I think the federal government should license a couple (whatever sex or breed) with a Civil Matrimony Certificate; and state governments can get out of the business of marriage.  Churches can hold ceremony’s where they recognized unions under God as a marriage between a man and a woman in accordance with the Holy Bible.

 Marriage Bible Verses



Malicious Logic (Trojan horse, virus, worm): keeping the US border open in spite of Ebola, EV-D68, or other pandemic disease carriers and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) enemy (already four were found trying to cross the southern border), from entering the country in large numbers. Why? Obama and company want to prove to the unknowing that: a) Obamacare is useful; b) we need to legalize illegals entering the US; c) to grow the Democrat Party; and d) further advance progressive ideology. Jimmy Minnish

(by Bob Unruh, WND) — Larry Klayman, the former Justice Department lawyer and founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, has filed a civil complaint accusing President Obama and other officials of “facilitating terrorism” by refusing to cut off travel from Africa’s Ebola zones to the U.S.

The complaint filed in federal court in Washington charges Obama and his administration are “knowingly and willfully providing material support and aid to international terrorism and facilitating terrorism by allowing unrestricted entry of persons from countries experiencing outbreaks of the Ebola virus and adamantly opposing efforts, including calls from the U.S. Congress, to restrict travel from outbreak countries.”

The complaint from Klayman, who recently filed legal paperwork to try to get Obama deported, names Obama; Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control; Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell; and Jeh Johnson, director of the Department of Homeland Security.

Klayman, a longtime foe of the Washington establishment, says the defendants “know or should know … that the probable consequences of their actions are to facilitate the spread of the disease and to provide opportunities for germ warfare terrorism.”

He cites Obama’s criticism from the Senate floor in 2005 of President Bush for his handling of the avian flu.

Obama said the “failure to prepare for emergencies can have devastating consequences.”

“We learned that lesson the hard way after Hurricane Katrina,” the then-senator told his colleagues. “This nation must not be caught off-guard when faced with the prospect of an avian flu pandemic. The consequences are too high. … The question is will we be ready when that happens? Let’s make sure that answer is yes. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House to push this administration to take the action needed to prevent a catastrophe that we have not seen during our lifetimes.”

The complaint asks for a jury trial and compensatory and actual damages of at least $75,000, fees and other compensation, as well as an injunction banning travel to the U.S. from infected “African, Muslim and other nations.”

Klayman charges the Obama administration has enacted “ineffective so-called screening” procedures at a handful of American airports.

He calls it “a reckless plan to open the door not just to defendant Obama’s infected fellow Africans, but also American Muslim ISIS suicide terrorists who would intentionally infect themselves with the deadly disease and thus spread it widely in the United States.”

A Liberian infected with Ebola who traveled from his home country to Texas last month died Oct. 8, and a nurse at a Dallas hospital who attended him now has been diagnosed with the disease.

Klayman would have standing to sue, the complaint argues, because he recently traveled through Newark, a major entry point to the U.S., and was in a position to have been exposed to Ebola from travelers.

The highly contagious and deadly disease has killed more than 4,000 in West Africa. However, Obama has refused to impose travel restrictions. Instead, travelers are being questioned and checked for fever and other symptoms at five major international airports in the U.S.

Klayman blames Obama and the others “for in effect furthering acts of terrorism.”

His complaint says it is not questioned that Ebola “presents a severe risk,” but “defendants’ actions are an open invitation for terrorists to acquire infections of Ebola and travel to the United States to intentionally spread the disease inside ‘the Great Satan,’ including in ‘soft targets’ such as restaurants, shopping malls, and other public and private places.”

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., claimed in a Fox News interview last week the U.S. Border Patrol caught 10 ISIS fighters coming into the U.S. from Mexico, suggesting it’s possible for Ebola infections to enter the country through that route.

Also, a U.S. outbreak would lead to “severe disruption” in America’s economy and society, he says.

The causes of action cited include aiding and abetting the murder of U.S. citizens, conspiracy to commit murder, provision of material support to terrorists, a Fifth Amendment violation, assault and infliction of emotional distress.

A week ago, Klayman, who has sued the National Security Agency, Barack Obama over his birth certificate, Hugo Chavez on behalf of torture victims, journalists, Taliban and al-Qaida and more, launched legal action to get Obama deported.

The deportation petition, Klayman explained, is based “on the grounds that [Obama] has falsified various birth and other documents with regard to obtaining a U.S. passport and other privileges as an alleged American citizen.”


Federal appeals court reinstates voter ID law


By Tim Eaton

American-Statesman Staff

A federal appeals court put the state’s voter identification law back into effect on Tuesday afternoon.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for a stay on the judgment of U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi. The appeals court’s action revives the law as early voting is set to begin Monday. Election Day is Nov. 4.

The GOP-dominated Legislature passed the law in 2011 and it was put into effect last year.

One of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, the Texas statute requires voters to show one of seven forms of photographic ID at polling stations.

Initially, the law was barred from going into effect because it had not received the needed federal approval that was required for Texas and other states and jurisdictions with histories of discrimination. But in June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that called for the federal approval process.

Consequently, a group of civil rights groups — which were later joined by the U.S. Department of Justice — sued the state of Texas to block the voter ID law. They claimed it was discriminatory and would disproportionately affect minority voters.

U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi, who presided over the case, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and halted the law last week.

The ruling prompted Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office defended the law, to ask the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for quick consideration and to allow the law to go into effect before of a full appeal.

And with the appeals court ruling on Tuesday, the law is back in effect.

The plaintiffs in the case can appeal the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Massie: Obama’s Created Pandemic Could Cause Martial Law And Cancelation Of 2016 Elections


Massie: Obama’s Created Pandemic Could Cause Martial Law And Cancelation Of 2016 Elections


According to Mychal Massie, the former chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, we are being lied to on a massive scale by the Obama administration about the massive outbreak of deadly infectious diseases being brought here by illegal immigrants.And, he accuses Obama of knowingly bringing in this threat into the US.

Yes, Obama is creating this, but the rest of government is complicit.

Click the link below to read more:

Next Page: »


Breaking Report: Supreme Court Blocks Texas Abortion Requirements

Photo Credit: Facebook/Shona Carter-Brooks

Christopher Agee

According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tuesday to stop – at least temporarily – the enforcement of a Texas law passed last year that would result in the closure of a majority of the state’s abortion clinics.

The 5-3 ruling tackled requirements that abortion providers operate according to certain requirements placed on other medical facilities in the state. Such requirements were challenged earlier by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel; however, a subsequent appeal led to a decision that the Lone Star State should be allowed to implement the safety measures.

Previous restrictions placed on Texas abortion facilities in accordance with the law resulted in almost half of all such clinics closing. Upon the implementation of the remaining mandates, some projections indicate that only six abortion providers would remain open. The latest AP report puts that number at eight.



Malicious Logic

Jimmy Minnish

Malicious Logic (Trojan horse, virus, worm): keeping the US border open in spite of Ebola, EV-D68, or other pandemic disease carriers and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) enemy (already four were found trying to cross the southern border), from entering the country in large numbers. Why? Obama and company want to prove to the unknowing that: a) Obamacare is useful; b) we need to legalize illegals entering the US; c) to grow the Democrat Party; and d) further advance progressive ideology.


AFSP | Dating Profile – The Left Hates This Video


The Incredible Lightness of Being Barack Obama


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

85Barack Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly was so insubstantial, so full of airy platitudes, and so adulterated with the gaseous clichés of bankrupt internationalism and progressive bromides that I thought at any minute he might just float away.

First was the obligatory call “to renew the purpose of the U.N.’s founding,” which apparently is “to observe and enforce international norms,” the most important being “to ensure that no nation can subjugate its neighbors and claim their territory” and to promote “the path of diplomacy and peace and the ideals this institution is designed to uphold.” Such phrases are so common and uncritically received that we forget “international norms” do not exist. Different peoples have different “norms” about, for example, the use of violence to achieve their aims. Nations will sign treaties that seemingly express our norms, but that doesn’t mean they believe in them. More often, such treaties are mere mechanisms for one nation to get what it wants from another. The sorry history of U.S. arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union and then Russia, treaties the Russians violated for decades to improve their nuclear arsenal at our expense, is just one example.


As for seizing territory by force, the U.N. did nothing to prevent Turkey from seizing northern Cyprus, or China from seizing Tibet, and more recently Russia from seizing Crimea. The Serbs’ attempts in the ’90s to “claim territory” were stopped not by the U.N., but by American bombs. So too was Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait. Nor should we be surprised at the serial failure of the U.N. to enforce its lofty founding principles. Nations belong to the U.N. because they think they can use it to advance their interests, not “to enforce international norms,” especially when their own “norms” see nothing wrong with using duplicity and force to achieve their aims. Indeed, the continuing violence justified by other “norms” since the U.N.’s founding has claimed some 41 million lives. The U.N. serves the conflicting, zero-sum interests of the member states, not the “path of diplomacy and peace.”

From that preposterous beginning, the speech went downhill. “Islam teaches peace,” the President intoned. No, Islam teaches submission. There is no peace for those who refuse to submit, even for Muslims considered heretics by other Muslims, but especially for “polytheists” or “infidels.” In their case, Islam teaches jihad against them if they refuse to accept the “call” to convert. Far from being extremists “who have perverted one of the world’s great religions,” as Obama scolded, the proliferating jihadist outfits that are kidnapping, torturing, raping, beheading, and enslaving people around the globe are acting on the doctrines and past practices of Islam’s founding fathers.

So Obama might think that their “nightmarish vision . . . would divide the world into adherents and infidels,” but it is traditional, orthodox Islam that divides the world into the dar al harb, the “house of war” against which the faithful must wage jihad, and the dar al islam, the “house of Islam,” the ummah of faithful Muslims. Obama may really believe that “No God condones such terror” like the beheadings perpetrated by Islamic State, but it is the Koran, the literal words of Allah, that says at 8.12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Such “willful blindness,” as Andrew McCarthy has called it, to the traditional motivations of today’s jihadists depends on clichéd lies like those Obama trades in. Perhaps that blindness explains his astonishing praise in his U.N. speech for Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, whose group has endorsed Hamas, who supported a 2004 fatwa calling on the faithful to murder U.S. soldiers in Iraq and another forbidding any “normalization” of Israel, and was associated with an organization whose founder called for “the death of Jews and Americans.”

Then there is the last refuge of the morally addled, moral equivalency. In his remarks on the Arab war against Israel, Obama can’t resist this cowardly cop out. Speaking of the endless and fruitless “peace process,” Obama intones, “We cannot afford to turn away from this effort––not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza.” Of course, it is not Israelis “taking” these children, it is the Hamas jihadists who use them as human shields, sacrificing their own children in order to gin up international condemnations in order to isolate Israel. Worse yet, such a sentence completely ignores the most important dimension of this violence: the decades of wars and terrorist attacks instigated by Arabs whose doctrinal hatred of Jews has compelled them since 1947 — when they violated a U.N. resolution with impunity–– to serially refuse a state for the Palestinian Arabs or agree to “two states living side by side, in peace and security,” yet another stale cliché useful for pretending to say something when one has nothing important to say. In reality, the Palestinian Arabs have made it clear that what they want is to destroy Israel.

Yet nothing matches the surreal moral idiocy of Obama’s next indulgence of moral equivalency:

I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri––where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.

Here is one of the staple dogmas of the Progressive mind: the sins and crimes of America that require apologies and reparations, even as the millions of dead, tortured, and imprisoned in other nations are shrugged off. Obama began his presidency with the “apology tour” in which he donned the hair shirt of American guilt for its imperialist depredations, its racist sins, and its global exploitation of others. Then as now, Obama ignores important distinctions. To equate the atrocities of Islamic State or Hamas, or the shooting down of a passenger jet in Ukraine that cost nearly 300 lives, with what probably will turn out to be the justified shooting of a lawbreaker assaulting a police officer, bespeaks either delusion or the sophistic pandering to an audience comprising the representatives of nations most of which are some of the planet’s most brutal and murderous regimes.


This speech proves once again that Obama is not a serious man. His badly trained mind is a warehouse of the sort of leftist and progressive received wisdom and dull clichés that pollute our universities, media, and popular culture. He represents the moral idiocy and fashionable self-loathing that signals to our enemies and rivals that the United States can be had.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.


Obama blames America for non-existent global warming


Barack Obama speaks at U.N. climate summit. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

While speaking at the United Nations on Tuesday, President Obama blamed the United States for global warming, even though there has been no global warming for nearly 18 years.

While the administration insists global warming is a real threat, one professor issued a paper saying there has been no global warming for 19 years. “But there should be no question that the United States of America is stepping up to the plate,” Obama said. “We recognize our role in creating this problem; we embrace our responsibility to combat it. We will do our part, and we will help developing nations do theirs.

But we can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every nation –- developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass.” Obama hyped action the United States has taken, touting moves taken against power companies in what has been described as a “war on coal.” According to the president, the United States has reduced its total “carbon pollution” by more than any other nation.

Nevertheless, he said the United States is one of the two largest emitters in the world and pledged to work with Communist China — the largest emitter of pollution on the planet — to do more. He told attendees that prior to making his speech, “I met with Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli, and reiterated my belief” the two countries “have a special responsibility to lead,” eliciting applause. While liberals fear non-existent global warming more than Islamic terrorism, and believe it will destroy all life on earth, as the president of Venezuela claimed, actual data tells a different story. According to Christopher Monckton, the “fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762,” before the industrial revolution. It also took place before the United States came into existence. As Monckton noted, “it was not our fault.” The solution touted by many global warming alarmists says more about their real agenda than anything else. According to a number of those who marched in the streets Sunday, capitalism is the real cause.

The solution, to them, is socialist revolution, echoing comments made by U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who once said Communism is the best model for dealing with the issue since democracy allows for debate and a difference of opinion.


Here are 6 messy facts Obama failed to mention in his UN speech

, Rare Contributor

Here are six messy facts Obama failed to mention:

1. “This speaks to a central question of our global age: whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interests and mutual respect, or whether we descend into destructive rivalries of the past.”

This statement, which sounds a lot like presidential candidate Obama in 2008, has to be one of the most egregious in his UN speech. Remember how he was going to bring the country together in a post-partisan America? And yet no one has done more to push the country “into the destructive rivalries of the past.” It’s so bad that the media regularly use the adjective “toxic” when speaking of Barack Obama’s Washington. He often can’t get even one Republican to sign on to many of his proposals, and yet he suggests the community of nations can “solve our problems together.”

Well, maybe they can—as long as they don’t let him lead the effort.

2. “Because we address our differences in the open space of democracy—with respect for the rule of law;”

President “I have a pen and a phone” wants to lecture other countries about the rule of law? How about he tries it out here first.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out last June: “The Supreme Court handed President Obama his 13th unanimous loss in two years on Thursday, and this one may be the most consequential. All nine Justices voted to overturn Mr. Obama’s non-recess recess appointments as an unconstitutional abuse of power.”

It takes some flagrant disregard for the rule of law to rack up 13 unanimous Supreme Court overturns, but our “constitutional scholar” in the White House is up to the task.

3. “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century.”

Would that “rule-book written for a different century” be the U.S. Constitution? Obama’s repeated disregard for the Constitution gave rise to the tea party movement. No president has done more to get Americans re-reading their Constitution—only that new-found interest is a result of trying to get the president to ”support and defend” it.

4. “But we can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every major power.”

Um, except that many of the major powers were too busy to join the president at the UN climate change conference on Tuesday. China, India and Russia—the first, third and fourth largest emitters of greenhouse gases—couldn’t find time to attend the conference, because they have no intention of playing his game.

Obama knows there is virtually no chance that these countries will sign on to anything that will hinder their economic development. But it’s not just these countries, he can’t even get the Democratically controlled U.S. Senate to approve a climate change treaty, which is why he recently announced he will try to negotiate an international agreement and then put all the participants on the honor system to comply.

5. “America is committed to a development agenda that eradicates extreme poverty by 2030.”

What utter nonsense. America is only “committed” to do what Obama wants for two more years, at which point a new president will make new commitments and, hopefully, cancel a lot of the old ones.

6. “We have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces—taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely upon.”

George W. Bush couldn’t have said it better himself. A fact that Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown picked up on when she wrote of the president’s UN speech: “Obama didn’t just run against Bush’s foreign policy. He used to ridicule it. His rejection of the Bush worldview was so emphatic that it seemed to prompt the Nobel Peace Prize committee to give him the award just for getting elected. So much for all that.”

Now, people may agree or disagree with Obama’s military actions in Iraq and Syria, the point is that he has done yet another of his countless flip-flops with no mention that he was against an issue before he was for it.

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation, a research-based, public policy think tank in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews



» recent comments

» archives