Gays Denigrating Christianity

Here is a huge irony. Homosexual Activists must have been studying Mohammedan history. How can I say this? The Homosexual Activists have taken the Mohammedan concept of dhimmitude and have successfully lobbied into Colorado State Law the dhimmification of Christianity pertaining to homosexuality in the State of Colorado.

From the Mohammedan perspective dhimmitude is a community law that makes non-Mohammedans second class citizens with nearly zero political rights. Colorado’s SB200 is the beginning of this dhimmification process in relation to empowering homosexuals as a moral class of people while making it a criminal offense to proclaim the immorality of homosexuality outside of the walls of Christian Churches.

Thus the Arabic concept of dhimmi or “protected” is a hypocrisy entering American society. Christians can proclaim Biblical truths inside the walls of a Church however if open campaign to condemn homosexual immorality is preached outside a Church or published and sold by for profit companies it is now criminal.

If Colorado’s SB200 is not successfully challenged in a federal court it is a concept that Homosexual Activists will infect the rest of America as a difficult to cure political disease. According to James Dobson SB200 is written in such a way that a grassroots Initiative process to overturn the State Congressional legislation is not possible. I don’t understand how that is possible so I hope Dobson is inaccurate on that assertion.

This is also an example of the power of well funded minority activism overriding the will of the people. Dear God in Heaven do not let this political disease stand or infect the rest of America.

Homosexual Activists can continue to do rallies anywhere in Colorado preaching their disgusting agenda. If a Christian protests he, she or they can be tossed into jail or fined or both under SB200.

The key word in an article written by Bob Unruh is “marginalized.” The State is making a law restricting the free practice of religion and proclaiming homosexuality a valid style simultaneously. Dear friends that is Unconstitutional according to the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution. It marginalizes Christians by regulating the practice of where they can practice religion and where and how a Christian can practice Freedom of Speech.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

LiveLeak Apology on Free Speech

Islamofascism and the inherent Theo-political cult of death known as Islam to adherents and as Mohammedanism to people like me that have disdain for a medieval threat of violence that terrifies those that love Liberty and Freedom has struck fear into LiveLeak.

LiveLeak was the video service I used to share the Movie Short Fitna to readers who wished to be educated about the true nature of Mohammedanism. That link now leads to a LiveLeak apology to its clientele because the fear of death threats to its staff constrained them to cave into Islamofascism to place security above the passion of Freedom.

Actually I cannot blame LiveLeak. With governments in the West promoting Appeasement to Mohammedans at the cost of Freedom and Liberty that has evolved in the world with the example of the American experiment after the Revolutionary War.

Western governments and the U.S. government have allowed litigation, the fear of Mohammedan rioting and the threat of Islamic terrorism killing citizens in the West in the name of Mohammed and Allah to Appease the protests of Mohammedans that value medieval Sharia Law above the modern concept of Freedom and Liberty.

Thanks to World Net Daily I have found a Part 1 and Part 2 division of the LiveLeak version on YouTube. My wonder is this: Will YouTube experience pressure to cave into Islamofascism and depreciate Freedom and Liberty as LiveLeak was forced to do?

It is time for the Governments of the West to put down their differences of Leftwing ideology and Rightwing ideology and confront the foreign cultural values of Theo-political Mohammedan ideology aggressively to protect not only our citizens but to defend the levels of Freedom and Liberty the West has attained.

If aggressively means deporting residential aliens and/or jailing naturalized citizens that support the death cult that expects acts of violence to rain down on people utilizing Freedom of Speech or Conscience, then so be it.

As an American, I for one have grown weary and impatient that Political Correctness terminates my Constitutional Rights of Freedom and Liberty deeming my criticism of Mohammedanism as “Hate Speech” when in fact my criticism of Mohammedanism is a defense of Freedom and Liberty. Frankly I do not care if Western Freedom and Liberty offends Mohammedanism. I am an American living in secular-political nation with a heritage of Christianity that has influenced right, wrong and principles of Justice.

Come on LEFT and RIGHT, we are not each other’s enemy common enemy to the way we live. That enemy is Mohammedanism as expressed by radical Islamism with greater and greater acceptance by Mohammedans in general. I am speaking to the LEFT and RIGHT: we disagree on the direction America should take, but we agree on using interpretations of Constitutional Law to find that direction. Mohammedanism seeks to eliminate the path of Freedom and Liberty embedded in the American mind of the LEFT and RIGHT.

Americans UNITE! Even more important: Western style nations UNITE! Let us confront Mohammedanism even as they accuse the West anyway. It is time for a 21^st century Crusade.

Now I know Leftwing Academic historians have painted the ugly facts of the medieval Crusades. Those facts are accurately ugly. However the demon of Political Correctness fails to equally paint the ugly facts of Mohammedan military advancement and conquests that were equally if not heinously worse than the ugliness of the medieval Crusades.

The thing is the Mohammedan mindset of medieval ugliness is alive and well in the 21^st century whereas it is the West that has such principles of the Geneva Conventions (even though many in the West have only partially practiced those Conventions or totally ignored them).

The adherence to the Geneva Conventions (of degrees of the lack thereof) is a modern phenomena compared to the medieval principles utilized by Islamists extracted from their own holy writings. Yes I know there are compassionate Mohammedan holy writings; however in the 21^st century Islamism leans on the interpretations of medieval brutality of death and destruction to non-Mohammedans (fakir) and Mohammedans that do not agree with Islamist interpretations.

It is time to meet 21^st century Jihad with a 21^st century Crusade that is more secular than religious and with the rules of engagement that the Allies used in WWII to defeat the Axis Powers utterly with the terms of unconditional surrender. Forsake principles of Political Correctness, it will destroy the West.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Khalid bin Mahfouz silences free speech

Remember how Saudi billionaire sponsor of Islamist terrorism Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz sued American Rachel Ehrenfeld for writing the book “Funding Evil” which implicated him among others in financing Islamist terrorist networks?

For those that don’t know the story of Saudi Islamist bin Mahfouz, you make think big deal. Billionaires, Corporations and the rich and famous sue for defamation all the time.

Yes but you see in America bin Mahfouz has to provide the burden of proof he was defamed are libeled. Since bin Mahfouz is an Islamist, I have no doubt in mind he is guilty as the stench of sin permeating a brothel. Why do I think this? I think this because bin Mahfouz did not litigate in America where “Funding Evil” was published, rather he sued in Britain in which the book was NOT published but a handful of Brits bought it on the Internet.

In Britain libel and defamation is the burden of the defendant to prove his or her case is the truth.

So let’s smell the bin Mahfouz stench: he sued in Britain for a book that was not published there making an American citizen (not a British citizen) to come up with money in a foreign land to defend her book in a foreign court according to the laws of a foreign nation. Man that stinks!

If you don’t know the rest of the story, Ehrenfeld chose not to attend the stench wreaking ploy of bin Mahfouz because of money and her (and I agree) feeling the lack of jurisdiction of the British legal system over a book not published in Britain.

When Ehrenfeld did not show up in Britain, the Brit Judge adjudicated harshly in favor of the billionaire Islamist bin Mahfouz.

The repercussions of the Brit Judge did not only affect Ehrenfeld. It set of a tidal wave of Publishing House fear in America that anti-Islamist or anti-Jihadist literature could make the publisher a co-defendant in Courts of foreign lands where they actually do sell books. In effect bin Mahfouz snuffed good old fashioned American Freedom of Speech using foreign civil laws.

Ehrenfeld went to the State Court of which her Publishing House to seek legal protection from civil suits of foreign lands, viz. Britain in this case. The State Court in New York chose not to hear Ehrenfeld’s case citing a lack of jurisdiction outside of the State of New York.

The State Court’s decision was probably the correct decision even though it was disappointing. The disappointment being the British Court should have thrown out bin Mahfouz’s litigation for the same reason – the lack of jurisdiction. Then the case went to the New York State Appellate Court – same jurisdictional ruling. Fortunately the New York State Assembly and Senate woke up and introduced “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” (S.6687/A.9652).

A recent email from Act For America has informed me that the New York State Senate has done their part and unanimously passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act.

Libel Terrorism Protection Bill Passed Unanimously by the New York Senate!

Dear John,

If you haven’t already heard, last week the Libel Terrorism Protection bill unanimously passed the New York State Senate. This is a significant victory in the process toward this bill becoming law.

As you may recall, the bill was introduced to protect New York authors and journalists from libel lawsuits filed in the courts of foreign jurisdictions. These lawsuits are typically intended to intimidate and silence reporting about terrorism and terrorist-related activities, and they are filed in courts of foreign jurisdictions where free speech and press is not protected to the degree it is here in the U.S.

We do not know how many of you called or emailed members of the New York Senate, but to all of you who did we say “thank you!” You helped make this happen!

We are presenting our Libel Terrorism Protection petition and its nearly 7,000 signees to the New York Assembly, where the bill is still under consideration, currently in the Judiciary Committee.

Yours in Defense of America,

Guy Rodgers

Executive Director

Now when the New York State Assembly does its job it will be Western Culture not only giving bin Mahfouz a black-eye, but all Islamists that routinely use Western litigation laws to undermine Western Culture will receive a poke as well.

It will be interesting to see if the Islamist hoodwinkers will use the Federal Court system to nullify New York State legislation. If Islamists go that far, it will be interesting to see which Islamist while file litigation knowing that they will also have to turn over Discovery requested by the Defendants. That is how Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR shot down CAIR’s civil suit against him. CAIR was not willing to give up information in the Discovery process.

________________________________

Foreign Litigation About to be Squashed

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2008

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Free Speech Silenced

Here is a supportive update on Lionheart, the British blogger facing hate crimes prosecution if he returns to his homeland.

Evidently there is an attempt to smear Lionheart's anti-Islamist credentials because an interview with a blog that some feel has fascist leanings. I say “some” because in the comment section of the post Lionheart defends his character the commenter decries the white supremacist moniker ascribed to the blog that interviewed Lionheart.

Atlas Shrugs on Lionheart

BlogTalkRadio vindication interview of Lionheart

Read what Lionheart has to say:

JRH 2/11/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Jihad-against-free-speech

Remember the British blogger with the moniker of Lionheart?

The last I had read he was on a plane on his way back to Britain knowing that the British cops were waiting to arrest him for inciting Hate Speech against Mohammedans (Since it is Lionheart maybe we should use the Crusader term – Saracens).

I have come upon some new information about Lionheart. Primarily he was not on his back to Britain but is in America seeking asylum based on the American system of First Amendment Free Speech, which does not exist in Britain.

Second I have learned that Lionheart although is anti-Islamist, he has political leanings toward the unsavory principles of Neo-Fascism. I am still unaware of how deep Lionheart’s Neo-Fascist sympathies are; however if he is a closet Nazi, that is not good. That would mean he is crying victim about his Free Speech rights while simultaneously being a supporter of racism and hate crimes.

Thus until I discover more data (for me that is running into it by chance), I am uncertain how sympathetic I am to Lionheart’s cause of Freedom of Speech.

Here is the scoop from the Gates of Vienna.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

OfficeMax

I am not a Michael Savage fan. He is more on the scale of a Right Wing Shock Jock than conservative talk radio.

However I find it disgusting that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is running a national campaign against the sponsors of his program because of anti-Mohammedan remarks. This coming from an organization that has documented ties to the infamous terrorist organization known as Hamas: Hamas is so evil that they even terrorize their fellow Arabs if they do not fall in step with their Wahhabi version of Mohammedanism.

Atlas Shrugs is calling for a boycott of products and services of the latest Savage sponsor to cave in to terror supporter CAIR – OfficeMax. You can to Atlas Shrugs to get the contact emails of OfficeMax’s top tier executives to complain about their jello spine.

I would take this boycott thing a step further. When or if you ever discover a sponsor of any program that drops a sponsorship due to CAIR, find their contact information and email or snail mail them about CAIR’s terrorist sympathies and their dream of ending American Liberty and replacing it with Sharia Law.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

McCain-Feingold

U. S. Supreme Court Protects Grassroots Lobbying From McCain/Feingold Broadcast Blackout Periods

Christian Newswire
June 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 25 /Christian Newswire/ -- In a tremendous victory for citizens and citizen organizations, the U. S. Supreme Court today created a safe harbor for grassroots lobbying from the blackout period created by the "electioneering communication" prohibition in McCain-Feingold. The opinion in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969, consolidated with McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, No. 06-970) is available on the Supreme Court's website at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ along with other case documents.

"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court restored the right of citizens and citizen organizations to engage in grassroots lobbying through the use of broadcast communications," said Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "The Court soundly rejected the attempts by Senators McCain and Feingold and their allies to silence Wisconsin Right Life's efforts to inform the public regarding an important issue pending in Congress and to urge citizens to contact their elected officials regarding that issue. This is a tremendous victory for all citizens and citizen organizations."

James Bopp, lead counsel for WRTL, states, "The Supreme Court has given meaning to its recognition, in McConnell, that there are 'genuine issue ads,' which incumbent politicians could not silence. Grassroots lobbying is important to citizens involvement in their own government and it has nothing to do with elections. The Court has now restored to the people the most effective means, broadcast ads, for efforts to influence incumbent politicians when they pass laws to tax and regulate us."

Bopp adds, "Incumbent politicians have no constitutional authority to quash criticism of their conduct in office. The American Revolution was fought, and the First Amendment enacted, precisely to protect the people's right to criticize the government. The Court today has rejected the audacious attempt by Senator McCain and his allies to overturn the First Amendment's protection and empower incumbent politicians with the power to ban public criticism--even ban ads that contain no such criticism."

History of the case:

McCain-Feingold (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or "BCRA") prohibited corporations and unions from using general funds for electioneering communications, which are essentially broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election that simply mention the name of a federal candidate. In 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the law on its face in McConnell v. FEC.

In July 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life began running grassroots lobbying ads asking Wisconsin citizens to call their Senators, Kohl and Feingold (then a candidate), and ask them to oppose the burgeoning filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Here is the text of one of those ads: "There are a lot of judicial nominees out there who can't go to work. Their careers are put on hold because a group of Senators is filibustering--blocking qualified nominees from a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote. It's politics at work and it's causing gridlock. Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster. Visit: BeFair.org"

The BeFair.org website was specially created for the anti-filibuster campaign and contained information about the Senate confirmation process, the filibusters, federal courts, the judicial emergency caused by too few judges, and press releases about the anti-filibuster grassroots lobbying campaign. The website set out the Senators' positions on the filibusters, but contained no advocacy for or against either Senator as a candidate, no reference to the upcoming election and no statement urging the election or defeat of either Senator.

Because Sen. Feingold had chosen to run for re-election, Wisconsin Right to Life's ads would have become forbidden electioneering communications from August 15 to November 2, 2004 (79 continuous days because the primary and general election prohibition overlapped). Meanwhile, Congress remained in session and it was widely predicted that there would be a "fall showdown" on the filibuster issue. WRTL filed suit so that it would be able to continue running its ads during the blackout period.

WRTL's suit claimed that the blackout period could not be constitutionally applied to grass roots lobbying about upcoming votes in Congress. The right to petition the government is a protected right in the First Amendment and grassroots lobbying has nothing to do with elections. WRTL argued that incumbent politicians should not be able to prohibit citizens from lobbying their representatives through campaign finance laws.

In 2004, the district court denied Wisconsin Right to Life's request and dismissed the case in 2005, based on its belief that when the Supreme Court upheld the blackout provision on its face in McConnell it precluded such as-applied challenges. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the district court, ruling that as-applied challenges could be brought against the blackout period, and remanded the case for a decision on Wisconsin Right to Life's as-applied challenge.

In December 2006, the district court held the electioneering communication prohibition unconstitutional as applied to Wisconsin Right to Life's 2004 ads. It found that there was "no link" between the ads that Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to continue running and Sen. Feingold's character or fitness for office. (i.e., his role as a candidate as opposed to his role as a legislator).

In its Supreme Court appeal, Senator McCain and the other co-sponsors of the McCain-Feingold law argued that broadcast ads could be prohibited if they "took a critical stance regarding a candidate's position on an issue." While WRTL's ads did not criticize either Senator Feingold or Senator Kohl, McCain claimed they did by just bringing up the filibuster issue during an election.

In today's decision, the Supreme Court went beyond merely affirming the district and created a constitutional safe harbor for grass roots lobbying. It stated that, if the communications meet certain specific criteria, they could be broadcast during the blackout periods. The Court set out the following criteria.

Bopp says, "It will be important now for the Federal Election Commission, which has so long fought any protection for grassroots lobbying within the blackout period, to act promptly to adopt regulations which will give full effect to the Supreme Court mandate."

About Wisconsin Right to Life

Wisconsin Right to Life is the state's premier pro-life organization and represents over one-half million households in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Right to Life believes that each human life is inherently valuable from fertilization until natural death. The mission of Wisconsin Right to Life is "To make euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide, abortion and destruction of human embryos socially, ethically and legally unacceptable solutions to human problems and to promote positive alternatives to each of these acts."

© 1999 – 2007 Christian Communications Network. All Rights Reserved.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

American_family_association logo

As many of you know Snopes.com has taken umbrage to an Action Alert from the AFA on June 14. The AFA alerted their readers and supporters that H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 are potential legislation that can be used as persecution toward Bible Believing Christian. The persecution would be labeling preaching and public expression of Biblical Christian Morality as hate speech.

Snopes.com proclaimed the AFA Alert was a gross stretch and down right false and thus in the realm of “Urban Legend.”

This was disturbing to me for I often use Snopes.com as a source to debunk scams and chain email. After careful consideration I decided to stick up for the American Family Association. This is when I posted “AFA VS Snopes.com.” I used The Real Truth article about how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals manipulated current laws to render a Leftist anti-Free Speech ruling for posting Christian material on work place bulletin boards is illegal (while the posting of homosexual information was perfectly condoned) as an example.

I am extremely delighted the AFA have has chosen an official rebuttal to Snopes.com which I will post as well. I also must point out that I still believe that Snopes.com is the debunker of Urban Legends on the Internet. I do not know the official politics of Snopes.com but going after the AFA Action Alert was more secular humanistic cultural spin than an exposé of a falsehood.

I am going to point you to another blog I use for the official AFA response to Snopes.com. I would place it here but my tech guy (my son) is a little slow in allowing unlimited html at SlantRight. If I have too much html the web spirits will not allow me to post. That is the case there is a lot of html links to back up the AFA response to Snopes.com.

I am The Plebian and the entire rebuttal is posted there: You can read now if you so wish.

Snopes.com Logo

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Homosexual agenda

I have had centrists to Leftists write to me that H.R. 1592 has zero references to eliminating the free speech and thoughts of Bible believing Christians. And you know what, they are correct.

The language of H.R. 1592 is full of protections that reinvent cultural morality naming sexual deviants as protected. This means if morally sexual deviants are criticized it would become a hate crime.

What group of people will have the largest civil disobedient voice to H.R. 1592? Yeah, that would be the Christians.

May 3, 2007 is the day H.R. 1592 is heading for a vote at the House of Representatives. I like what The Political Incorrect Blog has to say about this House Bill:

PHILADELPHIA – Repent America (RA) is urgently calling Christians not to exercise their "right to remain silent" as the federal "hate crimes" bill proposal, H.R. 1592, heads for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, May 3, 2007.

 

"H.R. 1592 is an unnecessary, unconstitutional, and un-American bill, which, with the aid of homosexual-friendly prosecutors, will be used to criminalize Christians for their thoughts, beliefs, and speech," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "The silence of the American church, together with the unrelenting rage of the ungodly, will soon result in the widespread incarceration of true believers," said Marcavage.

 

In October of 2004, eleven Christians with RA were arrested while ministering and preaching the Word of God and the Gospel message on the public streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia during a taxpayer-funded celebration of homosexuality. After spending 21 hours in jail, the District Attorney’s office charged the eleven under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law, along with a host of other felony and misdemeanor charges. These charges were later dismissed, but if convicted, the Christians would have faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines each.

 

"If H.R. 1592 is passed and signed into law, it will go beyond the state’s anti-‘hate’ arsenal, and supply federal prosecutors with the ammunition to police our thoughts, beliefs, and speech with even much broader applications," Marcavage said. "The First Amendment is already on life support, particularly as it applies to religious liberty. Christians must diligently work to revive our liberties by working to stop the homosexual agenda and its allies from pulling the plug. Otherwise, preparations should be made for the funeral, but this time without the preacher," Marcavage concluded.

 

"Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? … Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" (Psalm 94:16, 20) (The Political Incorrect Blog)

World Net Daily poses the question: Will President Bush veto H.R. 1592 if it reaches his desk? Let us pray the Christian in the President overcomes the politician and he indeed would veto the Bill.

H.R. 1592 is being lobbied hard behind the bucks of homosexual rights groups. Why would homosexuals lobby for something that is already in the Constitution for individuals? Reason: Because homosexuals wish to legalize perversion of Christian Morality as a protected group as race, religion and gender. Amoral and immoral Leftists are with the perverted homosexuals and cross dressers. It is time for Christians to make their voice heard again. FORGET about the Bush disappointments and vote Republican to battle perversion in America. Certainly Republicans are not perfect; however in THIS moment the Republican Party is the best instrument God is using to combat ungodly thinking in America. IF you are a Christian Democrat, at least vote out your Congressman if he/she supports UNBIBLICAL perverted morality. This is not a question of Capitalism VS Socialism; this is about morality and Freedom Speech and Thought in America. Vote for morality in 2008.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Thought Crimes

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) would be better labeled The Thought Crimes Act. If the Law is enacted Christians can be sued or tossed in jail for preaching the morality of the Holy Bible. The Thought Crimes Act would suppress free speech to the benefit of homosexual reprobates that practice a lifestyle of abomination in the site of God.

The Act quite possibly could be used to nullify State Legislation that has defined Marriage as between a male and a female. It would recognize homosexuals as a group of people on the same par of equality as gender, race, creed and religion. This is a bogus legislation that would transform America into a nation of further sexual depravity protected by the law.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend