Category: first amendment


GOP Finally Showing Some Chutzpah Over Gay Marriage Ruling with HUGE New Bill
July 2, 2015 By Colleen Conley

Well, it’s about time.
After the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is the law of the land in all 50 states, concerns arose about the legal status and obligations of religious institutions which clashed with the LGBT agenda.

Specifically, would churches and other religious entities be forced to participate in something with which it’s teachings and dogma were at odds? And if these institutions refused to participate, what would be the consequences?

It seems the Republican party has finally awakened, and has shown some testicular fortitude in its efforts to stand up in favor of religious institutions’ First Amendment rights.

Just days after the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced a bill that would ensure nobody could be discriminated against based on their views on gay marriage.

Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) introduced a bill, H.R. 2802 Labrador, to “prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.”

The bill would protect the tax-exempt status of churches and organizations that believed in traditional marriage.

It would strictly forbid any attempt to “alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”

Other things defined as discriminatory actions by the bill would be to “disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person … withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person … withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or … otherwise discriminate against such person.”

The bill also provided avenues of judicial relief, essentially defining the process by which those wronged could seek redress.

With a clearly divided and passionate electorate, it will be interesting to see if Obama will advocate for the equal protection of believers, as he has the special interest groups that are part of the liberal base. Or are some groups more equal than others?

Unite or Die: States’ Rights Movement Gaining Ground
July 6, 2015 By Colleen Conley

There are stirrings of a “new” old movement afoot. IT’S ABOUT TIME.
The latest Rasmussen Poll shows that a growing number of Americans want their state governments to tell the Supreme Court to hit the road and stop rewriting the Constitution. In other words, the “Don’t Tread On Me” culture is gaining steam.

“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.

In 2009, the Tea Party movement arose in response to a grossly over-bloated and tyrannical federal government which was clearly no longer accountable to the people who it purports to represent.

Diffuse and truly grassroots – in spite of what it’s detractors say – the tea party’s everyday working Americans who believe in a limited, constitutional government and fiscal sanity stood up to say ‘Enough!’ in every corner of the nation. But despite election wins that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment has instead aligned with the forces of statism.

More than ever, there now exists two Americas -one in which individual liberty is still revered, the other where statism and dependency are the norm.

We now have an executive branch which tramples the Constitution on a regular basis, a legislative branch beholden to corporations and maintaining their own power, and a Supreme Court comprised of elitist Ivy League graduates who are molded by an alarmingly leftist-run academia.

SCOTUS’ rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, along with Republican passage of fast track of Obamatrade, all in the same week, forced conservatives to sit up a take note. It is now readily apparent that Washington DC is now aligned against the notion of limited government and constrained federal power.

But our Founders did not leave us without recourse. Those who represented the states in ratifying the Constitution were supremely suspicious of federal powers, so much so that it took much internal wrangling to finally get the document signed. And it was the 10th Amendment that secured its passage.

The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.

Various options are being bandied about, such as an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution that would limit federal powers by requiring ratification by the states.

Conservative author Charles Murray has advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.

But our best option is to use the tool with which our Founders had the foresight to provide us – the power of the 10th amendment. For it to be effective, we need bold governors and state legislatures to follow through and ultimately work together to rein in the federal government.

Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives. And, importantly, it does not require secession from the union.

Ben Franklin warned that we have “a republic, ma’am, if we can keep it.” If states do not act to limit the role of the federal government to that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, WE will have lost the greatest experiment in governance the world has ever seen.

Do you want that hanging over your head?

Daily Digest
Apr. 9, 2015

THE FOUNDATION
“Strive to be the greatest man in your country, and you may be disappointed. Strive to be the best and you may succeed: he may well win the race that runs by himself.” –Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1747

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Will Boston Bomber Get Death Penalty?1
There never was a question of guilt. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense admitted as much on the first day of trial2. Yesterday, the Boston jury handed down its decision3: The 22-year-old who helped his brother plant pressure-cooker bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013 is guilty on all 30 counts. Seventeen of those charges are punishable by the death penalty. Now, the most important part of the trial begins — deciding whether Tsarnaev will get life in a federal prison or be executed. “This [bombing] reminds us, once again, that this is not ordinary crime, it’s not even [an] ordinary enemy; these are people who are irredeemable,” political analyst Charles Krauthammer4 said on Fox News. “Nonetheless, I personally generally oppose the death penalty with some exceptions. I would rather not make him a martyr. Let him serve all his life and contemplate his deeds for decades.” For conservatives, it boils down to one question. Should jurors consider the effect Tsarnaev’s death would have on radical Islamists looking for martyrdom, or should the punishment match the crime?

Footnote: Tsarnaev’s mother said, “America is the real terrorist and everyone knows that,” adding, “My boys are the best of the best.” That explains some things.

SC Police Officer Charged With Murder Thanks to Video5
Thanks to a citizen who filmed an altercation between a South Carolina police officer and a motorist, Rule of Law is being upheld in the death of Walter Scott. On Saturday, Officer Michael Slager of the North Charleston Police Department stopped Scott because of a broken taillight. According to the initial police account, Scott grabbed the officer’s Taser, and in the ensuing struggle Slager feared for his life and shot in self-defense. Officers then administered CPR, according to the police. But a video of the event that emerged earlier this week shows a vastly different story. Unlike the altercation in Ferguson between Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, Scott turned and ran from the officer with what appeared to be the wires of the Taser trailing behind. Slager drew his gun, aimed at the fleeing man, and fired eight times. It appears the officer then planted the Taser next to Scott, and when other officers arrived on the scene, CPR was never given to him. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said at a news conference, “When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. If you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.” Slager was charged with murder and fired, which might not have happened without the video. Seems like a good case for body cameras. More…6

With Iran Deal Crumbling, Pelosi Defends Negotiations7
Well that was fast. Before Barack Obama could finish his victory lap around the Rose Garden, Iran announced a couple red lines that could derail the whole nuclear deal crazy train. Mohammad Javad Zarif8, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, said inspectors would not be allowed to photograph or film the country’s nuclear sites, because it would endanger nuclear scientists. Then the country’s Defense Minister, Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan9, said there were certain nuclear sites inspectors would be forbidden from entering. He said, “No such agreement has been made; principally speaking, visit to military centers is among our redlines and no such visit will be accepted.” Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate alike are skeptical of Team Obama’s negotiating prowess, as they are pushing a bill10 that says Congress must approve the Iran deal. But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stands in their way. She insists11 the “legislation undermines these international negotiations and represents an unnecessary hurdle to achieving a strong, final agreement.” Constitutionally, the Senate works with the president to make international treaties. What Congress does with the Iran deal isn’t Pelosi’s business.

U.S. Ships Arms to Yemen, Obama’s Foreign Policy Success Story12
It’s plan B for the Obama administration after the government of Yemen dissolved in the face of warring groups in the nation. A few months ago, al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula was decimated. This week, the Obama administration’s strategy13 is to mitigate threats. Ashton Carter14 told an audience in Tokyo, “AQAP has seized the opportunity of the disorder there and the collapse of the central government. … Obviously it’s always easier to conduct counterterrorism when there’s a stable government in place. That circumstance obviously doesn’t exist in Yemen.” Now, the United States is sidelined, sending precision-guided munitions to the Saudi Arabian-led coalition that is fighting the Houthi rebels. In a twist of fate, Saudi Arabia was targeting U.S. arms in Yemen during its bombing runs because it feared those weapons would fall in the hands of the enemy. Whoever said war was economical? More…15

If Biden Thinks He Makes Too Much, He Should Donate16
It’s funny how the meaning of $200,000 differs from one politician to the next. For the Clintons, $200K is a pittance, a discounted speaking gig for Hillary. But for Joe Biden, that amount is almost too much, probably because he’s echoing his boss’ mantra about “middle-class economics17.” During an appearance at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Biden said, “I make a lot of money now as vice president — I make a lot of money. When the president was thanking everyone for the sacrifices they made when they got us all in the Blair House — after he took office — and the financial sacrifices they made, he looked at me and said, ‘Except for Joe, he’s getting a pay raise.’” Biden needs it. According to the Washington Free Beacon18, Biden doesn’t have a savings account. He never invested in stocks. His mismanagement of finances is a good reason no one should take financial advice from him. But when he leaves office and its $230,700-a-year salary, Biden will receive a pension of about $200,000 a year for life. If he thinks that’s too much, maybe he could do a bit better than the $369 annual average19 he gave to charity over a decade. More…20

For more, visit Right Hooks21.

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column
Read Amendment II: In Defense of Liberty22, on how any discussion about the Rights of Man is nothing more than talk unless it includes discourse on the ability to defend those rights.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here23.

RIGHT ANALYSIS
Smelting Down the Water Supply24
Call it potty policy. This week, California took aim at the porcelain throne, mandating that all toilets — along with urinals and faucets — sold in the state after Jan. 1, 2016, conserve water. It’s part of a frantic effort to do anything to manage the state’s severe drought without actually doing what’s needed to manage the state’s severe drought.

While it’s true that California is in the fourth year of below-average precipitation, and that January and March of this year have been particularly dry, neither of these things is fully to blame for the intensity of the drought’s impact. Instead, the culprit is bad government policy and a three-inch fish.

Despite population growth, California has not completed a major water infrastructure project in nearly 50 years. Indeed, Democrats, including Governor Jerry Brown, have opposed state and federal water projects since the 1970s. And while California voters have authorized $22 billion in water bonds since 2000, most of the money has gone to environmental projects and not to safeguarding and improving water supply.

Then there’s the Delta smelt. The little swimmers, whose most appreciated contribution to society arguably comes in conjunction with the word “fried,” have become so revered by ecofascists that they’re willing to imperil the entire state to save them. Delta smelt are native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in northern California, and a federal rule from the 1970s limits diversion of water from this northern delta to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California — all for the sake of the smelt.

The ridiculousness becomes apparent when you consider that in the past two years more than 2.6 million acre-feet of water were let out into the San Francisco Bay because there was not enough capacity north of the delta to store the water, and the “save the smelt” policies wouldn’t allow the water to be sent to reservoirs south of the delta. So instead, the water was wasted.

Indeed, as The Wall Street Journal notes25, “During normal [rainfall] years, the state should replenish reservoirs. However, environmental regulations require that about 4.4 million acre-feet of water — enough to sustain 4.4 million families and irrigate one million acres of farmland — be diverted to ecological purposes.”

And the problem is nothing new. A year ago, California, populated by thriving smelt, was in a similar situation26. At that time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the smelt27 and against diverting much-needed water south. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California took the issue to the Supreme Court, which earlier this year turned down the appeal28, effectively raising a glass to smelt and a finger to California farmers and residents.

The water shortage has become so severe that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which houses about one-third of California’s water reserve, is at a paltry 5% of its normal average. Given smelt priority and the mismanagement of billions intended for water improvement projects, Governor Brown has now instituted the first mandatory water restrictions in the state’s history, requiring cities and towns to cut usage by 25%, with possible fines of up to $10,000 per day for those localities that fail to meet the mandate.

While conserving water will help, it will hardly solve a problem decades in the making. For this, a good lesson is needed in prioritizing humans over fish. Now, please pass the tartar sauce.

Judge Rebukes Obama’s Immigration Deception29
The executive amnesty ordered by Barack Obama last November has been eclipsed in the headlines by his disastrous dealings with Iran. But the story isn’t over.

The amnesty would grant three-year stays of deportation, Social Security numbers and work permits to some illegal aliens, but in February U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen declared that Obama exceeded his authority and blocked the amnesty30.

After further deliberation, Hanen this week declared31 his injunction will remain in place in part because Obama’s lawyers misled the court. The administration revealed two weeks after Hanen’s first ruling that it had already granted more than 100,000 work permits to illegals before the court issued its injunction, and the judge wasn’t too happy. “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients,” Hanen wrote, “the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.”

“Even worse,” he added [emphasis in the original], the government’s lawyers “urged this Court to rule before disclosing that the Government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals under the 2014 DACA amendments despite their statements to the contrary.”

“Thus,” he concluded, “even under the most charitable interpretation of these circumstances, and based solely upon what counsel for the Government told the Court, the Government knew its representations had created ‘confusion,’ but kept quiet about it for two weeks while simultaneously pressing this Court to rule on the merits of its motion.”

So incensed was Hanen at this deception that he considered dismissing the case with prejudice, but opted instead for the greater good of settling the constitutional matters at hand through further court hearings. “Under different circumstances,” he wrote, “this Court might very well [consider striking the Government’s pleadings]. The Court, however, finds that the issues at stake here have national significance and deserve to be fully considered on the merits by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in all probability, the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Next week, the Fifth Circuit Court will hear oral arguments in the case. Clearly, Obama has flouted Rule of Law with his smoke and mirrors immigration strategy32, and then misled Congress, the courts and the people to keep it in place. So it certainly bears watching whether the Fifth Circuit takes into account the administration’s deliberate deception.

In related immigration news, Obama’s policies have real world consequences. Word of Obama’s executive amnesty (notwithstanding the nuances of court battles) has surely made the rounds south of the border. “The second wave of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children has begun, with more than 3,000 of them surging across the Mexican border into the U.S. last month — the highest rate since the peak of last summer’s crisis and a warning that another rough season could be ahead,” The Washington Times reports33. “Authorities report having captured 15,647 children traveling without parents who tried to jump the border in the first six months of the fiscal year.”

While those numbers are down a bit from last year’s record surge, 2015 is still on pace to be the second-biggest year on record.

Immigration officials say both violence in Central America and warmer weather are to blame for the influx, and there’s no doubt that’s at least partly true. But again, when the president of the United States issues an executive amnesty, it’s a virtual welcome mat for any who might come illegally — especially children, given Obama’s favorable treatment of them. Specifically, the administration ordered non-Mexican children to be released pending deportation proceedings. Those children rarely show up for hearings and end up staying in the U.S.

Obama himself once said, “I am not a dictator. I’m the president. … If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. … I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” We have no further witnesses, your honor.

For more, visit Right Analysis21.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
George Will: When Everything Is a Crime34
Ann Coulter: Can the Left Come Up With One True Story?35
Jonah Goldberg: Iran Nuke Deal Is No Deal At All36
Larry Elder: Someday the World Will Cry, ‘Why?!’37
Victor Davis Hanson: Is the Modern American University a Failed State?38
For more, visit Right Opinion39.

OPINION IN BRIEF
French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755): “In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments: in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.”

Columnist George Will: “What began as a trickle has become a stream that could become a cleansing torrent. Criticisms of the overcriminalization of American life might catalyze an appreciation of the toll the administrative state is taking on the criminal justice system, and liberty generally. … There are an estimated 4,500 federal criminal statutes — and innumerable regulations backed by criminal penalties that include incarceration. Even if none of these were arcane, which many are, their sheer number would mean that Americans would not have clear notice of what behavior is proscribed or prescribed. The presumption of knowledge of the law is refuted by the mere fact that estimates of the number of federal statutes vary by hundreds. If you are sent to prison for excavating arrowheads on federal land without a permit, your cellmate might have accidentally driven his snowmobile onto land protected by the Wilderness Act. … Given the principle — which itself should be reconsidered — of prosecutorial immunity, we have a criminal justice system with too many opportunities for generating defendants, too few inhibitions on prosecutors, and ongoing corrosion of the rule and morality of law. Congress, the ultimate cause of all this, has work to undo.”

Columnist Ann Coulter: “Without even knowing that the rape accuser, ‘Jackie,’ had refused to let Rolling Stone check the most basic elements of her narrative, every human being who read Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s piece knew it was nonsense by around the second paragraph. … Her managing editor, Will Dana, admitted that he should have ‘pull(ed) the strings a little harder … question(ed) things a little more deeply.’ Yes, maybe the editors were just not pushing hard enough. It’s as if a doctor attacked his patient with an ax, and the Columbia Medical Review responded with a forensic report concluding that the procedure failed to follow clinical protocols on hand hygiene, scrubs and restricted areas, while the doctor gallantly admitted that mistakes were made. How about not allowing reporters to go off on politically driven crusades against liberal hate-objects, like fraternities, the military and athletes? How about not basing entire stories on the uncorroborated dream sequences of fantasists?”

Comedian Conan O’Brien: “The top 15 contenders for the Republican presidential nomination own at least 40 guns among them. In other words, if we elect a Republican president, nobody is hopping over the White House fence.”

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Links
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34478
http://patriotpost.us/posts/33630
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/08/tsarnaev-jury-begins-second-day-deliberations/t7KplwR18hH1RSuX1BQohM/story.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416678/krauthammers-take-boston-marathon-bomber-should-not-get-death-penalty-nr-staff
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34474
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34481
http://en.mehrnews.com/detail/News/106528
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940119001411
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34442
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/238272-pelosi-comes-out-against-iran-bill
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34466
http://patriotpost.us/articles/34424
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/world/middleeast/ashton-carter-us-defense-secretary-warns-of-al-qaeda-gains-in-yemen.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-expedites-arms-logistical-deliveries-to-yemen-1428437939
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34468
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/32722
http://freebeacon.com/politics/biden-plans-to-live-off-taxpayers-forever/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/biden-i-make-lot-money-now-vice-president-lot-money
http://patriotpost.us/
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/34464
http://patriotpost.us/manage/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/34477
http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-green-drought-1428271308
http://patriotpost.us/articles/23524
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-usa-california-water-idUSBREA2C1MB20140313
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-na-supreme-court-delta-smelt-20150112-story.html
http://patriotpost.us/articles/34485
http://patriotpost.us/articles/33251
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1760659/040715-hanen-discovery-order.pdf
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/31108
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/6/illegal-immigrant-children-surge-across-border-at-/?page=all
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34433
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34475
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34457
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34470
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34456
http://patriotpost.us/opinion

New Federal Agency? The Department of Peacebuilding
March 9, 2015 By Cara Delvecchio

Many Democrats have introduced legislation to create a Department of Peacebuilding. The Department would be tasked with promoting peace and have “Peace Days” celebrated in the United States.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced the bill with support from nine other Democrats.

The supporters of the new Act say that the Constitution talks about tranquility and promoting the general welfare but say that the U.S. is still dealing with a lot of violence, and that it comes at an economic cost. The bill states the following:

“Violence prevention is cost effective. For every dollar spent in violence prevention and peace building, many lives and many dollars are saved.”

The secretary of peace building would address the domestic and international violence by recommending ways to end them, address family violence and violence against women.

The bill would study how firearms add to violence. The department would employ:

“successful, field-tested programs, and developing new approaches for dealing with the tools of violence, including handguns, especially among youth.”

It even would create a Peace Academy and encourage national “Peace Days” to celebrate peace.

“The secretary shall encourage citizens to observe and celebrate the blessings of peace and endeavor to create peace on Peace Days. Such days shall include discussions of the professional activities and the achievements in the lives of peacemakers.”

The whole idea seems a bit ridiculous — another unneeded government agency. The entire bill is below. H.R.1111

 

 

 

A No-go Zone for Truth

Accurately reporting on no-go zones dominated by Muslims in Europe is now a no-go zone. Our media have made a mess of the whole issue and are now afraid to dig themselves out. What a disgrace and disservice to news consumers.

Jumping on the pile, the left-wing Politico has published a story accusing Louisiana Republican Governor and possible presidential candidate Bobby Jindal of telling a “lie” about the no-go zones by saying they exist. But the story is itself based on a lie. Things are so twisted that Politico is doing the lying by denying that the no-go zones exist. How did we get in such a mess?

Let’s understand that the method in this madness is to accommodate the radical Muslim lobby and demonize politicians who talk about the jihad problem.

First of all, the evidence shows that the zones or areas do exist. We cited evidence for them, and numerous other outlets have done so as well. The confusion stems from a Fox News apology over the matter that should never have been made.

Steve Emerson made a mistake on one Fox show in saying that “in Britain, it’s not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

Acknowledging his error, Emerson tells WorldNetDaily that he is nevertheless appalled that the media have now decided that any and all reporting on no-go zones is wrong. “It’s outrageous for media outlets to apologize, saying ‘no-go zones’ don’t exist in Europe, when even the New York Times for years has published articles documenting Muslim ‘no-go zones’ do exist in European countries like France,” he tells WND reporter Jerome Corsi.

Corsi notes that “NBC News, the New York Times, the Associated Press and others were using the term ‘no-go’ zones for Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Paris when Muslim youth gangs were rampaging through the streets and setting cars on fire.”

We made the same point in our treatment of the issue, noting that Fox News suddenly altered its reporting of the Muslim riots in France in 2005, determining them to be “civil riots” instead. We saw then the power of the Islamists to alter Fox’s coverage.

Fox News media reporter Howard Kurtz had a great opportunity on his Sunday show “Media Buzz” to set the record straight. Instead of confronting his own channel over the unnecessary apology, Kurtz praised CNN’s Anderson Cooper for making the same kind of apology. But then he mentioned that other outlets have been reporting on the no-go zones for years. So an apology wasn’t necessary after all! “The subject is complicated,” he said. No it’s not. Just tell the truth.

If all of this is unnecessarily confusing, it’s clearly because of the unnecessary Fox apology. It was a political apology. There is no other explanation. It is this kind of pandering that is becoming a pattern at Fox, which had earlier yanked anchor Bret Baier from a Catholic conference under pressure from the homosexual lobby.

Liberal special interest groups should not have this kind of influence on a news organization, especially one claiming “fair and balanced” coverage that is also supposed to be accurate.

Journalism 101 teaches that corrections or apologies are called for when errors are made. Since no-go areas do in fact exist, according to numerous sources, no apology was necessary. Yet, Fox News offered the view that since the no-go zones are not “specific” or “formal” entities, they really don’t exist. Fox was wrong. This is complete nonsense and a gross distortion of the concept.

Robert Spencer makes the observation, “The Fox apology is all the more curious in light of the fact that others, even on the Left, have noticed the no-go zones in France before some Fox commentators began talking about them in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.”

Citing just one example of many, he notes that David Ignatius had written in The New York Times back in 2002, “Yet Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”

Spencer notes that Fox’s apology “only plays into the hands of leftists and Islamic supremacists who have a vested interest in rendering people ignorant and complacent about the reality of what is going on in these areas.”

He suggests that Fox “apologize for its apology.” That would perhaps further confuse matters, but it is the right thing to do.

Without an apology for the apology, those who apologize for the Islamization of Europe like Arif Rafiq will continue to claim, as he did in Politico, that Jindal, by even discussing the no-go zones, “has been repeating a lie that even Fox News was forced to apologize for.” The Fox News correction, or apology, though unwarranted, is now being cited as the media standard.

Politico headlined the piece, “Bobby Jindal’s Muslim Problem,” as if the governor has a bias against Muslims. So a Fox News apology has now been transformed into an indictment of a conservative political figure. Soon, Jindal will be denounced as an “Islamophobe,” another smear term used by the radical Islam lobby.

The liberal media won’t believe any of Fox’s normal day-to-day reports. But when the channel claims to have made an error that makes the rest of the media look good by comparison, that suddenly becomes the truth and the channel has to be believed. This is how reality is turned upside down.

The real story is why Fox made this unnecessary correction. The clout of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Council on American-Islamic Relations is the most likely explanation. Fox has undermined its own credibility by apologizing for something that was true. It is bizarre and was absolutely unnecessary.

Pamela Geller is correct that the major media are “failing us.” It’s terribly tragic that at a time when we were depending on one channel, Fox, to tell the truth, it has failed us, too.

SILLY PARENTS. YOU COULDN’T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR YOUR KIDS.
When I was a kid, my mom would pack our lunches before sending us off to school. Not every day, but a vast majority of the time. She wanted us to have the healthiest food possible when we weren’t at home, and she couldn’t always count on our schools to provide that for us.

I can just imagine how my parents would have reacted if I had come home with a note from school like the one that parents received recently from a Richmond, Virginia, school district. The note from the school board informed parents that from now on, if they wanted to have their kids eat lunches that were prepared at home instead of in the school cafeteria, they would have to provide a doctor’s note explaining why.

I wish I could say I was surprised by this latest attempt by our government to control us, but I wasn’t. Actually, I’m surprised they waited this long to stick their noses in this aspect of our lives. But assuming that it was coming doesn’t make it any easier to stomach. What they’re doing is telling parents that they have to pay for a doctor’s visit in order to give their kids nutritional food to eat for lunch at school rather than the GMO-laden, preservative-filled, deep-fried, fattening foods often served up by our public schools.

But you know what? Even if the schools served fresh fruits and vegetables to the kids every day and I wanted my kid to eat a sandwich and a cookie, I should have the right to do that without a doctor’s note. It should be my right as a parent to feed my kids whatever I want to feed them without governmental interference.

Of course, this isn’t really about food at all. It’s just more of the same garbage that the government continues to dish out and spoon-feed us almost every day. It’s all about controlling people. They want to control what you say and do, where and when you go somewhere, and who you communicate with. It’s all part of their never-ending attack on individual rights.

How would you respond if a school sent home a note such as that with your child or grandchild? I’d love to hear what you have to say about this.

How This School Treated a Marine Dad who Refused to Let Daughter Study Islam Is SHAMEFUL

Kevin Wood, a Marine and father living in Maryland, is under a “no-trespass order” at La Plata High School after he asked his daughter to be excused from a biased assignment about Islam.

The patriotic father first spoke first to an administrative assistant, then discussed the issue with Vice Principal Shannon Morris. But a school official is making the wild accusation that Wood threatened to cause problems at the school in his conversation with Morris.

She said: “Safety comes first. We don’t allow disruptions at the schools, especially if we’re forewarned of them.”

Wood denies making any threats. His version of the conversation is that he explained in no uncertain terms that he does “not believe in” Islam and wants his daughter removed from class while other students study the Muslim religion.

The Wood family will be taking their complaints to state legislators and the Maryland Department of Education. But first, he discussed this important issue with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly (above):

Wood’s wife Melissa said her husband was simply trying to make a point.

“The people do not understand what he endured when he was over in Iraq,” she said through tears. “And he lost friends, and he lost brothers and sisters to these people.”

The Wood family is trying to work out an agreement with the school board. If they can’t, they say their daughter won’t do the assignment and will take the ‘F.’

It is very interesting how seriously the school takes an assignment teaching about the “5 Pillars of Islam” but wouldn’t dare have students memorize the 10 Commandments or Biblical scripture.

Do you support this Marine dad’s battle against his child’s school? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/school-treated-marine-dad-refused-let-daughter-study-islam-shameful-video/#ixzz3HgArvbVD

ADVERTISEMENT
Houston’s First Lesbian Mayor DEMANDS to see ALL Sermons from Christian Pastors
Author: Rusty WeissPosted: October 15, 2014Comments: 97
1houstongay

Houston mayor, Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor, is conducting a litigious witch-hunt against religious leaders, issuing subpoenas that demand the sermons of pastors who may have spoken on the topic of homosexuality, gender identity, or Parker herself. Pastors who do not comply may be held in contempt of court.

The actions taken by Parker and her administration are a clear affront to freedom of speech, an assault on the concept of separation of church and state, and constitute one of the more alarming attempts to stop opposing political or cultural viewpoints in their tracks.

Via Fox News:

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”

ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.”

“Political and social commentary is not a crime,” Holcomb said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.”

The report also cites ADF attorney Erik Stanley who says “the city is rummaging for evidence to ‘out’ the pastors as anti-gay bigots.”

The controversy stems from an alleged “equal rights” ordinance passed by the city in May. The ordinance calls for a ban on discrimination amongst businesses. Two things however – one, religious institutions were exempted from the ordinance and two, speech does not amount to discrimination.

In addition, one tangential aspect of the ordinance allows transgendered individuals to file discrimination lawsuits if they are not granted access to a restroom. In other words, a man would have to be granted access to the women’s restroom if he claimed to be transgender.

Opponents of the ordinance filed petitions containing 50,000 signatures, well above the threshold of 17,269, which would call for a referendum being placed on the ballot. In true dictatorial fashion, Parker and the city announced that the petitions were not valid due to alleged irregularities. A convenient suppression of opposition.

In keeping with the dictatorial theme, Parker admitted that the entire debate on gender rights, and presumably the latest assault on First Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans, is about her.

Via the Houston Chronicle:

In just five words, Mayor Annise Parker handed her increasingly vocal opponents exactly what they wanted in the battle against her proposed equal rights ordinance: “The debate is about me.”

That comment, part of a longer utterance at Houston City Council’s last meeting, at which the body delayed a decision on the ordinance to this Wednesday, was just what political and religious conservatives have accused Parker — the first openly lesbian mayor of a major American city — of doing for weeks: Pushing the ordinance to further her “gay agenda,” or to reward gay advocates for their political support.

Sorry Ms. Parker, the First Amendment, constitutional and religious freedoms, and the foundation for which America was built has never been about one man or one woman. And it certainly isn’t changing for you and your ego.

Stanley told Fox News that “City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge.”

Parker and the Houston City Council need to be stopped in their tracks, or the whole of America will suffer for it.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/frighten-every-american-believes-freedom/#ixzz3GIWFosvo