Wednesday, November 13, 2013

ACLU Honors CAIR with Libertarian Award...

The FBI stopped outreach to CAIR “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support terrorist ideologies.”

Tue, November 12, 2013
CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation, another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas. The FBI officially ended its connection to CAIR as an outreach partner in order to “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support extremist or terrorist ideologies.”
A recent Facebook announcement by CAIR-National boasts that the Washington chapters of CAIR and the ACLU succeeded in having advertisements on buses removed that “stigmatized Muslims as terrorists.”
The ads were funded by the State Department to promote rewards for finding wanted terrorists. CAIR-WA was offended that the majority of the most wanted terrorists are Muslims.
The executive director of CAIR’s Washington chapter is Arsalan Bukhari. He and other CAIR officials have inhibited FBI investigations into terrorist recruitment, enraging other Muslim leaders.

Documenting Sodom...


And God said to Abraham that they shall be destroyed for they have become wicked, evil and degenerates... They are Godless, Childless, Fatherless, Motherless bastards who pride themeless in their shame and celebrate their sins...












Hear! Hear!

Laws Of a Nation...




Colorodo's Gov. Grants for Progressive Causes...

Tax Payer Funded Destruction of America...


Florida Sunset...




You Sleep Mom, I'll Protect You...



Monday, November 11, 2013

You Will Be Judged in HOW YOU TREAT YOUR TROOPS...




We Can Never Thank You Enough...

God Bless all the Veterans and Their Families...


Last Friday Greeks Stop A Ship of Over 20,000 AK47, ammo, explosive...


Greek coastguard commandeer cargo vessel, find 20,000 assault rifles

November 10, 2013.



AK-47_Assault_Rifle

The Sierra Leone-flagged MV Nour M was detained in Greek waters on Friday. The 75-metre cargo is said to be a Lebanese general cargo vessel which left the Ukraine on October 25th. It made a stop in Istanbul on October 30th and remained there until November 3. There is some question as to what the ship did in the period it took to get from the Ukraine to Istanbul. For a ship of that class, it should have taken 30-40 hours to make the voyage. Instead, it took the Nour M 5 days.  Once it left Turkey, its stated destination was Libya. Onboard, Greek authorities found 20,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, and “significant quantities” of ammunition and  high explosives. The media is speculating that the shipment was on its way to Syria.

So, the question becomes what was the planned destination of the weapons. 20,000 assault rifles along with ammo and explosives would cause a significant amount of chaos no matter where they ended up. In Syria, it could significantly boost the ability of the rebels to launch attacks on government held areas of the country. However, the ship is Lebanese and had left the Ukraine. That would lead one to believe that it would not have gone to the rebels if it had a destination of Syria. Also, it seems unlikely that if it were to go to bolster the rebels who are in turn being supported by Turkey that Greek authorities would have been tipped off to stop the vessel. On the other hand, if it was meant for the Syrian government there are safer and more direct means of transport.

There is also the chance that it was bound for Libya or even Egypt; but again there are conflicting forces involved. Ultimately the shipment was supposed to go somewhere and would have been a major factor in one of the many conflicts currently afflicting the Middle East. This shipment and its ultimate confiscation is a part of a much bigger story and needs to be watched closely.


Autumn in New Hampshire....


Sunday, November 10, 2013

How A Free Country Survives...




There is No Statue of limitation on murder, Abortionists may want to keep that in mind...




Islam in Our Pentagon...

Few things is troubling more than this... Truly Dangerous... But Prophesied....



Exposing The War On Christian Soldiers...


(Video) The Threat to Religious Freedom of Christians in the MilitaryShare on email

In the video below, members of our Armed Forces speak out about the culture of fear and intimidation in the US military that is forcing Christian soldiers to hide their faith.

This is happening despite the fact that, since its inception, America has been considered a Christian Nation.

The overwhelming percentage of the men and women who currently serve in our Armed Forces are Christian. And an overwhelming percentage of those who have died in defense of our country were Christian.  

The attacks on Christianity in the military have caused the Bible to be banned from military hospitalschaplains to be deemed non-essentialprayer to be banned from military funeralsand soldiers to be dismissed for voicing their Christian beliefs about homosexual marriage. For a more exhaustive list of attacks on the religious freedom of Christians click here (prepared by the Family Research Council)

The attack on the religious freedom of Christians in the military is a warning for us all of what is coming if we do not stop it now. 

Join the battle.

Share their story. 

If you are a member of the Armed Forces and believe that your right to religious freedom as a Christian has been violated click here to complete the legal help request form or call the Thomas More Law Center at 734-827-2001. 




Video Provided to The Thomas More Law Center Courtesy of Family Research Council

Player not working? Click here to see the video.
http://www.thomasmore.org/news/video-the-threat-religious-freedom-christians-the-military

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Monday, November 4, 2013

"Yes, Liberals Are The Victims Here..."

Is the Tea Party all about Alger Hiss?



By Walter Russell Mead

Unde malum et quare? Where does evil come from and why does it exist? That has always been one of the big questions; over at Bloomberg News, former White House macher and Samantha Power super-spouse Cass Sunstein says he’s solved at least one part of the riddle: he’s figured out the from whence and why of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is a huge intellectual problem for blue model liberals. It sprang up out of nowhere, it lacks a formal leadership structure, and despite many obituaries in the MSM, it remains a significant force in the Republican Party and in American politics as a whole. It is everything Occupy Wall Street hoped to become, and the MSM did everything possible to make OWS flourish. It was hailed as a movement of historic impact, the start of a global trend, one of those epochal developments after which nothing will ever be the same—and it guttered out ignominiously.

The Tea Party, on the other hand, has flourished despite non-stop efforts to smother it in the media. While its record is mixed and, from a Democratic point of view not all bad (arguably, without unqualified Tea Party-backed candidates, the GOP would now have control of the Senate), its persistence annoys. It is almost as if the MSM’s power to shape American politics is on the wane.

Professor Sunstein (he teaches at Harvard Law) has a theory, though, about where the Tea Party comes from. It all goes back to Alger Hiss, a State Department official under Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. After playing an important role in US policy in the Middle East and East Asia, he chaired the international committee that established the United Nations. On leaving the government in 1946 he went on to head the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, then as now one of the most respected institutions of the foreign policy establishment.

Sunstein tells what happened next:

In his 1948 testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Whittaker Chambers, a writer and editor for Time magazine and a former Communist, identified Hiss as a Communist. Hiss adamantly denied the charge. He said he didn’t know anyone named Whittaker Chambers. Encountering his accuser in person, Hiss spoke directly to him: “May I say for the record at this point that I would like to invite Mr. Whittaker Chambers to make those same statements out of the presence of this committee without their being privileged for suit for libel?”

Chambers took Hiss’s bait. In an interview on national television, Chambers repeated his charges. In response to the libel suit, he produced stolen State Department documents and notes that seemed to establish not merely that Hiss was a Communist, but that he had spied for the Soviet Union. Hiss was convicted of perjury.

The conviction was stunning, for Hiss had been a member of the nation’s liberal elite. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a law clerk for the revered Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he held positions of authority in the Agriculture, Justice and State departments. He was tall, handsome, elegant, gracious, even dashing.

So how do we get from a perjurious traitor and his apologists to the Tea Party?

Well, for one thing, the liberal establishment stood by its man. Again, Professor Sunstein:

At his 1949 perjury trial, an extraordinary number of liberal icons served as character witnesses for Hiss, including two Supreme Court justices (Stanley Reed and Felix Frankfurter); John W. Davis, who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1924; and Adlai Stevenson, who was to become the Democratic nominee for the presidency in 1952 and 1956.

But the real problem, says Sunstein, wasn’t that the liberal establishment was too clueless and too self-protected to recognize a dangerous traitor in its midst. It was that Hiss’s accuser, Whittaker Chambers, was “polarizing.” Here’s how Sunstein closes:

Chambers’ broader charge — that liberalism was a species of socialism, “inching its ice cap over the nation” — polarized the nation. His attack on the patriotism of the Ivy League elite reflected an important strand in American culture, and it helped to initiate suspicions that persist to this day.

Liberals are no longer much interested in Hiss’s conviction, yet they are puzzled, and rightly object, when they are accused of holding positions that they abhor. We can’t easily understand those accusations, contemporary conservative thought or the influence of the Tea Party without appreciating the enduring impact of the Hiss case.

This is a surprisingly lame ending to the piece. After all, if Chambers’ attack on the Ivy League “reflected an important strand in American culture,” then the Tea Party must have deeper roots than one half-forgotten cause cĂ©lĂšbre. It’s also not clear what he means by the reference to false accusations against liberals for holding positions that they abhor. Is that what Sunstein thinks the Tea Party is about? That if those unfortunate and paranoid folks understood liberals better, they would oppose them less?

There are some tinfoil hat types out there who think that President Obama and his cohorts are hiding Qu’rans in the White House and looking to introduce both socialism and Sharia as soon as they can. Nut jobs on both the left and the right and all kinds of cranky positions in between are an enduring part of American politics. But if Sunstein thinks that this is the energy that powers the Tea Party, he is very far from understanding either this phenomenon or American politics as a whole.

The Tea Party is mostly something much more conventional: a libertarian, small government protest against the centralization of federal power, and a populist resentment of snooty Ivy League professors who think the common people aren’t very smart. We’ve had these movements in America ever since colonial times; when Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams’ re-election bid in 1828, the 19th century forerunners of the Tea Party were in full cry.

We aren’t seeing a right-leaning populist surge today because of Alger Hiss; we are seeing it because many Americans believe that President Obama’s liberal and technocratic agenda represents a threat to a way of life they value. We are seeing it because many Americans blame the establishment of both parties both for the financial crisis and for the vast transfer of resources to the wealthy that came after the crash. We are seeing it because whether you look at foreign or domestic policy, the technocratic suggestions of the Great and the Good have not been helping ordinary Americans much for the last 20 years. 

Via Meadia isn’t a Tea Party house organ, and any tea parties at the stately Mead manor are more about Earl Grey than Ayn Rand. But we don’t think Tea Partiers are wrong to see President Obama’s political goals as fundamentally opposed to their own vision of what America should be. They aren’t angry because they are stupid, and deep disagreement with technocratic liberalism is not a mental disease.

Some zealous Tea Partiers put two and two together and get eight, giving the Obama administration and its liberal backers credit for more foresight and cunning than they possess. There were those in 1800 who thought that John Adams was planning to introduce a monarchy into the United States. There were those on the right who thought that Franklin Roosevelt was a socialist; there were those on the left who thought Ronald Reagan was a fascist and that Margaret Thatcher hated poor people. But to confound a major current of American politics with the lunatic fringe is not a recipe for healing the nation or even for helping your side put some points on the board. There are birthers in the Tea Party, but the Tea Party is not the voice of birtherism.

But Professor Sunstein does have a point. The Hiss case was not a cause of the Tea Party, or even of the anti-intellectual tradition in American politics that Richard Hofstader analyzed in the early 1960s. It was, however, a prominent manifestation of the class snobbery and intolerance that so often shapes elite liberal responses to political events and that so frequently fills so many Americans with loathing and disgust.

For a generation after Alger Hiss was convicted on two counts of perjury, American liberals went on to defend him as a plumed knight and a martyr. They slimed his accusers as knuckle dragging know-nothings and McCarthyite enemies of freedom. They never forgave Richard Nixon for helping Whittaker Chambers. As the evidence against Hiss mounted, they fought a long rear-guard defense. Even today, Cass Sunstein doesn’t quite come out with the ugly truth. Instead he gives us a mealy-mouthed formulation:

Most of those who have carefully studied the case, and who have explored evidence emerging long after the trial itself, have concluded that Chambers was telling the truth and that Hiss did indeed perjure himself.
  
No, as Sunstein says,

Liberals are no longer much interested in Hiss’s conviction, yet they are puzzled, and rightly object, when they are accused of holding positions that they abhor.

Yes, liberals are the victims here. After decades of vicious invective and bile-spewing, liberals find the whole Hiss subject dull and don’t want to think about the case anymore—but they just hate it when other people don’t appreciate their selfless dedication to the public good.

Over the years more and more liberals quietly reached the conclusion that Hiss was a perjurer and a traitor; John Kenneth Galbraith once told me that he thought that Hiss was guilty—though he still stood up for Harry Dexter White, another highly placed Stalinist mole of the era. But liberalism as a movement never really came to grips with the foolishness and ugliness of liberal behavior in the Hiss Affair. Even today it is rare to hear serious liberals asking just what it was that made so many prominent liberals so blind to the possibility that there were spies and traitors in their ranks. We haven’t had a good history—by a liberal—about the nastiness of the liberal response in the case and the class prejudice and ideological blindness that it laid so distressingly bare.

Liberal apologists for Hiss do bear some significant responsibility for the virulent anti-Communism of Joseph McCarthy and his ilk. Seeing so many powerful liberals defend an obvious traitor and deny the possibility that Communists were active in the FDR and Truman administrations drove many people to embrace McCarthy and other overzealous investigators. Blacklists and anti-Communist hysteria (as opposed to rational and necessary anti-Communist vigilance) must be laid in part at the door of the vain and feckless liberals who let the country down in a critical time.

If Professor Sunstein is hoping to launch a broader conversation among liberals about ways their own missteps have contributed to American polarization, then I certainly wish him the best. But it’s important to remember that the kind of behavior so painfully on display in the Hiss era is still with us today; it was not all that long ago that those who doubted that President Obama’s plans for humanitarian intervention in Syria constituted a masterful plan for ending the mass death were dismissed as raving loons and partisan hacks.


Related:



Reat Read... Thanks MO...

On Our Way To Sodom...




Louisiana Police Stun Father as the sons dies in the House Fire..

Sunday, November 3, 2013

In some US cities, expressing Christian beliefs can get you on the wrong side of the govement...


US Government's Massive Crush of Religious Freedom



Yup, it is now illegal in some parts of America to openly express Christian beliefs. 
On Miami’s Metrorail, 82-year-old Emma Anderson was forcibly removed at Brickwell Station by a security guard.
According to a lawsuit, the guard accused her of “publicly singing spiritual hymns.”

The case is just one of hundreds referenced in a newly updated report by legal experts with the Texas-based Liberty Institute. The non-profit legal advocacy group says the evidence shows the U.S. government is steadily advancing an agenda to replace the “Creator”  in the Declaration of Independence with itself.He insisted that public singing, dancing and playing music without a permit is against the Miami-Dade Transit rules.
Liberty Institute says the report documents more than 1,200 cases of attacks by the government on the right to free expression of religion through rules, regulations, laws and precedents.
The report,“Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America,” recently was updated for 2013, following its initial release in 2012.
“The Founders called ‘free exercise’ of religion, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution, our ‘First Freedom,’” the report says. “They regarded the right of everyday people to express open allegiance to the Creator as a safeguard against government attacks on any rights given by that Creator.”
But what would happen if “open and widespread expression of religious freedom – in government, schools, work¬places, the military, public places, and more – is eliminated, driven into the shadows of society?”
“What if religion becomes an opinion only to be expressed privately in your home or quietly in your church, if at all? What if religious liberty becomes a poor, subservient tenant of an arbitrary and imperious government landlord?” the report asks.
“If that occurs, then government can erase any of your rights as it sees fit, since government, not the ‘Creator’ cited by the Founders, will be regarded as the ultimate definer, giver or taker of all rights,” the report says.
The report is a joint effort of the Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council, which a year ago was the target of a now-convicted domestic terrorist who declared he wanted to kill as many people as he could.
Floyd Lee Corkins told investigators that he got the idea of targeting FRC from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which routinely labels organizations that support traditional marriage instead as hate organizations.
The report divides the hundreds of pages of documentation about attacks on religious freedom in America into three categories: attacks in the public arena, in schools and against churches and other religious groups.
Among the current high-profile battles is the dispute over Obamacare’s demand that employers pay for abortifacients and workers pay for abortion services, even if they have a religious objection to killing unborn children.
The report says there also are prohibitions on veterans’ memorials, displays of the Ten Commandments and public invocations, such as the pastor who was told he was not allowed to pray “in Jesus’ name” at a Memorial Day event.
Cheerleaders were barred from putting Bible verses on banners at football games, a third-grader was told he could not include a religious message along with goodies he was handing out to classmates, and a student wasn’t allowed to say “Jesus” when asked what Easter meant.
A church in Holly Springs, Miss., had to fight opposition from city officials to plans for a new building.
But the report says “there is hope.”
“While [the report] shows that attacks on religious liberty are dramatically increase in the United States, both in the frequency and in the severity of the attacks, this survey also shows that those persons and organizations, like Liberty Institute, that stand up for religious liberty win when they fight,” the report says.
“When those who value religious liberty actively engage the cultural and legal battle against secularism, they push back the secularists’ agenda,” it says.
While the “tidal wave” of anti-religious activism is surging, there “is still time to turn back this tide.”
“In fact, there is encouraging evidence that we can do so if we choose. Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council have joined forces to boldly defend and restore religious liberty in America. This includes opposing and exposing the escalating efforts by activist organizations and government bureaucrats to redefine and regulate religious freedom as conceived by America’s Founders. From the local district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court to the halls of Congress and state legislatures, we will face each challenge headon to protect our most precious liberty – our freedom of religion.”
A long list
The 82-year-old Anderson filed a lawsuit to recover for battery, assault and negligence. She also sought an order protecting the rights of future passengers.
Additional egregious actions, according to the report, included park rangers ordering a woman to stop handing out Bibles at a farmer’s market “on federal property.”
The governor of Kentucky vetoed a bill to protect sincere religious believers against government overreach and coercion.
The report says: “Opponents vilified religious believers by spreading offensive and invidious message. A gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy group labeled religious protections an ‘endorsement of discrimination,’ placing ‘women, children, people of color and all Kentuckians’ at risk. Similarly, the governor publicly expressed worry that protecting religious believers from governmental coercion may ‘threaten public safety, health care and individuals’ civil rights.’”
In Tempe, Ariz., a Romanian immigrant was arrested for peacefully distributing Christian tracts to passsersby on the sidewalk.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered a shelter in Evansville, Ill., to prohibit people from participating in voluntary prayer before meals.
“The prayers were open to all and were not mandatory. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, demanded that UCS stop the prayers or stop accepting federal assistance to feed the homeless. The UCS now permits only a moment of silence before meals.”
Among the other cases in the report:
  •      A pastor in New York won the right to hold a Bible study in community center that had banned “religious” events.
  •      A church in Dallas was ejected from an empty high school where it had been holding Sunday services, even they the church had a valid lease.
  •      The city of Plano, Texas, tried to prevent Willow Creek Fellowship Church from opening because of the angle of the roof of its church building.
  •      An Ohio library ordered a Christian group not to meet there to talk about traditional marriage, unless advocates for homosexuality were also present.
  •      An African-American church in Texas was billed for property taxes after its building burned down. The assessor’s argument was that members no longer could meet on the property, so it no longer was tax-exempt.
  •      The NFL threatened churches showing the Super Bowl on their big screen televisions.
  •      A church in Brookville, Pa., was fined for opening its parsonage to three homeless men to live there.
  •      A minister’s invitation to the National Prayer Luncheon was revoked because he was critical of open homosexuality in the military.
  •      The city of Cheyenne, Wy., denied permission for a non-profit organization to run a daycare center.
  •      An Alabama student was ordered not to wear a cross necklace, and a valedictorian in Iowa was ordered to give a secular speech.

Friday, November 1, 2013

What of Mom don't you understand...


GRandma is that you. Can't be...

Germany working on a different internet to protect citizens from Spying...

NSA spying is leading to the nationalization of the Internet

October 28, 2013

NSA-parody-logo-black.tif
Deutsch Telecom, the biggest German telecom operator and Internet provider, is currently working on a “German Internet.” The company, which works closely with the German government, is working to create a buffered online zone for German citizens that protects them from spying by the NSA on the current Internet. One option being considered is for all German telecom operators to ensure that German Internet traffic is routed in such a way that it avoids all American servers. The move would slow down access speeds for German citizens but would still be functional. While there would be no protection for citizens that visited services hosted on servers outside of Germany such as Facebook and Google, it shows just how upset some nations are over the continuing revelations of NSA spying.

I think that all of this is going to lead for yet another renewed call for the Internet to be placed under the control of the United Nations. Germany is not the only country looking at the “balkanization” of the Internet. The free flow of information across the Internet has revolutionized the world. As nations peel off their own portions of control on the web, that free flow will be slowed or otherwise hindered. The “solution”, of course, will be to restore the openness of the Internet, just under the control of the United Nations. United Nations control, I’m sure, will be an Orwellian nightmare of political correctness regulations as the progressives of the world will have the perfect outlet to mold perception of reality and will have finally ended any freedom of speech outside their own.




Never Forget...