Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Explosive new hacking scandal has Democrats' fingerprints

Explosive new hacking scandal has Democrats' fingerprints

Criminal investigation into what IT contractors did set to blow up

WND EXCLUSIVE

author-imageBob Unruh 
About | Email | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. 

capitol_lightning

Remember the hue and cry raised by Democrats over the “Russians” hacking their candidates and party computer systems during the 2016 presidential election?

How there should be investigations? How someone – a Republican – must be at fault? How whatever interaction Donald Trump ever had with Russia, or Russians, was viewed suspiciously?

And now there are their attacks on Trump over Michael Flynn, his security adviser who was forced to resign this week over conversations with a Russian representative.

Investigate, they demand. Not just Flynn, but Trump, too.

Yet the Democrats are mum, almost completely quiet, silent, over their own explosive hacking scandal, a scenario that could overshadow Watergate, Filegate, Travelgate and dozens of other Washington scandals.

It’s because the allegations are that Democrats hired IT staffers who were foreign nationals from Pakistan, and the staffers likely gained illegal access to secret congressional information.

And that includes classified documents.

Imran Awan pictured alongside former President Bill Clinton (Photo: LinkedIn)

Imran Awan pictured alongside former President Bill Clinton (Photo: LinkedIn)

The Flynn fracas erupted late Monday and early Tuesday when he resigned, and details came out that he had not been fully truthful when he talked with Vice President Mike Pence about his discussions with the Russian ambassador about sanctions.

But the Daily Caller News Foundation reported brothers Imran, Jamal and Abid Awan had been working for IT departments of multiple Democratic congressional offices. The three brothers had access to various computer systems and pathways.

But then just days ago, they were abruptly relieved of their duties and banned from those networks because of “suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission.”

The report said, “Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.”

WND made dozens of calls and sent dozens of emails on Tuesday asking those members who either did hire the brothers, or might have, for comment and an update on the status of the criminal investigation.

A spokesman from Rep. Cedric Richmond’s office responded tersely, “Can’t comment on this one.”

A spokeswoman in the office of Rep. Diana DeGette said it was a “personnel matter,” and “that’s all I’m going to say.”

Among the many offices WND contacted, without generating a response, were those for (all Democrats) Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Patrick Murphy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joaquini Castro, Lois Frankel, Ted Lieu, Robin Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Mark Takano, John Sarbanes and more.

What do YOU think? Sound off on the criminal probe into Democrat staffers in Congress

‘Very concerning’

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said something must be done.

“I hope we investigate this issue,” he said. “The facts regarding technology procurement and potentially illegal violations of the House IT network by several Democratic staffers is very concerning.”

Philip Haney, a longtime member of the Department of Homeland Security and author of “See Something, Say Nothing,” a book about his long fight to reveal Islamist influences in the terror attacks on the U.S. today, said the case will be a bellwether.

“This particular breach of security will reveal how seriously our three branches of government (Executive, Judicial and Legislative) actually take the threat posed by what appears to be a network of at least five Muslim operatives, who have managed to soak their way into the very heart of our constitutional republic,” he said.

“Let’s hope that this scandal isn’t just swept under the rug, or allowed to fade quietly into the background, like so many others that have, but instead becomes a case study in how our elected officials defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

“In this hyper-political environment, anything less than unrestrained bipartisan cooperation in a full investigation, followed by subsequent prosecution (if warranted), will be seen not only as an open indictment, but also as a blatant display of malevolent hypocrisy.”

Illegal access

Daniel Greenfield at FrontPageMag recently outlined what is known about the breach. And the implications.

Imran Awan and his two brothers, Jamal and Abid, are at the center of an investigation that deals with, among other things, allegations of illegal access. They have been barred from the House of Representatives network.

A member of Congress worried, “[T]hey may have stolen data from us.”

Greenfield reported that the three Pakistani brothers had worked for all Democrats, including members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This was not even a year after eight Democrats on that committee “issued a demand that their staffers be granted access to top secret classified information,” he reported.

There’s a special concern about Carson, he revealed.

“Carson is the second Muslim in Congress and the first Muslim on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, more critically, is the ranking member on its Emerging Threats Subcommittee,” Greenfield wrote. “He is also a member of the Department of Defense Intelligence and Overhead Architecture Subcommittee. The Emerging Threats Subcommittee, of which Carson is a ranking member, is responsible for much of counterterrorism oversight. It is the worst possible place for a man with Carson’s credentials.”

Greenfield continued, “Carson had inherited his grandmother’s seat and exploited it to promote a radical Islamist agenda. He has interfaced with a laundry list of Islamist groups from CAIR to ISNA to ICNA to MPAC. Islamists have funded Carson’s career to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. The Center for Security Policy has put together a dossier of Carson’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is the parent organization of many key Islamic terror groups posing a threat to our national security including al-Qaida and Hamas. Andre Carson shared the stage at a CAIR banquet with Sirraj Wahaj: an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing who had once declared, ‘You don’t get involved in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.’ CAIR itself had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in terror finance.”

While the Democrats were demanding security clearances for staff members, “three Pakistani Muslims working for them appear to have compromised security to an unknown degree,” he said.

Greenfield asked: “Why were the Awan brothers, one of whom had a criminal record, even allowed to work in such a sensitive position? How did the personnel suspected in this case pass background checks? And was any classified information compromised as a result of these alleged breaches?”

What do YOU think? Sound off on the criminal probe into Democrat staffers in Congress

3 brothers paid $160,000 a year, each

The Daily Caller reported that the staff members were dismissed from some congressional offices after the investigation was revealed, but apparently not from all right away. And they were being paid in the range of $160,000 a year – each.

Politico has reported that the criminal investigation also involves allegations the employees stole equipment and the Center for Security Policy explained it was especially alarmed that Carson was among the members of Congress involved, since it has “documented Carson’s extensive and alarming ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The Daily Caller noted in a subsequent report that the staff members allegedly involved also had “multiple suspicious mortgage transfers and a debt-evading bankruptcy.”

One, Abid, “had more than $1 million in debts following a failed business called Cars International that he ran in Falls Church, Va., from November 2009 to September 2010.”

“It’s unclear how Abid found time to run an automotive business while working full time for Congress. He had been on the congressional payroll since 2005. A congressional credit union repossessed two of his personal cars before the business folded.”

The report continued, “Abid filed for bankruptcy in 2012, but somehow managed to keep ownership of two houses while telling the bankruptcy court and creditors that he had no assets with which to pay them. He signed a sworn statement that he and his wife, Natalia Soba, were living apart and needed separate residences.”

The Caller continued, “Abid’s record includes numerous driving- and alcohol-related legal problems, including driving with a suspended or revoked license, court records show.”

“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming Our Reality,” marshals the terrifying evidence to show the world of Big Brother is much closer than we want to admit.



Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Note to the Left: Four Years Ago, Conservatives Were Just as Depressed

Note to the Left: Four Years Ago, Conservatives Were Just as Depressed

Here's a news flash for Democrats and other Americans on the left: Four years ago, when Barack Obama was re-elected president, conservatives were just as depressed as you are now that Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won.         

I describe this as news because this undoubtedly surprises many of you. You probably never gave a moment's thought to how depressed conservatives were in 2012. (Why would you? Unlike you, we shun hysteria.) But believe me -- we were.         

Many of us believed that President Obama was doing great damage to America. Now we are convinced that he did more damage to America domestically, to America's position the world and to the world at large than any other two-term president. He left office with racial tensions -- many of which he exacerbated -- greater than at any time since the civil rights era half a century ago. He left the world's worst regimes -- Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and radical Islamist terror groups -- stronger and more aggressive than before he became president. Economic growth never rose above 3 percent, a first for a two-term president. He nearly doubled the national debt and had little to nothing to show for it. Obamacare hurt more people financially than it helped medically, including physicians. More people than ever are on government aid. The list is far longer than this.         

Moreover, just like most Democrats in 2016, most Republicans in 2012 expected to win.         

The depression among conservatives was palpable. To cite only my own experience, I turned the television off on election night. It was too painful to watch. Instead, I played hearts on the computer and listened to Strauss's "Death and Transfiguration" to lighten the mood.         

But why does the level of conservative despair four years ago come as a surprise to Americans on the left?         

First, unlike much of the left, most conservatives handle despair like mature adults. Most obviously, we didn't riot. In fact, in America, rioting -- not to mention shutting down highways and airports, taking over college offices and protesting at peoples' homes -- is a monopoly of the left.         

Nor did we allow our conservative children to take a day off from school to demonstrate.         

Nor did conservative teachers preach opposition to Obama in their classrooms.         

Nor did we print posters with the words "Not My President."         

Nor did conservative clergy declare fast days.         

The second reason is that we know you, but you don't know us.         

You read, listen to, watch, socialize with and study under leftists. Only if you are stuck with some immediate relatives who aren't on the left do you encounter a nonleftist (let alone a nonleftist idea). Therefore, there is no way you would know how painful it was for conservatives during that time. While liberals feel free to express their emotions and opinions to anyone, anywhere, any time, conservatives, especially those who voted for Trump, live like Marranos.         

The Marranos were Jews living in Spain or Portugal during the Spanish Inquisition in the 1400s who lived like Christians but secretly practiced Judaism. That is how most Trump voters have been forced to live. They live like most people and hide their identity as Trump voters, lest they lose their job, their business, their relatives, their friends and/or their good name.         

A gay professor writing in The Wall Street Journal recently echoed this analogy when he likened being in the closet as a Trump voter to being in the closet as a gay man when he was younger. He said:         

"I began having gay relationships at 25 but remained closeted. I hated lying to people, but in the 1980s and '90s I feared that coming out would estrange me from family and damage my career. Similarly, I now find creative ways to avoid answering whether I voted for Donald Trump. This may be hard for some to believe, but watching protesters today call Trump supporters racists and bigots has been nearly as distressing as being told to 'die in hell, (vulgarity)' 30 years ago. ... I am as afraid about acknowledging that I voted for Mr. Trump today as I was about being gay yesterday. There seems to be as little understanding of my political views as there was about my sexual orientation."         

Finally, leftists lack self-awareness. They think they are the apotheosis of tolerance when in fact they are far less tolerant than most conservatives. They think they embody kindheartedness when in fact the further left you go, the greater the meanness. And they think they suffer uniquely when they lose a national election.         

Leftists' pain is not one whit greater than that of conservatives four years ago. But many of them can't handle pain nearly as well. If they could, they'd be grown-ups and no longer on the left.



Sent from my iPhone

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy, it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.

“It is fine for everybody to feel stressed, sad, discouraged,” he said in a conference call from the White House. “But get over it.” He demanded they “move forward to protect what we’ve accomplished.”

“Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope.”

Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”

Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.

OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts.

Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation.

The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.

Critical to the fight is rebuilding the ravaged Democratic Party. Obama hopes to install his former civil rights chief Tom Perez at the helm of the Democratic National Committee.

Perez is running for the vacant DNC chairmanship, vowing, “It’s time to organize and fight . . . We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments,” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grassroots organizing force this country has ever seen.”

The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.

“You’re going to see me early next year,” he told his OFA troops after the election, “and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

Added the ex-president: “Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go.”

Paul Sperry is the author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which details the link between race-based housing policies and the mortgage crisis.



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, February 13, 2017

Shoving Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Right Back in the Left’s Ugly Face

Shoving Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Right Back in the Left’s Ugly Face

The Left is getting massively out-Alinskyed, and the hilarious thing is that this band of withered hippies, unemployable millennial safe-space cases, and unlovable + unshaven libfeminists don’t even know it. Oh, their masters sure know it. Soros is bitterly having to ramp up his infusions of blood money to keep his community-organized “grassroots” movements afloat. The less dumb ones among the lying dinosaur media are panicking as their influence fades, and Chuck Schumer is enduring such a non-stop parade of serial humiliations that if the Senate were a penitentiary, he’d be McConnell’s prison Mitch. 

The Leftist mafia godmaleidentifyingparents pulling the strings of the Marxist Muppets know the score – they are losing. And it’s awesome. Because, finally, the Right has taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and shoved it up where #TheResistance don’t shine.

Thank you, Andrew Breitbart. You yelled, “Follow me!” and led a movement that had previously been dominated by doofy wonks and bow-tied geeks over the top in a glorious bayonet charge against the paper tiger liberal elite. The Left hadn’t taken a good, solid gut punch since Ronald Reagan turned the Oval Office keys over to the wimpcons who found fighting Democrats uncouth because conflict made for awkward luncheons down at the club. Bizarrely, the guy who picked up the standard and carried it forward when our beloved commander was felled by fate was a New York billionaire with no identifiable ideological foundation who instinctively understood the one thing that could make up for his other failings: He knows how to fight liberals and win. For Donald Trump and the revitalized conservative movement, Alinsky's book isn’t some dusty old commie tome - it’s a lifestyle. 

Alinsky’s Rules are relatively simple, and they make sense when you are fighting a conventional opponent with an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Rules are terrific for dealing with an old-school conservative guy who drives a Buick, enjoys gardening, and doesn’t want any trouble. They aren’t so effective against conservative brawlers who like to punch, and who aren’t too fussy about whether it’s with tweets or with fists. 

The Rules are not some magic incantation; they are simply some tactical principles that work in certain kinds of fights against certain kinds of opponents – particularly ones willing to unilaterally disarm in the face of an unprincipled enemy. But once the secret is out, it’s relatively easy to turn them around on an enemy that is so stupid it thinks it’s going to gain widespread acceptance among normal Americans by dressing up as genitalia. That’s why the thirteen classic Alinsky Rules are playing out right now in a way the Left did not expect.

Rule 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Actually, we now have a lot of power. No, we don’t have direct power over liberal bastions like Hollywood, the media and academia, but by threatening to use governmental levers of power to impact their tax breaks, copyright laws, and subsidies, we can pound them into submission. And Trump is clearly willing to use all his powers to beat the living liberalism out of our enemy.

Wait, this is where the Fredocons loosen their bow ties and stutter, “Why…we can’t…Professor Wellington Wimpenheimer IV would not approve…it’s so mean…oh, well I never!”

Wake up. Man up. If you ever want to win (and maybe someday even kiss a girl) you need to get real. They hate us, and we either win or we spend the rest of our miserable lives as Boxer the Horse, slaving away to fund the welfare state under the lash of the Left until it decides it’s time to pack us off to the glue factory.

Rule 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people” and Rule 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Stupid GOP wonkcons want to fight to where the liberals are strong, like on entitlements. Trump is smart enough to fight where liberals are weak, like on the economy. And he’s going to throw down some serious jujitsu by doing a liberal thing – infrastructure spending – in a conservative way. He's a developer – he knows how to build stuff, and he will freak the Left out by delivering concrete results (not the least of them, a wall) where liberals (for whom “infrastructure” means giving our money to their deadbeat constituents) never actually build stuff anymore. As a conservative, I’m not thrilled about “infrastructure” spending. But as a conservative insurgent who wants to see the Left on its collective collectivist back, twitching like a dying roach, I’m thrilled.

Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is not so much about pointing out the lies and hypocrisy that constitute Leftist orthodoxy – the vicious racism they deny is racism because it’s anti-white, the racism against non-whites who refuse to serve a liberal master, the sexism against women who think babies should be actually be born, and so on. It’s about not letting them tie us into knots by using our morals and values as bear traps to immobilize and neutralize us. Fortunately, most of us have discovered how losing our superficial “political values” helps us regain our freedom. We have embraced the power of not #caring. And liberals have no idea what to do when they shout “Trump is a meanie,” and we shrug, smile, and bust out with an impromptu interpretive dance to celebrate Neil Gorsuch.

Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Actually, the AR15 a more potent weapon, but ridicule will do as long as the Left doesn't try to make good on its countless threats of violence and tyranny. Regardless, we finally we have a conservative corps that is willing to mock the members of that motley collection of pompous, inept, lying jerks we call the Democrat Party and its media catamite corps. When they turn around and try to mock us back, well, we aren’t watching their late night hack comics anymore, and frankly they can make all the jokes they want. The punchline is still going to be “And then the Republicans repealed Obamacare.” 

Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” I’m having fun watching the liberals lose. How about you?

Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” I don’t know – I doubt I am ever going to be tired of so much #winning.

Rule 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Remember the Trump outrage du jour a couple days ago when we were supposed to be on the verge of war with Australia? Well, Down Under’s kangaroos and giant scary spiders still wander freely, and we’ve long since moved on. President Trump has been busy owning the news cycle with appointments, executive orders, and the occasional squirrel-sighting tweet that sends the media chasing off on a rodent-seeking tangent. Oh no, Kellyanne Conway said to buy Ivanka’s stuff – if I ever cared (and I never did), I’ve already moved on to giggling about the progressive freak out over ICE being allowed to do its job again.

Rule 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” No, Alinsky was wrong. The thing itself is much, much worse – as Democrats will find out when President Trump signs the law mandating national concealed carry reciprocity.

Rule 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” Democrats are trying to do the massive resistance thing again, and it’s going about as well as when they tried the massive resistance thing against integration. It may arouse libs in blue cities and on soon-to-be-defunded college campuses, but normals are getting tired of the nonstop Leftist nonsense. See Rule 7. Conversely, Trump’s nonstop series of orders, appointments, and policies seems to be helping him – mostly because they are popular. 

Rule 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Unhinged Leftist obstruction, including violence, is driving people right. However, leftist harping on Trump’s rough edges seems to be backfiring – instead of “Oh my, what a brute!” people seem to be saying “Good. He fights.”

Rule 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Trump has a program and it’s popular. What’s the Democrats’ program? “Give us more of your money so we can buy votes from welfare cheats, and then we’ll lecture you on your privilege?” 

The Democrats have no meaningful policies because their entire focus is on them regaining and keeping power – that’s their desired end state, not a country made great again, and that’s why they get no traction anywhere on the map outside of the dysfunctional blue spots. Watch for then to eventually seriously propose secession by the liberal states – after the last few months, I’ve been tempted to move my novel People’s Republic, about California ignoring the admonition to never go full Venezuela, over to the nonfiction section.

Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Well, they try to. They try to make Trump a demonic chimera composed of bits and pieces of Hitler, Mussolini, and more Hitler, and he just doesn’t care. We don’t care, because we know what they are really saying is that we normals are the monsters that it’s not Trump governing that is illegitimate but that it is we normals having a voice in governing ourselves that is illegitimate. 

And now we are woke, as the ridiculous Left would put it, to the Left’s tired Alinsky antics. We see it’s all a lie. It’s all a scam. And we aren’t playing the game by their rules anymore.



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Dissenting judges rip colleagues' 10 Commandments ruling

Dissenting judges rip colleagues' 10 Commandments ruling

'Simply having religious content does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause'

WND EXCLUSIVE

author-imageBob Unruh 
About | Email | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. 

Constitution42

Two appeals court judges are asserting that court antagonism to religion is going too far these days, because the law of the land allows acknowledgement of religion and even the presence of religious statements and memorials in the public eye.

“Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause,” two judges from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a dissent this week.

“Our cases should further the meaning of the Establishment Clause as it was understood by the Framers. This case presented a good opportunity to take another look at the map and reverse course.

“Though returning to a more historically congruent understanding of the Establishment Clause is the ultimate province of the Supreme Court, there is much we could have done to correct our law in this area while still operating within the proper boundaries of an inferior court.”

The opinion came from Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr., who was joined in the dissent by Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich.

The majority of the court refused a request for a rehearing in the case Jane Felix and B.N. Coone vs. city of Bloomfield, N.M.

“The Liberty Amendments” is the blueprint on how to fix our broken government by Mark Levin, the #1 New York Times bestselling author of “Liberty and Tyranny” and “Ameritopia.” Order it today at WND’s Superstore.

In the case, the city had a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of its city hall. Two observers complained that it violated the First Amendment, and the court ordered the city to remove it.

Jonathan Scruggs of the Alliance Defending Freedom contended, however that Americans “shouldn’t be forced to censor or whitewash religion’s role in history simply to appease the emotional response of two offended individuals with a political agenda.”

“As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, a passive monument, such as this display of the Ten Commandments, accompanied by others acknowledging our nation’s religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion. This court’s order failed to recognize ‘the historical understanding of what an establishment of religion is and what the First Amendment actually prohibits.’ Because of this misinterpretation of the law, we are consulting with our client to consider their options for appeal.”

While the majority of the court bench rejected the request for a rehearing in which the city could again argue to keep its Ten Commandments, the two judges took the extraordinary step of dissenting.

“This decision continues the error of our Establishment Clause cases,” they wrote. “It does not align with the historical understanding of an ‘establishment of religion’ and thus with what the First Amendment actually prohibits.”

They noted that the settlers to America mostly came from countries that had established churches supported by taxes. That also was the norm in the American colonies, they said, even after the Revolution.

The Massachusetts constitution, for example, declared that “the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.”

So it established “the institution of the public worship of God and the public instruction in piety, religion and morality.”

Eventually, the First Amendment’s language was adopted: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

So states were free to continue offering encouragement to religion, but they could not control churches.

“This distinction between religion generally and the church specifically also made sense in light of the historical practices of the First Congress. On the same day the House of Representatives voted to ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion,’ it proposed a resolution requesting President George Washington to set aside a ‘day of public humiliation and prayer’ in his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation,” the judges pointedly wrote.

In the present case, the decision didn’t even follow the 10th Circuit’s precedents, they said.

“The panel opinion emphasizes that a city must make ‘sufficiently purposeful, public and persuasize actions’ to overcome any religious message … and then provides examples of such remediation: accompany the monument with other secular markers, avoiding religious ceremonies when unveiling the monument, and displaying clear disclaimers.”

They continued: “Yet the city of Bloomfield did each of those things. … What more should the city have done, besides not having a Ten Commandments display at all?”

Then came their plea.

“It is time we re-examine our Establishment Clause cases. The Supreme Court has ‘often noted that actions taken by the First Congress are presumptively consistent with the Bill of Rights. … Those actions often took the form of supporting religion generally but never establishing an official religion or church.

“According, this distinction should inform our understanding of what the First Amendment allows, and what it does not.”

“The Liberty Amendments” is the blueprint on how to fix our broken government by Mark Levin, the #1 New York Times bestselling author of “Liberty and Tyranny” and “Ameritopia.” Order it today at WND’s Superstore.



Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Autonomous Life in the Womb

This is fascinating and well worth the time to read or listen. 

Autonomous Life in the Womb

BP_blog

Can we finally give the myth that an unborn baby is “just a clump of cells” a decent burial?

Listen Now | Download


John Stonestreet

Yesterday Eric Metaxas told you about a manipulative article from The Atlantic that heaps scorn on the pro-life movement’s use of ultrasound technology to show pregnant women and others the humanity of the unborn child.

Just as a refresher, in the piece, author Moira Weigel shares such gems as this: “The technology has been used to create an ‘imaginary’ heartbeat and sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.” Katie Couric thinks kids can feel gender in the womb, but an actual heartbeat is just a “stimulus?”

And here’s another utterly baseless claim from the article: “Ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.” Huh? What if the OB/GYN is a female?!

We shouldn’t be surprised by irrational attempts to undermine the cause for life. The case for life is stronger than ever. The abortion rate is down, and those who profit from abortion aren’t happy.

So they’re probably not going to be popping the corks off their champagne bottles when they read a fascinating new article in Public Discourse by Ana Maria Dumitru. It’s called “Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins.”

What is “embryonic autonomy,” you ask? According to a recent study, titled “Self-organization of the human embryo in the absence of maternal tissues,” human embryos from the earliest stages of life can direct their own development—in or out of the womb.  Why is this important? Here’s how Dumitru, who is a fifth-year M.D./Ph.D. candidate at Dartmouth, explains it:

daily_commentary_02_09_17“As scientists, my colleagues must concede that embryos are made up of living cells, but they don’t accept the embryo as a living organism. If the early embryo is ‘just a clump of cells,’ then you can justify abortion. By this logic, it’s not an autonomous being, and it’s definitely not a human person yet. It’s just a few cells growing in the mother’s body, and so the mother can choose to get rid of those cells if she wants to.”

The problem for this view, Dumitru writes, is that so-called “clumps” whether in a uterus or in a lab, don’t behave like clumps of cells. Instead, they appear to act independently, or autonomously, of any signals from the mother’s body, whether in or out of the womb. And “clumps” don’t do that.

As Ana Maria explains, “This one little cell, with its complete genetic content, can and does begin to divide and to grow, even in an experimental dish in an incubator in the closet space of some unmarked lab. … That means, as we suspected, embryos know what they’re supposed to do to live, and they try to live, whether they’re in their mother or not.”

And it means not only that the embryo is a living being, but that it’s a person. This demolishes another argument for legal abortion, that the unborn may be living, but not yet persons—in other words, deserving of legal protection.

But the research Dumitru cites undercuts this contention by showing that embryo autonomy and personhood are “interchangeable terms,” because although the embryo’s capacities—which pro-choicers say are necessary for personhood—are not yet fully developed, they are clearly in fact already present. They require no signals from the mother to develop, only nourishment—which of course we all need.

Ultimately, all this comes down, again, to worldview. As Dumitru says, “It’s time to own up to the truth. Science has already affirmed what we have long since suspected: we can call them fertilized eggs, zygotes, blastocysts, products of conception, or fetuses, but that doesn’t change reality. And the reality is this: they are autonomous humans from the very beginning.”

Come to BreakPoint.org, I’ll link you to this article. Please read it, study it, and then go have some productive pro-life conversations with your friends and neighbors.

Further Reading and Information

When a Clump Is not a Clump: Autonomous Life in the Womb

Click here to read Ana Maria Dumitru's article from Public Discourse, and as John suggested, initiate discussions in your spheres of influence. Start out by pointing to the amazing autonomy of human life from its very beginning.

Resources

Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins
Ana Maria Dumitru | The Public Discourse | January 24, 2017

Rate of U.S. Abortions Hits Lowest Since Roe v. Wade
Jan Hoffman | New York Times | January 18, 2017

Abortion Science: Heartbeats Are Imaginary, Unborn Babies Aren’t Alive, And Ultrasounds Are Just Tools Of The Patriarchy
Sean Davis | The Federalist | January 24, 2017

Available at the online bookstore

The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
Scott Klusendorf | Crossway Books | March 2009



Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, February 2, 2017

White House Chooses Gay Agenda Over Religious Liberty

White House Chooses Gay Agenda Over Religious Liberty

Let’s hope that President Trump will see his way clear to revise and amend this order to include genuine religious protections.

As we feared, President Trump has chosen sides in the battle between homosexuality and religious liberty. And he has chosen poorly. 

From The Hill (emphasis mine): 

The White House said early Tuesday that President Trump will continue to enforce an Obama-era executive order protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community in the workplace.

“President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community,” said a statement from his press secretary’s office. “President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election.”

The administration said Trump is proud to have been the first GOP presidential nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his acceptance speech, “pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression.”

“The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump,” the White House said. 

Many of us feared during the campaign that the confusing messages Mr. Trump was sending with regard to the homosexual agenda portended trouble were he to be elected. Unfortunately, those fears may now have been realized. 

President Obama enacted an executive order in 2014 forbidding any business which would not affirm sexual deviancy from doing any contract work for the federal government. The current administration today re-affirmed that executive order, even though it was under no compulsion to do so. 

This perfectly terrible order requires all businesses to affirm the radical LGBTQ agenda as the cost of doing business with their own government. Business owners who believe in sexual normalcy need not apply. They are now banished from entering into any contract with the federal government. 

This means, for instance, that Christian relief agencies whose personnel policy is shaped according to the sexual standards of the Judeo-Christian tradition may be ineligible to work for Uncle Sam. Adoption agencies may not be allowed to render services under the auspices of their own government. As the Family Research Council puts it, “[R]eligious organizations will be faced with an agonizing choice -- compromise their faith-based principles, or forego the federal contracts which maximize their ability to minister to the needy.” 

No for-profit contractors will be allowed to work on any part of the president’s infrastructure plan without an all-out embrace of sexually non-normative behavior. No landscape business, no printer, no food service provider, no janitorial service, no IT company, no vendor, and certainly no bakers like the Kleins will be permitted to do any work for any federal agency unless they bend the knee to sexual anarchists and treat homosexual behavior as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. 

They will be forced to set aside their most deeply held convictions about human sexuality and marriage in order to be considered for government contracts. This blanket discrimination on the basis of religion is not only immoral but also illegal, since it violates civil rights laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of religion. And it violates the plain provision of the First Amendment which prohibits the federal government from restraining “the free exercise” of religion in any way. 

An American who is not allowed to bring his most deeply held religious convictions into the way he runs his business is being denied the free exercise of his faith. The free exercise of religion does not just belong to Americans between 11am and noon on Sunday. It is a right we possess 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including the time we spend running our businesses. As the Family Research Council (FRC) puts it, “Accepting a federal contract does not constitute forfeiture of the right to freely exercise one’s religion.” 

FRC thoroughly examined this executive order when President Obama issued it in 2014. FRC correctly argues that sexual orientation and gender identity are not appropriate categories for protection because such characteristics aren’t “inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution.” People are born black but no one is born gay. 

Further, FRC looked at the order in 2014 as the president “using the contracting process as a tool to impose his ideological will upon private employers,” to “attack...religious liberty,” and to “punish Americans who dissent from the politically correct ideology of the sexual revolution...by law where possible, and by stigmatizing it as bigotry on a par with the most virulent racism.”

The struggle between religious liberty and the homosexual agenda is a zero-sum game. In every conflict between them somebody wins and somebody loses. Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty. 

Let’s hope that President Trump will see his way clear to revise and amend this order to include genuine religious protections. Our new president certainly has advisers around him who understand the push and pull of these dynamics in a way that the president himself probably does not. It’s time for them to do some advising. 

And it’s time for those of us who believe in religious liberty to do some praying.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio. Likewise no comments directed at the moderator(s) will be approved.)


Sent from my iPhone