DEMS WARN BACKERS: OBAMA COULD GO TO PRISON!


Save as Inmate Obama

Former Tea Party GOP candidate for Senator from Alaska has caught the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) fear mongering to their constituents that the Republicans desire to impeach President Obama and throw him in the slammer. If only it was true.

 

From what have read it is only committed Tea Party Republicans that would go with the impeachment process. The politicians still running the GOP agenda are too concerned about political fallout to do the right thing and impeach Obama followed by a Senate conviction that would actually open the door for Federal prosecution of America’s criminal President.

 

Miller believes the DCCC impeachment fear mongering is merely a fundraising tactic. I pray the Republicans turn a Dem fund raising tactic into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

JRH 11/24/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

DEMS WARN BACKERS: OBAMA COULD GO TO PRISON!

‘Republicans think this is their chance to destroy the president’

DREW ZAHN

November 23, 2014 4:30 PM

WND

 

A mass email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Sunday tried to drum up support by warning President Obama is in danger of impeachment, or even worse, jail time.

The email – with subject line “Impeachment? Prison??? – Sign now, stand with President Obama” – claims Obama “took bold, courageous action this week to fix our nation’s broken immigration system,” but now is “under attack.”

 

“Republicans think this is their chance to destroy the president,” the email reads. “They’re threatening lawsuits, shutdowns, impeachment? One Republican congressman even suggested President Obama be thrown in jail!”

 

The DCCC then implores Democrats to show they’re “still standing with President Obama” and “have his back” by signing an online petition.

 

Former Alaskan GOP Senate Candidate Joe Miller noticed the email and posted it on his blog, “Restoring Liberty”:

 

Screen capture of email sent from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Screenshot Photo - BHO Jail

“Apparently, members of the president’s party are facing some pretty serious heat over King Obama’s unconstitutional power grab this week,” Miller quipped. “Appeals to the president’s support base seem to be growing in their hysteria.”

 

Miller continued: “Given the fact that most Americans do not support Obama’s power grab, and even members of his own party disapprove, impeachment should be on the table.

 

“Regrettably, it’s not,” Miller commented. “Fresh out of overwhelming mid-term victories, the GOP is once again moving tepidly. Even on the issue that arguably provided their margin of success – Obamacare – leadership has stated that a vote on repeal will not even be held.

 

“So the DCCC’s hysteria over impeachment and jail time is just a fundraising gimmick,” Miller concluded. “They know, as do all Washington insiders, that the ruling class will ensure continuation of the status quo. And absent another Jacksonian or Reagan revolution, we’ll continue our slide into the dustbin of history.”

 

The mention of jail time, however, wasn’t merely invented.

 

As WND reported, Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., did suggest before Obama’s speech about his executive action on immigration that the president may be about to commit a felony worthy of five years jail time.

 

He told Slate that with his forthcoming executive actions on immigration, President Obama risked breaking a federal statute “making it a felony to aid, abet or entice a foreigner to illegally enter the U.S.”

 

Said Brooks: “At some point, you have to evaluate whether the president’s conduct aids or abets, encourages or entices foreigners to unlawfully cross into the United States of America. That has a five-year in-jail penalty associated with it.”

__________________________

Drew Zahn is a WND news editor who cut his journalist teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders. A former pastor, he is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, “Popcorn and a (world)view.”

 

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

A Constitutional Crisis


BHO Laughs ripping Constitution

Intro to Smith’s ‘A Constitutional Crisis’

Editor: John R. Houk

November 23, 2014

 

Justin Smith writes a brilliant piece on President Barack Hussein Obama’s immigration amnesty speech notifying America on television he has the constitutional authority to provide amnesty on his terms for illegal aliens (the more pc term these days is illegal immigrants) coming and staying in America beyond the rule of law’s stipulations.

 

I am trying real hard not to mar Justin’s essay with my editorial comments and links so I am handling that issue with a quote some interesting links to the quote:

 

During Obama’s speech, he used the example of Astrid, a young female illegal alien, who in spite of “hiding” from ICE completed three college degrees. Those degrees took taxpayer dollars and one American’s place in the admission rolls, while Astrid broke U.S. law again by falsifying her college application using someone else’s Social Security number: That’s acceptable I suppose, since Obama’s S.S. number is a fake too. [Bold Emphasis Mine] –Justin Smith

 

o   Homeland Security Bombshell: ‘President Barack Obama is not eligible to work in the United States’. Dean Garrison – 11/7/14

 

o   Judge Rules: Obama Social Security Card Fraud May Finally Get Answers. Tim Brown – 12/22/13

 

o  A Possible Explanation for Obama’s Connect Social Security Number. Jack Cashill – 9/14/12

 

Now I realize Mainstream Republicans claim impeachment is a bad idea because of the belief the Senate would never garner the sufficient votes for a conviction. AND I realize the Leftist Dems are openly daring Republicans to proceed with an impeachment process propagandizing the same fears of the Mainstream Republicans. BUT dear God in Heaven, there is more than enough constitutional criteria to impeach Obama and to convict him.

 

If the Republicans fail to make a substantial effort to smear the Dems’ faces with the legitimate impeachable criteria, then Justin’s solution in his last paragraph becomes a greater possibility to occur!

 

JRH 11/23/14

Please Support NCCR

************************************

A Constitutional Crisis

A Republic Lost

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/21/2014 11:38 PM

 

No U.S. President has the right to destroy the U.S. Constitution and completely disregard it, in the course of his duty to all Americans. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but on November 20, 2014 Obama became a rogue president, and he unilaterally declared amnesty for 30 million illegal aliens, by my count, as he violated the principles of separation of powers that serve as the bulwark to protect our liberties, defying the American people, the election results and usurping the legislative process and essentially saying “to hell with the Constitution.”

 

President Obama has threatened to enact an “immigration reform bill” through executive order for months now, if Congress did not pass a bill he could sign, even though the real issue is not one of reforms but rather one of enforcement. All the “immigration reform” in the world will not matter in the face of a Congress reluctant to enforce the law. This is the reason the Secure Fence Act of 2006 still leaves a fence with holes in it, and our southern border is porous as ever.

 

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization … “And it is the president’s Constitutional duty under Article II Section 3, to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed … .”

 

Can anyone point to a single provision, Article or Section of the Constitution that suspends the principles of separation of powers and supersedes Congressional authority anytime a president, in his sole discretion, decides such because Congress hasn’t met his legislative demands?

 

This new Executive Amnesty of Obama’s will protect approximately 5 million illegal aliens from deportation and grant them work permits, according to Josh Earnst, Press Secretary, and other White House sources. Other than certain far-left, fringe progressive law professors, who advocate a post-Constitutional America, no one seriously believes that Obama has the authority to do this, even under “prosecutorial discretion,” and not a single Democrat has been able to cite any authority for this act.

 

Immediately after Obama’s Executive Amnesty Speech, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) stated, “Attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are dangerous. The President himself recognized his inability to do [this] …” in the past.

 

Twenty-two times Obama has stated that he does not have the legal or Constitutional authority to grant amnesty to millions, once saying he is not an “emperor” but a president. He even argued against amnesty in his 2006 book ‘The Audacity of Hope’.

 

The Obama administration is now justifying Obama’s action through prosecutorial discretion, as they contend that he can decide which groups of immigrants should be a priority. Obama is also arguing that he can go further and use “deferred action” to formally protect certain immigrants from deportation.

 

During Obama’s speech, he used the example of Astrid, a young female illegal alien, who in spite of “hiding” from ICE completed three college degrees. Those degrees took taxpayer dollars and one American’s place in the admission rolls, while Astrid broke U.S. law again by falsifying her college application using someone else’s Social Security number: That’s acceptable I suppose, since Obama’s S.S. number is a fake too.

 

Significant differences exist between Obama’s recent EO and President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 policy. Reagan deferred deportation for children of illegal aliens, who had been granted amnesty, placing them on a path to becoming naturalized citizens, which was the general intent of Congress at the time, since a “one time” blanket amnesty had just passed. Obama is going against the will of Congress again, which considered and rejected his DREAM Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democratic Party.

 

Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unConstitutionally revising existing law and, without Congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress numerous times, thereby acting like the emperor of immigration policy.

 

Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said, “Tonight President Obama issued a royal decree, as any good monarch would do … This president is single handedly creating a Constitutional crisis and hurting the citizens he took an oath to protect and defend.”

 

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #47, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

 

One countermeasure is to defund all non-essential government agencies, since the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services is self-funded through immigration application fees, according to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY). Defunding most of the government will force Obama to choose between his Executive Amnesty or a government shutdown, and Congress should not be afraid or balk at using this option. A government shutdown would show Obama that the Republicans are willing to fight.

In a Fox News appearance, Rep Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called on Americans to rally on December 3rd at high noon on the west steps of the Capitol and tell Congress to “defund amnesty.”

 

Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against Obama’s executive overreach, represented by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, is a sham. Everybody understands that Obama will be gone by the time it is settled, and his Executive Amnesty will have become de facto law, unless a successor has the guts to rescind it. One must wonder if Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell are siding with Obama, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal, because McConnell stated “there won’t be any shutdowns on my watch” after winning re-election.

 

It is no accident that the Constitution’s first substantive words are “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Because of the problems experienced through delegated authority in England, the Framers understood that such authority, currently utilized by today’s U.S. Congress in empowering Presidential Executive orders, leads to dangerous absolutism – extra-legal, supra-legal and consolidated power. And, although the Constitution carefully barred this threat, Constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power; therefore, Americans should no longer accept some vague notion of “rule of law” that allows uncontrolled delegation through executive orders, but rather, Americans must demand rule through the law and under the law.

 

If the Republicans in Congress do not act more forcefully than a lawsuit by March 10th, by March 15th every Son and Daughter of Liberty, who loves America, must arm themselves and march on the Capitol Building and the White House, prepared to fight if necessary, to end this elective despotism, or otherwise, accept that the Republic, the rule of law and Freedom in America have vanished. Americans must not let any President place himself above the Constitution and accountability to the American people he is duty bound to defend and protect.

 

By Justin O Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Life at Conception or Murder?


life_begins_at_conception

John R. Houk

© November 13, 2014

 

Jenni H. of the National Pro-Life Alliance re-sent an email ascribed to Senator Rand Paul which encourages readers to sign a petition promoting the Life at Conception Act. This is one of those cases in which the petition is actually a fund raiser.

 

I am typically annoyed by these kind of fund raisers because they feel a bit deceptive. Fund raising petitions smack of irrelevance pulling on the heart strings of a cause an organization or political candidate senses will finance their agenda.

 

At the same time I also understand it takes money to move an agenda you or I are very supportive toward. This is a case in which I am very supportive. I feel it is murder to kill an unborn child. Leftists and feminists tell women abortion isn’t murder. They tell them that killing an unborn child is really the simple removal of a fetus that is nothing else than a female body part like ovaries or an appendix.

 

The thing is ovaries are akin to eggs. Unfertilized that egg is nothing but a body part that is expendable. An appendix is not a vital organ in which experts only guess as to what its function or used to be to our older ancient ancestors. An appendix is not an organ in which life perpetuates independently from a woman’s body at an ever maturing rate.

 

The organ that scientists and doctors call a fetus is that which does increasingly mature and someday will be expelled by a female body to grow and live independently. That makes a fetus more than an organ. That makes a fetus a living person. If you believe in a Creator that living person has a living soul. If you are an idiotic atheist that living person is destined for sentience. To forcefully terminate that life against the desires of that life is murder. It is irrelevant if that unborn life does not have the capability to comprehend its future sentience.

 

Either way terminating a life is murder especially if the primary reason for doing so is as a form of birth control. I could care less if a Leftist or feminist argues about an unborn baby that is conceived in rape, incest or physical defect. Those unborn children comprise less than 5% of aborted babies. 98% of aborted babies are killed because a gal and/or guy copulated and primarily the gal is convinced or has been convinced it is an personal inconvenience.

 

On a personal level I would like to stop all abortion except if the life of the female depends on an abortion. BUT DEAR GOD, killing an unborn child as a form of birth control or convenience is simply murder. 2% or less of abortions occur because of rape, incest or physical defect. THIS MEANS 98% unborn babies are legally murdered! THAT IS CRAZY!

 

So sign the National Pro-Life Alliance Life at Conception Act. For God’s sake if it is in your budget send the NPLA some dough for the cause. If you are not an NPLA find another organization that supports giving rights to an unborn baby so he or she does not become a part 98% murder rate of legalized infanticide.

 

JRH 11/13/14

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Re: Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade 

 

Sent by Jenni H.

Sent from NPLA

Sent: 11/13/2014 12:31 PM

 

Did you see the message below?

Following huge pro-life advancements in the last election, Senator Rand Paul is working hard to pass the Life at Conception Act and it’s vital you act.

If you haven’t signed it yet, I hope you will take a moment to do so by clicking here.

If you have signed it already, could you spread the word by forwarding this email to your friends and family?

Every name on the petition will help build support for the Life at Conception Act.

Sincerely,

Jenni


From: Rand Paul [rand.paul@prolifealliance.org]
To: John Houk [john@slantright.com]
Subject: Sign the Petition to Bypass Roe v. Wade

 

For more than 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 61 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

Thanks to the results of the last election, you and I are in a better than ever position to force an up or down roll call vote on the Life at Conception Act.

And your petition will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and ultimately win a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe” who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.

You see, it will be a tough fight, but I believe with your signed petition it is one we can win.

Please click here to sign your petition right away.

 

By turning up the heat through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign in this session of Congress, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the two thousand sixteen elections.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act.

The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

 

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

 

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

 

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,387 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

 

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

 

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come.  But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

 

P.S. The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

 

That’s why it’s so critical to work to get a vote on the Life at Conception Act, legislation that would reverse Roe v. Wade.

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Your petition is the critical first step in fighting to end abortion.

Along with your signed petition, please consider making a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25.  If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

U.S. SENATOR RAND PAUL

Republican Kentucky

 

Sign the Life at Conception Act Below

 

Dear Pro-life American,

Tragically, over 4,000 babies are aborted every day in our nation.

That’s over 1.6 million every year!

But by passing a Life at Conception Act you and I can end abortion in America!

The Supreme Court itself admitted in Roe that once Congress establishes the personhood of unborn children, they must be protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which explicitly says: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property.”

Since the Supreme Court is waiting for someone to tell them who the law counts as persons, let’s not wait another minute!

Your petition will let your Senators and Congressman know that their constituents support full protection for the unborn and that they must stand for life in Washington.

After signing the petition, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10, $25 or more to NPLA.  No matter the amount you give, your donation will be matched by a generous supporter!

     Sincerely,

 

     Rand Paul,
     United States Senator (R-KY)

 

LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT PETITION

 

___________________________

Life at Conception or Murder?

John R. Houk

© November 13, 2014

__________________________

Re: Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade 

 

Because of NPLA’s tax-exempt status under IRC Sec. 501(c)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities, contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions (IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC § 162(e)(1)).

 

NPLA MISSION

 

Because every human life is precious in the eyes of God, and science and common sense dictate that life begins at conception, it is clear that abortion is the wanton taking of human life and no truly great nation can allow this practice to take place.

Ever since the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 55 million precious unborn babies have lost their lives.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s members, staff and volunteers are dedicated to halting this slaughter once and for all. And despite the many remaining obstacles, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

National Pro-Life Alliance’s Focus Is Passing Substantive Pro-Life Legislation

The National Pro-Life Alliance occupies a unique and important role in the pro-life movement. The focus of many other pro-life organizations is research, publications or counseling.

These are all important and worthy activities, but the National Pro-Life Alliance is singular in its focus on passing pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn from the moment of conception onward.

We believe that it is not sufficient to merely support minor regulations on abortion in a few outrageous cases.

Instead, members of the National Pro-Life Alliance lobby both incumbents and candidates for office to come out clearly for measure like a Life at Conception Act to legislatively define constitutionally-protected “personhood” as READ THE REST

Stop the Refugee Resettlement Program


Jihad Infiltration to USA

Intro to ‘Stop the Refugee Resettlement Program’

Edited by John R. Houk

November 10, 2014

 

Obama is making Muslim Resettlement in America a dangerous proposition. Even if you believe the propaganda that Islam is peace, it is better to believe your eyes that Muslims are persecuting and butchering Christians left and right in Muslim dominated nations. Right now the press is telling you of the atrocities of the ISIS terrorists committed against the ever decreasing Christian minority in the area they control in Iraq and Syria. We are presented that ISIS is a lawless aberration within Islamic ideology.

 

BUT STILL Coptic Christians in Egypt experience abuse of murder, rape, forced conversions, Church burnings and more. It is the same in with the Muslims of Northern Sudan doing the same and throw in enslavement. There were cities in Palestine Administration governed Judea-Samaria (Israel-haters call it the occupied West Bank) that had Christian majorities – like Bethlehem. Now it is lucky if those same cities have a 10% to 20% minority status. Iraq’s Christian population has been fleeing even before the notorious successes of ISIS.. Lebanon actually used to be a Christian minority Middle Eastern nation. So many Christian Lebanese have fled their homeland for a safer life in the West that Lebanon has been reduced to 35% of the population. Ethiopia is a Christian majority at 62% and the largest competing religion is Islam at about 34% (2007 census). Nigeria’s religious status is actually difficult to pin down. I’ll go with the Pew 2012 stats that showed 2010 data: 49.3% Christian and 48.8% Muslim. In full disclosure though there tends to be an agreement among other sources as 50% Muslim, 40% Christian and 10% Other. My understanding though is the latter data is a bit controversial in its conclusions. AND YET today Nigerian Christians are among the worst hit by Islamic terrorism today.

 

In Muslim nations in which Christianity is a single digit minority fair no better. I often post about the atrocious persecutions in Pakistan (largely due to the reporting of Shamim Masih), Pakistan’s Christian population is less than 2%.

 

What in the world is President Obama doing allowing one Muslim with an Islamic Supremacist mentality coming to America rather than the Christians being slaughtered by Muslims?

 

JRH 11/10/14

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Stop the Refugee Resettlement Program

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/9/2014 2:30 PM

 

Americans have the right to stop any and all immigration, legal or otherwise (e.g. Congress 1920-1965 [See HERE, HERE and HERE]) and this includes any refugee migration, which is overburdening city and state infrastructures across the nation and harboring numerous terrorists, as witnessed in Minneapolis [link], Bowling Green [link] and Boston [link] and numerous other cities [link]. And yet, despite efforts by Tennessee and other states to withdraw from the federal Refugee Resettlement program, the federal authorities contract with private agencies and resettle “refugees” wherever the meet the least resistance, at a heavy cost to the ordinary American.

 

The nine major refugee resettlement organizations typically operate secretly in closed-door sessions with government officials, because they do not want to disclose that their programs significantly increase unfunded costs on the state and local taxpayers in the form of social services, which must be provided. Also, these agencies, affiliated with the Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran churches, present themselves as “charitable” organizations, when, in fact, they are federal contractors with 95% of their annual budgets funded by the federal government.

 

After passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, states were totally reimbursed for the cost of providing Medicaid, SSI and cash welfare to refugees for three years. By 1991, reimbursement to the states was eliminated, and federal support for refugees, who were unable to qualify for state funded programs, was reduced to eight months, shifting the burden back to the states.

 

These refugees take full advantage of the system, since all public benefits from the local, state and federal level are available to them within thirty days, after arriving in the U.S. In 2010, 49% of refugees, who had arrived between 2005 and 2010, were receiving medical assistance/ Medicaid, 26% were receiving cash assistance, and 63% were in the food stamp program.

 

Holly Johnson of the Tennessee Office of Refugees still promotes the lie that refugees “are completely self-sufficient, usually within four months,” and, in the meantime, the Catholic Charities agency is planning the further expansion of the refugee resettlement program in Tennessee; since taking control of this program in 2008, when Gov. Phil Breese withdrew Tennessee from it, Catholic Charities has expanded it by 66%, because they get paid for each refugee they bring to Tennessee.

 

“It raises the issue whether the state or Congress should pay the costs of the federal program,” Joanne Bergman, attorney and activist, stated in an interview last year, and she reiterated her message on October 26th, 2014 before a group of concerned citizens in Murfreesboro, TN (ACT).

 

With health care costs taking 60% of all new state revenue, Tennessee Governor Bill Aslam warned all departments in the state, weeks ago, that they must prepare for a 7% budget cut across the board, as a backlog of 7080 disabled Tennessee citizens, 152 in Rutherford County, waits for services, Bergman further explained; in contrast, the State Department authorizes 70,000 refugees annually, who are immediately eligible for the social services of the states that receive refugees.

 

Why aren’t we spending our tax-dollars on our most vulnerable U.S. citizens instead of refugees?

 

A Government Accounting Office report from July 12, 2012 stated in part that the U.S. State Dept.’s financial assistance is expected to be supplemented by private donations for the provisions of reception and placement services, but, in fact, even the massive U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops refugee resettlement agency only raises 2% of its $72 million total revenues. The USCCB resettles about a quarter of the refugees that the U.S. receives annually, and federal funds account for nearly 93% of USCCB’s migration/ refugee budget.

 

From the GAO report [link]: ‘Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program’ – 

 

“most public entities such as public schools and health departments generally said that voluntary agencies notified them of the number of refugees expected to arrive in the coming year, but did not consult them regarding the number of refugees they could serve”.

 

This same GAO report quotes a state official who notes –

 

“That local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates (private contractors) have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.”

 

Other concerns rest in the fact that many of these refugees come from war-torn and terror-sponsoring nations, with this year’s group including 20,000 Iraqis, over 16,000 Burmese, and 8300 Somalis added to the 150,000 Somalian here now. Four thousand Syrian refugees have already applied for next year. Homeland Security cannot possibly adequately screen Somalian, from the largest Al Qaeda enclave in the world _ Somalia, due to the complete destruction of any law enforcement records in Somalia from twenty years of civil war.

 

“We come for the jobs,” says Mohammad Shakir Hassan, a Somali refugee who has resettled in Tennessee. After working for the TN Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition and CAIR/Hamas promoting the American Center for Outreach, Hassan now works as the program director for the TN American Muslim Advisory Council. All three organizations stress non-assimilation in favor of multicultural accommodations.

 

Perhaps Hassan came to America for a job, but thousands of other Muslim immigrants in Greeley and Ft Morgan, Colorado are looking to move to Wyoming, because the wait for government-subsidized housing is only about six months, while Colorado’s wait period is a year or longer. One-hundred Somalis have already moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the Somali women voiced their concerns to the Wall Street Journal, in September 2014 [Refugee Settlement Watch delves into WSJ info], whether other government services would be comparable, since Wyoming currently does not have a Refugee Resettlement program.

 

The City of Amarillo, Texas has repeatedly questioned why it has been sent 500 to 600 foreign refugees annually for a decade, when based on demographics and its local economy, it should receive no more than sixty. So, Senator Keel Salinger (TX-R) asked [link],

 

“Who stands to benefit from the unbalanced number of refugees … it’s worth the investigation of who lubricates that system with the money … the health care institutions and the schools are not getting that money …”

 

In 2013, the Nashville International Center for Empowerment, a refugee resettlement agency, received over $800,000 in taxpayer money to fund its organization. And Will Alexander, Senator Lamar Alexander’s son and current Economic and Community Development chief of staff for Gov. Aslam, served on its Board of Directors until 2012. This is unseemly and inappropriate at best, since Senator Lamar Alexander is a strong advocate for illegal aliens and “immigration reform” in the U.S. At its worst, there is a miasmatic sense of corruption and cronyism hanging heavy in the air.

 

Mayor Nancy Denson, a Democrat, presides over Athens, Georgia, where 85% of Clarke County’s students already qualify for free lunches, which is the primary indicator schools use to measure poverty in their communities. And, since the school system is already funded at the maximum property tax allowed by Georgia’s state constitution, Mayor Denson has been forced to fight the opening of an International Rescue Committee resettlement office, the oldest and largest of the nine agencies.

 

Springfield, Massachusetts Mayor Domenic Sarong, a Democrat, is witnessing his school, police and social services overwhelmed by too many refugees. Twice during the last year he has asked federal officials to stop sending refugees into his city: “I’m not cold-hearted at all,” Sarong told the ‘Springfield Republican’ (newspaper), “I want to help. All I’m asking is for accountability … You just can’t keep concentrating poverty on top of poverty.”

 

“When the people … say ‘Stop, We don’t want this program’, how is it possible that the feds simply go through a private agency after that?” Joanne Bergman asks.

 

Primarily, these agencies don’t want to stop. It’s big business for them as they get paid a flat figure for every refugee they bring into the country. They have expenses, utilities and salaries to pay, so there’s never an incentive to stop the flow of the money or the number of refugees.

 

U.S. citizens across America have concerns about health, safety and the economic drain that a voluntary program with no Constitutional authority, the Refugee Resettlement program, places on their communities. Suggestions by lawmakers that, at the very least, these “charitable” private contractors must reimburse the states, if they take federal funds, are met with disdain; Lipscomb University and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition say that this “targets refugee children as a burden rather than an investment,” so one must ask, “Shouldn’t America’s children come first?”

 

Demand a Congressional moratorium on all refugee and immigration movement into America! Enough is enough!

 

By Justin O Smith

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text and links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor

 

© Justin O. Smith

Cruz, Lee Threaten ‘Procedural’ War on Senate Floor to Stop ‘Lawless Amnesty’


Senators Mile Lee - Ted Cruz AP Photo

Six U.S. Senators have placed outgoing (i.e. lame duck) – Majority Leader Senator Reid – on noticed that if President Barack Hussein Obama unilaterally forces an illegal alien amnesty edict, that audacious Presidential act will cause a constitutional crisis. It is the belief of the Senators (Original Intent) that immigration law is solely the purview of the Congress.

 

Since I agree with those six Senators, Obama illegal Alien Amnesty should be another nail to the coffin of impeachment. God knows many of those nails have already been hammered but political numbers, political correctness, and a cowardly GOP leadership have FAILED to move the coffin from the House to the Senate.

 

JRH 11/6/14

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Cruz, Lee Threaten ‘Procedural’ War on Senate Floor to Stop ‘Lawless Amnesty’

 

By Terence P. Jeffrey

November 5, 2014 – 3:43 PM

CNSNews.com

 

Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and David Vitter of Louisiana sent a letter to lame-duck Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada today saying that if President Obama takes unilateral action to grant amnesty to illegal aliens it “will create a constitutional crisis.”

 

The senators told Reid that they would assist him in enacting a measure to stop Obama from unilaterally granting an amnesty, but that if Reid lets Obama go forward with such an amnesty they “would use all procedural means necessary” to make the Senate focus on the constitutional crisis they say that this “lawless amnesty” would create.

 

On Dec. 11, the continuing resolution now funding the government will expire. Before that date, both Houses of Congress will need to approve a new continuing resolution to fund the government beyond that date.

 

If the CR does not permit the Executive Branch to spend money on some action, the Executive Branch cannot take that action.

 

“We write to express our alarm with President Obama’s announced intention to take unilateral executive action by the end of this year to lawlessly grant amnesty to immigrants who have entered the country illegally,” the senators wrote Reid.

 

“The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete’ than its power over immigration,” the senators said. “Therefore, President Obama will be exercising powers properly belonging to Congress if he makes good his threat.

 

“This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers,” the senators told Reid.

 

“As majority leader of the Senate, you have the responsibility of not only representing the citizens of your state, but also of protecting the Constitution through vigilant exercise of the checks and balances provided under the Constitution,” wrote Cruz, Lee, Sessions, Roberts, Crapo and Vitter.

 

“Therefore, we write to offer our full assistance in ensuring expeditious Senate debate and passage for a measure that preserves the power of Congress by blocking any action the president may take to violate the Constitution and unilaterally grant amnesty,” the senators said.

 

“[H]owever,” they continued, “should you decline to defend the Senate and the Constitution from executive overreach, the undersigned senators will use all procedural means necessary to return the Senate’s focus during the lame duck session to resolving the constitutional crisis created by President Obama’s lawless amnesty.”

__________________________________

All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2014. Cybercast News Service.

 

About CNSNews.com

 

CNSNews.com was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

 

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes “news.”

 

In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission.

 

CNSNews.com endeavors to READ THE REST

 

Vote Alaska: Begich the Liar or veteran Patriot Sullivan


Mark Megich - Dan Sullivan

Mark Begich – Leftist and Dan Sullivan – Conservative

 

 

By John R. Houk

© November 1, 2014

 

It is my opinion that Move America Forward (MAF) is the USA’s preeminent pro-military organization. MAF’s primary message is to organize material support for the military personnel fighting overseas. That material support is in the nature of care packages that includes both scarce necessities (e.g. toiletries) and to a lesser degree some comforts (perhaps like treats). Here at home MAF acts as a public service for families of overseas military personnel. MAF in its early days began to expose anti-military organizations that tarnished the reputation of the military or actively participated in protests harmful to America’s war efforts which means potentially harmful to overseas military personnel.

 

MAF began to understand that Left Wing attack dogs would thus begin to come out of the woodwork to denigrate MAF efforts. Without investigating the details it is probably a good guess Left Wing individuals and organizations would begin to whine about MAF’s non-profit tax deductible status. Hence the formation of a political wing called MAF Freedom PAC (MAFPAC.org).

 

Keeping all this in mind MAF Freedom PAC supports political candidates for Office that or both Conservative and pro-military in their outlook. One such candidate is the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Alaska – Dan Sullivan (MAFPAC.org email below).

 

Sullivan is in a tight race with the Dem Party incumbent Senator Mark Begich. Senator Begich is taking the typical Left Wing path of disinformation, character assassination and downright lying to win reelection:

 

VIDEO: Mark Pryor and Mark Begich scurry from Obamacare questions

 

Published by Jason Mattera

Published: Oct 13, 2014

 

[Blog Editor: Mattera uses video to promote his new book “Crapitalism: Liberals Who Make Millions Swiping Your Tax Dollars”.]

 

Senator Begich is one of eight vulnerable Democrat Senators that are actively distancing themselves from President Barack Hussein Obama’s policies yet when their voting records are examined they voted the Obama agenda 96% or more of the time:

 

Here are where the Democrats and Republicans** on the October edition of Roll Call’s 10 Most Vulnerable Senators of 2014 rank in terms of their roll call voting support for Obama’s agenda:

 

Democrats

 

Mark Udall of Colorado: 99 percent

 

Kay Hagan of North Carolina: 99 percent

 

Jeff Merkley of Oregon: 99 percent

 

Al Franken of Minnesota: 99 percent

 

Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire: 98 percent

 

Mark Begich of Alaska: 98 percent

 

Mark Pryor of Arkansas: 97 percent

 

Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana: 96 percent

 

**[Blog Editor: There are two Republican Senators in the list after the Dems I’m excluding them because this is not about Republicans or RINOs – Bold text mine] (Vulnerable Senate Democrats Almost Always Voted With Obama; By Niels Lesniewski; Roll Call; 10/27/14 11:24 a.m.)

 

What a surprise that Begich is lying to his voters, I mean after all he is a Dem, right?

 

A Red State post by Moe Lane lowers Begich’s voting record by 1%, but 97% is still quite high:

 

… 97%. That’s the amount of time Mr. Begich voted with Obama priorities—from ObamaCare to the stimulus to the president’s nominees. Another key number is zero. That’s how many times in his six years he sponsored an amendment that the Senate voted on. The other word you hear from fired-up locals is “endless”—as in the Obama administration’s nonstop assaults on Alaskan mining and drilling, which Mr. Begich has proved incapable of halting. (Here Moe is quoting a WSJ article – Mark Begich: one of the 97%. Also, poised to lose in Alaska, at this point; By Moe Lane (Diary); Red State; 9/5/14 09:00 PM

 

Senator Begich misled Alaska voters by insinuating he had the support of Senator Lisa Murkowski who won her reelection running as an Independent write-in because she lost her Republican Primary to Tea Party endorsed candidate Joe Miller in 2010. (It is my opinion the GOP Establishment sold-out Miller so Murkowski would still caucus as a Republican.) Senator Murkowski has very publicly denied any endorsement of the Dem incumbent Senator Begich.

 

Mark Begich has spent the last month trying to exploit Senator Lisa Murkowski by suggesting that she supports his candidacy (she doesn’t). Begich has repeatedly run ads using Murkowski’s image and likeness – against her will – and now suggests that the only reason she opposes his ads is because she doesn’t like her picture in them.

 

 

Here’s the backstory:

 

·         On August 7, Politico reported: “Representatives for GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski are demanding that her fellow Alaskan, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, take down a campaign ad featuring her image — an unusual instance of two sitting senators from the same state in a public spat. …In a letter disseminated on Thursday, the law firm for Murkowski’s Senate committee skewered a Begich ad in a cease-and-desist missive. The ad in question, “Great Team,” features Murkowski and Begich appearing together, along with testimony from an individual who says he is a lifelong Republican, a Murkowski voter —and also a Begich supporter.”

 

·         On August 11th, Sen. Begich refused to take down the Murkowski ad: Reports made clear: “Mark Begich, Alaska Democrat, said he doesn’t plan to take down a campaign ad showing him working together with his Republican colleague, Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Ms. Murkowski has sent Mr. Begich a cease-and-desist letter to stop playing the television ad, saying that he used her likeness without her permission.”

 

·         On September 28th, Sen. Begich brazenly ran another ad featuring Lisa Murkowski: KTVA reported, “It comes after Murkowski earlier in the campaign called on Begich to stop running a similar ad. And it comes days after Murkowski was featured in an ad endorsing Begich’s GOP rival, Dan Sullivan.”

 

·         On October 24, Mark Begich claimed the only reason that Lisa Murkowski was mad about the ads is because she didn’t like her photo: During a recent debate, Dan Sullivan asked Mark Begich why he repeatedly used Senator Murkowski in his campaign ads against her will. Senator Begich’s obnoxious (not to mention sexist) response? “She didn’t like the photo. That’s what the letter was about, Dan.”

 

… (Mark Begich is a Liar; By News Links; The Minority Report; 10/28/14)

 

Dan Sullivan confronted Senator Mark Begich on penchant for lying:

 

VIDEO: Mark Begich Lies About His 2008 Campaign Attack Ads

 

Published by goprapidresponse

Published: Oct 30, 2014

 

And here is the Washington Free Beacon summarizing the video exchange between Dan Sullivan and Mark Begich:

 

Mark Begich’s Bold Debate Lie Easily Debunked By Anyone With Access to Youtube

 

By Washington Free Beacon Staff

October 31, 2014 10:02 am

Washington Free Beacon

 

Despite overwhelming evidence, Senator Mark Begich (D., Alaska) denied having attacked Republican Ted Stevens in attack ads during the 2008 Senate campaign.

 

The issue came up during a debate Thursday night between Begich and Dan Sullivan. Sullivan questioned Begich regarding wrongful accusations against Stevens and whether Begich regretted running the incorrect attack ads.

 

Begich, presumably hoping no one with access to Youtube was paying attention boldly stated, “I didn’t run attack ads.”

 

Two of Begich’s ads attacking Stevens are still available online here and here.

 

Now I don’t live in Alaska but I gotta tell ya, for an Alaskan voter to actually vote for Senator Mark Begich’s reelection that person must really be dedicated to the Democratic Party, political liars and dirty politicians.

 

JRH 11/1/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************************

Meet Dan Sullivan, Marine, Running for US Senate in Alaska

Sent: 10/30/2014 8:44 AM

MAF Freedom PAC

 

Alaska: Dan Sullivan for U.S. SENATOR

 

Name: Dan Sullivan
Running For: U.S. Senate
State: Alaska
Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
Service: United States Marine Corps & Reserve
Deployments: Afghanistan, Middle East, Africa, Asia


Dan Sullivan as Lt. Col.

Currently running to become the next Senator from Alaska is U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Dan Sullivan. Having previously served as Alaska’s Attorney General, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources and the United States Assistant Secretary of Economic and Business Affairs, he has had a long career of public service.

Dan joined the Marine Corps in 1993 and has served on Active Duty and Reserves. Lt. Col. Sullivan is still in the Marine Corps Reserves and is the current commander of Alaska’s 6th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company. Before his current post, Dan was commander of the 4th Marine Division’s Anti-Terror Battalion.

The Marine Reserves called Dan to active duty in 2004, 2009, and 2013. He served in Afghanistan for a six-week tour of duty and deployed to various countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. In 2004 he was active duty for a year and a half in the Middle East serving as high ranking staff in the U.S. military Central Command Office (CENTCOM) which oversees all operations in the Middle East. Back in 2004, that meant both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dan has an impressive list of accolades even beyond his sterling military service. Like Tom Cotton, a fellow veteran running for U.S. Senate, Dan went to Harvard where he graduated Magna Cum Laude with a degree in Economics. He studied Law at Georgetown which is where he met his wife Julie, also a law student at the prestigious school.

Dan’s experience in the Marines made him a tough-as-nails leader who never backs down and for whom surrender is not an option! He’s fighting a tough race against Mark Begich, a typical Democrat politician who runs to the right during election season, distancing himself from Obama and his liberal views, but as soon as they get elected these liberals always show their true colors.

Begich has shown this in his support for President Obama’s inaction in confronting ISIS. In a recent debate, Begich supported Obama’s policy of a hands-off fight against ISIS, with no troops and only very limited bombing. Sullivan pounced on the opportunity to show how wrong that strategy is.

“Inaction has its own consequences,” Sullivan said, “If we need combat troops to protect personnel, to protect the embassy, to protect ambassadors like we didn’t have in Benghazi, to protect pilots, I would be for it.”

His opponent, Begich, was silent and offered no such commitment to protecting our citizens or our interests abroad.

Lt. Colonel Dan Sullivan is the kind of veteran we need to send to the U.S. Senate, he will stand up for our troops and push for a strong national defense to confront the growing threats from ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups.

 

Sullivan needs your help! Donate now to help send Marine Lt. Col. Dan Sullivan to Washington DC!

_______________________

Vote Alaska: Begich the Liar or veteran Patriot Sullivan

By John R. Houk

© November 1, 2014

_______________________

Meet Dan Sullivan, Marine, Running for US Senate in Alaska

 

Paid for and authorized by Move America Forward Freedom PAC – a federal political action committee. MAF Freedom PAC is responsible for the content of this message. This message is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Contributions are not tax deductible for federal tax purposes. No corporate checks are permitted.
www.mafpac.org

Donations by Check Can be Sent To:


Move America Forward Freedom PAC
ATTN: Danny Gonzalez, Dir of Communications
8795 Folsom Blvd. Suite #103
Sacramento, CA 95826

IRS has become Political Abusive Attack Dog


BHO Fake Outrage toon

John R. Houk

© October 28, 2014

 

The 16th Amendment legitimizes the existence of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

 

Amendment XVI

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Your donation matters.

 

Taxing Power

 

Tax

 

Income Tax

 

Taxable Income (16th Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

HOWEVER, the 16th Amendment does not overrule the Bill of Rights (1st ten Amendments to Constitution) pertaining to the Civil Rights and Liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And yet the IRS has mysteriously acquired the authority to seize property and bank accounts with the presumption of guilt BEFORE a criminal trial.

 

My son sent me a Daily Caller news story that focuses on small business owner Carole Hinders. Ms. Hinders has made the news ironically largely due to a NY Times articles about her and other small business owners being assaulted by the IRS without actual proof the law is being broken. Between yesterday and today Carole Hinders’ story his hit web in a huge way. The irony is all the sides of the political spectrum are displaying outrage over the abuse of power being exercised by the IRS. Could it be that Leftists and Conservatives can join forces over a constitutional issue affecting American citizens?

 

VIDEO: IRS Seizes Innocent Grandma’s Bank Account

 

Published by InstituteForJustice

Published: Oct 27, 2014

 

Carole Hinders has worked hard at her family-owned restaurant, Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food, for 38 years. The federal government took her entire bank account using civil forfeiture, even though she did nothing wrong. Now, they are refusing to return her money, so Carole and the Institute for Justice have teamed up to fight back.

http://www.endforfeiture.com

 

Perhaps Congress can wise up and use this unified voter outrage to take some immediate legislative action to curb the power of the IRS. If Congress can enact a statesman form a legislative action pertaining to the IRS, you must realize it would only be a temporary fix. Most prominently these days the IRS is a political tool used by Obama against Conservative opponents, however there are more than one Federal agency that uses a law that has to be unconstitutional. State and Federal law enforcement ALSO utilize the Civil Asset Forfeiture law to seize property and money from American citizens. The thing is the public has looked the other way with government seizures because it is the primary weapon of law enforcement to pin down real criminals especially the kind that has built a criminal empire. Who can be unhappy about taking down criminals, right?

 

The thing is citizens like Carole Hinders or even those that have property that stifles the agenda of local, State or Federal authorities can have their property seized. WITHOUT A TRIAL!

 

As Americans on a grassroots level we have to figure out the legalese that protects law-abiding citizens while at the same go after moneyed criminals that break the law pretending to be law-abiding citizens.

 

The website End Civil Forfeiture explains the history of this practice in the USA and how State and Federal government have exploited this beyond the scope of the U. S. Constitution:

 

Civil forfeiture—where the government can take and sell your property without ever convicting or even charging you with a crime—is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. Civil forfeiture cases proceed against one’s cash, cars, or home, which means that property owners receive few if any of the protections that criminal defendants enjoy.   To make matters worse, when law-enforcement agencies take and sell your property, they frequently get to keep all the proceeds for their own use. This gives agencies a direct financial incentive to “police for profit” by seizing and forfeiting as much property as possible.

 

 

Although the Founders didn’t believe in this superstition, they used civil forfeiture as a way to enforce the collection of customs duties, which provided 80 to 90 percent of the federal revenue during that time. The government often could not try owners of smuggling ships themselves (often because they were overseas), and so civil forfeiture let officials seize their ships and cargo as a second-best option.

 

With minor exceptions during the Civil War and Prohibition, civil forfeiture remained a legal backwater. But as the War on drugs heated up during the early 1980s, so too did civil forfeiture. A key legal change occurred in 1984 when Congress established the Assets Forfeiture Fund. Previously, all federal civil forfeiture revenues were deposited into the government’s general fund. But after the 1984 amendments, federal agencies could retain and spend forfeiture proceeds—subject only to very loose restrictions—giving them a direct financial stake in generating forfeiture funds.  Similar amendments now allow law enforcement agencies in 42 states to keep and use some or all of the civil forfeiture proceeds they seize.

 

“Policing for Profit” Creates Incentives for Abuse

 

The changes at the federal and state levels led to an explosion of forfeiture activity. Because in most jurisdictions law enforcement can keep some or all of the proceeds from civil forfeiture, they have an incentive to seize and keep as much property as possible. …

 

… Here are four ways that civil forfeiture stacks the deck against property owners:

 

·         Burden of Proof: For the government to keep your property using civil forfeiture, it must prove that the property is connected to criminal activity.  But where criminal forfeiture requires the government to prove guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” under civil-forfeiture cases the government can prevail under much less rigorous standards.

 

·         Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Although many jurisdictions provide an “innocent-owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea that it was involved in a crime, most jurisdictions presume, however, that owners are guilty and force them to prove their innocence.

 

·         Legal Representation: Anyone who has watched a crime drama knows that the government must provide criminal defendants with an attorney if they cannot afford one. But civil forfeiture victims must either pay for a lawyer—which in many cases can cost more than the seized property is worth—or go it alone.

 

·         “Equitable” Sharing: Federal law provides a loophole called “equitable sharing” to law enforcement in states with good civil forfeiture laws.  This program allows state law enforcement to turn seized assets over to the federal government, which forfeits the property under federal law.  In turn, the feds give up to 80 percent of the forfeited property back to the state agency for its own use, even if state law would have required those proceeds to go into a general fund.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Civil Forfeiture: A Threat to Private Property and the Impartial Pursuit of Justice; By End Civil Forfeiture)

 

The only way I see to change all the law – civil and criminal – to protect the individual rights of law-abiding citizens is to amend the Constitution. I don’t care how much Leftists and Conservatives can agree on reforming the powers of the IRS, you know one day a President will come along to push the envelope of the Constitution citing case law to warp the legalese to go after political opponents. You do realize it won’t matter if that President is a Democrat or a Republican or the emergence of a Third Party to attain the White House, the legalese will be abused.

 

Unfortunately on a Federal level this nation’s governance is way too polarized to effect a Constitutional Amendment to change the definition and application of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws that protects the Rights and Liberty of law-abiding citizens as opposed to moneyed criminals. The only way to amend the Constitution via by-passing Congress is in the Constitution but in the 225 years our Founding document has been the foundation of America’s rule of law the by-pass Congress method to amend the Constitution has never taken place. Why?

 

The reason is political fear. No one active in government seriously thought of the ‘by-pass Congress’ method of amending the Constitution until the 20th century when political polarization seemed to become a hindrance to good governance. The method of offering an Amendment apart from Congress can be accomplish directly by the several States calling for a Constitution Convention. Neither the President, Congress nor the Judicial Branch can nullify or prevent such a convention from occurring. It would be the call of a majority of States. The fear is that a convention to amend the Constitution would evolve beyond the intentions of the reason the States called for it. The very real fear – both Leftist and Conservative – is a Constitutional Convention could take it upon itself to scrap the entire current Constitution. The fear is the potential for a Leftist vision or a Conservative vision to become the rule of law to the detriment of the losing side of the political spectrum.

 

I personally have wavered back and forth on the pluses and minuses of a Constitutional Convention. BUT NOW with the abuses of the IRS simply becoming way too egregious, something must be done. The best thing would be to scrap the whole current tax system developing a new paradigm whether it is income or National sales tax or a combination of both to be fair to the taxpayers while also still have the ability to go after the moneyed criminals of whatever kind of organized crime network might exist (violent criminals or white collar criminals). And whatever that standard is should be applied equally criminally and civilly according to the Fourth Amendment.

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Fourth Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

On a personal level I don’t feel comfortable to suggest a different tax system to shoot for. My primary concern here is the abuse of government power on the Civil Rights and Liberty of American citizens. The very reason and cause of the American Revolutionary War in which the British citizens of America’s Thirteen Colonies felt abused by unjust taxation, improper representation and the abuse of government authority.

 

WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. READ THE REST (In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America; by the signing delegates and penned by Thomas Jefferson; Library of Congress)

 

TODAY I feel like the risk is necessary for the USA to have a Constitutional Convention. The Federal government cannot be trusted for a long term reform eliminating the IRS as a political attack dog of whatever political party. Just like the Founding Fathers felt a risk was necessary to throw off the bonds of an abusive government, it has become necessary to throw off the bonds of a politically oriented tax agency as well as other Federal agencies that have gone beyond bounds of the guaranteed Liberty of the Bill of Rights.

 

Citizens concerned for the future of their country, under a federal government that’s increasingly bloated, corrupt, reckless and invasive, have a constitutional option. We can call a Convention of States to return the country to its original vision of a limited federal government that is of, by and for the people. (Convention of States: This One Amendment Could Solve Forty-Five Problems; By Steve Robinson; The Maine Wire; 7/15/14)

 

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the two ways to amend the Constitution:

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (The Constitution of the United States – Article V; National ArchivesFederal Register)

 

Our current tax system is a progressive income tax:

 

A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family’s tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income. If, for example, taxes for a family with an income of $20,000 are 20 percent of income and taxes for a family with an income of $200,000 are 30 percent of income, then the tax structure over that range of incomes is progressive. One tax structure is more progressive than another if its average tax rate rises more rapidly with income. (Progressive Taxes; By Joel B. Slemrod; Library of Economics and Liberty)

 

DEFINITION OF ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The United States income tax is considered progressive: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.

 

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

The U.S. progressive income tax is effectively a means of income redistribution. Individuals who earn more pay higher taxes; those taxes are then used to fund social welfare programs that are used primarily by individuals who earn less. Critics of the progressive tax consider it to be discriminatory and believe that a flat tax system, which imposes the same tax on everyone regardless of income, is a fairer method of taxation. (Progressive Tax; Investopedia)

 

Yup, IRS/Progressive Tax is evil. If small potatoes like me has to hire a tax service to figure out the complications of owing or receiving refund then it is evil. How do we replace the evil IRS? The suggestions I have read are the flat tax, fair tax, National Sales Tax or some kind of combination.

 

According to my search engine perusals it appears the Fair Tax seems to be the current favorite tax to terminate the IRS and end political head hunting. I personally see how the Fair Tax (which is actually a national sales tax) looks good on paper; however if things go south versions of the Fair Tax shows sales tax climbing anywhere from 50% to 70% of purchase or service to keep sufficient revenue flowing. Fair Tax proponents tell you the rate is 23% if everything goes as foreseen with a monthly prebate of cash from the government for families that make less than the poverty line in income. The prebate for a family of four below the poverty line utilizing the 23% sales tax rate would receive a monthly government check of $1,983.33 for an annual total of $23,800. Like I said that sounds favorable to me; however if the revenue collection does not complete the Federal budget, does anyone think the sales tax rate will remain at 23%?

 

The Flat Tax still sounds attractive to me. The first problem of a Flat Tax is an agency still has to be around to administer collection of the tax. My God, that agency CANNOT be the same bureaucracy of the Internal Revenue Service. Its management has become politically corrupt that bad things undoubtedly continue to occur. The management level portions of the current IRS must be jettisoned and a whole new agency created under strict guidelines that insures the enforcement of the Bill of Rights in the new tax agency’s collection methods.

 

However in full disclosure Fair Tax proponents do have problems with the Flat Tax. For one thing the politicians are looking for a Flat Tax rate that actually mind cause discomfort for poor to moderate income families while the more wealthy tax payers will jump for glee. I currently fit into the poor to moderate category that would feel a squeeze from higher taxes. On the other hand I also realize across the board less of a tax strain on higher wage earners to wealthy people will release entrepreneurial development that will result in better jobs, more available spendable money and hence a better economy which will also translate into more tax revenue without putting the bite on all Americans.

 

So here are website article with Flat Tax and Fair Tax plusses and minuses leaning to favoring one or the other (in no particular order):

 

o  Could The Fair Tax Movement Ever Replace The IRS? By Mark P. Cussen; Investopedia; 4/4/14

 

o   Flat Tax vs. Fair Tax; By Admin; Freedom Works; 7/6/11

 

o   FAIR Tax Abolishes IRS – Then What? By Peter J. Reilly; Forbes; 8/6/14 9:30AM

 

o   Summary: H.R.25 — 113th Congress (2013-2014) Introduced in House; (01/03/2013): Fair Tax Act of 2013 – Repeals the income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax. Redesignates the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the Internal Revenue Code of 2013.

 

A Constitutional Convention needs to restore Liberty as well as narrowly define the duty of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches to uphold restored and defined Liberty. Here’s part the Leftists will become apoplectic about: A Constitutional Convention needs to simultaneously protect Religious Freedom and NOT prevent religion from being a moral advocate politically to influence government. At the same time government specifically be defined as not involving or inserting itself on how a religion involves itself in politics UNLESS that religion’s specific purpose is to terminate the Constitution, overthrow the government and end the Liberty of the Bill of Rights. Separation of Church and State is a one-way street and not a two-way street. No government in religion but lots of religion as a moral pulpit to influence the morality of society. The Constitution needs to address the issue of preventing the laws and customs of foreign lands from being used as precedents in any judicial case law. There can be no foreign treaties entered into that contradicts the U.S. Constitution without an Amendment change to correspond to that foreign treaty. And as America has traditionally been the melting pot of many national peoples seeking a new life those people must be amenable to swear to abide and uphold the U.S. Constitution adopting the traditions of America first while honoring their former culture second.

 

Well that is the part of a Constitutional Convention I am certain Leftists will cry a convention run-amok. For our Republic to survive future generations the traditions that have made us a desirable melting pot must be preserved. Losing those traditions to some kind of transforming diverse multicultural Socialist Democracy that descends into cultural chaos polarized racially to the extent political polarization tears the nation apart under political ideology rather than preserve national patriotism. Oh yeah … Let’s really drive the Left looney. We should throw in personhood establishing the rights of an unborn baby rather than perpetuate the myth that an unborn baby is an appendage of a woman’s body.

 

JRH 10/28/14 (Hat Tip: Adam)

Please Support NCCR

 

U.S. Govt. Can Save Asia Bibi’s Life in Pakistan


Asia Bibi, Ashiq Masih - husband & children

Asia Bibi, Ashaq Masih – husband & Children

 

John R. Houk

© October 26, 2014

 

Asia Bibi is a Pakistani Christian. She has been in a Pakistan slammer since 2009. Why? A bunch of religious racist Muslim ladies were upset Asia drew water out of a well designated for Muslims. A common practice among the Muslim populace of Pakistan is to exact personal revenge and steal Christian property by leveling the accusation against a Christian for breaking Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law. The Muslim gals at the well were so enraged a Christian used a Muslim well and touched the utensils used to draw water that a couple of them (appropriately the name of one of the Muslim gals is Mafia) shouted Asia Bibi muttered blasphemous comments against the antichrist prophet known as Mohammed (or Muhammad or whatever). Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law (See Also HERE) says that is a good enough reason for a capital crime.

 

Asia denies the accusation, BUT if she did – SO WHAT! I bad mouth that antichrist prophet all the time. I am a Christian and quite frankly I find it quite annoying that Mo established a bloody religion in which Jew-hatred and Christian-hatred are actually encoded in Islamic holy writings – especially the Quran considered by Muslims to be the direct words from the demon Allah.

 

Christian’s in Muslim dominated nations have had to face the Islamic assault on Jesus Christ’s divinity and divine origins for over a thousand years. When the Muslims conquered the Christian majority Middle East and North Africa their lives as oppressed people became so horrendous that after a few hundred years of human demoralization the Christian majority slowly converted to Islam to leave denigration behind.

 

Pakistani Christians like Asia Bibi face this human denigration which often ends with the Muslim ultimatum: convert or die. Asia Bibi has been sentenced to death. To get out of the death sentence she simply has to deny her Savior Jesus Christ and embrace Islam.

 

Bravely, Asia Bibi has chosen Christ for life in eternity rather than a future lake of fire for denying her Savior. Asia’s only hope to escape a demonic death sentence in this life is if Western nations – ESPECIALLY THE USA – step in notifying Pakistan there will be consequences if it allows the execution of Asia Bibi.

 

A huge amount of Pakistan’s military budget is supplied by the United States of America. David French writing an article for the ACLJ about Asia Bibi’s plight indeed shows how the U.S. government under the Obama Administration can indeed exact consequences on Pakistan for allowing death sentences under Free Speech issues.

 

We Christians know President Barack Hussein Obama has gone out of his way to schmooze with Islamic nations and even Radical Muslim organizations that support this Islamic Supremacist ideology of executing people for using Mo and Islam’s name in vain. I mean dear God in Heaven he has had Jew-hating and Christian-hating Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists come to the White House to listen to their opinion.

 

We Christians know the Democratic Party that endorses the murder of unborn children as a form of birth control and has forced Americans via the Courts to submit to a homosexual agenda even though both the Old and New Testament make no bones that such a lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of God. (** Just to note that neither I nor the Christian Scriptures endorse the execution of abortionists and homosexuals as say Sharia-minded Muslims would.)

 

So what can Christians do to bring pressure on the U.S. government to actually address an injustice being exacted on the Christian minority of Pakistan?

 

ONE: On November 4th flood to the polls to vote Republican or at least a Conservative candidate representing any other political party. BUT NOT VOTING for one single Democrat or Independent supporting ungodly issues the Democrats support.

 

TWO: Flood your Senator and Representative in Congress to place political pressure on Pakistan to save Asia Bibi and other Christians under the same idiocy of Islamic Supremacist death sentences for expressing Free Speech and Religious Freedom issues. AND I DO MEAN FLOOD!

 

A good way to begin that flood is to sign every petition you can find (even if it is a fund raising tool) in which the petition is actually delivered to persons or a person with political influence.

 

Here’s the ACLJ link for an Asia Bibi petition: Save Christian Mom Asia Bibi from Execution Petition

 

Below is the David French ACLJ article encouraging the U.S. government to influence Pakistan with the sophisticated military toys we send (or not) to them.

 

JRH 10/21/14

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Top U.S. Aid Recipient Is Set to Hang a Christian Woman for Blasphemy

 

By David French

October 22, 2014

American Center for Law and Justice

 

Pakistan is a perennial recipient of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. It’s an occasional ally/frequent enemy, sometimes actively conspiring against U.S. interests, sometimes actually firing on U.S. troops (incidents so notorious they now have their own Wikipedia page), and — of course — it’s the home of increasingly virulent jihadist extremism. And, no, this extremism isn’t confined to the fringes of Pakistani society but is sometimes even manifested in its appellate courts.

 

Last week, a Pakistani court of appeals upheld Asia Bibi’s death sentence for blasphemy. She’s a Christian and a mother of five.

 

Death. For allegedly saying bad things about Mohammed.

 

Barbaric.

 

Not that it matters (one should be able to freely insult the prophet of Islam without fear of death), but there’s evidence that even the inherently illegitimate blasphemy charge is trumped-up nonsense. Here’s Asia Bibi describing the incident in her own words. The story begins with Bibi taking a drink of water, then offering the cup to her Muslim neighbors:

 

Then I start to hear muttering. I pay no attention and fill the cup again, this time holding it out to a woman next to me who looks like she’s in pain. She smiles and reaches out . . . At exactly the moment Musarat pokes her ferrety nose out from the bush, her eyes full of hate: “Don’t drink that water, it’s haram!”

 

Musarat addresses all the pickers, who have suddenly stopped work at the sound of the word “haram,” the Islamic term for anything forbidden by God.

 

“Listen, all of you, this Christian has dirtied the water in the well by drinking from our cup and dipping it back several times. Now the water is unclean and we can’t drink it! Because of her!”

 

It’s so unfair that for once I decide to defend myself and stand up to the old witch.

 

“I think Jesus would see if differently from Mohammed.”

 

Musarat is furious. “How dare you think for the Prophet, you filthy animal!”

 

The story then moves into the familiar demand for conversion:

 

“That’s right, you’re just a filthy Christian! You’ve contaminated our water and now you dare speak for the Prophet! Stupid bitch, your Jesus didn’t even have a proper father, he was a bastard, don’t you know that.”

 

Musarat comes over as though she’s going to hit me and yells: “You should convert to Islam to redeem yourself for your filthy religion.”

 

I feel a pain deep inside. We Christians have always stayed silent: We’ve been taught since we were babies never to say anything, to keep quiet because we’re a minority. But I’m stubborn too and now I want to react, I want to defend my faith. I take a deep breath and fill my lungs with courage.

 

“I’m not going to convert. I believe in my religion and in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your Prophet Mohammed ever do to save mankind? And why should it be me that converts instead of you?”

 

Bibi’s act of defiance is rewarded with physical assault, an assault that days later grows more sinister:

 

Five days later, I went to work fruit picking in another field. I’ve almost filled my bowl when I hear what sounds like a rioting crowd. I step back from my bush, wondering what’s going on, and in the distance I see dozens of men and women striding along towards our field, waving their arms in the air.

 

I catch the cruel eyes of Musarat. Her expression is self-righteous and full of scorn. I shiver as I suddenly realize that she hasn’t let it go. I can tell she’s out for revenge. The excited crowd are closer now; they are coming into the field and now they’re standing in front of me, threatening and shouting.

 

“Filthy bitch! We’re taking you back to the village! You insulted our Prophet! You’ll pay for that with your life!”

 

They all start yelling:

 

“Death! Death to the Christian!”

 

The angry crowd is pressing closer and closer around me. I’m half lying on the ground when two men grab me by the arms to drag me away. I call out in a desperate, feeble voice:

 

“I haven’t done anything! Let me go, please! I haven’t done anything wrong!”

 

When a young mullah intervenes, he is explicit: Convert or die.

 

“If you don’t want to die,” says the young mullah, “you must convert to Islam. Are you willing to redeem yourself by becoming a good Muslim?”

 

Sobbing, I reply:

 

“No, I don’t want to change my religion. But please believe me, I didn’t do what these women say, I didn’t insult your religion. Please have mercy on me.”

 

I put my hands together and plead with him. But he is unmoved.

 

“You’re lying! Everyone says you committed this blasphemy and that’s proof enough. Christians must comply with the law of Pakistan, which forbids any derogatory remarks about the holy Prophet. Since you won’t convert and the Prophet cannot defend himself, we shall avenge him.”

 

This is a nation with a nuclear arsenal, that flies dozens of F-16s supplied by the United States, and is an alleged partner in our war on terror. But it’s a nation that sentences mothers to death simply because they’re Christians who refuse to deny Christ — even in the face of an angry, violent mob.

 

Bibi is appealing to Pakistan’s highest court, a process that could take years. In the meantime, how many more billions of American dollars will subsidize this savagery? I fully recognize there are good and noble members of Pakistani society — our European Centre for Law and Justice has an affiliate in Pakistan that is staffed with courageous lawyers who’ve saved many Christian lives — but it’s past time for our government to insist that our alleged allies behave in a manner that not only advances U.S. interests but also protects the most basic of human rights of Pakistan’s persecuted Christian minority.

 

We simply cannot tolerate jihadist extremism. Yet we do, again and again — even subsidizing and arming it. And how are we rewarded for this appeasement and forbearance?

 

With more sharia; with more jihad.

 

And with more Christian mothers facing the hangman’s noose.

 

This article is crossposted on National Review.

 

_________________________

U.S. Govt. Can Save Asia Bibi’s Life in Pakistan

John R. Houk

© October 26, 2014

_________________________

Top U.S. Aid Recipient Is Set to Hang a Christian Woman for Blasphemy

 

American Center for Law and Justice | Washington D.C. | Copyright © 2012, ACLJ

 

MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION to ACLJ 

 

The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.

 

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center’s purpose is to engage legal, legislative and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education and litigation to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Your gift is very much appreciated and fully deductible as a charitable contribution. A copy of our latest financial report may be obtained by writing to us at P.O. Box 90555, Washington, DC 20090-0555.

Joni’s Liberal Opponent Lied to Look Tough on ISIS


Joni Ernst 3

 

Joni Ernst is running for the U.S. Senate in Iowa. She is serving as a State Senator and is a Lt. Colonel in the Iowa National Guard who was actually a company commander in Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq circa 2003. Just like Sarah Palin, the Iowa local media and national Left Stream Media have done their best to assassinate State Senator Ernst’s character. And just like America’s Liar-in-Chief Obama, the Dem candidate for the Iowa Senate Bruce Bailey has become a liar as well.

 

Dishonesty comes as naturally as breathing for some folks. These types of people are clinically referred to as pathological liars. They tell lies habitually and chronically for the purpose of furthering their own agenda.

 

Pathological liars are different from compulsive liars. A compulsive liar is dishonest out of habit. This person tells lies so often, about virtually every facet of his life, that uttering an honest word becomes uncomfortable and unnatural.

 

I am no psychologist, but if I were to offer an amateur diagnosis, I would guess that Democrat U.S. Senate hopeful Bruce Braley fits the definition of a pathological liar. We already know Braley is dishonest. He has provided numerous examples over the past few years.

 

READ THE REST (The Real Bruce Braley: Dishonest, Disingenuous and Disturbingly Liberal; By Kevin Hall; The Iowa Republican; 7/9/14)

 

Move America Forward Freedom PAC, the political wing of MAF, has sent a supportive email for Joni Ernst. Good for MAF Freedom PAC because when Conservatives endures malicious the news needs to get out to promote them. Below is the email (It’s up to you to donate or not to this military friendly organization, regardless remain informed and if you live in Iowa vote for Ernst).

 

JRH 10/8/14

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

***************************

Joni’s Liberal Opponent Lied to Look Tough on ISIS

 

By MAFPAC.org

Sent: 10/7/2014 2:02 PM

 

The Weekly Standard has exposed how Joni Ernst’s senatorial opponent, Democrat Bruce Braley has flip-flopped on confronting ISIS. In a recent debate, Braley claims that he voted for authorization to attack ISIS but TWS has shown this to be a lie!

Joni’s opponent Bruce Braley spoke in Congress AGAINST the surge in Iraq.

[Iraq Troop Surge Debate – Braley Anti-Surge FEB 2007]

Braley was in favor of Obama’s complete pullout from Iraq that allowed terror to re-emerge there. [Bruce Braley Official House Congressional Website]

Now he claims to be in favor of stopping ISIS but in truth he voted against it.

Meanwhile Lt. Col. Joni Ernst is commander of  the Iowa National Guard’s largest battalion, and has consistently supported aggressive action against all radical Islamic groups, including ISIL/ISIS.

“Each day that passes without meaningful action, ISIL becomes an even greater threat to our national security – both at home and abroad. ISIL must be stopped, but to do so we must have both clarity of purpose and a well-defined mission.” – Joni Ernst Sept. 10, 2014

We must defeat Bruce Braley and put a real warrior in the
Senate – support Lt. Col. Joni Ernst!
Please donate today!

Braley Voted Against Funding Combat Operations in Iraq
The Weekly Standard
October 1, 2014
by Michael Warren

 

Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley opposed funding any American military operations in Iraq this year-before he supported them. The three-term House member, who is running for Iowa’s open Senate seat in one of the year’s hottest races, touted his support for military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria in a recent debate.

“I recently had the opportunity to vote to give the president limited authority to begin strikes against terrorists in Iraq and Syria,” Braley said during the debate with his Republican opponent, Joni Ernst.

That’s not quite accurate, as Fox News’s Carl Cameron points out. The recent House vote Braley cited was to arm Syrian rebels fighting against ISIS. Authorization for United States’s bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists has fallen under the authorization to use military force against terrorist groups first passed by Congress in 2001, the Obama administration has argued. There’s been no separate vote in this Congress to authorize the recent air strikes.

But earlier this year, Braley voted for an amendment to not fund any military combat operations in Iraq. On June 19, California Democrat Barbara Lee offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill to prohibit the use of funds to be used for the purposes of conducting combat operations in Iraq.” The amendment failed, but 23 Republicans and 142 Democrats voted for it-including Bruce Braley.

 

While Bruce Braley tries to talk tough about confronting ISIS, it’s too little too late and we don’t buy his story. He claims to have supported airstrikes against ISIS, but he was lying about that and in fact he voted FOR an amendment that would have made it impossible to carry our airstrikes against ISIS.

Luckily that amendment failed, but Bruce Braley has shown his true colors. He is a foreign policy wimp and believes in Obama’s weak lead-from-behind strategy that allowed ISIS to grow into the dangerous group we face today!

 

Joni Ernst now has a slight lead in the polls, but this race is still a toss-up and we need your help today! Donate now to help Joni Ernst for Senate!

_______________________

Paid for and authorized by Move America Forward Freedom PAC – a federal political action committee. MAF Freedom PAC is responsible for the content of this message. This message is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Contributions are not tax deductible for federal tax purposes. No corporate checks are permitted.


www.mafpac.org

Donations by Check Can be Sent To:
Move America Forward Freedom PAC
ATTN: Danny Gonzalez, Dir of Communications
8795 Folsom Blvd. Suite #103
Sacramento, CA 95826

Megyn Kelly: Did Hillary Clinton Have Benghazi Documents SCRUBBED?


HILLARY-BLOOD

What freaking difference at this point does it make!

 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton – What difference does it make?

Here’s the freaking difference man! Listen up Left Wing Apologists that propagandize Americans that Benghazigate is a phony scandal invented by Right Wingers and Fox News! THE DIFFERENCE IS HILLARY ORDERED (allegedly) BENGHAZI DOCUMENTS CONNECTING HER TO WRONG DOING DESTROYED!

 

JRH 9/19/14

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Megyn Kelly: Did Hillary Clinton Have Benghazi Documents SCRUBBED? (BREAKING NEWS)

By Editor

September 18, 2014

The Political Insider

 

Fox News Video: Benghazi Report Manipulated?

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

While Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is busy running the Benghazi Select Committee in the House, major news is breaking about that avoidable terrorist attack which resulted in the deaths of 4 American patriots.

 

FOX News’ Megyn Kelly discussed with Congressman Jim Jordan a report from the Heritage Foundation’s Sharyl Attkisson (a former CBS News investigator) that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered every document about the Benghazi terrorist attacks which might harm her image be destroyed by her staff.

 

Here is what Kelly said (above ):

“Hillary Clinton’s advisers may have helped tamper with documents, remove them at least, relating to the attack that killed for Americans, before those documents were handed over to investigators working for the ARB (Accountability Review Board).”

 

Attkisson’s report shows that Hillary Clinton supporter Raymond Maxwell, who once ran the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, is claiming he “he walked into the State Department one night, and that they [State Department employee] were scrubbing documents.”

 

Kelly said that when Maxwell walked in, he was told, “Ray, we are to go through these stacks, pull out anything that might be anybody in the Near Eastern Affairs office, or the 7th floor (Hillary Clinton’s floor of the building) in a bad light.” Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills was also present during the blatant cover-up effort.

 

When Maxwell asked, “Isn’t that unethical?” he was told, “Ray, those are our orders.”

 

H/T: TPNN and The Daily Signal

_______________________________

COPYRIGHT 2014, THE POLITICAL INSIDER

 

About Political Insider

 

The Political Insider connects you to the pulse of all things newsy and noteworthy. From what bills are discussed on the Hill to dishing in front of food trucks on Cap South, we are your inside connection to influencers and politicos around DC, in the media, and beyond. Our exclusive mix of news and commentary will keep you informed and entertained. We strive to be wherever you are with the stories you need to know and will want to share.

Keeping You Connected.