Imran Firasat’s Journey and Mysterious Fate?


John R. Houk

© September 11, 2017

 

I came across a video with a sensationalist title sent from of all places I Support Israel: “Watch: Buddhist woman raped by sharia police in Pakistan as punishment for having a child”. Thank God the video does not actually show a woman being raped by Muslims.

 

The video is actually the Christian testimony and journey of Imran Firasat. Imran was born a Muslim in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In adulthood he met a gal from Indonesia (Jenny Setiawan) was a Buddhist in Pakistan. I had to wonder why a Buddhist gal would be in Pakistan where some of the most vicious Muslims live who believe in violently protecting the Religion of Peace from non-Muslim religions and ideologies.

 

Here’s a mystery I have grown weary of searching to solve. I have had difficulty finding anything Imran Firasat. The latest post I could find is dated 5/2/16 found at Jan Sandviks blogg, but the information is only up to date to 2014. The mystery is Imran has disappeared from normal Internet searches for a guy like me that only knows how to use Google, Bing, Yahoo and a few less known search engines.

 

The I Support Israel website sent an alert of this Imran video on 9/10/17. The Youtube video itself is dated 6/14/14. I have no idea of the reason a Pro-Israel website showing a three-year-old video to garner support for a person that seems to have disappeared from the Internet.

 

I can tell you the reason I believe you should watch this video. The summary of Imran’s story which I began above, is this: A Muslim falls in-love with a non-Muslim from another nation other than Pakistan. Sharia prevents marriage so they cohabitate. A child is born of the relationship in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Sharia police show up at the door and rape the mother of his child because she is a non-Muslim living with a Muslim. The incident challenges Imran’s belief in Islam. He eventually becomes an atheist. For safety, they move to Spain. Imran eventually converts to Christianity and becomes a Counterjihad writer. Spain exercise its idiotic Multiculturalist hate speech laws which always exonerates Islam of hate speech and convicts the critics of hate speech against Islam. Spain moves to deport Imran. Imran tries Norway. Norway doesn’t want him for the same reasons Spain wants to deport Imran back to Pakistan. A deportation back to Pakistan would be a death sentence for breaking the Islamic Republic’s Blasphemy Law. I probably left out some details but I think you get the gist of what happens to an ex-Muslim refugee in Europe and in the Muslim world.

 

The reason then for watching this video: to understand Islam and the idiocy of the West’s Multiculturalist Left to emphasize diversity over Western Culture that will lead to the West’s destruction.

 

ERGO, here’s the Youtube Channel’s version of Imran’s journey from 2014:

 

VIDEO: From Sharia suffering Muslim to Atheist to Christ

 

Posted by Light of Christ

Published on Jun 14, 2014

 

Please pray for Brother Imran: http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/islam-critic-imran-firasat-i-am-going-die-1286539

 

If anyone can solve the mystery of what is going on with Imran Firasat or what has happened to him, please let me know in the comment section. I’d love to post an update.

 

My last post on Imran Firasat in 2013: “Are Western Governments Volunteering Dhimmitude?

 

JRH 9/11/17

Please Support NCCR

 

 

A Freedom Outpost Bundy Update


Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © September 4, 2017

 

Whenever I run into some info about the government persecution of ranchers that stood with the Bundy family against Federal government (largely the Bureau of Land Management – BLM) intrusion to enforce bureaucratic rules that act as laws that benefit Eco-Marxists desires over private property and private business.

 

Here is a brief synopsis of the reasons that Cliven Bundy decided to withstand the Law created by the BLM and not Congress from my last post on this situation – “Supporting Bundys in Trials & Tribulations”:

 

A few facts about the Cliven Bundy and the BLM incident

 

For some time, the Bundy’s have owned cattle that have grazed in the Bunkerville, NV area.  Since his cattle grazed on federal land, he paid grazing fees to the federal government. In 1993, the local grazing rules changed when a number of things came together; the Desert tortoise became protected under the species act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that this was one of the areas critical to their long-term survival. Grazing rules were also changed in order to accommodate restoration needed from years of overgrazing and recent fires. These new rules would include Bundy having to reduce his number of cattle. Refusing to comply, he decided to “fire” the BLM, and stop paying grazing fees, while continuing to use federal lands for his cattle to graze. Not only did he not reduce his cattle count, but actually increased them over time.

 

In this latest update that I have discovered, the Freedom Outpost reports the 1/3 of Idaho State Senators and Representatives are urging Attorney General Jeff Sessions to stop the DOJ led persecution – er I mean – prosecution of the Bundy Ranch Standoff largely due to a fair amount of the defendants are experiencing second and third retrials after hung juries.

 

The judicial persecution is happening in the Bundy family’s home State of Nevada. Apparently these Idaho legislators are making views known to AG Sessions is because of the defendants are from Idaho.

 

Here is the Freedom Outpost update.

 

JRH 9/4/17

Please Support NCCR

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

1/3 of Idaho Reps Call on AG Sessions to Back Off Bundy Ranch Case: This Is “Disrespect for the Rule of Law & the Jury System”

 

By TIM BROWN 

SEPTEMBER 3, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

Last Friday, following a meeting of Tier 1 and Tier 3 Bundy Ranch defendants in court with Judge Gloria Navarro, a trial date was set for October 10.  That trial will include Eric Parker and Stephen Drexler, who have already been tried twice with hung juries and non-guilty verdicts.  Now, at least a third of Idaho representatives are calling on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to put an end to the badgering of these men with trial after trial, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protections against Double Jeopardy (and yes, I know the “legaleze” about mistrials, but the fact of the matter is that under that thinking, one could try someone indefinitely).

 

Deb Jordan, co-host of the Pete Santilli Show, shared the story of what the outcome of the meeting was with me on Friday’s Sons of Liberty Radio Show.  Eric and his wife Andrea also joined us for the show.  You can download that episode by clicking here.

 

Since then, one-third of the representatives of Idaho, the state in which Parker and Drexler live, penned a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking for him relax the pursuit by Nevada prosecutors against four Idahoans who are charged or have been convicted in the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada.

 

The letter was authored by State Rep. Dorothy Moon (R-Stanley) and signed by 24 Idaho representatives from the House and Senate last Tuesday stating, “We believe that the decision by the current U.S. attorney to Nevada to prosecute these men a third time represents disrespect for the rule of law and the jury system.”

 

The four men these representatives are standing up for are Ammon Bundy, of Emmett; Eric Parker, of Hailey; Scott Drexler, of Challis; and Todd Engel, of Boundary County.

 

“We are tasked with the responsibility to protect our citizens’ constitutional rights,” the letter stated, noting the Idaho Legislatures has a “high respect for the rule of law.”

 

“We believe that the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence are essential pillars to law, order, and a Republican form of government,” the letter continues.  “We also believe that a trial by a jury of one’s peers is the highest form of justice as set forth by our founders.  Ensuring government stays within the bounds of its proper constitutional role empowers the people through a jury’s verdict to give clear guidance as to their will.”

 

They then spoke out about the innocence of the defendants who have already been tried and found not guilty.

 

“We the undersigned believe that in the case of ‘The Bunkerville Stand Off’ trials in the State of Nevada in which Eric Parker and O. Scott Drexler of the State of Idaho were charged with 40 criminal counts in connection with the above case having been found not guilty speaks volumes to the public of their innocence,” the letter states.  “U. S. Attorneys have been unsuccessful obtaining guilty verdicts not once, but twice, establishing criteria for dismissal of charges against them according to our standards of justice.  Further expolitation [sic] of these citizens would be an affront to justice and notice to the public of prosecutorial harassment.”

 

Well, if you ask me, that began when they sought to try the men a second time after failing to prove their case.  After all, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on those charged to prove their innocence.

 

“We believe that the decision by the current U. S. Attorney of Nevada to prosecute these men a third time represents disrespect for the rule of law and the Jury system,” the representatives wrote.  “A third trial would show blatant disregard for tax funds collected from hard working law abiding citizens who are represented by these juries who have found them innocent of 34 of the 40 charges and hung by the very slimmest margins in those where the jury stood deadlocked.  The decisions of 10-2 to acquit in the first trial and 11-1 to acquit in the second trial highlights the narrow margin by which the prosecution hopes to continue their attack.”

 

They then called on Sessions, the court and the prosecutor to consider Todd Engel’s time served as punishment for the minor charges for which he was found guilty.  He is scheduled to be sentenced on September 28.

 

“Ammon Bundy, an Idaho resident, remains in custody awaiting trial directly after the final outcome of the pending prosecution’s decision with Parker and Drexler,” the letter adds.  “Ammon has been in custody since January of 2016 without benefit of bail or the comfort of home and familiy [sic] in spite of being found not guilty of all counts in the Oregon trial.  Ammon has been stripped of normal due process for a prosecution that now seems flimsy as we discover evidence exposed during these previous hung trials of others for similar offenses.”

 

The representatives then added, “This prosecution sends a chilling message to the public who are concerned about federal overreach in their daily lives that is inharmonious to well-established constitutional guarantees.  The percentages of jurors causing the hung verdicts in these trials should send a clear signal to the government prosecutors of the jury’s reticence to further prosecute these defendants as has clearly been received by the public.”

 

The representatives then call on Sessions to “have those in charge of this case end this long enduring action and set Eric Parker and Scott Drexler free, set reasonable bail for Ammon Bundy and allow Todd Engel to use his time served as total sentencing.

 

Among signing the letter include House Majority Leader Mike Moyle; Assistant Majority Leader Brent Crane; Treasure Valley Sens. Clifford Bayer and Lori Den Hartog; and Treasure Valley Reps. Judy Boyle, Christy Perry, Brandon Hixon, Greg Chaney, Joe Palmer, James Holtzclaw, Steve Harris and Jason Monks.

 

“I think it is a complete injustice and a waste of taxpayer money and time to continue to go after these guys after two mistrials,” said Rep. Boyle, from Midvale.

 

“Let it go. We are not talking about murders, robberies, druggies, rapists. It is continuing to waste the court’s time and federal taxpayers’ money. I know the federal government wants to make a point, but get over it.”

 

Things do not have to go to a third trial in order for this to be considered exploitation and prosecutorial harassment.  That has and is currently taking place by the prosecution and by Judge Gloria Navarro.

 

I have said since the end of the first trial, if the prosecution had any sense about them, they would drop the charges against the remaining defendants and spare them and taxpayers any further grief and burden by simply admitting the central government was wrong.

 

I’m hoping once things settle that we will see each one of these men come together to sue the pants off the prosecution and the judge in the case, as well as Bureau of Land Management goon Daniel P. Love for their reckless and lawless behavior in this entire process.

 

Seeing that a new trial date has been set, it appears AG Sessions doesn’t care that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are being violated concerning Drexler and Parker and that other rights are being violated concerning the remaining defendants in the case.  I’m not surprised.  After all, Sessions has demonstrated he doesn’t care about the Fifth Amendments protections of lifeliberty and property when it comes to asset forfeiture.

______________

A Freedom Outpost Bundy Update

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © September 4, 2017

_______________

1/3 of Idaho Reps Call on AG Sessions to Back Off Bundy Ranch Case: This Is “Disrespect for the Rule of Law & the Jury System”

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.comSonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Exposing SPLC as Hate Group


 

John R. Houk

© September 3, 2017

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) got its start during the Civil Rights movement of the ‘70s. In those days the SPLC was a hero for targeting racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Neo-Nazi groups (e.g. Aryans and Skin Heads) and other racist hate groups. Good stuff, right?

 

Well the major victories of the Civil Rights movement at least on legal ground has leveled the playing field in the rule of law. Certainly racism still exists in America, but racial minorities have the law on their side to prevent racial exploitation on an overt basis. The racism that is growing now in the America is largely the result of Left-Wing groups stirring up strife with race-baiting in an effort to gain votes. Leftist race-baiting has been a political instrument for the last couple of decades to hinder traditional American values that began to regain sway with the Presidential Administrations of Reagan, Bush II and now populist Conservatism with the surprise election of President Donald Trump.

 

Since the Left can hardly believe they lost to President Trump, they have done everything to lie, obstruct and manufacture anti-Trump accusations ever since that first Tuesday in November 2016.

 

The SPLC is doing their part for the Left by labeling Biblical Family Values organizations as hate groups. There are several groups on the SPLC so-called hate list that are simply Biblical Christian or telling the truth about Islam that I am not going to name here. The Christian ones of interest to me are the Liberty Counsel (LC), Family Research Council (FRC) and American Family Association (AFA).

 

If I had time I could point out Counterjihad writers and organizations that simply expose the darker nature of Islam that the Left refuses to expose and way too many Conservatives are hesitant to expose out of fear of organizations like the SPLC labeling them Islamophobic haters.

 

For both Christians and Counterjihadists, the SPLC hate-labels are merely to turn the relatively uninformed public against what is correct and moral by calling the good as evil.

 

The Conservapedia entry for the SPLC provides a great synopsis of the organization’s hatred of all things American Patriotic, Christian and Counterjihad in the first couple of paragraphs – READ the entire entry:

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a far-Left legal and activist organization created in 1971 in Montgomery, Alabama. It was founded by trial lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin, and its first president was civil rights leader Julian Bond, who would later take control of the NAACP. SPLC supports a wide variety of liberal positions; it is pro-immigration (both legal and illegal), advocates multiculturalism and the homosexual agenda, supports Muslims and racial preferences and defendants’ rights, and advocates against what it considers “hate groups”. In 2012, Black pastors confronted the Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as “hate groups” pro-family organizations opposed to the homosexual agenda.[1] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden admonished the SPLC in declaring that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with homosexual perversion.[2]

 

The SPLC’s op-ed writings have appeared in the Communist Party USA‘s newspaper People’s World.[3] This “controversial, liberal organization” [4] has been criticized in mainstream press for being extravagant in its spending, and using charges of racism to stifle conservatives.[5] (Southern Poverty Law Center; Conservapedia; page was last modified on 21 July 2017, at 22:33)

 

The Liberty Counsel has been blistered by the SPLC so often that they have been the subject of multiple hate-accusations trying to discredit and ruin the Christian Family Values advocate organization. It has led Mat Staver to ask for legal defense aid several times a week to battle in civil suit beginning with NGO expert Guidestar that used the SPLC hate-list.

 

An article from 7/2/17 I found on American Civil Rights Union (ACRU not to be confused with Leftist ACLU):

 

Frustrated by its inability to win elections, the left is attempting to silence opponents through intimidation, either in the streets or in the courts.

The latest example is the hijacking of Guidestar USA by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

 

Guidestar is a database of more than 2 million nonprofit and non-governmental (NGO) organizations. It’s considered the foremost authority on nonprofits, and had a self-avowed reputation for “remaining neutral.”

 

That changed when a left-wing activist, Jacob Harold, came aboard in 2012. Mr. Harold, whose bio boasts of donating to the Obama campaign, extensive activism on behalf of climate change groups, and hosting a NARAL Pro-Choice D.C. men’s event, tweeted a photo of himself holding a sign protesting President Trump at the radical Women’s March in January.

 

Apart from Vermont ice cream magnates Ben and Jerry, it might be hard to find a more radically leftist major CEO. So it’s no wonder that Mr. Harold welcomed the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on “hate groups.” Using SPLC’s “hate map” as a resource, Guidestar smeared 46 organizations, many of them Christian, as “hate groups.”

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of abusing nonprofits and individuals with whom they disagree. They tar innocent people and may have inspired at least two terrorist incidents. The SPLC’s “hate map” lumps Christian and conservative organizations with neo-Nazis, skinheads and other violence-prone groups. … (Silencing the Silencers; By Robert Knight; ACRU; 7/2/17)

 

And from Christianity Today:

 

A venerable Christian ministry based in Fort Lauderdale recently saw its name listed on a CNN map of “all the active hate groups where you live,” as well as in local news reports as the No. 1 hate group in Florida.

 

 

“Enough is enough,” said Frank Wright, president of D. James Kennedy Ministries, which filed a lawsuit against the SPLC on Wednesday. The organization also sued GuideStar and AmazonSmile for their use of the SPLC list.

 

… The SPLC recently received a prominent boost from Apple, which pledged a $1 million donation and will launch a new feature to allow users to donate directly from iTunes.

 

 

D. James Kennedy Ministries—formerly called Truth in Action—claims that the SPLC falsely labeled it as a hate group with the intention to hurt its reputation and fundraising efforts, according to a 39-page lawsuit filed in federal district court in Alabama (where the SPLC is headquartered).

 

The suit alleges that the ministry’s inclusion on the list of hate groups amounts to defamation—spreading false, harmful information—as well as a trademark violation, misrepresenting the ministry in order to drum up fundraising support. Wednesday’s filing made the same claims against the charity-research site GuideStar for promoting the SPLC designation, seeking an injunction against further use of the “hate group” label and damages from both organizations.

 

Wanting to call out “hateful rhetoric” during a “highly politicized moment,” GuideStar recently added the SPLC designations onto its profile pages—including for Christian nonprofits who stand for traditional marriage like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Liberty Counsel, the Family Research Council (FRC), and the American Family Association—then removed the hate labels after backlash in June. The controversy made many of these groups, their leaders, and their supporters even more upset over the prominence of the SPLC’s categorizations. (D. James Kennedy Ministries Sues SPLC over Hate Map; By KATE SHELLNUTT; Christianity Today; 8/24/17 10:20 AM)

 

From WND:

 

 

The case alleges that the defendants — online retailer Amazon, online charity reporting company Guidestar and SPLC — damaged the ministries by creating, publishing and promoting SPLC’s infamous “hate” designations.

 

The hate designations already have prompted a lawsuit by Liberty Counsel against Guidestar. And several organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, have demanded broadcasters retract reports quoting SPLC’s hate designations.

 

The case seeks an award for “special harms from the SPLC” over the groups’ rejection by the AmazonSmile program due to the hate designations.

 

 

“It is the SPLC’s intent that the people who receive the information that SPLC publishes about the ministry will rely on SPLC’s information as fact and will base their charitable giving decisions on that information.”

 

For its part, GuideStar “knowingly accepts defamatory information from the SPLC regarding the ministry and knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully republishes that defamatory information with the intent that the people who receive the republished SPLC information from GuideStar will rely on that information as fact for the purpose of making their charitable giving decsisions [sic].”

 

The case alleges defamation against SPLC and GuideStar: “SPLC’s very purpose for placing the ministry on the Hate Map was to harm the reputation of the ministry as to lower it in the estimation of the community and to deter third persons from associating or dealing with the ministry.”

 

 

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that advocates for civil and religious rights, sued GuideStar over its use of SPLC’s “hate” labels, explaining the actions resulted in death threats to employees and other harm.

 

“Liberty Counsel has been forced to provide additional security because of the significant threat that GuideStar’s false and defamatory statement has caused. Violent extremists have relied on the false and defamatory statement to commit acts of terrorism and violence against innocent people who merely happen to hold a different viewpoint on certain issues than GuideStar,” Liberty Counsel said.

 

Liberty Counsel pointed out that SPLC “hate” designations already have been linked to two attempted mass murders: the attack by Corkins on the Washington office of Family Research Council and the shooting attack this summer near the capital that severely injured Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. (LEFT-WING GROUPS SUED FOR VIOLATING CHRISTIANS’ CIVIL RIGHTS; By BOB UNRUH; WND; 8/22/17 8:39 PM)

 

From Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF):

 

 

SPLC’s word-weapon of choice is “hate.” It uses the H-word to harpoon victims through a “Hate Map” – a cluttered visual surrounded by sobering images such as a “hate-graph” and clenched fist symbols. Percentages purportedly communicating something really serious about “hate” assault the viewer’s senses in size 72 font.

 

The map’s approach is indiscriminate, by design. It mixes the likes of the KKK, “Racist Skinhead(s),” and “Neo-Nazi(s)” with groups holding traditional views of human sexuality. Quaint notions on the meaning of marriage, rooted in longstanding religious beliefs, receive special hostility. Never mind that less than 10 years ago nearly every major political figure in the country, including President Obama, said marriage was a union of one man and one woman. Many of those folks are given a pass, however, because their views on that issue have since “evolved.”

 

But the SPLC dictates – because it says so – that those who failed to evolve (some might say “retained their convictions”) are now the functional equivalent of skinheads. Just picture those scary traditional marriage types, roaming the streets with chains, looking for a good fight. This would be a ludicrous and even laughable attempt at equivalency, if not for the harm it does to people of good will (to say nothing of the damage to public discourse).

 

Fortunately, increasing numbers of independent commentators are calling out the SPLC for its outrageous tactics. But as someone once observed (the author is disputed), “a lie gets halfway around the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” (How the SPLC Uses the Word “Hate” to Silence Dissent; By Joseph Infranco; ADF; 8/21/17)

 

These efforts are beginning to cause a bit of Leftist worry. The American Family Association (AFA) posted this video on Youtube:

 

VIDEO: CNN Backs Down On Hate List

 

 

Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel not only is involved in the civil suit against the SPLC, Guidestar and etc., but they are also publicizing some dirt on the SPLC to demonstrate how nefarious the Leftist organization is:

 

I have some breaking news on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that gives us a window of opportunity to expose the SPLC for what it is — a massive, money-making machine of the radical left that is aggressively targeting pro-faith and pro-family organizations.

 

On Thursday, The Washington Free Beacon exposed the SPLC’s ongoing practice of funneling many millions of dollars into offshore accounts, where it apparently is stockpiling vast sums of money.

+ + Why is the SPLC stockpiling millions overseas?

 

This practice of stockpiling millions of dollars in overseas, unregulated bank accounts is highly unusual for a U.S. non-profit and blows the SPLC’s cover as allegedly being a legitimate, grassroots organization. Instead, as Liberty Counsel has reported, the SPLC is a vast enterprise with hundreds of millions of dollars that is pushing an anti-faith, anti-family agenda that threatens every American’s liberties! Now that the SPLC’s unethical and unregulated “offshore” money has come to light, we must do everything in our power to fight back against their “fake hate” campaign and overcome their outrageous lies once and for all!

 

That’s why I’m asking for your help right now…

 

Over the past few weeks, the SPLC has blatantly “leveraged” the Charlottesville tragedy to expand its “fake hate” campaign. As I have been reporting, this has resulted in an AVALANCHE of attacks against Liberty Counsel and a massive increase in funding to the SPLC from commercial entities like Apple, JP Morgan, and others.

 

 

With this revelation of SPLC offshore bank accounts stockpiling millions of dollars, we must move quickly to expand our efforts to both expose the SPLC’s deceptions and defeat the SPLC’s attacks.

 

 

The SPLC is at the forefront of a very strategic effort to equate Christian and family values with “hate.”  Their attacks have multiplied in recent weeks. But right now, I believe we have a unique opportunity to both expose their lies and defeat the SPLC’s twisted strategy. I can’t do this without your help. Please take a moment right now to consider how you can help. And then go here to make your best possible gift. … (BREAKING: SPLC stashing millions offshore! (Liberty Counsel); By Mat Staver; Liberty Counsel Connect; 9/2/17 7:48 pm)

 

And I leave you with PJ Media piece on the hypocrisy of the SPLC.

 

JRH 9/3/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Southern Poverty Law Center: ‘Our Aim in Life Is to Destroy These Groups, Completely’

 

By TYLER O’NEIL

SEPTEMBER 1, 2017

PJ Media

 

Twitter screenshot of CNN endorsing the SPLC “hate map.”

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has gained traction in recent weeks, but contrary to media reports, the group does not exist to “monitor hate groups” but to destroy groups that it targets for “strictly ideological” reasons. In light of large donations from Apple, J.P. Morgan, and George Clooney, and CNN’s favorable coverage of the SPLC, Americans should learn the real motivations behind this far-left organization.

 

In the words of SPLC former spokesman Mark Potok (who spent 20 years as a senior fellow at the SPLC and only retired this year, according to LinkedIn), the group does not exist to monitor hate groups.

 

“Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate groups, I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them,” Potok declared at an event in Michigan in 2007.

 

VIDEO: Mark Potok Speech 1

 

Posted by Bonnie Bucqueroux

Published on Sep 11, 2007

 

Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center Speaks at the 2007 MIAAHC Hate Crimes Conference

 

Potok reiterated this point at a Vermont school group in 2008. “You are able to destroy these groups sometimes by the things you publish,” he declared. “It’s not so much that they will bring down the police or the federal agents on their head, it’s that you can sometimes so mortally embarrass these groups that they will be destroyed” (emphasis added).

 

The SPLC “mortally embarrasses” groups by equating mainstream conservative, Christian, and other organizations with the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists. Make no mistake, this is not a “hate group monitoring” organization, it’s a far-Left defamation racket that exists to target any group it disagrees with politically.

 

“We see this political struggle,” Potok added in his 2008 Vermont speech. “We’re not trying to change anybody’s mind. We’re trying to wreck the groups. We’re trying to destroy them. Not to send them to prison unfairly or to take their free speech rights away, but as a political matter to destroy them.”

 

In yet another 2008 speech, Potok explained the SPLC criteria for a “hate group.” The spokesman said, “Our criteria for a ‘hate group,’ first of all, have nothing to do with criminality, or violence, or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological” (emphasis added).

 

Here’s the criteria: “So we look at a group and we say, ‘Does this group, in its platform statements, or the speeches of its leader or leaders — Does this group say that a whole group of people, by virtue of their group characteristics, is somehow less?”

 

SPLC Warns of ‘Turmoil and Bloodshed’ With New Map Identifying Confederate Monuments, Cities, MIDDLE SCHOOLS

 

The SPLC’s actions have revealed what “group characteristics” means. The “hate group” list  features Christian organizations like D. James Kennedy Ministriesthe Family Research Council (FRC)Liberty Counsel, the American Family Association (AFA), and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), along with other groups like the American College of Pediatricians and the Center for Immigration Studies. It also lists Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz and women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “anti-Muslim extremists.”

 

If an organization disagrees with LGBT activism, it is a “hate group,” because in the eyes of the SPLC belief in traditional marriage equates to stigmatizing gay people. If an organization or an individual warns against radical Islamic terrorism, that person or group is “hateful” because in the eyes of the SPLC it has stigmatized all Muslims, even if the person is a Muslim himself.

 

In light of these revelations, it makes sense that D. James Kennedy MinistriesLiberty Counsel, and Maajid Nawaz have each filed defamation lawsuits against the SPLC.

 

The SPLC’s broad definition of a “hate group” is exceedingly important, because this “hate” labeling has inspired at least one terror attack.

 

In the summer of 2012, the SPLC’s “hate map” inspired Floyd Lee Corkins III to break into the Family Research Council (FRC), a Christian nonprofit in Washington, D.C. Corkins aimed to murder everyone in the building, and he later pled guilty to committing an act of terrorism. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

 

During an FBI interrogation, the terrorist said he targeted FRC because it was listed as an “anti-gay group” on the SPLC website.

 

VIDEO: Confessed Terrorist Floyd Corkins Admits to Using SPLC Target List

 

Posted by Polk Sheriff

Published on Apr 16, 2015

 

While the SPLC took no responsibility for their hate map inspiring the FRC shooting and refused to remove the FRC from that hate map, the group did claim that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s political action committee released maps putting Democrats in Congress in crosshairs, inspiring the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az.). PolitiFact rated the SPLC’s claim “false.”

 

Nor was the 2012 attack the only terrorist event involving the SPLC. Earlier this summer, Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson shot people at a Republican Congressional Baseball Game practice, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) Hodgkinson “liked” the SPLC on Facebook.

 

The group had repeatedly tarred Scalise for a speech he gave to a white supremacist group, even after Scalise apologized (and was called a “sellout” by former KKK leader David Duke).

 

This connection to terror is particularly troubling, considering the SPLC’s most recent “hate map” — a diagram showing every single Confederate monument across the United States, which also includes elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. The SPLC warned of “turmoil and bloodshed” should these statues not be taken down.

 

VIDEO: Warning of bloodshed with new map of Confederate monuments

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Aug 31, 2017

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has warned of ‘turmoil’ with new map identifying Confederate monuments, cities and middle schools. But is SPLC also part of the problem? #Tucker

 

The group has also been rather slow to admit fault and remove innocent towns from the “hate map” that inspired the FRC shooting. The SPLC falsely listed the historic Iowa town of Amana Colonies as the home of the notorious white supremacist website Daily Stormer. When challenged, the group argued that Daily Stormer writers had met for a book club in one of the town’s restaurants. The SPLC finally removed the town this week.

 

Muslim Reformer Joins Christians in Suing Far-Left Terror-Linked Organization for “Hate” Defamation

 

In spite of all this, the SPLC has been raking in the cash after the riots in Charlottesville, Va. George Clooney and his wife Amal pledged $1 million to the group, and the company J.P. Morgan pledged $500,000. Apple CEO Tim Cook was even more generous, announcing his company would give $1 million to the SPLC and that it would set up a system in iTunes software to let consumers directly donate to the organization.

 

Earlier this month, Lyft announced it would partner with the SPLC “to provide educational resources for drivers.” MGM Resorts announced that it would match employee contributions to the SPLC dollar-for-dollar. Some companies already follow this policy.

 

According to an analysis by Second Vote provided to PJ Media, companies such as Disney, Kraft Heinz, Charles Schwab, Progressive Insurance, Shell, and Verizon have matched their employees’ small-dollar donations to the SPLC. The big offenders are: Pfizer, which gave the SPLC $8,919.5 in 2013 and 2015 combined; Bank of America, which gave the SPLC $9,310 between 2013 and 2015; and Newman’s Own, which gave the group $50,000 between 2013 and 2015.

 

Each of these contributions pale in comparison to the gifts from George Clooney, J.P. Morgan, and Apple, but they are still noteworthy.

 

To make matters worse, the SPLC does not need any of this money. The group is a cash cow, recording more than $50 million in contributions and $328 million in net assets (according to its 2015 Form 990). The Washington Free Beacon reported multiple transactions to foreign entities, including two cash payments of $2.2 million to funds in the Cayman Islands.

 

CNN broadcast the SPLC’s “hate map” on its website and Twitter account this month (with the FRC still marked on the map). In June, the charity navigation website GuideStar adopted the SPLC “hate group” list, marking each profile of the targeted organizations as a “hate group.” ABC and NBC parroted the SPLC’s “hate group” label against Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) last month.

 

 

 

IT’S ON: Christian Group Sues SPLC and Amazon Over “Hate Group” Designation

 

“The SPLC depicts itself as a big champion of rights, but it’s become a champion of wrongs,” Dan Gainor, vice president of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center, told PJ Media in an email statement. “It is no longer the civil rights era group that many of its supporters believe. It now exists largely to attack groups it doesn’t agree with and to fundraise millions and millions of dollars off of uninformed donors.”

 

Gainor warned that “the media make this far worse by legitimizing the group’s so-called ‘hate list.’ In reality, that list is a bizarre mix of good conservative groups and disturbing fringe organizations. The SPLC sees no difference between a group defending the rights of Christians in court and the Klan.”

 

“The media credential this awful hate group and rarely report that some of the SPLC’s biggest fans are dangerous criminals,” Gainor added. He mentioned Floyd Lee Corkins and James Hodgkinson.

 

Apple, J.P. Morgan, George Clooney, Lyft, MGM Resorts, and any organization that partners with the SPLC should know what it’s getting into.

 

Corporate America should not support a group that exists to tar mainstream organizations as “hate groups,” inciting violence against them. It should not bankroll an organization that targets innocent towns and elementary schools as purveyors of hate. It should not support a “poverty” organization that sends millions of dollars to accounts in the Cayman Islands. Enough is enough.

 

SPLC Backs Down: Removes Innocent Town From ‘Hate Map’

 

__________________

Exposing SPLC as Hate Group

John R. Houk

© September 3, 2017

_________________

Southern Poverty Law Center: ‘Our Aim in Life Is to Destroy These Groups, Completely’

 

Copyright © 2005-2017 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

 

President Pardons Arpaio, Speaker Ryan Grumbles


John R. Houk

© August 27, 2017

 

President has pardoned Joe Arpaio from a Leftist Judge convicting him of contempt for not standing down to enforcing immigration law. I wasn’t surprised that the Leftist MSM and the Dems went to fits over the pardon. BUT I am extremely disappointed that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan condemned the President’s pardon.

 

I have been willing to give Rep. Ryan the benefit of the doubt in his part-time negativity to the Trump agenda. I have felt he had been a man that stuck to his principles before politics.

 

Ryan’s condemnation of the Arpaio pardon means he is placing politics over Conservative principles. NOW I am on the dump Ryan as House Speaker train.

 

JRH 8/27/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Donald Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

 

By CHARLIE SPIERING

25 Aug 2017

Breitbart Big Government

 

Donald Trump & Joe Arpaio

 

President Donald Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday evening, citing his record of service to his country.

 

“Arpaio’s life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplifies selfless public service,” read a statement from the White House.

 

The Arizona sheriff, now 85-years-old, is considered a hero among supporters of immigration enforcement. Arpaio served in the Army before becoming a police officer in Washington DC and Las Vegas and a special agent in the DEA. He became the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona in 1992.

 

“After more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon,” the statement concluded.

 

Arpaio was convicted in July 2017 for violating a federal judge’s order to not detain suspected illegal immigrants. He faced up to six months in jail for the conviction and possible fines.

 

Arpaio endorsed Donald Trump for president in January 2016, as he was campaigning against primary challengers in Iowa.

 

“I have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal immigration,” Arpaio said when he endorsed Trump. “I know Donald Trump will stand with me and countless Americans to secure our border.”

 

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

Paul Ryan breaks with Trump to condemn pardon of Joe Arpaio

 

By Kyle Feldscher

Aug 26, 2017, 6:15 PM

Washington Examiner

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan, left, sips from a Boeing mug as he sits with the Boeing Co. CEO Dennis Muilenburg Thursday, Aug. 24, 2017, in Everett, Wash. Ryan toured the factory before speaking with and taking questions from some workers there, mostly on tax reform. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan is breaking with President Trump over the latter’s decision to pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday.

 

“The speaker does not agree with the decision,” said spokesman Doug Andres. “Law-enforcement officials have a special responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. We should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this pardon.”

 

Ryan becomes the highest-ranking GOP lawmaker to break with Trump over the decision to pardon Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to stop detaining Latinos on suspicion of being illegal immigrants.

 

The decision was announced Friday and has been roundly criticized by Democrats and some Republicans, including both Arizona senators.

 

Arpaio was a political surrogate for Trump on the campaign trail and it was widely believed Trump would announce his pardon during a rally in Phoenix Tuesday night.

 

While Trump demurred at the idea of announcing the pardon then — he said he didn’t want to create controversy — the decision was eventually announced as Hurricane Harvey bore down on the southeastern Texas coast Friday night.

 

It’s Trump’s first pardon and it’s one of the earliest first pardons for a president in modern administrations.

_____________

President Pardons Arpaio, Speaker Ryan Grumbles

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2017

__________

Donald Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

 

Copyright © 2017 Breitbart

____________

Paul Ryan breaks with Trump to condemn pardon of Joe Arpaio

 


Copyright 2017. Washington Examiner. All Rights Reserved.

 

Supporting Bundys in Trials & Tribulations


John R. Houk

© August 24, 2017

 

After the Bundys and most of their fellow ranchers were acquitted over their protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge inspired by re-jailing unjustly of a couple Hammond family ranchers because an Obama Administration Federal Prosecutor felt the original time served was not severe enough, the Federal government was in Oregon to arrest them for the Bundy Ranch standoff that occurred prior to Malheur.

 

When you hear or read that Cliven Bundy’s fight to withstand the Bureau of Land Management (henceforth BLM, but not to be with another evil organization with the same acronym Black Lives Matter) was illegal and unconstitutional, then you have to realize you are not getting the entire story. There is some truth to the illegal claim, but Cliven chose to resist the law because bureaucratic rules enforced as Congressional was threatening his ranching business. Here’s a word picture that pro-prosecution people don’t want you to see:

 

A few facts about the Cliven Bundy and the BLM incident

 

For some time, the Bundy’s have owned cattle that have grazed in the Bunkerville, NV area.  Since his cattle grazed on federal land, he paid grazing fees to the federal government. In 1993, the local grazing rules changed when a number of things came together; the Desert tortoise became protected under the species act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that this was one of the areas critical to their long-term survival. Grazing rules were also changed in order to accommodate restoration needed from years of overgrazing and recent fires. These new rules would include Bundy having to reduce his number of cattle. Refusing to comply, he decided to “fire” the BLM, and stop paying grazing fees, while continuing to use federal lands for his cattle to graze. Not only did he not reduce his cattle count, but actually increased them over time.

 

As a result, Cliven Bundy’s cattle have been illegally grazing on federal land for 20 years. Over these 20 years, Cliven Bundy has racked up over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, and has actually expanded his cattle’s grazing further into federal lands.  He has been taken to court (and defeated) both in 1998 and 2013.

 

 

In response, several protesters (including armed militia members) gathered in defense of Bundy. The standoff came to an end when the BLM, citing safety concerns, decided to stand down.  Supporters of Bundy have of [sic] labeled this successful (and armed, as well as potentially violent) defense of Bundy’s illegal activity as a “win for freedom.” – Long article – READ ENTIRETY (Fact Check – The Bundy Ranch Cattle & The BLM; By Fact and Myth; 4/20/17)

 

Juries are having a difficult time convicting the Bundys and their standoff supporters is because they understand bureaucracy wronged the Bundy Ranch private business and family livelihood in the name of Eco-Marxist rules NOT laws passed by Congress.

 

While I was Gab surfing I ran into a Onehope2016 post notifying readers that four on trial for participating in the Bundy Standoff had four acquittals from a jury. Two of those four received a combination Not Guilty and a hung jury on other charges. I was going to cross post Onehope2016’s link to a Hagmann Report which also linked to further info from The Republic/azcentral.com.

 

These guys had already endured two other hung juries. Today I find out the Federal Prosecutors – undoubtedly holdovers from the Obama swamp – are going to make the two that had a hung jury over some remaining charges, back to court at taxpayers’ expense.

 

Below is that report from azcentral.com.

 

Here is a link to the Review Journal that is a history Bundy Ranch trials and tribulations that begins with latest info but you can trace back to 2014. The Review Journal link makes an attempt at neutrality in reporting but I could tell there was a bit of support for the Federal Prosecutors.

 

JRH 8/24/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Prosecutors to retry Bundy Ranch standoff defendants for 3rd time

 

By Robert Anglen

Aug. 23, 2017 Updated 4:28 p.m. MT

The Republic | azcentral.com

 

O. Scott Drexler and Eric Parker will be retried on lesser charges

 

Federal prosecutors who didn’t succeed in the Bundy Ranch standoff trial will retry and retry again.

 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas confirmed Wednesday it will go back to court for the third time in an attempt to convict two men accused of taking up arms against federal agents.

 

Less than 24 hours earlier, a jury had acquitted two standoff defendants and dismissed the most serious charges against two others. Now federal prosecutors say they will retry the men next month on outstanding weapons and assault charges.

 

The move pushes back the trials for 11 other defendants in the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff, including Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who have spent 18 months in prison while awaiting their court date.

 

O. Scott Drexler and Eric Parker, both of Idaho, were released from prison Tuesday night after a jury acquitted them of conspiracy and extortion, which were the key elements of the government’s case.

 

But they found out Wednesday they have been ordered back to court Sept. 25 to face the charges on which the jury deadlocked.

 

“Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes,” said Parker’s lawyer, Jess Marchese. “It’s clear at this point the prosecution is taking this personally now.”

 

Marchese said Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre twice called Parker a coward during a court hearing Wednesday.

 

Marchese said it was unprofessional and unnecessary. “This is a business,” he said. “And there’s no need for emotion in a business.”

 

Parker and Drexler face one count each of assaulting a federal officer and carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime. Parker faces two additional counts of using a firearm to threaten a federal officer.

 

Jurors twice reject government claims

 

Jurors dealt government prosecutors their second stinging defeat in the case when, after four days of deliberations, they returned no guilty verdicts against four defendants.

 

Richard Lovelien of Oklahoma and Steven Stewart of Idaho were acquitted on all counts and walked out of court Tuesday night free after spending 18 months in prison.

 

This marks the second time a jury failed to convict the defendants on charges related to the standoff, which pitted armed ranchers and militia members against Bureau of Land Management agents in a dusty wash below Interstate 15 about 70 miles north of Las Vegas.

 

A jury in April deadlocked on charges against the four men. It convicted two other defendants on multiple counts. But it could not agree on conspiracy charges against any of the six.

 

The men were being retried on conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction charges for helping rancher Cliven Bundy fend off a government roundup of his cattle in what became known as the Battle of Bunkerville.

 

The government launched its second prosecution last month. The case climaxed Aug. 11 when U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro abruptly ended court by ordering Parker off the stand and striking his testimony from the record as jurors watched.

 

The defendant was attempting to tell jurors what he saw during the standoff over a barrage of objections from prosecutors. Navarro ruled Parker violated court orders by discussing prohibited topics. Parker returned to the defense table and started crying while Navarro dismissed the jurors.

 

Marchese said jurors told him Tuesday the incident was a factor in their verdicts. He said jurors were sympathetic to the defendants and their inability to mount a cogent defense in light of restrictions in talking about why they participated in the standoff and what they were thinking while they were there.

 

The case went to the jury Aug. 15 after lawyers for all four defendants waived closing arguments as part of a protest about court proceedings and restrictive legal rulings.

 

Judge’s rulings limit defense

 

Navarro’s rulings, aimed at trying to avoid jury nullification, severely limited defense arguments. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict based on its shared belief rather than on the evidence in a case.

 

Navarro barred defendants from discussing why they traveled thousands of miles to join protesters at the Bundy Ranch. She did not allow them to testify about perceived abuses by federal authorities during the cattle roundup that might have motivated them to participate.

 

Navarro also restricted defendants from raising constitutional arguments, or mounting any defense based on their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms. In her rulings, Navarro said those were not applicable arguments in the case.

 

Federal officials did not face the same restrictions. To show defendants were part of a conspiracy, they referenced events that happened months, or years, after the standoff.

 

Federal prosecutors, led by Myhre, argued in court the case wasn’t about the First or Second Amendments; that the Constitution doesn’t give people the right to threaten federal officers.

 

They said the Bundys’ dispute with the BLM was adjudicated and the court issued a lawful order to round up the cattle. When ranchers and the militia conspired to force the release of the cattle, they broke the law, prosecutors argued.

 

Dozens of federal state and local law-enforcement officers testified in the retrial, saying they were outnumbered and outgunned in the wash and feared for their lives.

 

Jurors, however, heard from no defense witnesses. Drexler took the stand and delivered the only defense testimony jurors were allowed to consider.

 

He testified that even though he brought weapons to the standoff, he did not intend to threaten or assault law-enforcement officers.

 

Remaining defendants aimed weapons

 

All four defendants in the retrial admitted bringing guns to the standoff. But pictures of Parker and Drexler aiming their weapons went viral.

 

An image of Parker has come to epitomize the 2014 protest. He is pictured lying prone on an overpass and sighting a long rifle at BLM agents in the wash below. The image galvanized the public and brought international awareness to the feud over public lands and the potential consequences of such a dispute.

 

The Bundy Ranch standoff is one of the most high-profile land-use cases in modern Western history, pitting cattle ranchers, anti-government protesters and militia members against the Bureau of Land Management.

 

For decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

 

Hundreds of supporters from every state in the union, including members of several militia groups, converged on his ranch about 70 miles north of Las Vegas.

 

The standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Ammon and Ryan Bundy cited their success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon, Ryan and five others in October.

 

No arrests were made in the Bundy Ranch case until after the Oregon siege ended.

 

Last year, the government charged 19 people for their roles in the Nevada standoff. Two men took plea deals. Trials for the remaining defendants were broken into three tiers based on their alleged levels of culpability in the standoff.

 

Although defendants in the first trial and the retrial were considered the least culpable, all 17 defendants face the same charges. Those convicted could spend the rest of their lives in prison.

 

The second trial, which will include Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who are considered ringleaders, was supposed to start 30 days after the conclusion of the first trial. But the start date has been delayed because of the retrials.

 

Marchese said Wednesday the remaining 11 defendants remain incarcerated and the delays are wearing on them.

 

“Those guys want their day in court,” he said.

 

Parker plans on returning to Idaho and seeing his family.

“He wants to be a dad,” Marchese said. “He wants to see his kids … and to be a father.”

________________

Supporting Bundys in Trials & Tribulations

John R. Houk

© August 24, 2017

_________________

Prosecutors to retry Bundy Ranch standoff defendants for 3rd time

 

© 2017 www.azcentral.com. All rights reserved.

 

About azcentral.com

 

azcentral.com is the Valley’s #1 site. The top local source for news and information, azcentral.com’s experts deliver topics and insights residents care about like nobody else can. From breaking news, investigative journalism and community stories, to things to dosportspolitics and more, azcentral.com is where Arizona heads to stay connected.

 

azcentral.com tells the full story with in-depth videos and photo galleries, and is updated throughout the day with up-to-the-minute news. Top columns are also featured here, from local favorites that include Clay ThompsonE.J. MontiniDan Bickley and Karina Bland.

 

In addition to 24/7 desktop and mobile access, enjoy more by downloading news and sports apps, the azcentral Fact Check app and more. Also featured is the e-Newspaper, an online edition of The Arizona Republic, and the ability to subscribe to more than 30 email newsletters, ranging from the top 5 daily headlines to things to do on the weekends. For those looking to make a purchase, azcentral.com includes thousands of listings from careerbuilder.com, cars.com and homefinder.com. Plus, subscribers can take advantage of exciting events, deals and extras found only with the azcentral Insider program.

 

As the Valley’s #1 website, azcentral.com is more than a destination for consumers – it’s the #1 advertising solution for Valley businesses. azcentral.com attracts more than three times the traffic of its nearest local competitor. Delivering unrivaled reach, audiences and engagement, plus multilayered digital capabilities to help advertisers, azcentral.com is the powerful digital solution every business needs.

 

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”


The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government’s role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL ‘RELIGION’; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.

It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar’s and what was God’s. The whole point of the First Amendment’s attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.

 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, “I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained.” If Justice Black, the author of the court’s majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?

 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one’s home.

Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?[Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn’t the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of “natural rights” in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: “… this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections … It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.”
In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
For eight decades, the ACLU has been America’s leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America’s core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion — civilizing forces in any society — are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers’ own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF


Troy Newman & Judge William Orrick

 

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

 

On July 14, 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released its first undercover Planned Parenthood video, blowing the whistle on the abortion industry’s practice of illegally harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies.

 

Just 17 days later, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed a lawsuit against CMP and ultimately secured a preliminary injunction against lead investigator and CMP founder David Daleiden. The injunction prohibited him from releasing any footage obtained during NAF conferences and meetings, which David had attended undercover with the goal of exposing illegal activity by the abortion industry.

 

Fast forward almost two years—and the lawsuit is still ongoing. Meanwhile, Daleiden’s footage from the NAF conference remains under lock and key, leaving some to wonder what secrets NAF is trying to hide. (Abortion Industry’s Interests Should Never Outweigh Public Concerns or First Amendment Rights; By Marissa Mayer; Alliance Defending Freedom; 4/21/17)

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick violated the First Amendment Rights of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) by gagging all undercover videos exposing the murderous intent by National Abortion Federation (NAF) in trafficking aborted and live birth baby parts for profit. Planned Parenthood was stung the same way. Leftists in law enforcement are doing their best to cover-up these nefarious murders and felonious activities with baby part trafficking.

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who granted the preliminary injunction in favor of the National Abortion Federation to halt the release of the videos, ordered any links to the video to be removed after it was published by the Center for Medical Progress on Thursday.

 

Judge Orrick also ordered CMP lead investigator David Daleiden and his attorneys to appear in court June 14, The Associated Press reported, for a hearing where he will consider holding them in contempt for releasing the footage.

 

Mr. Daleiden has been charged with 15 felonies in California stemming from his undercover investigation into the abortion giant. His attorneys have called it a “witch hunt” that flies in the face of the First Amendment.

 

YouTube has not responded to a request for comment.

 

The three-minute video showed top Planned Parenthood executives joking about severed fetus heads, admitting to altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal organs and conceding that clinics have a financial incentive to sell the human remains from abortions. (YouTube removes latest Planned Parenthood video on judge’s order; By Bradford Richardson; Washington Times; 5/26/17)

 

Judge Orrick took advantage of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court’s unfavorable ruling to make that gag order.

 

The abortion industry has desperately tried to suppress and delegitimize the work of CMP, including through the use of litigation. We represent former CMP board member Troy Newman – who is also the President of Operation Rescue – in lawsuits filed by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) as well as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates, and we recently filed briefs in both cases.

 

In the NAF case, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the defendants from publishing videos or materials relating to NAF conferences, or sharing such information with anyone, including state Attorneys General or local law enforcement officers, while the case moves forward. The defendants have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and we recently filed a reply brief (under seal by court order) that emphasizes that government investigators, and the general public, have a compelling interest in being able to review the videos and materials themselves.

 

In the PPFA case, we recently filed a reply brief supporting our motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Our brief explains that all of the claims – such as wire fraud, racketeering, and breach of contract – are meritless, so the case should be dismissed. (Two Briefs Filed in Fight to Expose Illegal Abortion Practices; By ACLJ.org; 7/2016)

 

One of the founders of CMP, Troy Newman, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to win back the First Amendment Right to expose the crimes of Planned Parenthood.

 

Here is the Press Release that I first received in my Inbox from Operation Rescue; however, I’m cross posting the PR from ChristianNewsWire.com.

 

JRH 8/5/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

PRESS RELEASE

August 4, 2017

ChristianNewsWire.com

 

Contact: Troy Newman, President, 316-683-6790 ext. 111; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President , 316-516-3034; both with Operation Rescue,  info.operationrescue@gmail.com   

 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and a founding member of the Center for Medical Progress, filed a petition yesterday to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionality of a preliminary injunction that prohibits the release of undercover videos recorded at National Abortion Federation (NAF) meetings – even to law enforcement when they contain evidence of crimes.

 

The petition, captioned Newman v. National Abortion Federation, states:

 

This Petition stems from an injunction forbidding the voluntary disclosure to law enforcement agencies, other governmental bodies, and the general public of recordings and other information that the enjoined individuals and entities-as well as Congressional investigators-believe are evidence of widespread criminal, illegal, and unethical conduct, including felonies.

 

Newman is represented by Jay Sekulow, who leads Newman’s team of attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

 

During Newman’s tenure on the Board of the Center for Medical Progress, the NAF, and later Planned Parenthood, filed suits in a San Francisco Federal Court against Newman and others in an effort to prevent the release of further undercover videos that exposed the illegal trade in aborted baby body parts.

 

And it is little wonder that the NAF would not want the videos released.

 

Newman’s Supreme Court Petition notes that Congressional investigations conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives referred members of the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

Newman argues that the enjoined recordings corroborate the determination of the two Congressional investigations, which found evidence that NAF members (including several Planned Parenthood organizations) were engaged in the following criminal conduct:

 

  • Profiting from the sale of fetal organs;

 

  • Altering abortion procedures for financial gain;

 

  • Performing illegal partial-birth abortions;

 

  • Killing newborns who survived attempted abortions;

 

  • Failing to obtain informed consent for fetal tissue donations;

 

  • Violating federal regulations regarding Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and

 

  • Fraudulent overbilling practices.

 

Newman’s petition further states:

 

It has long been a tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence that individuals who believe that they have information concerning criminal or illegal activities should be permitted, and encouraged, to voluntarily provide such information to government authorities. Similarly, investigative journalism concerning matters of public concern, including the uncovering of illegal, unethical, or troubling activities, is a constitutionally protected, venerable undertaking.

 

Newman’s unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth Circuit was joined by state 14 Attorneys General, led by Arizona, who are seeking to review the evidence contained in the recordings.

 

As the most important abortion case currently under litigation, Newman v. NAF could have profound implications on the future use of undercover investigative techniques and the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence in criminal investigations.

 

Read the Petition in Newman v. NAF

 

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation and has become a strong voice for the pro-life movement in America.  Click here to support Operation Rescue.

____________________

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

__________________

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

About Operation Rescue

 

Who We Are

 

History

 

Endorsements

 

What Others Say About Us


Contact

 

© Christian Newswire 2017. All Rights Reserved. | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW – Washington – DC – 20006 | 202-546-0054 

 

Christian Newswire Services:

 

Christian Newswire is the most used and most recognized distributor of religious content news releases in the nation.

 

Over 2100 public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, religious organizations, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates use Christian Newswire to distribute their news releases.   Click to see our client list. 

 

How much does it cost?

 

$75 is what we charge to transmit your 400-words-or-less(‡) news release to our exclusive national media list.  Our competitors charge from $295 to $395, yet they do not have the direct contact with reporters and news producers that we have.

 

You do not need to use a credit card.  We will send you a bill.  It is that easy.  Just email us your news release, or use the form on this website and tell us to send it out.  No membership fee. You are not required to purchase any additional services.

 

Want to know more about where your news release will go and who will see it?

 

National list of over 2500 reporters and news producers whose beat is “conservative & family issues” ($75 for up to 400 words‡)  These are TV, radio, wire-service, and print reporters/producers that cover family and conservative issues, that READ THE REST