THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
After arresting and charging radio host Pete Santilli (shown) with “conspiracy” in connection with his reporting on the occupation of the Oregon wildlife refuge, the federal government has sparked an outcry that is making headlines across America and even overseas. Indeed, the growing concerns over the free-speech implications have united critics ranging from the statist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the liberty-oriented Rutherford Institute. The biggest concern, activists and critics of the case say, is that the federal government is trampling on the rights to free speech and freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Critics of the prosecution also contend that the case is an ominous sign that the federal government is going off the rails.
Santilli, who hosts a popular talk-radio show on Talk Network News, reported live from the Bundy ranch amid the standoff with federal agents, and more recently, from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon occupied by protesters. Media reports noted that he was the first journalist to report on the fatal shooting by law enforcement of occupation spokesman and rancher LaVoy Finicum. Santilli was also among the numerous individuals at the occupation who were ultimately arrested in recent weeks. Like a dozen of the “occupiers,” Santilli was charged with “conspiracy” to “impede federal officers,” a vague and controversial Civil War-era charge that has been criticized — especially when applied to a radio host serving as an embedded journalist amid the protest against the persecution of two local ranchers and the broader federal assault on liberty, property, and the Constitution.
When Santilli was asked about his role in relation to the occupation, he made clear that speech was at the center of it. “My role is the same here that it was at the Bundy ranch. To talk about the constitutional implications of what is going on here. The Constitution cannot be negotiated,” he was quoted as saying. “What we need, most importantly, is one hundred thousand unarmed men and women to stand together. It is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal.... I’m not armed. I am armed with my mouth. I’m armed with my live stream. I’m armed with a coalition of like-minded individuals who sit at home on YouTube and watch this.” The county sheriff even wrote a note thanking Santilli for going on air and urging spectators across the country to stop making threats.
A video of Santilli's January 26 arrest that was posted to YouTube sparked alarm early on. The clip shows Santilli calmly and respectfully speaking with law enforcement officers while attempting to negotiate a peaceful exit of women and children from the occupied federal compound. “There are women and children there, we know this — quite a few,” Santilli says. “Please allow us to go up there and get them,” he tells the officers. One of the officers responds: “We appreciate the offer ... give us a few minutes to discuss it.” Seemingly without provocation, the officers eventually grab the journalist and inform him that he is under arrest. Despite repeated questioning about the reason, no charge is offered, either to Santilli or to the cameraman who filmed the incident, though the existence of a federal warrant was the likely cause.
Eventually, Santilli ended up being held in Portland, Oregon, and was denied bail. His defense attorney argued that Santilli has a pattern of complying with police orders and no history of violence. “Everything the government is claiming against him is based upon either his speech or his using speech to assemble people,” said his attorney, Thomas Coan. However, according to media reports, U.S. District Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman decided to keep Santilli behind bars pending his trial due to statements he has made on his talk show over the years. Among other controversial statements, Santilli reportedly said he would shoot anyone who came through his door in the middle of the night during a discussion on “no-knock warrants,” something that juries have found justified in the past. He also reportedly said in an episode of his show that he would rather kill or be killed than allow himself to be arrested, Courthouse News Service reported without elaborating.
The federal judge spoke of the supposed difficulty in trying to determine whether the “shock jock” was making genuine threats or simply creating a media personality and spouting off. “I have to decide whether the defendant should be taken at his word or not as a shock jock, making the inflammatory statements that one would have to make to create an audience,” Mosman was quoted as saying during a hearing for Santilli earlier this month. In the end, the judge concluded that Santilli's on-air statements showed he might pose a threat to U.S. Marshals if released while awaiting trial on the “conspiracy” charge. So, for now, Santilli remains behind bars. If convicted, he could remain in prison for six years.
But critics from across the political spectrum are speaking out. The ACLU was clear in stating that it did not agree with either the occupiers or “shock jock” Santilli. But it still expressed serious concerns about the case. “Although it may be easy to form a negative opinion about the tactics used by the people involved in the occupation, it is much harder to assess the government’s response,” the ACLU of Oregon said in a statement posted on its website. “We have been watching how one of the people arrested, Pete Santilli, has been treated in court and we have real concerns. It is in this context that the ACLU of Oregon is compelled to speak out, not because we endorse the messages of the speaker or condone the tactics of the protesters.”
Mat dos Santos, who serves as legal director for the ACLU of Oregon, also expressed concerns about the government's actions in the Santilli case. After the obligatory remarks distancing himself from Santilli's “politically polarizing” statements which are “downright offensive” to some, Dos Santos noted that there were bigger issues at stake. Among other concerns, he noted that Santilli's press coverage “was the basis for his arrest warrant as well as a threadbare indictment on a charge of conspiracy to impede federal officers by use of force, intimidation and threats.”
Santilli “challenges government authority through brazen, political statements,” Dos Santos said. “But does he pose a real threat? That’s the question asked of a federal judge last week: Should Pete Santilli remain in custody while awaiting his criminal trial for charges related to the Malheur Refuge takeover? While many people might disagree with statements made by those involved in the Malheur takeover, Americans have a fundamental right to freedom of speech. Law enforcement can and should differentiate between controversial statements and real threats. What’s at stake here could indeed be larger than a radio personality’s career, Malheur and Oregon.”
“Situations like this — where words alone are used to label a speaker so dangerous or somehow threatening as to warrant the deprivation of his liberty — demand the highest caution,” Dos Santos continued. “Where there is any question, we should err on the side of the speaker.” He added that it was especially troubling to see the prosecution use statements made months or even years ago to make a case against the radio host. “If all of our statements can be cherry-picked and strung together over a number of years to label us a 'danger,' we risk silencing our civil discourse,” the state ACLU legal director said, adding that respecting the line between beliefs and criminal activity strengthens security.
Speaking out more forcefully in defense of Santilli's right to free speech was constitutional attorney John Whitehead with the liberty-minded Rutherford Institute. In a piece lambasting the prosecution and the growing federal assaults on protected rights, Whitehead said Santilli's viewpoint — that government has overstepped its bounds — is what landed him in jail. And that is not acceptable. The civil-liberties lawyer also pointed out that Santilli was the only journalist charged with conspiracy despite not participating in the takeover of the refuge, never spending the night there, and never representing himself as anything other than a journalist.
“Of course, the government doesn’t actually believe that 50-year-old Santilli is an accomplice to any criminal activity,” Whitehead wrote. “Read between the lines and you’ll find that what the government is really accusing Santilli of is employing dangerous speech. As court documents indicate, the government is prosecuting Santilli solely as a reporter of information. In other words, they’re making an example of him, which is consistent with the government’s ongoing efforts to intimidate members of the media who portray the government in a less than favorable light.”
All of these developments should be troubling to all Americans, with Whitehead saying that the targeting of Santilli “signals a broadening of the government’s efforts to suppress what it considers dangerous speech and stamp out negative coverage.” “The message is clear: whether a journalist is acting alone or is affiliated with an established news source, the government has no qualms about subjecting them to harassment, arrest, jail time and trumped up charges if doing so will discourage others from openly opposing or exposing the government,” the attorney said, pointing to the arrest of establishment media journalists covering protests in recent years. Whitehead also cited speech by America's founders, including violent rhetoric in defense of liberty, to show how mild Santilli's comments were by comparison.
“You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry,” the prominent freedom-defending attorney continued. “Where the government has gone wrong is in hinging its case against Santilli based solely on his incendiary rhetoric, which is protected by the First Amendment and which bears a striking resemblance to disgruntled patriots throughout American history. What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words — words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption — in order to keep its lies going.”
Judge In Scalia Death Turns Back On Reporters When Questioned on Procedure
Published on Feb 16, 2016
Democrat Judge Cinderella Guevara turns her back on Infowars reporter David Knight when questioned over the rush to have zero investigation into the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Shady Public Servants Quiet On Scalia's Death
Published on Feb 17, 2016
Alex Jones plays a video of Inofwars reporter David Knight confronting judge Cinderella Guevara about her choice to not go in person to determine cause of death and then talks directly with David Knight about what they've uncovered there at the ranch where Justice Scalia died.
Scalia Cover-Up: Secrets Inside Cibolo Creek Ranch
Published on Feb 17, 2016
Infowars reporter Joe Biggs is inside the Cibolo Creek Ranch where the mysterious circumstances of Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia’s death continue to grow.
No Autopsy For Scalia, Yet Mandatory Autopsies For Illegals
Published on Feb 17, 2016
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was appointed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. Scalia served as a safeguard for the Constitution, a staunch opponent to the liberal view point that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted by progressive demands.
Clearly, this viewpoint counters President Obama’s quasi progressive conquest to fundamentally transform the United States. Obama’s violation of the Constitution is a constant, even as he faces a lame duck presidency. But with Scalia gone and the possibility of Obama's Free Speech assailing lackey Loretta Lynch receiving the Supreme Court Nomination, Obama could find himself in the drivers seat once again making tracks down the road to tyranny before his term ends.
Upon hearing Scalia’s death due to natural causes, most people brushed it off. He was 79 years old. But then the fumbling of the details began. Presidio County Judge Cinderella Guevara pronounced Scalia dead due to natural causes without seeing the body or ordering an autopsy. And the highly decorated Vietnam Veteran and prized Democratic party donor and Cibolo Creek Ranch owner John Poindexter continually changed his story until he blurted out that Scalia was found with a pillow over his head and the sheets were unwrinkled.
Any signs of strangulation uncovered by a mandatory standard autopsy, such as a petechial hemorrhage would have sounded off alarm bells. Meanwhile, towns like Falfurrias, Texas shell out money they don’t have to perform autopsies on illegal aliens. Once again, Americans are left in the dark to either theorize or ignore what really happened to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Currently, it may not appear that Scalia’s suspicious end at a West Texas resort amounts to much to the average citizen, 32% of which have never even heard of him according to a Gallup Poll. But in the months to come, if all goes well for Obama by way of a corporacratic faux Republican majority in Congress and Obama’s go it alone approach to the Executive office. Scalia’s death will be regarded as the final nail to be driven into the Federal Republic of the United States as Obama transforms the United States into a Unitary republic legally ruled by an all powerful central government.
Published on Feb 17, 2016
Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Influential Supreme Court blogger Tom Goldstein believes Obama will select his attorney general to replace Antonin Scalia.
Goldstein initially believed Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford would get the nomination. “On reflection, I think that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is more likely. I also think that the Republicans will eventually permit the nomination to proceed on the merits and reject it on party lines,” he wrote on Sunday.
Speaking to a Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, Virginia, Lynch said although “this is a country that is based upon free speech,” she promised that the Justice Department would “take action” when speech “edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift… that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”
Realizing the perception created by the call to prosecute individuals exercising their right to free speech under the First Amendment, Lynch later “recalibrated” her remarks.
“Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words,” she said at a press conference held to announce a Justice Department civil rights investigation into the Chicago Police Department.
Lynch’s comment about the “anonymity of a screen” is direct reference to the internet. In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU that the internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection akin to that afforded to the print medium.
The Double Standard of a Liberal First Amendment
Liberals contend “hate speech” is excluded from First Amendment protection.
In May, 2015, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, the son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and a former ABC News chief law and justice correspondent, tweeted that the First Amendment does not protect so-called hate speech. “Hate speech is excluded from protection. Don’t just say you love the Constitution … read it.” The tweet was removed following a backlash.
So pervasive is the highly selective liberal standard on free speech, a full 40% of college educated millennials believe the government has the authority to persecute individuals who make offensive comments against government designated minority groups.
A Pew Research poll, however, found a majority of Americans support the First Amendment. Democrats lead those who believe the government should be able to limit speech.
First Amendment: The Cornerstone of Liberty
The architects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights understood that freedom of speech and religion—both are contained and linked in the First amendment—are essential for the exercise of liberty.
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost,” wrote Thomas Jefferson.
Benjamin Franklin noted that freedom of speech is integral to the Constitution. “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates,” he wrote.
Writing as Silence Dogood, a pen name used for articles published by his brother’s newspaper, the New-England Courant, Franklin said: “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”
Upon receiving the Lauterbach Award in 1952, William O. Douglas, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, said: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
A Liberal Court and the Death of a Constitutional Republic
If nominated and confirmed, as Goldstein predicts, Lynch will carry the liberal mantle to the highest court.
Prior to his death under suspicious circumstances, Justice Scalia said liberalism has diluted the constitutional role of the Court. He said the majority of justices are “not adhering to the text, they’re operating as policy makers… They’re not interpreting the Constitution. They’re writing one, they’re revising one.”
Scalia said the principles of a constitutional republic are in jeopardy under the sway of liberal judges. “I cannot imagine the system can continue with more and more of the basic rules made by the Supreme Court.”
When you think of the kind of fugitives U.S. Marshals routinely pursue at behest of the federal court system, you may picture dangerous international criminals, prolific bank robbers or ruthless murderers. But you’d probably be surprised to learn that the federal law enforcement agency is sending heavily armed officers to drag people into court over delinquent student loans.
So too was Paul Aker, according to Fox 26 in Houston, when seven agents dressed in full combat gear arrived at his home near Houston to collect a debt on a student loan he took out way back in 1987.
Aker said he first thought something was up when he noticed a strange vehicle parked outside his home. When a suspicious person approached him, he retreated into his house as most people would. But later that day, the federal government’s heavily armed henchmen showed up in full force.
“They grabbed me, they threw me down,” the 48-year-old told local reporters. “Local PD is just standing there.”
Aker was unsurprisingly very confused by the government attack and wouldn’t learn until later that it was related to a $1,500 student loan debt from nearly three decades ago.
“I say, ‘What is this all about?’” Aker said. “They say, ‘Shut up, you know what this is all about.’ I don’t have a clue.”
Aker was then placed into the back of a truck and hauled to court where a “prosecutor”— actually a collection lawyer— informed him that he would be forced to pay $5,700 for the loan and its interest in addition to $1,300 to cover the cost of the government operation to apprehend him.
When the question of why the Marshals were so heavily armed came up, the agency claimed it was because Aker is a registered gun owner.
Aker rightly pointed out that the government’s overzealous debt-collection mission could have ended tragically.
“It’s out of control. Out of control,” he said. “What if they had seen a gun on me? They would have shot me for 1,500 bucks.”
Aker’s story is shocking, but it isn’t unique.
According to a source familiar with the U.S. Marshals’ debt collection practices, the agency is planning to initiate between 1,200 and 1,500 identical operations in the months ahead.
And as student loans become increasingly prevalent while economic realities make it harder and harder for borrowers to meet their payment obligations, the problem could get much worse.
Currently, some 70 percent of all bachelor’s degree recipient graduate with student loan debts. The average burden for borrowers is about $35,000.
As of 2009, student loan borrowers who graduated had a default rate of around 3.7 percent and those who dropped out of school had a default rate of 16.8 percent. As a whole, just under half of student loan borrowers are either still in school and not making student loan payments or they’ve had payments deferred due to economic hardships.
The Obama administration has done its best to exacerbate the problem.
According to the Treasury Department, the amount of student loan debt owed to the federal government has increased by 463 percent to $674,580,000,000 in the years since President Barack Obama took office. The major increase is due in part to the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act — one of the laws making up Obamacare — which essentially made it easier for students to borrow money directly from the Treasury.
Arrests like Aker’s are the result of how student loan debt differs from other forms of debt. Student loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy court like other forms of consumer debt and government-backed collectors have more leeway in using extreme tactics to collect the debts than do other types of lenders. So when a student loan issuer is able to get a ruling in federal court, which is becoming more common, a borrower’s failure to pay puts them in the Marshal’s cross hairs.
Roman Catholic Church Promotes Islam and Accepts the Islamic Faith IGNORES KILLINGS, RAPES, TORTURES Published on Feb 16, 2016
Pope Francis’s promotion of Islam is horrendous. The world is made quite aware of the negative influences upon societies as Muslim immigrants coming from places like Syria cause, as they pours into countries like Germany and Sweden. Internet news calls the situation “Germany’s ‘Rapefugee’ Crisis.” It is reported that, “A thousand of the new arrivals, mostly young Arab men, gathered like packs of hyenas, molested hundreds of women, raping several.” Our video on the Roman Church endorsing Islam in face of these horrors needs to be seen..
Published on Feb 13, 2016 Download (Show 185) mp3 here: http://megiddoradio.com/2016/02/12/18... RSS Feed: http://megiddoradio.com/feed/podcast/ https://www.facebook.com/MegiddoRadio To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr... --- On tonight’s show we are joined by Richard Bennett of Berean Beacon (SEE: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/) to talk about Rome’s promotion of Islam. For most of his Pontificate, Pope Francis has promoted Islam. Instead of warning people against the onslaught of Muslims across the world, Francis has left unaddressed the Islamic persecution of European, Middle Eastern, and African people. The world has been made quite aware of the negative influences upon societies, with many Muslim immigrants coming from the Middle East. As refugees pour into countries like Germany and Sweden some journalists call the situation “Germany’s ‘Rapefugee’ Crisis.” What can be done? Does ISIS truly follow the Qur’an? Is ISIS a true representation of Islam? These and other related issues are discussed on tonight’s show.