Friday, March 13, 2015

Former Jehovah's Witness Accuses Church of Hiding Child Abusers from Congregations

Former Jehovah's Witness Accuses Church of Hiding Child Abusers from Congregations - ABC News




Candace Conti, a former member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, sits down for an interview with ABC News "Nightline."



A former member of the Jehovah's Witnesses is taking on the leadership
of this wealthy, secretive religion, who she says failed to protect her
from a predatory pedophile. She blames what she says is the church's
policy of silence on child abusers.
Candace Conti, now 28, was just 9 years old when she says she was abused
by a well-liked member of her small congregation in Fremont, California,
named Jonathan Kendrick. While doing door-to-door evangelizing, which
Conti said she would often do without her parents, she said Kendrick
would take her to his house and molest her.

“He's just a big person... I found him very scary,” Conti said.
As a child, Conti said she didn’t think she could tell anyone about the
abuse. But years later, she testified during a trial against the church
that Kendrick abused her several times a month for what she says felt
like two years.
“I never thought I could [talk about it],” she said. “Bringing that up
just would demolish my family-- the only people that I knew... I think I
was scared to.”
Conti had nowhere else to turn, she said, because of her beliefs, and she grew up isolated from the outside world.
Like all Jehovah’s Witnesses, Conti says she was taught that Armageddon
was imminent, and that only the true believers would survive and live in
a heaven on Earth. She says she was taught that, “everybody outside of
the Jehovah's Witnesses are pretty much walking dead ... and could be
used as a tool by Satan to mislead you, to pull your away from your
Christian family.”
It was only years later, after Conti had grown up and left the church,
that she found Jonathan Kendrick on a sex offender registry. He had
served seven months in jail for sexually abusing his wife’s 7-year-old
granddaughter. After seeing him on the registry, Conti decided to come
forward with her case.
She said she “felt really guilty for not doing anything that this wouldn’t have happened to somebody else.”
Conti said she went to local church leaders, known as elders, and told
them her story. But Conti said the elders refused to believe her unless
she could prove the abuse happened by providing two witnesses to the
alleged abuse.
According to the religion’s internal system of justice, it is believed
that the Bible requires there to be two witnesses in order for a crime to be punishable.
So Conti went to the police instead. They began an investigation, but
with Kendrick denying the abuse, the authorities have not brought
charges -- although the investigation continues.
Conti’s next move was to sue the church itself. She hired attorney Rick
Simons, who had spent many years representing victims in cases of abuse
by pedophile Catholic priests.
“If ever there was a group that needs the sun to shine on them and their
practices, it's this one [Jehovah's Witnesses]," Simons said. “Because
when your doorbell rings on Saturday morning… and your kid answers the
door, you don't want that guy to be a child molester.”
When Conti and her attorney began conducting depositions with local
church leaders in California, they learned something that astonished
them: Even before Conti was abused, the elders knew that Jonathan
Kendrick, who had then held a leadership position in the congregation,
had also molested his stepdaughter when she was a teenager.
And yet, the elders did not call the police and did not warn the rest of the congregation.

“I was disgusted. I was absolutely disgusted,” Conti said. “It was more
damage control at that point than ever trying to be proactive and saving
somebody.”
Under oath, the elders of the congregation said the reason they did not
tell the congregation about Kendrick’s abuse was that the information
was “confidential.” In fact, the elders said they were following the
strict guidelines at the time provided by church leadership at the
Jehovah's Witnesses’ headquarters in New York, called “The Watchtower.”
In a series of letters to elders across the country regarding child
abuse, The Watchtower stated that although they acknowledge that some
states have child abuse reporting laws, allegations should otherwise be
kept secret to all but church elders, because the “peace, unity and
spiritual well-being of the congregation are at stake,” and because
“worldly people are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their
‘rights’ have been violated.”
The elders in Fremont did remove Kendrick from his leadership position, per Watchtower policy, on the grounds of “uncleanness.”
When Candace Conti’s lawsuit against the church went to court, attorneys
for Jehovah's Witnesses argued that it is not the responsibility of a
religious organization to protect children from sexual abuse by other
congregation members. They said the church provides education to parents
on the risk of sexual abuse. They also pointed out that the alleged
abuse of Candace Conti never took place on church property.
Furthermore, church attorneys questioned whether Conti was specifically
assigned by the elders to go door-to-door preaching, known as “field
service,” with Kendrick.
Ultimately, the jury sided with Conti. In a landmark verdict in 2012,
she was eventually awarded over $15 million. The Watchtower is currently
appealing the case.
The Watchtower denied our request for an interview, but told “Nightline”
in a statement, peppered with Bible citations, that "it would be
inappropriate for us to comment on cases currently in litigation." ...
"Jehovah’s Witnesses have also consistently warned congregation members
and the public of the need to protect their children from the horrific
crime of child sexual abuse."

 See more of the church's statement at the end of this story.

Whatever the outcome of her case, Candace Conti’s public fight appears
to have opened the floodgates. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are now facing a
series of lawsuits across the country. Attorney Irwin Zalkin is trying
15 of those cases.
“For some reason [church leaders] believe they’re above the law,” Zalkin said.
In October, a San Diego court awarded one of Zalkin’s clients $13.5
million dollars in damages for alleged sexual abuse suffered at the
hands of Congregation leader Gonzalo Campos, of the Linda Vista Spanish
Congregation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses plan to appeal the verdict.
Kendrick was absent from Conti’s trial and denied “Nightline’s” repeated
requests for an interview. In a brief interview with “Nightline”
outside of his home in California, Kendrick said, “My statement is this.
I've never been alone with Ms. Conti, never molested Candace Conti.”
He denied he ever did field service with Conti alone, and repeatedly denied molesting her or ever being alone with her.
“I'm sure that's the smart thing for him to say,” Conti told
“Nightline.” “That hurts like hell. But ... do you expect honesty from a
child molester?”
Conti is moving on with her life. She graduated from college and
recently got engaged. But she said she will continue fighting on behalf
of all victims of child abuse.
“I don’t have a monopoly on pain,” she said. “Instead of being victims
we can change it, and have our words speak for change. Then this pain
might be a little bit worth it.”
Since Conti’s verdict in 2012, the church appears to have made some
changes on its confidentiality policy when it comes to child abuse, but
critics, including Conti, say it’s not enough.
As for Jonathan Kendrick, he says he is still a member in good standing of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

More of Jehovah's Witnesses Statement to ABC News Regarding This Report:
 
As you are aware, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on cases
currently in litigation. However, in addition to the statement we
previously provided, please allow us to make the following points.
We abhor the sexual abuse of children, and we do not protect any
perpetrator of such repugnant acts from the consequences of his gross
sin and crime. – Romans 12:9.
Our current and long-standing policy is clearly stated in the
publication “Shepherd the Flock of God”—1 Peter 5:2, in which elders are
provided the following direction:
“Child abuse is a crime. Never suggest to anyone that they should not
report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities.
If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the
authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make
and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. Elders
will not criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the
authorities. If the victim wishes to make a report, it is his or her
absolute right to do so.”—“Shepherd the Flock of God”—1 Peter 5:2, chap.
12, pp. 131-132, par. 19.
Seeking legal advice is a vital element of handling sensitive matters
responsibly. Thus, for decades our elders have been instructed to
contact our Legal Department whenever they learn of an allegation of
child abuse. We do this, not to hide the crime and the sin, but rather
to ensure that our elders strictly comply with child-abuse reporting
laws.
By means of our Bible-based publications, our religious services, and
our website jw.org., Jehovah’s Witnesses have also consistently warned
congregation members and the public of the need to protect their
children from the horrific crime of child sexual abuse. We encourage
anyone who wishes to understand our position to visit our website
jw.org., and search the term “child abuse.”


Iran’s President brags about deceiving the West over nuclear program

Iran’s President brags about deceiving the West over nuclear program


“War is deceit,” said Muhammad. But to take him at his word would be “Islamophobic.”


“VIDEO: Iranian president brags about deceiving the West,” by Reza Kahlili for the Daily Caller, September 22:


Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has gone on a charm
offensive lately with multiple interviews with American media promising
collaboration, but a recent video shows he takes pride in deceiving the
West.


“Gone is the age of blood feuds,” Rouhani stated in an op-ed in the Washington Post. “World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities,” he wrote in the Post Friday.


In interviews with ABC and NBC,
Rouhani said that Iran will never develop nuclear weapons and that he
has the authority to make a deal with the West. “In its nuclear program,
this government enters with full power and has complete authority,”
Rouhani said. “Under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever.”


Rouhani, who is one of the most trusted figures of the Islamic
regime’s supreme leader, has served the Islamic Republic at the highest
levels since the 1979 revolution. He has been the deputy speaker of
Parliament, the head of the Executive Committee of the High Council for
War Support during the Iran-Iraq War, the deputy to the
second-in-command of Iran’s joint chiefs of staff, a member of the
Expediency Council, a member of the Assembly of Experts (the body that
chooses the supreme leader), a former nuclear negotiator, and, most
importantly, the representative of the supreme leader to the Supreme
National Security Council since 1989.


Despite the recent charm offensive in the American media, a recently
revealed video of an interview prior to the June Iranian election shows
him bragging how he, in his role as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator,
deceived the West during negotiations on Iran’s illicit nuclear program
even as Iran expanded its nuclear power. At the same time, Rouhani
managed to relieve pressure by the West, especially in convincing the
Europeans to avert possible military aggression by the Bush
administration.


“The day that we invited the three European ministers [to the talks],
only 10 centrifuges were spinning at [the Iranian nuclear facility of]
Natanz,” Rouhani boasted on the tape. “We could not produce one gram of
U4 or U6 [uranium hexafluoride]. “¦ We did not have the heavy-water
production. We could not produce yellow cake. Our total production of
centrifuges inside the country was 150.”


But then Rowhani admitted in the video the purpose of prolonging
negotiations: “We wanted to complete all of these “” we needed time.”


He said the three European ministers promised to block U.S. efforts
to transfer the Iran nuclear dossier to the United Nations, using veto
power if necessary. He called Iran’s claim that it stopped its nuclear
program in 2003 a statement for the uneducated and admitted that the
program not only continued, but was significantly expanded under his
tenure.


While President George W. Bush was increasing pressure on Iran in 2007, a report by American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and that the program had remained frozen since.


In the interview, Rouhani said that after he took over the country”s
nuclear project, the country”s 150 centrifuges grew to over 1,700 by the
time he left the project.


Then Rouhani made his boldest statement: “We did not stop; we completed the program.”


He said that Iran’s nuclear activity was under the supervision of the
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and that he, as Khamenei’s
representative, was to ensure this deceit….

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

New Documents Blow Lid Off Obama/Clinton Benghazi Scandal - Breitbart

New Documents Blow Lid Off Obama/Clinton Benghazi Scandal - Breitbart



AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
by Tom Fitton3 Mar 2015452

I’ve always believed that the Benghazi cover-up was about two presidential campaigns: Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign.
Why else would Hillary Clinton personally send out lies about Benghazi within hours, and then keep on pushing these lies until the truth could no longer be ignored? The truth about an attack by an al Qaeda group that killed our ambassador and three other brave Americans in the days before Obama’s reelection would not only have put Obama at risk of losing, but also would have potentially dashed the hopes of his successor-in-waiting, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The desperation by Obama, Clinton, and their political teams must have been potent. It was so potent that they – rather than admitting that they caused an Islamist conflagration in Libya by ousting and killing Gadhafi – preferred to ignore pleas for increased security from Ambassador Stevens; to abandon him and his colleagues to rampaging terrorists; refused to follow up with force against those who attacked us; and to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack. Rather than admit that it was a planned attack by a terrorist group in league with al Qaeda, the Obama/Clinton machine knowingly put out the lie that the killings were the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure Internet video supposedly offensive to radical Islamists. The message: don’t blame us – blame those who offend Islamists (conservatives, Republicans, etc.). Indeed, rather than sending our military to eliminate the enemy in Libya, the Obama administration arrested the poor sap who made the offending video.

Strong stuff you might think. But the most recent documents forced out of the State Department will make you think I’m being too kind to the Benghazi betrayers controlling the Executive Branch.

Judicial Watch recently struck smoking-gun gold in another cache of documents we forced out of the State Department. The documents show that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents we’ve extracted from the Obama administration only through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).

Unsurprisingly, the documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton.

The JW lawsuit that uncovered this material focused on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi scandal:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S, Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes but is not limited to, notes, taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

Mrs. Clinton had said she took notes on Benghazi for her recent book but suggested no one could see them. She isn’t above the law. Congress is asleep, traditional media are cheerleaders, so hence, our lawsuit.

We haven’t yet gotten Hillary’s notes, but the chain of internal emails we did get is extraordinary and tracks the events surrounding the terrorist attack in real time.

On September 11, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Maria Sand (who was then a Special Assistant to Mrs. Clinton) forwarded an email from the State Department’s Operations Center entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack (SBU) [Sensitive But Unclassified]” to Cheryl Mills (then-Chief of Staff), Jacob Sullivan (then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s Executive Assistant), and a list of other Special Assistants in the Secretary’s office:

The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

This email was sent about 30 minutes after the terrorist attack began.

On September 11, 2012, 4:38 PM, State Department Foreign Service Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan, and McManus an email from Scott Bultrowicz, who was the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service (ousted following review of the attack), with the subject line, “Attack on Benghazi 09112012”:

DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.

Nearly seven hours later, at 12:04 AM, on September 12, Randolph sends an email with the subject line “FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack” to Mills, Sullivan, and McManus that has several updates about the Benghazi attack:

I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center.

This email also contains a chain of other, earlier email updates:

September 11, 2012 11:57 PM email: “(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff.”

September 11, 2012 6:06 PM (Subject: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”

September 11, 2012, 4:54 PM: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel.”

The DOS emails reveal the first official confirmation of the death of Ambassador Stevens. On September 12, 2012, 3:22 AM, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, which was later forwarded to Cheryl Mills and Joseph McManus, with the subject line “Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi”:

Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi.

Two hours later, Joseph McManus forwards the news about Ambassador Stevens’ death to officials in the State Department Legislative Affairs office with instructions not to “forward to anyone at this point.”

Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the assault may have been in “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Cheryl Mills asks that the State Department stop answering press inquiries at 12:11 AM on September 12, despite the ongoing questions about “Chris’ whereabouts.” In an email to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, Jacob Kennedy, and Phillipe Reines (then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Senior Communications Advisor), Mills writes:

Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one [Hillary Clinton’s “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” statement] is hanging out there.

Earlier in the chain of emails, Nuland told Mills, Sullivan, and Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary of State for Management) that she “ignored” a question about Ambassador Steven’s status and whereabouts from a CBS News reporter.

Think about this: Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s top aide, would rather go to bed and let hang out there the lie that Hillary Clinton put out about the attack than tell reporters the truth about the attack, which by that time had escalated to include mortar fire.

Another top State Department official is eager to promote a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein, then-Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, a liberal group. The September 2012 statement condemns “the video that apparently spurred these incidents. It was clearly crafted to provoke, offend, and to evoke outrage.” Michael Posner, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, forwarded the statement on September 12, 2012, to Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Jacob Sherman with the note:

This is an excellent statement – our goal should be to get the Conference of Presidents, the ADL etc. to follow suit and use similar language.

(President Obama nominated the left-wing Rabbi Saperstein to be Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom in July 2014. The U.S. Senate confirmed him in December 2014. Posner, by the way, is another far-left activist installed at State by Obama.)

Also included in the documents are foreign press reports establishing the cause of Ambassador Chris Steven’s death as being from asphyxiation. According to the reports, doctors attending Stevens said he could have been saved had he arrived at the hospital earlier.

The Obama administration has blacked out reactions from White House and top State Department officials to news stories published on September 14, 2012. One of the stories quoted a visitor who criticized the lack of security at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound and another headlined, “America ‘was warned of attack and did nothing.’” What was the reaction of key Obama officials to this truth-telling about the media? They don’t want you to know. If it were helpful to them, it would have been released to us.

Other emails list well over 20 invited participants in a “SVTC” (secure video teleconference). The invited participants for the September 14, 2012, early morning call include senior White House, CIA, and State Department political appointees. Details about that call, which likely documents the cover-up operation on Benghazi, haven’t been produced to Judicial Watch.

These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about “inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.”

The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents, but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang’s cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information.

Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath.

Islamic terrorists connected to al Qaeda attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the evening of September 11, 2012. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both killed. Just a few hours later, a second terrorist strike targeted a different compound about one mile away. Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed and 10 others were injured in the second attack.

The families of those four men deserve the truth and accountability. And so do those who suffered injuries and others haunted by the attacks.

We expect more Benghazi documents over the next few months, so stayed tuned for more disclosures.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

GOP DOUBLE-CROSSING TRAITORS

Ann Coulter - February 18, 2015 - GOP DOUBLE-CROSSING TRAITORS

GOP DOUBLE-CROSSING TRAITORS

Now that a federal judge has held Obama's illegal
executive amnesty unconstitutional, perhaps U.S. senators will remember
that they swore to uphold the Constitution, too.



Back when they needed our votes before the last election,
Republicans were hairy-chested warriors, vowing to block Obama's
unconstitutional "executive amnesty" -- if only voters gave them a
Senate majority. The resulting Republican landslide suggested some
opposition to amnesty.


Heading into the election, college professor Dave Brat took out
the sitting House majority leader and amnesty supporter Eric Cantor in a
primary, despite being outspent 40-1. It was the greatest upset in
history since the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" at the Lake Placid Olympics:
Never before has a House majority leader been defeated in a primary. And
Brat did it by an astonishing 55.5 percent to 45.5 percent.


Again, the voters seemed to be expressing disquiet with amnesty.


After that, even amnesty-supporting Sen. Lamar Alexander,
R-Tenn., was denouncing Obama's executive amnesty. "If the president
were to do that," he said, "and we have a Republican majority in the
United States Senate, why, we have a number of options that we don't now
have to remind him to read Article I of the Constitution."


Poll after poll showed Americans ranking illegal immigration as
the No. 1 most important problem facing the nation. We haven't changed
our minds. Last week, an Associated Press-Gfk poll showed that Obama's
single most unpopular policy is his position on illegal immigration.


In other words, Obamacare is more popular than amnesty. That's like losing a popularity contest to Ted Bundy.


Since at least 2006, voters have insistently told pollsters they
don't want amnesty. Seemingly bulletproof Republican congressmen have
lost their seats over amnesty. President Bush lost the entire House of
Representatives over amnesty. What else do we have to do to convince you
we don't want amnesty, Republicans? Make it a host on "The View"?

Before the election, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
complained that Obama's decision to delay his executive amnesty until
after the election was a ploy to prevent Americans from "hold(ing) his
party accountable in the November elections."


But voters went ahead and held Obama accountable! Now McConnell
is Senate majority leader -- and he claims his hands are tied.


McConnell's spokesman at the National Republican Senatorial
Committee, Brad Dayspring, predicted that Obama's amnesty threat would
drive voters to "elect a new Senate (that) will stand up to the
president."


Check! Mission accomplished! Done and done! Officially off our
bucket list. OK, guys, your turn. When do you start standing up to the
president? Hello? Hell-oooo?


To gin up votes, "Republican insiders" told the Washington
Examiner last fall that "the results of the midterm elections" would
determine how "aggressive" the GOP would be in fighting Obama's amnesty.


Voters gave you a blow-out victory, Republicans. You cleaned
their clocks. (Have you seen Harry Reid lately?) Where's that promised
aggression on amnesty?


Republicans and George Will tell us they can't stand up to Obama's executive amnesty because the media are unfair.


Oh, well, in that case ... never mind.


This is news to them? They didn't know the media were unfair
when they were promising to block Obama's illegal amnesty before the
elections? The media have blamed the GOP for every failure of
Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement since the Hoover
administration. This isn't a surprise development.


Why don't Republicans attack the media? People hate the media!
Their power is eroding -- and it would erode a lot faster if Congress
would challenge them. Instead of submitting to the media's blackmail, my
suggestion is, take their gun away.


Tell voters what the media won't: that Obama's "amnesty" will
give illegal aliens Social Security cards and three years of
back-payments through the Earned Income Tax Credit, even though they
never paid taxes in the first place.


Could we get a poll on that: Should the government issue work
permits to illegal aliens and give them each $25,000 in U.S. taxpayer
money? I promise you, Obama would lose that vote by at least 80-20. Even
people vaguely supportive of not hounding illegal aliens out of the
country didn't sign up to open the U.S. Treasury to them.


Tell voters that the media are refusing to report that, for the
past two weeks, Senate Democrats have been filibustering a bill that
would defund Obama's illegal amnesty.


Whether or not the Democrats continue to filibuster the bill
containing the amnesty defund, the government won't shut down --
contrary to hysterical claims by the media and George Will. The
government is funded. Only the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
will be "defunded."


Which means, wait ... I'm counting on my fingers ... yes, that's right: NOTHING.


Nearly all DHS employees are "essential" personnel required to
stay on the job even if the department is defunded -- the Secret
Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Customs and Border Protection and the Coast
Guard.


Approximately 200,000 of DHS's 230,000 employees will keep working.


By "government shutdown," the media mean: "some secretaries will not go to work."


Why don't Republicans spend all their airtime attacking the
media for lying about what Obama's amnesty does and what the Democrats
are doing? It's hard to avoid concluding that Republicans aren't trying
to make the right arguments. In fact, it kind of looks like they're
intentionally throwing the fight on amnesty.


If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can't stop
Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of
back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever
again.




Saturday, February 14, 2015

Plan for massive Valentine’s Day shooting in Halifax foiled | Kajunman's Swamp


Valentine’s Day shooting plot in Halifax foiled by police, with three suspects arrested and a fourth found dead (VIDEO)

Canadian police on Friday arrested three suspects,
and found a fourth dead, for a plot to open fire in a public venue on
Valentine’s Day. Many details about the plan and its suspects are still
being withheld, but police said it was not intended as a terrorist
attack.

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, February 13, 2015, 11:03 PM

Police said one of the suspects, a 19-year-old man, was found dead in this home in Timberlea, a suburb of Halifax. Global News Police said one of the suspects, a 19-year-old man, was found dead in this home in Timberlea, a suburb of Halifax.

A disturbing mass murder plot planned for Valentine’s Day in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, was foiled by Canadian police, authorites said.


Three of the young suspects in the sick scheme, one of whom is
American, were arrested Friday, and another was found dead. Police were
tipped off to the plan earlier in the week.


Police said at least two of the suspects were planning to enter a
mall “with a goal of opening fire to kill citizens, and then
themselves,” CBC reported.


The plan was the brainchild of a 19-year old man from Timberlea, a
Halifax suburb, and a woman, 23, from Geneva, Ill., both of whom had
access to firearms, according to police.


The Timberlea man was found dead from a gunshot wound in his family
house after police surrounded the home and tried talking to him.


Brian Brennan, commanding officer of the Nova Scotia Royal Canadian Mounted Police, said the foiled plan was not intended as a terrorist attack. Global News Brian
Brennan, commanding officer of the Nova Scotia Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, said the foiled plan was not intended as a terrorist attack.

The woman was arrested early Friday morning after getting off a
flight from Chicago to Halifax. She had prewritten several statements
she wanted to be tweeted after her suicide.


Two Halifax men, aged 17 and 20, were also arrested, but their roles in the plan have yet to be determined.


The names of the suspects and information about their connections to each other have not been released.


Brian Brennan, commanding officer of the Nova Scotia Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, said “there’s nothing in the investigation to classify
it as a terrorist attack.” He said it appeared to be a violent way for
the suspects to express “some beliefs” they shared, but he did not
elaborate. Police said the suspects seemed obsessed with death and
collected photos of mass killings.



Brennan said police believe there are no other suspects in the thwarted Valentine’s Day massacre.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

IS ANYBODY SURPRISED? NORWAY DEPORTS MUSLIMS, CRIME RATE DROPS 31%

IS ANYBODY SURPRISED? NORWAY DEPORTS MUSLIMS, CRIME RATE DROPS 31%



Posted by








Oslo, Norway: "The world's
largest gang of  thugs, murderers, and rapists is masquerading as a
religion of peace," says Adrian Stavig, a resident of Oslo.



Beginning this past January, the new Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna
Solberg began a program which targets and deports Muslims who have ties
to radical groups. 




While many in America would say this is racist, it's worked in dramatic
fashion. Violent crimes are down more than 31% in Norway.











What a shocker.



Perhaps the rest of Europe and
the United States could learn a lesson or two about radical Islam here.
Deport the radicals, keep the moderates, and everybody wins.



From Oslo local news:




A record number of people were deported by Norwegian authorities in October, said government sources.





The National Police Immigration Service Norway (Politiets
Utlendingsenhet – PU) deported 824 people in October, which is a new
record.



The previous record was set in September, the month prior, when 763 people were deported, reported Dagsavisen.


PU believe some of the reasons for the rise in figures are more
resources, more staff and a change of “portfolio priorities”. It has
also become easier for Norwegian authorities to deport people back to Afghanistan and Nigeria.



Kristin Kvigne, head of PU, said to Dagsavisen: “This month helps us reach our goal for this year.”


Norway’s government has ruled that 7,100 people will be deported in
2014. At the end of October, PU had deported 5,876 people so far this
year.



A percentage of those deported in 2014 were asylum seekers who had
their application for continued asylum rejected. They were then deported
along with their families. The majority of deportees, however, had
committed crimes, or had returned illegally to Norway after being
deported.



Kvigne
said it was important to view the high number of deportations made by
PU in the context of falling crime rates across the country.



Not everybody in Norway is happy with the increased deportations. One academic slammed the new policies:



“Norwegian women must take responsibility for the fact that
Muslim men find their manner of dress provocative. And since these men
believe women are responsible for rape, the women must adapt to the
multicultural society around them.”
 
– Dr. Unni Wikan, Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Oslo





So, Dr Wikan, using your logic, it is the victim's fault they have been
raped? Not in this universe. You sir may have book smarts, but you sure
don't have any common sense.




And there you have it! Kicking out radical Muslims makes a nation safer
and peaceable. Women can walk around without fear of being raped,
people just get along a lot better.


 


Blog: Muslim leaders to hold 'Stand with the Prophet' conference in Texas this weekend

Blog: Muslim leaders to hold 'Stand with the Prophet' conference in Texas this weekend



Muslim leaders to hold 'Stand with the Prophet' conference in Texas this weekend



To
combat Islam's poor PR recently, Muslim leaders from across America
will hold a "Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect" conference in
Dallas on Saturday.  The forum will try to counter what they call
"Islamophobes" in America who have spread hate toward Muslims around the
world.




Get a load of the lineup of speakers.



Washington Free Beacon:



Organizers
of the event place the blame for Islam’s bad reputation on the media
and so-called American Islamophobes who have “invested at least $160
million dollars to attack our Prophet and Islam,” according to the conference web page.




Keynote
speakers at the event will include Georgetown University professor John
Esposito, founding director of the school’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal
Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which has come under fire
for, among other things, hosting 9/11 Truthers and a member of Egypt’s Nazi Party.




Also scheduled to attend the forum is controversial New York-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who was an “unindicted co-conspirator
in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings trial. Wahhaj has called the
FBI and CIA the “real terrorists” and expressed a desire for all
Americans to become Muslim, according to the New York Post.




Organizers
of the conference claim that the media and Islamophobes in America are
the main reason why Islam and its prophet have such a bad reputation in
the Western world.




“This
is not an event. It is the beginning of a movement,” organizers write
on their website, which blames Americans for giving Islam a bad name. “A
movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message.”




“All
these accusations were invented by Islamophobes in America,” the group
claims. “As we celebrate the Prophet in our now annual, nationwide
event: Stand with the Prophet, we recommit ourselves to rectify his
image, peace be upon him.”




The event seeks to capitalize on outrage over cartoons and other materials mocking Mohammed in popular culture.



“Frustrated
with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask.
“Fuming over extremists like ISIS who give a bad name to Islam? Remember
the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film,
‘Innocence of Muslims’?”



I think I'll pass.



When
"defaming the prophet" can mean just about anything, they're going to
be very busy getting outraged over "Islamophobes" who make jokes about
Mohammed, or put his image on a toilet seat, or perhaps simply speak
about him without the reverence and worship of some Muslims.  For any of
those transgressions, you can lose your head.




"Islamophobes" indeed.



They
may condemn ISIS, but what will be said about the Paris terrorist
attacks?  Given the tone of the conference, it wouldn't surprise me if
the terrorists weren't excused of their murders and perhaps justify
their actions with weasel words about Islam being a "religion of
peace."  It's become SOP for these "good Muslims" to dance around the
terrorist question and not face the fact that many in their midst turn
their outrage at insults to the prophet into murderous intent.
 




Ex-Muslim’s Open Letter to America: “What else has to happen so you wake up?”

Ex-Muslim’s Open Letter to America: “What else has to happen so you wake up?”



Ex-Muslim’s Open Letter to America: “What else has to happen so you wake up?”

Mark ChristianMark Christian is the President and Executive Director of the Global Faith Institute.
He is the son and nephew of high ranking leaders of the Muslim
Brotherhood in his home country of Egypt. He is working in Nebraska
against Muslim Brotherhood front groups’ malicious plans within the “Tri-Faith Initiative” in Omaha — details here.


“Ex-Muslim’s Open Letter To America: ‘WHAT ELSE HAS TO HAPPEN SO YOU WAKE UP?!,’ by Prissy Holly, Mad World News, January 11, 2015:


Meet Mark Christian, a brave man who has dedicated his life to exposing what Islam truly is all about.


After leaving Islam a decade ago to convert to Christianity, Mark
pulls no punches when speaking out about his former religion, frequently
calling out the Muslims who choose to murder in the name of their god.


“A god who is insecure enough to be offended by a
cartoon, and incompetent to the level that he wants you to avenge for
him, is not a god worthy of worship, but a devil who is leading you to
your demise.


“When people challenged Jesus, he made them walk on water, raised
them from the dead, and healed their sickness to prove ‘who He Is’ … But
when people challenged Mohamed, he chopped their heads off to prove his
power as a prophet … Well you chop my head off as much as you want. My
heart will continue to call on the name of my savior Jesus Christ.


“Where is the American spirit and the American soul? Where are those
who destroyed Hitler and brought down the Berlin Wall? When planes flew
into your buildings, knifes ran through your fellow citizens’ throats,
bombs went off in your Boston streets, Women and kids are screaming in
every country around the world. All of this and you are still calling
Islam the religion of peace … What else needs to happen for that Giant
to wake up, and liberate humanity from the bondage and the fear of
Islam???”
The following is an open letter from Mark, not just to
Americans, but to those professing to be “peaceful” Muslims. In the
light of the recent terror attacks in Paris, this message needs to be
heeded and applied before it is too late!


The circumstances we face are dire and we have no
coherent way of addressing it until we establish the stark, bright line
between Muslims who are willing to respect the religious liberty of
others (which must absolutely require the abandonment of vengeance over
insults, perceived or real) and those who count us as so many cattle,
ripe for slaughter and easily led.


Our society can no longer afford to self-censor when it comes to the
“hair trigger” that is Islam.  Muslims of the former type I described
above may be offended, and for this I am sympathetic; but Muslims of the
latter type will become enraged and will reveal to all the depth of
their incompatibility with civilized society. This is my aim: to force
these Muslims to expose their unacceptable radicalism for all to see,
but also to reach a self-realization of the depravity of that radicalism
that exists within themselves.


Being offended is uncomfortable for sure, but it is nothing compared
to being hunted and subjugated, which is the lot our Christian brothers
and sisters in Muslim-dominated lands endure, and as we saw in Paris;
and increasingly in our own western democracies. The source of this is a
foolish adherence to the idea of “multiculturalism,” enforced by a
misguided political correctness.  I believe you would heartily agree
that there is no verbal insult, nor cartoon that would move you to
murder.  However, hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide disagree.


Part of the effort of the Global Faith Institute is
to expose the reality of these twisted beliefs, not just among the
jihadists (who we all know believe this) but more importantly, among the
so-called “moderate” Muslims.


The concept of killing over an insult is abhorrent, but is held to be
acceptable by a majority of Muslims.  Does this mean that a majority of
Muslims would kill over a cartoon? Of course not.  However it does mean
that a majority of Muslims would NOT stop a fellow Muslim from doing
so, and might even feel compelled to assist or support them either
financially, or through their silence. This concept is the bridge from
religion to savagery. If a Muslim accepts insult as justification for
violence, then it becomes possible  for them to move to the next stage –
honor killings, murder of apostates and infidels, etc.


Think of responding to insult with violence as the “gateway drug” to
all the evils that animate Islam today.  Break that link, and the rest
will collapse for lack of support.


We are at the point where the lack of a stark, bright line is
enabling death.  I must do all I can to draw that line, and force
Muslims to choose which side of that line they prefer. This is an
essential first step in exposing the radicalism that we both know
festers beneath the surface of many Muslims; even some of whom we call
friends.


Some of those “peaceful” Muslims are of the opinion that HAMAS is
doing nothing wrong by targeting civilians. They say are merely “acting
as anyone would toward an oppressor.” Their words, not mine.


We are in a war, declared by Islam against civilization itself.  As
war is not pretty, sometimes tactics within a battle are difficult as
well.  I have the greatest love for Muslims, as they are in fact the
first victims of Islam, and it is that love that leads me to force them
to address their own need for religious reform.  When one allows a
wayward son to sit at the Thanksgiving table while drunk and on drugs,
one is enabling that behavior.  Real love tells that son to be sober and
clean before entering this house.  The son will resist, but only
through that conflict can the problem be resolved.  So it is with Islam,
and those who follow it.
Mark is the founder of Global Faith Institute, whose mission is “To
inspire the lost with the hope of Christ; to equip America with
knowledge of the truth, greater than the evils of the age; to embrace
the role of “Watchmen,” that we might sound an alarm for all who will
listen.”  
Be sure and follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.


If you would like to read the exclusive interview Mark did recently with Mad World News, you can check that out here.