Patriot Act expires as Paul blocks final vote

(THE HILL) — The Senate advanced legislation 77-17 to reform the National Security Agency on Sunday, but parts of the Patriot Act will nonetheless lapse for a few days amid opposition from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

The legislation, called the USA Freedom Act, will not reach President Obama’s desk until after the three measures expire at midnight, meaning that the provisions will expire until the bill is passed by the Senate and signed by Obama later this week.

“The Patriot Act will expire tonight,” Paul declared triumphantly from the Senate floor during a rare Sunday evening vote. “It will only be temporary. They will ultimately get their way.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/patriot-act-expires-as-paul-blocks-final-vote/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/patriot-act-expires-as-paul-blocks-final-vote/

Want to be president? Truth-tellers need not apply

Sen. Rand Paul is not qualified to be president.

At least, that’s what GOP establishment spokesman — and president wannabe — Bobby Jindal said last week.

And what did Paul do to disqualify himself? Have an affair? That doesn’t get one disqualified — see Bill Clinton. Run a pay-for-play scheme? That doesn’t get one disqualified — see Hillary Clinton. Promote blanket amnesty for illegals? That doesn’t get one disqualified — see Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Bankrupt four companies? That’s a plus, apparently, because it gives one “business credentials” — see Donald Trump. Hang out with terrorists? That doesn’t’ get one qualified — see Barack Obama. Fail to qualify under the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause? That doesn’t get one disqualified either — see Obama, Rubio and Ted Cruz.

No, what Paul did was utter a truth, or something too near it for the establishment’s liking, about the war party’s enabling of ISIS.

While appearing with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC last week, Paul laid the blame for the rise of ISIS at the feet of the GOP’s war hawks and neocons (read John McCain and the presidential aspirants from chickenhawk Lindsey Graham to Cruz).

Scarborough suggested that Graham would say ISIS exists because of people like Paul, who said, “Let’s not go into Syria.”

Paul replied:

I would say it’s exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party, who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’s job even easier. They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved — they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it, but Libya’s a failed state, and it’s a disaster. Iraq really is a failed state, or a vassal state now of Iran. So everything that they’ve talked about in foreign policy, they’ve been wrong about for twenty years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise.

But while Paul correctly indicts the neocon/perpetual war wing of his own party, he doesn’t go nearly far enough. It is official U.S. policy, and has been since at least 2012, that an Islamic State (ISIS) is desired in Syria to affect the West’s policies in the region.

Now the GOP establishment has gone apoplectic and conservative talk radio is abuzz with callers from the Republican rank and file claiming that Paul has disqualified himself by bucking the party line.

I first told you about the true nature of ISIS last fall in “Assad is the target; ISIS is the excuse,” after connecting the dots from several mainstream media reports about the Syria war.

I can hear you now, Republican voters. “You’re a crazy conspiracy theorist, Bob. ISIS is just those radical Muslims doing what they do — beheading infidels and all that stuff. ISIS is Obama’s fault for pulling out of Iraq and appearing weak. And those Muslims hate us because (insert latest meme here) and they’re just itching to come over here and behead us. We’ve got to go kill them over there before they come kill us.” The regime’s propaganda machine and Republican “hawks” now running for the GOP nomination are promoting this theme ad nauseam.

But newly released classified documents paint a much different picture.

On May 18, Judicial Watch released formerly classified documents it obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department. Brad Hoff of the Levant Report has combed through the documents looking beyond Judicial Watch’s agenda — which is to focus on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi attack — into the deep politics involved in the Middle East chaos. One of the documents states:

THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…

The declassified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, dated Aug. 12, 2012, was sent to a number of government agencies including the CENTCOM, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the State Department. It shows that in 2012 U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of Islamic State in Iraq and saw it as a strategic asset to be used to cripple Syria’s Bashar Assad.

Hoff pulled out the following bullet points from the documents:

• Al-Qaida drives the opposition in Syria.
• The West identifies with the opposition.
• The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits).
• The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers  supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government.
• “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of “humanitarian war”).
• Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion.”
• A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (See last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)

Recall that it was McCain and his lapdog Graham who promoted arming so-called “moderate” Muslims opposing Syria, with McCain actually posing for photos with ISIS fighters in Syria. It was McCain and Graham and their ilk who sought to use the specious claims by Obama that Assad had used poison gas on the opposition (when in fact it was found that it was the opposition that deployed the gas) to try and gin up support for a U.S. attack on Syria. Recall that it was McCain and Graham and their neocon cohorts who backed — and in fact wanted to expand — Obama’s and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s war on Libya, which granted ISIS an early launch pad and a conduit through which the CIA ran guns and funds to ISIS. (For a detailed review of how the Syrian mess was started, go here.)

So Paul was both right and wrong, but he was more right than wrong and now he’s been declared “unqualfied.” The hawks in his party did support the policy to make ISIS stronger. But the arms weren’t given out indiscriminately. The war machine was very discriminating in locating former al-Qaida, and al Nusra Front and Muslim Brotherhood and anyone else they could find to advance their agenda.

It’s made for good business for the war machine. America is the world’s biggest arms dealer and the military-industrial complex is making a killing (figuratively and literally).

And the spying agencies are reaping a whirlwind as well, as government gains a tighter grip on Americans through NSA snooping, TSA traveler fondling, DHS checkpoints, FBI terrorist making, etc., all to make Americans clamor for increased security at the expense of their liberties.

For, as the New York Post editorial department posits as it chastises Congress for not passing a new (un)Patriot Act: “[T]he jihadis haven’t quit. Al Qaeda’s still out there, and ISIS is on the rise. If US counter-terror agents are stripped of these vital Patriot Act weapons, Americans will become sitting ducks. Again.”

And — gasp! — Paul wants to “scrap the anti-terror laws altogether.” Can’t have that. Osama bin Laden might rise from the grave one more time and take down another tower… or make a video or something.

And after all, we’ve been bombing “them” over there since at least 1991. And that policy has worked so well… for the banksters, the globalists and the military-industrial complex — not so much for America’s military men and women, the U.S. economy and those poor Middle Easterners/North Africans who have been beheaded, whose homes have been bombed and who have seen their loved ones killed and maimed on behalf of U.S., Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel and deep politics.

The post Want to be president? Truth-tellers need not apply appeared first on Personal Liberty.

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/want-to-be-president-truth-tellers-need-not-apply/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/want-to-be-president-truth-tellers-need-not-apply/

‘Gay marriage’ called ‘Trojan horse’ for demise of family

The following Q&A is part of an exclusive interview with professor Paul Kengor on his new book, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage”.

WND: Professor Kengor, you’re an established bestselling author and historian who has written over a dozen books on the Cold War, communism – you wrote the definitive book on Frank Marshall Davis, Barack Obama’s communist mentor – on socialists, on progressives and even on dupes. Why this one? Why get into this culture war issue?

Kengor: It’s precisely because of my background in those areas that I was drawn into this. It’s because those past leftist extremists – communists, socialists, far-left radicals and so-called “progressives” – have been looking to reshape, redefine and take down natural-traditional-biblical family and marriage for two centuries. I know that past. I know how it fits into the present. Most people don’t, including those hellbent on redefining marriage and family with no hesitation whatsoever. They have no clue of the deeper, darker forces long at work in this wider movement. They are signing on to something that, whether they or know it or not, has important links to much older and more sinister attempts by the far left to redefine family and marriage.

WND: In a sentence or two, tell us what people really need to know, the essence of why you’ve written “Takedown.”

Kengor: The typical American who supports gay marriage has friendly motives, looking to extend a new “right” or new “freedom” to a new group. I get that. I don’t agree, but I understand. Unfortunately, these Americans don’t realize that, for the far left, gay marriage is the Trojan horse to achieve what the earliest communists called the “abolition of the family.” To many Americans, gay marriage is about “marriage equality,” but to the far left, it’s about the final takedown of the family that it has long desired.

WND: So, are today’s gay-marriage advocates part of a grand communist conspiracy?

Kengor: No. I very carefully state that this isn’t a conspiracy. I want to be clear on this. Liberals, please do not caricature me and my argument. We do a disservice to the truth when we boil down complex things to simple caricature. However, just as we can easily overstate things, we can also easily understate them, and to do the latter, likewise, would be a mistake here.

What the left has steadfastly said and written and done to marriage and the family over the last two centuries cannot be ignored. Those actions have been undeniable contributing factors – along with many other factors – that in part help explain where we are today.

Same-sex marriage is not a Marxist plot. It is, however, a crucial final blow to marriage – the only blow that will enable a formal, legal redefinition that will unravel the institution. It has distinct origins traceable to the far left’s initial thrusts at this once unassailable monogamous, faithful male-female institution.

WND: You do, indeed, take pains to make this clear in the book. You write: “To reiterate, this is not a grand communist conspiracy, or any kind of conspiracy. I am not laying the entirety of the culture’s collapse at the feet of communists. I am not asserting that Marxists have given us gay marriage.”

Kengor: That’s correct. And yet, as I note after that quotation, what the left has steadfastly done to marriage and the family over the last two centuries – from Marx and Engels and early utopian socialists like Robert Owen and Charles Fourier to modern cultural Marxists and secular progressives – cannot be ignored. The current rapid redefinition of the male-female marital and parental bond that has undergirded civilization for multiple millennia is the end-road of a steady evolution that should not be viewed entirely separate from some very successful attacks by the communist left and radical left generally. The journey had many prior destinations. A people do not just one morning wake up and ditch the sacred and natural character of the male-female marital union that served their parents, grandparents, great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents. Ground had been plowed to ready this soil.

WND: And it was the far left that helped ready the soil?

Kengor: Absolutely. No question.

WND: As you note, however, the likes of Marx and Engels were not advocating gay sex or certainly gay marriage.

Kengor: Of course not. Anyone advocating something as culturally unthinkable as male-male or female-female “marriage,” in any time other than ours, from the ancient Greeks and Romans of 2,000 years ago to the Democrat and Republican parties of just 20 years ago, would have been laughed at – maybe even hauled off by the authorities as dangerous public menaces. Marx and Engels were under surveillance by the governments in their countries simply for arguing for non-monogamous marriage. Even gay people weren’t thinking they’d soon live in a culture where not only was the mainstream population supportive of gay marriage but where liberals – our great champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” – would be suing, picketing, boycotting, demonizing and dehumanizing a Baptist grandma who begs them not to force her to make a cake for a gay wedding. Marx and Engels and even wild cultural Marxists like Herbert Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich – who broke down sexual barriers in areas like homosexuality and bisexuality – would be rolling over in their graves. Nonetheless, they would be thrilled to see that every-day (non-communist) Americans have finally found a vehicle to assist the long-time communist dream of (to quote the Communist Manifesto) “the abolition of the family.”

WND: But you do emphasize one important source of clear commonality, from the early 19th to early 21st centuries, that unites these old communists with modern liberals in their general willingness to redefine marriage and family. What is it?

Kengor: Yes, it is this: As modern liberalism/progressivism and the Democratic Party have become increasingly secular, often anti-religious, or certainly dismissive of traditional notions of morality, the embrace of same-sex marriage has become possible. For communists, two centuries ago and still today, that requisite anti-religious secularism has been there all along. That disregard if not outright rejection of Christian ethics has brought all of these forces full circle in a joint willingness to permanently alter the historic Western/Christian understanding of male-female matrimony.

They all share the fatal conceit first expressed in the Garden of Eden: Ye shall be as gods.

WND: They are their own gods?

Kengor: They are their own determinants of truth, of morality, of what is right and wrong. They render under themselves the right to determine everything from what is marriage to what is life. These things used to be the province of nature and nature’s God. Now, each and every liberal renders that right unto himself or herself. And when someone disagrees with them, they attack them with fire and brimstone.

WND: Clearly, you’re coming at this from a religious perspective. Does your faith form the boundaries of where you stand on this issue?

Kengor: I’m Roman Catholic. My position on marriage is precisely that of Pope Francis and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. But I come at this issue not only spiritually but with numerous other influences that have shaped society’s position on marriage and family for, oh, several thousand years. It has long been common sense and experience that the best thing for a society and for children is a home with a mother and father. Pope Francis says that every child has a “right” to a mother and father. To be sure, not every child will get that. But when they don’t, it hasn’t been because the culture and state are creating a new form of “marriage” that is motherless or fatherless. A fatherless or motherless home has never been what society has strived for as a matter of deliberate policy. That is now changing with this fanatical, no-second-thoughts push for gay marriage.

WND: We’re going to pick up this conversation in our second interview, but tell readers what you describe as the “ultimate kicker” in this rapid willingness to redefine what you call “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” because it really sums up what you’ve said here today.

Kengor: It’s really a rather stunning development: The radical left could never have achieved this ultimate takedown of marriage without the larger American public’s increasingly broad acceptance of gay marriage. The public has been the indispensable handmaiden to the radical left’s ability to at long last redefine marriage and the family. That is a realization that ought to give the public pause, if it ever became aware of it.

WND: Will they become aware of it?

Kengor: If they read “Takedown,” yes. Most liberals, unfortunately, will not read this book. Despite their incessant claims of “tolerance” and “diversity” and demands for “dialogue,” liberals only tolerant viewpoints they agree with. Just ask the evangelical photographer that they’re suing for pleading not be forced to photograph a gay wedding. That said, I wrote this book for such liberals. I’d love if they proved my pessimism wrong. But I’m not optimistic. I don’t expect to change the minds of them or their culture or our courts, but they really need to be aware of this crucial political-ideological history at work.

 

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/gay-marriage-called-trojan-horse-for-demise-of-family/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/gay-marriage-called-trojan-horse-for-demise-of-family/

NSA architect: Feds won’t stop spying on citizens

A former high-ranking official at the U.S. National Security Agency said Sunday night the NSA will continue to spy on American citizens irrespective of any action taken by Congress on the Patriot Act.

William Binney, known to many as the architect of the NSA who became a whistleblower against the agency during the administration of George W. Bush, made the comment on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.

Klein asked Binney, who served as NSA’s technical director: “Do you see the NSA actually continuing with the collection of millions of Americans’ phone records and emails?”

“Yes I do,” Binney responded, “And, in fact, they’ll be doing it under Executive Order 12333, Section 2.3.c where it authorizes them to … collect [from] any device if their intention is to go for a terrorist or a dope smuggler or an international crime. Which means they can take any fiber-optic line … collect it all and say we’re going after terrorists, and oh by the way, we’re gonna keep all the data anyway, and it’s called coincidental collection of U.S. citizens.”

Binney believes the NSA is now using its collected data to target Americans for their politics, including members of the tea party and the Occupy movement.

He thinks former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, D-N.Y., was among the victims in 2008, when he resigned from office in a highly publicized prostitution scandal.

“They looked into his email, phone calls,” said Binney.

“All that stuff was stored at NSA, and they found evidence to embarrass him to get rid of him. They appear to be using it against any number of other people, too, if you get in their way. This I saw as a totalitarian-state process, and that’s what totalitarian states do.”

Binney said he thinks everyone aware of NSA’s activities should be indicted, including members of current and previous administrations.

“Then after you [indict] all those people in the Bush administration, you do the same to the people in the Obama administration, then you try [NSA whistleblower Edward] Snowden, in that sequence,” he said.

When asked by a caller if the NSA has all the emails of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Binney said: “Of course, they have everybody’s emails. [Former FBI Director] Mueller testified to that to the Senate Judiciary Committee, [on the] 30th of March, 2011. He said we’ve got this database with the Department of Defense and NSA where I can make one query on all past emails and all future ones that come in on a person. Yes, they’ve got ‘em all.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/nsa-architect-feds-wont-stop-spying-on-citizens/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/nsa-architect-feds-wont-stop-spying-on-citizens/

Why America is moving left

Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann and Phyllis Schlafly

WASHINGTON – The latest Gallup poll appears to be really bad news for the right, but it omitted what three influential conservatives consider a crucial factor.

For the first time, Gallup found the number of Americans describing their views on social issues as “liberal” or “very liberal” was the same as those describing themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative,” with both sides at 31 percent.But, in its analysis, Gallup neglected to mention a key factor that could explain the entire apparent shift in attitudes: immigration.

“Of course, this is a result of immigration,” Ann Coulter told WND. “Liberals haven’t changed anyone’s mind. They couldn’t win elections with Americans, so they brought in ringers.”

Phyllis Schlafly told WND, “The polls don’t reflect the ‘changing’ attitudes of Americans; the polls reflect the attitudes of our changing population.”

“Obama has admitted millions of people who simply reject traditional American social norms. All the changes reported by Gallup can be attributed to the recent unprecedented immigration,” she added.

Michele Bachmann noted how the concept of assimilation has gone by the wayside, telling WND, “Immigrants from Third-World nations aren’t expected to learn American values norms or culture, much less the English language.”

As WND has reported, those claims are backed-up by the data in a comprehensive study done by Schlafly’s Eagle Forum that showed a recent immigration explosion unlike anything America has ever seen.

A law passed in 1965 caused immigration levels to make a U-turn from decades of steady decrease, and to begin climbing to new highs far above the historic norm, contrary to common belief.

In her latest column, Coulter charged, “Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was expressly designed to change the demographics of our country to be poorer and more inclined to vote Democratic. It worked! Post-1970 immigrants vote 8-2 for the Democrats.”

Indeed, the Eagle Forum study found the large majority of Hispanics, Asians, Muslims and European immigrants had views to the left of the average American voter.

“The explanation for the Gallup Poll report is that Obama has been bringing in so many foreigners who are not conservatives of any kind, who come from countries where government manages their lives, and who reject the idea of Christian values guiding our social mores,” Schlafly told WND.

Bachmann echoed that, noting, “In fact, it is severely frowned upon to suggest new immigrants join America’s predominant Christian religion.”

Michele Bachmann

She also pointed to a generational shift, in which “The millennials are taking their turn at driving and leading American society, and part of that generation is made up of Americans who embrace the belief that says all cultures and values are equal. That belief says Third-World squalid conditions can’t be condemned in favor of Western norms.”

However, that doesn’t mean conservatism is dying.

Schlalfy asserted, “Contrary to the new Gallup poll report that Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues, in fact Americans are becoming more conservative on social issues and particularly more pro-life.”

That would explain why Democrats are increasingly turning to immigrants to increase their base.

A stunning new Rasumussen poll suggests they know they have found a gold mine in immigration.

A majority of Democrats, 53 percent, now think illegal immigrants should have the right to vote.

When asked if America is still a center-right country, Coulter merely answered, “Who knows?”

Schlafly affirmed, “America is still a center-right country despite Obama’s efforts to make us like the rest of the world.”

Ann Coulter

Are traditional values no longer an asset?

“Traditional values and patriotism are still qualities that rank as political assets,” asserted Schlafly.

Coulter opined, “They’re an asset to human beings, but not to the Democrats.”

What about American exceptionalism? Is it dead and is a social-welfare state inevitable?

“We are still a very exceptional country,” declared Schlafly. “But we won’t be much longer if Barack Obama continues to dilute our standards, our values, our constitutional system and our pro-American population.”

She told WND, “One of the biggest rackets in immigration is those admitted as refugees, such as the Boston bombers. They were welcomed as refugees from persecution and given $100,000 in welfare handouts.”

Coulter emphatically exclaimed, “No! There’s still time to save America,” and referred to her new book, due on June 1, that is precisely on this subject, titled, “Adios, America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.”

“It’s in my book, the answer is obvious: Stop all immigration now. Take 10 or 20 years to assimilate the immigrants already here. Deport lawbreakers.”

Schlafly concurred, saying, “I recommend Ann Coulter’s newest book, ‘Adios America.’”

Phyllis Schlafly

In the book, Coulter charges that Democrats know fully well that they can gain a permanent majority by changing the makeup of the American population.

And if they bring in 30 million new liberal voters, she maintains, conservatives will lose on more than just social issues, but foreign policy, constitutionalism and the very identity of the nation.

What can conservatives and the GOP do?

“Pretty much the opposite of everything they’re doing right now,” said Coulter, in typical deadpan. “The path to victory, based on facts and evidence, not clichéd, hack advice is at the end of my book in a couple of short, punchy chapters.”

Schlafly reflected, “Our hope is the 2016 election and the Republican primaries where we can nominate candidates who are ready to fight political battles.”

In her latest column, Coulter pointed to a startling statistic that shows just how much the country has changed: “America has already taken in one-fourth of Mexico’s entire population.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/why-america-is-moving-left/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/why-america-is-moving-left/

Kathleen Willey: Hillary a ‘money-hungry hypocrite’

Kathleen Willey

Kathleen Willey, the former White House aide who claims President Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1993 during his first term, now suspects the former president suffers from dementia, and calls Hillary Clinton a “money-hungry” hypocrite who looks “awfully haggard” and is the “worst role mother for a wife and a mother and a politician.”

Willey, author of the book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” made her scathing comments in an interview airing tonight on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 and Philadelphia 990 AM, as well as online.

She is now seriously questioning the mental health of both of the Clintons.

“[Hillary] is really looking awfully haggard these days,” Willey said.

“After watching [Bill’s] performance with [NBC News’ Cynthia] McFadden, when he said that I’ve gotta pay my bills, I think he’s showing early signs of dementia or something. He’s not the old Bill Clinton that we all remember. I mean, he was all over the place. Now you’re seeing clips of [Hillary] talking to herself all the time. I think that I want somebody in there who knows what they’re doing, and money isn’t the No. 1 issue for them. They have enough money. They made $30 million … in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?”

Speaking of Hillary Clinton’s behavior during those White House years, Klein said, “There’s no way Hillary did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband. You took it further on my show. You said Hillary was the war on women.”

“She’s absolutely unqualified to run this country,” stated Willey. “Just look at something as simple as her judgment. … I question her judgment on a number of issues when it comes to being the president. She enabled his behavior. It’s as simple as that. She looked the other way. She might throw a tantrum, but she enabled it to happen again and again and again and again. Then she chooses to go after the women that he hooked up with to ruin them again and again and again and again. That’s how it works. I don’t see how anybody can respect a woman like that, especially another woman. She is the worst role mother for a wife and a mother and a politician, anything. … She is a hypocrite.”

Read the book that indicts Hillary in her own words: “Hillary Unhinged”

Regarding finances, Willey said Hillary’s desire for wealth overrides her judgment:

“She is money-hungry, absolutely … She says they were dead broke? … They’ve got money hand over fist. They just can’t seem to make enough. And she doesn’t see any reason whatsoever that there’s anything wrong with this. That’s what bothers me. Where’s the woman’s judgment? She has no sense of good judgment whatsoever. I don’t want that woman to be my president.”

Given a choice between Democrat candidates, Willey came down firmly in the camp of former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

“If I were a Democrat – which I’m not anymore for obvious reasons – if it came down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and O’Malley, I would vote for him in a New York minute. … He’s a good family man, he loves his wife. … I don’t agree with all his policies, but he just seems to me to be a regular, normal kind of guy. I think he was well-liked in Maryland. … He seems to be at least a moderate.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Willey has high praise for Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

“When it comes down to my choice, the more I hear Carly Fiorina talk, the more I like her. I mean, there’s a role model for you,” she said.

“I would love to work on her campaign. She doesn’t hedge when she’s asked questions, she gives you straight answers, she’s direct, she’s not afraid of anybody. … I mean, she’s just got more cajones than everyone in Washington combined. … I think she’s great, I think she’s wonderful. …

“She didn’t get where she got on the coattails of other men like Hillary did. She worked her way up. … She did it on her own. I have got a lot of admiration for that woman. … Women in this country who want a woman for president ought to be paying a whole lot more attention to Carly Fiorina than to Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton has nothing to offer. She won’t talk, she won’t answer questions, she hides behind the Secret Service, I haven’t heard one innovative idea come out of her mouth since all of this started. What does she have to offer this country except for the fact that she thinks that she’s entitled to this? What has she accomplished? I can’t think of a thing.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/kathleen-willey-hillary-a-money-hungry-hypocrite/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/kathleen-willey-hillary-a-money-hungry-hypocrite/

‘Titanic’ waves forecast from marriage ruling

A legal team that has defended biblical marriage in cases dating back to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case in which the Supreme Court ruled homosexual sodomy is constitutionally protected says the impact of the coming decision on same-sex “marriage” could be of titanic proportions.

Virtually every family law in the nation, including those regarding inheritance, support, custody, adoption, divorce, testimonial privileges, interests in land and conveyance would have to be changed, and that’s just the start.

The warning comes from William J. Olson, who served in various offices during the Reagan administration, and Herbert W. Titus, who taught constitutional law for 26 years and is the founding dean of Regent Law School.

They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C.

The team argued for traditional marriage in the Lawrence case, in California’s Proposition 8 battle, in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and in other related cases.

“Although the judicial trend to embrace ‘homosexual rights’ is undeniable, we certainly have not given up hope about the court’s decision,” they said in a new report.

“In fact, it is our belief that the case for same-sex marriage is so pathetically weak, that the court may understand that it would suffer a crippling embarrassment once the people come to really understand that in no way does the U.S. Constitution command same-sex marriage.

“But our role now, while hoping for the best, is to prepare for the worst – and that worst could be terrible indeed,” they said.

They wrote in a recent friend-of-the-court brief, part of which was published at American Vision, that the case “before this court is this nation’s tower of Babel.”

“At issue is whether we as a people are going to continue to conform the institution of marriage to the one created and established by God, or instead will reform the most sacred of human institutions into something else chosen by an elite set of jurists.”

The said any decision “will have repercussions of titanic proportions.”

Besides the wholesale revision of every state’s family law, the lawyers argue that Christian and other religious adoption agencies would face forced closure.

“Already, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley and the leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced that the agency will end its adoption work, rather than comply with state law requiring homosexual adoption of children.”

Also, speech based on the Bible no longer necessarily would be allowed in churches, they argued.

“Pastors would be monitored by atheist and liberal groups to ensure that there be no teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. Even websites which offer information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior would be banned as ‘hate speech.’”

Churches would lose their tax exemptions, which could lead to the forfeiture of church properties. And there no longer would be valid arguments against multiple-partner or incestuous marriages, they said.

Also, those who hold biblical views would be driven from public office, as in North Carolina where numerous judges have resigned to avoid criminal prosecution for refusing to perform homosexual “marriages.”

Businesses would be ordered to cater to homosexual duos, who already have been targeting florists, photographers, bakers and others.

And likely no professional whose occupation requires a state license would be allowed to work without subscribing to the “gay” agenda, they argue.

“Will a physician be forced to perform an artificial insemination for a lesbian couple? Will a lawyer be forced to take a case defending gay marriage?” they wrote.

Since “homosexuality constitutes a reversion to pagan ways of thinking,” benefits Americans now enjoy such as “individual rights, diversity or tolerance” would be lost, they say.

Lastly, they explain the move is to invite God’s judgment on the nation.

That topic arose recently when Anne Graham Lotz, the sister of Samaritan’s Purse President Franklin Graham and the daughter of evangelist Billy Graham, was being interviewed by Fox News Radio’s Alan Colmes.

She said the world is “coming close to the end of human history as we know it.”

“Our world is unraveling,” she told Colmes. “I think the whole world senses, especially those who follow the news, senses that something is happening that is very unsettling.”

Colmes had asked Lotz, the author of nearly a dozen books and the president of AnGeL Ministries, whether she believed “we are at the end times now.”

“I believe that it is, Alan, and I base that not just on feelings; I base it on what Jesus said in the New Testament and then what I see going on in the world at the same time – and they match,” she said. “And so I put that together and I believe we’re coming close to the end of human history as we know it.”

Lotz said that with the end times “comes accountability before God, which we would call a judgment.”

Hear the interview:

WND reported a few weeks ago President Obama was making jokes about end-times beliefs.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, a four-term Republican from Minnesota, had criticized Obama for his support of a framework agreement with Iran that she said would lead to war and bring judgment on America.

Obama took her to task in a half-joking, mocking tone.

“Michele Bachmann actually predicted I would bring about the biblical end of days,” Obama said. “Now that’s a legacy. That’s big. I mean Lincoln, Washington, they didn’t do that.”

Bachmann made the comments in a recent interview with Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries on her show, “Understanding the End Times.”

Bachmann was unfazed by Obama’s snarky comeback.

“The Bible is filled with exciting information about living life today and in the future, both in this life and in the life to come,” Bachmann told WND. “Any message that brings people closer to God’s wonderful plans for our lives is a good thing.

Lotz’s brother, Franklin Graham, also said recently that the nation could be in the end times, pointing to Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

“One of the greatest threats to America is the progressives (a new name for liberals) led by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder who are trying to impose a new morality – which is really no morality at all – jamming it down the throats of the American people,” he said, the Christian Post reported.

Graham said America has been “blessed by God” unlike any other country in the world but faces serious threats of degradation and destruction, mostly from within.

“When our country was birthed, its foundations and laws were based on biblical laws and principles,” he said, writing on his personal Facebook page. “We used to be ‘one nation under God.’ Now we’re a nation that has turned its back on God. History shows that when nations do this, their end is near.”

 

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/titanic-waves-forecast-from-marriage-ruling/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/titanic-waves-forecast-from-marriage-ruling/

Hillary’s top aide with terror ties saw all emails

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin

TEL AVIV – A full review of Hillary Clinton’s personal emails released last Friday by the State Department finds Clinton’s senior aide, Huma Abedin, was exposed to highly-sensitive U.S. government information.

It was Abedin who forwarded to Clinton’s personal email address details about the initial establishment of the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, updates about security threats to both the mission and Ambassador Chris Stevens, intelligence on the growing terrorist threat in Libya and insider information on the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi.

Abedin was privy to emails that contained the exact movements of Stevens while he was stationed in arguably one of the most dangerous zones in the world for any American diplomat.

WND previously reported on Abedin’s personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other to Islamic supremacists.

The connections not only extend to her mother and father, who are both deeply tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to Abedin herself, as WND previously reported in a series of exposés.

While she worked at the State Department, Abedin was also a paid employee at Teneo, a strategic consulting firm that specializes in investment banking, business intelligence and restructuring services.

Emails exposed ambassador’s movements

In one of dozens of emails released last week that included Abedin as among its recipients, on April 24, 2011, Abedin forwarded to Clinton’s personal email an internal State Department email from that same day written by Timmy Davis and sent to Abedin as well as to the State Department email addresses of other employees, including Clinton’s then-foreign policy aide, Jacob Sullivan.

The email cited a local report stating hotels in Benghazi were being targeted.

The email stated the interim Libyan government “conducted a raid on a house/storage facility and found and arrested an Egyptian cell reportedly there for the purpose of attacking hotels.”

Despite the threat, the email revealed Stevens “still feels comfortable in the hotel,” meaning the email exposed that the ambassador would continue to stay there.

“They are looking into the idea of moving into a villa, but that is some way off,” the email continued. “Based on discussion with DS yesterday, the hotel remains the safest location.”

Startlingly, the email contained information about Stevens’ exact movements, including that he “will be meeting with MFA in one hour and will make a written request for better security at the hotel and for better security-related coordination.”

Another sent to Clinton from Abedin detailed Stevens’ movements regarding his hotel stay.

“The envoy’s delegation is currently doing a phased checkout (paying the hotel bills, moving some comms to the boat, etc.),” wrote Abedin. “He (Stevens) will monitor the situation to see if it deteriorates further, but no decision has been made on departure. He will wait 2-3 more hours, then revisit the decision on departure.”

A March 27, 2011, email forwarded by Abedin to Clinton contained updates about the plans for the Benghazi mission’s establishment.

The email reads: “We expect to get support in particular from the Turks who have a consulate in Benghazi. Mr. Stevens team has been in touch with Africom planners on the details of the mission. We have made the official request for support from OSD but have yet to get approval. Once we have that – and we hope that will be very soon – we will be able to move forward with the planning.”

Another email forwarded to Clinton by Abedin briefed Clinton about such specific matters as mission staffing and the temporary rotation of personnel at the mission.

“I want to let you know about a temporary rotation in Benghazi,” read the April 22, 2011 email from then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman.

“TNC Envoy Chris Stevens has been on the road since March 13, when he began his outreach mission, and has been in Benghazi since April 5. (blacked out obvious security request) … I know how important it is to have continual coverage (security conditions permitting) in Benghazi. I will send Embassy Tripoli’s DCM Joan Polaschik to serve as Acting Envoy during Chris’ absence.”

Private consulting firm

Abedin served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff in the State Department until taking maternity leave in early 2012. In June 2012, she returned to the State Department while her title changed to deputy “special government employee.” According to reports, Abedin performed the mostly the same tasks under her new role.

When she returned in June 2012 she also worked for Teneo, a strategic consulting firm founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. Teneo’s clients have included Coca-Cola and MF Global, the collapsed brokerage firm run by former New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine.

Besides her consultancy job, Abedin advised the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation as well.

“The picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider,” reported the New York Times in May 2013.

Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida fronts

Major news media profiles of Abedin, meanwhile, report she was born of Pakistani and Indian parents, without delving much further into her family’s history.

Abedin was an assistant editor for a dozen years for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute – founded by her late father and currently directed by her mother – is backed by the Muslim World League, an Islamic organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

WND reported Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation.

At her father’s Saudi-financed Islamic think tank, WND reported, Abedin worked alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.

Naseef is deeply connected to the Abedin family.

WND was first to report Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, was the official representative of Naseef’s terror-stained Muslim World League in the 1990s.

Islam researcher Walid Shoebat previously reported that as one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood, the de facto female version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha Abedin served alongside Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s now-ousted president.

Saleha Abedin and Morsi’s wife both were members of the Sisterhood’s Guidance Bureau, Shoebat found.

Huma worked with al-Qaida front man

Abdullah Omar Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.

The institute founded by Huma Abedin’s father reportedly was a quiet but active supporter of Naseef.

The institute bills itself as “the only scholarly institution dedicated to the systematic study of Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies around the world.”

Huma served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’s editorial board from 2002 to 2008.

Documents obtained by Shoebat revealed that Naseef served on the board with Huma from at least December 2002 to December 2003.

Naseef’s sudden departure from the board in December 2003 coincides with the time at which various charities led by Naseef’s Muslim World League were declared illegal terrorism fronts worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N.

The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself as one of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations.

But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity’s own officials, it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.

The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as have its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the U.S. and U.N. as a terror financing front.

Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had “direct links” with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by U.N. Security Council Committee resolution 1267.

There long have been accusations that the IIRO and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.

In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most important charity fronts.

An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL accuses the group of promulgating a “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities and affiliated organizations.”

“Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam,” the profile states, “and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity.”

In 2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL’s donations, invariably, are “a blizzard of Wahhabist literature.”

“Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent jihad – laid the groundwork for terrorist groups around the world,” the report continued.

An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990 on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At the time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the Pakistani branch of the MWL.

The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50 countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terrorist organization.

In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.

The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain’s offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it “was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings.”

The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.

In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all of Al Haramain’s financial assets pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.

In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.

In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain organization worldwide

Bin Laden’s brother-in-law

In August 2006, the Treasury Department also designated the Philippine and Indonesian branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities “for facilitating fundraising for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups.”

The Treasury Department added: “Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official [executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors in the Middle East who support extremist causes.”

In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, ran the Philippines offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S. airlines.

The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya.

The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO and other Muslim organizations for having “played key roles in laundering of funds to the terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings” and for having been involved in the “financing and ‘aiding and abetting’ of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

‘Saudi government front’

In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the MWL, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.

Stated El-Asahi: “The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully government-funded organization. In other words, I work for the government of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government. Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are controlled in all our activities and plans by the government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in mind, please,” he said.

Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have speculated the U.S. has been trying to not embarrass the Saudi government.

Huma’s mother represented Muslim World League

Saleha Abedin has been quoted in numerous press accounts as both representing the MWL and serving as a delegate for the charity.

In 1995, for example, the Washington Times reported on a United Nations-arranged women’s conference in Beijing that called on governments throughout the world to give women statistical equality with men in the workplace.

The report quoted Saleha Abedin, who attended the conference as a delegate, as “also representing the Muslim World League based in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim NGO Caucus.”

The U.N.’s website references a report in the run-up to the Beijing conference that also lists Abedin as representing the MWL at the event.

The website posted an article from the now-defunct United States Information Agency quoting Abedin and reporting she attended the Beijing conference as “a delegate of the Muslim World League and member of the Muslim Women’s NGO caucus.”

In the article, Abedin was listed under a shorter name, “Dr. Saleha Mahmoud, director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.”

WND has confirmed the individual listed is Huma Abedin’s mother. The reports misspelled part of Abedin’s name. Her full professional name is at times listed as Saleha Mahmood Abedin S.

Hillary praise

Saleha Mahmood Abedin is an associate professor of sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which she helped to create.. She formerly directed the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in the U.K. and served as a delegate for the Muslim World League, an Islamic fundamentalist group Osama bin Laden reportedly told an associate was one of his most important charity fronts.

In February 2010, Clinton spoke at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where Abedin is an associate professor of sociology.

Clinton, after she was introduced by Abedin, praised the work of the terror-tied professor.

“I have to say a special word about Dr. Saleha Abedin,” Clinton said. “You heard her present the very exciting partnerships that have been pioneered between colleges and universities in the United States and this college. And it is pioneering work to create these kinds of relationships.

“But I have to confess something that Dr. Abedin did not,” Clinton continued, “and that is that I have almost a familial bond with this college. Dr. Abedin’s daughter, one of her three daughters, is my deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, who started to work for me when she was a student at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/hillarys-top-aide-with-terror-ties-saw-all-emails/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/hillarys-top-aide-with-terror-ties-saw-all-emails/

Will evangelicals shift to this Republican?

 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has been an outspoken advocate of increased levels of immigration for both skilled and unskilled guest workers.

A group of pastors met with presidential hopeful Jeb Bush earlier this month in South Carolina to try to get a feel for his candidacy.

Bush described the importance of his faith, saying he reads the Bible daily, and he shared his views on hot-button issues at the May 2 meeting in Spartanburg. The pastors’ ears perked up when the former Florida governor, who converted to Catholicism after marrying a Mexican woman, talked about immigration and refugees.

Bush’s history on this issue is consistent:

• In 2009, Bush sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis advocating an immigration plan developed by the Council on Foreign Relations. That report included in its recommendations an earned pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
• In February 2014 Bush was one of 10 national Republicans who signed a statement calling for the U.S. to import more refugees. Bush was joined in signing the document by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a known supporter of Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

One of the pastors listening to Bush on May 2 in Spartanburg was Jason Lee, a local pastor who was tapped to be director of the new Spartanburg office of World Relief, which is a major player in the refugee resettlement business.

World Relief plans to bring in 60 refugees from Syria and Africa over the next year. The announcement that Muslim refugees would be arriving soon in this small Southern city brought no small measure of controversy, splitting the Christian community in half. Some want to welcome the refugees while others think the city already has enough poverty, unemployment and homeless veterans that need their attention.

The controversy has led to a proposed provision being added in the state budget that would require counties to sign off on plans for refugees before any funds could be released for their resettlement. The proposal has passed the state House but remains fluid in the Senate.

“This proviso would stop the resettlements in Spartanburg for at least a year because World Relief is not going to bring refugees here if they can’t sign them up for all the welfare benefits that flow through the state, because the churches do not support this program financially,” said Christina Jeffrey, a local Christian activist who comes down on the opposite side of the issue from Jason Lee.

“The people are very confused on this,” she said. “They think the churches support it with their own money.”

Lee said he was impressed by what he heard from Bush. In a twist of irony, the former Republican governor’s views on immigrants and refugees mesh with South Carolina’s religious left, more than the religious right.

Lee told National Review he was “glad to hear (Bush) talk about immigration. While it is an issue he may have taken some heat on in the past, I think that is unjustifiable since he seems to be one of the few GOP candidates to actually take a position on it – while others seem to waffle.”

Lee said he thought Bush’s views line up with the evangelical community’s views on immigration reform.

He cited a March survey by Nashville-based LifeWay Research that found 61 percent of evangelicals support a path to citizenship for “undocumented” immigrants. If found 72 percent wanted to “protect the unity of immigrant families,” and 82 percent say the government’s immigration policy should “respect people’s God-given dignity.”

Are evangelicals and refugees being used by the left?

But are evangelical Christians really jumping wholesale onto the open-borders bandwagon? Or are pastors like Jason Lee running to the left of mainstream evangelical Christians in a conservative state like South Carolina?

Kelly Monroe Kullberg of Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration said it depends how you ask the question as to how Christians will respond to polls on immigration. She believes other polls more accurately reflect the true feelings of evangelicals on the issue.

“Overwhelmingly, by a 12 to 1 margin, evangelicals surveyed in this month’s Pulse/Rasmussen poll said they will vote for a presidential candidate who puts American workers first,” Kullberg said. “Most evangelicals believe that ‘loving the stranger’ means to treat foreigners humanely while applying the rule of law.”

Kullberg was a missionary with World Relief in Central America in the 1990s, working to redeem a city garbage dump in which 8,000 Salvadorans had been forced to live. When World Relief began to shut down some of its hard-fought Central American missions to “resettle” people in the U.S., she became concerned.

“With 60 million American citizens out of the workforce, and 20 million actively looking for scarce jobs, Christians know that love and biblical wisdom would bring more jobs to our nation. Not more workers,” she said. “The goal is not hostility but hospitality. That takes healing and strength.”

Candidates such as Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., speak on the need for immigration “reform” but such statements only blur the reality and confuse the issue, she said.

She told WND she finds it disturbing when evangelical groups cooperate with Hillary Clinton’s and Obama’s goal of a forming a “permanent progressive majority.”

“ThinkProgress, a far-left media organization, admits to ‘using an evangelicals grass-tops strategy‘ to pass amnesty,” she said.

“The Democrats need voters and will sadly jeopardize the lives of foreigners by keeping borders open, the welfare state growing and thus inviting vulnerable foreigners to the United States for political purposes,” she continued. “It’s time the church wakes up to this reality.”

Christians doing government’s work not allowed to evangelize

Christian groups, such as Lee’s Come Closer Spartanburg, often quote Scripture about caring for the “stranger” and talk about their eagerness to share the gospel with foreign-born people as motivations for their work with refugees and immigrants, many of whom are Muslim.

But that claim falls flat as soon as an organization accepts government money, Kullberg said.

“These agencies like World Relief and Lutheran Social Services cannot share the Gospel if they are accepting government money. Both the U.N. and President Obama, who are sending Islam to America, do not want us sharing the Christian gospel,” she said. “It’s becoming clearer each day that they want to silence us. If agencies wanted to do evangelism they would reject the government money.”

That holds especially true in the secretive “refugee resettlement” business, Kullberg said.

The federal government, working with the United Nations, is funding nine resettlement agencies, five of which are Christian and one Jewish, to carry out the “resettlement” of people from the Third World into American cities.

“And by ‘resettle,’ they often mean to place them in various welfare programs,” Kullberg said.

“Hundreds of millions of dollars are being exchanged for this. But why are these agencies not asking tax-paying citizens to study this and vote on how Islamic migration will affect their communities?

“Look at Europe,” she continued. “It is a fact that Muslim people, whom God loves, don’t plan to assimilate into our culture. In fact they believe that all of America will worship Allah. They call this migration the ‘hijra,’ which is the Islamic doctrine of migration to advance Islam and Shariah law. These ‘evangelical agencies’ should do some soul-searching and be honest about what they are doing to our nation. I believe it is immoral and will end very badly for our children and grandchildren.”

Follow the money

Kullberg says it’s important to follow the money and find out who is financing the web of amnesty programs and organizations – which are proceeding even in the face of two court rulings that declared them illegal.

She said neo-Marxist Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners; the radical Chicano civil rights group National Council of La Raza; and the groups related to the Evangelical Immigration Table are all receiving funds from far-left foundations, the government and, in some cases, the United Nations.

The National Immigration Forum is the largest of these groups. Its largest donor is billionaire activist George Soros, the chairman of Hillary PAC and author of “The Bubble of American Supremacy.”

“His funding is followed by the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations, all of whom are globalists,” Kullberg said.

Kullberg provided a copy of NIF’s IRS Form 990 to prove her assertions.

While socialists such as Wallis talk about love for the foreigner, that love often comes at the expense of American citizens, Kullberg said.

“Who is doing job-training for our unemployed African-Americans in cities like Baltimore where they have lost hope? Who is helping our veterans who are overlooked for medical care?” she asks. “Who is hiring our college graduates with debt but no real career opportunities?

“Our hope is in the whole counsel of Scripture: justice for citizens and kindness to well-meaning and lawful guests. In Scripture we find both the well-meaning Ruth who comes as blessing, and we also find Nehemiah leading the nation in the rebuilding of walls to protect from harm and to cultivate God’s wisdom.”

Come Closer Spartanburg also talks about “loving our city to Christ” in promotional videos found on its website.

“We know that God loves us all, every tribe and nation,” Kullberg said. “He wants to be the Lord of all nations, and doesn’t invite us all into any one nation.

“When we look at the whole counsel of Scripture we don’t find amnesty, but wise welcome. It’s unfortunate that Gov. Bush didn’t mention love for American citizens, 60 million of whom don’t have jobs. Twenty million are looking for jobs, can’t find one,” she said.

“I’m afraid that World Relief and its parent, the National Association of Evangelicals, is misrepresenting evangelicals in the pews across America.”

Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, or EBI, conducted its poll on May 12-13 through Pulse Opinion Research.

The survey asked 800 racially and politically diverse evangelical voters nationwide if they had seen news “about 2016 presidential candidates talking about whether to cut or increase annual legal immigration” (65 percent said yes, and 28 percent said no). The voters were then asked their opinions about types of statements being made by potential presidential candidates but without mentioning any name or party.

For the voters most likely to be moved by an issue – those who “strongly” supported and “strongly” opposed statements – the results were striking, Kullberg said.

By a 4-1 margin, evangelicals “strongly supported” (40 percent) rather than “strongly opposed” (11 percent) a statement that said legal immigration should be cut because “the priority for U.S. immigration policy should be to protect American workers and their wages.”

See the full results here.

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/will-evangelicals-shift-to-this-republican/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/will-evangelicals-shift-to-this-republican/

Fox News host: ‘Gay marriage’ is conservative

Greg Gutfeld of Fox News

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld had some startling comments for supporters of traditional marriage during a panel appearance on “The Five.”

Arguing that conservatives need to use homosexual marriage “against the left,” Gutfeld said: “Gay marriage, in my opinion, is a conservative idea. The left generally hates traditions. It’s all about breaking with traditions, and in this case it’s embracing a tradition, one that stabilizes a community, one that is valuable for families. Why would you exclude that from a group of people who are born that way?”

Gutfeld expanded his critique to the traditional religious teaching of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

“If they are born that way, the idea that you are saying that you cannot be part of this, that’s an exclusive belief! As somebody who is not religious, who has been but not [now], I was under the impression that faith should be inclusive.”

Juan Williams congratulated Gutfeld on his comments, but claimed conservatives historically used opposition to homosexual marriage as a “wedge issue.”

Panelist Eric Bolling responded that the reason traditional marriage became so important to the American right is because “the first few caucuses [and] elections are so important, and they’re so heavily Christian, they’re so heavily evangelical.”

Bolling said expressing a belief akin to Gutfeld’s would likely result in a candidate losing the Christian, evangelical vote, thus dismissing adherence to traditional marriage as merely a political necessity.

Paul Kengor, a professor and author of “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” strongly disagrees with Gutfeld’s comments.

In an interview with WND, Kengor stated: “With all respect to Greg Gutfeld, who I appreciate and usually agree with, gay marriage is absolutely not a conservative idea. Not unless, as liberals do with marriage, you redefine conservatism. I understand Greg’s point, and I’ve heard the argument he’s making before, but gay marriage cannot possibly be construed as conservative.”

Kengor believes homosexual marriage fails the most essential definition of conservatism – resistance to radical change.

Watch the exchange:

He observed: “Conservatism aims to conserve the time-tested values, ideas, and principles that have been sustained over time by previous generations and traditions. These are values – usually with a Judeo-Christian basis – that have endured for good reason and for the best of society, for citizens, for country, for culture, and for order. That’s a brief summation of conservatism that the late Russell Kirk, probably conservatism’s pre-eminent philosophical spokesman, would endorse – as would (and did) Ronald Reagan.”

Kengor said conservatives need to remind people of the startling newness and radicalism of homosexual marriage, a legal mechanism utterly unprecedented in human history.

“It isn’t even as old as the cell phone. You would never expect a conservative to rush into trying something as utterly new and unprecedented – and that directly repudiates the laws of nature and nature’s God – as this completely novel current-day concept called ‘gay marriage.’ Same-sex marriage not only revolutionizes and redefines marriage but also human nature generally and family specifically, which conservatives have always understood as the fundamental building block of civilization.

“One would expect a secular, radical progressive to support redefining marriage, because for progressives, everything is always in a state of never-ending, always-evolving flux and change. Progressives have no trouble rendering unto themselves the ability to define human life itself. To redefine marriage is small potatoes for them. A progressive can wake up tomorrow and conjure up a new ‘right’ over a grande skim latte at Starbucks.

“For conservatives, however, this is unthinkable. A conservative cannot even ‘conserve’ when it comes to gay marriage, because gay marriage is an idea unimaginable by any people until only very recent times.”

But Dr. Michael Brown, an expert who holds a Ph.D. from New York University and has researched and written a multitude of books on homosexuality including the upcoming “Outlasting the Gay Revolution” suggests Gutfeld’s comments reflect the successful strategy of homosexual activists to disguise the radicalism of their agenda.

In an interview with WND, Brown observed, “As I explain in my new book, early gay activists despised the institution of marriage and wanted to undermine it, viewing it as destructive, antiquated, and patriarchal. But over time, other gay activists realized that the radical strategy wasn’t working – chanting ‘we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it’ only went so far – and so new strategies were needed.”

Brown suggests gay activists framed their language to appeal to more conservative Americans.

“One of those strategies was to be pro-marriage and pro- family, partly because many couples did want their relationship to be recognized as legitimate, and partly because that was the only way to win the cultural battle. So, oddly enough, the only way the gay revolution has succeeded is by arguing that, ‘We’re just like everyone else and our families are just like the rest of yours.’”

Unfortunately, as Brown explains, there is an essential deception at the heart of this strategy. He says, “The problem, of course, is that this is not true because two men or two women do not equal a man and woman, and the world’s best mother does not equal a father nor does the world’s best father does not equal a mother.”

Like Kengor, Brown believes Gutfeld is redefining marriage and thereby rendering it something different.

“Marriage, no matter what Greg Gutfeld says, has never been the union of any two people but the union of a man and a woman. This has nothing to do with being inclusive, any more than saying an aquarium should have lions and tigers is a matter of inclusivity. It is a matter of changing the meaning of words until they have no meaning at all.”

More importantly, Brown says the real target of homosexual activists is heterosexual marriage. And this goal, he maintains, remains the same no matter how eagerly conservatives try to appeal to them.

“Many gay leaders openly state that own of their goals is to change the nature of heterosexual marriage – I cite them in new book – and so once again, we see that no matter how ‘conservative’ gay activism may become, it remains a radical movement bent on transforming society, and transforming it in a way that will not be for the best in the long haul.”

Kengor said Gutfeld doesn’t understand the real basis of intellectual conservatism and cites President Ronald Reagan, who stated at the 1977 Conservative Political Action Conference:

“Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before. The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that what we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations – found through the often bitter testing of pain or sacrifice and sorrow.”

Recalling Reagan’s words, Kengor pronounces, “That’s a solid definition of conservatism.”

And by Reagan’s standard, Kengor claims: “Gay marriage, merely by its total newness alone, not to mention other problems, totally fails that definition of conservatism. It may be many things, but it certainly isn’t conservative.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/fox-news-host-gay-marriage-is-conservative/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/fox-news-host-gay-marriage-is-conservative/