The media smeared Catholic schoolboys as “racists” at the March for Life a year ago, in a confrontation with political activist Nathan Phillips that got intense coverage. The media were overwhelmingly biased against the students, especially Nick Sandmann, whose “smirk” and MAGA hat enraged leftists.
Source
BATR 2020 Election News
Showing posts with label Constitution and Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution and Law. Show all posts
Thursday, January 09, 2020
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Second Amendment Sanctuary” Idea Gaining Ground as Dems Push for More Gun Control
RICHMOND — In the wake of the Democrat takeover of Virginia, the newly empowered Left is unapologetic about plans to disarm residents of the Old Dominion. Governor Ralph Northam — having previously failed to get any traction for his citizen-disarmament policies — now appears to see his way clear to implement them. But partisan victories do not necessarily equal a carte blanche mandate. Virginians across the state are prepared to resist his gun grab, and they have the law — and some in law enforcement — on their side.
As a result of the Maoist-assisted shift to the Left in Virginia, Democrats in the birthplace of a nation appear to believe they can run roughshod over the God-given, constitutionally protected rights of Virginians. While Northam may not have expressed it quite the way former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke did in his bid for the DNC presidential nomination, he nonetheless promised that he will press forward with “common sense” gun-control laws. “Common sense” is a liberal buzz-word for repressive restrictions on the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Northam and other Democrats had tried on previous occasions to enact restrictive gun laws, but were held at bay by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. With the recent election giving Democrats control of both houses, Northam has promised to press his agenda through. That agenda includes universal background checks; child access prevention; a one-gun-per-month purchase limit; bans on all so-called assault weapons, including bump stocks and high-capacity magazines; legal responsibilities for lost or stolen guns; allowing municipalities to ban guns from municipal buildings; and so-called red flag laws.
“Red flag laws” are laws that prevent a person who has not committed a crime from buying a gun. All that is necessary is that the person is accused of being “dangerous.” As the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group active in Virginia since 1994, explains:
The person accused of being “dangerous” has not committed a crime and has no notice there is a problem until the police show up, pre-dawn, with guns drawn and confiscate the accused’s firearms. The accused is not given due process to defend himself or herself in court from the accusation for weeks or months after the confiscation. It is up to the accused to prove that he or she is not dangerous! (How do you prove a negative? How do you prove you are not dangerous?) Until such proof is provided to the Court's satisfaction, the guns are not returned. This could drag on for months, years, or indefinitely!
So, claims of “common sense” duly noted, the reality is that Democrats plan to not only limit Virginians’ ability to purchase guns, but also to confiscate them without anything resembling due process.
Read the entire article
As a result of the Maoist-assisted shift to the Left in Virginia, Democrats in the birthplace of a nation appear to believe they can run roughshod over the God-given, constitutionally protected rights of Virginians. While Northam may not have expressed it quite the way former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke did in his bid for the DNC presidential nomination, he nonetheless promised that he will press forward with “common sense” gun-control laws. “Common sense” is a liberal buzz-word for repressive restrictions on the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Northam and other Democrats had tried on previous occasions to enact restrictive gun laws, but were held at bay by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. With the recent election giving Democrats control of both houses, Northam has promised to press his agenda through. That agenda includes universal background checks; child access prevention; a one-gun-per-month purchase limit; bans on all so-called assault weapons, including bump stocks and high-capacity magazines; legal responsibilities for lost or stolen guns; allowing municipalities to ban guns from municipal buildings; and so-called red flag laws.
“Red flag laws” are laws that prevent a person who has not committed a crime from buying a gun. All that is necessary is that the person is accused of being “dangerous.” As the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group active in Virginia since 1994, explains:
The person accused of being “dangerous” has not committed a crime and has no notice there is a problem until the police show up, pre-dawn, with guns drawn and confiscate the accused’s firearms. The accused is not given due process to defend himself or herself in court from the accusation for weeks or months after the confiscation. It is up to the accused to prove that he or she is not dangerous! (How do you prove a negative? How do you prove you are not dangerous?) Until such proof is provided to the Court's satisfaction, the guns are not returned. This could drag on for months, years, or indefinitely!
So, claims of “common sense” duly noted, the reality is that Democrats plan to not only limit Virginians’ ability to purchase guns, but also to confiscate them without anything resembling due process.
Read the entire article
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington Sent Back to State Court
When Connecticut’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling last March that Remington Arms was protected from a lawsuit by families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Without comment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back the appeal that allows the lawsuit against Remington to proceed.
The essence of the case against Remington is this: The company is accused of violating Connecticut’s fair trade laws by deceptively marketing its Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle. The company’s ads touted the rifle’s looks and expressed its benefits in ways that the families considered deceptive. That’s important because one of the exceptions to the federal law protecting arms manufacturers from such lawsuits — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — is that victims are allowed to sue if a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that Remington’s Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle — the one Adam Lanza stole from his mother Nancy (before murdering her) and used to murder 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — was “designed as a military weapon” and “engineered to deliver maximum carnage” with great efficiency.
They argued that Remington touted the rifle’s military appearance as a marketing strategy, including an ad showing a large picture of the rifle along with the text: “Forces of opposition, Bow down. The only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you’ll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense.” The ad called the rifle the “ultimate military combat weapons system,” adding that “It’s tested and proven reliable in the most brutal conditions on earth, truly ambidextrous and the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission-adaptable as you are.”
Another ad touted the rifle’s masculinity: “Consider your man card reissued.”
The attorneys chimed that somehow these influenced Adam Lanza to use the Bushmaster in his killing spree — that he was “encouraged” by those ads to use it to commit his atrocity at Sandy Hook. In its ruling last March that overturned the lower court, the state’s Supreme Court obliquely agreed: “If the defendants’ marketing materials did in fact inspire or intensify the massacre, then there are no more direct victims than these plaintiffs.”
Chief Justice Richard Robinson spoke for the Connecticut court’s majority:
If the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault [sic] weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.
Read the entire article
The essence of the case against Remington is this: The company is accused of violating Connecticut’s fair trade laws by deceptively marketing its Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle. The company’s ads touted the rifle’s looks and expressed its benefits in ways that the families considered deceptive. That’s important because one of the exceptions to the federal law protecting arms manufacturers from such lawsuits — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — is that victims are allowed to sue if a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that Remington’s Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle — the one Adam Lanza stole from his mother Nancy (before murdering her) and used to murder 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — was “designed as a military weapon” and “engineered to deliver maximum carnage” with great efficiency.
They argued that Remington touted the rifle’s military appearance as a marketing strategy, including an ad showing a large picture of the rifle along with the text: “Forces of opposition, Bow down. The only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you’ll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense.” The ad called the rifle the “ultimate military combat weapons system,” adding that “It’s tested and proven reliable in the most brutal conditions on earth, truly ambidextrous and the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission-adaptable as you are.”
Another ad touted the rifle’s masculinity: “Consider your man card reissued.”
The attorneys chimed that somehow these influenced Adam Lanza to use the Bushmaster in his killing spree — that he was “encouraged” by those ads to use it to commit his atrocity at Sandy Hook. In its ruling last March that overturned the lower court, the state’s Supreme Court obliquely agreed: “If the defendants’ marketing materials did in fact inspire or intensify the massacre, then there are no more direct victims than these plaintiffs.”
Chief Justice Richard Robinson spoke for the Connecticut court’s majority:
If the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault [sic] weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.
Read the entire article
Monday, September 09, 2019
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Deep State IRS Employee John Fry Pleads Guilty to Leaking Michael Cohen’s Bank Records to Avenatti – Faces Up to 5 Years in Prison
Deep State IRS analyst John Fry pleaded guilty Wednesday to leaking Michael Cohen’s bank records to creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti and The New Yorker.
Mr. Fry was charged in February of this year by the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California with unauthorized disclosure of a suspicious activity report, or SAR. Banks file SARs on any transactions that could be illegal.
“Fry was given access to sensitive and powerful government databases including people’s most private financial information and he was given that access to do his job as an investigative analyst,” said U.S. attorney David L. Anderson. “He decided his politics were more important than his obligation to follow the law. In that, he was mistaken.”
NBC reported on Wednesday that Fry admitted to emailing Avenatti screenshots of the SAR reports.
Fry is facing up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
Read the entire article
Mr. Fry was charged in February of this year by the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California with unauthorized disclosure of a suspicious activity report, or SAR. Banks file SARs on any transactions that could be illegal.
“Fry was given access to sensitive and powerful government databases including people’s most private financial information and he was given that access to do his job as an investigative analyst,” said U.S. attorney David L. Anderson. “He decided his politics were more important than his obligation to follow the law. In that, he was mistaken.”
NBC reported on Wednesday that Fry admitted to emailing Avenatti screenshots of the SAR reports.
Fry is facing up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
Read the entire article
Monday, August 05, 2019
Friday, August 02, 2019
Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange
A US judge has ruled that WikiLeaks was fully entitled to publish the Democratic National Congress (DNC) emails, which means no law was broken. The ruling is highly significant as it could impact upon the US extradition proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as well as the ongoing imprisonment of whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
The ruling
On 30 July, federal judge John G. Koeltl ruled on a case brought against WikiLeaks and other parties in regard to the alleged hacking of DNC emails and concluded that:
If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.
In other words, if WikiLeaks is subject to prosecution, then every media outlet in the world would be. The judge argued that:
Read the entire article
The ruling
On 30 July, federal judge John G. Koeltl ruled on a case brought against WikiLeaks and other parties in regard to the alleged hacking of DNC emails and concluded that:
If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.
In other words, if WikiLeaks is subject to prosecution, then every media outlet in the world would be. The judge argued that:
Read the entire article
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
The Coming Show Trial of Julian Assange
On Friday morning I was in a small courtroom at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London. Julian Assange, held in Belmarsh Prison and dressed in a pale-blue prison shirt, appeared on a video screen directly in front of me. Assange, his gray hair and beard neatly trimmed, slipped on heavy, dark-frame glasses at the start of the proceedings. He listened intently as Ben Brandon, the prosecutor, seated at a narrow wooden table, listed the crimes he allegedly had committed and called for his extradition to the United States to face charges that could result in a sentence of 175 years. The charges include the release of unredacted classified material that posed a “grave” threat to “human intelligence sources” and “the largest compromises of confidential information in the history of the United States.” After the prosecutor’s presentation, Assange’s attorney, Mark Summers, seated at the same table, called the charges “an outrageous and full-frontal assault on journalistic rights.”
Most of us who have followed the long persecution of Assange expected this moment, but it was nevertheless deeply unsettling, the opening of the final act in a Greek tragedy where the hero, cursed by fortuna, or fate, confronts the dark forces from which there is no escape.
The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Assange is extradited and convicted it will become one. Assange is not an American citizen. WikiLeaks, which he founded and publishes, is not a U.S.-based publication. The message the U.S. government is sending is clear: No matter who or where you are, if you expose the inner workings of empire you will be hunted down, kidnapped and brought to the United States to be tried as a spy. The extradition and trial of Assange will mean the end of public investigations by the press into the crimes of the ruling elites. It will cement into place a frightening corporate tyranny. Publications such as The New York Times and The Guardian, which devoted pages to the WikiLeaks revelations and later amplified and legitimized Washington’s carefully orchestrated character assassination of Assange, are no less panicked. This is the gravest assault on press freedom in my lifetime.
Read the entire article
Most of us who have followed the long persecution of Assange expected this moment, but it was nevertheless deeply unsettling, the opening of the final act in a Greek tragedy where the hero, cursed by fortuna, or fate, confronts the dark forces from which there is no escape.
The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Assange is extradited and convicted it will become one. Assange is not an American citizen. WikiLeaks, which he founded and publishes, is not a U.S.-based publication. The message the U.S. government is sending is clear: No matter who or where you are, if you expose the inner workings of empire you will be hunted down, kidnapped and brought to the United States to be tried as a spy. The extradition and trial of Assange will mean the end of public investigations by the press into the crimes of the ruling elites. It will cement into place a frightening corporate tyranny. Publications such as The New York Times and The Guardian, which devoted pages to the WikiLeaks revelations and later amplified and legitimized Washington’s carefully orchestrated character assassination of Assange, are no less panicked. This is the gravest assault on press freedom in my lifetime.
Read the entire article
Thursday, June 06, 2019
Chelsea Manning’s Resistance Is Aimed At Abolishing The Grand Jury Once And For All
When Judge Anthony Trenga ordered Chelsea Manning back to jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, he urged her to “reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing” as well as “whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.”
Trenga maintained there was “no dishonor” in cooperating with a grand jury because the United States Constitution codified the grand jury.
Manning took Trenga’s admonishment seriously and responded with a letter containing research she did with the help of her attorneys. It presented her position on the grand jury in a very clear and compelling manner.
In doing so, Manning further demonstrated her resistance is about much more than defying an investigation into a dissident media organization. It is about publicly discrediting the institution and all its corruption once and for all.
Manning, who is in jail at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was held in civil contempt of court on May 16.
Read the entire article
Trenga maintained there was “no dishonor” in cooperating with a grand jury because the United States Constitution codified the grand jury.
Manning took Trenga’s admonishment seriously and responded with a letter containing research she did with the help of her attorneys. It presented her position on the grand jury in a very clear and compelling manner.
In doing so, Manning further demonstrated her resistance is about much more than defying an investigation into a dissident media organization. It is about publicly discrediting the institution and all its corruption once and for all.
Manning, who is in jail at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was held in civil contempt of court on May 16.
Read the entire article
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Supreme Court Appears Poised to Uphold Citizenship Question
When the Trump administration’s Commerce Department, led by Secretary Wilbur Ross, opted to add a “citizenship” question to the decennial federal census, Democrats became alarmed. They contended that even asking such a question may lead to some non-citizens evading a response to the census, which was authorized by the U.S. Constitution, for the express purpose of counting every person in the country.
Evidently, Democrats are worried that if illegal residents (there would be no reason for a legal resident to be concerned) fail to answer the question for fear of deportation, Democrat electoral success could be diminished. Because of this, several states controlled by Democratic politicians filed suit in federal court, asking for the offending question to be removed.
In oral arguments this week in the Supreme Court, it appears that a majority of the justices are inclined to uphold the decision of the Commerce Department to include the question in the 2020 census. Because the forms must be printed soon, the Court has expedited the case, and a decision is expected in June.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution authorizes the taking of the census. “The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they [Congress] by law direct.”
Read the entire article
Evidently, Democrats are worried that if illegal residents (there would be no reason for a legal resident to be concerned) fail to answer the question for fear of deportation, Democrat electoral success could be diminished. Because of this, several states controlled by Democratic politicians filed suit in federal court, asking for the offending question to be removed.
In oral arguments this week in the Supreme Court, it appears that a majority of the justices are inclined to uphold the decision of the Commerce Department to include the question in the 2020 census. Because the forms must be printed soon, the Court has expedited the case, and a decision is expected in June.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution authorizes the taking of the census. “The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they [Congress] by law direct.”
Read the entire article
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Friday, March 22, 2019
Radical Obama Appointed Judge Rudolph Conteras Blocks Oil Drilling in Wyoming Due to Global Warming Junk Science
Again, radical Obama Judge Contreras is in WASHINGTON DC! It is not clear if he HAS EVER been to Wyoming.
Democrats are against US energy production unless they can buy it from China, like windmills and solar panels. The suicide party.
Judge Contreras was appointed by Barack Obama in in 2012 as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
He was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) court in 2016.
Current Chief Justice John Roberts has been in his role since 2005 and therefore he has appointed all the judges to the FISA court. Judge Roberts is famous for supporting Obamacare in two radical positions, one of which Justice Antonin Scalia, in his withering dissent, refered to as “applesauce”. Knowing this, it is concerning that Judge Roberts also is responsible for the makeup of the current FISA court.
Contreras suddenly recused himself from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s criminal case in December 2017.
Read the entire article
Democrats are against US energy production unless they can buy it from China, like windmills and solar panels. The suicide party.
Judge Contreras was appointed by Barack Obama in in 2012 as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
He was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) court in 2016.
Current Chief Justice John Roberts has been in his role since 2005 and therefore he has appointed all the judges to the FISA court. Judge Roberts is famous for supporting Obamacare in two radical positions, one of which Justice Antonin Scalia, in his withering dissent, refered to as “applesauce”. Knowing this, it is concerning that Judge Roberts also is responsible for the makeup of the current FISA court.
Contreras suddenly recused himself from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s criminal case in December 2017.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Anti-Gun Activist Tossed From Gun Hearing After Threatening to Shoot GOP Lawmaker, NRA Members
A woman was reportedly expelled from a gun hearing after she threatened to “blow away” a state GOP lawmaker and NRA members.
A hearing was held in Hartford, Connecticut on Monday to discuss new legislation calling for tougher gun laws following the accidental shooting of a teenage boy.
One of the anti-gun activists ironically threatened to shoot the place up and was subsequently removed from the hearing.
“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” a text message from an unidentified woman read. (screenshot below)
The anti-gun activist threatened Republican Connecticut State Senator Rob Sampson, a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and defender of the NRA.
Read the entire article
A hearing was held in Hartford, Connecticut on Monday to discuss new legislation calling for tougher gun laws following the accidental shooting of a teenage boy.
One of the anti-gun activists ironically threatened to shoot the place up and was subsequently removed from the hearing.
“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” a text message from an unidentified woman read. (screenshot below)
The anti-gun activist threatened Republican Connecticut State Senator Rob Sampson, a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and defender of the NRA.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Far-Left 9th Circuit Rules Against Little Sisters of the Poor – Mandates They Pay for Contraceptives in Spite of Supreme Court Win!
A California court has ruled against the Little Sisters of the Poor opening the door for other states to take away new religious freedom rules. Only in a far-left radical court could this happen.
A court in California ruled against the Catholic nuns from Little Sisters of the Poor. This group of nuns is committed to helping poor people. They’ve dedicated their lives to helping the poor. However, with Obamacare, the government mandated that they provide abortion care to those who are under the employment of their order. So the nuns sued with the position that the Obamacare law discriminated against their religious freedom. The Supreme Court agreed with their position in May of 2016 –
"Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from draconian government fines and recognized that the government does not need the Little Sisters to provide services such as the week after pill. The Court also noted the government finally admitted it could indeed meet its goals without involving the Little Sisters.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that after its unprecedented call for supplemental briefing that the lower courts should again review the cases.
“All we have ever wanted to do is serve the neediest among us as if they were Christ himself,” said Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial for the Little Sisters of the Poor. “We look forward to serving the elderly poor for another 175 years to come.”
Read the entire article
A court in California ruled against the Catholic nuns from Little Sisters of the Poor. This group of nuns is committed to helping poor people. They’ve dedicated their lives to helping the poor. However, with Obamacare, the government mandated that they provide abortion care to those who are under the employment of their order. So the nuns sued with the position that the Obamacare law discriminated against their religious freedom. The Supreme Court agreed with their position in May of 2016 –
"Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from draconian government fines and recognized that the government does not need the Little Sisters to provide services such as the week after pill. The Court also noted the government finally admitted it could indeed meet its goals without involving the Little Sisters.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that after its unprecedented call for supplemental briefing that the lower courts should again review the cases.
“All we have ever wanted to do is serve the neediest among us as if they were Christ himself,” said Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial for the Little Sisters of the Poor. “We look forward to serving the elderly poor for another 175 years to come.”
Read the entire article
Monday, December 24, 2018
Monday, December 17, 2018
The White History of Christmas & How a Real Ultra-Racist Zio-Grinch Stole It!
From 1789 to 1989 the first 200 years of the American Constitution it was perfectly legal and very loved by Americans to have Christian and Christmas Cultural Icons on public ground as part of our American fabric. Even the date of our Constitution was signed by its authors with the preface: “In the Year of our Lord.”
In 1989 it became illegal to have any Christian-themed Christmas display on any Federal, State, County or City ground. It became illegal to say any prayers in schools, forbidden to even sing Christmas Carols in them or even call the Christmas holidays, “Christmas Holidays!”
In the height of chutzpah, the same Supreme Court decision that outlawed any Christian Symbol because it was religious – decreed that the oldest symbol of the Jewish Religion, the Menorah, even huge, monster Menorahs could be put up on public ground.
So 80 percent of the American people are denied their religious and cultural heritage while less that two percent of the population get’s their religious symbols erected on any public space.
Where Christian motifs once stood in front of the White House and city halls, giant Jewish Menorahs became perfectly legal along Rabbis lighting it in Jewish rituals celebrating Jewish dedication to the preservation of their race, religion and culture in a ritual that DENIES OUR HERITAGE RELIGION AND CULTURE.
Read the entire article
In 1989 it became illegal to have any Christian-themed Christmas display on any Federal, State, County or City ground. It became illegal to say any prayers in schools, forbidden to even sing Christmas Carols in them or even call the Christmas holidays, “Christmas Holidays!”
In the height of chutzpah, the same Supreme Court decision that outlawed any Christian Symbol because it was religious – decreed that the oldest symbol of the Jewish Religion, the Menorah, even huge, monster Menorahs could be put up on public ground.
So 80 percent of the American people are denied their religious and cultural heritage while less that two percent of the population get’s their religious symbols erected on any public space.
Where Christian motifs once stood in front of the White House and city halls, giant Jewish Menorahs became perfectly legal along Rabbis lighting it in Jewish rituals celebrating Jewish dedication to the preservation of their race, religion and culture in a ritual that DENIES OUR HERITAGE RELIGION AND CULTURE.
Read the entire article
Monday, October 08, 2018
Judicial Watch Uncovers George Soros-Open Society Foundation-Obama State Department Collusion
Back in May of 2017, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State and USAID after both failed to respond to a former FOIA filing of “March 31, 2017, FOIA requests (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (No. 1:17-cv-01012)” regarding documents pertaining to funding George Soros activities and his ‘philanthropic’ financing to topple governments known as “Open Society Foundations.”
Recently JW received 49 pages about that, which can be accessed here.
Tom Fitton’s Weekly Update Oct. 5, 2018 via email to this writer titled “Judicial Watch Uncovers Soros/State Department Collusion!”
Was there some collusion on the part of the Obama administration and the U.S. State Department?
See JW’s press release of April 4, 2018 titled “State Department Records Show Obama Administration Helped Fund George Soros’ Left-Wing Political Activities in Albania.”
Read the entire article
Recently JW received 49 pages about that, which can be accessed here.
Tom Fitton’s Weekly Update Oct. 5, 2018 via email to this writer titled “Judicial Watch Uncovers Soros/State Department Collusion!”
Was there some collusion on the part of the Obama administration and the U.S. State Department?
See JW’s press release of April 4, 2018 titled “State Department Records Show Obama Administration Helped Fund George Soros’ Left-Wing Political Activities in Albania.”
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)