The Betrayal Papers Have Been Out for Weeks… and the Press Says Nothing

The Betrayal Papers Have Been Out for Weeks… and the Press Says Nothing

The United States of America, primarily through the political left and Democrat Party, has been virtually colonized by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Also known by their Arabic name, Ikhwan, they are a totalitarian, terrorist Islamic group that seeks our destruction because we are a free people.

We witness the Muslim Brotherhood's planned destruction of America in many areas of contemporary life. A purposefully weak economy fails to produce the capitalist dynamism that has defined America for generations, and many millions remain unemployed.  Abroad, the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of American foreign policy instigated and backed the failed "Arab Spring," which may ultimately result in Iranian domination of the Middle East.  We feel their suffocating effects on our democracy every day, as our freedoms, traditions, opportunities, and rule of law slip away.  The people suffer as prices continue to rise and the public sinks into a bottomless pit of debt.

The hostile, conquered government in Washington strangles our liberty each time Obama, like a self-crowned emperor, passes new regulatory laws without Congress. 

Each of these trends is related to the predominant problem in America today: the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to a place of eminence in American government – the Executive, the Presidency.  The People's office, established by Article II of the Constitution, is now either occupied by a Muslim Brother in Barack Hussein Obama, or a man who happens to go along with their every policy at every turn.

To understand the nature and evil of the Muslim Brotherhood, recall their intimate involvement with Hitler's Nazi war machine and Holocaust.  This genocidal syndicate has birthed virtually all major Islamic terrorist groups and their various offshoots.  Financially, they have the backing of the Qatar, whose ruling Al-Thani family is likely the world's richest family.

Within the United States, Muslim Brotherhood fingerprints are on the administration's biggest scandals: IRS targeting of conservative groups, eavesdropping on the press, the scrubbing of counterterrorism material of the words "Islam" and "Muslim," NYC police murders in December 2014, Benghazi, and more.

In Syria and Iraq, to the extent that these countries still distinctly exist and are not viewed as part of an emerging Islamic caliphate, the Muslim Brotherhood is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS and the entire Arab Spring.  The Obama-backed project to replace strongmen in the region (e.g. Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad) is such a failure that Libya today is in a state of anarchy, occupied by ISIS's bloodthirsty armies, who are training to invade Europe.

Paralyzed by Inaction and Complicity

The U.S. Congress refuses to act.  They are in denial, and paid well to be so.  Lobbyists and government perks keep them fat, happy, and stupid.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a regional headquarters in Doha, Qatar, home of the Brotherhood's spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  Indeed, some of America's most respected companies do business with Al-Thani family, who last year pledged $1 billion to the terrorist government, including Hamas, in Gaza.  Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution are also in this sand-swept desert oasis of revolutionary Islam, along with many other top-tier universities and think tanks. 

So far has the establishment, in particular the Obama administration and the progressive left, merged with the global Muslim Brotherhood, that Harvard University and Northwestern University are actually helping build an Islamic sharia law school in Qatar – a country which has been aptly nicknamed an "ATM for Terrorists."

There are enough hard, verifiable facts available on Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of Washington, D.C. that there is no need to stretch the truth.  Qatar's associations with the nation's capital and the players who run it are alone enough to fill a volume, or two. 

So why doesn't the Press report just the facts?  

What is the reason for such an incredible failure by the press to inform the American people of the dire state of their government under Barack Obama? There are several.

Many advisors to Obama are married into the media, or have worked in media themselves prior to joining the administration.  Both Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice have familial connections with powerful executive in (what was once known as) the free press.  Four times more journalists identify as liberal compared to conservative. Evidently, with the case of Brian Williams coming to light, some in the media don't care about the truth and would rather make up bald-faced lies. 

Yet the biases above don't fully explain the conspicuous silence of the mainstream press on the Muslim Brotherhood.  For it is no longer bias or loyalty that sway the press, but fear.

The Obama administration has proved that it will stonewall, punish, illegally wiretap, and in general make life difficult for inquisitive members of the press.  Case in point, Sharyl Attkisson, who refused go along with the official lies regarding Benghazi.  Her documented harassment by the administration sends the intended message, and most spineless editors and producers listen: shut up and report what we say, or else!

Overseas, an aggressive Russia is looking to reassert the power it had under the Czars and the Soviets.  Civil unrest in Ukraine has resulted in a war that threatens Russia's economic security.  Simultaneously, Russian-allied Syria, on the Mediterranean, is under attack by U.S.-backed terrorists, who are referred to by the administration and parroting media as "moderates" (that, according to Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper).

When it comes to the genocide and cultural annihilation of Middle Eastern Christians and other minorities, the word is in Washington is mum.

Today's parallels with the 1930s are hard to miss.  In an ominous signal of what may come, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called all European Jews to Israel. All signs point to the conclusion that a much broader war is on the horizon unless something big changes, and fast.  And because our allies have very little trust in us, as we continue to back a genocidal Islamic movement, the country finds itself with few international friends and in considerable danger.

If we want to change our future, it behooves us to face reality, no matter what it is.  The Muslim Brotherhood is not going to disappear on its own – they are too entrenched.  One potential first step would be to formally designate that the Muslim Brotherhood and all affiliated groups are terrorist entities.  This has already been done in Egypt, Russia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.  It is most definitely not "Islamophobic."

Following the designation, patriotic law enforcement must conduct a thorough investigation of all levels of government, and prosecute all guilty parties according to the Constitution.

Most urgently, the people must demand action! Before too much more time passes, before it is too late.

What does the does demanding action look like?  It is you, your friends and their friends calling, emailing and sending letters as never before to the representatives in Washington D.C.  If the people of this country to not get into action, we will be deserving of the horror that is coming to America!

20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Hillary is a hoarder.  So is Bill.  So if she actually removed everything from her server, she had to be convinced that it would be more dangerous to keep the emails than to ride through a scandal, no matter how rough.

This scandal isn't about Hillary's privacy, it's about her self-preservation.  So here's what would make her do it:

1.  The emails contained damaging information about Benghazi that conflicted with her testimony and statements.

2.  The emails -- and those of her closest aides -- showed her improper use of her position to benefit the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Teneo, and herself.

3.  If she gave the Benghazi Committee electronic access to the emails, they could easily determine whether any had been edited or altered.  It would have been extremely difficult to delete just some of the information in the emails.  If she tried to doctor them, the system would likely show when it was last edited.  Any edits after she left the State Department would be highly suspicious and the earlier versions could probably be retrieved anyway.  So, it would be much easier to give out only hard copies, which can be easily doctored without detection and which would be difficult to search electronically.

4.  The emails would show the improper coordination with the Clinton Global Initiative and U.S. corporations.  Huma Abedin worked for the State Department as Clinton's right hand person, Teneo, and the Clinton Global Initiative all at once.  She used one of Hillary's private email accounts on Hillary's server.  Were her emails deleted too?

5.  The emails would show just how many of her political cronies she brought into the State Department.

6.  She wanted to hide any policy disagreements with Obama.

7.  She wanted to hide any knowledge of and role in the NSA spying on foreign leaders.

8.  She wanted to conceal efforts to topple pro-democracy regime in Honduras and restore a would- be dictator.

9.  She wanted to hide efforts to arm Syrian rebels.

10.  She wanted to hide her push to keep Egypt President Mubarek in office.

11.  The emails would show her back channel Benghazi "intelligence" briefings from Sidney Blumenthal and any responses, and...

12.  Conceal her role in postponing signing the UN Arms Control Treaty until after the 2012 election, and...  

13.  Conceal her opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, and...  

14.  Hide her comments critical of Israel in the settlement controversy, and... 

15.  Conceal her position on troop surge for Afghanistan, and... 

16.  Hide her support for accommodation with China despite its well documented human rights abuses, and...

17.  Conceal her comments on the DEA Fast and Furious program and its impact on US-Mexican relations, and... 

 
18.  Hide what we were doing in Benghazi in the first place, and...

19.  Conceal the possible role disgraced former NSA advisor -- and Hillary pal -- Sandy Berger played in advising her, and finally...

20.  Because she's Hillary Clinton and she doesn't have to do anything that she doesn't want to do.

Given the highly suspicious timing of the mass deletions -- about two years after she left the State Department -- the only inference that can be drawn about why she dumped the documents is that she was HIDING a lot.  There's just no way to conclude otherwise.  It's typical Hillary.  Do we need four more years of her messes?

Indiana’s RFRA Act .... what are the real issues?

Indiana’s RFRA Act .... what is the real issue?

It should come as no surprise to us of the present age that religion plays a key role in political life. Recently the State of Indiana enacted its Religious Freedom Restoration Act that parallels Federal legislation and statutes of many other states of the Union. 

Unfortunately, some American citizens or interests are keen on exposing the so-called discrimination or potential discrimination that this kind of legislation may perpetrate against fellow citizens who are part of the sexual orientation and gender identity movement.

Powerful influences including elements of the media, the NCAA, and large corporations that publicly support the political, social, and cultural initiatives of this movement have been adding their objections to this new legislation which reflects what has been the law for some time in other jurisdictions. Could it be that there is something in the text of the Indiana law that is different? I do not think that is the real issue. The real issue resides in the text itself and what the text is supposed to protect, which I shall address in a moment.

The opponents of the new Indiana law are now pressuring the legislators and the governor, who supports the legislation, for clarifications. But are clarifications needed? This is where a careful examination and interpretation of the text are in order. After all, words and their meanings are important to the law as are the entire texts. In my discussion today, I am relying on Indiana Senate Bill No. 568 introduced on January 20 of this year and enacted this past week. The text is HERE:  Download SB0568.01.INTR.

The substance of the legislation is contained in Section 6 that provides that state action or the action of an individual based on state action cannot “substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability.” The same section further provides that a burden to the right of religious free exercise may be lawful and trump the right of religious freedom if the burden is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and is “the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.” This language essentially tracks Supreme Court jurisprudence, albeit at times confusing, on the nature of religious liberty.

The first five sections of the legislation contain the definitions applicable to the intent and purpose of the new law. I find two of the definitions crucial to meeting the general opposition to the state RFRA that opponents of the bill are voicing. Section 3 defines the phrase “the exercise of religion.” The definition can be fairly distilled as the practice or observance of a person’s [defined in Section 4] ability to act or to refuse to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person’s sincerely held religious belief. Inherent in this protected right is the defense of the person who is acting or refusing to act on the grounds of that person’s religion. This protected right does not impose on the non-believer or someone who adheres to some other faith. It protects the claimant who is exercising a Constitutional and now an Indiana statutory right. It does not interfere with the legal rights of others who may disagree with the religious tenets in issue.

To understand this point further, it is useful to look at the second important definition to which I alluded a moment ago, and this definition concerns the “compelling governmental interest” that can derogate the protected right of religious freedom under specified circumstances. A “compelling governmental interest” is defined as “a governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.” I have emphasized two passages with italics.

While the first italicized phrase might profit from a definition, I do not think that a definition essential to the protection of all legitimate interests at stake. The phrase “the highest magnitude” suggests a crucial legal, perhaps even constitutional, principle that is essential to the integrity and survival of the Republic, the State of Indiana, and the commonweal/common good.

Opponents to the legislation appear to ignore this element of the text when they argue that the Indiana law “could make it easier for religious conservatives [the legislation does not use the term “conservative” anywhere] to refuse service to gay couples.” What might these services be? The denial of some services to anyone might actually be a lawful act of discrimination rather than an unlawful act of discrimination.

For example, an innkeeper might discriminate against a would-be customer if the innkeeper refuses to serve alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated or underage. This refusal could be compelled not only by law but also by a person’s sincerely held religious belief that the intoxicated or underage person should not be served. Might the proprietor of a bed and breakfast refuse to accommodate a single person? Unless the single person is rowdy, a known fugitive from justice, travelling with an animal, etc., it would be difficult for the proprietor to refuse accommodation on the grounds of religious freedom as the law is designed to protect. But what if it is a couple of persons? Does it matter if they are of the same-sex or opposite-sex? Could the proprietor rely on the provisions of this law to deny accommodation to either couple and not trigger the compelling governmental interest standard of the highest magnitude? It would seem that the right of religious freedom (or conscience which is not directly addressed by the statute’s language) as enshrined by the law would protect the proprietor who knows that the opposite-sex-couple is not married. Why should the same-sex-couple be treated differently by forcing the proprietor to provide them with a room with a large bed? (Perhaps the circumstances would be different if this couple were Queequeg and Ismael from Melville’s Moby Dick, but I digress.) Is there a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude that is at stake? Would it matter if the proprietor of the business relying on the religious liberty protection operates a bakery and objects to an opposite-sex-couple who want a cake to celebrate their living together out of wedlock or a same-sex-couple who order a cake to celebrate their commitment or union under state law?

The point here is this: must a person seeking the protection of this law conform his, her, or its religious conscience and thereby sacrifice his, her, or its religious faith to the sin of someone who desires to have his, her, or its action declared a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the religious person’s free exercise? It strikes me that, given the context of those objecting to this law, this is precisely the objective that they are seeking. They are pursuing the goal because they see no sin or sin is inconsequential; it is irrelevant to them that they are asking another person to cooperate and participate in their sin. This circumstance parallels what medical providers are now facing from their licensing authorities when they are forced to refer a patient to a medical provider who will provide the service they cannot provide due to their sincerely held religious belief or conscience.

As I keep going over the text of the new Indiana law and consider the objections raised by its opponents, I see strong parallels to what Henry VIII did in England from 1533-35. Both the king and the opponents of the Indiana law will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with their objective from escaping. All must conform to the goals of the law’s opponents, and sincerely held religious beliefs will be no defense. We know what happened during and after 1535 in England. Is this same thing really required under the rubric of a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude today? If so, then sin wins once again and virtue is at forfeit.

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.

But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be miss characterized or dismissed on that basis.

LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

#10.  I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

#9.  I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

#8.  I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

#7.  I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

#6.  I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.  I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5.  I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

#4.  I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves.  They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

 #2.  I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

 #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.

        "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits"... Albert Einstein 

Wisconsin State Trooper Trevor Casper shot dead by a thug

#TrevorsLifeMatters, #PoliceLivesMatter

BY TIM SCHMIDT

• A crowd of thousands won’t chant it, so I will: Justice for Trevor. 
• A nation won’t hashtag it, so I will: #TrevorsLifeMatters. 
• A president won’t say it, so I will: If I had a son, he’d look like Trevor Casper.” 

If the above words don’t send shivers down your spine, you probably haven’t heard the story of Wisconsin State Trooper Trevor Casper. 

Trevor Casper: 

21 years old. 2011 graduate of Kiel High School. December, 2014 graduate of the Wisconsin State Patrol’s 60th recruiting class. Beloved son. Beloved brother. 

Trevor Casper: 

Deceased. Shot and killed on Tuesday, March 24th in an exchange of gunfire with a bank robber...on his very first day of solo patrol. 

Trevor Casper: 

Undoubtedly one of the good guys. 

You know, I’m not going to waste a single second talking about the bad guy here. That might be the mainstream media’s mode of operation, but it’s not mine. 

I’m sticking with Trevor Casper. After all, his is the name we should remember. 

Yes, I’m sad and I’m angry. But I’m also grateful. I’m grateful that in the midst of a period in history where the actions of our nation’s law enforcement officers are questioned at every turn, there are people like Trevor Casper willing to stand up for what’s right. 

Irish orator Sir Edmund Burke once said that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." 

Well, not on Trevor Casper’s watch. 

Trevor died doing what he was sworn to do—what he claims he was “born to do,”—and his story serves as a reminder to all of us just how incredible the sacrifice “to serve and protect” really is. 

I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who protest the justified defensive actions of our nation’s law enforcement officers—actions that few understand and even fewer are willing to carry out. 

I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who refuse to acknowledge that a police officer shares in the natural-born right to defend his or her OWN LIFE. 

And I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who continue to ignore the bottom line: evil exists in this world...and it always will. But remember, if there were no bad guys, we wouldn’t have good guys—heroes—like Trevor Casper. 

Trevor Casper: 

Protector. Purveyor of justice. 

He undoubtedly saved countless lives with his heroic actions...and he paid the ultimate price. As Wisconsin mourns and the thin blue line gets a little thinner, the least we can do is remember his name: 

Trevor Casper. 

Prayers to his family, to Wisconsin State Patrol, and to all law enforcement officers who, like Trevor, wouldn’t hesitate to lay down their lives to keep people like you and me safe. 
Take Care and Stay Safe, 

Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Local Letter to the Editor

I found the March 22 Enquirer editorial, “Contract still more Big Brother, less Pope Francis,” alarming and bombastic for many reasons. First, what business is it of The Enquirer whether Catholic schools require that their employees not actively oppose Catholic teaching?

Teachers ministering and shaping the future of our children certainly ought to be held to a high standard. There would be outrage if the media started questioning the right of Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or other schools or institutions to require that their teachers or leaders not oppose the fundamentals of their faith. Perhaps that’s the price Catholic schools pay for being so successful that parents of different faiths choose to enroll their children to take advantage of the great education. But the whole point is that it is supposed to be a Catholic education, not something else. What concern is that of The Enquirer?

The headline is misleading. How can a contract be more like Pope Francis? This is a legal employment contract, which unfortunately in this day and age is required to prevent lawsuits. It’s not a press release,marketing material, sermon or mission statement. To compare such an administrative necessity to the wonderful message of Pope Francis is disingenuous and ignores the same local message coming from Catholic charities, schools, ministries, and outreach to the poor and sick.

The Enquirer claims the contract “forces teachers to dance a ridiculously fine line when discussing things such as gay rights and gay marriage in class, outside school and in private.” On the contrary, teachers who adhere to church teaching when discussing any “controversial” topic won’t go wrong. That’s what parents sending kids to Catholic schools expect.

It is wrong for The Enquirer to frame the contract as “a choice forced upon them by an archdiocese more intent on holding the line in a culture war than preserving human dignity and understanding.” Preserving human dignity and understanding are fundamental ideals for Catholic schools. The Enquirer and popular media are not the sole arbiter of these ideals. Please see the First Amendment of the Constitution.

It is ridiculous for The Enquirer to claim, “Students also face real consequences as they see their role models gagged, and their identities squelched as immoral.” No one is asking a teacher to be perfect. We are all sinners. The contract does not require teachers to be saints. The contract does not target one’s identity, but rather one’s behavior. After all, it was Catholic philosopher St. Augustine who wrote in 424 what has come to be known as “love the sinner but hate the sin.” It is fair that Catholic schools expect their teachers not appear on the next reality TV show filmed in Cincinnati.

The Enquirer states, “The Catholic Church is an inherently conservative organization.” This is a mischaracterization of a church that also opposes the death penalty; supports immigration reform and health care for all; advocates for social and economic justice; and ministers in prisons. It becomes clear that The Enquirer is not finding fault with the contract supporting church teachings as much as it is attacking the church teachings themselves. This being the case, where does it stop? “Moral questions” on various topics are sure to arise in the future as the influence of secular society encroaches on the personal sanctity of faith. Certainly the church is entitled to the same protection from such attack on its core principles under the First Amendment as is The Enquirer.
Butt out.