By: Peter Schiff
By: Peter Schiff
The Center For Medical Progress has been doing a yeoman’s job at getting out the information of what is really happening at Planned Parenthood and its abortion centers.
Where are these abortion centers or death mills located? Well, they are in the urban or inner city areas.
Just a little information about the creator of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. The woman was a racist and wanted to get rid of the “undesirables.” Who are the “undesirables?” They are the poor and miorities.
It is very evil what the Planned Parenthood people are doing with the selling and trafficing of baby body parts.
It is just as evil that the Mainstream/Old/Government Run media are not covering this story but it is understood as to why they do not. It does not fit the narrativ and the orthodoxy of said media.
By: Ken Blackwell
President Reagan went to West Berlin in 1987 and called upon Soviet Communist ruler Mikhail Gorbachev to “Tear Down this Wall.” The President was also working against a near-total blackout of Western media coverage of the Berlin Wall. As former PBS news anchor Robert MacNeil said at the Newseum in 2009, the only time mainstream reporters covered the Berlin Wall was when U.S. Presidents—JFK and Reagan—went there. Then they had to.
No wonder President Reagan also endorsed Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s first film of an actual abortion, Silent Scream.Because he believed in the power of truth, Reagan sent a copy of this powerful video to every congressional office.
Today, we have another Berlin Wall. It’s the wall that keeps the media from covering stories about Planned Parenthood’s activities. A series of sensational videos have been released by the investigative journalists at Center for Medical Progress (CMP). These videos clearly demonstrate that Planned Parenthood has been trafficking in the organs of unborn children after they have been killed. Hearts, lungs, livers. “It’s a boy,” says one of the abortionists as this slain child’s mutilated body is dissected on a lighted dish.
But Planned Parenthood tells frightened young women it’s only a “mass of tissue.” It’s only “products of conception.” Even their own abortionists know that’s a lie.
“We look forward to the facts coming out,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards to ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos. But does she? Is that why she hired a top flight PR firm to suppress media coverage of the scavenging of babies’ organs?
As the online source, The Federalist, notes, liberals are boasting about Planned Parenthood’s high priced PR flacks. These slick managers of the news will discourage media outlets “from airing the story.” Well, they have a lot of experience in suppressing the truth, don’t they?
But there are cracks appearing in the wall. What is Camille Paglia saying on Salon but “Tear Down this Wall”? She is an honest liberal. We need more people willing to stand up and speak out like this:
Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring it. Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials. But here’s my point: it is everyone’s obligation, whatever your political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to understand what is going on in the world.
What Camille Paglia probably does not know is the history of racism and eugenics that Margaret Sanger brought to her work at Planned Parenthood. As our Family Research Council colleague, Arina Grossu has written in the Washington Times, Planned Parenthoods founder Sanger was an early suppressor of the truth, she told her cohorts in 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
Why should Americans’ tax dollars go to paying slick PR firms that help suppress media coverage? Why should we be paying for abortionists who dissect the bodies of their victims? Federal law prohibits direct payment for the actual abortions, but skilful accountants could easily cover up the cold-blooded negotiation of fees for the organs of Planned Parenthood’s victims—as documented by CMP’s videos. They could label this encounter “staff training” or “continuing education” and get it paid for by unsuspecting American taxpayers. Why should we support an outfit that can afford to pay Cecile Richards’ $523,616 annual salary?
It’s time to stop funding this evil enterprise. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has a bill to do just that. Killing is not charity. And death is certainly not educational. Stop paying for Planned Parenthood’s lies now. Tear down their wall of silence.
There is big huge political news today. This news centers around the U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner.
It appears that at the end of the month or October, Boehner will retire from the Office he has inadequately manned (ha-ha) for the last two congressional terms.
He has done a piss-poor job as the leader of the House republicans. First and foremost, the constitution says that the House has the power of the purse which means that it has the ability to allot or not allot money to the federal government. There are several times in the last terms in the House where the republicans could have and should have used the the abilities which the constitution has granted to the House. We know the republicans are so gun shy that they would blamed for a government shut down. I have always said that the government should be shut down and that fear should not be there.
Boehner needed to go and so does Mitch McConnell.
By: Ann Coulter
To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent — but dearly hoped-for — Jeb! administration, live, during his show.
(Apparently my debate with O’Reilly will be conducted in my column, Twitter feed and current bestselling book, Adios, America, against the highest-rated show on cable news.)
Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they’re popping up on Fox News’ airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol.
Last Thursday’s job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo and David Rivkin.
In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years” — Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.”
Yes, Americans fought at Valley Forge to ensure that any illegal alien who breaks into our country and drops a baby would have full citizenship for that child! Why, when Washington crossed the Delaware, he actually was taking Lupe, a Mexican illegal, to a birthing center in Trenton, N.J.
If one were being a stickler, one might recall the two centuries during which the children of slaves were not deemed citizens despite being born here — in fact, despite their parents, their grandparents and their great-grandparents being born here.
Wouldn’t anyone who wasn’t applying for a job in the nonexistent, never-to-exist Jeb! administration remember slavery?
Incongruously, Yoo also said, “The text of the 14th Amendment is clear” about kids born to illegals being citizens.
Wait a minute! Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law — since “the founding of the republic”!
An impartial observer might contest whether the amendment is “clear” on that. “Clear” would be: All persons born in the United States are citizens.
What the amendment actually says is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The framers of the 14th Amendment weren’t putting a secret trap door in the Constitution for fun. The “jurisdiction thereof” and “state wherein they reside” language means something. (Ironically, Yoo — author of the Gitmo torture memo — was demonstrating that if you torture the words of the Constitution, you can get them to say anything.)
At least Rivkin didn’t go back to “the founding of the republic.” But he, too, claimed that the “original public meaning (of the 14th Amendment] which matters for those of us who are conservatives is clear”: to grant citizenship to any kid whose illegal alien mother managed to evade Border Patrol agents.
Whomever that was the “original public meaning” for, it sure wasn’t the Supreme Court.
To the contrary, the cases in the first few decades following the adoption of the 14th Amendment leave the strong impression that it had something to do with freed slaves, and freed slaves alone:
— Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873):
“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
— Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879):
“[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot.”
— Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880):
“The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted … to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States.”
— Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880) (majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the only dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson):
“The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color.”
— Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884):
“The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was … to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States … The evident meaning of (the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. … Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized …”
One has to leap forward 200 years from “the founding of the republic” to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982.
So to be precise, what Yoo means by the “founding of the republic,” and Rivkin means by “the original public meaning” of the 14th Amendment, is: “Brennan dicta from a 1982 opinion.”
Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a “constitutional” right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family. (Seventy-one percent of illegal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.)
But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Yoo and Rivkin aren’t stupid. It appears that the most significant part of their analysis was Yoo’s legal opinion: “I don’t think Trump is a Republican. I think actually he is ruining the Republican Party.” Please hire me, Jeb!! (or Rubio)!
O’Reilly could get more reliable constitutional analyses from Columba Bush than political lawyers dying to get back into government.
By: Walter E. Williams
Here’s my taxi question. If a person is law-abiding, has a driver’s license, has a car or van that has passed safety inspection, and has adequate liability insurance, is there any consumer-oriented reason he should not be able to become a taxicab owner/operator? Put another way: If you wish to hire the services of such a person, what right does a third party have to prevent that exchange?
Many cities have granted monopoly power to taxi companies — the right to prevent entry by others. Sometimes this monopoly takes the form of exclusive government-granted rights to particular individuals to provide taxi services. In other cases, the number of licenses is fixed, and a prospective taxi owner must purchase a license from an existing owner. In New York City, such a license is called a taxi medallion. Individual medallions have sold for as high as $700,000 and corporate medallions as high as $1 million. In other cities — such as Miami, Philadelphia, Chicago and Boston — taxi licenses have sold for anywhere between $300,000 and $700,000. These are prices for a license to own and operate a single vehicle as a taxi.
Where public utility commissions decide who will have the right to go into the taxi business, a prospective entrant must apply for a “certificate of public convenience and necessity.” Lawyers for the incumbent taxi owners, most often corporate owners or owner associations, appear at the hearing to argue that there is no necessity or public convenience that would be served by permitting a new entrant. Where medallions are sold, the person must have cash or the credit standing to be able to get a loan from a lender, such as the Medallion Financial Corp., that specializes in taxi medallion purchases. Medallion Financial Corp. has held as much as $520 million in loans for taxi medallions.
So what are the effects of taxi regulation? When a person must make the case for his entry before a public utility commission, who is likelier to win, a single individual with limited resources or incumbent taxi companies with corporate lawyers representing them? I’d put my money on the incumbent taxi companies being able to use the public utility commission to keep the wannabes out. Who is handicapped in the cases in which one has to purchase a $700,000 medallion in order to own and operate a taxi? If you answered “a person who doesn’t have $700,000 lying around or doesn’t have the credit to get a loan for $700,000,” go to the head of the class.
A natural question is: Who are the people least likely to be able to compete with corporate lawyers or have $700,000 lying around or have good enough credit to get such a loan? They are low- and moderate-income people and minorities. Many own cars and have the means to get into the taxi business and earn between $40,000 and $50,000 annually, but they can’t overcome the regulatory hurdle.
Enter Uber and Lyft, two ride-hailing services. Both companies use freelance contractors who provide rides with their own cars. The companies operate mobile applications that allow customers with smartphones to submit trip requests, which are then routed to Uber or Lyft drivers, who provide taxi-like services with their own cars. The legality of these companies has been challenged by taxi companies and politicians who do the bidding of established taxi companies. They allege that the use of drivers who are not licensed to drive taxicabs is unsafe and illegal.
Uber and Lyft drivers like the idea of working when they want to. Some have full-time jobs. Picking up passengers is an easy way to earn extra money. Everyone is happy about the arrangement except existing taxi companies and government officials who do their bidding. Taxi companies retain much of their monopoly because Uber and Lyft are prohibited from cruising. They are also prohibited from picking up passengers at most train stations and airports. But that monopoly may not last much longer. Let’s hope not.
By: Michelle Malkin
The most transparent administration in American history is at it again — dodging sunlight and evading public disclosure.
Joining former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her secret servers, former IRS witch hunt queen Lois Lerner and her secret email accounts, former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and her Internet alter egos, and former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and his non-public email account is White House science czar John Holdren.
President Obama’s top climate change adviser is defending his hide-and-seek game in federal court. Earlier this month, the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute appealed a D.C. district court ruling protecting Holdren’s personal email communications from Freedom of Information Act requests.
CEI argues that federal transparency law “applies to the work-related records of agency employees regardless of where they are stored. Many agencies routinely instruct their staff to preserve any such documents that they might have on their personal email accounts.” Yet, as head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Holdren has placed himself above the law and spirit of transparency that Obama fraudulently vowed to uphold.
“It makes little sense to claim that an agency is not ‘withholding’ documents when it refuses to produce documents held by its own chief executive that relate to ‘agency business,'” CEI’s legal brief rightly argues. “Even if OSTP had demonstrated that these emails were not within its actual control — which it did not — its failure to search its director’s personal account would still violate FOIA because any agency records in that account fall within the agency’s ‘constructive control.'”
The White House science czar’s private email account resides with his former employer, the Woods Hole Research Center. It’s a far-left eco-alarmist group that pushes radical anti-capitalist interventions (Remember “cap and trade”?) to eliminate the decades-long hyped “global climatic catastrophe.” Their ultimate goal? Establishing government rule by eco-technocrats who detest humanity.
To this day, Holdren has escaped questions about his freaky-deaky population-control agenda. Remember, this is the unrepentant sky-is-falling guru who joined fellow whack jobs Paul and Anne Ehrlich in co-authoring “Ecoscience,” a creepy tome that called for saving the planet by proposing that:
–Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not.
–The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or food.
–Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise.
–People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
–A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy obstinately refused to answer my questions for Holdren on his views about forced abortions and mass sterilizations or on his continued embrace of forced-abortion advocate and eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist. Holdren’s mentor likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”
These are not harmless dalliances of the past. Holdren’s insidious ideology — and his hidden policy communications — now have an untold impact on American taxpayers. He is the top strategist in Obama’s war on carbon, war on coal, war on the West and war on the economy. Holdren is the zealot “right at the heart” (as The New York Times put it) of devising White House climate change initiatives that reward environmental cronies, send electricity rates skyrocketing and kill jobs.
Who is Holdren conducting government business with, and what is he hiding from the public? What data is being doctored, what scientific evidence is being stonewalled in the name of rescuing the planet and consolidating power in the hands of the green elite? It’s time to turn up the heat.
By: David Limbaugh
We can acknowledge that Donald Trump’s popularity is partially related to his unapologetic defense of himself and his policies, but let’s examine why that is particularly appealing to his supporters and others. How did we get to this point?
Grass-roots conservatives believe that their policies can make America great again, that they can make Americans more secure and prosperous. Many of them still believe in traditional values, which are now in disrepute.
They are appalled at the systematic assault on their ideas in our public schools, our universities, the media and Hollywood. They are horrified by the attacks on their liberties. But they have not surrendered.
They see America disintegrating rapidly and little being done to stop it. They detect no sense of urgency from their elected representatives, and they wonder whether they are living in an alternate universe.
It’s true that the Republicans don’t control the executive branch, but that’s no excuse for always caving and giving sissified overtures of bipartisanship to an implacable bully president.
President Obama is a lawless renegade, flouting the Constitution and the rule of law and mocking his opponents as if they were the ones overreaching. But too often, Republicans sit on their hands, refusing to exercise their powers to stop him. Some even join in Obama’s condemnation of those few brave souls on our side who try to stop him.
It’s not just that they’re impotent to stop Obama. They routinely downplay his usurpations as if they’re just another day at the office. They forfeit their bully pulpit, forcing the grass roots to publicly oppose these outrages. You might call this a case of the tail wagging the dog, except that the dog, for all intents and purposes, is dead — by suicide.
Liberal Democrats have relentlessly pressed their case, placing their propaganda mouthpieces in our educational system and dominating Hollywood and the media with a monolithically radical message. Their ideas and values are so culturally dominant that those who disagree are too afraid of the PC thought police to voice their dissent publicly. Conservatives might still hold on to a slight majority, but we are no longer just a voluntarily silent one; we’re a self-muzzled one.
Why are so many good people afraid of their own shadow? Maybe the simplest explanation is that liberal propaganda has slowly succeeded in making conservatives look uncompassionate, racist, sexist and homophobic. It has even made Christians seem mean-spirited.
Liberals trade almost exclusively on identity politics, painting all Republicans and conservatives — except those who pander to them — as haters. Many are afraid to speak up because they know that no one would have their back. If they violated the guidelines of political correctness, they’d be excommunicated from polite society as knuckle-dragging ogres.
The irony is that liberal policies harm the people they purport to help. The welfare state has devastated the nuclear family, and black families have been hit the hardest. Their economic policies have devastated the workforce. Blacks have been hit the hardest. Their top-down education mandates serve the teachers unions but trap minority children in vastly inferior and dangerous inner-city schools. Their campaign against law enforcement and cops has turned our cities into war zones. Black youths are being hit the hardest. Their abandonment of border security and illegal grants of amnesty are putting us all at risk. Their blocking of entitlement reform is bankrupting America. Their onerous taxes and regulations are impoverishing America and destroying businesses and jobs. Blacks have been hit the hardest. Their gutting of the military and refusal to fight in the war on terror are destroying our national security. Their savage support for abortion on demand is killing millions of babies and has devalued life across the board. Black babies are hardest hit.
Conservatives know that their policies lead to greater prosperity. They believe their values are grounded in moral absolutes, are tried and tested, and are overwhelmingly beneficial to society. They believe their policies demonstrate real compassion because they are based on results, not empty rhetoric and false promises.
They are tired of being vilified. They long for government leaders who will fight back without apology. They want a president who will not just campaign as a conservative but also implement conservative policies when elected.
This means that they don’t want phony pledges to close the border in the future buried in some “comprehensive” reform plan, a partial repeal of Obamacare, half-measures reversing the Environmental Protection Agency’s punitive regulations on the energy industry or meaningless tweaks to the tax code and entitlements. They want America to be strong again and self-aware of its positive impact on the world.
The grass roots have seen very little of these things from the ruling class. That’s why they’re rejecting most insiders and supporting outsiders and those inside who are genuinely trying to change the status quo.
I hope we can look back in a few years and say that Obama miscalculated — that he pushed too far too fast instead of allowing liberalism to continue to grow incrementally. I pray that his arrogance in impatiently accelerating statism is what will finally bring the unrepresented majority to a boil, leading to a dramatic reversal of his fundamental transformation.
By; Matt Barber
It’s never fun to be proven right when warning of some impending wrong. Many in the pro-family movement have long stressed that the cultural Marxist left’s belligerent push for the judicial fiction that is “gay marriage” was never about gaining “equal access” to this biologically exclusive male-female institution, as they profess, but, rather, is, and has always been, about control.
While there are many layers to unfold, the almost instant explosion in government-sanctioned, anti-Christian extremism on display post Obergefell v. Hodges, confirms the poisonous three-fold agenda that underlies the “social justice” mob’s flowery “marriage equality” propaganda. That is: 1) the ultimate destruction of marriage, 2) forced affirmation of sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and 3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.
The destruction of marriage
Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence; they want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.
Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, activist and author, expressly admitted this fact in a 2012 interview with ABC Radio: “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”
Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen’s candid sentiments: “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it,” he once wrote. “James Dobson was right about our evil intentions,” he quipped. “We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”
The goal is to water down marriage until marriage is pointless. And as evidenced by the burgeoning legal push for polygamous and incestuous “marriages” – even for the “right” to “marry” a robot – sexual anarchists are well on their way to achieving this goal.
Forced affirmation of sexual deviancy
Here’s what Christian America is already experiencing from coast to coast. On Wednesday, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel filed a request for a stay and an appeal of U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s opinion ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses both in violation of her First Amendment right to religious free exercise and the biblical mandate that she must not participate in this explicitly sinful activity. Davis had been sued by the ACLU and two lesbian political activists.
“The plaintiffs in this case only sought licenses from Ms. Davis after learning of her religious objections to same-sex ‘marriage,’ and they refuse to obtain a license elsewhere,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage.’”
Judge Bunning wrote, “Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk,” the ruling said.
“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd!” responded Staver. “Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary. The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.
“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses. Her job duty was changed by five lawyers without any constitutional authority. At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated,” concluded Staver.
Indeed, Davis’ oath as county clerk was to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Kentucky. As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly observed in his Obergefell dissent, the activist majority’s opinion actually hijacks the democratic process and is in no way rooted in the Constitution: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” he said. “It had nothing to do with it.”
The fact is that if Ms. Davis were to issue counterfeit same-sex “marriage” licenses, she would not only be disobeying God and directly participating in expressly sinful activity, she would be violating her constitutional oath.
The criminalization of Christianity
To her credit, Ms. Davis is standing her ground while the decision is appealed. Predictably, many leftists are now clamoring for her imprisonment. They want her held in contempt of court and thrown in jail for refusing to at once affirm homosexual sin and violate God’s commands. This is the new pagan orthodoxy. It’s “here, it’s queer, get used to it.”
Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reports on “a Colorado Court of Appeals decision Thursday in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig, regarding a cake artist who declined to use his artistic abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job.”
“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” observed ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco. “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms.”
The court affirmed an earlier order wherein Phillips and his Christian staff were not only ordered to bake homosexual “wedding” cakes against their will, but were additionally forced into pro-homosexual “sensitivity” propaganda classes.
And if they refuse?
Then they go to jail.
That’s how it works. Christian free exercise isn’t outlawed all at once. Judges across our fruity plain simply order from the bench that millions of Christians, just like Kim Davis and Jack Phillips, must either deny recognition of God’s natural order and Christ’s admonition to “go and sin no more,” or face prison for “contempt of court.”
Welcome to America 2015, where evil is good, men are women, judges are tyrants, and Christians are persona non grata. There is no more in between. The anti-Christ left has thrown down the “gay marriage” gauntlet. It’s either God or man.
“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. … But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).
Whom will you serve?
By: Katie Keiffer
President Obama owns two adorable dogs, Bo and Sunny. Clearly, he likes animals. So, it’s puzzling why his administration supports global environmental policies and federally-subsidized energy technology that endangers animals like cats and birds.
Sadness and anger echoed around the world when an American dentist shot Cecil the lion, a protected animal, in Zimbabwe. But where is the shock and disappointment over the fact that Australia plans to spend some $6 million to shoot, poison and trap 2 million feral cats? And why has the Obama administration applauded Australia’s plans while making a big show of seeking justice for Cecil?
I support hunting as a wildlife conservation method that treats animals with dignity. However, Australia’s plan does not fall into this category because hunting is not effective for managing feral cat populations. Additionally, our administration is sending the unhealthy message that some cats—namely “celebrity” cats like Cecil—deserve more attention than non-celebrity feral cats that help keep rodent populations in check.
“By 2020, I want to see 2 million feral cats culled, five new islands and 10 new mainland areas as ‘safe havens,’ free of feral cats, and control measures applied across 10 million hectares,” said Australian Environment Minister Greg Hunt upon announcing Australia’s plan.
John Berry, the U.S. ambassador to Australia, was present during Hunt’s announcement. Berry took the time to laud Australia’s “leadership position” on wildlife preservation. Meanwhile, another representative of the Obama administration led a global investigation to protect one particular cat:
“USFWS is investigating the tragic killing of #CecilTheLion. Will go where facts lead. Efforts to contact Dr. Palmer so far unsuccessful,”tweeted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe on July 30.
Many experts believe that the most effective and caring way to manage a feral cat population is through a process of “trap, neuter and return” (TNR). Disneyland in California has successfully employed TNR for over a decade. By managing the cats instead of killing them en-masse, Disneyland has been able to keep mice (the non-Mickey kind!) in check.
TNR is effective for two reasons: cats are very territorial and they also breed very quickly. Indeed, according to North Shore Animal League America, one unneutered male and one unneutered female cat and her offspring can be responsible for the production of 2,000 kittens in the course of four years. If cats are removed from their territory and killed—whether that territory is Brooklyn, New York or Sydney, Australia—new cats will move in and claim this territory and begin breeding.
Obama’s administration wants it both ways. They want to appear concerned about Cecil’s death while pandering to an ally like Australia as it culls 2 million cats.
Obama claims “we may not be able to reverse” the damage of climate change without his EPA’s new “green” rules that force coal-burning power plants to cut greenhouse gases. His rules will force Americans to rely more heavily on wind and solar technology, which kills scores of birds every year.
The world’s largest solar thermal project, Ivanpah, reportedly kills two birds every minute in the California Mojave Desert. Nevada’s Crescent Dunes Solar Project is another bird-killer. “Over a six-hour period, biologists counted 130 ‘streamers,’ or trails of smoke and water left behind as birds ignited and plummeted to their deaths,” reports PopSci. Assuming 100 birds die every 6 hours, just one solar project is capable of killing 146,097 birds every year!
Obama may argue that the process of producing coal power kills more birds than the production of solar or wind power. But when you combine the estimated number of birds killed by wind turbines and solar power—it is about equal to the number allegedly killed by coal production. And that’s before we have built the number of wind and solar projects necessary to meet Obama’s new standards. Soon, wind and solar technology will kill more birds than we now kill by producing coal. If coal is “dirty,” then wind and solar are filthy.
By the way, coal provides 39% of American energy needs at very affordable rates. Politicians craving public approval fail to mention that their beloved green tech is unaffordable for poor Americans. Obama’s new rules do not deserve the classification of “green,” or “clean” because they harm animals and people alike.
I recently saw an article in Salon claiming that Bernie Sanders “out-greens” Hillary Clinton. If you want to know which presidential candidate is the greenest, consider whether their ideas will help or harm the weakest members of our world, such as impoverished human beings, cats and birds. Much of the so-called “green” movement is actually “red” because it causes animals—feathered, furry and human—to die prematurely.