Southwest vs Justin Smith


Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

 

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2019

Below is a relatively even-handed criticism of Justin Smith and my thoughts on Julian Assange being more a scoundrel than a hero. The Commenter goes by the pseudonym “Southwest” and the comments are derived from Groups on the USA Life Social Platform (incidentally to those interested, USA Life is extremely similar to Facebook yet so far – without the Left-Wing censorship used so wickedly on Facebook).

 

So for some full disclosure. I am quite the fan of Justin Smith. Also I was developing into a fan of Southwest. Unfortunately Southwest is a bit harsh (though respectful) of Justin’s perspective. AND knowing Justin, I suspect he’d be critical of many of Southwest’s assertions. The irony is, it is my sense the two are formed from the same metal of conviction and probably have more in common than not. The two just happen to disagree on some particulars.

 

Just for the sake of summary, Justin’s position (and to a large extent – my position) is Julian Assange’s indiscriminate publication of transgendered Manning’s purloined Classified data – mixing together both information that needed exposed along with information that risked exposing individuals to physical harm – makes Assange a scoundrel.

 

Southwest’s stand is a publisher has a right to publish comparable to say the questionable content of the New York Times. At this point I concur with Southwest UNLESS in some fashion Julian Assange was actively involved in the purloining of Classified data as in the now infamous word – collusion to commit a crime. AND either way – simple publisher or colluding criminal – Assange is a scoundrel for grouping people placed in harm’s way with infamous potentially war crime actions.

 

On the issue of DNC/Podesta email hack, if the data was dropped in his lap he should not be prosecuted for those publications exposing at the infamous character of Crooked Hillary and her Dem operatives.

 

It is my suspicion Justin and Southwest disagree on how Assange acquired the DNC/Podesta emails. It seems the majority opinion is the Russians did a hack and provided the data to Assange. I know that Assange vehemently denies a Russian connection.

 

Southwest makes a strong case that the DNC data came from a combination of Gucifer 2 and Seth Rich. Rich was murdered under suspicious circumstances with all the markings of a coverup. Adding to the mystery is Assange offered a reward for info on Rich’s murder adding to the suspicion Rich acted as a whistleblower by providing purloined emails to Assange. BUT to my knowledge, Assange has never confirmed a Seth Rich connection.

 

On a personal level, I lean to Seth Rich purloining DNC data and being murdered for it. I think but cannot say for certainty, that Justin Smith does not accept the Seth Rich connection to the exposed DNC/Podesta emails.

 

Whoever is correct, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. My interests lay with the obvious culprits in the Dem Party – in and out of government authority – be investigated or re-investigated for crimes against Donald Trump prior AND after the 2016 election.

 

IF ASSANGE has anything to do with inspiring or speeding along that investigation, scoundrel though he is in my book, needs either immunity or a pardon or both for potential crimes he committed within the U.S. jurisdiction of law.

 

YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO READ Southwest’s position below. I’ll let you the reader corroborate or disprove his (or could it be her?) assertions – I have decided to not get in the middle of two bloggers whom I tend to both like. And Justin, don’t get to cranky with Southwest harshness. Like I said, it is my sense you guys are stamped from the same metal.

 

JRH 4/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

 

USA Life Group Patriots_For_Trump

Posted 4/17/19

 

John Houk I do respect the fact that you are an honest seeker and because of that I’ll comment on the post. I took the time to read it in its entirety.

 

It is not that Water Gate papers and tapes did not compromise security, the fact is that it exposed the party that was not in favor of the deep state.

 

That is point number one which applies to all of the ‘leaks’ and publications the author refers to and

 

2) When the government becomes the enemy of the people , it needs to be exposed. No national security concept should cover up to the fact that NSA has been paid millions if not billions of dollars –and this is indisputably and proven– to Google and had set up an scheme during the Obama administration–just look at the records of their visit to the Obama White House and remember that Obama was a scammer and didn’t even record all the visits–it is staggering- to spy on people and to help to remove the president of the US without due process but through slander and fake news media and democrat operatives working in the shadow.

 

3) All publishers should be protected …no one endangered national security more than the New York times but they were working for the shadow government and it was okay.

 

4) The crimes reported by Seth Rich via Hillary/Podesta emails need to be brought to light. To this day the so called ‘elite’ drink the blood of children they kill (this is another article that I don’t have time to explore here but this is proven fact the substance they get during the torturing of children that sips in their blood is what prolong their lives notice that they live to be over 100 years old?

 

Please save this post John. When people start splitting words for content and this is what Justin Smith does and it is very appealing for people like me and you because it forces your mind to reason and we may be addicted to reasoning the problem with that is that the main point is lost.

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS TO REMAIN FREE! If we split words to justify Assange imprisonment, then we will go down the path Hitler used to stop people from telling the truth.

 

Mueller and NSA cohorts and Google needs to go to prison, not Assange for telling on them. Noticed that no one is talking about the killing of children after molesting them and drinking their blood? Does it sound like legal or normal or decent? No, they talk about Assange who ONLY PUBLISHED what Seth Rich did And no one is talking about the hit job done by Hillary through the FBI to kill Seth Rich who went to the FBI to ask protection from Hillary and got killed by a weapon from the FBI who says that the weapon was stolen from their car when they went to meet Seth Rich.

 

Does it look like a set up to you? Does the FBI need to be investigated or Julian Assange? To be honest, no one can receive wisdom except from God. Intelligence is not enough, power to be argumentative is not enough and Justin Smith is lacking this wisdom that comes from God.

 

His articles are interesting but without wisdom he is a blind man leading the blind. I won’t read any article from this man again because I know where he is coming from, he is trying to sort things out by rational without having a moral compass and that doesn’t work.

 

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

Southwest on The Watchers Society

4/16/19

 

John Houk – We are supportive because we know who placed the Gucifer 2, NSA and FBI. And we know who leaked the emails: Seth Rich. How do we know? I hope I’m not repeating this too much–this was a fat file and the forensics can determine and has determined that, meaning it was a physical transfer such as a USB or drive, so there was no break into the DNC computer.

 

Afraid of Hillary, Seth Rich contacted the FBI, as you may know Washington pays residents of certain areas to have a camera. Let me say this more accurately, Washington reimburses people who install cameras. Consequently everybody has a camera in that area and often two.

 

The camera that filmed the shooting of Seth Rich was removed, clean[ed] up. [An or The] Attorney sued the police to get a copy, to no avail. The FBI got some weapon stolen from the car … the same weapon that killed Seth Rich. The story doesn’t end there. It is long and I’ll leave it for another time.

 

Just one more thing: the internist that took care of the shot behind Seth Rich’s neck said it was not lethal and he would survive. He posted on Facebook that something strange had happened, a bunch of FBI agents came over and told the internist to leave the room and not to come back until he was told. So, he obeyed, not knowing who Seth Rich was, he posted the story Facebook that when he came back the man was dead.

 

When he found out the man worked for the DNC he removed the post, which other people have photographed. Nowadays the connection with DNC and Democrats may be a death sentence, unless you do as they please … You remember what happened with the Judge against illegal immigration? His body washed on the shore and many other Bill and Hillary assassinations. But not everybody in the FBI is corrupted, just the Elite on the 7th floor.

 

And no one can blame Assange for that. Why they don’t prosecute the New York Times because it is doing their bidding and because it is against our laws to sue publishers.

______________________

Southwest vs Justin Smith

Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

 

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2019

__________________

Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

 

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Overcoming Free Speech Suppression in the UK


John R. Houk

© April 10, 2019

 

As an American I find the UK’s treatment of Counterjihad activists exposing the dark side of Islam appalling. To be honest though, I also find it disappointing that a majority of UK Counterjihad activists slip down into profanity-laced profanity when their God-given Free Speech Rights are violated. In my view the profanity does not help their cause to expose Islam and more than likely raises public agreement with the UK government to hinder Free Speech Rights.

 

In America those that pay attention to UK Free Speech suppression typically have name recognition of Tommy Robinson. Robinson seems at the forefront of those receiving government persecution with oppressive Hate Speech laws created to enhance Multiculturalist ideology at the expense of Western Culture.

 

Another Counterjihad activist similar in tone and plight to Tommy Robinson yet probably less known is Jayda Fransen. Fransen gained my attention when she attempted to disseminate a video exposing UK unjust persecution that included a plea for help over that treatment. The attention getter was that Youtube restricted that platform’s usage with a warning Fransen’s video might be offensive as well as limiting sharing and embedding tools. I watched Fransen’s Youtube version and discovered she didn’t even use profanity in talking about her persecuted treatment. So I downloaded the video and uploaded it to my Facebook page then shared the Facebook version on my blogs.

And since Fransen made the effort to NOT utilize her reputed usage of profanity, I signed up on her webpage for email updates. A few days ago I received one of those email updates in which Fransen describes how she attempted to work within the UK legal system to expose her reprehensible treatment and the response she received was a notice to shut up or else.

 

Below is that email update that does include a link to donate which she can use for her legal defense fund and probably her financial situation since the UK is giving her a difficult time about where she can reside while on parole for her unjust convictions of Hate Crimes violations.

 

JRH 4/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Threatened by English Probation Service

 

Sent by Jayda Fransen

Sent April 07, 2019 10:03:35 AM

Sent via JaydaFransen.online

 

Probation have threatened me with legal action!

 

Dear John

 

As you know, the National Probation Service in England have done everything in their power to make my life as difficult as possible since my release from jail in November 2018.

 

Their latest strike against me is taking things to another level!

 

I have finally received an email response from my Probation Officer’s line manager after I asked her to explain why my Probation Officer lied in court against me.

 

She has refused to answer my question and has also said that my official complaint to Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) will not be responded to!

 

Then she threatened to take legal action against me!

 

Threat to take legal action email 4/3/19

 

After I received this threat, my Probation officer called me and repeated it over the telephone!

 

She said, “As my line manager told you, stop calling us derogatory names”.

 

When I asked her what exactly did she class as ‘derogatory’, she replied that I had called her “Evil”.

 

Can you believe that?

 

After making my life a living hell for 5 months, having me arrested at Christmas, dragging me into court and banning me from living in my own home – she is upset because I called her ‘Evil’?!

 

Jayda Fransen in front of camera

 

As if that wasn’t ridiculous enough, she went on to say that my suggestion that she might be guilty of Contempt of Court or Perjury – after she took the stand and LIED under oath at my trial – has caused upset high up in the National Probation Service as it brings their name into disrepute!

 

So now the National Probation Service are threatening me with legal action because I told you that one of their employees lied in court and I think that they are evil!

 

They will stop at nothing it seems!

 

This is just another layer of pressure intended to break me.

 

As if 9 months in prison wasn’t enough, or being forced on the run, being banned from living in my own home, having police hunting me, being arrested on a plane by armed police, being held in a police cell overnight, being dragged into court and forced to stand trial just for living in my own home – they now want to take legal action for me calling them names!

 

 

I am not prepared to be bullied and threatened by the State and then told I can’t tell anyone about it John.

 

I need to continue fighting against this pressure and I am appealing every unfair decision made against me.

 

I cannot believe I am having to appeal to a Crown Court to overturn a decision to make me homeless!

 

KentLive Headline

 

Now there is a way for me to raise money so that I can get professional advice to help me with this ongoing battle.

 

Thanks to the Knights Templar Order, there is a page dedicated to help me.

 

If you are able to chip in to my new ‘fighting fund’ then please click this button:

 

CLICK HERE TO DONATE

As soon as I walked free from prison, this pressure started and I have been battling it every single day.

 

It is draining beyond belief, but I promise you I will not give up John.

 

Thank you for continuing to support me, I need your support now more than ever.

 

Yours sincerely,

Jayda Fransen

______________________

Overcoming Free Speech Suppression in the UK

John R. Houk

© April 10, 2019

___________________

Threatened by English Probation Service

 

(C) Jayda Fransen 2018

 

Jayda Fransen – My Story

 

Jayda was born in South East London in 1986.

 

Jayda practised and studied law for many years before founding a recruitment consultancy.

 

Jayda has been involved in the counter jihad struggle for many years before joining Britain First.

 

In 2014, Jayda was elected Deputy Leader of Britain First.

 

Jayda has stood in elections to Parliament and the Greater London Assembly.

 

Jayda also served as Britain First press officer and has taken part in numerous high profile TV documentaries.

 

Jayda is a devout Christian from a Catholic background.

 

Jayda has risked her life on many occasions confronting dangerous Islamists and terrorists, such as hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

 

For many years Jayda has endured police persecution and harassment at the hands of the establishment.

 

Jayda was sent to prison in March 2018 for ‘harassing’ a migrant paedophile rape gang in Ramsgate.

 

Britain Criminalizes Truth – Ask Jayda Fransen


By John  R. Houk

© March 31, 2019

 

While I was surfing around my Social Media connections I ran into a post on the soon to be dead G+ related to British Counterjihad activist Jayda Fransen. On G+ someone had shared a Youtube video of Ms. Fransen for support because she was found guilty of violating the UK’s Hate Speech laws. When I clicked to watch, a message informs you the video is unavailable on G+ but can be viewed at Youtube.

 

Ok, no problem. I clicked to go to Youtube. I get there and a content warning is plastered on the video telling you to be aware of offensive content and making sure you know that before you proceed. ALSO Youtube disabled the like, share and embed access.

 

TALK ABOUT CENSORSHIP!

I watched that roughly 9½ minute video. There is NO visual nudity, blood and gore. There is NO description of nudity, blood and gore. There is NO graphic profanity or even PG rated profanity. Now this is a lady reputed for her raw language a la fellow persecuted Counterjihadist Tommy Robinson. Jayda Fransen has the same raw language reputation. BUT NO SUCH RAW LANGUAGE IS IN HER PLEA FOR SUPPORT VIDEO censored by Youtube.

 

I’m not sure how I pulled it off due Youtube restrictions on downloading video, but I managed to do so. Since Ms. Fransen asks to share her video, I’m going to upload it to Facebook. But keep in mind I have had my share Facebook Jail and Censorship. Even if the upload is successful, Facebook may pull an unjust Youtube and restrict or remove the video under the lie it violates Facebook Community Standards.

VIDEO: Jayda Fransen – Enemy of the State

Youtube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcWl8Gj3Ac0

Facebook Video Link:

 

You should be aware the British Press treats Counterjihadists as Far Right Extremist purveyors of hate. Certainly many if not most of the British Counterjihadists have a raw language issue and a past history riot provocations that both Left and Right-Wing Extremists are guilty. (Interestingly, one rarely if ever read negative reviews of Leftist provocateurs in the European Press.)

 

Below is a Press-friendly profile of Jayda Fransen – Cuz it’s her website:

 

Jayda Fransen – My Story

 

Jayda was born in South East London in 1986.

 

Jayda practised and studied law for many years before founding a recruitment consultancy.

 

Jayda has been involved in the counter jihad struggle for many years before joining Britain First.

 

In 2014, Jayda was elected Deputy Leader of Britain First.

 

Jayda has stood in elections to Parliament and the Greater London Assembly.

 

Jayda also served as Britain First press officer and has taken part in numerous high profile TV documentaries.

 

Jayda is a devout Christian from a Catholic background.

 

Jayda has risked her life on many occasions confronting dangerous Islamists and terrorists, such as hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

 

For many years Jayda has endured police persecution and harassment at the hands of the establishment.

 

Jayda was sent to prison in March 2018 for ‘harassing’ a migrant paedophile rape gang in Ramsgate.

 

And here are some not so friendly British Press on Ms. Fransen’s Hate Speech violations and court experience. These actions – keep in mind – in America would be laughed at as crimes because have the First Amendment:

 

A former deputy leader of far-right group Britain First has been convicted of stirring up hatred during a speech about Islam in Belfast.

 

Jayda Fransen, 33, was found guilty over a speech at a rally in August 2017.

 

She was also convicted for separate comments at a peace wall in the city.

 

 

The judge, when convicting Fransen, of Moat Avenue in Donaghadee, County Down, described her words as “a general, vehement attack against a religious group”.

 

 

The court heard that Fransen told those gathered at the rally that there was no moderate version of Islam and that: “These people are baying for our blood.”

 

She added: “Islam says every single one of you wonderful people here today deserves to be killed.”

 

Those attending the rally were then told it was time for the world to come together against “the one common enemy”.

 

The judge told the court: “I’m satisfied these words were intended to stir up hatred and arouse fear.”

 

He also found her guilty over a separate, filmed incident at a Belfast peace wall in December 2017.

 

‘Menacing in nature’

 

On that occasion, the court heard that Fransen declared the “Islamification” of Britain will lead to similar walls to separate the two sides.

 

She claimed the country was “descending into civil war” and said it was time to “rise up against the biggest threat against the entire world”.

 

Confirming a conviction for that episode, the judge said: “I’m satisfied the words were menacing in nature.”’ (Jayda Fransen: Ex-Britain First deputy leader convicted over hate speech; BBC; 3/29/19)

 

AND HERE:

 

‘A former deputy leader of far-right group Britain First has been convicted of stirring up hatred during a speech about Islam in Belfast at a rally in August 2017, according to media reports.

 

Jayda Fransen, 33, was also convicted for separate comments filmed at a peace wall in the city, the BBC reported.

 

 

The group gained international notoriety in 2017 after US President Donald Trump was condemned by the UK prime minister’s office for retweeting anti-Muslim videos posted on Fransen’s Twitter account, MEE reported. A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said at the time: “British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far right, which is the antithesis of the values that this country represents – decency, tolerance and respect. It is wrong for the president to have done this.”’

 

I have to wonder how many Brits “overwhelmingly” agree with PM Theresa May?

 

Story continues…

 

‘‘The judge described Fransen’s speech as “a general, vehement attack against a religious group” and told Fransen to return to Belfast Magistrates’ Court for sentencing in May.

 

 

The court heard that Fransen told those gathered at the rally that there was no moderate version of Islam and that “These people are baying for our blood,” the BBC reported.

 

She added: “Islam says every single one of you wonderful people here today deserves to be killed.”

 

Those attending the rally were then told it was time for the world to come together against “the one common enemy,” the BBC said.

 

The judge told the court: “I’m satisfied these words were intended to stir up hatred and arouse fear.”’ (Ex-Britain First deputy leader Jayda Fransen convicted of hate speech: Reports; By MEE staffMiddle East Eye; 3/30/19 21:14 UTC – Updated 3/31/18 1:20 UTC)

 

The British Judge is vehemently outraged with Jayda Fransen for telling the truth about Islam according to the theopolitical religion’s own revered writings. ERGO, she is being punished by the force of law … for telling the truth!

 

JRH 3/31/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

 

Black Lives Matter Leader Loses Lawsuit Against Fox News Host Jeanine Pirro


Pirro & McKesson

 

Jeanine Pirro scored a legal victory winning civil case when suit was brought against her by undoubtedly Marxist Black Live Matter (BLM) DeRay McKesson for defamation. Perhaps Fox News should pay attention to the Free Speech ruling and make sure Judge Jeanine returns.

 

JRH 3/28/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Black Lives Matter Leader Loses Lawsuit Against Fox News Host Jeanine Pirro

 

By Jack Davis 

Published March 27, 2019 at 5:12am
Modified March 27, 2019 at 5:16am

The Western Journal (WJ)

 

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro has scored a courtroom victory over Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson, whose defamation lawsuit against Pirro has been dismissed.

 

During a 2017 broadcast about injuries suffered by a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, police officer, Pirro said that McKesson “was directing” violence against the officer. McKesson then sued.

 

According to his decision, New York State Supreme Court Justice Robert Kalish, sitting in Manhattan, said Pirro had the right to express her opinion.

 

In his ruling, he said Pirro’s own lawyer labeled her style “loud, caustic and hard hitting.”

 

“Pirro’s lack of temperament, and caustic commentary is what she is known, celebrated and frequently criticized for,” Kalish wrote.

 

 

“However divisive one might find the subject two-minute sequence, the law of this state protects the expressions of opinion it represents,” he ruled.

 

Further, Kalish wrote that much of what Pirro said was based on a lawsuit filed by the injured officer, who has sued McKesson.

 

“(T)his Court finds that Pirro’s statement’s describing the (lawsuit) qualify as a substantially accurate report of a judicial proceeding and therefore are absolutely privileged from liability for defamation,” the ruling said.

 

Kalish also said that taken as a whole, Pirro did nothing for which she could be sued, although some of her statements were not fully accurate.

 

“Moreover, although the statement that the plaintiff-officer ‘was injured at the direction of DeRay McKesson’ may cause a reader to believe such if it is read in isolation, viewing the entire video sequence as a whole it is clear that Pirro is expressing her opinion that the plaintiff-officer should be allowed to pursue his civil complaint against McKesson on the theory that McKesson may be held liable for the violent events that occurred during a demonstration that he allegedly led considering the allegations of the plaintiff-officer,” Kalish ruled.

 

 

 

Kalish wanted to be sure his opinion was not read as an endorsement of Pirro.

 

“That the Court find’s Pirro statement’s to be protected statements of opinion does not mean this Court agrees with Pirro’s opinions or condones her behavior or rhetoric. This Court is not blind to the undertones in this segment,” Kalish wrote.

 

Kalish had revealed he was no fan of Pirro’s last year during a hearing on the case, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

 

“She was a judge. She was a former district attorney,” Kalish said then. “You’d think she’d understand what we are dealing with. … You’d think she would give a very clear and accurate statement. You’d think she’d know better.”

 

McKesson, who calls himself a “leading voice of the Black Lives Matter movement, greeted the news of the dismissal of the case with a jab at Pirro.

 

“I’m obviously disappointed. But as Fox argued and the judge recognized, when you have a certain reputation, less is expected of you,” McKesson said, according to the New York Daily News reported.

 

In his ruling, Kalish noted Pirro had been suspended by Fox News, which had “no bearing” on the case.

 

Pirro was suspended by Fox after comments she made about Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar.

 

She has missed the last two shows. Fox has not said if she will return on Saturday.

___________________

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

 

© 2019 The Western Journal

 

CAIR Loses a Round in San Diego to MEF-Funded Lawsuit


The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) ran into a stump legally in the terrorist supporting group’s agenda to brainwash San Diego Public School students. CAIR lost and Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (with Middle East Forum support) won in court.

 

JRH 3/21/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

CAIR Loses a Round in San Diego to MEF-Funded Lawsuit

 

By Gregg Roman – Media Release

March 20, 2019

Middle East Forum

 

PHILADELPHIA – March 20, 2019 – The Council on American-Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) ubiquitous presence in the San Diego Unified School District is over, thanks in part to the Middle East Forum.

 

settlement in the federal lawsuit against the District, substantially funded by MEF, ends the District’s “anti-Islamophobia initiative,” which: (i) singled out Muslim students for special protections; and (ii) empowered Islamist CAIR to change the District’s curriculum to portray Islam more favorably.

 

The District enacted its initiative in 2017 at the behest of CAIR, which claimed that “Islamophobia” was sweeping through schools after the November 2016 elections. According to the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund – which brought the lawsuit on behalf of five San Diego families – CAIR activists were teaching schoolchildren “how to become allies to Muslim students” and conducting Islamic education workshops for teachers, among other inequities.

 

Under the terms of the court settlement:

 

  • “Educators should treat each religion with equal respect, with the time and attention spent discussing each religion being proportionate to its impact on history.”

 

  • “Educational material on religious subjects must be neutral and may not be presented in a manner that promotes one religion over another.”

 

  • “Educators or other staff sponsoring guest speakers at District events must ask them not to use their position or influence on students to forward their own religious, political, economic or social views and shall take active steps to neutralize whatever bias has been presented.”

 

  • “Guest speakers from religious organizations are not permitted to present to students on religious topics.”

 

“This is a tremendous victory, because CAIR intended this plan to be a pilot program for a nationwide rollout,” said Daniel J. Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund. “I thank the Forum for its support of this critical case.”

 

“This is a prime example of how the Forum helps protect the West from Islamist aggression,” notes Forum director Gregg Roman.”

_ _ _ _ _

 

The Middle East Forum identifies and promotes American interests in the Middle East and works to protect Western civilization from the threat of Islamism.

 

For immediate release


For more information, contact:
Gregg Roman
Roman@MEForum.org
+1 (215) 546 5406

_________________

©1994-2019 The Middle East Forum   •   E-mail: info@meforum.org   •   Tel: 1 (215) 546-5406

 

Donate to MEF

 

About The Middle East Forum

 

The Middle East Forum, a think tank founded in 1994 by Daniel Pipes, promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats. In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with advancing anarchy. Domestically, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, and activists; and works to improve Middle East studies.

 

Mission

 

MEF promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats

.

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.

 

In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.

 

At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.

 

Methods

 

The Middle East Forum realizes its goals through three main mechanisms:

 

READ THE REST

 

A Right Granted Us By God


One of my biggest concerns about America today is the erosion of Liberty envisioned by the Founding Fathers. This erosion is being exacted by the American Left dedicated to transforming the USA into a State controlled socio-political culturally humanist paradigm. This means the termination of Religious Liberty, Free Speech, Free Thought and the Right to Self-Defense that America has experienced largely thanks to the political institutions set into motion by America’s Founders.

 

In this editorial Justin Smith looks inalienable Right to self-defense that exists not because of a man-made document, but rather exists by the Will of God.

 

JRH 2/27/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

A Right Granted Us By God

Gun Control Laws Are Illegitimate

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/25/2019 8:47 PM

 

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” ~ Cesare Beccaria, 18th Century Italian jurist

 

American culture and this society have become so pusillanimous, that they have incredibly fought to tamp down and suppress the God-given right to the lawful act of self-defense and bearing arms to properly defend one’s person, family and property. More often we see both Democrats and so-called Republicans urging some manner of control over people already doing everything right, with the Democrats offering the harshest measures. It is as if they somehow imagine that limiting law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms will stop criminals and gun violence, which is akin to cutting the horns off a water buffalo as an answer to lion attacks.

 

Not the federal government, not the state governments, not any majority group of voters and certainly not any government official, elected or otherwise … none of the aforementioned have any legal authority to impede or infringe upon anyone’s God-given right to keep and bear arms, by any means or any measure or any arbitrary “rule” they color with the illegitimate use of the word “law”. A right granted Us by God as seen through Natural Law cannot be legislated out of existence.

 

[Blog Editor: On a personal I lean to the belief in the existence of Natural Law: viz., Law originating from God. But in full disclosure concepts of Natural Law and Natural Rights philosophically have a bit of controversy. So here are some titles to stretch your mind – perhaps you can locate yourself:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America currently has numerous states from California to Hawaii, Illinois and Vermont to Washington, New Jersey, Florida and Oregon trying to limit their citizens’ right to bear any weapon of the same sophistication as the U.S. military carries. Normally reticent as I am to quote the Supreme Court, as an example, due to its judicial activism, it is important to note that even the Court held this to be a God-given right that pre-exists government and the Constitution, in the majority ruling on Heller v. District of Columbia 2008. [Blog Editor: Bill of Rights Institute summary]

 

And yet, one more of the most egregious gun “laws” has just reared its ugly head in Ohio, without any more understanding of the Constitution than other pieces of legislation that have done nothing in L.A., New York or Chicago to stop gun violence.

 

Ohio House Bill 228 [PDF download] passed in December 2018, and it was largely intended to clarify when shooting someone in self-defense is legally justified; however, due to a HUGE drafting ERROR by the Legislative Services Commission and a misplaced provision regarding the Mossberg Shockwave shotgun, thousands of people will be turned into instant criminals overnight when this bill takes effect on March 28th 2019.

 

Dean Rieck, head of Buckeye Firearms Association, had worked closely with legislators on this legislation. He observed that many bills were flying about at the time, with Democrats firing off their own amendments and lobbyists and protesters adding to the chaos. The confusion of the day made an environment ripe for human error.

 

While everyone involved is saying this was an “honest mistake”, it is highly suspect that it occurred during a lame-duck session of the state legislature. Even more suspect, the error wasn’t caught, until after the bill was passed. This just shows how incompetent or devious leaders of the day can be.

 

Who were the proofreaders? Who signed off on the final draft?

 

Don’t lawmakers read a damn bill these days, before signing it? Obviously or conveniently not.

 

On March 28th 2019, any firearm of at least twenty-six inches and approved for sale by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, that is somehow not regulated under the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934, will be classified as “dangerous ordnance”. This turns an AR15, a thumbhole stock rifle, flash suppressors and other cosmetic features into dangerous ordnance and a felony to possess.

 

I submit that even a tax on firearms is illegal and unconstitutional, since it too carries an impediment of sorts to owning weapons. And here one must note, the NFA was held to be constitutional as a tax revenue measure. No entity has ever stated the federal government, or any government, has the power and authority to ban firearms of any type; this also is equally applicable to ammunition.

 

Many citizen groups and activist leaders, such as Jeremy Deter, have joined in protests, that forced the legislators to take heed and move for an immediate emergency fix, after initially stating they would have to wait 90 days before they could do anything. The Ohio State Legislature met on February 19th to enter a fix, at the urging of Senator Kristina Daley Roegner, who took a stand for the citizen groups, who introduced Bill 53. And predictably so, Democrats are now pushing back against any fix, as they contend no damage to firearms owners’ rights will result from Bill 228 as written, despite proof to the contrary.

 

Regardless of just how much damage it will or won’t do, without the proper correction to the error, the new “law” will be UnConstitutional as written, anyway one wishes to view it.

 

One option is to fix the error in the state budget, which will be introduced March 15th and passed into law on July 1st. This delay was called “unacceptable” by Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners.

 

Senator Cecil Thomas, a retired police officer and a Cincinnati Democrat, noted that this all results from rushing through legislation in a lame duck session. Thomas said, “It’s just a bad way of doing business now, and mistakes are made …”.

 

Addressing the legislators, Eva Silvers, an advocate for the Second Amendment, called the law “unconstitutional” and exclaimed: “You took a constitutional oath to protect the people of this country. Will you enforce an unconstitutional law?”

 

Understanding the gun-grabbers will do everything in their power to keep this egregious “law” on Ohio’s books, calls have one out across the nation to meet on March 28th in an armed protest at the State Capitol Building. Ohio is currently an “open carry” state, and the reason for having the protest the day after the bad law goes into effect, is to show it is an unenforceable law. But, they are also getting county sheriffs on their side, who have already acknowledged they do not plan to enforce it as it stands, and if the fix is passed in the meantime, everybody will still meet on the State Capitol steps in Columbus, in celebration.

 

The Declaration of Independence states: “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.” The Second Amendment helps Americans defend and protect Our Life and Liberty, and that makes me happy.

 

All patriotic freedom-minded Americans must rush to the aid of their countrymen in Ohio and any and all the other states and stand firm, tough and ready in the face of illegitimate and illegal legislation, by way of all manner of protest and petition.

 

Wherever Our God-given Rights, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment are under heavy assaults by those who seek not to govern, over a sovereign nation of Free Born Americans, as their fellow patriot and brother in Liberty, seeking instead to rule as their lord and master, in a manner that reduces all to serfs of the state, We cannot allow it — We must not allow it, for it bears the name “tyranny”, and it will not reign over my children, their children and their children’s children, so long as there remains breath in my body, a rifle in my hand.

 

“The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … It was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” ~ John Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241-242 (1891)

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced brackets as well as source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Beyond a Sad Day In America


Justin Smith addresses the immorality of various States passing abortion laws allowing the murder of full term babies. God have mercy on America.

 

JRH 2/4/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

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

Beyond a Sad Day In America

The Monstrous Abortion Laws 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/2/2019 8:00 PM

 

Deuteronomy 30:19 ~ I have set before you Life and Death and Cursing; therefore Choose Life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

 

It is beyond a sad day in America, when we witness illegitimate “laws” and infanticide, that allow a full term baby capable of living outside the womb to be murdered on its way through the birth canal, if a woman so chooses for any reason. We’re witnessing a deliberative body of several state legislatures, swayed by radical, demonic abortionists in the Democratic Party, from New York to Virginia and Rhode Island to Vermont, among many others, make conscious, premeditated decisions to legalize murder, and, as a rule, they prefer to sign a baby’s death warrant rather than seek alternatives that protect both the unborn child and the woman, the mother to be.

 

The Democratic Party and its followers seem to have taken a page from the writings of Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Josef Mengele, Margaret Sanger and the March 1st 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, that I noted on March 12th 2012 in ‘Choose Freedom … Choose Life’. Abortion has long been used to destroy family units to ensure government power and control, and today we are seeing Malthusian eugenics make a resurgence, along with the monstrous suggestion that a child, any child, does not have a moral right to life AFTER its birth.

 

Thankfully, Virginia’s infanticide bill failed, and in the course of events, a video of delegate Kathy Tran explaining  how her bill would allow abortion, as the expectant mother was in the middle of contractions, ignited fiery controversy. Tran later acknowledged that her law would have run afoul of existing anti-infanticide laws.

 

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, further inflamed America with his comments days after New York Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act that allows late term abortion “at any time” to “protect a patient’s life or health”. The RHA also repealed protections for born babies that survive failed abortions, and other states, like Rhode Island are following suit and introducing bills that would repeal bans on partial-birth abortion.

 

Yes. Don’t let a little thing like the baby actually exiting the mother’s womb stop anyone from murdering it.

 

On January 30th, Governor Northam spoke with DC’s WTOP Radio, in reference to failed abortions. According to Northam, the baby is out of the womb, the umbilical cord cut, and lying on a table next to the woman’s bed, and after a discussion between the doctors and the woman, the baby could be killed in the same manner a full-term baby is killed in a partial birth abortion. The baby’s brains are sucked out through a vacuum until her head collapses, even though just moments earlier she was crying, instinctively longing to be held and fed.

 

Medical experts such as Dr. Omar Hamada recently stated, “There’s absolutely no reason to kill a baby before delivery in the third trimester”.

 

It is a shame that the majority of abortionists don’t have the same epiphany as Dr. Anthony Levatino had years ago. His testimony on May 17th 2012, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) should be required reading for all high school youths. He spoke of the Sopher clamp with its ragged rows of jagged teeth made for clamping and crushing tissue and of the white fluid that leaves the woman’s cervix after the baby’s brain has been crushed — a procedure he had performed over 1200 times between 1981 and 1985. And then, he tells how his adopted daughter, Heather, was hit by a car and killed on June 23rd 1984, which prompted him to reject doing any more abortions.

 

Dr. Levatino, encouraged by a Catholic bishop, now tells everyone: “When you lose a child, life is different. Everything changes … the idea of a person’s life becomes very real. It is not an embryology course anymore … it’s your child buried … I couldn’t even think about a D&E abortion anymore.”

 

Continuing his Congressional testimony, he gives one example of saving a woman’s life by “terminating her pregnancy” through a Cesarean section; mother and baby did well afterwards. And he ends his testimony noting: “During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.

 

Leftist abortionists can tout baby murder as in the interest of women’s health all they wish, but the facts and their own contradictions belie their assertions. These new laws, like New York’s, allow non-physicians to perform abortions; they dismiss research that reveal the physical and psychological damage women incur from abortions; they refuse to inform young women about the risks associated with an abortion, and they do not counsel them on the option of adoption. These abortionists cloak their true agenda in the euphemism of “choice”.

 

No question exists that a partially delivered baby is a human being, although some will argue that it’s not so cut and dried early on in the pregnancy. At forty weeks, there is absolutely no reason to prevent the UnBorn Child from claiming his or her God-given right to life, which supersedes the woman’s vacuous right to privacy.

 

The Leftist position is morally repugnant, and goes against the grain and most Americans’ belief in protecting innocent life. They believe baby murder to be perfectly acceptable in their defense of abortion rights, and even so, they try to pretend they hold the moral high ground. Surely a viable baby is innocent, too.

 

These latest laws are atrocious to human beings, and they are nothing short of eugenics, nothing less than infanticide manifested in evil human selfishness in the ugliest way imaginable, and a fundamental shift in America’s conscience. The red radical Democratic Party makes a big show of empathy for the weak and marginalized, and yet, few if any shed a tear for the slaughter of millions of UnBorn Children, the most vulnerable among us. And this is the most tragic and complete denigration of America’s founding spirit of righteousness.

 

Roe v Wade is only an activist ruling made by the Supreme Court. It is not “the law of the land” as many Leftists suggest, and it is certainly not settled “law”.

 

On the federal level, Americans must stop allowing any majority of activist Black Robes to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by finding “new rights” within the Constitution that require a flight of fancy to discover. Only Congress can actually make law, and Congress needs to restrain the Court to its proper role and ignore Roe v Wade and also move to make abortion illegal across the country, except, in the most rare of circumstances, when a young mother’s life is truly endangered by the pregnancy, and she already has small children.

 

“There are times which we attempt to compromise in order to bring two opposing sides together for the benefit of all concerned.

 

There are other times when we are presented with a clear and distinct watershed. The opposition has as its only purpose to impose their will on all without compromise, without apology, and without recourse to the opposed.

 

It is at these times we must be courageous, stand firm, and fight. That time is now!” ~ Francis Schaeffer / ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith