Good news: Part 1


Good news on New Mexico’s abortion front

OneNewsNow reports in a 14 December 2017 article how the New Mexico government will have to uphold the rights of Americans as a probe into abortionaries proceeds.

Amid a federal criminal investigation into a segment of the abortion industry, a New Mexico pro-life group contends upholding the law is far more important than political correctness.

New Mexico Alliance for Life, headed by Elisa Martinez, has been able to confirm through the offices of Congressman Steve Pierce (R-New Mexico) and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) that two New Mexico entities are targets of a federal probe.

“The University of New Mexico and Southwestern Women’s Options are under criminal investigation by the FBI,” states Martinez, “for the practices of illicit harvesting of infant body parts and unlawful consent forms that were given to women in order to obtain those body parts.”

In 2016, the U.S. House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives forwarded information on possible criminal charges to New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas. And though there have been no indictments in the past year, Martinez contends there is a vital issue at stake.

“It’s extremely important that the rule of law is upheld.” declares Martinez. “No one is above the law, but a lot of folks from the other aisle are quick to defend anything that has to do with the abortion industry.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Of course, this case is only in its beginning stages. Still, it provides good news to those of us who support the right to life.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Judge rejects restraining order against Tastries Bakery in lawsuit over owner’s refusal to bake same-sex wedding cakes

The Bakersfield Californian reports in a 14 December 2017 article how Kern County Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of a Christian cake maker.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the state of California a temporary restraining order against a local bakery that refuses to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Lampe ruled Thursday that he didn’t have enough information to make the call.

But the case is scheduled to come back to Lampe on Feb. 2 at a hearing in which Tastries Bakery could be ordered to either make wedding cakes for members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender and Questioning community — or stop making wedding cakes altogether.

According to court records, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing petitioned the court to issue a restraining order against Tastries and owner Cathy Miller, prohibiting her from denying service to same-sex couples, as is her practice.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Daniel Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is defending Miller, said the government sought the temporary restraining order to force Miller into a tough position.

It would have required her to either make wedding cakes for LGTBQ couples or to not make wedding cakes for anyone, he said.

Piedra said Miller has been required to respond to the state with detailed personal and employment information that answers 40 questions.

Judge Lampe, he said, wants to see those answers before he rules on the restraining order.

The judge, Piedra said, felt both sides had important rights that must be seriously considered prior to taking any action.

According to a press release from the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, “the government wanted a court order to compel Miller to create wedding cakes for LGBT persons even though doing so would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Charles LiMandri, president and chief counsel for the organization, said in the press release the case was an assault on Christians and accused the state of using surprise tactics to get the court to approve the restraining order.

The case first came about in August when Miller personally refused to make a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, the couple said, and their concerns, expressed on social media, triggered a firestorm of debate locally.

One other same-sex couple also said they were denied a wedding cake by Miller.

Miller, at the time, said she loves all people.

But, she said, “My conscience doesn’t allow me to participate in certain activities that are contrary to my biblical beliefs. I pray that we can all come to an understanding so that we can continue to get along.”

(Read more at the Bakersfield Californian)

While this will find challenges in other courts, this is good. As a conservative, I wouldn’t want a gay man to be forced to print t-shirts for the Westboro Baptist Church. On the same note, Christians that object to participating in gay events should not be forced to be part of those events. Don’t be fooled, photographers and bakers have to participate in the event if they provide their product to the event.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Media Silent (Part 4)


Media Silent on Venezuelan Depths of Socialism

MRCtv tells of Chaos in Venezuela

Through a series of short videos, MRCtv tells of the political assassinations, attacks on police, attacks by police on protesting civilians, and attacks on army vehicles.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fcnsnewscom%2Fvideos%2F1580334915322884%2F&show_text=0&width=400

Venezuelan government kidnaps opposition leaders

In a 1 August 2017 article, The Guardian provides proof of political kidnappings in Venezuela.

Venezuela opposition leaders Leopoldo López and Antonio Ledezma have been taken from their homes, where they were under house arrest, family members of the two have tweeted.

López’s wife and Ledezma’s daughter said they would hold President Nicolás Maduro responsible for the fate of the two men.

Both leaders in recent days have called on Venezuelans to join protests against Maduro over the creation of an all-powerful legislative body called the constituent assembly, which was elected on Sunday.

The vote for the assembly was boycotted by the opposition and has been criticised around the world as an assault on democratic freedoms.

“12:27 in the morning: the moment when the dictatorship kidnaps Leopoldo at my house,” López’s wife, Lilian Tintori, wrote on Twitter.

She included a video of what appears to be López being led into a vehicle emblazoned with the word Sebin, Venezuela’s intelligence agency. Vanessa Ledezma posted a similar video of Ledezma.

(Read more on The Guardian)

As these current videos and articles and previous posts on the starving Venezuela prove, socialism provides little to anyone but those at the top of the socialistic pyramid. Socialism works only as the worst of all Ponzi schemes.

Media Silent on Democrats with Felony Charges

Media Silent on the Conviction of the Doctor Accused of Bribing Senator Menendez

USA Today reported in a 28 April 2017 article on the half of this equation who has been accused of bribing Senator Menendez and now stands convicted of medicare fraud.

A Florida jury convicted eye doctor Salomon Melgen of Medicare fraud on Friday, increasing the pressure he may face to testify against Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in September when the two go on trial in New Jersey on corruption charges.

“By having two separate trials, it raises the stakes for Dr. Melgen and gives the government enormous additional leverage,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal and state prosecutor who chairs the white collar criminal defense section at McCarter & English in Newark, N.J.

“Rather than being able to roll the dice on the question of whether to go to trial or cooperate — assuming he has information the government would be interested in — he knows with certainty he’s going to jail and the only way to reduce his sentence would be to cooperate,” Mintz said.

An April 2015 indictment handed up by a Newark grand jury accused Melgen of providing contributions to political committees and luxury travel, including flights on his private jet and vacations at his home in a Dominican Republic resort, as bribes to get Menendez to take official actions to benefit Melgen financially. One charge accuses Menendez of pressuring Medicare officials about a regulation at the heart of a $9 million billing dispute Melgen had with the government.

Both Menendez and Melgen have pleaded not guilty to the charges in Newark.

Menendez’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said Melgen’s convictions related to “day-to-day operations of his medical practice and the private care of his patients — specifics of which the senator could not be aware, nor has it ever been suggested otherwise.”

“From the beginning, Senator Menendez has been clear that he has always acted in accordance with the law and his appropriate legislative oversight role as a member of Congress. When all the facts are heard, he is fully confident that a jury will agree and he will be vindicated,” Lowell said.

(Read more at USA Today)

Senator Menendez Shows His Faith in the Democrat Media through a Request to the Judge

In a 25 August 2017 Politico article, Senator Bob Menendez demonstrated extreme chutzpah even for a Democrat senator.

With numerous high-stakes votes approaching in Congress, lawyers for U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are pleading with a federal judge to recess the Democrat’s impending corruption trial on days he is needed in Washington.

The lawyers, who were unable to convince U.S. District Court Judge William H. Walls of their arguments during a hearing in New Jersey earlier this week, say in a new motion that the senator’s absence from the Capitol could imperil votes to raise the debt ceiling and to avoid a government shutdown.

The situation is creating a “clash of values,” the senator’s lawyers say, that could force Menendez to make an unfair choice: Set aside his right to confront his accusers so he can make it to Washington for big votes, or shirk his constitutional obligations to the people who elected him so he can sit through the full trial.

“Senator Menendez, like any criminal defendant whose individual liberty is at stake, has a clear and unqualified interest in being present at his own trial,” attorneys Abbe Lowell and Raymond M. Brown wrote in their motion, filed Thursday evening.

“However,” the lawyers wrote, “a trial taking place during a session of Congress risks involuntarily denying Senator Menendez his rights to due process and confrontation, unless he elects to forego his constitutional duty to cast his vote on critical issues pending before Congress so that he can be present in the courtroom.”

Menendez, New Jersey’s senior senator, is accused of dolling out political favors for Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, a close friend, in exchange for lavish vacations, private jet flights and campaign cash.

The trial, set to begin on Sept. 6 in Newark, could last for months and also butt up against a vote on the National Flood Insurance Program, which covers 200,000 New Jersey policyholders and is a top issue for Menendez.

(Read more at Politico)

Should Anyone be Surprised When We Consider a 2016 National Review Article

Michelle Malkin produced a 13 July 2016 National Review article detailing the corruption of several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. This post teases with Michelle’s first two picks.

Too many black leaders would rather break the law to line their pockets than take care of their constituents. We’re naming names.

If Black Lives Matter, then why have entrenched members of the Congressional Black Caucus spent more time enriching themselves than taking care of their neglected constituents?

Too many social-justice protesters are busy throwing shade, rocks, bottles, concrete blocks, and vicious death threats at police officers of all colors who are trying to keep the peace.

Instead of moaning about “#WhitePrivilege,” I invite radical racial identity warriors to join me in taking on the black political elites selling out their people.

  • Corrine Brown:This twelve-term Democrat from Florida received a 24-count federal indictment last week while her Congressional Black Caucus colleagues tried to drown out the news with diversionary gun-control theatrics. Brown and her chief of staff are charged with creating a fraudulent education charity to collect over $800,000 in donations from major corporations and philanthropies for their own private slush fund between 2012 and early 2016.

    The director of the hoax group, dubbed One Door for Education, Inc., pleaded guilty last year to fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors say that two relatives of Brown and her chief of staff steered tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits to their accounts. The charitable contributions paid for lavish galas, NFL tickets, concert luxury box seats, golf tournaments, and apparently Brown’s tax bills.

    Despite raising nearly a million bucks, Brown’s “charity” issued only two measly educational scholarships for minority students. So while shamelessly claiming this week to be a martyr akin to the murdered Dallas police officers and victims of the Orlando jihad, Brown is embroiled in a sordid scandal that exploited black children to line her own pockets.

    You can’t blame righty or whitey this time, Crooked Corrine.
     

  • Chaka Fattah: This eleven-term Pennsylvania Democrat was convicted in late June on 23 charges of racketeering, money laundering, and fraud, along with four other co-defendants. His son was sentenced earlier this year to a five-year prison term after being found guilty of 22 counts of separate federal bank- and tax-fraud charges related to his misuse of business loans and federal education contracts to pay for designer clothes, massive bar tabs, and luxury cars.

    Fattah the Elder’s crimes are tied to schemes to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan. Like his rotten apple of a son, Fattah siphoned off federal grant money and nonprofit funds (including donations to his educational foundation — sound familiar?) to pay off political consultants.

    The con artists inside your own communities are your own worst enemies.

(Read Michelle’s full list of corrupt Democrats at National Review)

For those of us who remember Ray Nagin, Marion Barry, William J. Jefferson, Rod Blagojevich, Anthony Weiner, Jesse Jackson, Laura Richardson, Frank Ballance, and Jim Traficant, there remains a bit of distrust of Democrats.

The Trump Administration on Religious Freedom

The 2016 International Religious Freedom Report Underscores Foundational American Values

In the following 15 August 2017 announcement by Secretary Tillerson, the Trump administration acknowledged America’s basis in religious freedom and the genocide occurring among Christians in the Middle East.

Why would the media want to ignore a statement that affirms the religious freedom? The Democrat-favoring media might skip over this report in order to hide the pro-Muslim bias of the Obama administration.

Secretary Tillerson Contradicts the Anti-Terrorism Stance of Trump

According to a 15 August 2017 Clarion Project article, the Tillerson State Department has taken a different route than the stated route of Donald Trump.

On the very positive side, an alliance of Gulf and other Muslim states led by Saudi Arabia and including Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen and others severed all relations with Qatar because of Qatar’s funding of terrorism (Hamas, the <a class="glossaryLink " data-cmtooltip="A worldwide Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna that seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally.

 ” href=”https://clarionproject.org/glossary/muslim-brotherhood/&#8221; rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” title=”Glossary: Muslim Brotherhood”>Muslim Brotherhood, the Taiban and Al Qaeda) and Qatar’s ties with Iran and Turkey.

Yet, while Trump himself expressed support for the Arab World’s unprecedented pressure on Qatar and described Qatar as a major terror-financier, Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson publicly criticized Saudi Arabia, called Qatar “very reasonable” in its reaction to the pressure, said the U.S. is “mystified” by their complaints and made moves towards Turkey (who was aiding Qatar in the crisis).

Tillerson then signed a counter-terrorism agreement with Qatar, spitting in the faces of the Arab countries fed up with Qatar’s support of terrorism.

(Perhaps Tillerson’s favoring of Qatar has something to do with the close relationship he had with the Qatari government as a businessman with ExxonMobil, which has a decades-long association with Qatar’s rulers.)

Immediately after signing the deal, Qatar reiterated its commitment to Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the U.S.

The Trump administration agreed to sell 36 fighter jets to Qatar right after the Arabs launched their campaign.

Tillerson also signaled his opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in mid-June.

(Read more at the Clarion Project)

Why is it that the Department of State always runs counter to American values? It doesn’t matter whether an anti-American president like Obama directs the US or a populist like Trump, the Department of State does its own thing. Maybe we should have new blood in the department.

Five of the Clarion Project‘s 25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster

In a 27 August 2017 Clarion Project article, Ryan Mauro presented 25 reasons why President Trump should remove Gen. McMaster from his current position. Here are the first five.

  1. He is not on board with Trump’s vision of waging an ideological war against radical Islam (or whatever terminology you prefer).

    You simply cannot have a national security adviser who is at odds with the fundamental pillar of your national security strategy.

    In 2014, McMaster said that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.” He went so far as to describe jihadists as “really irreligious organizations.”

    In that speech, he rejected the notion that jihadists are motivated by a religion-based ideology. Instead, he claimed they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he described as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He recommended that the U.S. must begin “understanding those human dimensions.”

    In May, McMaster stated in an interview that the jihadists “are not religious people.”

    A source close to National Security Council (NSC) personnel revealed that McMaster opposed President Trump’s summit in Riyadh, one of the high points of his presidency thus far. McMaster felt it was “too ambitious.”

    In Trump’s speech announcing his strategy for Afghanistan, words like “radical Islamic terrorism” were missing. This is clearly the influence of McMaster. In his resignation letter to Trump, Dr. Gorka referenced these omissions and said it “proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.”

    Here’s the Clarion take:


     
  2. Endorsed a book favorable towards “non-militant” Islamists

    In 2010, McMaster endorsed a book that states, as one of its central arguments, “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary…They must not be confused with Islamists.”

    The book contends that our policy should not be aimed at Islamism overall but only Islamist terrorist groups. That is the mindset of those who advocate working with the “moderate” <a class="glossaryLink " data-cmtooltip="A worldwide Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna that seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally.

     ” href=”https://clarionproject.org/glossary/muslim-brotherhood/&#8221; rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” title=”Glossary: Muslim Brotherhood”>Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate” Taliban.

    McMaster describes the book as “excellent” and “deserv[ing] a wide readership.” Raymond Ibrahim reviewed the book and found serious errors, ones that now have dangerous consequences with McMaster as national security adviser.
     

  3. Opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

    Based on the above two issues, it should be no surprise that McMaster reportedly opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
     

  4. Opposes a tough stance on Qatar’s support of terrorism and extremism

    McMaster opposed President Trump’s tough stance on Qatar when our Arab allies confronted the tiny country, despite the sea of proof that our so-called “ally” is a major sponsor of Islamist terrorism and extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

    McMaster, like Secretary of Defense Mattis, was concerned about the U.S. base in Qatar.

    This means that McMaster essentially supports allowing the Qatari government to use our own base—which protects them—to decide U.S.policies.

    The UAE has recommended that we move the base. There are no indications that McMaster is advocating that we do that so we can exert more pressure Qatar in the future.
     

  5. The book endorsed by McMaster legitimizes Hamas

    Aaron Klein, a senior Middle East reporter, read the book that McMaster endorsed as “excellent” and, shockingly, found that the author never characterizes Hamas as a terrorist group. Instead, the author refers to Hamas as an “Islamist political group” that is among Islamists “who do not fit into a neat category.”

    “The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” the author, Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, writes.

    He’s as wrong as someone can possibly be wrong. Beside the fact that Hamas has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for 10 years, there is no question that Hamas is a terrorist group. In fact, there isn’t much of a substantive difference between Hamas and ISIS.

    Aboul-Enein’s argument is that the U.S. should only target “Militant Islamists” and not more generic Islamists. By questioning whether Hamas qualifies as Militant Islamist, Aboul-Enein is questioning whether the U.S. should target Hamas.

    The book also moves the reader away from understanding that Islamists’ preaching of armed jihad rests upon a strong theological foundation. Based on Klein’s description, the author makes it sound as if Islamists are motivated by reasonable grievances against policies and then sit down and conjure up a convoluted way to describe their violent response as “jihad.”

    If we don’t acknowledge the deep theological basis of the Islamists’ worldview, we will not be able to effectively respond to the ideology and its related narratives.

    There is an important side note as well: Klein points out that the author of the book is the chair of Islamic Studies at National Defense University (which is funded by the Department of Defense) and a senior adviser and analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. This means that these views are being taught to very important students.
     

(Read the other 20 reasons at the Clarion Project)

The first reason was enough for me.

Where is the response from NOW and PETA regarding "Satanist" lamb sacrifice & insults to women?


Clemson bulletin boards sport announcements from a purported Satanist group

A 10 March 2017 Heat Street article relays the information posted on bulletin boards in the halls of Clemson.

“As most people know, demonic cults were a myth propagated in the 1990s with the hysteria of ritual abuse spreading throughout the US and Europe. They never existed, but it has become trendy for some people to emulate the imagined practices of Satanists. And now students at Clemson University have announced plans (via a poster) to perform a ‘live bloodletting and lamb sacrifice’ and a burning of Bibles to commemorate the building of a new campus chapel.

A poster on campus attributed to a student organization calling themselves the ‘Clemson Unorthodox Neo-Satanic Temple (CUNT)’ announced plans to perform the ceremony at the ‘CUNT Afterlife Party’ on March 11. No location was specified. The poster contains imagery associated with Satanism, like pentagrams and an illustration of the goat-headed Baphomet.

It goes on to state that a live lamb will be provided for sacrifice by ‘[their] friends’ at the Clemson Collegiate Farm Bureau. A Bible-torching ceremony is listed as part of the proceedings, with a cash prize for the student who burns the most Bibles. Finally, attendees are invited partake in a pentagram completion event, where they will ‘help summon Baphomet to celebrate the new Clemson Chapel.’

The ‘new Clemson Chapel’ likely refers to the Cadden Chapel, a building currently under construction on the Clemson University campus. It is named after Samuel J. Cadden, a student who passed away in an automobile accident in 2015. WIS-TV reports that the student kept a bucket list of life goals within his Bible, one of which was to have a building named after himself at the university.

Other Clemson students who passed away before they could graduate will also have their names engraved on the chapel.”

(Read more at Heat Street)

While the announcement of this gathering was most likely just a stunt by misguided and irreligious college kids, I wonder where the responses from the National Organization for Women and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have been. Surely they don’t condone even the hint of such degradation of women and killing of animals.

Of course, maybe NOW has decided to remain mute due to their costumes at the Women’s marches.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

One other question: Why didn’t the Clemson students try this at the sister campus in the Middle East?

BREAKING NEWS: Christians Act Like Christians


Thanks to Samaritan’s Purse for their benevolence in Iraq

Christians in Samaritan’s Purse help Muslims in Iraqi War Zones

At the Risk of Their Lives, …

OneNewsNow reported in a 1 December 2016 article that Christians representing Samaritan’s Purse have been fulfilling the command to “love your enemies” in a striking way:

“At the same time Iraqi military forces and ISIS fighters battle over the country’s second-largest city, a humanitarian group is helping refugees.

Samaritan’s Purse is at work in various refugee camps around the city of Mosul, handing out everything from blankets and food to shoes.

The well-known Christian relief organization, headed by Rev. Franklin Graham, may be best known for its annual shoe box drive for children.

Samaritan’s spokesman Ken Isaacs tells OneNewsNow the organization has been at work in Iraq since 2014, when ISIS took control of Mosul and spread its campaign of murder and torture.

” (Read more at OneNewsNow)

Christianity was born in persecution, but did not strike back.  These towns and cities have seen many killed, but one group that has been decimated has been the Christians.  Therefore, for

Christianity grew out of a heavenly love given when it was not deserved.

Oddly, when the Buzzfeed article came out
there was no indication as whether Chip or Joanna support or oppose gay marriage

Christians Stand Up for Biblical Values

In a 1 December 2016 OneNewsNow article, Chris Woodward and Billy Davis explain the hubbub around the stars of “Fixer Upper.”

“The pushback is coming from all corners after left-wing website BuzzFeed published a hit piece about a Christian husband and wife featured on HGTV.

‘BuzzFeed’s hit piece on Chip and Joanna Gaines is dangerous,’ declared a Washington Post op-ed headline written by an openly homosexual writer, Brandon Ambrosino.

The husband and wife (pictured above), who host the popular ‘Fixer Upper’ show, were criticized in a Nov. 30 story that asked rhetorically if they hold the same views about marriage as their church pastor, Jimmy Seibert.

The Gaines family attends Antioch Community Church, which the left-wing story describes as a ‘nondenominational, evangelical, mission-based megachurch.’ The church is located in Waco.

The suspected hit piece runs approximately 1,100 words. Approximately 800 words describe Siebert’s June 2015 sermon about homosexuality that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision.

‘This is almost unbelievable,’ radio show host Tony Perkins observed on his ‘Washington Watch’ radio show. ‘It appears the media thinks they have stumbled on something – that there is actually a church in Texas that believes the Bible and is not willing to surrender their views of the Supreme Court of the United States.’

It also appears, Perkins said, citing the story, that if someone attends that church, ‘they somehow have no right to host a TV show in America.’

In his op-ed piece, Ambrosino also predicts BuzzFeed is intentionally trying to force HGTV to publicly address the couple’s views.

‘They also know that if the statement is not 100 percent supportive of same-sex marriage,’ he writes, ‘the network will be pressured to drop them.’

BuzzFeed, in fact, telegraphed its intentions, asking if the Gaineses are ‘against’ same-sex marriage and, if so, would they feature homosexuals on their show.

Tim Graham with the Media Research Center suspects that BuzzFeed went after the ‘Fixer Upper’ stars due to a surge in popularity. They were featured on the cover of ‘People’ magazine and have published a best-selling book among other feats.

According to BuzzFeed’s own article, in fact, the Gaineses ‘have built a small empire, and they are not done yet.’

‘And so that becomes an excuse to say, Oh, well now that you’ve reached this level of celebrity, as opposed to where you were, I don’t know three months ago, suddenly this is a relevant issue,’ complains Graham.

Graham points out that BuzzFeed is owned by Comcast, which is known for its support for homosexual activism.

‘So there is no doubt where they are coming from,’ he warns.

Another theory about BuzzFeed’s pursuit of the Gainses is liberals’ petty, post-election anger after Donald Trump’s win. That suggestion comes after a Twitter conversation in which Daily Beast writer Kevin Fallon complained about voters who chose Trump.

‘My blood-boiling suspicion that every couple featured voted for Trump has ruined House Hunters for me,’ he observes, referring to an HGTV program.

‘And Fixer Upper,’ replies Kate Aurthur, the BuzzFeed writer who, days later, published a story about the Gaineses.

The hit piece garnered a commentary by Todd Starnes at Fox News, who published a response from HGTV about the BuzzFeed story.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow.com)

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks out in support of Chip & Joanna Gaines

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

What do we do now?


What do we do now?

Pray for the President … Love our neighbors … Hunger for God

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Do what we are called to do … Live out your faith … Be engaged with government

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Hold President Trump to his promises

In a 9 November 2016 Christian Headlines article, Veronica Neffinger points out the things that Christians must do.

“Pro-life advocates are calling on Christians to make sure President-elect Donald Trump upholds the pro-life promises he made during his campaign.

The Republican Trump was elected as the U.S.’s 45th president in an unprecedented election that went into the early hours of the morning on Nov. 9.

Trump ultimately won by taking the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Now that he is confirmed as the nation’s new president, pro-life groups are hoping that he will come through on the promises he made to ban late-term abortion, defund Planned Parenthood, and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

While the majority of evangelicals ultimately backed Trump, many had their reservations about the billionaire businessman, especially when it came to his stance on pro-life issues.

Although welcoming a longtime pro-life advocate to work on his campaign, and despite his promises to defund Planned Parenthood and sign legislation to prevent late-term abortions, some Christians still balked at his previous support for abortion.

LifeNews reporter Steven Ertelt wrote, “Today, pro-life America has a job to do. Regardless of whether you voted for Trump or not, we must hold President-elect Donald Trump’s feet to the fire when it comes to the various pro-life pledges he made.”

Ertelt further writes that Christians need to unite and be a pro-life voice saying, “Donald Trump you must defend the right to life.”

Texas Sues to keep Obama from forcing a "Like Your Twitter? Keep your Twitter" Moment


Texas Sues in Federal Court

Attorney General Ken Paxton Works to Prevent Hand-Over of Domain Names

Joining Senator Ted Cruz, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has made his way to a federal court in Galveston to keep lawless President Obama from handing the private property of a portion of the Internet over to the UN.

“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is jumping into Ted Cruz‘s fight to stop what the U.S. senator calls President Barack Obama’s illegal internet’giveaway.’

Paxton and three other attorneys general filed a lawsuit Wednesday night aiming to halt the Obama administration’s plan to cede oversight of the internet domain-name system to an international body. Critics claim the transition, which is set to go into effect within days, could open up the Internet to censorship by countries like China and Russia.

‘Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,’ Paxton said in a statement. ‘The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.’

The lawsuit argues that the transfer, among other things, violates the property clause of the U.S. Constitution by letting go of government property without Congress’ approval. It also says the plan will have a negative impact on Americans’ free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

A spokesperson for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, one of the defendants, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But administration officials and technology experts have said concerns like those raised by Cruz are unfounded and demonstrate a lack of understanding about how the internet works.

The transfer has been years in the making, with the United States looking to relinquish control over domain-name registration to an international nonprofit known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The transfer is scheduled to go into effect Saturday.

In Congress, Cruz has made stopping the transition his top priority since returning from the presidential campaign trail in May. His efforts, however, have largely stalled, especially after Congress passed legislation Wednesday that will keep the federal government open through mid-December. That bill did not address the internet issue, as Cruz had hoped.

Cruz and Paxton, both tea party favorites in Texas, have long been allies in fights against the federal government. The three other attorneys general joining Paxton in the lawsuit are Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma and Paul Laxalt of Nevada.

In Congress, Cruz has made stopping the transition his top priority since returning from the presidential campaign trail in May. His efforts, however, largely stalled after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled a spending bill last week that did not address the issue.

Hat tip to KSEV AM700 morning Lance Roberts Show 30 September 2016 (hour 3).

To Anyone Who Has Had an Independent Thought,

Remember the Promise “Like Your Doctor, Keep Your Doctor” of Obama, Now It’s the Internet

If you don’t like what Obama has done to your healthcare, you’ll want to listen to a founding leader within the Internet community, Frank Gaffney:

Center for Security Policy president and founder Frank Gaffney offer(s) his thoughts on impending surrender of U.S. control of Internet registration.

“Look, the Iran deal, as you know, Alex my colleague Fred Fleitz at the Center for Security Policy (said),” he said, continuing:

This is national security fraud, of an epic character. And Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it, her support for it, her complicity in the Congress going along with it, in a fashion – I mean, these are very powerful indictments, I believe, for a woman who runs on her record of having been this great maven of national security. Ain’t so.

The conversation turned to the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body, a topic that should be of major concern to American voters, although Marlow sarcastically observed there was no time for it during the debate because moderator Lester Holt thought it was more important to discuss Donald Trump’s thoughts on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

“A lot of people in this audience have absolutely no clue why we would do this and can’t even interpret what Obama and the globalists are thinking,” Marlow said.

“Well, quite frankly, I’m among them. I can’t figure out what the argument is for doing this,” Gaffney replied. He went on to explain the situation:

What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security – including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure – you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.

And for absolutely no good reason, other than people – or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they’re being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise – away from us, as well.

So this is what it comes down to, Alex: there’s no good reason for doing this, certainly not in the next three days, which is what’s going to happen unless Congress intervenes.

And there’s an interesting point here: Hillary Clinton could make all the difference on whether that happens or not.

Gaffney agreed with Marlow’s criticism of how this vital issue was bypassed at the debate, adding that he was hoping Trump would “jump in on it because he’s taken the right line.”

Gaffney pleaded:

If every one of your impressive audience – and I do think of you as a hotshot, I don’t care what they say – this audience is important, and if they will come up on the net, today, with calls into Mitch McConnell urging him not to give up the Internet – don’t let this happen, make sure the Continuing Resolution doesn’t permit that.

He recommended bringing pressure to bear on the Democrats through their presidential candidate:

Let’s call out Hillary Clinton, to find out whether she supports Barack Obama in diminishing our country, undermining our friends and our own interests, and emboldening our enemies. I call that the Obama Doctrine – whether she’s actually gonna stand with Donald Trump and say, “Don’t give up the Internet.” We need her help on this, and if she does it, I think most, if not all, of the Democrats in the Senate will agree, and will stop being obstructionists, will support a sound measure on this count, at least, on the Continuing Resolution.

And again, we’ve got three days to fix this, folks. This is no drill. This is a live-fire exercise. We need your help, now.

I think the more people understand what’s going on here, the more we’re gonna have the right outcome. The challenge, as with so much of the Obama agenda, as you know, Alex, is trying to slip it under the radar. Keep people from figuring it out until it’s done.

And this is the real hook. This will be irreversible. Once this so-called mechanism known as the numbering and naming function is permanently and irreversibly to some multinational non-profit – which will, trust me, be dominated in due course, if not right away, by the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Saudis, and so on – we’re not getting that back. There’s not anything a President Trump is gonna be able to do about it, if he does, in fact, become president.

It’s three days from now. It’s October 1st, the end of the fiscal year. It’s what Obama’s been striving for, is to jam this thing through, while nobody’s paying attention. We can’t let that happen.

“Come up on the net, folks. Call other talk radio show hosts, other folks that you’re dealing with, your editorial boards. Get engaged in this thing,” Gaffney implored, concluding:

It’s one of those places where your own equities – your freedom of expression, your right to use the Internet for small-business innovation and enterprise in the future, and so on – is going to be on the line because we’re going to turn it over to people who don’t want us to do that sort of thing. We mustn’t let that happen.

To Anyone Who Enjoys Free Expression

Please Listen to the FCC Commissioner

From someone who knows about freedom of speech on broadcast media, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai pointed out that a surrender of our Internet would result in a loss of freedom of speech currently available on the Internet.

“On Wednesday’s ‘Sean Hannity Show,’ FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (R) stated that the plan to “essentially give up the US oversight role…of the Internet” to ICANN is something that should worry anyone who cherishes “free expression, and free speech rights generally,” and could potentially cede oversight of the Internet to ‘foreign governments who might not share our values.’ He further stated that such a move is ‘irreversible.’

Pai said, ‘This proposal is to essentially give up the US oversight role that it’s had for the last 20 years, basically for the entire commercial lifespan of the Internet to a company called ICANN, which is an international organization, which includes a number of foreign countries. And, it’s an unprecedented move, and one that, as Mr. DeMint pointed out, is irreversible. Once we give up this oversight role, we can’t get it back.’

He added that Internet oversight is a case of, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ Pai further stated, ‘[I]f you cherish free expression, and free speech rights generally, you should be worried, I think, when there’s — this oversight role’s going to be ceded to potentially, foreign governments who might not share our values.’ “

What Can I Do?

Contact Your US Representative

Go to the US House of Representatives Find Your Representative web page. Contact them and let them know how important your web is to you.

Contact Democrats

Tweet @NancyPelosi. E-mail  Nancy Pelosi and let SanFranNan know that this is not a time to “pass it to know what is in it” situation. This is a “time to stand for America time.”

Magnify Your Voice

 Make a hashtag.

Join with others to make your voice heard.

If you do not want to create your own petition, consider signing the ACLJ petition.

Modern Day Religious Discrimination in Obama’s America


This photo of a church that merged due to
shrinking local population may be joined by others
if Iowa gets its way.

One Iowan Law Would Muzzle Churches Who Make People Uncomfortable

Churches Sue to Retain the Free Speech of Pastors and Others

OneNewsNow reported in an 18 July 2016 article that two Iowa churches have teamed with Alliance Defending Freedom to stand against an Iowa law that would curtail the freedoms of speech and religion of Iowans.

“Churches in the Hawkeye State took notice when the Iowa Civil Rights Commission released a controversial brochure describing public accommodation rights for homosexuals and transgenders under the state’s Civil Rights Act.

In particular, a portion of the brochure declares that churches are exempt from discriminating against homosexuals only if they are engaging in a ‘bona fide religious purpose.’

But what is a ‘bona fide religious purpose’ according to the commission? And does the commission have the legal right to define that term?

In a press release, however, ADF says the public accommodation law suggests a church could face legal action if it makes homosexuals or transgenders feel “unwelcome.” ADF fears that law could be used to stop church pastors – even from the pulpit – from condemning homosexuality.


Citing an earlier Register story, ONN noted that a homosexual activist and a law professor both suggest that Iowa churches are legally bound to follow the public accomodation law, even for “bona fide” churches services.”

The Des Moines Register Confirms the Details of the Suit

In an 8 July 2016 article, the Desmoines Register reported (with emphasis added by myself):

“An Iowa Civil Rights Commission brochure that some churches interpreted to mean they must abide by transgender bathroom rules and muzzle ministers who may want to preach against transgender or gay individuals has been changed, the commission said Friday.

The commission said Friday it revised the ‘Revised Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Public Accommodations Brochure’ to make it clear places of worship are generally exempt from Iowa’s antidiscrimination law except when they’re open for voting, providing a day care facility or other non-religious activities. It also said it regretted any confusion the brochure may have caused.

The previous brochure suggested the law applies to church services that are open to the public in a question and answer section, titled ‘Does this law apply to churches?’

‘Sometimes … Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public),’ it read.

The new brochure replaced that section with the following language: ‘Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of worship engages in non-religious activities which are open to the public … the law may apply to an independent day care or polling places located on the premises of the place of worship.’

Funds Set Aside for Safer Play Areas are Denied to a Missouri Church

Equal Under the Law Does Not Seem to be in Missouri

A 25 July 2016 OneNewsNow article comments on the case argued by Missouri lawyers who suppose that the state has the right to discriminate against people of faith and religious organizations. Specifically, the state argues that they should allowed to deny …

” … funds for safer playground surface materials to a faith-based Christian church school because it is religious. Erik Stanley of Alliance Defending Freedom says state officials, in a written brief, told the U.S. Supreme Court that its constitution requires discrimination against people of faith.

‘It just proves that this is unconstitutional for a state to really discriminate against a church solely based on its religious status,’ he adds.

Stanley says the state is relying upon its constitution’s Blaine Amendment, an antiquated law that originally was used to discriminate against Catholic schools.

‘One of the points that we’ve been making in this case is that no state constitution can violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. … Missouri [can rely] upon its state constitution … as long as it also doesn’t violate the First Amendment – but in this case it does.’

In an earlier legal brief, ADF argued Missouri’s position on the matter ‘violates the United States Constitution’s free exercise and equal protection guarantees.’ “

Considering the wide (and righteous) application of the 14th Amendment, it is odd that this law still stands and allows discrimination against Christians.