Antifa v. Alt-Right in Charlottesville — and America


Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post writes about the hypocrisy of the Dems, Leftist MSM, and RINOs reporting on the Charlottesville rumble. It’s a great follow-up on my post “Charlottesville Violent Participants Pt ONE”.

 

JRH 8/16/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Antifa v. Alt-Right in Charlottesville — and America

The coming battles between sociopathic Leftists — the socialist “anti-fascists” and the “alternate-right” anarchists.

 

By Mark Alexander

Aug. 16, 2017

(Email Alert Sent: 8/16/2017 2:39 PM)

The Patriot Post

 

“It is the manners and spirit of a people, which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson (1787)

 

Liberals ME & Liberals in USA

 

Last weekend, according to NBC Chicago, there were nine people killed and more than 30 wounded in gunfights on the streets of Chicago — and those figures don’t include the deaths and injuries from other weapons within that Democrat Party pit.

 

This is a recurring tragedy in Chicago, and yet it’s highly probable that 99.999% of Americans have not heard about those deaths. Indeed, even though most of the murdered were black, who beyond the immediate family and friends of the deceased can name a single unfortunate victim of all the hatred and violence that is commonplace there?

 

The reason their names and faces are anonymous is that their lives have no value as political fodder for the Demo/media propaganda machine or its so-called “Black Lives Matter” constituency. Those victims are simply tossed onto the pile of 430 homicides in Chicago thus far this year, to the horror of those of us who believe that “all lives matter.”

 

Now consider this: Last weekend, there was one person murdered in Charlottesville, Virginia, by an Ohio man, and the whole world knows the name of that unfortunate victim.

 

Charlottesville is, as anyone who has been there can attest, a great town. In January, I declined an invitation to attend the Trump inaugural fanfare, opting instead that weekend to meet my son in Charlottesville for a few days visiting friends and re-visiting historic sites.

 

This area is, in my opinion, the richest historic region in America.

 

Charlottesville is the site of Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello home, which sits just above the town, and his beloved University of Virginia. Just beyond Monticello is James Monroe’s Highland home place. To the north is Montpelier, home of our Constitution’s author, James Madison. To the west is Lexington, home of Washington and Lee University and Virginia Military Academy — and burial place of Virginia sons Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Northeast is George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and the home of George Mason. To the east are Richmond, Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown — the final battle site of the American Revolution.

 

Despite being the epicenter of such extraordinary history, Charlottesville is also lorded over by a disgraceful mayor, Mike Signer, and his Leftist city council — a group of Berkeley wannabes who have led local historical purges of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee.

 

It was the planned removal of a small statue of the latter from a city park that was the catalyst for the obscene riots last weekend in this otherwise quiet and idyllic town.

 

That riot was a clash between sociopathic forces — the antifa, the ironically self-styled “anti-fascists” leading the Leftist intifada against anyone supporting Liberty or any economic system other than socialism, and the alt-right, an anarcho-fascist fringe movement of white supremacists. Notably the alt-right racists had an ACLU-defended permit for their protest hate speech. The antifa socialists and black supremacists showed up in mass without a permit.

 

Thugs Clash in Charlottesville

 

Eight years of racial antagonism by Barack Obama and his radical regime led to mass riots in more than 20 American urban centers, fomented by Leftist groups operating under the banners of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, antifa, et al. That violence erupted in Oakland, Akron and Pittsburgh in 2009; Santa Cruz, Oakland and Los Angeles in 2010; Oakland in 2011; Chicago and Anaheim in 2012; Brooklyn in 2013; Ferguson and New York City in 2014; Baltimore in 2015; Anaheim, Chicago, St. Paul, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Standing Rock, Oakland and Portland in 2016; and DC, Berkeley, Anaheim, Berkeley part 2, Berkeley part 3, Olympia and Portland in 2017.

 

While Republicans, Democrats and the mainstream media have correctly tagged one side of the hateful antagonists in Charlottesville as “white supremacists,” you won’t find any reference by any Democrat, or their Leftmedia propagandists, to the “black supremacists” who were at the center of, or significant participants in, all the aforementioned urban violence.

 

Nor did a single politico or media outlet rightly tag Micah X, who murdered five police officers in Dallas a year ago, a “black supremacist.” He was just the latest manifestation of the Democrats’ playbook, which endeavors to foment disunity to rally constituencies. To them, dead police officers are just collateral damage.

 

Remarkably, the riot in Charlottesville has already received more mass media bandwidth than the attempted mass assassination in June of multiple Republican congressmen in Alexandria, Virginia, by a hate-filled Bernie Sanders supporter.

 

Perhaps “Virginia is [not] for Lovers” after all? Actually, Virginia is a great state when it’s not baiting anarchist haters.

 

Given the media feeding frenzy inspired by the riots in Charlottesville, allow me to impart a few observations.

 

First: Regarding President Donald Trump’s repeated condemnation of both the racists and the socialists

 

Assessing the violence, Charlottesville police chief Al Thomas noted, “Other groups [opposing the alt-right faction] began amassing along the street and in the park. Gradually, the crowd sizes increased along with aggressiveness and hostility of attendees toward one another. … We did have mutually combating individuals in the crowd.”

 

This mutual violence was evident to everyone present, and it was affirmed in real time by New York Times reporter Hawes Spencer, who observed, “Protesters maced each other, threw water bottles and urine balloons — some of which hit reporters — and generally beat the crap out of each other with flagpoles.”

 

However, Trump should not have dared to suggest that the violence was from both sides of the idiot line. According to the Leftmedia, the antifa groups are just a bunch of wholesome all-American “counter-protesters” defending our country against an epidemic of right-wing (Republican) hatred.

 

After concurring with the police chief and other observers about “mutually combating individuals,” Trump said, “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides. No matter our color, creed, religion or political party we are all Americans first.”

 

But that denunciation wasn’t sufficient for the Leftmedia — or for establishment Republicans, who knew full well that the Demo/MSM would label them as “soft on supremacists” because Trump dared to identify both ugly factions.

 

Sunday, the White House communications staff followed up with: “The President said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry and hatred and of course that includes white Supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.”

 

But even that was insufficient for the Leftmedia. Trump had failed to elevate the standing of the conflict to the level that best serves the Demo/MSM agenda and the need to cash in on the chaos for ad revenue and political contributions.

 

So Trump on Monday called a press confab and repeatedly condemned the racists in what was to be a unifying speech.

 

But that was too little too late for the Leftmedia.

 

MSM reports Trump Said

 

On Tuesday, in a contentious confrontation with MSM agitators, Trump dared again to suggest that the violence was mutual: “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say it right now: I think there is blame on both sides and I don’t have a doubt about it and you [reporters] don’t have a doubt about it either.”

 

He also condemned the removal of historic markers, saying, “This week it’s Robert E. Lee. I notice that Stonewall Jackson’s [statue is] coming down. I wonder, is George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You really do have to ask yourself, when does it stop?”

 

Of the Leftmedia “outrage” over Trump’s responses, Vice President Mike Pence said, “I take issue with the fact that many in the media … have spent an awful lot of time focusing on what the president said and criticisms of what the president said, instead of criticizing those who brought that hatred and violence to the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia.” He is correct.

 

Second: The Bannon problem

 

While I believe Trump’s response to the violence was measured — if very Trumpian — I also believe he has a problem on his staff by the name of Steve Bannon, chairman of his 2016 campaign and now his chief strategist.

 

Here’s the problem.

 

Jason Kessler is the white supremacist organizer of the “Unite the Right” protest in Charlottesville. He’s a University of Virginia graduate who lists on his résumé his last job as being a writer for “Daily Caller,” an online “conservative” news website co-founded in 2010 by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. For the record, despite the fact that I like Carlson’s commentary, our staff considers Daily Caller a well-funded titillation tabloid, and for that reason, it undermines the standing of genuine grassroots conservative publications. Indeed, as of this week, Daily Caller has scrubbed the commentary it hosted from Kessler.

 

Kessler’s colleague, Massachusetts native Richard Spencer, also a UVA graduate, was agitating the hatefest in Charlottesville.

 

Spencer is the founder of AlternativeRight.com, the alt-right homepage espousing, among other things, white supremacist views. After Trump’s election, Spencer led an alt-right conference group with “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” chants. When Trump tapped Bannon to be a senior advisor, Spencer claimed he was in “the best possible position” to influence policy.

 

That brings me to Bannon himself, who took control of Breitbart News in 2012 after the death of Andrew Breitbart. Bannon did to Andrew’s popular website what Jeff Bezos is doing to the once-respectable Washington Post — adulterating its content to comport with extremist political views.

 

Breitbart News described Spencer’s website as the “center of alt-right thought,” and in 2016, Bannon declared Breitbart “the platform for the alt-right.” Spencer concurred, noting that Breitbart “has acted as a ‘gateway’ to alt-right ideas and writers.”

 

This, of course, doesn’t make Bannon or Trump “white supremacists.” Bannon, like Trump, has a propensity for shooting from the hip and saying stupid stuff. And most Trump supporters would have no idea what the “alt-right” is because, in fact, it’s nothing more than a minuscule fringe political identity group. But the Leftmedia would have you believe it’s the very foundation of the Republican Party.

 

In November 2016, Trump responded to questions about Bannon’s appointment, saying, “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right … I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.”

 

But can you detect the problem here?

 

All you need to know about Bannon is that he does not have enough humility, in the interest of Trump’s agenda, to resign.

 

Third: Regarding the Orwellian trend of “historical cleansing” underway by Leftists

 

The “progressive” use of violence to force the removal of historical monuments from public spaces should concern Americans of all political stripes. This extremely dangerous trend by Leftists, like those sitting on the city council of historical hub Charlottesville, smacks of socialist Soviet “airbrushing” and the Maoist “Cultural Revolution.”

 

Longtime friend of The Patriot Post, distinguished George Mason University professor Walter Williams, has issued erudite warnings about the consequences of historical ignorance here and here, including the removal of historic markers to Confederate generals and the rewriting of American history.

 

The vast majority of Americans, including me, who strenuously object to tearing down and stamping out our historical heritage do not object because of some racist affinity. We object because this is our story, and because whitewashing it is an affront to American history and to our legacy of Liberty.

 

Predictably, seizing the mindless momentum, the Black Congressional Caucus issued demands for the first phase of monument removals in the U.S. Capitol building.

 

Booker T Washington quote on racism

 

As 20th century philosopher George Santayana concluded in his treatise, “The Life of Reason”: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 

English writer Aldous Huxley put it more succinctly: “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”

 

Fourth: The ACLU and Charlottesville Police

 

Notably, ACLU observers on Twitter were among the first to report that the Charlottesville police had stand-down orders, allowing the violence to escalate: “Clash between protesters and counter protesters. Police say, ‘We’ll not intervene until given command to do so.’” But that order never came.

 

This was affirmed by Fox News reporter Doug McKelway, who was in the middle of the combatants. “When the tear gas started to fly, thrown by protesters, the police themselves began to evacuate. I asked the guy who was in charge, ‘Where you going?’ He said, ‘We’re leaving. It’s too dangerous.’ They had a chance to nip this thing in the bud and they chose not to.”

 

If police officers are wholly unprepared for the level of violence, they should retreat. But this retreat looked more like the “stand-down” order that accelerated the 2015 Baltimore race riots.

 

Fifth: Who is funding antifa, Black Lives Matter and all the other Marxist/black supremacist groups that have emerged since 2008?

 

Judicial Watch is suing America-hating billionaire socialist George Soros for his funding records of Leftist political groups. Keep a sharp eye on the outcome of this lawsuit.

 

Finally, regarding the Republicans’ stampede to distance themselves from phony Leftist charges of racism, seeking to distance yourself from something already far removed actually feeds the narrative that maybe it is not so far removed.

 

To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Republicans doth apologize too much, methinks.”

 

The Democrat Party and its Leftmedia outlets are colluding to publicize, and thus politicize, upcoming alt-right-versus-antifa venues for conflict in order to advance their agenda. In doing so, they hope to hang these riots around Republican necks.

 

But let’s be clear: Every drop of blood that’s shed in these riots — and there will be more of them — is on the hands of the Demo/MSM propaganda machine that is fomenting the disunity that propagates them — and Republicans had better start shining a light on that, as Donald Trump has done, rather than cowering behind a microphone.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

_____________

Copyright © 2017 The Patriot Post.

 

From the email alert:

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

Support The Patriot Post

 

 

About The Patriot Post

 

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington (1779)

 

Mission and Objective

 

In 1996, concerned about the erosion of our Republic’s political and social institutions under Bill Clinton’s regime, and the virtual monopoly the mainstream media held on public opinionMark Alexander launched the online journal The Federalist — now published as The Patriot Post.

 

He did so with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus) and Ed Feulner (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus), foreseeing a day when the Internet would overtake print and cable media as a primary source of news, policy and opinion — the most significant First Amendment advancement since our nation’s founding.

 

Alexander assembled an impressive National Advisory Committee and recruited an editorial team of young conservatives from across the nation. Together, they READ THE REST 

 

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

 

Trump Ready to Sign Religious Freedom Order on National Day of Prayer


CBN reports that President Trump is prepared to issue an Executive Order that places a premium on Religious Liberty. The CBN report says the EO is slated for the National Day of Prayer 5/4/17.

 

Leaked Religious Liberty EO – Click Photo for larger image

 

 

The Trump EO is certain to rip the minds of Leftists, Homosexuals and Separation/Church fanatics. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court. If I was Trump I’d tell the Leftists to get in line at SCOTUS.

 

JRH 5/3/17 (Hat Tip BCN)

Please Support NCCR

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

Trump Ready to Sign Religious Freedom Order on National Day of Prayer

 

By Emily Jones

05-02-2017

CBN News

 

President Trump reportedly will sign a controversial religious liberty executive order Thursday, just before he and conservative leaders celebrate the National Day of Prayer.

 

Citing senior administration officials, Politico reports that Trump has invited conservative speakers to the White House, where he will sign the executive order.

 

The draft seeks to provide exemptions for religious people and organizations who object to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, contraception and trans identity.

 

“The language is very, very strong,” one conservative source told Politico.

 

Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver says it’s essential to restore religious freedom protections at this time after years of attacks from President Obama.

 

In a commentary in The Orlando Sentinel, Staver argues that religious rights were undermined by Obamacare and numerous Obama appointees, like Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chairman Chai Feldblum.

 

“When asked about ‘sexual liberty’ (the LGBT agenda) and religious liberty, Feldblum said, ‘Sexual liberty should win in most cases. …(I)n almost all cases sexual liberty should win.’ She could not think of any instance in which religious liberty should win,” Staver points out.

 

Feldblum is still in office.

 

When it comes to Obamacare, Staver cites instances like the Hobby Lobby case and Little Sisters of the Poor, in which pro-life Americans were being forced to violate their religious beliefs on abortion.

 

“Obamacare spawned an unprecedented number of lawsuits over religious liberty. Most of the litigation is still ongoing. President Trump now has the opportunity, through executive order, to reverse course and rein in the federal government’s assault on religious freedom,” Staver writes.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is already revving up for a court battle against the expected order from Trump.

 

The ACLU says if he signs an executive order “that attempts to provide a license to discriminate against women or LGBT people, we will see him in court.”

 

________________

© 2017 The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., A nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Charitable Organization.

American Left can be seen in Nazi History


Hitler- BHO & Hillary

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

 

I have noticed over the years that Lefties (aka Liberals, Progressives, Left Wingers, Moonbats, etc.) have smeared Conservatives as Nazis or Hitler-equivalents. The irony is Hitler’s Nazism was a Left Wing Movement that employed the nationalist-corporatism of Fascism which is ultimately State control of the industrial complex.

 

Karl Marx’s Communism envisioned Industrial workers rising up in revolt over the means of production and who controls those means. Which ultimately played out of State ownership of everything from property to the industrial complex under the illusion that the people (aka workers or the proletariat) controlled society’s living conditions and the mode of production. In essence the State assumed the role of the people by proxy.

 

Nazism was not so much interested in the illusion of who controls production as much as every citizen serves the needs of the State paying homage to the elites of State that made the lives of true citizens prosperous. Consider how the word Nazi Party gained its appellation:

 

Acronym Finder

 

What does NSDAP stand for?

 

NSDAP stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NAZI Party)

 

 

ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY

 

Nazi 

 

1930, noun and adjective, from German Nazi, abbreviation of German pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier German sozi, popular abbreviation of “socialist”), from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” led by Hitler from 1920.

The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c. 1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname NaziNaczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean “a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person.” Ignatz was a popular name in Catholic Austria, and according to one source in World War I Nazi was a generic name in the German Empire for the soldiers of Austria-Hungary.

An older use of Nazi for national-sozial is attested in German from 1903, but EWdS does not think it contributed to the word as applied to Hitler and his followers. The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi designation as what the Germans call a “despite-word,” but they gave this up, and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term. Before 1930, party members had been called in English National Socialists, which dates from 1923. The use of Nazi GermanyNazi regime, etc., was popularized by German exiles abroad. From them, it spread into other languages, and eventually was brought back to Germany, after the war. In the USSR, the terms national socialist and Nazi were said to have been forbidden after 1932, presumably to avoid any taint to the good word socialist. Soviet literature refers to fascists.

 

The Wikipedia entry for “Nazi Party” goes into greater detail if you are interested. At Wikipedia the focus is more on nationalism combined with racism more than Socialism.

 

Either way, Nazism and Communism were political vehicles to control the masses under the direction of an elitist oligarchy.

 

Matt Barber has written an essay that I located on Constitution.com highlighting that Adolf Hitler was an anti-Christian pretending to be a Christian with Left Oriented Socialism in the backdrop.

 

Who does that sound like today in 21st century America? Since Barber doesn’t mention any modern day similarities, allow me to name a couple:

 

  • Barack Obama

 

  • Hillary Clinton

 

JRH 5/27/16

Please Support NCCR

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

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 US Flag with Nazi flag paperclip

By Matt Barber [webpage lists him as Guest Columnist but at the end the essay attributed Barber]

May 26, 2016

Constitution.com

 

[T]he only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

– Adolf Hitler

 

Yes, there have been evil men who have done evil things in the name of false Christianity. To a limited degree, Adolf Hitler was one such man. Still, and as even he frequently admitted outside the public eye, he was no Christian.

 

As a counterweight to stigma associated with the tens of millions slaughtered in the 20th century alone under the atheist regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al., the secular left is quick to thunder, “But what about Hitler? He was a Christian!”

 

Bad news, kids. Herr Führer was your guy, too.

 

“I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie,” Hitler confessed (audio transcribed in “Hitler’s Table Talk” [1941-44]). “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field [to be labeled a Christian].”

 

Did Adolf Hitler ever call himself a Christian? Certainly. He did so, and as he would later admit, for the singular purpose of disseminating political propaganda.

 

“To whom should propaganda be addressed?” he wrote. “It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. … The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real.”

 

The Nazi Germans of the 1930s and ’40s are not alone in swallowing Hitler’s Christianese-peppered puffery. Today’s secular- “progressive” establishment likewise bandies about a handful of carefully crafted Hitlerian quotes released for public consumption. His “pro-Christian” proclamations in “Mein Kampf” and elsewhere, for instance, were universally a perversion of biblical Christianity leveraged for the sole purpose of justifying the extermination of the Jewish people.

 

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter,” he wrote. “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge [the Jews] to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. … For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

 

That was the extent of Hitler’s plastic “Christianity.” The Bible, always taken out of context, served as a twisted weapon to justify the mass slaughter of over 11 million Jews, Christians, disabled people and other “undesirables.”

 

In reality Hitler insisted, “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”

 

 

What Brutal Hitler and Softer Modern Day Progressives Share in Common

 

Sounds an awful lot like today’s American church-state separatists. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, for example, held, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

 

Indeed, the ACLU’s promotional materials similarly advocate anti-Christian intolerance and mirror Hitler’s directive that, “Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” “The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” imagines the “American” so-called “civil liberties” union.

 

That’s viewpoint discrimination and it’s unconstitutional.

 

This is secular socialism in a nutshell. It’s a religion, and its devotees, be they Nazi Germans or American Leftists, are Communist Manifesto-thumping fundamentalists.

 

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity,” Hitler opined. “As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. … The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. … Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless.”

 

Indeed, Hitler’s robust anti-Christian hatred lives on beyond the death of the Third Reich. Modern-day progressives like Hillary Clinton, though, tend to take a kinder, gentler, more surreptitiously totalitarian approach: “Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee recently said in the context of some phantom “right” to exterminate undesirable infants. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

 

Yikes. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

 

While Hitler was more direct, he nonetheless shared Hillary’s secular socialist vision: “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”

 

Sound familiar? Progressive “truth,” of course, invariably means Christian torment.

 

Hitler, borrowing from socialist icon Karl Marx, said that all Germans must “free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunized against the disease.” Marx, a hero to the secular socialist left, famously called religion, “the opium of the people.”

 

Hitler a Christian? No chance.

 

Anti-Semitism, Islam and a Dash of Darwin

 

Moreover, like the preponderance of today’s similarly anti-Semitic secular progressives, Hitler, too, was an apologist for Islam. As America’s own Dear Leader has done, Hitler partnered with Iran, present-day “Palestine” and other Islamist regimes in the shared goal of eliminating the Jews:

 

“The world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!” he fumed. “Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so!”

 

Hitler also parroted the godless ideology of modern atheists. Like so many of today’s secular progressives, he was an avowed materialist, neo-Darwinian evolutionist and hardhearted God-denier: “When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”

 

“Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity,” he said. “And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”

 

Two thousand years and still waiting.

 

And so Hitler endeavored to assist “natural selection” and, as he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “establish an evolutionary higher stage of being.” He placed his hope in Germany’s youth because they were “absolutely indifferent in the matters of religion.”

 

A beloved Hitler Youth marching song captured the Führer’s heart on matters of Christ and Christianity:

 

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

 

Today’s progressive “social justice” warriors are angling for a dystopian, Swastika-free repeat. Their hope, too, lies in the youth (witness the socialism-fueled anarchist insurgence occurring on college campuses nationwide).

 

Like then, progressive secular socialists endeavor to rule the world.

 

And “Christianity alone,” to update Hitler’s own words, will “prevent them from doing so.”

 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is author of “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity,” a columnist, a cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

________________________

American Left can be seen in Nazi History

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

________________________

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 

Copyright © 2016 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

The Truth about Separation of Church and State


1st Amendment

 

I have been several parts of a series entitled Disputing Separation Church/State (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). As of this writing I am up to Part Six and there is more to come. In doing the reading for these posts I came across a PDF designed as a brochure to dispute the Leftist influence that has move American Courts to stretch the interpretation of the First Amendment beyond the scope of its original intent. As I said I am still continuing my series on the subject; however below is an excellent to the point and relatively brief synopsis of reasons the present exploitation of the rule of law pertaining to the separation of Church and State is not a legal concept in the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/31/14

Please Support NCCR

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

The Truth about Separation of Church and State

Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the United States Constitution.

 

From PDF Brochure:

Alliance Defending Freedom

 

While the First Amendment clearly forbids the creation of a national denomination, it says nothing about the so-called “separation of church and state.”

 

§  The term “separation of church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, when he responded to their concerns about state involvement in religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression, but dealt with government’s interference in the public expression of faith.

 

 

§  It was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who first inserted the term “separation of church and state” into American jurisprudence in his majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). He wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

 

 

§  Black’s opinion was based on a previous misreading of Jefferson’s 1801 letter in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States (1878). Black also confused his history. In the opinion, he wrote that the Danbury letter was “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment.”

 

 

§  The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” No mention is made of a “wall between church and state.”

 

 

§  The true purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church, like the Church of England, or require that sectarian policy be forced on an individual state or on the federal government. While the amendment does recognize a “differentiation between church and the government, it does not mean that they could not cooperate with each other.”

 

 

§  In 2001, Daniel Dreisbach, Associate Professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University, wrote that Black was wrong to apply the term “separation of church and state” to the First Amendment. The danger of Black’s argument, according to Dreisbach, is that it gives constitutional reasons to “separate religion, religious values, and religious organizations from public life.” He continues: “If we can’t talk about religion in any meaningful way in public schools, religious citizens can’t communicate their faith in public life. [The public square] must be ‘sanitized’ of religious messages, and we are left with a strictly secular public life.”

 

 

§  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, along with other groups hostile to religious freedom, have used Black’s wording to:

 

o   Deny churches the right to rent public school facilities for Sunday worship services.

 

o   Have public displays of the Ten Commandments removed from public buildings.

 

o   Prohibit students from praying at graduation ceremonies or football games.

 

o   Threaten fixed income housing project residents with eviction for displaying signs about prayer in their apartment windows.

 

o   Tell an eight-year-old girl that she cannot pass out handmade Valentines that read “Jesus Loves You.”

 

o   Tell pastors that they do not have the right to speak freely from their pulpits applying Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections.

 

 

§  In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ruling in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments, wrote: “The ACLU’s argument contains…fundamental flaws… [It] makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

 

 

For almost four decades, the ACLU’s distortion of the “separation of church and state” went nearly unchallenged. Since 1994, Alliance Defending Freedom has taken the ACLU and its allies head-on to expose this distortion and restore the original intent of U.S. Constitution with regard to religious freedom. Since its inception, Alliance Defending Freedom has helped to win many groundbreaking cases in defense of religious freedom and expression. The result is that the so-called “wall of separation,” erected by Hugo Black and others, is slowly starting to crumble. With your prayers and support, Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to tear down the “wall of separation.”

_______________________________

About – ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: FOR FAITH. FOR JUSTICE.

 

Alliance Defending Freedom is a servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.

 

Recognizing the need for a strong, coordinated legal defense against growing attacks on religious freedom, more than 30 prominent Christian leaders launched Alliance Defending Freedom in 1994. Over the past 18 years, this unique legal ministry has brought together thousands of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations that work tirelessly to advocate for the right of people to freely live out their faith in America and around the world.

 

Building an Alliance for Victory

 

Unlike any other legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to empower its allies and READ THE REST

The New Marxist Infiltration


Taking USA back from Hammer-Sickle-Swastika

John R. Houk

© April 1, 2013

 

There was a time in America that being a Communist or Marxist sympathizer was an expression of un-American treason. Senator Joseph McCarthy was initially looked upon as an American hero for exposing Soviet-Communism in the U.S. government. After McCarthy’s vigilance began to spill-over into the First Amendment protected Right to believe in Marxist ideology outside of the direct manipulation of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then Liberal Democrats and Center-Left Republican began an agenda to smear the character and agenda of Senator Joe McCarthy. McCarthy was publically transformed from an American hero into an American witch hunter. Witch hunting of course is viewed as a profession of creating lies to convict people of crimes that really do not exist.

 

For example in the ‘real world’ there is no such thing as witches with supernatural powers to wiggle their noses and speak a few Latin words and create some evil ex nihilo. McCarthy’s agenda was painted as finding Communist spies ex nihilo from influential people that believed in the principles of Karl Marx or flirted with the idea Communist utopianism in their youth out of a dissatisfaction of a Free Market society favoring the opportunity of individuals utilizing hard work for prosperity while the less entrepreneurial and oft time poor people seemed stuck in lower income working class misery.

 

In defense of a Free Market society that experiences the Liberty guaranteed with a Bill of Rights; whether there is Marxist society or a Free Market society there will always be people stuck in low income working class situations. The reality is the low income people in a Free Market society usually have a better life than the Liberty-Less low income people of a Marxist-Socialist society. The innovative prosperity of the few more often provides a better income for the poor in a Free Market world than for the income of the poor in a Marxist-Socialist world.  Scarcity reigns for the poor of Marxist-Socialism and abundance reigns for the poor of Free Market Capitalism.

 

Painting McCarthy as a Communist witch hunter was the beginning of the slow acceptance of stealth Marxism in American society. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU – See Also HERE and HERE) used their Marxist sympathies to aid in the eradication of Christian morals in America which has paved the way to removing prayer from schools, making abortion-murder on demand as a birth control method normal, validating ungodly homosexuality as normal rather than as an abomination toward God, using the tax code to prevent Ministers of the Gospel from endorsing godly political candidates for Office and now the pervasive anti-Christian of entrenched Liberals has emboldened more attacks on Christianity in America.

 

Prayer at public sports events (as in Public Schools and Colleges) or City Council meetings is being attacked with the threat of litigation that Public Schools and small to medium sized cities cannot afford to litigate. In these cases Marxist ideals are infused into our Free Market society ironically because the financial clout of Leftist-minded organizations and individuals can out-fund the local Public Schools or the Local Governments. It is the use of the Free Market to destroy the Free Market Liberty society.

 

It is time to publicly rehabilitate the image of Joe McCarthy where he was correct and to criticize him where he was incorrect on a First Amendment basis. It was evil for the old Soviet Union to infiltrate our government to bring down the U.S. Constitutional government from within. It was wrong for McCarthy to brand people as a threat to the nation because of a mere belief in Marxism. As much as Marxism is against the Liberty principles of initiated by America’s Founding Fathers, it is a First Amendment Right to believe in Marxist principles.

 

And yet when dedicated Marxists utilize Liberty to terminate Liberty via deception to purposefully eradicate the Constitution, we who still believe in Liberty must begin to take a stand even if Marxists have convinced society it is politically incorrect to take public stands that contradict stealth Marxist principles.

 

For example preventing Christianity influencing government is our Constitutional Right. Marxists may take the words of Thomas Jefferson that he wrote to Danbury Baptists that the government has no Right to enfranchise or disenfranchise a Church in the Federal Government; those words are not in the Constitution. Not only that, but Jefferson was not one of the principle framers of the Constitution.

 

Another example is the use of a Left-minded Judiciary to redefine the Constitution as a Living parchment in which it can be interpreted according to what the Left find culturally relevant in the present. This kind of Judicial fiat creates Law unconstitutionally. The Constitution that frames the three branches of government that exist with checks and balances under the concept that not any government branch has absolute power limits the Judiciary to only interpreting Law and NOT Bench-Legislating Law.

 

The Constitution insures that a duly elected Congress and the sovereign States make the Law with the President signing off or vetoing legislation and with the duly elected Congress having the expanded privilege to override a Presidential veto. The sovereign State’s Right in this Constitutional process is the required percentage to ratify Constitutional Amendments that Amends a section of the Constitution or adds to the Constitution. In which the Judiciary has no power to terminate a State approved Amendment.

 

Marxist utopians such as our President Obama and the Dems intend to use the Living Constitution deception to terminate portions of the Constitution and current Amendments to mean something not Originally Intended (See Also HERE) as the Law.

 

And this is where the accusation that our President is a Manchurian Candidate comes into play:

 

The Manchurian Candidate (1959), by Richard Condon, is a political thriller novel about the son of a prominent US political family who is brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for a Communist conspiracy.

 

The novel has been adapted twice into a feature film by the same title, in 1962 and again in 2004. (Wikipedia)

 

I am not such a Conspiracy Theorist that I believe President Obama is a brainwashed individual from a Communist nation. The international vision of Soviet-Communism collapsed at the dissolution of the USSR into separate sovereign nations shedding off the hegemony of a Russian dominated Communist government. The only other Communist Super Power that still exists is more interested in its National Interests that the global domination of Maoist-Marxist world. The People’s Republic of China (Red China) is interested in regional hegemony and confronting other powers that may conflict with those regional National Interests. For Red China that may include a wary eye on Russia as much as on the USA. It is only when Russia’s and China’s National Interest intersect in keeping the USA at bay do Russia and China appear as friends against the USA.

 

I am such a Conspiracy Theorist that President Obama is involved in some sort of nefarious Marxism to change American culture to seem closer to Marxist utopianism rather than our Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness based on a combination of Christian Morality and Greco-Roman political thought.

 

Whether or not Obama’s Marxist-Socialist utopianism is based on the individual precepts he developed from the Marxist influence of family and mentors OR from a network of stealth Marxist Global Elitists is something I cannot put my finger on. Whether Obama’s change agenda is individual or networked is irrelevant. That which is relevant is Obama has a Gramsci-like agenda to transform America away from its roots into a Communist utopia in the near future or to create a foundation for future Marxist-Elitist to build on.

 

That is what makes President Barack Hussein Obama a Manchuria Candidate.

 

VIDEO: The Manchurian President

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is an article by Kris Zane found at Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) entitled – you got it – The Manchurian Candidate.

 

JRH 4/1/13

Please Support NCCR

TiZA Joins Muslim Mafia?


Tarik ibn Zehad Gibraltar PD Sterling

John R. Houk

© October 20, 2010

 

The term Muslim Mafia (SA HERE) has been an appellation associated with CAIR by authors Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry. The term Muslim Mafia in actuality can refer to numerous Muslim-American organizations that have deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or other Salafi-like Muslims either in the USA or exerting theopolitical ideology from a foreign nation.

 

Some of these Salafi or what many would call radical Islamic ties has extended to Muslim enclaves and schools in America. And when I say school I mean Public School utilizing taxpayer funds to educate K-12 students to drill the tenets of radical Islam into young minds.

 

One such case is a Muslim Charter School in Minnesota called Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA). ACT for America has sent an email that is facilitating information of the Islamist nature of a Public School receiving taxpayer funds. TiZA has become so abusive in its secrecy that it is utilizing Lawfare and thuggery threats to keep the public from knowing that the Islamic religion is part of the curriculum of the school. The thought behind the TiZA Public School is to provide an environment of Middle Eastern Culture influenced by Islam to students that either have roots to the Middle East or are foreign students from an Islamic Culture. That premise is crazy enough since it is NOT conducive to assimilation to American Culture. The crime is TiZA’s infusion of Islamic religious practice (probably Islamist) on the public dime. AND here is the amazing tidbit of information: The TiZA mafia has angered the deep pockets of the ACLU!

 

The very name of the school should give pause to Americans. TiZA was named after its namesake (which many variations of spelling). Tarek (Tariq) ibn Ziyad invades Christian Spain in 711 AD. Ibn Ziyad’s victory over Visigothic ruler King Roderick spelled the beginning of brutal and humiliating oppression Spanish Christians under Islamic rule. It is kind of like naming a Public School in American culture Benedict Arnold High School.

 

Read the ACT for America email below.

 

JRH 10/20/10

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

A Must-Read: TiZA intimidation tactics

Taxpayer-funded charter school even fighting the ACLU

 

Sent by: ACT for America’

Sent: 10/19/2010 11:58 AM

 

In early 2008 journalist Katherine Kersten broke a story about suspected inappropriate Islamic activities in a public, taxpayer-funded charter school, the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA).

 

When ACT! for America learned of this we swung into action. Chapter leaders contacted local and state officials. Letters to the editor were sent to newspapers. Guy Rodgers, ACT! for America Executive Director, talked with an official at the Minnesota Department of Education (MDOE) regarding a possible investigation.

 

MDOE did launch an investigation, and cited TiZA for two violations of law. During that time, a TiZA official assaulted a news cameraman.

 

Then the ACLU sued TiZA, alleging improper religious activity at a public school.

 

Not surprisingly, as Kersten reports below (highlights added), TiZA is engaging in intimidation and non-compliance tactics to prevent exposure of what it has been doing behind the closed doors of its school—a public school, paid for with tax dollars!!!

___________________________

Katherine Kersten: TiZA vs. the search for truth

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/105067899.html?page=3&c=y

 

The battle over the role of Islam in a Minnesota public school is heating up again in a federal courtroom in St. Paul. The conflict began in January 2009, when the ACLU of Minnesota sued Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy — a K-8 charter school with campuses in Inver Grove Heights and Blaine — for violating constitutional prohibitions against government endorsement of religion.

TiZA since has fought tooth and nail — erecting procedural barriers to prevent the ACLU from investigating what goes on behind its doors. The school’s tactics have gone far beyond the usual rough-and-tumble of lawyers in our adversary system. Its chief tool has been attempted intimidation of all who would draw back the curtain on its secrets.

 

One of TiZA’s first targets was the ACLU itself. A few months after the suit began, the school filed a $100,000-plus defamation claim, citing ACLU executive director Chuck Samuelson’s simple statement that “[TiZA is] a theocratic school … as plain as the substantial nose on my face.” The court dismissed the claim.

 

In January 2010, the ACLU was back in court to seek a protective order, on grounds that intimidation by TiZA was discouraging potential witnesses from appearing. The ACLU filed affidavits by a former TiZA parent and a former TiZA staff member, who described what they interpreted as threats of violence against them. In her affidavit, the female staff member said that Asad Zaman — TiZA’s executive director — had suggested after she displeased him: “We could just kill you, yeah tell your husband we’ll do his job for him.” (Zaman has no recollection of making such a statement, he said in an affidavit.) The court barred witness harassment or intimidation by either party.

 

In June 2010, the ACLU returned to court to quash what it described as yet another TiZA attempt to intimidate current and former employees from speaking about what they had seen at the public school. TiZA’s “Staff Handbooks include a secrecy clause, and related threat of legal action for violating it,” according to the ACLU’s court filings. TiZA “wields [these provisions] as a sledgehammer to keep former employees quiet about what they saw at the school.” As a result, “former TiZA employees have expressed fear about speaking to the ACLU.”

 

According to the ACLU, TiZA’s refusal to agree not to enforce the secrecy clause “sends the ominous signal that current and former employees who talk to the ACLU may be forced to defend themselves against a baseless, expensive lawsuit.”

 

On Oct. 1, Judge Donovan Frank agreed — affirming an order the ACLU had earlier won barring TiZA from enforcing the confidentiality clause in the context of this litigation.

The court’s order and memorandum spoke volumes: “It appears that information related to TiZA’s business, finances, operations and office procedures is public data and cannot be kept secret.” “The relevant question … is why TiZA, a public charter school, does not want to allow its former and current employees to participate in the informal discovery process to ascertain the truth about how TiZA operates.”

 

The court’s strong language in response to TiZA’s actions was unusual: “[I]ntimidation and threats will not sit well with a fact-finder such as a jury.” As a result of the school’s actions, “[T]he Court may be required to draw adverse inferences about how TiZA operates as a result of TiZA’s efforts to keep information about its operations secret. … [TiZA’s] behavior during the discovery process thus far … has not been consistent with a good faith search for the truth.”

 

The ACLU has characterized TiZA’s recent actions regarding the secrecy clause as “only the last in a long line of intimidation efforts.” Not quite. Last month, an attack was launched from a different front.

 

Several organizations that are not even parties to the lawsuit went to court in an attempt to disqualify the ACLU’s lawyers — Dorsey & Whitney — from representing the ACLU on grounds that Dorsey personnel had previously communicated with Zaman about entities involved in the litigation. The organizations include the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN), MAS-MN Property Holding Corporation and the Minnesota Education Trust (MET).

 

What might they fear? Perhaps that Dorsey lawyers are in a position to prove that the scandal thus far — and Zaman’s role in it — is just the tip of the iceberg. Dorsey lawyers had this to say in a Sept. 10 letter filed with the court:

 

“The ACLU believes Mr. Zaman’s testimony relating to control of virtually every significant event at TiZA, MAS-MN, MET and MET’s subsidiaries, coupled with his efforts to hide such control, constitute powerful evidence against TiZA’s denials that it is a Muslim school and that it funnels state and federal money to other Muslim organizations.”

 

Every time we read about this lawsuit, we have to pinch ourselves and say: We’re talking about a public, taxpayer-funded school.

Katherine Kersten is a Twin Cities writer and speaker.

____________________

TiZA Joins Muslim Mafia?

John R. Houk

© October 20, 2010

___________________

A Must-Read: TiZA intimidation tactics

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.