Thursday, July 23, 2015

Seattle seeks Sharia law for Muslim homebuyers: Mayor vows 'new tools' to accommodate Islam beliefs

Seattle's local governing authorities are pressing forward with a plan to give Muslims with Sharia-compliant beliefs a financial option to buy homes.

The idea comes in recognition of the current purchasing and financing laws that Muslims say lock them out of home buying, due to their Sharia principles.

"We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevents from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," said Seattle Mayor Ed Murry, at a recent press conference, Fox News reported.

The facet of home financing that Sharia-compliant Muslims can't abide? The payment of interest, FOx News said. And that means about 30,000 Muslims in the Seattle area who follow what the Koran calls "the right way" aren't able to participate in the banking loan process – because interest is the primary way lenders earn money.

Chicago already offers some options for Sharia-compliant Muslims, as well as the Bank of America. But the special treatment in Seattle isn't sitting well with everyone. Critics say the idea opens the door to financing for Islamic radicals and even terror-tied groups, via money laundering.

In 2008, some in Congress opposed the American International Group's provision of special insurance programs for Sharia-compliant Muslims.

In a letter dated Dec. 18, Rep. Frank Wolf and then-Rep. Sue Myrick wrote: "You may defend your decision to offer Sharia products and will probably state that they have no real ties to Sharia law, and therefore pose no threat. You are wrong, Like Britain, the way to America's legal code is through its wallet, and if Sharia law gains a strong footing in the United States, it will be through Sharia finance and Sharia products."

Fox News reported Seattle's plan to help Muslims could lead to banks outright buying the home and holding the title. The bank would then contract with the buyer to purchase the home at marked-up price. The buyer could then pay in a lump sum or in payments over time.

Some financial outlets in Seattle are already offering such options.

Halal Inc. has a website ad that says "instead of starting with a flawed system and trying to 'make a fit,' we took the perfect system ordained by Allah and created a legal framework for it," Fox News found.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Iran deal exposes Obama’s fairyland views

President Obama stepped onto the national stage early Tuesday morning to announce a deal with Iran to stop that country’s development of nuclear capabilities – and by stop, of course, what he really meant was delay.

Among his self-congratulatory back-pats: The part where he said the accord “demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and immediate change.”

Congratulations, Mr. President. Once again, you’ve exposed the depth of your Land of Oz-like thinking. Believing in the power of the tongue to control terrorists, state sponsors of terror and all-around enemies of Israel and the West is not only sheer hubris – it’s borderline madman.

What part of the ayatollah’s mid-negotiations “Death to America” chants did you not hear?

Listeners of the early morning speech he delivered while staring directly and nearly unblinkingly into the lens of the camera – a la the “look ‘em in the eye” approach – had to know the deal was bad for America when he assured: “Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle …”

But did anybody ever think that -- ever?

Just look at these headlines: From U.S. News, in November 2014: “Desperate and Dumb: The White House is Grasping at Straws to Reach a Nuclear Deal.”

From Fox News, via Charles Krauthammer, in January: “Obama’s ‘Negotiating Out of Weakness and Desperation’ With Iran.

From the Washington Post, in March: “Obama is Conceding Too Much to Iran.”

From Breitbart, in April: “Cotton: U.S. Negotiating With Iran ‘From a Position of Weakness,’ ‘Desperate for Deal.’”

From The Week, in June: “Former Top Obama, Bush Advisers Warn Against Weak Iran Nuclear Deal.”

That’s quite a list – a quick drop in the bucket of what’s out there. But you know what’s curiously missing?

Mentions and accolades of America’s negotiations with Iran from “a position of strength and principle,” except in stories quoting Obama’s claim to such.

As Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted shortly after the announcement: “When willing to make a deal at any cost, this is the result. From early reports, we can see that the deal is a historic mistake.” He then tweeted: “World powers have made far-reaching concessions in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability.”

One huge hole in the deal is its appeasement quality. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton called it a pact akin to the “ill-fated Munich Agreement which sought to appease Nazi Germany.” U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the “administration just lit a fuse for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” And Iran expert Clare Lopez bluntly called the pact “sheer insanity” and a means for Iran to both fund and continue its secret pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Another frightening facet: The deal reportedly gives Iran the power to hold up inspectors from accessing sites deemed suspicious. Obama may say the plan is “not built on trust” but rather “verification,” but that’s just not true if IAEA inspectors have to wait for the all-clear from Iran in order to gain access to suspicious sites.

And one more thought to consider: What of the U.S. hostages held in Iran? While Obama cheers himself, Idaho’s Saeed Abedini, a Christian evangelical, and Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine, continue to rot in Iranian prisons. As Commentary opined, comparing their sad fate to those of terrorist ilk: “Obama seems more concerned with springing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay than in freeing Americans held captive by one of the world’s most repressive regimes.”

This accord would have been the perfect time to win the release of Abedini, Hekmati and other Americans held by Iran. 

Position of “strength and principle?” Hardly. Position of “politics and personal agenda” is much more to the truth.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Louie Gohmert reminds: Democrats were party of slavery

Rep. Louie Gohmert took to the House floor to deliver an impassioned speech about history, with a lesson on hypocrisy, reminding the nation and those on the left the rabbit hole of removing all things perceived as racist – like the Confederate flag – is a deep one that leads right to the Democratic Party.

The context of Gohmert's remarks was the nationwide condemnation of the Confederate flag, leading to a congressional legislative attempt to boot the banner from some federally managed properties. Gohmert first reminded the cause of the shooting at the Charleston, South Carolina, church that left nine dead – the spark that started this recent anti-Confederate flag efforts – was "evil," rather than a piece of cloth waved by the suspected shooter, Dylann Roof.

"[But] now there's this big race to go after the Confederate flag," he said.

He then suggested those who want to erase from U.S. society all symbols and signs that are tainted by anything racist ought to do a complete job of it.

"In thinking about that," Gohmert said, "I think there is an entity that was so evil in supporting slavery, in fighting against civil rights, in fighting against the Christian brother that Martin Luther King Jr. was ... we ought to look at those symbols and ought to look at what they stood for and perhaps ban any political organization [that touted them] from participating in Congress."

He then read from the Democratic Party's political platforms from 1856 and from 1860, where it was stated "all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery ... have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the permanence and stability of the union and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions," he said.

"That was the official number one plank," Gohmert said, of the Democratic Party's 1856 platform.

And the third plank for that year?

"They're saying they want to preserve slavery in any state that wants to have it," he said. "I mean, it sounds like something the Ku Klux Klan would've done."

Gohmert said the party adopted the same platforms again in 1860 and concluded: "So if we're going to eliminate everything that reminds us of the hideous past that supported slavery, the oppression, the horrors that slavery entailed ... if we're going to have a complete cleansing of this country of anything, any symbol, then this platform from he Democratic Party in 1856 and 1860 ... then I think its time not for the Washington Redskins to change its name, but for the Democratic Party to change its name."


"Because the history of the Democratic Party is one of oppressing African Americans, one of supporting slavery," he said.

Gohmert then suggested a better way for the country to deal with race relations and the current campaigns to erase or skew history.

"Let's recognize the good with which we've been blessed. Let's stop the name calling, the race baiting, the division politics," he said. "Let's quit trying to tear this country apart because of things of the past with which not one person in this room would have taken part in. If we're really going to go there, we've got to end the Democratic Party."

He went on: "We don't need to end the Democratic Party.We just need to work together in the present. That doesn't mean we can't disagree ... [but] let's look at the example of the victims' families in Charleston, South Carolina and say, 'Wow, they are incredible believers and followers of Jesus Christ – that's somebody we can emulate.'"

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Obama regulations take root: Feds vow to 'diversify' housing and take out 'segregated living'

The Obama administration's long-awaited new housing regulations came out Wednesday giving the federal government more tools to make sure neighborhoods around the nation aren't developed and populated in racially segregated manners.

The rules, issued under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, are supposed to put a stop to "segregated living patterns" and "racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty," HUD said, the Hill reported.
Feds are foisting their image of diverse housing on Americans.

How it works is HUD will give local communities information on how to prevent and address perceived segregated housing areas, and offer grant money to address the situation. The grant money could then be used to help diversity the neighborhoods and "expand equal access to opportunity for all Americans."

HUD Secretary Julian Castro put it this way: "Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child’s future. This important step will give local leaders the tools they need to provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity," the Hill reported.

Critics, however, call the carrot-stick tradeoff of government recommendations for grant dollars a prime example of federal overreach.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said, in a previous interview: "American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government."

Other critics, like Heritage Foundation fellow Hans von Spakovsky, said in previous comments the HUD regulations seem to be yet another attempt of the Obama administration "to take race into account everything."

The regulations could impact 1,250 local governments in the country. They're due to be phased in, beginning in the next 30 days.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Supreme Court fallout: ACLU sues Kentucky clerk for refusing wedding licenses

Let the lawsuits begin ...

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against a Kentucky clerk for refusing to give wedding licenses to four couples, two of whom were gay.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said her religious beliefs barred her from complying with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires states to marry gays. And instead of discriminating against gays, she decided to stop issuing licenses altogether – for homosexuals and heterosexuals, fox News reported.

The scene at the Supreme Court during gay marriage debate.
Davis is hardly alone.

A clerk in Decatur County, Tennessee, resigned her post, along with two office assistants, because of their opposition to the high court's ruling and their worries about lawsuits if they stood strong on their religious beliefs.

And in New Orleans, the state Office of Vital Records hesitated on issuing same-sex marriage licenses until late this week, the Associated Press reported.

Kentucky's highest-ranking – Gov. Steve Beshear and Attorney General Jack Conway – warned clerks on Friday, right after the court's decision made the media waves, to comply or risk criminal charges that could bring up to a year in jail.

Some clerks failed to immediately comply, but then changed their minds. Davis, however, said she couldn't, and wouldn't ever, issuing a gay marriage license.

"It's a deep-rooted conviction. My conscience won't allow me to do that," she said, Fox News reported. "It goes against everything I hold dear, everything sacred in my life."

ACLU filed it s suit in U.S. District Court in Ashland, requesting an injunction that would compel Davis to start issuing licenses and punitive damages for allegedly violating the couple's court-stamped rights.

In court documents, ACLU legal director William Sharp said Davis' religious beliefs are "not a compelling, important or legitimate government interest."

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Pam Geller sues D.C. transit over ad flap: 'Abridging our freedoms so as not to offend savages is surrender'

Pamela Geller, co-founder and president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, filed a lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, alleging the government entity violated the First Amendment by refusing to run her political ad about radical Islamism.

Geller's AFDI sent in an ad to the WMATA in May that contained an image of an angry man wearing a turban and wielding a sword, with a bubble by his mouth and the text: "You can't draw me!" Another bubble below contained the words: "That's why I draw you." The ad also blared the phrase: "Support free speech."

The ad is from a "Draw Muhammad" event organized by AFDI in Texas, during which police shot and killed two would-be Islamist terrorists who tried to storm the venue.

WMATA, about a week after Geller filed the application, denied the ad and announced it was no longer going to accept any type of "issue-oriented advertising" at all, the Daily Caller reported. The WMATA told the Daily Caller News Foundation the ban on issue-oriented advertisements wasn't related to any particular ad application or organization, but Geller finds the announcement curiously coincidental.

"It's an end run around the first amendment," she said, to the Daily Caller.

Geller accused the WMATA of violating her First Amendment rights; she's suing for damages on that point, as well as for legal fees.

She said, to the Daily Caller: "The West is the target for Islamic terrorism. The whole country is on heightened alert for an Islamic State attack on July 4th. Abridging our freedoms so as not to offend savages is surrender and un-American. It results in more demands, more surrender, more capitulation to sharia law (which is what WMATA did)."

In 2012, Geller won a similar lawsuit against the WMATA over an ad that portrayed Adolph Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, alongside the text: "Staunch ally, the leader of the Muslim world." The ad also contained the text: "Islamic Jew-Hatred: It's in the Quran."

Geller just faced down a similar ad flap in New York. There, she tried to post ads on the city bus system of a menacing man with a masked face with text, "That's his Jihad. What's yours?" The ad also read: "Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah."

As WND previously reported, the MTA board reacted by banning all forms of political advertisement and a federal court later rubber-stamped the move, ruling the agency could indeed do that.

Geller's attorney, Robert Muise, objected to the move and vowed to appeal, saying: "The government should not be permitted to violate the First Amendment and then on the heels of an adverse court decision simply modify its rules to avoid the consequences of its unlawful behavior."

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Julie Banderas, Fox News, sides in favor of gay marriage: 'I am a Christian'

I have a hard time reconciling support for gay marriage with Christianity ... 

Fox News anchor Julie Banderas went on an emotional plea for her viewing public to accept the idea of gay marriage, saying her sister was a lesbian and nobody had the right to deny somebody that chance to share their lives "with somebody they love," she said.

She made the remarks while responding to a viewer question involving voter initiatives on gay marriage that suggested constituents ought to have the final word on the unions, not the courts.

Banderas said: "I'm a married woman. I have ... a ring on my finger. I never asked anyone to vote on whether or not I had the right to do this," Mediaite reported.

She then told how her gay sister served as her maid of honor at her wedding, and expressed interest in doing the same. She also said a gay friend of hers at Fox News recently walked her mother down the aisle during her own wedding, Mediaite reported.

And her final thought: Nobody should have the right to tell someone they can't "spend the rest of their lives with somebody they love."

Fox News viewers, meanwhile, have reacted with strong opinions to her views – and she's responded with similarly strong counter arguments.

In one tweet, Banderas wrote: "I am a moderate with views on fairness."

In another: "I don't expect to change minds however I do expect people to respect differing opinions. I do."

Another: "Marriage is a binding union between two people. Marriage is also not an easy road."

One more: "If marriage was about religion Atheists wouldn't marry. Marriage is not about procreation."

And again: "... I am a Christian. So are many gays."

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Texas attorney general tells clerks: Refuse gay marriage on religious reasons if you want

The attorney general of Texas has issued an opinion giving clerks a legal path to deny gay couples their marriage licenses, saying in essence their religious objections trumps the U.S. Supreme Court.

The opinion would seem to set the stage for a state showdown with the federal government.

Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote: "The United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken oour resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democractic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live."

He the pointed to the "fundamental dilemma" the court's decision was raising, suggesting it was setting the rule of law and religious rights in its crosshairs.

"Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution," he wrote.

Paxton made clear: "The reach of the court's opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty."

And therefore, he wrote: "County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case."

He also said "justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms and may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections."

Paxton, however, acknowledged the price for exercising this religious freedom may be a fine.

"It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine," he wrote. "But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights."

Americans sign petition to ban U.S. flag and replace it with new world order banner

Are you kidding me?

Conservative author Mark Dice took to the streets to conduct a petition drive on banning the American flag –  just to see what would happen –  and the results were somewhat shocking: Americans signed with seeming abandon.

The video shows Dice asking passersby to sign a petition to toss the existing American flag and then replace it with one that better represents the "new world order," described as one with a "rainbow pyramid" and "all seeing eye," Biz Pac Review reported.

Specifically, Dice asked for the signatures with this introduction: "It's a new American flag for the new world order. Those stars and stripes just don't sit right with a lot of people, so we'll be banning the American flag."

And many signed.

"Quite stunningly, many people signed it," Dice said, on Fox & Friends on Tuesday morning. "This was in a college town in San Francisco ... These millennials have been brainwashed ... into being ashamed of America."

Dice said he kicked off the petition drive because he saw the controversy with the Confederate flag and wanted to see "if these millennials would ban any flag," he said.

But his results were alarming.

"There're a few people who said this was crazy, they wouldn't do it," Dice said.

But far too many were "afraid to be labeled politically incorrect," and "afraid to be labeled racist," and therefore added their names to the list, he said, calling them "mentally enslaved morons."

Video link here:

Monday, June 29, 2015

NYC presses ban on smoking in home: 'Everyone benefits from smoke-free housing'

Can you say nanny-state?

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is proposing a new rule to ban cigarette smoking in residents' homes.

The administration is going to offer four different health-advocacy groups $9,000 each to start exerting pressure on developers and landlords to implement the bans. The logic is secondhand smoke kills and smoke from one apartment can drift into another, the New York Post reported.

So far, the initiative is voluntary – but that could soon change.

"Everyone benefits from smoke-free housing," one spokesman for the city's Department of Health said, the newspaper reported. "Residents enjoy breathing cleaner, healthier air in their homes ... while owners see reductions in property damage and turnover costs."

Smokers are already barred from lighting up in public places in the city, including bars and restaurants, places of work and parks and sports facilities.

The residential smoking ban was an idea born by the previous city administration, under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York Post reported.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Churches, Be Warned: Gay Activists Now Likely to Demand Chapel Weddings

Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states, thanks to a broad interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court -- and what that means to churches is: Watch out.

The establishment of the judiciary as the arbiter of law, not the people or the duly elected -- as this court case clearly paints -- now sets the stage for a showdown between gay activists and the churches that gay activists can't wait to tear down. In other words, if gay marriage is now stamped for approval by the highest court in the land as legal, it won't take long for the radical element of the homosexual lobby to set their designs on churches. Their likely message?

Now you have to marry us, too.

Or, maybe it’ll take this form instead: Marry us, or we’ll sue.

That's not going to sit well with the more fundamentalist religion mindset of Christianity and other religions that already views gay marriage as a direct assault on God's word.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, acknowledged in an emailed statement the Supreme Court’s legalization of nationwide gay marriage means the "battlefield shifts to religious freedom.”

He went on: "Will the progressive, totalitarian and intolerant left weaponize the government and attempt to force or compel people to affirm same-sex behavior and relationships? Or will they respect the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution?"

Here's a guess: It'll be the former scenario that proves true.

Gays, as we’ve seen, have already cried out against Christian bakers who refuse to bake them wedding cakes; against Christian bistro, flower and chapel business owners who refused to perform their marriage ceremony; and against Christian pizzeria owners who didn’t even refuse service, but were rather asked to respond to a “what if” catering scenario for a gay marriage, and answered, in the minds of the thought police and radicalized homosexual crowd, incorrectly.

So it would seem natural to see the writing on the wall, as the biblically-based saying goes, and predict the next target of the gay lobby is churches. How’s that going to pan?

Well, here’s another prediction: Some churches, like those for Episcopalian believers – who have embraced the LGBT culture with “full and equal claim” since 1976, who consecrated the first openly gay church bishop in 2003 and who put out a directive in 2009 that allowed gay union ceremonies to go forth within the confines of the select churches – will herald this ruling and give full sanction to performing same-sex marriages. Others, like Weatherly Heights Baptist Church members in Alabama – who applauded a 74-5 vote of the Madison Baptist Association to dismiss a minister from the Southern Baptist Convention for his support of gay marriage – won’t.

And the federal government will ultimately sic the Department of Justice on these steadfast churches, and perhaps the Internal Revenue Service, to launch discrimination investigations and pull tax exempt statuses. The ensuing chaos will play in the press as yet another case of religious zealotry from the Christian camp – yet another case of Christian-fueled attacks on gays.

So Christians, listen up: Be prepared for massive spiritual warfare. The Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage in the 50 states’ governments is just the tip of the battle that’s about to surge.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Supreme Court (Thomas!) Kicks the First Amendment to the Curb

And this was the first ... (re: post below, on SCOTUS/Obamacare ruling) ...

The U.S. Supreme Court has pretty much kicked the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause to the curb – and you can blame one of the most conservative voices for that, Justice Clarence Thomas.

In a ruling just handed down Monday, the court found in Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board v. Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans the government does indeed have the authority to regulate political speech.

Yes, that’s the ruling: The government can now legally regulate private citizens’ political speech.

The justices should have glanced at the statements of one of their colleagues, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who in 1972 made it clear: “Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control.”

Content control, indeed. And content control on the part of the government toward the free American citizen is what we now have.

The court case began as a spat over what constituted a proper license plate in Texas. The Sons of Confederate Veterans thought a little emblem of the rebel flag to the left of the tag number would be OK – especially since the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles Board regularly and with seeming abandon pretty much approved all the other requests for specialty plates – roughly 350 of them.

But the Texas DMV Board, to paraphrase, said, “No, Sons of Confederate Veterans, your confederate flag is offensive.” So the two sides went to court. And the Sons of Confederate Veterans argued what would seem to be the obvious: that the government board was breaking First Amendment free speech provisions. One court found in favor of the DMV Board; another, for the vet group. Enter the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court’s conclusion was the government just “would not work” without having the right to determine what constitutes rightful and proper free speech. He then posed from left field: “How could a state government effectively develop programs designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if officials also had to voice the perspective of those who oppose this type of immunization?”

Can you say, whaaat?

But he clarifies: Allowing the Confederate flag on the license plates could give the impression the Texas government endorses the rebel emblem, Breyer said.

Sanity seems to have made a brief appearance, on the wings of Justice Samuel Alito who wrote in his dissenting opinion: Dude, that’s just stupid. Referencing the license plates in Texas that carry Dr. Pepper and NASCAR emblems, Alito asked, “Would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the view of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars?”

But it was too late. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan had already cast their constitutional caution to the wind and joined with Breyer – and, in a shocker to a conservative’s core, so did Thomas. One can only guess he had personal reasons and a personal vendetta against the rebel flag, because constitutionally speaking – the ruling just bites.

Think this is a license plate matter confined to Texas? Or maybe a cause for silently applauding the court’s boldness in booting that much-hated Confederate flag?

Well, it’s not. It’s a massive First Amendment ding. And now we’re already feeling tremors elsewhere. Right after the Supreme Court released its horrific Texas ruling, a federal judge in Manhattan issued one of his own, putting the halt on Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative to post ads on city buses and subway cars of a menacing man with a masked face alongside warnings about radical Islamists. The case of Geller versus the Metropolitan Transportation Authority had traversed a similar path as the Sons of Confederate Veterans – it led to a court fight about so-called offensive speech, which led to a First Amendment win for Geller, which led to the MTA’s sulky decision to quit posting any and all political ads.

Now curiously, right after the Supreme Court decided government can in fact control political speech, the same judge who previously found in Geller’s favor then ruled that the MTA ban on all ads moots his earlier support of her cause based on the First Amendment. That means she can’t put up her political ads after all. As Geller’s attorney rightly raged: So the government gets to break the First Amendment and then simply change its rules to “avoid the consequences of its unlawful behavior?”

They’re vowing to pursue the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. Let’s hope Thomas has recovered his senses when they arrive.

Obamacare ruling from Supreme Court solidifies socialism in America

Second bad SCOTUS ruling in a week ...

Did you catch President Obama’s opener at the White House while responding to the horrendous Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare? It’s a crash of the Constitution.

He said: “Five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate, we finally declared in America health care is not a privilege, but a right for all.”

Cue image of Founding Fathers in graves, rolling.

Health. Care. Is. Not. A. Right.

Except, now it is. And the reverberations due to be heard around the country from this core outcome of the court’s ruling – 6-3, in favor of upholding the subsidies in Obamacare – are going to be massive. How so? Just take a before-after shot.

Once upon a time, some guys with some good orating skills and even better writing talents gathered together for some political shop-talk in Philadelphia to see if they could come up with a proper way to inform the King of England they weren’t going to play his reindeer games any more. Idea men were appointed: This “Committee of Five,” as it was dubbed, included John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Robert Livingston of New York and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Jefferson spent nearly three weeks penning what was to become one of the greatest political policy positions the world’s ever seen, the Declaration of Independence. And among its many simple premises was this powerful phrase – that governments are instituted to uphold the God-given rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Health care did not make the list.

But now, thanks to the Supreme Court, the floodgates of this limited government principle have been thrust wide. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his fiery dissent: The court was guilty of “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” a phrase defined by Merriam-Webster as “dishonest or suspicious activity.” What would be the proper term, I wonder, to describe a court case that now solidifies what many in the patriotic, traditional-minded and conservative-thinking camps of politics and culture fear is a socialist vein creeping into American society?

Oh yes – that’s called Burwellian, a playful little mix of “Orwellian” and the case name, King v. Burwell. And it’s being picked up by Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist who is steaming fast and furious ahead to unseat presidential heir apparent Hillary Clinton from her throne. Recent polls, too, find in his favor.

Bloomberg Politics just reported: “In simultaneous surveys, the U.S. senator from Vermont received nearly a quarter of support from likely Democratic caucus and primary voters in the states that host the first presidential nomination balloting early next year, cutting sharply into Clinton’s still-huge lead. The polls suggest substantive and symbolic support for the socialist, as well as a craving among some Democrats for a Clinton rival to rise.”

Meanwhile, the number of candidates in the Republican presidential field has hit Lucky 13 – a bevy that will no doubt cause enough infighting to frustrate the few voters left in America whose attention spans aren’t limited to the time-frame of typing a tweet. Can you say disenfranchised? Let’s hope the candidate emerging from primary season is enough of a principled politician … well, let’s hope, at least, he or she is not a moderate.

Because moderate in Republican circles of late seems to mean Democratic. And in the Democratic circles, we seem to have an emerging socialist party.

So to recap: We’ve got a Supreme Court that just threw a dagger at limited government. We’ve got a sitting president who just received a judicial hand-clap for his socialist Obamacare. And we’ve got an emerging Democratic presidential candidate with a self-declared love of socialism and a voter base that finds his message compelling – and a Republican Party that seems emasculated, at worst, and confused, at best, in how to rein in this entitlement-minded atmosphere.

The days of America as a republic seem to be reaching their end. So how about a note of inspiration, to turn back the clock and remind who we are? This one from Patrick Henry seems most apt: “I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Obama uses Charleston shooting podium to press Islam as 'peaceful and welcoming'

Has he no shame at all? The day after the shooting, he chided America on the need for gun control. Now this, on the "peaceful" beliefs of Islam ...

President Obama used the Charleston shootings at what he called the "Mother Emanuel church" to press his point of religious tolerance for Islam, suggesting in a nationally publicized speech Americans too often discriminate against Muslims.

"Our prayers remain with Charleston and Mother Emanuel church," he said, using a nickname for the historically black church, were nine were killed, the Hill reported. 

He made the comments during a dinner to celebrate Ramadan.

He went on: "As Americans, we insist that nobody should be targeted because of who they are, or what they look like, who they love, how they worship. We stand united against these hateful acts. ... Here in America, many people personally don't know someone who is Muslim. They mostly hear about Muslims in the news, and that can obviously lead to a very distorted impression."

Obama then spoke of a recent protest outside an Arizona mosque, during which several "offensive signs against Islam and Muslims" were displayed, he said, the Hill reported.

Mosque attendees invited some of the protesters inside, and shortly after, their anti-Islam perceptions changed, Obama claimed.

"One demonstrator, who accepted the invitation later, described how the experience changed him, how he finally saw the Muslim American community for what it is – peaceful and welcoming. That's what can happen when we stop yelling and start listening."

His comments follow ones made by first lady Michelle Obama in the United Kingdom. There, she "compared her struggle to succeed as a young black woman in America to the experience of inner-city Muslim girls," as WND previously reported.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Ireland pastor faces prosecution for calling Islam a 'doctrine spawned in hell'

This is in Ireland, but -- given the very active lobby arm of pro-Muslim organizations and the reluctance of politicians to deal practically with the dangers of Islam -- could soon enough apply to an American pastor, preaching in a U.S. church.

A 79-year-old Northern Ireland pastor is facing prosecution for calling the Muslim religion "satanic" and saying Islam was a brainchild of demonic forces in hell.

Pastor James McConnell of the Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle in Belfast delivered the fiery sermon in May. They're coming to light once again because authorities have just determined that they're fiery enough to warrant a court hearing.

Among his remarks, the Blaze reported: "The Muslim religion was created many hundreds of years after Christ. Muhammad, the Islam prophet, was born around the year A.D. 570, but Muslims believe that Islam is the true religion. Now people say there are good Muslims in Britain. That may be so, but I don't trust them."

He also spoke of the differences between Islam and Christianity.

"Islam's ideas about God, about humanity, about salvation are vastly different from the teaching of the holy scriptures," he said. "Islam is heathen. Islam is satanic. Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell."

After his sermon, police were called to investigate McConnell for a hate crime. And a spokesman for the Public Prosecution Service in North Ireland alleged McConnell broke provisions enacted in 2003 that bar individuals from "sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that [is] grossly offensive."

McConnell, after delivering the sermon, has retired from his tabernacle but still refuses to back off his comments or, as he puts it, "be gagged" by the politically correct, the Blaze reported.

"The police tried to shut me up and tell me what to preach," he said, the Guardian reported. "It's ridiculous. I believe in freedom of speech. I'm going to keep on preaching the gospel. I have nothing against Muslims, I have never hated Muslims, I have never hated anyone. But I am against what Muslims believe."

McConnell's case is going to court – and it's not the first time a Northern Ireland individual faces prosecution for Christian faith. Ashers Baking Company was convicted of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage message, the Blaze said.

Church where Jesus fed 5,000 hit by arson, graffiti: 'Idols will have their heads cut off'

A church in Tabgha, Israel, on the Sea of Galilee where the Christian faith points to Jesus feeding his flock of 5,000 followers with fives loaves of bread and two fish was hit by arsonists, authorities said,

Church of the Multiplication
The Church of the Multiplication, which is overseen by Benedictine monks, was destroyed on the inside. Much of the roof was consumed by flames, too, CNN reported.

Graffiti written in red Hebrew letters on a wall outside said: "Idols will have their heads cut off."

Israel has condemned the arson.

"The state of Israel safeguards the freedom of worship of all faiths and completely rejects any and all attempts to harm it," said Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, in a statement.

She also vowed the perpetrators would be caught.

CNN reported police detained 16 Jewish juveniles for questioning, but released them all.

The Roman Catholic structure is located in one of the most significant sites for Christians, near the waters the New Testament records Jesus as walking on and also by the famous Sermon on the Mount.

Interestingly enough, the portion of the church that contains the rock where Jesus is said to have placed the five loaves of bread and two fish he then distributed – along with his disciples – to the 5,000 or so assembled before him was not damaged by fire, CNN reported.

Supreme Court hands Texas DMV the right to ban Confederate flag license plates

Justice Clarence Thomas provides surprising swing vote ...

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board can indeed ban a special license plate that includes an image of the Confederate flag – a somewhat surprising decision that came only after Justice Clarence Thomas sided with the his more liberal colleagues.

The case pitted the state's DMV against the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans. The DMV denied the plate; the group alleged discrimination because the government agency had approved other specialty plates from other organizations.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his majority opinion the government "would not work" if it didn't maintain the right to make decisions or take positions on issues absent fear of violating the Constitution, the Hill reported.

"How could a state government effectively develop programs designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if officials also had to voice the perspective of those who oppose this type of immunization?" he asked.

Texas can now ban this plate.
He also added that the government can't force a citizen to adopt its opinions or positions, but still possesses the constitutional authority to adopt a position that "represents its citizens and carries out its duties on their behalf," Breyer wrote.

And letting the Confederate flag be placed on Texas license plates gives the impression the state's "endorsed that message," he said.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer – and so did Clarence Thomas, in what many court watchers characterize as a surprise vote.

Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, wrote for the diseent that the ruling "establishes a precedent that threatens private speech that the government finds displeasing."

Alito also pointed to the fact that Texas allows more than 350 specialty plates containing messages from the likes of the Knights of Columbus, Dr. Pepper and NASCAR.

"Would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the views of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars? If a car with a plate that says, 'Rather Be Golfing' passed by at 8:30 a.m. on a Monday morning," Alito wrote, referencing yet another plate that's already approved by the Texas DMV Board, "would you think: 'This is the official policy of the State – better to golf than to work?'"

Alito also said the case is not simply about plates.

"[It] may seem innocuous," he wrote, the Hill reported. "[but the ruling] takes a large and painful bite out of the First Amendment."

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Sexual frustration faulted for rise in ISIS: 'These guys just want girls,' ex-Islamist says

Ummm ....

A new documentary airing in the United Kingdom called "Exposure: Jihad" is putting a new twist on the reasons young men join ISIS, alleging many are simply the products of too-strict parents, sexually frustrated and seeking the love and concern they didn't find at home.

Filmmaker Deeyah Khan spent two years interviewing dozens of convicted terrorists and former radical Islamists, finding what she said was a common theme in the reasons for their reach-outs to ISIS and other terror groups: A formidable father figure.

"Nine times out of ten, look to the dad and you're going to find he did something, beat them," said said, in an interview with the Daily Beast. "I would blame the fathers absolutely."

The film looks at the radicalization of young men and women and finds many parents, especially those of South Asian heritage raising their children in the West, have been too strict and have failed to let their kids explore the normal teenage pasttimes of sports and dating. Khan suggests this overbearing upbringing, which included an atmosphere of sexual repression, makes the children feel isolated, creating an environment that can give root to radicalization from outside forces.

And that's where the hate preachers and online terrorist recruiters step into the picture, she said, explaining that in many instances these terror-tied sources provide the isolated teens the care and concern they feel was missing from their own homes.

"These people end up being surrogate dads," Khan said, the Daily Beast reported. "So many of the guys, some of whom didn't want to be on camera, said the same thing: 'God, they really cared; they would call to see if you got home OK. My dad never did that,' one of the guys said."

Khan also highlighted in her film what she suggested was the trap of young Muslims living in the West with their sexual urges, where their parents' strict views stand in direct conflict to a more permissive society.

"There's a real sense of hate that you have, that I can't do that," said one film subject, Alyas Karmani, a former Islamist, the Daily Beast reported. "And that's why I find a greater sense of sexual dysfunction sometimes in Muslim communities. You know, I was talking to my wife ... and I said, 'This is all about sex, everything all comes back to sex.' And she said, 'Oh, you can't say that.' But that's it. These guys just want girls, that's all they want."

He elaborated, saying in the film the possibility of joining ISIS gives these young, sexually repressed men an escape from their parents and an opportunity to underscore their manhood by carrying firearms.

"I'm there with my gun, which is more or less just a penis extension out there," he said, the news outlet reported. "Look at me, I'm a mujahid now ... I'm powerful now, I'm sexy now, girls are going to look at me and there're girls who would want to become my bride now."