DIVINE FREEDOM RADIO – SUNDAY JULY 13, 2014 @ 7:00 PM
ARE WE AT WAR? AMERICA ~vs~ AMERICA
Obama is an Islamic terrorist agent, who is openly providing Muslims with weapons to kill Christians. I understand that this sounds shocking, but history will one day remember this man as this.
We are not the only ones who think this way. A professor named Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Center for Research on Globalization and Professor Emeritus of Ottawa University, has made this very clear, and has provided a very real and revealing dark truth on what Obama is all about:
…in a bitter irony, the evidence amply confirms that the chemical weapons are being used not by Syrian government forces but by the US supported Al Qaeda rebels. …Obama has not only “Crossed the Red Line”, he is supporting Al Qaeda. He is a Liar and a Terrorist.
The Muslims have used weapons to slaughter Christians, and what are we, as Christians ourselves, going to do to help our fellow brethren? We must rescue them.
Lets not forget the type of statements Obama has made on Islam:
The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam
The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer
The professor also said:
If we look at various media reports, including CNN but it is also acknowledged in Israeli media, the rebels namely Al-Nusra are in possession of chemical weapons but moreover it is acknowledged that western forces are actually training Al-Nusra rebels in Jordan and Turkey and this is confirmed by December 9th CNN report.
We had subsequently the report of the United Nations independent mission which confirms that rebel forces are in possession of sarin nerve gas and the United Nations human rights investigators actually made a statement of that effect and refuted the accusations that government forces were in possession of chemical weapons.
In fact what they said is that the rebels were in possession of chemical weapons.
Then we also had a Turkish police report, which essentially confirmed these previous reports, the fact the Al-Nusra terrorists who are supported by the Western military alliance, they were ceased with sarin gas in their possession.
I think that we are beyond the issue as to whether Obama is supporting Al-Qaeda. John Kerry is directly in contact with commanders, which are in link with Al-Qaeda rebels. We’ve got a fairly large documentation to the fact that weapons and money are being channeled to the rebels and that these rebels actually are on the US state department list of terrorist organizations.
So, what I am saying essentially is that these Al-Qaeda affiliated organizations are not longer supported covertly by the CIA, they are supported overtly by the US president and the Secretary of State is in touch with commanders of that terrorist force, in particular the main intermediary is a general Idris who is with the Free Syrian Army and which is in constant contact with the rebels.
But what I think we should understand is that Obama administration and its allies are harboring the terrorist organization which is on the state department list and that means that president Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could under the US law be held responsible for, and I quote the document of the state department “knowingly providing or attempting or conspiring to provide material support or resources to or engaging in transactions with Al-Nusra front” so that essentially what I am contending is that Obama is in violation of the Patriot Act, he is in violation of US anti-terrorist legislation and in fact the US government is in latent violation of its own counter-terrorism legislation while waging so-called war on terrorism.
You can’t wage a war on terrorism and then provide support to the terrorists.
And who are the biggest victims to Obama helping these jihadist? The Christians of course. Countless Christian girls have been raped and sexually mutilated and tortured, and many martyrs have been made.
A reading assignment has some parents in New Hampshire confused and upset.
The controversial book “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult is required reading for some 9th grade students at Gilford High School. The book is a fictional story about a school shooting and has been part of the curriculum since 2007.
School officials say that the book contains important themes, but parents say that message is overshadowed by what some call pornographic content on one page.
The book was assigned to students last Monday, but the school failed to give parents of freshmen students notice of the sexually explicit content in the novel. One page of the book contains a graphic description of rough sex between two teenagers.
Some parents are outraged, and attended a school board meeting to make their feelings known.
William Baer, whose 14-year old daughter is a student at the school, was one of the parents who spoke out at the meeting. He was promptly arrested for doing so:
EAGnews spoke with Baer about the incident, and he explained what made him so upset:
Baer tells EAGnews he became aware of the book’s objectionable material purely by chance. A family friend was visiting last Wednesday and talking to Baer’s 14-year-old daughter about how things were going in school. When she mentioned that she’d just been assigned the novel, the friend picked up the book and casually opened it to page 313 which contains a very graphic description of a sexual encounter between two adolescents. The friend was aghast as he read the passage, and asked Baer if he was aware of the book’s content.
“I was shocked when I read the passage, and not much shocks me anymore,” Baer says. “My wife was stunned by the increasingly graphic nature of the sexual content of the scene and the imagery it evoked.”
Here is an excerpt from the book. We considered omitting it from this article, but, if it is okay for 14 year olds to read…
Warning: Explicit content:
“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach.
” … She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer.
“‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and her pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs. … (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.
“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”
During an interview with another news outlet, Baer asked them to print that passage:
Baer asked that The Daily Sun print the passage. Otherwise, he expected readers would dismiss his response as that of “an uptight, over-protective, over-reacting parent.”
Editor Ed Engler declined, saying he thought some of the description rendered were not suitable for publication in 99 percent of daily newspapers in America, “Maybe 100 percent”.
Baer noted that the (Manchester) Union-Leader, too, flatly refused to print it, asking “it’s not fit to print, but it’s okay for my daughter to read it and discuss it? My goal is to have everyone in the United States read what’s on page 313 of that book,” he declared, “except my daughter.” (source)
Baer, who is an attorney, told EAGnews that the school “has no business introducing such themes” to students, and questioned why it is acceptable for “the state, through its schools and agents,” to mandate reading and discussing this kind of material.
In a written response to EAGnews, Gilford school leaders admitted they didn’t warn parents of the book’s controversial nature like they have in previous years, and promised to send a letter to the home “of all students who are currently assigned the book.”
It’s a little late now, isn’t it?
Baer suggested that the notice include the passage on page 313:
“If the text were not included, do you know any parent ,or student, for that matter, who could reasonably expect such content to be in a 9th grade assigned book? I think if they put that text in the notice, the vast majority of parents and possibly students would opt out.”
Baer told EAGnews that this is just more evidence that public schools are indoctrinating our children:
Baer believes the politicians and educators running the public school system want to dismantle the family unit, and undermine traditional morality, “though they’re never going to admit this.”
“Many people in education and government truly believe our children are theirs. That parents are only the custodians who feed them and put a roof over their head. These school incidents are a byproduct of this ‘we know best’ philosophy. They believe they have the authority to do this. If people were more complacent, which is hard to imagine, it’d be even worse.”
He shared his thoughts on opponents of the curriculum, stating that critics were a “tiny minority” who opposed standards altogether, which was unfair because “the children belong to all of us.”
The incident at Gilford isn’t unique: reading assignments that contain pornographic material seem to be more and more of a “normal” occurrence, especially since the introduction of Common Core curriculum in schools.
In his article Sex and the Public Schools, Michael Snyder discusses ways schools are sexualizing our children at younger and younger ages. Some public schools are mandating sex education for kindergarteners. Earlier this year, a middle school in Kansas decided that adding anal sex, oral sex, and touching were appropriate topics to add to their health class curriculum.
If your child must attend public school, you may want to pay close attention to the assignments they are being given.
CREDIT TO: Lily Dane / DC Clothesline
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” according to critics.
The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.
“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team said in a statement to WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”
WND reported when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted and later challenged in court.
The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”
Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”
The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.
The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.
They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.
The brief was on behalf of Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.
Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.
Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.
It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”
Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.
The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.”
“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.
John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said that once again, the U.S. Supreme Court “has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people.”
“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes,” he said. “What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.
Whitehead said that “according to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.”
There already is precedent for the mass detainment of citizens.
In 1944, while the U.S. was defending itself in a war launched by Japan, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and placed them in camps under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.
The new law authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.
The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”
The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.
“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford said.
At the trial court, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.
Obama then appealed, and the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.
Since the law passed, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”
The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”
She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”
“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.
Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”
Forrest wrote that the court’s “attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention.”
“To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion,” she said.
“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment.”
CREDIT TO: Bob Unruh / WND
How is it that a county in Nevada can so quickly put in place a block on the Feds but Missouri cannot? As a matter of fact why do we the people of every state in America, have to pull teeth to get our states to comply with the Constitution? Enough is enough! If those who represent us can’t uphold our Constitution and are unwilling to remove illegal/unconstitutional laws. Then they all must be replaced immediately and held accountable for their corrupt and criminal acts.
In Nye County, Nevada, the deeply rooted corruption of the Harry Reid dynasty, and his evil surrogates, has taken a big hit. On the heels of the Bundy Ranch situation, the Nye County Board of County Commissioners passed two resolutions; one for Free Speech and one in support of Ranchers. Tired of being under the thumb of overlord, Harry Reid, Nye County stepped up and took action. In the video below, I interview the County Commissioner, Donna Cox, and the Chairman of the Nye County Republican Party, Bill Carnes. Sandwiched in between is an interview with Oath Keeper and Veteran, Leah Aldrich, who made the trip down to Bunkerville the day the BLM backed out.
CREDIT TO: Freedom Outpost / D.C. Clothesline http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/29/nye-county-nevada-votes-kick-feds/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews