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

 

Sharia UK


Victoria Wasteney

 

A fellow member of the G+ Community Kafir Supremacist found a Jihad Watch post exposing European dhimmitude/submission to Islam by an employment tribunal and the UK judiciary.

 

This UK system judged that UK citizen Victoria Wasteney violated the rights of a Muslim colleague by sharing her Born-Again faith in a time the Muslim colleague appeared to have a personal crisis. Enya Nawaz indicated a receptivity to Wasteney’s offer of prayer on a personal level then turned around and filed a complaint of proselytizing on the job.

 

I find it interesting there seems to be no definitive photo of the 25-year-old Islamic Supremacist complainant on any searches I executed. I did find one photo of a twitter account attributed to an “Enya” but I have no idea if it is the same whiner. The twitter photo looks about the same age as 25 and her account is closed to non-approved viewing. Here is that photo:

 

Enya Nawaz – twitter:

 

I recently posted about how Islam stifles Free Speech with its intolerance of criticism by non-Muslims. God help America if the same Free Speech intrusion takes root in the USA when even non-critical offers of Christian empathy becomes against the law.

 

JRH 8/3/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Sharia UK

Posted by Delenda Islam Est

By Christine Douglass-Williams & Samuel Smith

Aug 2, 2:04 PM

Kafir Supremacist

 

UK: Christian woman prosecuted for talking about Christianity to a Muslim colleague

August 2, 2017 12:30 pm; Jihad Watch; By Christine Douglass-Williams

A Christian therapist in England who was suspended after being accused of evangelizing to a Muslim colleague has suffered another loss in court.

Would a Muslim be taken to court for sharing his or her faith with a coworker? Whether or not Victoria Wasteney was proselytizing to her Muslim colleague on the job or not is to be determined in court. However, there remains a larger issue: Western authorities are giving the impression that while Christians are studied under a microscope for accountability, Muslims are not. Some examples:

University of California Berkeley Muslim professor Hatem Bazian has been openly calling for an intifada in America, and he has issued these violent calls at several venues throughout the United States.

Nadia Shoufani, a Toronto-area school teacher who called a Palestinian jihadist who crushed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl a hero and martyr, was said to have been investigated by her school board and by Toronto Police. But there has been no followup.

Farrah Marfatia, a principal of a Muslim academy in Mississauga, near Toronto, Canada was instructing parents to teach their children that “homosexuals are cursed by Allah as are the men who imitate or dress up like women.” Once again, there was no followup.

One can imagine the public outcry if Christians or Jews were preaching those same words — the court battles, the disdain. But where is the same reaction when Muslims say this? Instead, we see Victoria Wasteney, a Christian woman, in court for imparting messages about her faith’s love and healing to a Muslim colleague with whom she developed a relationship (or so she thought). While there are rules against proselytizing in places of employment, Wasteney was discussing her faith to a colleague, not to a client.

While Ms. Wasteney is being prosecuted in London, Sharia courts in Britain are sending Muslim women back to abusive husbands.

“Christian Hospital Worker Punished for Sharing Faith Loses Again in Court”, by Samuel Smith, Christian Post, July 29, 2017:

A Christian therapist in England who was suspended after being accused of evangelizing to a Muslim colleague has suffered another loss in court.

Victoria Wasteney, the former head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a hospital in London, was issued a nine-month suspension by East London National Health Service in 2014 after an eight-page complaint was filed against her by a Muslim colleague named Enya Nawaz.

As has been reported, Nawaz and Wasteney, a born-again Christian, developed a relationship while working at the St. John Howard Centre in East London and at points discussed religious differences.

Nawaz’s complaint accused Wasteney of trying to convert her to Christianity. Wasteney reportedly offered to pray with Nawaz, gave her a book authored by a Muslim convert to Christianity and invited her to an event organized by her church.

Wasteney was also accused of putting her hand on Nawaz’s knee while in a prayer and asking God to come to Nawaz.

Wasteney was initially thrown off by the allegations because she thought they had developed a good relationship. She told the Daily Mail in 2015 that she only put her hand on Nawaz’s knee to comfort Nawaz when she was dealing with health problems.

“I put my hand on her knee to comfort her and asked if that was okay, and said, ‘Would you like me to pray for you?’” Wasteney told the Daily Mail, “She said yes, so I asked for God to bring peace and healing. She left the office afterwards and said she was okay.”

Wasteney has denied that her act of giving Nawaz the book I Dared to Call Him Father, was an attempt to convert her.

According to The Telegraph, an East London NHS Foundation Trust disciplinary hearing in February 2014 upheld three charges against Wasteney and found five charges to be unsubstantiated. In the hearing, Wasteney was convicted of “gross misconduct.”

In October 2015, Wasteney won the right to appeal the NHS’ action to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the basis of religious liberty. However, Judge Jennifer Eady ruled against her in April 2016.

“What the court clearly failed to do was to say how, in today’s politically correct world, any Christian can even enter into a conversation with a fellow employee on the subject of religion and not, potentially, later end up in an employment tribunal,” Wasteney was quoted as saying at the time. “If someone sends you friendly text messages, how is one to know that they are offended? I had no idea that I was upsetting her.”

According to the U.K.-based Christian Legal Centre, Wasteney filed for an appeal against Eady’s 2016 decision and appeared in court Thursday. However, a tweet from the advocacy group on Thursday explained that Wasteney’s “permission to appeal has been rejected” and the “legal battle goes on.”….

 

[Blog Editor: This last sentence not a part of the Kafir Islamist/Jihad Watch post but in the Christian Post.]

 

In a video posted online Wednesday, Wasteney said she hoped Thursday’s hearing would grant her permission to seek a full hearing on the matter in an appeals court.

 

+++

Blog Editor: Here is the short video of Victoria Wasteney speaking:

 

VIDEO: Christian NHS worker to appear in court in the next stage of her legal battle

 

Posted by Christian Concern

Published on Jul 26, 2017

 

Victoria, former Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a London hospital, was suspended for ‘gross misconduct’ for nine months, and then received a written warning following allegations of ‘harassment and bullying’ by a Muslim staff-member.

In October 2015, Victoria won permission to appeal when the judge recognised the significance of her case in protecting religious freedom.

The Judge had said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should consider whether the original ruling had properly applied the European Convention on Human Rights’ strong protection of freedom of religion and expression.

Victoria lost her appeal in April 2016. In the judgment, Judge Eady QC upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, that the NHS had acted reasonably in disciplining Victoria for inviting her colleague to church-related events, praying with her (with consent), and giving her a Christian book.

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Victoria applied for permission to appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision, but this was rejected.

She is now seeking to challenge this.

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Evidence of FBI Corruption


John R. Houk

© June 30, 2017

 

Here is a reprise of Oregon Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff instigated by the unjust re-sentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond after they had already served time for a conviction that should never have happened. A bunch of ranchers from all over the Western U.S. came as a protest militia against the unjust actions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). There were a few leaders of this rancher militia but the few headlines that made into the MSM placed Ammon Bundy and his brother Ryan as the faces of BLM resistance. Ammon and Ryan were fresh off a successful standoff with their father Cliven Bundy in Nevada.

 

Here’s a rehash of the Hammonds’ BLM difficulties:

 

According to an October 7, 2015 press release from the Obama Department of Justice, Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

The men were charged nearly a decade after the first fire and five years after the second.

 

Oregon Live reports on the fires:

 

The Hammonds’ run-ins with the government began in 1999, when Steven Hammond started a fire that escaped onto U.S. Bureau of Land Management territory. The intent of the fire was to burn off juniper and sagebrush that hindered the growth of grass for their cattle.

BLM employees reminded Steven Hammond that although his family leased public land for grazing, he couldn’t burn it without a permit. But in September 2001, the Hammonds started another fire. This one ran off their property on Steens Mountain, consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons, according to court papers.

Then in August 2006, lightning sparked several fires near the spot where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven Hammond set a back-burn to thwart the advancing flames, and it burned across about an acre of public land, according to federal court records.

 

 

First, both men were sentenced in 2012 by now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, following the trial. Steven received one year and a day in prison for setting fires in 2001 and 2006. Dwight got 3 months for his 2001 involvement. Hogan did not believe the men had malicious intent to be labeled as terrorists under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, even though he sentenced them to jail for the time he did.

 

 

Both men served their sentences and were released. Now, the feds have appealed those sentences and want the mandatory minimum five-year sentence imposed on the men, and so they appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed with the feds that the judge ruled illegally. However, now they are wanting to label the Hammonds as terrorists under the 1996 law in order to put them back in jail.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Bigger Than Bundy Ranch: Militia put on Level 2 Alert to Defend Oregon Ranchers against Tyrannical Feds Who Label Them Terrorists; By TIM BROWN; Freedom Outpost; 11/24/17)

 

NOW, after this rehash and couple it with the Obama Leftist corrupt regime which pushed much of the BLM land grabbing and rancher persecution; there are HUGE indications that the FBI has become so inculcated with Obama’s Leftist swamp, that they are severely a part of the problem to devastate the property rights of Ranchers.

 

Can you say, Communist redistribution in favor of State management?

 

FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita Court Sketch 6/28/17 Photo: Deborah Marble at KGW.com

 

At least one FBI Agent (so far) is under criminal prosecution for intimidation and manipulating evidence. Below is the story.

 

JRH 6/30/17

Please Support NCCR

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

SHERIFF BACKS CLAIMS OF FBI-LAWBREAKING IN OREGON STANDOFF

Documentary-makers release more evidence that raises questions

 

By BOB UNRUH

June 29, 2017

WND

 

The Hammond family

 

In a stunning development a year after the standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, where two-dozen armed supporters gathered to protest the courts’ extension of sentences for two ranchers, a sheriff has backed claims of FBI misbehavior.

 

The declaration came from Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson just as FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita was pleading not guilty to three counts of making false statements and two counts of obstruction of justice in federal court in Portland, Oregon.

 

The FBI agent was accused of firing at the protesters, then picking up shell casings to conceal that fact and lying to investigators.

 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon said Astarita falsely stated he had not fired his weapon during the attempted arrest of protester LaVoy Finicum, who was shot dead by another officer during the incident, “when he knew he had in fact fired his weapon.”

 

“Astarita also knowingly engaged in misleading conduct toward Oregon State Police officers by failing to disclose that he had fired two rounds during the attempted arrest,” the statement said.

 

Nelson said, as the Washington Times reported, that the actions by “multiple members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team” had “damaged the integrity of the entire law enforcement profession, which makes me both disappointed and angry.”

 

Get David Kupelian’s culture-war blockbusters, “The Marketing of Evil,” “How Evil Works” and his latest, “The Snapping of the American Mind” at the WND Superstore. Also available in e-book and audiobook versions.

 

Nelson said he told Justice Department and FBI officials, including now-acting Director Andrew McCabe, over a year ago about “possible criminal conduct” by some involved FBI Hostage Rescue Team agents.

 

And while the case against Astarita is in court, new evidence also is arising from the makers of an acclaimed documentary about the incident.

 

WND reported earlier on the armed standoff that has been variously described by opponents as “militia terrorism” and by defenders as rebellion against government tyranny.

 

The 41-day standoff ended in mass arrests after law enforcement fatally shot one of the occupiers.

 

The documentary is “American Standoff,” and while it aired previously on DirecTV, it can now be viewed in its entirety at this website. Among the people interviewed in the documentary is best-selling author and WND Vice President David Kupelian.

 

The “American Standoff” story starts with Dwight and Steven Hammond, Oregon ranchers who were controversially convicted and sentenced for setting a controlled land-management fire on their property that went out of control onto federal land. But after they served their sentences and were released, a judge – at a federal prosecutor’s insistence – ordered them back into court, where they were sentenced to further time in prison under an anti-terrorism law, even though there was no evidence presented that the ranchers had planned or engaged in terrorism in any way.

 

Sympathetic ranchers and others – encouraged by the federal government’s stand-down from a previous armed confrontation in Nevada two years earlier on the land of rancher Cliven Bundy – protested the new injustice and ended up staging an armed occupation of the refuge.

 

They succeeded in keeping federal officers at bay until they were finally taken into custody when police staged a highly dangerous highway stop of vehicles carrying the protesters and shot two men.

 

Ryan Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy’s sons, was injured, while LaVoy Finicum was killed.

 

Eventually, seven of the others who were arrested were acquitted of federal charges related to the standoff. The feds even dismissed charges against a self-described independent broadcaster, Peter Santilli, who documented the occupation near Burns, Oregon, but was accused by prosecutors of being part of the protest group.

 

However, one of the FBI agents was charged with serious infractions of the law for the final confrontation. So far, Astarita is the only FBI agent to be indicted.

 

In addition to the feature-length “American Standoff” documentary, director Josh Turnbow and his film-making crew have now produced a series of “Aftermath” short video segments that have been posted online.

 

In the first, Jeanette Finicum, the widow of LaVoy Finicum, explains how the government, after killing her husband, also canceled the lease she needed to continue her family’s ranching operation.

 

She said she has lawyers fighting to restore the lease.

 

And she said a wrongful death case is inevitable against the government after a certain legal time period passes.

 

She insists her husband had his hands in the air and was surrendering but “was murdered.”

 

“He was mowed down in cold blood.”

 

Then, the video explains, the federal agents were “caught on camera, picking up casings before the forensic team arrived at the site of the shooting.”

 

Also, the video shows, Finicum’s gun, which he reportedly had been reaching for, wasn’t found for eight hours after the shooting.

 

“How many people tended to his body without finding it?” the video asks.

 

See the footage of the first segment:

 

VIDEO: American Standoff: Aftermath Episode 1

 

Posted by Audience Network

Published on Jun 8, 2017

 

American Standoff: Aftermath is a new short form series that delves deeper into the personal lives of the characters and key issues surrounding the 2016 Malheur Standoff.

Episode 1: Finicum

After the death of Lavoy Finicum, the BLM cancelled the Finicum Ranch Grazing Permit. More than a year later, Lavoy’s widow Jeanette is still trying to get the permit reinstated.

Watch the next episode here: [Blog Editor: Original link not functional as of 6/30/17. The link after the bracket works.]  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2TBRsf-4cM

Audience Facebook: http://bit.ly/AudienceNetworkFacebook
Audience Twitter: http://bit.ly/AudienceTwitter
Audience Instagram: http://bit.ly/AudienceInstagram

 

The rest of the videos are available online here.

 

Turnbow told WND the “Aftermath” series continues the stories of people affected by the standoff.

In addition to conducting in-depth interviews with nearly everyone involved on all sides of the conflict, Turnbow said he tapped WND’s managing editor, David Kupelian, to offer a journalist’s perspective and analysis.

 

“I think Josh Turnbow did a terrific job in ‘American Standoff,’” said Kupelian, “not just in fairly and sensitively presenting all sides of a complex and troubling situation, but in telling a riveting, deeply thought-provoking true story about today’s America.”

 

Kupelian said the documentary “captures the classic modus operandi of an oppressive government: Perpetrate injustice, provoking widespread public outrage, which always includes a small number of people who seriously overreact and, however well-meaning, do something illegal or irresponsible – and then portray them as the real problem, or in this case as ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists.’”

 

He said the main provocation in the story was “convicting two Oregon cattle ranchers, a father and son team whose controlled burn on their own property had gotten out of control and migrated onto federal land, with arson under an anti-terrorism statute that mandates a minimum five-year prison sentence.”

 

“Even the presiding judge said such a severe and unjust sentence would ‘shock the conscience.’ Well, it did shock the conscience of a lot of other ranchers – and the Malheur standoff was the result,” he said.

 

Get David Kupelian’s culture-war blockbusters, “The Marketing of Evil,” “How Evil Works” and his latest, “The Snapping of the American Mind” at the WND Superstore. Also available in e-book and audiobook versions.

 

Turnbow said he would like to find out what really happened and consider what the outcome should have been, especially with regard to the still-imprisoned ranchers serving a five-year “terrorism” sentence.

 

“We should be talking about it,” Turnbow says.

 

The larger issue at hand – federal control over land in the American West – continues to loom large.

 

The federal government is the largest landowner in the Rocky Mountain and Western states, owning contiguous parcels of millions of acres.

 

Conflicts between ranchers, who in some instances have owned and worked their land for generations, and a federal government seemingly always hungry for more, are common.

 

President Trump’s recent executive order to review the possibility of shrinking the boundaries of federal monuments could help defuse the longstanding tensions between America’s ranchers and the government.

 

See the trailer for “American Standoff”:

[Blog Editor: I am not sure if this is the same trailer WNDTV uses but it is about the same length on Youtube.]

 

VIDEO: American Standoff Trailer

 

Posted by Audience Network

Published on Apr 25, 2017

 

A story as tragic and incredible as the West itself, AUDIENCE Network presents the AT&T original documentary American Standoff which tells the story of the armed takeover of Oregon’s Malheur Wildlife Refuge and its violent conclusion. Don’t miss the premiere on 5/4 at 8PM!

 

________________

Evidence of FBI Corruption

John R. Houk

© June 30, 2017

_____________

SHERIFF BACKS CLAIMS OF FBI-LAWBREAKING IN OREGON STANDOFF

 

© Copyright 1997-2017. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Fourteen of 15 Felony Charges Dismissed Against Planned Parenthood Videomakers


San Francisco, CA — Christopher Hite, who spent nearly 18 years as a deputy public defender and was instrumental in developing the San Francisco Public Defender’s racial justice initiatives , was sworn in today as a San Francisco Superior Court judge.

 

California Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite dismissed 14 out of 15 felony charges against Center for Medical Progress (CMP) video makers David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt in their exposé of Planned Parenthood baby-murder for research baby parts scheme.

 

Planned Parenthood bought California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his baby killing benefactor are probably squealing in their exposed hypocrisy of prosecuting the Whistleblowers rather than the actual Planned Parenthood felons.

Below is the Breitbart story of the 14 felony counts against Daleiden and Merritt being tossed.

 

JRH 6/24/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Fourteen of 15 Felony Charges Dismissed Against Planned Parenthood Videomakers

 

By DR. SUSAN BERRY

June 22, 2017

Breitbart.com

 

Melissa Farrell Director-Research Planned Parenthood

 

A superior court in California has dismissed 14 of 15 felony charges against the video journalists who exposed alleged profiteering from the sale of body parts of aborted babies within Planned Parenthood and its partners in the biomedical procurement industry.

 

The charges were dismissed against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) – with leave to amend, meaning California Attorney General Xavier Becerra may refile those charges, if he includes more specific facts.

 

Judge Christopher Hite also denied the attorney general’s request for contempt sanctions against Daleiden’s criminal defense counsel, former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley & Associates (SCA) and his associate, former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Brentford J. Ferreira.

 

“We were pleased with Judge Hite’s rulings over all,” Cooley and Ferreira said in a statement sent to Breitbart News. “We look forward to further pre-trial litigation.”

 

CMP itself broke the news on Facebook Wednesday:

 

BREAKING: State judge GRANTS most of defendant Daleiden’s and Merritt’s demurrer motions, knocking out the 14 recording charges until the CA AG amends their complaint. The judge also denied the AG’s request for contempt sanctions against David’s defense counsel, and agreed Judge Orrick’s federal gag order in the civil lawsuit should not prevent defendants from using the videos in our defense.

 

Christian News reports the California Department of Justice’s statement on the dismissal:

 

Following the defense’s complaint that there are too many surreptitious recordings to know which ones the California Department of Justice is relying on, the judge requested more specificity in the charging document, specifically to identify the videos that are the basis of the charges. The California Department of Justice has 10 days to amend the complaint and will be making the requested changes.

 

Becerra’s office alleged that Daleiden and Merritt recorded 14 individuals connected to the abortion and fetal tissue industries in Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Francisco, and El Dorado, without their consent.

 

“This is a politically motivated prosecution,” Daleiden told reporters Wednesday. “And this is discriminatory against pro-life Americans and a rally against Californians who happen to have a different point of view.”

 

The explosive videos of the individuals, allegedly discussing how they obtain the highest quality fetal body parts during abortions in order to maximize sales to biotech companies, rocked the nation and set off multiple congressional investigations into the abortion and fetal tissue procurement industries.

 

Becerra, a former Democratic congressman who became attorney general after his predecessor, Kamala Harris, was sworn in as a U.S. senator, said his office “will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations,” reported the Los Angeles Times.

 

“The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” Becerra added.

 

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board took issue with Becerra’s actions:

 

It’s disturbingly aggressive for Becerra to apply this criminal statute to people who were trying to influence a contested issue of public policy, regardless of how sound or popular that policy may be. Planned Parenthood and biomedical company StemExpress, which was also featured in the videos, have another remedy for the harm that was done to them: They can sue Daleiden and Merritt for damages. The state doesn’t need to threaten the pair with prison time.

 

According to OpenSecrets.org, Becerra received a total of $5,535 from Planned Parenthood during his congressional election bids between 1998 and 2014.

 

Harris is on record as having received $2,600 in 2016 from Planned Parenthood for her Senate race campaign. Additionally, Harris was the recipient of $39,855 from the Abortion Policy/Pro-Abortion Rights lobby group, according to OpenSecrets.org.

 

ElectionTrack.com reported Harris received $15,000 from Planned Parenthood for her attorney general campaign bids.

 

As Breitbart News reported, emails obtained by the Washington Times in September of 2016 showed that Harris’s office collaborated with Planned Parenthood to produce the California legislation criminalizing undercover journalists for publishing and distributing recordings of private communications with abortion providers.

 

According to the Times:

 

The documents are another indication of Ms. Harris‘ close relationship with Planned Parenthood and call into question the impartiality of her ongoing investigation of Mr. Daleiden, legal experts said.

 

The emails show Beth Parker, chief legal counsel for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, sending multiple drafts of AB 1671 to Jill Habig, who was at the time special counsel to the attorney general.

 

“Attached is the language for AB 1671, proposed amendments to Penal Code section 632,” Ms. Parker wrote in an email marked March 8. “I look forward to your thoughts about this.”

 

Ms. Parker sent a revised draft of the legislation to Ms. Habig on March 16. “Here’s the rewrite of the video tape bill,” she wrote. “Let me know what you think.”

 

Habig later became deputy manager of Harris’ U.S. Senate campaign. The campaign website featured a petition asking voters to support and protect Planned Parenthood’s federal funding.

 

Charges brought against Daleiden and Merritt in Harris County, Texas – under suspicion of bias – were ultimately dropped, however. One of Planned Parenthood’s biotech partners – StemExpress – also backed off a lawsuit against the videomakers.

 

When the felony charges in California were filed, Daleiden said:

 

The bogus charges from Planned Parenthood’s political cronies are fake news. They tried the same collusion with corrupt officials in Houston, TX and failed: both the charges and the DA were thrown out. The public knows the real criminals are Planned Parenthood and their business partners like StemExpress and DV Biologics—currently being prosecuted in California—who have harvested and sold aborted baby body parts for profit for years in direct violation of state and federal law. We look forward to showing the entire world what is on our yet-unreleased video tapes of Planned Parenthood’s criminal baby body parts enterprise, in vindication of the First Amendment rights of all.

 

Though Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing in its alleged sale of body parts, it also announced in October 2015 that it would no longer accept payments for aborted fetal tissue.

 

The organization and its media and political allies continue to insist the CMP videos were “deceptively edited.” However, a Democrat opposition research firm named Fusion – hired by Planned Parenthood itself to review the videos – said while their analysts observed the videos had been edited, “the analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

 

Additionally, Fusion noted, “[A]nalysts found no evidence that CMP inserted dialogue not spoken by Planned Parenthood staff.”

 

An analysis by Coalfire, a third-party forensics company hired by Alliance Defending Freedom, found that the videos were “not manipulated” and that they are “authentic.”

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel have referred Planned Parenthood Federation of America, several of the largest Planned Parenthood affiliates in the country, and three of their business associates in the fetal tissue procurement industry to the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

 

__________________

Copyright © 2017 Breitbart

 

 

Christian Rights Protected from LGBTQ Impositions


John R. Houk

© June 23, 2017

 

I received an update yesterday from the American Family Association (AFA) celebrating the 5th Circuit Appellate Court spanking an earlier Federal Court decision to strike down a Mississippi State law protecting the Rights and Liberties of Christians against the ungodly LGBTQ militants who enjoy forcing their homosexual beliefs down the throats of Christians.

 

I avoid reading the Leftist-oriented Mainstream Media (MSM) reports because of their hatred of Conservative America values. Actually, when I Googled confirmation of the AFA alert, I was not at all surprised at the majority of MSM links deriding the 5th Circuit Appellate Court for damning the poor ungodly homosexuals of the militant LGBTQ.

 

This is what I am going to do. I am going to cross post the brief AFA email alert followed by a Daily Signal article on the 5th Circuit Appellate Court decision. In my humble opinion, The Daily Signal had the best report. Many other Conservative-oriented news sites even referenced The Daily Signal analysis. Nonetheless, here are a few titles from Conservative media also reporting on the victory for Christian religious Freedom in Mississippi:

 

 

 

 

Let us pray the many more States follow suit and declare Religious Freedom outweighs homosexuals forcing their ungodly beliefs on Bible observing Christians. Perhaps the U.S. Congress passing a Bill protecting the Freedom and Liberty of ALL Christian American citizens.

 

JRH 6/23/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Mississippi Religious Freedom bill upheld by court!

 

Sent by Tim Wildmon, President
Sent 6/22/2017 3:21 PM

Sent from American Family Association

 

Great news! This afternoon, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (federal court in New Orleans) upheld the Mississippi “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” or HB 1523. This law protects people of faith – including Christians – from being forced to participate in a wedding ceremony between two homosexuals, along with other protections. I interviewed Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant a little while ago. You can hear that short conversation here.

 

Religious freedom has been under assault in our country, especially against Christians. This decision is another reason to give thanks to the Lord today! AFA thanks our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom for taking this case up on behalf of the people of Mississippi.

 

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

 

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

 

+++

Circuit Court Win for Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage

 

By Ryan T. Anderson

June 22, 2017

The Daily Signal

 

Blind Justice Statue

 

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Mississippi law that protects religious liberty and the rights of conscience in light of the redefinition of marriage may go into effect.

 

In the decision, the circuit court overruled a previous judgment from a district court judge who had declared the Mississippi law unconstitutional for violating the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

 

But as the circuit court pointed out, the challengers to Mississippi’s law lack standing because they “have not clearly shown injury-in-fact.” In other words, they did not show how the Mississippi law protecting liberty for people who hold to the pre-Obergefell v. Hodges definition of marriage harmed them.

 

The court explained that the “failure” of the “plaintiffs to assert anything more than a general stigmatic injury dooms their claim.”

 

While the ruling focused on the lack of standing of the plaintiffs, there are plenty of reasons to rule in favor of the constitutionality of laws like Mississippi’s on the merits.

 

As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” there is nothing scandalous about protections for particular views that are at odds with those on which the government acts.

 

When the government takes Americans to war, exceptions cover pacifists. When the government guarantees abortion, exceptions cover pro-lifers. These exemptions don’t amount to establishments of any religion, and neither do laws protecting dissenters after Obergefell.

 

Indeed, as law professor Richard Epstein explains, the Establishment Clause—meant to “knock down state coercion for religion”—can’t be used to invalidate “a statute whose whole purpose was to insulate private parties from any form of coercion.”

 

So, what does the Mississippi law do? As previously explained at The Daily Signal:

 

  • Religious organizations, like churches, cannot be forced to use their facilities to celebrate or solemnize weddings that violate their beliefs.

 

  • Religious convents, universities, and social service organizations can continue to maintain personnel and housing policies that reflect their beliefs.

 

  • Religious adoption agencies can continue to operate by their conviction that every child they serve deserves to be placed with a married mom and dad.

 

  • Bakersphotographersflorists, and similar wedding-specific vendors cannot be forced to use their talents to celebrate same-sex weddings if they cannot do so in good conscience.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a reasonable bill. It protects the consciences of people who hold to the historic definition of marriage in the aftermath of the Supreme Court redefining marriage, and it does so while avoiding the awful outcomes that critics fear. The bill provides that the government cannot punish, fine, or coerce specific people and organizations, in specific contexts. It doesn’t harm anyone.

 

Other states should follow Mississippi’s lead in protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience after the redefinition of marriage. So, too, should Congress pass protections at the federal level.

 

Longstanding Precedent on Abortion

 

There is great precedent for such protections on the abortion issue, as Girgis and I explain in “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.”

 

In 1973, just months after Roe v. Wade was handed down, Congress passed the Church Amendment, named for Sen. Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho.

 

While Roe shielded the choice to have an abortion, the Church Amendment protected doctors’ and nurses’ choices not to perform one. It provided that health care organizations receiving federal funds could not force their doctors or nurses to perform or assist abortions.

 

Some 20 years later, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Coats–Snowe Amendment. It prohibits the government from discriminating against medical students who refuse to perform abortions and medical residency programs that leave out abortion training.

 

And in 2004, Congress passed the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which keeps the government from discriminating against health care institutions that don’t offer abortions.

 

Since 1973, then, U.S. policy has protected a right to choose an abortion right alongside an individual and institutional right to choose against facilitating one.

 

Our law should now do the same on marriage. It needn’t and shouldn’t penalize private associations for their beliefs on this issue. Doing so would make no appreciable difference to the ability of same-sex couples to receive the goods and services they seek, but it would undermine conscience rights for some.

 

So lawmakers can and should grant a categorical accommodation.

 

Current Legislation

 

A proposed federal law would do that. Much like the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Hyde-Weldon amendments, the First Amendment Defense Act would protect the freedoms of citizens and organizations who hold a belief at odds with one enshrined by courts.

 

Protecting pro-life consciences did not violate the Constitution—by establishing a religion or engaging in viewpoint discrimination or otherwise. Nor do laws protecting pacifists. Their only aim is peaceful coexistence in the face of disagreement.

 

The same goes for the First Amendment Defense Act. It would enact a bright-line rule to keep government from penalizing someone just for acting on her belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife. It would protect people who hold that belief for religious or secular reasons, and it would shield organizations from losing nonprofit tax status, licensing, or accreditation for operating by these beliefs.

 

But even the First Amendment Defense Act’s categorical protections reflect a careful balance. They protect individuals, nonprofit charities, and privately held businesses, but not publicly traded corporations, or federal employees or contractors in the course of their work.

 

The First Amendment Defense Act makes clear that it does not relieve the federal government of its duty to provide services, medical care, or benefits to all who qualify. It must simply respect conscience in the course of doing so.

 

Mississippi has shown the way forward on this issue at the state level. And on Thursday, the 5th Circuit allowed that law to go into effect.

 

Other states should offer similar protections at the state level, and Congress should do the same at the federal level.

 

Protecting a New Minority

 

America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing.

 

During this time, it is critical to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

 

Good public policy is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to protect cherished American values. Good policy would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement and protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

 

________________

Christian Rights Protected from LGBTQ Impositions

John R. Houk

© June 23, 2017

________________

Mississippi Religious Freedom bill upheld by court!

 

American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440  |  Tupelo, MS 38803  |  1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2017 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved

 

Support AFA

_____________

Circuit Court Win for Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage

 

About The Daily Signal

 

Donate to support The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation

 

Real Crime is Leftist Collusion


John R. Houk

© June 14, 2017

 

What is collusion? Dictionary.com:

1. A secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. A secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries through in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

 

Testimony after testimony from Intelligence heads and even disgraced Clinton-liar former Director James Comey have said there has been NO collusion between then candidate Donald Trump and Russia to steal the election from proven Crooked Hillary. The Dems have closed their ears so badly to the truth, they keep on propagandize American voters there is an act collusion by President Trump, the Dems just can’t prove it yet.

 

The more provable collusion is between former AG Loretta Lynch telling former FBI Director not to say Crooked Hillary was under investigation. That Lynch directive included using the words “a matter” rather than investigation and a steely stare against Comey when showing the former AG a yet undisclosed document suggesting Crooked Hillary wrong-doing.

 

It is the American Left that gets away with the criminality of collusion in the USA!

 

David Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress (CMP) that released a series of undercover videos demonstrating that Planned Parenthood was killing live-birth babies to deliver the murdered babies intact for research purposes and monetary profit to private research labs.

 

AND YET Planned Parenthood nor the murderous perpetrators have been prosecuted for the crimes. BUT CMP, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt are being criminally persecuted – err I mean prosecuted – for exposing Planned Parenthood crimes.

 

The collusion between Leftist prosecutors and Planned Parenthood has to be a crime, right? Who prosecutes the prosecutors?

 

EVEN WORSE!

 

Now there is ample evidence between a judge adjudicating the trial against Daleiden and Merritt by placing a gag order on showing past and future CMP videos exposing Planned Parenthood criminality! You see, U.S. District Judge William Orrick has been on the Board of Directors of a clinic housing Planned Parenthood operations. Friends this is MORE LEFTIST COLLUSION protecting a Leftist agenda to perpetuate Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform America”.

 

JRH 6/14/17 (Hat Tip: Breaking Christian News)

Please Support NCCR

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

Judge who censored undercover Planned Parenthood videos was on pro-abortion group’s board

 

By Claire Chretien

June 9, 2017

Life Site News

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick

 

CALIFORNIA, June 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) is seeking to disqualify the judge who censored its undercover footage of an abortion conference because of his ties to a pro-Planned Parenthood organization that lets the abortion company run a clinic on its premises.

 

When David Daleiden began releasing his now-famous exposé on the abortion industry’s participation in the baby body parts trade, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) took him to court. Daleiden had undercover recordings of its abortion trade show. NAF succeeded in getting U.S. District Judge William Orrick to issue a gag order preventing the release of this footage.

 

Last month, Daleiden’s attorneys released the footage. Some of the extended footage had already been leaked by Got News, but the video released by the CMP attorneys was more condensed and contained a compilation of the most shocking statements from abortionists at the conference.

 

Orrick then ordered Daleiden and his attorneys, Steve Cooley and Brentford J. Ferreira, to appear in court on June 14. They may face contempt of court charges for having released the video.

 

But CMP is arguing that Orrick should be disqualified from the case because he served on the board of an organization that houses a Planned Parenthood clinic. CMP’s motion to remove Orrick from the case says that Orrick’s affiliation with this organization shows “bias in favor of the plaintiff and prejudice against the defendants.”

 

The organization is Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC) in San Francisco. It describes its relationship with Planned Parenthood as a “key partnership.” Orrick is a former GSFRC board member. He was GSRFC’s secretary of the board in 2001 “when GSFRC entered ‘key partnership’ with PPSP [Planned Parenthood],” the motion states.

 

“The video recordings that are the subject of this case include recordings of PPSP/PPNC staff members,” it says.

 

“At no time did Judge Orrick disclose to Defendants that he sat on the board of an organization that had as a ‘key partner’ an organization Defendants alleged, both in public statements and as part of their defense, was involved in violations of state and federal law,” CMP’s motion continues. “Judge Orrick did not disclose his close and long-standing relationship with an organization that houses a facility and hosts Planned Parenthood staff, whom NAF claims are in physical danger from ‘anti-abortion extremists’ incited by Defendants.”

 

The motion goes on to detail Orrick’s wife’s support of abortion on Facebook. Mrs. Orrick “liked” a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Facebook post that criticized CMP as “a sham organization run by extremists.”

 

In 2015, “Mrs. Orrick ‘pinkified’ her Facebook page and added ‘I stand with Planned Parenthood’ as a Facebook profile picture overlay.”

 

CMP’s attorneys explained:

 

Planned Parenthood urged its supporters to add these elements to their Facebook pages as part of a campaign orchestrated specifically in response to the release of videos by Mr. Daleiden and CMP. ‘Pinkifying’ showed one’s support for Planned Parenthood and one ’s belief that the videos were fraudulent.

 

Another cause for CMP’s concern is Mrs. Orrick “liked a Facebook Post by ‘Keep America Pro-Choice’ that applauded Mr. Daleiden being indicted in Texas.” It, and the “like” of the NARAL post, “were juxtaposed with a profile photo featuring Judge Orrick and Mrs. Orrick.”

 

As The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway uncovered at the time Orrick issued the initial gag order on the video, he is a major financial backer of pro-abortion former President Obama.

 

“He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen,” she reported.

 

He also donated more than $5,000 to GSFRC.

___________________

Real Crime is Leftist Collusion

John R. Houk

© June 14, 2017

_______________

Judge who censored undercover Planned Parenthood videos was on pro-abortion group’s board

 

All Content Copyright 1997-2017 LifeSiteNews.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

About LifeSiteNews.com 

 

LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. It was launched in September 1997. LifeSiteNews Daily News reports and information pages are used by numerous organizations and publications, educators, professionals and political, religious and life and family organization leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally.

 

LifeSiteNews.com Daily News reports are widely circulated reports on important developments in the United States, Canada and around the world. Their purpose is to provide balance and more accurate coverage on culture, life and family matters than is usually given by other media. Available by free daily email subscription and on LifeSiteNews.com.


LifeSiteNews Principles

 

  1. Accuracy in content is given high priority. News and information tips from readers are encouraged and validated. Valid corrections are always welcome. Writing and research is of a professional calibre.

 

  1. LifeSiteNews.com emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of morality.

 

  1. LifeSiteNews.com’s writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.

 

  1. LifeSiteNews.com understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels. LifeSiteNews attempts to provide its readers with the big picture and  READ THE REST