists in the state, local officials said Monday night at the NAACP National Convention in Philadelphia.
Speaking at “Delaware Night” at the annual gathering, Gov. Jack Markell said there is still progress to be made in Delaware.
“There is a lot of healing that has to take palace in our state,” Markell said, the sounds of African drums playing in the background during the cocktail reception held at the African American Museum.
In the last year and a half of his administration, Markell said, he plans to be closely studying one of those issues that was raised by the NAACP last month – a decrease in racial diversity in state government employees.
“They have convinced me that we do have a problem,” Markell said.
“The state of Delaware has not been fair to blacks,” said Richard Smith, president of the state NAACP and host of the event.
The five-day annual NAACP convention is at Pennsylvania Convention Center. President Barack Obama is scheduled to offer remarks at the event on Tuesday.Buy Photo New Castle County Executive Tom Gordon speaks at Delaware Night during the NAACP conference in Philadelphia on Monday. “We’ve got a lot of issues facing us all over the country and Delaware is no exception,” Gordon said. (Photo: SAQUAN STIMPSON/SPECIAL TO THE NEWS JOURNAL)

The NAACP Bear Branch and NAACP Delaware State Conference hosted the Delaware Night event.
Markell said his administration has also focused on other initiatives striving for equality such as increasing access to quality early childhood education, reforming hiring practices so that more minority and black-owned businesses are doing work with the state, and reforming the incarceration system.
“Everybody, no matter where they come from, their race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever – everybody is entitled to go as far as their potential will take them,” Markell said. “We have to make sure that the reality reflects those values. I believe we need to make some additional progress on that.”
Markell and New Castle County Tom Gordon said that the NAACP is needed now more than ever to advocate for racial equality in Delaware.
(BLOG COMMENTS: SEE STORY AT BOTTOM OF THIS POST; QUOTE:
Activists and groups like the NAACP are also calling for statues and monuments to Confederate leaders to be demolished, including the carving at Stone Mountain, the largest bas relief sculpture in the world. SEE:
http://www.infowars.com/naacp-wants-stone-mountain-confederate-generals-sand-blasted-off-mount-rushmore-next/; AND: 
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/naacp-wants-removal-confederate-generals-stone-mou/nmyKH/)
Gordon applauded Smith for his work and advocacy over the years.
“We’ve got a lot of issues facing us all over the country and Delaware is no exception,” Gordon said.
Wilmington Mayor Dennis P. Williams said the state is coping with the same race-related issues as the rest of the country in the education and justice systems and as it relates to police-community relations.Buy Photo Wilmington Mayor Dennis P. Williams speaks during Delaware Night at the NAACP National Convention in Philadelphia on Monday night. The NAACP Bear Branch and NAACP Delaware State Conference hosted the event. (Photo: JENNA PIZZI/THE NEWS JOURNAL)

Another topic of conversation was the recent removal of the Confederate battle flag over at the Statehouse in South Carolina, which followed the killing of nine black worshipers at a Charleston church. The suspect charged in the shooting was shown in photographs with a Confederate flag.
“I am glad it was brought down,” Williams said. “The Confederate flag was actually an act of terrorism.”
Williams said monuments to those who fought in the Confederate Army, like one at a Georgetown museum which marks the names of those that fought or sympathized with the Confederate Army in Delaware, are different, but still show the same defiance.
“When people fight in wars – there is a monument,” Williams said. “Those people were still trying to overthrow the union. Most of the people who live here today are not standing for that.”
_________________________________________________________
LIBERALS FOMENT THEFT, VANDALISM 
FOR ALLEGED RACISM
“The Sons of Confederate Veterans in Delaware, or the Delaware Grays, since 2007 have displayed a Confederate banner at the Nutter D. Marvel Carriage Museum in Georgetown.”
ConfederateFlag
Janet Binkley talks about her son, Barry Binkley Jr., who says whoever took his flag is “taking away my freedom to think what I want.” 
SEE ALSO: 
EXCERPT: New Castle County police are investigating the theft of a Confederate battle flag from outside a Glasgow home, where the words “[expletive] u racist” were found spray-painted on a boat at the property Wednesday. Homeowner Barry Binkley Jr. said he flew the rebel flag at his Frazer Road property for more than 15 years and never heard any complaints. He said he isn’t racist and displayed the flag because it is a symbol that ties him to friends and family in the South, including cousins in North Carolina. The banner was on a flagpole outside the ranch-style home and visible from the street in the semi rural neighborhood. His truck window also was found broken Wednesday. 
___________________________________________________

REMEMBER THIS RACIST/TERRORIST BANNER?


The Racial Distraction

VIDEO:

Rebel Flag Controversy? Ban Democratic Party For Its Links to Racism

Published on Jun 24, 2015
Lee Ann McAdoo reports:
Divide and Conquer Diversion
http://www.infowars.com/cnn-guest-eff…

Hillary Bill Clinton Confederate Flag Buttons
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/23…

SHORT VIDEO:

TWITTER CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO RIP DOWN CONFEDERATE FLAGS

“Stealing a flag and getting arrested is just going to increase hostility”

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/twitter-campaign-encouraging-people-to-rip-down-confederate-flags/


Confederate Flag Debate:
What They’re Not Telling You

SCOTUS Decision Emboldens
Hate Speech Law Advocates

FAMILY THREATENED AT GUNPOINT FOR WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAG

Incident occurred on family’s own private property
EXCERPT: 
The incident occurred last night in Moseley, Virginia while the family was expressing their First Amendment right by waving the flag in their own driveway. A man driving an SUV pulled into the driveway, took out his gun, pointed it at the family and started yelling.
The nature of the confrontation clearly suggests that the gunman had a political gripe with the family displaying the Confederate flag, which has become a target for irate leftists in the aftermath of the Charleston shooting.
Activists and groups like the NAACP are also calling for statues and monuments to Confederate leaders to be demolished, including the carving at Stone Mountain, the largest bas relief sculpture in the world. 
Memphis City Council also just voted unanimously to dig up and move the remains of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and sell off his statue to the highest bidder.
__________________________________________________

NAACP DEMANDS REVISIONIST HISTORY BY DESTRUCTION
Confederate Monuments to Be Erased in “Clean Sweep”

Published on Jul 15, 2015
In attempting to wipe monuments and symbols from the pages of history, so-called “progressives” are appropriating a similar mentality to ISIS terrorists, who have spent the last year tearing down historical statues and monuments because they offend their radical belief system.

http://www.infowars.com/naacp-wants-s…
NAACP WANTS STARS & BARS REMOVED FROM ALABAMA TROOPERS’ VEHICLES
http://www.infowars.com/flag-purge-co…



1 815 816 817 818 819 888