Saturday, June 27, 2015

‘We the People’ Have The Final Say On Same-Sex Marriage — Not Judges


Although it seems strange now, at the time of the nation’s founding, it was not uncommon for the U.S. Supreme Court to both conduct trials and hear appeals. In the very first jury trial conducted by the U.S. Supreme Court, State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, Chief Justice John Jay gave the following instructions to the jury:
“It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision…you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
These instructions from the first Chief Justice of the United States, and a co-author of the Federalist Papers, demonstrates the historically correct role and power of juries. The Court did not grant to the jury the right to determine both the fact and that law; it simply recognized the juror’s right which it still has today. However, judges today want to restrict juries to deciding matters of fact, and claim for themselves the final authority to decide matters of law. Persons have even been arrested for handing out literature near a courthouse explaining to potential jurors their true role and great power.
As many awaited the SCOTUS opinion on same-sex marriage, attention was increasingly directed to the ultimate source of power and authority in our American System of government – “We The People.” As activist judges and courts continue to operate outside of their constitutionally limited role, the role that citizens serve, as jurors and electors, becomes more important and focused.

The power of the individual citizens is probably at its zenith when they serve on a jury. As jurors, they literally have the power to affect an individual’s life forever, including up to death. The Framers of our system of government viewed the jury as being of supreme importance in defending individual liberty against government abuse.
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Thomas Jefferson
There are only 14 words describing freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the Constitution. But there are 186 words describing trial by jury in the Constitution. It is guaranteed in the main body in Article 3, Section 2, and in two amendments, the Sixth and the Seventh. No other right is mentioned so frequently — a total of three times — or has as many words devoted to it. It is clear, because of historical evidence, that the Founders viewed the jury as the most important institution, since it gave birth to and defended all other rights. It should also be noted that trial by jury and jury rights were common law rights at the time of the drafting of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and so are also included as rights retained by the people under the Tenth Amendment.
Juries meet by the thousands each week and month all over the country. As such, they constitute one of the largest and most powerful agencies of law enforcement in the United States. They have the absolute — and permanent — power to ignore government laws, keep people out of prison, ignore judges and prosecutors, make the outcome of any jury trial what they want it to be, and try and keep our government honest. In the absence of overt wrongdoing, such as bribery, their decisions cannot be called into question.
The important vital role and power of the jury predates our Constitution. Since 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed, and throughout American history, there has been no more fundamental principle of English or American constitutional law than the right to a jury trial. And in a jury trial, it is not only the right but the duty of juries to judge the facts of a case, the intent of the accused, and the law(s) being applied in the case.

It is also their right, and their duty, for jurors to judge whether the law is just, and to hold the law invalid if, in their opinion, it is unjust or oppressive, and to hold all persons innocent if they violated the law, or innocent for resisting the execution of such laws. This fact about the jury has been attacked in modern times by those who promote the “evolving constitution” viewpoint. This liberal philosophy turns on its head the concept of individual liberty and requires an elite political class to guide and direct the rest of society.
Even so, the court in modern times continues to recognize the broad role of the jury.
“The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.”  U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972
“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence.”   United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969
The jury’s role is much more than just another check and balance in our system of government. America’s founders intended it to be the final political institution that would protect our rights from government abuse and encroachment.

“A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government.”  Justice Byron White, Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
“The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power.”  Justice Byron White, Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
The duty of a juror to protect a defendant against abuse from the government was much better understood in colonial times than it is today. Consider the 1735 case of Peter Zenger in the colony of New York. Zenger was the publisher of the New York Weekly Journal and was tried for seditious libel for printing articles exposing the corruption of the royal governor. The Zenger case has been referred to as the most important trial in American history because the jury in this case established the rights of freedom of speech and of the press in America by nullifying the seditious libel law which made it a crime to criticize public officials. In the case, the judge proclaimed that truth was not a defense. In acquitting Zenger, the jury exercised its right, power, and duty to nullify a law it believed to be immoral, unfair, and unjust. Andrew Hamilton, Zenger’s attorney, argued jury nullification directly to the jury and gave his opinion of the law to the jury in direct opposition to the instruction of the trial judge. Today, a lawyer who told a jury the truth – that they have the power to disregard a grand jury indictment, the words of the prosecutor, and the instruction of the judge by acquitting a man they believed to be unworthy of punishment – would be charged with, and tried for, contempt of court.

The landmark English case of William Penn and William Mead in 1670 is one of the other greatest trials in the history of jury trials. Penn (who later came to America and established the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) and Mead were tried in 1670 for violating the Conventicle Act by preaching to an unlawful assembly at Gracechurch Street. Through the Conventicle Act, the king made the Anglican Church the official church and religion of England. In their trial as in most trials today, the jury was given the following instruction by the judge: “The court is the judge of the law and you will accept the law as I give it you. You the jury are the judge of the facts. If it is determined that the defendants have violated the law, and they have so admitted you must find them guilty.”
The facts were clear that Penn and Mead violated the law as they admitted. Even so, the jury acquitted them — against the judge’s instruction — and they paid a heavy price. The Conventicle Act was nullified by the jury’s “not guilty” verdict, which infuriated the judge. One of the jurors, Edward Bushell (the only Quaker on the jury panel), and another juror, Thomas Veer, led the jury that acquitted Penn and Mead. The jurors were locked in a room with no food, water, toilet facilities, terrible stench, and unsanitary conditions; eight of the jurors gave in and paid their fines. But Bushell, Veer, and two others refused and were jailed for nine weeks in a prison that was referred to as ‘Hell above ground’ while they appealed their case to Court of Common Pleas. The court finally ruled in a surprising decision of reversal which established many of the rights in our Constitution that Americans take for granted today. This case led to the abolishment of the practice of punishing juries for verdicts unacceptable to courts.

The Zenger and William Penn cases were within living memory of many of the Founders and within common knowledge of all of them. But juries also refused to convict defendants charged in connection with other laws they believed to be unjust such as prohibition laws, including the Fugitive Slave Law and the Navigation Acts.  The king’s response to the Navigation Act was to abolish trial by jury. (Would our modern-day Courts or Executive Branch go that far?)
The American Framers knew that panels of average citizens were best equipped to judge the morality of the law in its application to a particular case. Juries have an important political benefit for legislators and society because they send an important peaceful message in a routine and institutionalized way that change in law is needed. The jury has been referred to as a safety valve that tempers, through mercy, the mechanical application of rigid rules or power used as coercion. And it is an antidote for victimless crime laws.
Opponents continue to try diminishing the role of juries. Periodically, they even float the ridiculous argument that juries should be eliminated altogether. But claims of chaos, anarchy, inconsistent or unjust verdicts, and repealing law are unfounded. Studies show that people take their responsibility as a juror as seriously as other major life decisions.
Jury nullification poses no threat that juries will punish a defendant beyond what the law allows because jury nullification doctrine acts in the direction of mercy only. Juries have no power or ability to create new charges. In addition, a judge can direct a verdict of acquittal, but not of conviction, if the court determines at the end of the trial that the evidence is insufficient to warrant jury deliberations. The court as a matter of law may also set aside a conviction or grant a new trial where the verdict is not supported by evidence, and the defendant can appeal a guilty verdict because it is final; but the government cannot appeal an acquittal.

Mark Howe, in Juries As Judges Of Criminal Law, Harvard Law Review (1939), examined early American cases. He concluded that jury nullification poses no threat to the reasonable doubt standard. It is clear from the language in court opinions that the Americans intended jury nullification to work only in the defense of liberty and not to the aid of the government. “The purpose of the rule [is] the preservation of civil liberties against the undue bias of judges.”
Based on my time serving in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, I can say with some conviction that no matter how unpopular or silly laws may be, legislators seldom go back and correct their mistakes without great prompting. While it is within the proper role of the legislature and electorate to pass laws, it is within the proper role of the jury to veto the application of a law which the jury finds to be oppressive. Just as state governors may veto, both the Senate and the House have vetoes, and the judges have the veto of judicial review, then the citizens who are asked to live under the laws and apply them also have a veto when they serve on juries.
Occasionally, a critic will concede the power of the jury to nullify the law but deny its right to do so. This is mere semantics because there is no practical difference between an unreviewable power and a right. Moreover, the Zenger case and the Founders refer to jury nullification as a “right.” Our Constitution clearly states that “We the People” created the Constitution, and therefore it follows that the people are sovereign. A sovereign people have the inherent right to judge the law when they come together on juries to decide cases.

Much of the historical discussion of jury nullification has been in the context of criminal cases. That is because the purpose of jury nullification is the protection of constitutional rights. In the past, the issue between the individual and government typically took place in a criminal trial. In the early years of the federal courts, it was not unusual even in civil cases to inform jurors that they could judge the law. Now, with the rise of civil asset forfeiture, jury nullification applies with equal validity to civil cases where the government is in contest against the individual.
Oklahomans in 2004 passed an amendment to our state constitution by a margin of 76 percent to 24 percent that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman. A Federal Judge claimed to have the power to “strike down” our state’s duly enacted law. Oklahomans are not sitting idly by. We know that judges do not have the right to “strike down” laws which have been duly passed and that are fully within the purview of the state. Oklahomans will address the issue again.
But citizens can push back against such tyranny as they serve on jury panels. For example, let’s say you are called to jury duty; and in the trial before you, prosecutors have charged a local baker for not providing a cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony, which violates a local law. Your dilemma is that you disagree with the law. You believe that business owners should be able to choose who they do business with just as customers do. Or you may have other reasons you disagree with the law or its application in the case. The judge, and possibly the prosecution, will likely instruct jurors that they must find the baker guilty if it is clear he broke the law. But based on the application of jury nullification as outlined above, you are free to cast your vote as “not guilty.” And you do not have to reveal or justify your decision – it is personal and private.

We need to realize that the increasingly totalitarian bent of those entrusted with governmental power are finding a way around jury nullification. They are working to vest power in administrative agencies to levy huge fines without the right to a jury trial. For example, a $130,000 fine has been recommended by an Oregon state administrative judge to be levied and paid by a family bakery business for a violation of the Oregon civil rights law. The offense? Refusing on the basis of Christian religious conviction to make a cake celebrating “same-sex marriage.” The award was based upon an administrative hearing, not on a verdict after a trial by jury in a court. The recommendation is now before an Oregon Labor Commissioner who, according to recent investigative reports, has been exchanging e-mails with LGBT activists in a cooperative effort to shape and implement the state’s civil rights act forbidding businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Such actions by unelected bureaucrats are exposing the constitutional weakness inherent in administrative agencies, which combine legislative, executive, and judicial power. At the time the Constitution was written, the melding of those powers was considered the definition of tyranny. Now, it is the order of the day. A wonderful expose of the modern administrative state was recently published by Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? His book demonstrates that the modern administrative state traces its roots to the king’s prerogative courts in England, such as the Court of Star Chamber. In England, the King’s Court of Star Chamber was abolished in 1641; but it has returned with a vengeance in modern America.

Many in government are troubled by the jury because it cannot be controlled and it has the power to stop government oppression. According to every state constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution, political power is inherent in the people; and whenever government becomes destructive or lawless, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Thus, the jury is of utmost importance in all of its functions–but specifically because the people are sovereign. Thomas Jefferson said this about the importance of citizen juries:
“Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the Legislative.  The execution of the laws is more important than the making of them.”
One of the characteristics that has made America great is that each individual state stands independent from the others in determining public policies. Efforts to force all Americans to live or think the same way are both mistaken and doomed for failure. As judges and prosecutors try to force unjust or unpopular laws and their penalties on citizens, juries offer a very important and reasonable solution by bringing a verdict of not guilty. Juries deliver a peaceful means to provide balance in society, correct government overreach, and rescue their fellow citizens. Today, people are needed as much as any time in history to embrace their role as jurors to preserve liberty and our American system of government.

Charles Key served as a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1986-1998 and 2006-2012, representing a district in Oklahoma City. He can be reached at
This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” Please support this important work with a contribution to the U.S. Justice Foundation. Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Ted Cruz Has An EPIC Message For ‘Rogue’ Supreme Court Justices

[Chief Justice Roberts...smug ass turn coat! Mr.I wanna be liked by everyone]

Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did not hold back in expressing what he thinks about the Supreme Court’s two most controversial decisions in recent memory.
Cruz told radio talk show host Sean Hannity: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”
“I couldn’t say it more eloquently,” Hannity responded.
“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,” Cruz went on. “Neither decision — the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration. You now have President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”

“And then today, this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up,” Cruz said. “It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamentally legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”
“If those justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office,” Cruz reprimanded. “That’s the appropriate place to write laws — on this floor, not that courtroom.”
Cruz took to the Senate floor yesterday to express his profound disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Obamacare subsidies paid through the federal exchange.
“These rogue Houdinis have transmogrified a federal exchange into an exchange ‘established by the state.’ This is lawless,” the senator asserted.

He quoted Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in the dissent that “Words no longer have meaning” and that the law should be referred to as “SCOTUScare” because of the Supreme Court’s commitment to saving it using “somersaults” of statutory interpretation.
“Unelected judges have once again become legislators and bad ones at that,” said Cruz. “They are lawless, and they hide the prevarication in legalise. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not men.”
The senator then used the same metaphor Chief Justice John Roberts (author of yesterday’s Obamacare majority opinion) employed during his 2005 confirmation hearing to define the role of those who sit on the high court. “These justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes,” said Cruz. “They have joined a team, and it’s a team that is hurting Americans across this country.”
Roberts said in his opening statement at his confirmation hearing: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them…And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Both Cruz and Roberts began their legal careers serving as clerks on the Supreme Court for the conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a decade apart. Perhaps, Cruz invoked the memory of their former boss to highlight that Roberts had strayed from the beliefs about the rule of law and role of the court for which Rehnquist stood (though the former Chief Justice would have likely approved of Roberts’ stance regarding whether the court should redefine marriage. For those supporters of same-sex marriage, Roberts wrote “…celebrate today’s decision…but do not celebrate the Constitution. It has nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”)
“If Chief Justice Rehnquist could see this court today,” said Cruz, “he would be filled with sorrow at what has become of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The candidate then shifted his focus to what is next. “It is now up to us, to keep our promise,” he said. “I believe 2016 will be a national referendum on repealing Obamacare….I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of [it].”
h/t: Daily Caller and The Politistick
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Jindal Wants To ‘Get Rid Of Supreme Court’ After Sodomy-Based "Marriage" Ruling

oped: I agree to a point...however the SCOTUS is addressed within the US Constitution...IMO it should be a elected office not appointed akin to state Supreme Courts.This way if they get out of control 'We the People ' can remove them! They must be accountable to the people not Presidents! 

Josh Fatzick 

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal took no time in condemning the Supreme Court Friday for their decision to legalize sodomy-based “marriage.”
“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” he said in a statement. “If we want to save some money let’s just get rid of the court.”

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision Friday that all 50 states must recognize same-sex marriage, but Jindal accused the court of playing politics.
“Today, Chief Justice Roberts admitted that the gay marriage ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” he said. “Hillary Clinton and The Left will now mount an all-out assault on Religious Freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Earlier in the day Friday, Clinton praised the decision on Twitter as an “historic victory for marriage equality,” and changed her campaign logo to include the rainbow colors.

“Along with millions of Americans, I am celebrating today’s landmark victory for marriage equality, and the generations of advocates and activists who fought to make it possible,” Clinton said in a statement.
Jindal wasn’t the only Republican presidential candidate to bash the Supreme Court’s decision. Mike Huckabee, in a statement, called the decision unconstitutional and said the court was acting outside of its bounds.
“I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch,” Huckabee said. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”

Breitbart Argues that We Should Also Take Down the Fascist, Anti-Christian Gay-Pride Flag

Onan Coca 
John Nolte at makes an interesting argument in his most recent piece.
He believes (perhaps a bit tongue in cheek)  that the rainbow flag of the gay “rights” movement is as hateful a symbol as the Confederate flag. If the Confederate flag should be removed for what it stands for and for the people it offends, then so too should the rainbow flag come down for the very same reasons.
It’s a compelling argument and one that will likely cause some major waves on both the right and left, as conservatives will likely agree with Nolte while the liberals will roll their eyes at his comparison.
I’m not sure about the reasoning, but I appreciate Nolte’s attempt to uncover the hypocrisy of the left.

Under this banner of hate, people are outed against their will,  terrorized out of businessmerely for being Christian, bullied and harassed for thoughtcrimes; moreover, “hate crimes” are being manufactured to keep us divided, Christians are refused service, death threats are hurled, and Christianity is regularly smeared as hate speech.
If individuals wish to fly this symbol of hate, oppression and bigotry on their own property, that is their choice in a free country. It is unconscionable, however, that this symbol of intolerance is allowed to fly above government-owned buildings.

Read the Entire Piece at…

Friday, June 26, 2015

Megyn Kelly said tonight #KellyFile re: Gay Marriage/Obamacare

All politicians she it is fair to assume she is ok with that!
I for one am not ok with that...I fought for the US Constitution in the Military,in Law Enforcement and after retirement on my blog! All in vain...I am now totally disgusted with the direction our country is from now on I will no longer address Gay marriage,Obamacare or probs not much else. Unless I see a miracle in progress! And I must admit I agree with one thing Hillary Clinton said "What difference does it make" She lied 4 died and suffered no consequences for her actions from our elected officials!
I will withdraw and pray in quiet...keep my beliefs in tact....prepare for the worse case scenario and protect my family. After all we have at most 100 years on this dirty little rock we call earth...then a eternity in the afterlife.

I may live in Nevada but by know means a gambler...the odds are in Gods I will leave it up to him to judge at our death or the End of Days whichever comes first...then we will see who was right and who was wrong re: The perverted progressive Obama  administration! Good luck y' least I can sleep at night!

This blog says it all about how I feel...I have nothing more to say!

Attn: GOP POTUS Candidates 

'Who am I'...ha a man of mystery !
My Photo
First and foremost I am not... let me make this perfectly clear...GOP nor DNC I am a registered Independent Conservative.
I cannot vote in the primaries for either party...I can only vote for Independent candidates.
When I receive E-mails from either party and the first thing I see is 'Are you with me' please donate.
Well I totally turn off...just tell me what you are going to do in false election promises...I am so over that BS! Hello you are applying for the job not I and don't expect me to pay your way..I am not a college tuition fund...get the drift? I don't have college debts...I paid my own way lil by little no debt no interest!

I am retired and tired... on a fixed retirement income... I run a conservative blog and never ask for nor do I want keeps me clean, fair and balanced.
If you say something that I approve of I will post it as a positive...if it is negative to my values I will post it as such....Thats just how I roll!

Tell me your story open and honest no BS ...don't tell me what you think I want to hear tell me how you think and what you will really do...I will post it for free on my blog...thats all you are going to get from me!

Just remember 'We the People' are your prospective employer...not Special interest was so written it is done... in the US Constitution!

Addendum: Just for the record all politicians/talking media heads are starting to look like the 'Walking Dead' Following the King of Zombies Obama !

WikiLeaks exposes Saudi liquor runs, Clinton's passport

FILE - In this Saturday, March 31, 2012, file photo, …

CAIRO (AP) — WikiLeaks' publication of more than 60,000 Saudi documents has set pens racing across the Middle East with disclosures about the secretive Arab monarchy's foreign affairs. But lost amid the torrent of revelations are offbeat memos showing the underbelly of Riyadh's diplomacy, including candid accounts of booze runs and pork smuggling.

Among the revelations you may have missed:
It's illegal to drink, sell or possess alcohol in Saudi Arabia, which follows an ultraconservative interpretation of Islamic law, but foreign embassy staffers took advantage of their diplomatic immunity to go on liquor runs to neighboring Bahrain, where the sale of alcohol is legal. Memos published by WikiLeaks describe their unsuccessful attempts to sneak the booze into the kingdom in amusing detail.
On Jan. 18, 2013, Saudi customs officials stopped a Mexican diplomat driving back from Bahrain with "several big suitcases" in his car trunk containing no fewer than 102 bottles of whisky and 48 cans of beer, according to one undated memo. On Feb. 2, 2012 an Azeri diplomat was stopped at customs with 28 bottles of whisky hidden in socks inside his car. That same day, customs officials stopped an Italian diplomat whose car had a taped-up hole cut into the back seat, according to two other Saudi memos.

Diplomats also sought to skirt Islam's prohibition of pork. A March 17, 2012 memo describes a Chinese diplomat's attempt to sneak 30 kilograms (about 65 pounds) of ham into the kingdom in the trunk of his car.

It comes as no surprise that Sunni Saudi Arabia, which views Shiite Iran as its greatest regional rival, would take an interest in the spread of Shiite Islam. But some observations go into a startling level of minutiae. 

Saudi diplomats are careful to estimate, for example, how many Eritrean students are studying abroad in Iran (40) and the number of Shiite Muslims in Mauritania (50,000). They were also concerned when a public debate was held between Shiite and Sunni Muslims near the Philippines' Al-Dahab mosque in Manila. Even though Shiites make up less than 1 percent of the Muslim population in the Philippines, a memo dated Feb. 4, 2010 appears to express alarm that the religious minority's message "managed to get out of its secretive circle to the public."
"It is obsessive," said Toby Matthiesen, the author of a book about religious politics in Gulf Arab states and a research fellow at the University of Cambridge. "It proves the theory that Saudi foreign policy is at least in part sectarian and seeks to contain Shiism and not just Iran." 

WikiLeaks' trove of Saudi diplomatic documents includes a large amount of bureaucratic documentation and sensitive personal information, including sick leave reports, death certificates and hospital records. One document included in the haul details a 17-year-old's treatment for life-threatening medical problems. Another is a report describing severe leg injuries suffered by a 24-year-old at King Khalid Hospital in northeastern Saudi Arabia. A third describes the proposed treatment for a child with encephalopathy in the Czech Republic.
Among the torrent of private information leaked by the website is Hillary Rodham Clinton's passport number, included in a memo concerning a March 2012 visit to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh.
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson did not immediately return an email seeking comment on the documents. 

Saudi Arabian officials in Washington and Riyadh have refused to respond to repeated questions from The Associated Press about the diplomatic cables and official statements urge citizens to ignore the revelations, warning that sharing the leaked documents could result in imprisonment.
But a memo addressed to a senior diplomat and dated Jan. 19, 2011 — several weeks after WikiLeaks rocked Washington with the release of thousands of U.S. State Department cables — suggests the Saudis sifted through the American documents and read them too.
"Attached for your attention is a translated report of the most important leaks issued by the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh and consulate in Jeddah," the memo says. 

Satter contributed from Istanbul.

Fox News Fires Host, Releases Really Aggressive Statement About It

Fox News Fires Host, Releases Really Aggressive Statement About It image
By Nick Venable  
If you’re looking to get a job at Fox News, I guess now is as good a time as any, as the network has not only parted ways with Sarah Palin, but has apparently also given a confirmed farewell to longtime analyst Bob Beckel, who has been M.I.A. for the past four months. Unfortunately, though, that farewell appears to be anything but a fond one. 

Fox News executive vice president of programming Bill Shine released a statement, according to Politico, that put things in a rather unflattering light, although possibly one that was justly earned. 
We tried to work with Bob for months, but we couldn’t hold The Five hostage to one man’s personal issues. He took tremendous advantage of our generosity, empathy and goodwill and we simply came to the end of the road with him.
Dayum, them’s fighting words. Or at least they would be if Beckel’s position was still up in the air. Beckel has been a part of the Fox News team ever since 2000, when he joined as a contributor, and he’d been one of the regular co-hosts of the panel show The Five since July 2011. However, he’d been completely off the airwaves since the middle of February 2015, and it took a few weeks for the network to divulge the reason behind it was that Beckel had undergone back surgery. But the host stayed out longer than normal because he entered rehab for an addiction to painkillers, and that has possibly played a part in why the network is upset with him. Although really, it could be for any number of reasons. 

Though he’s been the resident liberal, Beckel has let his occasionally foul mouth and middle fingers get him into trouble over the years.  When Julian Assange was first making headlines, the death penalty naysayer Beckel said that the only possible solution was to illegally shoot Assange. He also referred to a group of Jewish Americans as “diamond merchants we don’t know the names of,” said that date rapes on college campuses were uncommon, and also stated that nudists were probably sexually assaulted as children. And in the days following the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, he publically said that students from Islamic countries should get their visas denied.   

While no permanent replacements for Beckel have been revealed, Shine stated that Fox News vets Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams will be “among those rotating on the show for the near future.” So it’s possible that one of them might stay on there for the long run, but we’ll have to see how that works. Are you guys going to miss Bob Beckel?

Thursday, June 25, 2015

‘MERICA: Watch U.S. Soldier Own Iraqi In Arm Wrestling Contest If You Call Yourself a Patriot

The Iraqi dude didn’t stand a chance. Notice how this video doesn’t fit the narrative that our soldiers are going on ‘killing sprees’ against Muslims.

H/T Bro Bible

YOU WON’T HEAR ABOUT THIS: Racist Guns Down Three People In Atlanta

by Kenn Daily
Clash Daily Contributor
Remember this?
Probably you don’t.
Nkosi Thandiwe, an African migrant, gunned down three women in Atlanta because they were white.
One of the victims was killed, another was paralyzed, and a third was injured.
The racist attacks occurred in 2011. Thandiwe was convicted and sentenced to life in prison two years later.
The attack received sparse coverage outside Atalanta.

There was no media circus, no Geraldo feigning to be outraged; no Glenn Beck making a trek to Atlanta to demonstrate his anti-racism.
The was no wall-to-wall coverage on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News.
There was no statement from Barack Obama blaming guns for the crime. The Confederate flag was not dragged into the conversation, and there was no nationwide sentiment of guilt over black racism.
Thandiwe’s hatred for white people was made apparent by his own words. He claimed to have formed his anti-white perspective while enrolled at the University of West Georgia.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Thandiwe’s hatred for whites:n

“I was trying to prove a point that Europeans had colonized the world, and as a result of that, we see a lot of evil today,” he said.
“In terms of slavery, it was something that needed to be answered for. I was trying to spread the message of making white people mend.”
He said the night before the shooting, he attended a so-called “Peace Party” intended to address his concerns about helping the black community find equal footing, but two white people were there.
“I was upset,” Thandiwe said. “I was still upset Friday. I took the gun to work because I was still upset from Thursday night.”
He even admitted to earlier that day getting angry enough on the job to shoot his supervisor. “What my boss said to me …,” he told the jury, “that rage almost made me pull out my gun on him.”
There was no national outrage over the perennial flood of hate propaganda flowing into the minds of students at America’s colleges and universities.
There was no memorial built at the site of the murder commemorating the life of Thandiwe’s victim, Brittney Watts; nor will there ever be.
There were no writers hustling screen plays in Hollywood hoping to capitalize on the hate.
There is a reason.
The tragic episode in Atlanta simply does not fit the cultural Marxism narrative that white people are the oppressing bourgeois and non-white are the perennially oppressed proletariat. Consequently, the racist attack never gained media traction and has subsequently been forgotten as just another footnote in America’s criminal history.

George Soros' Media Matters Admits Breaking Law and Consistently Violating Tax Exempt Status


In a not so shocking op-ed piece by Media Matters for America founder David Brock, he openly admits that he uses the non-profit organization to defend Hillary Clinton against criticism.
According to his op-ed piece titled Brock: What's Behind The House Select Committee On Media Matters?, he sought to defend Clinton against the investigation being conducted by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. In doing so, he pointed out that his group was associated with Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton's political advisor and former consultant on Libya.
At the time of the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Blumenthal was not only a paid consultant of Media Matters, but he was also providing information to Clinton from Media Matters. As we know, Media Matters is just one of many organizations funded by criminal George Soros.

Blumenthal testified before the select committee last week in a closed door session. Brock took the opportunity to blast Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and his committee for not releasing the transcript of the testimony by Blumenthal.
"By refusing to release the transcript, the Republicans want to hide the true nature of the Blumenthal deposition: Their partisan attempt to both chill Blumenthal's right to freely express his own political views and more broadly to intimidate our organizations — organizations that have led the way in exposing the fraudulence of the Benghazi investigation itself. (Not to mention our role in specifically defending Hillary Clinton from the Republicans' unfair attacks on the subject)."

So, what's the problem here? Media Matters is a 501(c)3 organization. According to the IRS:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. (Emphasis mine)  

The IRS continues:
"…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."

Frankly, I think all of this demonstrates a complete disregard for the First Amendment as it seeks to silence political speech, something that a lot of churches fear with their tax-exempt status. This is something they shouldn't fear as they are tax-exempt by the IRS' own admission. But just remember how conservative groups were targeted by this same IRS concerning their tax-exempt status. Also, keep in mind that Brock is an open, practicing sodomite as well, so he is most definitely being allowed to skirt the law when it comes to sodomy. How much more when it comes to violating the terms of his organization's tax-exempt status? 

oped addendum: Barry Obama was put into office courtesy of George Soros he is  George's LGBT B***H 

Furthermore, it isn't just Brock who is in view here. Blumenthal was obviously collecting checks from the Clinton Foundation as well as Media Matters. It seems that both of these men have engaged in open violation of the IRS code. Now the question is, will there be anyone with backbone to hold them accountable in the IRS? I won't hold my breath.
from Freedom Outpost

House of Horrors - ISIS Releases Video Showing Horrible New Ways to Execute Prisoners

<br /><b>Warning</b>:  Illegal string offset 'alt' in <b>/home/eaglerising/public_html/wp-content/themes/morning/er-responsive-email-template.php</b> on line <b>217</b><br />h

I think that we all thought that ISIS couldn’t shock us any more than they already had. I mean, they’ve cut off heads with steak knives, roasted prisoners alive, dropped homosexuals off of buildings, brought slavery back in style and are sexually abusing children by the busload… but apparently they can still shock us.
In the most recently released video from the Muslim terrorist organization, we discovered terrible new horrors that are being experience under the Islamic State.
The evil villains of ISIS seem to have an entire department dedicated to new and horrifying ways to kill people. Their devious machinations were on full display in this latest video. First the video shows five prisoners who have been accused of spying being locked into a cage and being lowered into a swimming pool. As the cage fully submerges, the video switches to underwater cameras and the men are seen thrashing about until death finally takes them and they sink, motionless. When the cage is finally brought back up – the men are dead, their bodies stacked on the bottom of the cage.

Later in the video, several other prisoners are seen being locked inside of a vehicle in the desert, then an ISIS monster fires a rocket-propelled grenade at the car. The vehicle catches fire, ensuring that anyone not killed in the explosion is killed by the flames. Another group of ISIS prisoners somewhere else are then chained together and each is furnished with an explosive necklace. You can guess what happens next. An ISIS terrorist detonates the necklaces killing the prisoners in gruesome style.
The destruction of our planet at the hand’s of militant Islamists continues, and still the world watches on in passive disinterest. When will we act to end the threat to civilization? Will we ever do so? b





Read More on these horrible acts at the Daily Mail

The "Stupidity" of Gay Marriage

You’re so proud of yourself that you accept gay marriage.  How generous your spirit.  You congratulate yourself that you are able to think beyond conventionalities.

Tradition is nothing to you.  You are so clever that you can be illogical and promote anal intercourse without a chance of procreation. You got everything ass backwards but won’t accept normality.

Marriage is an institution not chaotic self-destruction.  It is not same sex meaninglessness.  It is not love without structure.

Like acceptance of gay marriage is a sign of intelligence rather than a failure to face reality.  Like going against the grain fertilizes intellect.

Yeah, you are brilliant because you defy nature and the history of beautiful heterosexuality. For you anal sex is a sign of great intelligence. A hemorrhoid is a logarithm.  It is the mathematics of being asinine.

You are an ass. Yet you feel that your head is screwed on right and that you are superior to normality, that your following the road less traveled by will bring you to Oz.

Perversion is perversion.  It doesn’t make you a bad person.  You may be beautiful in other parts of your life. But walking on the wild side of sexual perversion, you are out of touch.  You are in a mentally sick world.

When I see same sex marriages on television I wince.  I’m not even too enthusiastic about regular marriages.  But same sex puts the corn on corny.  Pass the butter.  Let me slide out of your embarrassing joy.  I turn my eyes.

It’s not that as a gay academic you are stupid in math and literature but that you are stupid in your sex life.  If you can’t follow what makes sense you walk off the road and injure yourself on the cliffs of perversion.

I feel sorry for you.  You shouldn’t defend your doggish position just because you are impelled to kneel.  Admit that you veer from normality. Don’t be proud of failings.

Be what you be but don’t deny that it is a sad world that you inhabit. It may not be your choice.  But it is your choice to rub it in our faces.

Lay back.  Do your thing.  Don’t ask us to be an audience to your perversion.

Your release from the closet is creased pants and tripping on the hangers of twisted metal.  You are out of touch with the rack of normality. The price tag on your clothes is the cost of insanity. Close the door.  Be more than an exhibitionist.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Attn: GOP POTUS Candidates

My Photo
'Who am I'...ha a man of mystery !

First and foremost I am not... let me make this perfectly clear...GOP nor DNC I am a registered Independent Conservative.
I cannot vote in the primaries for either party...I can only vote for Independent candidates.
When I receive E-mails from either party and the first thing I see is 'Are you with me' please donate.
Well I totally turn off...just tell me what you are going to do in false election promises...I am so over that BS! Hello you are applying for the job not I and don't expect me to pay your way..I am not a college tuition fund...get the drift? I don't have college debts...I paid my own way lil by little no debt no interest!

I am retired and tired... on a fixed retirement income... I run a conservative blog and never ask for nor do I want keeps me clean, fair and balanced.
If you say something that I approve of I will post it as a positive...if it is negative to my values I will post it as such....Thats just how I roll!

Tell me your story open and honest no BS ...don't tell me what you think I want to hear tell me how you think and what you will really do...I will post it for free on my blog...thats all you are going to get from me!

Just remember 'We the People' are your prospective employer...not Special interest was so written it is done... in the US Constitution!

Addendum: Just for the record all politicians are starting to look like the 'Walking Dead' Following the King of Zombies Obama lol

FBI investigates Valerie Jarrett's extensive Communist family ties

Carol Felsenthal joins HuffPost Live to discuss whether or not President Obama should fire Valerie Jarrett.
oped: About time...however they should include Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Davis Obama (Original long form birth certificate,Pass Port,school records, Soc Sec card and draft records really funky background) or whatever his real name is in conjunction as well as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who certified Barry as being eligible as a POTUS candidate! And as well as the Clintons funky background re: The Clinton Files :

by: Sylvia Van Peebles 

It is almost impossible to understand how a woman with a father, maternal grandpa and father-in-law, who were hardcore Communists and under investigation by the U.S. government, becomes the trusted senior advisor to the President of the United States. Yet that is Valerie Jarrett's family background. Tuesday according to Judicial Watch Jarrett's father, Dr. James Bowman, a pathologist and geneticist with a lengthy FBI file, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals. Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern in 1950. Stern fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. JW also reports that Bowman was a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. FBI records show that after his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work. 
FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that Jarrett's family were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.
Born in Washington D.C. and with deep ties to Chicago, Bowman often collaborated with fellow Communists. Documents reveal that an FBI investigation was initiated because of his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” It also shows the Jarrett family Communist ties to a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Another family member, Vernon Jarrett, Jarrett’s father-in-law, was also another prominent Chicago Communist. As part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties, JW acquired separate FBI files on Vernon Jarrett. JW also states that he appeared on the FBI’s Security Index for some time and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Jarrett is described as “a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Community Party member with an extensive FBI file,” reports WND on Monday.

Previously exposed for her role in “Fast and Furious,” she was named as a key player in the cover up of Attorney General Eric Holder's lies regarding the gun-running scandal. In 2008 she was also linked to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko.
Not too much has been said about Jarrett's mother, Barbara Taylor Bowman. However, WND learned a couple of years ago that Bowman founded an education initiative alongside the family of unapologetic terrorist Bill Ayers' that was funded by Ayers, Obama and ultimately the 2009 “stimulus” legislation. The Chicago school, the Erikson Institute, focuses on training people who work in early childhood development.
Jarrett was born and raised in Iran until she was five. Many believe that her influence is the reason Obama seems to favor Iran. In a Fox News interview in February, Retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush stated,

“There are many who are now saying that [Jarrett] is really the architect of this non-treaty with the Iranians,” he said, “which ultimately will result in the Iranians having a nuclear program, and America having to accept a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Jarrett got her start in politics in 1987. She was deputy chief of staff for Mayor Richard Daley, during which time she hired Michelle Robinson, who was engaged to Obama. Jarrett mentored and groomed the Obama's long before the White House. In fact, New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor wrote in 2008 that Jarrett would have to be at the top of a list of people who helped Barack and Michelle Obama.

“Nearly two decades ago, Ms. Jarrett swept the young lawyers under her wing, introduced them to a wealthier and better-connected Chicago than their own, and eventually secured contacts and money essential to Mr. Obama’s long-shot Senate victory,” Kantor wrote.

Yes, Ms. Jarrett has had a lengthy and unparalleled influence in all things Obama and the White House. Her influence and Communist family ties, coupled with Iran's pending nuclear program negotiations have Obama critics more than a little suspicious.

The Left Uses Terrorism and Violence as Tools for Social Change Helter Skelter

Deja vu: 


Once again liberals want to blame a murder spree on conservatives. Somehow Dylann Roof represents conservatives because he used a gun to kill 9 innocent black people in church and likes the Confederate Battle flag. Liberals did a similar thing with the Oklahoma City bombing.
And what’s a liberal’s solution? Take legally-owned guns from 99.9 percent of the population and take down the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina.
Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun to kill 167 people, and a flag did not contribute to the evil that lurks in the heart of Dylann Roof. If a flag was the problem, then one has to ask why Democrats have used the Confederate Battle Flag in support of Democrat candidates for decades with no apparent violence.

Dylann Roof’s attempts to cause social disruption (a race war) are the tactics of the left. Charles Manson also wanted to start a race war. In his case, he planned to murder white people and then blame it on blacks. He called it “Helter Skelter.”
“That Manson foresaw a war between the blacks and the whites was not fantastic. Many people believe that such a war may someday occur. What was fantastic was that he was convinced he could personally start that war himself—that by making it look as if blacks had murdered the seven Caucasian victims he could turn the white community against the black community.”1
Manson was no conservative...
Continue Reading at Godfather Politics...

Doctor Fired for Telling Truth about Homosexual Activity while Criticizing Hospital Involvement in Gay Pride Events

Harvard Medical School quadrangle in Longwood Medical Area.
[Harvard Medical School..bastion of LGBT/Perversion studies]

This story is an example of what may soon be happening to anyone (and everyone) who believes that homosexual behavior is not the best thing for people to participate in.
The website Mass Resistance is reporting that a Doctor who has been working a Harvard-affiliated hospital, Beth Israel Deconess Medical Center (BIDMC), was recently let go because he had voiced his concerns about the hospital’s pro-gay agenda.
Dr. Paul Church is a highly respected urologist who has been on staff at BIDMC for almost 30 years, and in that time has never had a complaint from a homosexual patient about his bedside manner or the way that they were treated. None of that matters in our modern and increasingly intolerant America.

Over a decade ago, Dr. Church became concerned about the hospital’s aggressive promotion of and involvement in LGBT activities -- including Boston’s annual “Gay Pride Week” – and its emphatic push for staff participation in them. He felt compelled to speak out.
Through emails to hospital officials and later posting on the hospital’s Intranet system, Dr. Church cited irrefutable medical evidence that high-risk sexual practices common to the LGBT community lead to (among other things) a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS, STD's, hepatitis, parasitic infections, anal cancers, and psychiatric disorders.
Promoting such behavior, he said, is contrary to the higher mission of the healthcare facility to protect the public welfare and encourage healthy lifestyles.  Dr. Church also reminded the administration that its staff and employees represent a diversity of moral and religious views, and many believe that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. 

On March 30, 2015, the Medical Executive Committee announced its decision. Dr. Church was informed that because of his “unsolicited views about homosexuality that were offensive to BIDMC Staff,” he was being terminated from the hospital staff. Further, he was told that that his statements on the subject of homosexuality were “inconsistent with the established standards of professional conduct” and constituted a violation of the hospital’s “Discrimination and Harassment Policy.” 

PChurch_150Dr. Church was expelled not because he had done something wrong, or said something that was incorrect… but simply because he had dared to speak the truth. He reported factual information about the medical dangers of homosexuality, stated that he did not think it was best for a hospital to encourage sexual practices that increase the risk of health dangers, and he asked that he not be sent pro-gay emails to his work email account because he personally disagreed with the moral implications. 

For these “sins” he was canned. And don’t expect anyone in the media to notice the terrible injustice of a person being fired for believing something that runs counter to the popular opinion in his workplace. They only pay attention when a Christian organization (like a school) fires someone for acting out in a manner that is contrary to the organization’s beliefs (like a gay principal getting “married”). In the eyes of the left, it’s okay to fire Dr. Church for believing the wrong thing, but it’s not okay for firing a gay man for practicing things that are contrary to your beliefs.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Dr. Church wrote a statement to the committee that ended up sacking him, his hope had been that they would realize the attacks against him were specious, but they instead chose to make him an example for anyone else considering standing against the immoral status quo.

Here’s a little of what Dr. Church said:
In my clinical practice I have had dozens of patients who would self identify as members of the LGBT community, for whom I have provided compassionate, respectful care, and none have lodged accusations of discrimination or unprofessional behavior.  Indeed, I want to make it very clear that I am not here today because of any charges relating to patient care or professional conduct involving doctor-patient interactions. Former president Paul Levy did conduct his own in-house review of my record and found no indiscretions. He later defended the right of staff, including me, to hold contrary views without being subjected to disciplinary action or dismissal. In an exchange on his own blog on May 19, 2007, he stated, “This is a free country, and people are allowed to express their views. As long as we have no indication that patients are harmed by a doctor, or likely to be harmed, we have no right to remove privileges.” I point this out, because it is still absolutely applicable today…
I have done nothing wrong, unprofessional, or unethical.   I respectfully submit that the administration acknowledge the diversity of moralities and worldviews, including religious convictions, represented among its staff, employees, patients, and larger community and remain neutral to any social agendas, including that of the LGBT advocates. This also means being mindful of the Judeo-Christian roots of our two institutions and respectful of the orthodox views of those religious traditions that do not accept homosexuality as normative or admirable. Furthermore, I urge the medical center to honor its greater commitment and higher calling to promote healthy behaviors and lifestyles. 

Read the rest of his statement here, and see the board members who chose to expel him for simply speaking the truth. 

If you want to get involved, contact the President of BIDMC – Kevin Tabb, MD. Express your frustration, concern, anger and dismay with how Dr. Church has been treated by the hospital and demand that he be reinstated immediately!
Kevin Tabb, MD
President and CEO, BIDMC
Feldberg 230
Boston, MA  02215
Phone: 617-667-4607
Fax: 617-667-3626

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Ret. General Drops Bombshell: Obama Should Be Arrested For This ‘Treasonous Activity’

Paul Vallely announces new movement: Women at War for America

Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Paul E. Vallely stated recently during a radio interview that President Obama should be “arrested for treasonous activities.”
Vallely, while a guest on the Real Side radio program earlier this month, stated above anything else that Obama should be held accountable for his sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood in particular and his actions regarding the Benghazi tragedy. The retired general said one group that should hold the president’s feet to the fire are high-ranking members of the military.
The program’s host, Joe Messina, asked whether Obama would just replace those military leaders with others who agree with him, as he has done several times in the past.
Vallely responded: “Well then we arrest him for treasonous activities.” He noted that the group he helps lead, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, counts at least fourteen different actions the president has taken that could be considered treasonous.

The general listed bringing the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against President el-Sisi in Egypt, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s operations in Syria among the acts amounting to treason.
Vallely believes Obama has taken these actions because he has an agenda. “We know he’s a radical Islamic sympathizer. He sympathizes with the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.
He noted the Middle East is in disarray because of the policies of the administration. “Baghdad is under complete threat.” Further, Vallely pointed out that Major General Qasem Soleimani, from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, is “going to fly in, from what we hear, 8-15 thousand Iranian troops in to bolster Assad in Damascus and save that regime.” Newsweek reported on this move by Iran earlier this month.

Vallely also took Obama to task for stating a few weeks ago that he is waiting on the Pentagon to give him strategic plans to defeat ISIS. Obama’s remarks also prompted a military official to respond: “What the f— was that? We have given him lots of options, he just hasn’t acted on them,” as reported by Fox News.
Vallely was not surprised at this response. The DOD is always working on multiple operational plans to address threats to the United States, he said. The problem is Obama “has no heart. He is a loser. I think he’s a coward, and he does not want to engage.”
Vallely believes it is up to Congress to “shut down” the president on multiple fronts using the power of the purse, among other tools.
“I’m tired of the deceit, the lies, the deception of this administration,” Vallely told Real Side.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released a report last year listing the Benghazi cover-up and continued aid to Egypt following a military coup among the 76 “lawless acts” for which the Obama administration needed to be held accountable. (The coup took out Muslim Brotherhood-backed Mohammed Morsi, but Cruz highlighted that the aid continued without congressional authorization and contrary to federal law.)
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Pope Is Wrong on Science and many more issues!

Pope Is Wrong on Science
oped: The Pope as well as the Catholic Church are so wrong on so many issues as is Islam...I do believe we are in the era of the last Pope as is written in the Bible 'The New Testament! 
I grew up in a Catholic Family...sent to Catholic School through the 3rd grade...I loved the teachings of Jesus and still do...but not a practicing Catholic since the 3rd grade...Jesus never said one must belong to organized religion...but to adhere to his teachings pray and in a quiet place...confess to the teachings and adhere.

Well ya are probably wondering what I meant since the 3rd grade...well my older brother was a Alter Boy...I told him I wanted to follow in his footsteps...being that *most* all young boys admire their older brothers and all...well he told me not to..I said why...he said just because... trust me!...Hmmm being the scrapper that I was I had to find out I joined the group...ah day a priest told me to drink the sacraficial ...stating it was just grape juice...I took a sip and said hell no this is wine ( I grew up in a family who loved bbq &  beer so I knew the difference...I was taught beer/wine was for adults not kids but bbq was for all...)...he put his hands on my shoulders and said just drink...I got the jist of what was about to come (Thinking back on the warning my older brother gave me) so I being a student of Karate kicked him in the shins broke free and ran like hell all the way home...told my Mom what had happened and that  I no longer wanted to go to Catholic School...she pulled me out of school and registered me in public school...which at the time... 1950's was not what it is now (It's definetly perverted now) was cool back then:)  

The jist and morale to the story is...the Catholic Church/Islam has a history of corruption abuse and scandals...I saw it in the 3rd grade...maybe I was a smart kiddo or just a any rate until the Catholic Church/Islam and all other *organized churches* with a history of scandals and abuse fess up and clean up I will continue to worship God/Jesus in private...and to be honest being a Independent worshiper is rewarding and full filling...this also applies to we all know both sides of the aisle GOP/DNC one in the same are corrupted and full of scandal..and in dire need of a severe house cleaning! Need I say more? 

Now on to the be the judge ! 


by:Mark LaRochelle
Pope Frances’ encyclical, Laudato Si’, refers vaguely to “the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life,” which he blames on “consumerism” and “globalization,” which, he says, are harming the poor.
Is that true?
Regarding soil and water, in the U.S., the National Centers for Environmental Information maintains a series of environmental indicators for various risks. The environmental indicator for runoff risk for drinking water has not increased, but decreased sharply — by 60 percent from 1973-74 to 1996-97, the latest period for which data is posted. Likewise, soil erosion on cropland is not increasing, but decreasing, having declined 41 percent between the first (1982) and most recent (2010) Natural Resources Inventory.

Likewise, according to the EPA, US air quality has improved dramatically. In 1980-2013, ground-level ozone was down 33 percent, nitrogen dioxide 54-60 percent, sulfur dioxide 81 percent, carbon monoxide 84 percent, and lead 92 percent. Particulate matter was down 34 percent in just 2000-2013. In Air Quality in America, Joel M. Schwartz and Steven F. Hayward show that available data going back to 1900 document that air quality was improving at the same rates even before passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. (No wonder environmentalists have switched to calling carbon dioxide – the breath of life for plants – a “pollutant.”)

Globally, the United Nations’ 2014 Millenium Development Goals Report documents similar news:
· The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation reports that from 1990 to 2010, the share of the world’s people without sustainable access to safe drinking water was cut in half, meeting its goal five years ahead of schedule. In 1990-2012, the share of the world’s population with access to an improved water source increased from 76 to 89 percent, meaning that more than 2.3 billion people gained access to an improved source of drinking water.
· Meanwhile in developing regions, the proportion of undernourished people decreased from 24 percent in 1990–1992 to 14 percent in 2011–2013. From 1990 to 2012, the proportion of the world’s children under the age of five who were estimated to be stunted – having inadequate height for their age – declined from 40 to 25 percent.

· Perhaps most important, in 1990-2013, the global adult mortality rate declined from 198 to 152 per 1000 population. The mortality rate for children under age five dropped almost 50 per cent, from 90 to 48 per 1,000 live births in 1990-2012. The maternal mortality ratio dropped by 45 percent between 1990 and 2013, from 380 to 210 deaths per 100,000 live births. Globally, life expectancy in 1990-2013 increased by 6 years, to age 71. In Africa, it increased more than twice as fast, by 8 years in 2000-2013.
The Pope’s encyclical emphasized traditional Christian concern for the poor, but attacked globalization, which is responsible for the unprecidented improvement in the condition of the world’s poor in recent decades. Capitalism has done more for the poor in the past ten years than charity has done throughout all of history.

The liberal Fareed Zakaria, writing in the Washington Post, praised the Pope’s embrace of global warming hysteria, yet even he admitted, “The encyclical is gloomy. But in fact, remarkable changes are taking place that could put the planet on a much more sustainable path.”
That’s true: There’s ample reason for optimism, if we don’t sabotage the poor by restricting their access to affordable energy.
Mark LaRochelle is a science journalist in Washington, DC, and former director of publications for the Science & Environmental Policy Project, where he assisted Dr. S. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Virginia. Mr. LaRochelle has reported on environmental science for a number of publications over 20 years.