Sunday, July 3, 2016


Kaeley Triller
Kaeley Triller Haver is a truth teller, envelope pusher, grace chaser, and Jesus follower. She studied English at Northwest University and puts her education to use as the communications director of a local nonprofit organization. Of all the titles she's ever held, Kaeley considers "mom" the most significant. She spends her free time slaying dragons and playing dress-up with her two vivacious children.
Rape Victim: Transgender Agenda Creates “Rape Culture”
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Kaeley Triller Haver is a 33 year old mother of two young children. She is also a survivor of sexual trauma. Her abuse — at the hands of a man close to her family — began when she was still in diapers and lasted the first 10 years of her life, so she is aware of the need to protect women and girls from the types of men who would prey on them.
Last year, she found herself on the politically incorrect side of the issue of transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms in Washington State. And what she found is that her feelings, her fears, her experiences — like those of so many women and girls — do not matter where this issue is concerned. Everyone is equal; some are just more equal than others. Before it was over, she was fired from her job for not going along with the agenda of the transgender lobby.
Kaeley began working at the YMCA as a locker room monitor when she was 15. Over the past 17 years, she had continued working for the organization while going to high school and then college and beyond. In her last position there — communications director — her job was to oversee all communications for nine branch locations covering 120,000 members. Then the YMCA decided to open up its locker rooms and showers on the basis of gender identity. Men would be allowed to use the women's facilities and no one could stop them or even question them about it.
She told The New American that she could not go along with that policy and tried — unsuccessfully — to convince the organization of the dangers:
Before this even became a matter of law in Washington, I was working at the YMCA here as a communications director and my boss came to me one day and said, “We're doing this new policy and it might be controversial and I need you to take this stuff home and go over it and start helping me with the talking points.” What she was talking about was transgender locker room access. And so, I pushed back and I got fired.
We asked Kaeley how she “pushed back” and she explained:
I said this is not something I can do in good conscience, and here's why. And for the first time in my life — because it's not something you talk about at work — I expressed my experience as a survivor of sexual trauma. My abuser liked to watch me in the shower and laugh, and so I was keenly aware of what happens in our locker rooms, and wanting to protect our members. And because of my past experiences, I was hyper-vigilant at the Y. I would regularly conduct sex offender screening — on my own time — to make sure that someone wasn't getting through that shouldn't. And every time I would run one of these screenings, I would catch somebody — in November I found three sex offenders who were actively using our YMCA facilities. One of them had a free shower pass, actually. I have sat with parents after their children have been harmed, so I know [how] predators work, so this policy was just not something I could get behind. And I told them all of this stuff and said, “This is why we can't do this.”
One would expect the feelings, experiences, and reasonable observations of a woman who had survived the ordeal of having her most formative years marked by sexual abuse to be taken into account. But this is not how the YMCA responded, according to Kaeley. “My boss looked at me and told me, 'You know Kaeley, any time I find myself feeling the way that you're feeling right now, I convince myself that I am being closed-minded,'” she told The New American.
Ignoring her warnings, Kaeley recounted, the YMCA decided to instate the policy — without informing members of the change. “That's when I really began to struggle,” she said, “because I realized that I have friends and family who use those locker rooms and showers and they could end up being confined with a naked male. So I ended up writing a blog post about the transgeneder bathroom issue and I got it published in The Federalist.” The blog post — which has seen nearly viral distribution — was not about the policy at the YMCA. It was about Kaeley's own traumatic experiences as a child. But it did address the transgender bathroom issue. “I didn't use the YMCA's name, but I was fired a week later for inappropriate communication with members,” she told The New American. While no one at the YMCA mentioned the blog post directly, Kaeley said, the timing of her termination made the point clear.
What she did not realize at first was that she was caught up in a larger battle. The Human Rights Commission was planning to push through a rule that would essentially open all “public accommodations” across the state on the basis of gender identity. It didn't take her long to put the pieces together once the new rule was announced. She told The New American:
I realized the reason the YMCA was doing this was because they had been clued into the fact that the Human Rights Commission here in Washington — which is a group of five unelected bureaucrats — was going to instate this state-wide mandate — basically a rule functioning as law for the entire state of Washington — and they did this on December 26, 2015 — they quietly enacted a new rule that would require all places with public accommodations in the entire state to open their bathrooms and locker rooms on the basis of gender identity. They didn't tell anyone about this [ahead of time]. Five people decided for seven million.
With the implementation of the new “rule functioning as law” — formally known as Washington Administrative Code 16232 — Kaeley saw things quickly go from bad to worse. “It's so bad here in Washington that it's actually forbidden to ask any unwelcome questions about gender identity,” she said, adding, “So you can't even ask for clarity or clarification. So any man who wants to walk into any bathroom anywhere doesn't have to dress like a woman. He can say he has a right to be there. And you can't ask him anything to clarify.”
While reeling from being fired, Kaeley did what she's been doing all her life: She survived and decided to fight. She is now communications director for Just Want Privacy, an organization formed to combat the transgender bathroom issue in Washington. Just Want Privacy tried to fight the Human Rights Commission's open bathroom policy legislatively, but in the short session, there was not enough time to gain the necessary traction. So, the initiative was launched to give people the chance to vote on this issue, rather than have it dictated to them by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. The campaign has been gathering signatures since late April and has about 150,000 of the needed 246,000 signatures to bring the issue to a vote. However, the deadline of July 8 is coming up quickly, so the campaigners have their work cut out for them. They have petitions available for pickup all across the state and are hopeful they will meet the goal.
They are fighting as if their lives depend on it because the stakes in this battle are high. Kaeley, who, recall, says her former employer considered her “closed-minded” for feeling the way any survivor of sex abuse would feel, also says the parallel between the messages of the transgender lobby and her former abuser is unsettling:
My abuser used to cry literal tears and say, “You don't love me anymore” if I didn't fill-in-the-blank — if I didn't meet his demands. And this feels like the exact same message to me when they say, “If you don't violate your personal boundaries and let me shower next to you at the gym, then you're hateful — you're not loving.” And that is abusive. That is the definition of a rape-culture. Why have people so readily accepted this narrative? It's just nonsense. How can [feminists] say 'My body, my choice' [a mantra of the abortion lobby] — which I don't subscribe to — if I can't even choose who sees my body in the shower? So, basically, I have to get over it. How many women have they told to just get over it?
Because of her experience of having been sexually abused at such a young age, Kaeley says one of her chief goals in life is to protect her young daughter from ever experiencing anything like that. “It is incredibly important to me that my own five-year-old-daughter has a choice about when she sees a naked man,” she said, and then — skipping a beat — added, “I didn't have a choice.”
But the Human Rights Commission — a misnomer if ever there was one — and the rest of the transgender lobby would take that choice away from Kaeley's daughter. There is no doubt that policies such as this do indeed create, as Kaeley so aptly put it, a “rape-culture.” In the name of “equality,” women and children are being victimized.
And how many more victims will there have to be before enough is enough? The safety and peace of mind of women and children — especially those who daily live with the scars of sexual abuse — have to matter more than this ungodly agenda. More than the feelings of the poor souls who suffer from a mental disorder which causes them to be confused about their external plumbing. The one group is being used as an excuse to strip the rights away from the other group, all for the benefit of what Kaeley describes as “social engineering.”
It's time to bring this madness to an end. And the Kaeley Triller Havers of the world are working diligently to do just that.

If you live in Washington and would like to get a paper petition to sign, please visit Just Want Privacy's website for information.
Related article:


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Here is just another in a long line of examples of why the united States needs to not only defund the United Nations, but remove ourselves from it and the organization from our soil. In a recent paper put out by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their, "freedom of thought, conscience and religion."
The Telegraph reports:
Britain must stop forcing children to attend Christian school assemblies because it undermines their human rights, a United Nations committee has said in a controversial new report.
The authors called on ministers to repeal a law demanding a daily act of Christian worship at schools because it may contradict a child's "freedom of thought, conscience and religion".
 The report was produced by an 18-person group of "independent experts" of "high moral character" including representatives from Bahrain, Russia and Egypt.
Critics dubbed the demand "ludicrous" and said the government should responded by "respectfully" putting the report "in the bin".
It was just one of 150 recommendations about where Britain could be contravening the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child.
"The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character' in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form," reads a portion of the report.
Surely, Oliver Cromwell is rolling over in his grave as he was one who defended Protestant Britain from King Charles' tyranny and treason.
"The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school," the report added.
Britons called the report "ludicrous" and "mad."
"The collective act of worship is not an indoctrination exercise," Parliament Minister David Burrowes told The Telegraph. "It is recognizing and respecting the Christian heritage of the country and giving people an opportunity to reflect before the beginning of the day. The UN should spend more time doing its main job of preventing war and genocide rather than poking its nose in other countries' classrooms. We can respectfully put those kind of reports in the bin where they belong."
However, some in the UK were all too happy with the report, namely anti-theists.
The British Humanist Association Director Pavan Dhaliwal said, "The UK state fails its young people in far too many ways today. Almost uniquely among economically developed countries, it segregates them in schools along religious lines. We are pleased to see the UN agree with us that UK law needs to change."
So, parents have been sending their kids to school knowing full well that this has been going on, but don't have a problem with it because they hold to Christianity, right? On what authority does the UN act to even recommend interfering or giving advice or counsel to anyone regarding children, Christianity, education or parenting? They just simply are attempting to usurp authority.
Parents have a duty before God, apart from any law being enforced on them, to train up their children and teach them the Law of God. They should be doing this at home, in my opinion. I have constantly encouraged parents to take advantage of free homeschool curriculum and remove their children from public indoctrination centers. While I agree that if there is going to be schooling like in Britain that having the Bible taught and expounded upon is a good thing, I do not agree that it somehow violates a child's human rights. In fact, leaving a child without a worldview based on the teachings of the Bible leaves them open for all sorts of faulty thinking, much like those of the British Humanist Association. They forget that true liberty only exists under the Lawgiver, and that only tyranny exists apart from Him.





Modeled after the Sex Offender Registry

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The New York Senate has passed legislation creating a database for suspected terrorists modeled after the Sex Offenders Registry.
“This would give local law enforcement the tools that they need so that they are aware if there is somebody in their community that has been convicted of terrorism who still may be a threat to the safety and security of Americans,” State Senator Cathy Young told WGRZ, a CBS affiliate.
Cathy Young mischaracterized the registry. An individual does not need to be convicted, merely suspected of terrorism.
According to a subsection included in the bill, a person
…identified by the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Department of State, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Department of Defense or any of its armed services, the United States Central Intelligence Agency, and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as a person who has committed a terrorist act against the United States or any of its citizens,and/or who is a member of a designated terrorist organization pursuant to section 1189 of title 8 of the United States Code.
In other words, if you are on one of the federal government’s numerous secret terror lists—added without due process or the ability to challenge the inclusion—or you are a member associated with a group identified by the government as terrorist, you will be included.
Official government documents list a large number of domestic political organizations and groups as extremist or terrorist (the words are interchangeable, according to the state). Michael Snyder lists 72 here. Groups dedicated to constitutional and individual rights as well as those advocating “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable” are considered terrorist by the state.
Individuals listed on the sex offender registry are not permitted to live in certain neighborhoods and have other restrictions placed on them. The New York terrorist database is expected to do the same without the benefit of due process or a conviction for criminal activity.
Additionally, the database will be accessible on the internet. “Your name, description, address, occupation, and photo would all be available to anyone with Internet access: your neighbors, employers—anyone,” writes Bonnie Kristian.
Increasingly, under the largely manufactured and hyped climate of terror, America is morphing into a police state. It may soon be indistinguishable from other police states where political criminals were dealt with harshly by the state—from forced labor in gulags and detention in concentration camps to outright disappearance and execution.

U.S. Supreme Court Guts Fourth Amendment, Sanctions Police Fishing Expeditions, Giving Police More Leeway to Stop, Arrest and Search Citizens


WASHINGTON, DC — In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the door for police to stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court for holding “that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.” Sotomayor further warned, “[t]his case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong… So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer’s incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases: From here on, he sees potential advantage in stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion—exactly the temptation the exclusionary rule is supposed to remove.”
“With this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively stripped Americans of their Fourth Amendment rights and provided police with even greater incentives to erode our freedoms, undermine our sovereignty, abuse our trust, invade our privacy and generally operate above the law,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “By giving police a green light to illegally stop any American for any reason, arrest them for any minor outstanding violation, and embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, the Supreme Court has rendered us completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.”
Utah v. Strieff arose in 2006 when police detective Douglass Fackrell, who had been monitoring an apartment building for possible drug activity, stopped Edward Strieff as he exited the building. Fackrell proceeded to question Strieff and ran his identification through the police database, whereupon he learned that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a minor traffic violation. Using the traffic warrant as a pretext to arrest and search Strieff, the police officer found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in his possession. At trial, Strieff challenged the legitimacy of the stop and asked that the drug evidence be suppressed. The trial court denied his request and convicted Strieff. The Utah Supreme Court subsequently overturned the lower court decision on the grounds that the evidence was tainted by an illegal stop and should have been suppressed.
In voicing her opposition to the Supreme Court majority’s ruling in Utah v. Strieff, which found that no “flagrant” police misconduct had occurred, Justice Sotomayor concluded: “By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated.’ They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”
Article reposted with permission from The Rutherford Institute


Judge Strikes Down Religious Freedom Law 

Protecting Right to Decline Part 

in Same-Sex Ceremonies

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

JACKSON, Miss. (Reuters) — A federal judge has blocked a Mississippi law intended to allow people who object on religious grounds to decline services for homosexual ceremonies.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, in a ruling late on Thursday, said that the wide-ranging law adopted this spring unconstitutionally allowed “arbitrary discrimination” against the homosexuals, unmarried people and others who do not share such views.
“The state has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others,” wrote Reeves, who issued a preliminary injunction halting the law that was to take effect on Friday.
Mississippi is among a handful of southern U.S. states on the front lines of legal battles over equality, privacy and religious freedom after the U.S. Supreme Court last year legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
Mississippi’s “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” sought to shield those who believe that marriage involves a man and a woman and that sexual relations should occur within such marriages. The law also protected the belief that gender is defined by sex at birth.
By citing those three religious grounds, the law would have allowed people to refuse to provide a wide range of services, from baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple to counseling and fertility services. It also permitted dress code and bathroom restrictions to be imposed on transgender people.
Reeves, a judge in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, said the law violated the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection under the law by granting special rights to citizens holding certain beliefs.
The law “favors Southern Baptist over Unitarian doctrine, Catholic over Episcopalian doctrine, and Orthodox Judaism over Reform Judaism doctrine,” he said.
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant, a Republican, signed the measure into law in April. The state has defended it as a reasonable accommodation intended to protect businesses and individuals seeking to exercise their religious views.
“I look forward to an aggressive appeal,” the governor said in a statement on Friday.
But state Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat named as a defendant in the lawsuit, issued a strongly worded statement in which he said he would have to “think long and hard” about whether to spend taxpayer money on an appeal.
“The fact is that the church-going public was duped,” Hood said, noting that Mississippi already has a law to protect those seeking to exercise religious freedoms.
“There will be a case in the future in which the U.S. Supreme Court will better define our religious rights,” he added. “This case, however, is not that vehicle.”
An appeal would bring the case before the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, said Roberta Kaplan, an attorney for the Campaign for Southern Equality, one of the plaintiffs.
Critics say the Mississippi law is so broad that it could apply to nearly anyone in a sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage, including single mothers. Several legal challenges were filed against various aspects of the law.
Earlier this week, Reeves addressed a provision allowing clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples based on religious beliefs, saying they had to fulfill their duties under the Supreme Court ruling.

Sonny Hernandez-compressed

Chaplain Pushes Back By Distributing Bibles at Base After Scripture Removed From Missing Man Table

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

DAYTON, Ohio — Following the removal of a Bible from a missing man table at an Ohio Air Force base due to the demands of a notorious church-state separation group, a military chaplain at the site is pushing back by distributing thousands of copies of the word of God to stationed airmen.
As previously reported, in April, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) wrote to officials at the Wright-Patterson Air Force base after the organization allegedly received more than 30 complaints about the Bible’s inclusion in the display. MRFF claims that 10 of those who complained identified as Christian.
According to the National League of POW/MIA Families, the Bible is traditionally present at missing man tables, and “represents the strength gained through faith to sustain us and those lost from our country, founded as one nation under God.” The display additionally includes a place setting, a rose and a candle.
But in its letter to the Wright-Patterson Air Force base, MRFF asserted that the table should be moved to the base chapel or that it should be more inclusive of other religions.
“This is simply an example where the Air Force should have a policy that makes it absolutely clear that nobody’s religious affiliation is on [exclusive] display,” President Mikey Weinstein told the Air Force Times.
Days later, the base chose to remove the Bible from the missing man table.
“We thoroughly assessed this particular situation and made the determination to remove the Bible,” Marie Vanover, spokesperson for Wright-Patterson, told reporters. “Mutual respect is an essential part of the Air Force culture and we must ensure we create an environment in which people can realize their highest potential, regardless of one’s personal religious or other beliefs.”
But U.S. Air Force Chaplain Sonny Hernandez, who serves at the base, decided to push back against MRFF’s efforts. Hernandez was named the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Individual Mobilization Accession Company Grade Officer of the Year in 2015, and also was recognized after organizing 70 volunteers to pack and distribute 450 meals for the homeless.
On June 4, Hernandez led a Bible distribution to airmen and civilians, which he outlined in a blog post entitled “Dear Military Religious Freedom Foundation: Remove One Bible, Thousands Will Take Its Place.”
“Mr. Weinstein does not contend with anyone who distributes material that references Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns or fairies. Why? It is because none of them exist! Weinstein always contends with references of God because he knows God exists,” he wrote.
“Mr. Weinstein does not reject the truth of the Bible because it contradicts itself; instead, he rejects the Bible because it contradicts him, which is why he always tries to suppress the truth because he loves his sin,” Hernandez said.
He told Christian News Network this week that he has received much support from airmen at the base—a number of whom have expressed their desire to personally join the effort.
“I’ve actually been contacted by airmen at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base that are actually going to coalesce together, and they are involved now in distributing Bibles with me,” Hernandez stated. “I’ve had people call me and say, ‘Please get me boxes. I’ll fill my car up and I’ll make sure I distribute them as well.'”
“My goal now is to take thousands of Bibles there every month when I go to training,” he said.
Hernandez, who has sought to debate Weinstein on the topic of religious liberty, but did not receive a response, says that Christians should not be afraid of MRFF nor capitulate to its demands.
“If Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF try to interfere with legal intimidation,” he wrote in his blog post, “those who receive his demands will be reminded, ‘Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you (James 4:7).'”
As previously reported, Weinstein has a long history of expressing objection to Christian expression in the military. In 2013, he asked Department of Defense officials to punish superiors who attempted to proselytize their subordinates.
“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” Weinstein asserted.
He also appeared before Congress a year later, where he was questioned by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) about his hostility toward Christianity.
“On June 16, 2013, you said, ‘Today we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nations armed forces.’ Did you you make that quote?” Forbes asked.
“I did,” Weinstein replied frankly.
Last year, he wrote a blog post calling for the ousting of Christian chaplains who disagree with same-sex “marriage,” and also demanded that Satan, Allah Odin and others be added to a “God bless the military” display in Hawaii.
In December, Weinstein sought to stop the Colorado Air Force Academy football teams’s practice of praying together on the field before games, but his request was struck down by military officials.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed by Sonny Hernandez are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military or religious organization.


Presbyterian Church USA offers prayers to Allah, acknowledges Muhammad as prophet

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The assembled Presbyterians no doubt thought they were being wonderfully open-minded and ecumenical; they did not realize that Wajidi Said was openly proselytizing for Islam. “Lead us on the straight path” is straight from the Fatihah, the Opening, the Qur’an’s first chapter and the most common and oft-repeated prayer in Islam. Islamic scholars identify the straight path with Islam itself.
And in invoking “Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad,” Said sounded beautifully ecumenical himself to the ranked Presbyterians, aglow in their bloomin’ primness, but in reality he was reflecting the Islamic belief that those figures and the other Biblical prophets all actually taught Islam, but their messages were corrupted by their followers to create Judaism and Christianity.
Said’s statement: “The creator of the universe, the most merciful, the most compassionate and the Lord of the universe who has created us and made us into nations and tribes, from male and females that we may know each other, not that we might despise each other, or may despise each other,” is based on the Qur’an: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (49:13)
He was calling the Presbyterians to Islam. And they were eagerly receptive, of course, not wanting to appear “Islamophobic.” This is what “dialogue” is all about for Islamic supremacists: proselytizing. But Christian leaders cannot and will not grasp that point.
wajidi said-at-presbyterian church usa
“Allah bless us and bless our families and bless our Lord. Lead us on the straight path – the path of all the prophets: Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad,” and so went the prayer offered up by Wajidi Said, from the Portland Muslim Community, as part of the “first order of business” during the opening plenary session of the 222nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Wajidi was taking part in the assembly’s scheduled time of remembrance for those killed in the recent Orlando terrorist attack and those killed last year in the shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, S.C.
“In the days leading up to this assembly we all know that our nation’s peace has once again been ripped apart by an act of mass violence,” said Heath Rada, moderator of the 221st General Assembly, when introducing it.
The violence, he said, “tore at each of our hearts as it reminded us of too many tragedies and too many victims. We are all touched by the tragedy of violence in some way. Being from North Carolina, I am reminded of the Chapel Hill shooting of Muslims, and I am concerned of course as I recognize that yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the shootings at AME church in Charleston.”
That shooting of Muslims was by a psychopath who was anything but an “Islamophobe.” Note how Said grasps for victimhood status.
Rada said that Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons requested the staff leadership of the PCUSA’s ecumenical and interfaith ministries — Robina Winbush, Laurie Anderson, Rick Ufford-Chase and Laurie Kraus, — “ to provide for us as a first order of business an opportunity to lift up these tragedies that are so much on our minds.”…
Beginning in Arabic, Said then switched to English and prayed:
“Allah bless us and bless our families and bless our Lord. Lead us on the straight path – the path of all the prophets: Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Peace be upon them all Amen.
“In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful, let us praise the Lord. The creator of the universe, the most merciful, the most compassionate and the Lord of the universe who has created us and made us into nations and tribes, from male and females that we may know each other, not that we might despise each other, or may despise each other. Incline towards peace and justice and trust in God, for the Lord is one that hears and knows everything and the servants of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful, gracious are those who walk in the earth in humility and when bigots and hateful and Islamaphobes address them, they say peace. Peace be upon them and peace be upon Allah.”
The video of the time of first plenary session can be viewed here. The time of remembrance begins at the 6:45 mark and the prayer to Allah starts at the 14:04 mark.
UPDATE: At the conclusion of the afternoon plenary on Wednesday, June 22, the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Rev. Gradye Parsons, offered an apology. He said that he had become aware that some had found the prayer on Saturday offensive. Parsons said that sometimes mistakes can be made in ecumenical relationships and stated it was not intentional. “It was never the intention to offend anyone, and we offer an apology to those who were offended.”

United Methodists Nominate 

Three Openly Homosexual Candidates 

for Bishop Despite Prohibition

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Two jurisdictions under the United Methodist Church have nominated openly homosexual candidates for bishop despite prohibitions against such appointments.
Karen Oliveto, David Meredith and Frank Wulf were all nominated during the meetings of the Western and North Central jurisdictions last month, with their nomination being publicly announced earlier this week by Reconciling Ministries, a homosexual advocacy group that professes to be Christian.
Executive Director Matt Berryman asserted that their nomination of the three was led by the Holy Spirit.
“On the heels of the 2016 General Conference, the Spirit of God is now raising up three openly gay candidates for the office of bishop,” he claimed in a blog post on Wednesday. “Building on the courage and work of the saints who have gone before, Dr. Karen Oliveto, Frank Wulf, and David Meredith are called by God to serve the church in sharing their gifts of visionary leadership for the life of the world.”
“As gay preachers of the gospel, these leaders followed Jesus into the margins of the church’s life where they pursued love and justice risking their own livelihoods and security,” Berryman stated. “We believe the new creation has begun — it’s time for The United Methodist Church to move boldly forward into the future and elect its first openly gay bishops to the glory of God and for the unfolding of a new future together.”
However, as previously reported, the United Methodist Book of Discipline outlines that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” may not be ordained as ministers in the denomination.
“While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world,” the book reads.
Recently, the 2016 United Methodist General Conference agreed not to vote on any proposals surrounding sexuality for the time being, but to form a commission to discuss the issue and review the denomination’s current policies.
“We will continue to explore options to help the church live in grace with one another—including ways to avoid further complaints, trials and harm while we uphold the Discipline,” the Council of Bishops said during a meeting on May 21.
Prior to the meeting and General Conference, Reconciling Ministries Network released a letter signed by over 100 homosexual or transgender United Methodist clergy in an effort to seek acceptance and accommodation despite the denomination’s stance based on biblical text that such behavior is sinful.
“While you have welcomed us as pastors, youth leaders, district superintendents, bishops, professors, missionaries and other forms of religious service, you have required that we not bring our full selves to ministry, that we hide from view our sexual orientations and gender identities,” the open correspondence stated.
The 111 signees also outlined that they wish to remain in the United Methodist denomination despite prohibitions against homosexual behavior and that they desire to “create a pathway of hope into ministry” for non-celibate homosexual youth who want to serve in leadership capacities. Over 500 homosexual and transgender clergy spanning various denominations signed a separate letter expressing support for the United Methodist leaders who came out in their correspondence.
However, not all United Methodist clergy and ministry leaders support homosexual behavior. In an article entitled “Why Many Methodists Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage,” John Lemperis, the Director of the UM Action program of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, said that the Bible is crystal clear on the matter.
“Even liberal Biblical scholars now agree that the Old and New Testaments are very clear in their moral disapproval of homosexual practice,” he wrote. “More fundamentally, Scripture paints a beautiful picture of marriage as a holy covenant of intensely intimate, self-giving community between man and woman, uniting the two most basic, equal categories of humanity.”
“We submit to Jesus as Lord,” Lemperis stated. “If He is truly Lord, then no area of our lives can be off-limits to Him. Jesus spoke strongly about the centrality of self-denial in following Him, which often means dramatic personal sacrifices, including not acting on powerful desires for things outside of God’s best for us. … Jesus and new life in Him are more than worth it.”





Reporter: FBI Said No Video or Pictures of Lynch, Clinton Meeting

AG Lynch Covering For Clinton Implosion


Lynch Scandal Could Be Fall Of Clintons: May Stage False Flag

Insider Says Hillary Will Be Indicted;
Dan Bongino, Former Secret Service Agent


Clinton And Lynch Knew They Were Breaking The Law



'The Clintons Repeatedly Violate Our Standard Of Truthfulness And Honesty'


'No recording' order points to conspiracy to subvert Clinton investigation

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The FBI blocked journalists from taking videos and pictures outside the secret airport meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
“The former president steps into her plane, and they then speak for 30 minutes privately,” ABC 15 reporter Christopher Sign said about the Phoenix meeting. “The FBI there on the tarmac instructing everybody around ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.’”
That doesn’t sound legal for FBI agents to block the press from filming outside a government meeting that’s clearly in the public’s interest, and the fact they did reveals the meeting wasn’t as innocent as the Obama administration wants you to believe.
“With the FBI swooping in and preventing video evidence, is there any doubt in your mind this meeting was planned well before hand, and not some random event like Bill Clinton said?” a forum commenter at Godlike Productions pointed out. “In other words, Clinton used his influence to arrange this meeting with Lynch days before and making it look happenstance.”
The FBI order may have even violated 18 U.S. Code § 242, deprivation of rights under color of law, and it points to a conspiracy to subvert investigations targeting the Clintons because it’s not the FBI’s job to block journalists – or even private citizens – from filming public officials who are meeting in an official capacity.
Interestingly, a day after the secret meeting, Lynch’s Justice Dept. blocked the timely release of emails between the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s State Dept.
“Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch,” the Daily Caller reported. “If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President [if she’s elected.]”

After Lynch’s Mystery Meeting With Bill, Justice Dept. “Shields Clinton Foundation Emails”

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Yesterday’s mystery meeting on the tarmac between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch has now been clarified.
Obviously, it wasn’t a social visit as Lynch publicly claimed, but an arrangement clarifying how the powerful Clinton dynasty would be kept above the law in the face of heated publicly scrutiny as Hillary Clinton seeks the presidency.
Instead, the Justice Department filed a motion that would keep from release thousands of emails potentially exposing conflicts of interest on the part of the Clinton Foundation and overlapping state department officials, such as Hillary’s chief of staff Huma Abedin.
As the Daily Sheeple reported:
Lynch attempted to meet secretly on her government plane while it was stopped at the Phoenix airport with Bill Clinton.
The unannounced meeting, which comes as Lynch’s Justice Department is investigating the handling of classified information on Hillary Clinton’s privateemail server, came to light only when Phoenix’s ABC15 TV station asked Lynch about it during a press conference, The Daily Caller reported.
Lynch preposterously claimed the investigation against Hillary wasn’t discussed at all, but instead they attempted to meet secretly on her plane just for a little random chit chat about golf and Clinton’s grandchildren.
Loretta Lynch, as the highest attorney in the land, publicly claimed:
“There was no discussion on any matter pending before the [Justice] Department or any matter pending with any other body, there was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of State Department emails, by way of example I would say it was current news of the day, the Brexit decision and what it would mean.”
But news today of the Justice Department’s filings – which would benefit the Clinton family’s foundation and candidacy by delaying the release of emails for another 27 months – make clear that Attorney General Lynch’s meeting with the former president was anything but social, and obviously all about an arrangement.
As The Daily Caller reported:
Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.
If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.
So, these two issues conveniently overlap on the same day, and we are to believe that nothing improper was going on?
At issue, of course, is the sophisticated way in which the family dynasty apparently used the foundation as a vehicle for quid pro quo exchanges, often with foreign diplomats, firms or leaders who may have contributed to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favorable dealings in State Dept. dealings or other affairs.
It raises some keen questions about who Hillary Clinton really works for, and how her presidency might be run.
If the emails reveal what many critics think, it suggests corruption well beyond the ordinary scope of scratching the backs of campaign donors, to a back channel for private collusion and corrupt on behalf of potentially adversarial foreign governments.
The first Clinton presidency already had an intolerable amount of scandal, and Hillary would be bringing all that baggage back to the White House, and using it to set up shop.
Do they think they’re fooling anyone, or are they just indifferent to breaking the rules even out in the open?