Sunday, February 15, 2015


Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Romans 1:26-28 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Exodus 22:19 - Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Romans 1:26 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Daniel 3:14-18-"Nebuchadnezzar responded and said to them, "Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? "Now if you are ready, at the moment you hear the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery and bagpipe and all kinds of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, very well. But if you do not worship, you will immediately be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire; and what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands?" Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. "If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. "But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."

Liberal News Anchor, Chris Cuomo:

“Our Rights Do Not Come From God”

Liberal Anchor: “Our Rights Do Not Come From God”

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

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” These words are probably the best known in the Declaration of Independence, but perhaps not by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo (shown). Either that, or he simply doesn’t believe them. Because while debating the constitutionality of faux marriage Thursday morning, he said that our rights do not come from God, but man.
Toward the end of a passionate exchange with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in which the latter asserted that rights cannot be a product of man, Cuomo made his remark, saying, “Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, might be surprised to hear this. And there may be some who’d lament that the Founding Fathers didn’t have Chris Cuomo around to set them straight before ol‘ Tom put pen to paper. But others might note that Cuomo’s opinion was a very shallow statement that gets at some very deep issues.
First, the newsman seems to be confusing “laws” with “rights.” If our rights are from God, they exist apart from governmental laws, which man does create. And then one of the main purposes of law is to recognize and protect those rights. This is why the Declaration states, immediately after the pronouncement on Creator-endowed rights, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” These rights are secured by government via the creation and enforcement of just law.
Why did the Founders emphasize rights’ divine origin? Because He (or he) who giveth can also taketh away.
As a related example, I’ve often made the point that if what we call “morality” comes from man, it then is illusory and will change with the winds of convenience. As I wrote at The New American in 2013:
To say that society determines “morality” is to simply put lipstick on the pig of man’s preferences about behavior. To analogize the matter, if we learned that 90 percent of the world preferred vanilla to chocolate, would this somehow make chocolate “wrong” or “evil”? No, it would simply be an issue of taste. But then how does it make any sense to say that murder is “wrong” if the only reason we do so is that the majority of the world prefers that one not kill in a way the majority calls “unjust”? If this is all it is, then murder falls into the same category as flavor: taste.
Of course, since our preferences masquerading as “morality” and minted as “values” would be created by man, it follows they can be recreated by him. And then the “creator” becomes the highest worldly power, be he a Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or tomorrow’s tyrant.
The same is true of marriage, mind you. Ignored in the debate surrounding it is that the stage was set for faux marriage ages ago, when the wider society accepted that marriage could be just a governmental contract rubber-stamped by a justice of the peace. Note that the long-held position in Christendom (when it really could be called Christendom) was that a man and woman were joined in matrimony by God; this is why many churches consider marriage a Sacrament. It then followed that “what God hath joined, let no man put asunder.” Once we began to believe marriage was a human creation, however, this became, “What man hath joined, he may put asunder.” This first led to easy divorce. Now the very definition of marriage itself is being put asunder.
It is no different with rights. The Founders emphasized that our rights come from God because then no person,with credibility and weight of moral force, could put them asunder. But if they’re minted by man — if the collective is their “creator” — man can recreate them. The collective can take them away.
Returning to Cuomo, his statement reflects something I addressed yesterday and that is all too common today: a denial of objective reality. For when he said, “Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country,” he implied that faith is a mere flavor, a preference, that it can have no basis in reality and thus should not influence law. You say potāto and I say potăto, you like vanilla and I like chocolate (harking back to my earlier analogy), but these are mere tastes, and we don’t enforce tastes via law. Those are your likes — don’t impose them on me.
This certainly is the fashionable view today. Secularists will say, “Separation of church and state! Keep your faith out of my government!” But not only is the “separation of church and state” not in the Constitution, there can be no true separation of church and law — if that law is to be just. I’ll explain.
Although it’s also fashionable to say now, “You can’t legislate morality,” all just laws do so; they impose right and wrong or a corollary thereof. Think about it: Would you create a law prohibiting something that wasn’t wrong? Would you create a law mandating something that wasn’t a moral imperative? There are laws that do so, unjust laws; and there are people who do so, tyrants. In these cases laws can become capricious, with preference and taste supplanting principle and Truth as the stuff of official decree. This isn’t to say that all, or even most, wrongs and moral imperatives should be legislated, only that all just legislation reflects wrongs and moral imperatives.
So when making laws, we must legislate morality. But what is morality? Getting back to my block-quoted example, if at issue is just man’s invention, then we’re not talking about morality but mere human preference, that stuff of tyrannical laws. To be morality, properly understood, it must be an unchanging, universal, and eternal yardstick determining right and wrong that exists apart from man; in other words, God’s law.
So, simply put, for man’s laws to be just they must be based on morality, and for morality to be morality it must be God’s law; therefore, man’s laws must be based on God’s law. What is the only other alternative? That they will reflect someone else’s.
This is why, in reality, while we certainly can have a Congress that “shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it’s impossible to have a just government coupled with that very different thing: true separation of church and state. This is why Founder Gouverneur Morris wrote, “Religion is the only solid base of morals and … morals are the only possible support of free governments.” It is why Founder James Wilson counseled, “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine…. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.” And it is why early American speaker of the U.S. House Robert Winthrop outlined the two alternatives thus: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
Then again, we could just listen to CNN and Chris Cuomo.

Chris Cuomo Battles AL Justice Roy Moore
in Epic CNN Interview on Gay Marriage


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
on Same-Sex Marriage,
Women's Rights, Health

"Ford Globe's goals are mutually beneficial between GLOBE members and 
Ford Motor Company. By helping to maintain a safe, supportive work 
environment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people at Ford, 
enhancing their loyalty and productivity, Ford GLOBE helps Ford Motor 
Company to achieve its goal of becoming the world's premier automotive 

Ford Contractor Says He Was Fired 

for Speaking Against Company’s 

Support of Homosexuality

February 8, 2015 by Heather Clark

informational, educational, and research purposes:

DEARBORN, Mich. – A former contractor for Ford Motor Company has filed a religious discrimination complaint, alleging that he was fired for speaking against the company’s support of homosexuality.
Thomas Banks has worked as a design and release engineer for Ford since 2011—that is until last August when he was fired on an accusation that he had violated the company’s “anti-harassment” policy for responding to an email employee newsletter from the company. The newsletter contained an article regarding the 20th anniversary of Ford’s Gay, Lesbian Or Bisexual Employees advocacy group (GLOBE).
Banks replied with a comment to express disagreement.
“Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit to no one,” he wrote. “This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and our survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote.”
“Heterosexual behavior creates life—homosexual behavior leads to death,” Banks continued.
But after submitting the comment, the contractor received an email from a human relations representative, requesting a meeting to “discuss something that was brought to my attention.” When Banks met with the individual, he was informed that he might have violated the company’s anti-harassment policy because of the comment he submitted.
He later received a voicemail informing him that he had been fired.

“I was stunned to realize that I was fired over expressing my faith in a single comment,” Banks said in a statement. “It felt like Ford was saying, ‘Even if you are respectful, your faith, and you as a Christian, are unwelcome at Ford.’”
Ford has also released a statement on the matter, but hasn’t commented on the specific complaint.
“[W]e believe this matter ultimately is between the individual and their agency employer,” it wrote. “Ford’s anti-harassment policy was created to foster a respectful, inclusive work environment for all, and we expect employees and agency personnel to act in accordance with this policy.”
With the assistance of the Liberty Institute in Texas, which provides legal services free for clients, Banks filed a complaint last month with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, contending that Ford had violated Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
“If you read harassment to mean disagreement—which is what a lot of companies and people are increasingly starting to do—they’re saying, ‘If you disagree, you must hate,'” attorney Steve Cloty told reporters. “If we do that, there’s no freedom at all. We’re not diverse, we’re not tolerant, we’re not inclusive. We’ve just said, ‘Nobody can disagree,’ which is a scary thought.”
“We are shocked that Ford Motor Company would terminate one of their employees simply because he expressed his faith,” added Hiram Sasser, Liberty Institute Director of Litigation. “If Ford is allowed to get away with firing Mr. Banks over this comment, we fear that every person of faith will be punished for talking about his or her faith in the workplace. At Ford, if you speak about your faith as it relates to the company, even to the company, you may be terminated.”

Christian engineer seeks EEOC's 

help in Ford firing



SEE ALLEN WEST'S ARTICLE HERE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

I remember watching cowboy and Indian movies when I was a little kid and the Indians would say something like, “White man speak with forked tongue.” Yesterday President Obama delivered another statement on his “strategy” for ISIS and all I could think about is “black man in White House speak with forked tongue.”
The analogy is with a snake (never a complement) and means to deliberately mislead – saying one thing, and meaning another. As Obama was delivering his weak message — which we heard back in August last year to which I responded here — there were individuals from his own administration contradicting his words.
President Obama said ISIS morale is low? Hmm, doesn’t seem that way to most of us. And just so you all know, there is only one time in U.S. military history when air power defeated an enemy. That was in the Pacific theater of operations when two bombs were dropped – on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I recall countless bombings during the Vietnam War — Linebacker I and II – and I don’t think we defeated Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong, or the NVA. As a young captain during Desert Shield and Storm, I watched the skies as a real air armada and campaign was waged — I mean hundreds of sorties (flights) a day. But against ISIS we are averaging around six.
So Obama came out sounding tough and once again told the enemy what he was NOT going to do and what this is NOT going to be. And he also told the enemy that we’re just going to do this for three years — and then I guess we’ll just quit and go home. What a coincidence, Obama is only around for two more years.
Back in August we were told ISIS would be degraded, defeated, and destroyed — yeah, right. President Obama is “banning” any enduring offensive ground operations. What in the Sam Hill does that mean?
However, as Obama was speaking there was a revelation emanating out of Yemen — remember, that strategic success story – which is utterly disturbing.
As reported by the Business Insider, “Armed Houthi rebels in the Yemeni capital Sanaa seized US embassy vehicles after the ambassador and diplomats left the country on Wednesday, local members of embassy staff told Reuters.
“The employees said that more than 20 vehicles were taken by the fighters after the Americans departed from Sanaa’s airport. Yemen-based analyst Haykal Bafana tweeted that US personnel surrendered 30 vehicles to Houthi militants. CNN is reporting that Houthi militants took “all US Embassy vehicles” parked at Sanaa’s airport as US personnel left the country and confiscated weapons from departing US Marines. If this is true, then forbidding American embassy security to travel with their weapons represents a major breach of diplomatic protocol on the part of Houthi rebels, who are now one of the country’s dominant political forces after the fall of Yemen’s government last week.”
The updated report from the US Marine Corps is that the State Department ordered them to render their personal weapons inoperable while they destroyed the “crew served weapons” — in other words machine gun-type weapons. Also, these Marines were not evacuated on military aircraft such as the Osprey, which were right off shore. Instead they were flown out on private aircraft. This situation marks one of the most embarrassing episodes in US Marine Security Guard history. This is the same State Department that met with Muslim Brotherhood officials two weeks ago.
Ok, let me explain something, I served a three-year joint assignment with the Marines. Every Marine is an infantryman, a fighter, warrior first, and they are damned proud to tell you that is their distinction. For someone to order a Marine to render his weapon inoperable is unconscionable.
So we are to believe an Obama administration that orders Marine Embassy Security Guards to scurry out the back door is supposed to defeat ISIS? Do you know what the message must be across the jihadist websites and chat rooms right now? What an embarrassment, and just imagine how those Marines felt.
“CNN added that Embassy staff “destroyed weapons that were inside the embassy’s storage warehouses” along with “tens of thousands of documents.” This is hardly the first time that US equipment in the country may have fallen into the wrong hands. Earlier this month, an unnamed US defense official told The Guardian that the US had only a limited ability to perform end-use checks on the $400 million worth of equipment and other military aid Washington has sent to Yemen since 2006.”
So we now have another Islamic terrorist organization armed with American combat equipment — ISIS being the other.
Here’s a discomfiting thought: Iranian-backed Islamists control the capitol cities of Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and are causing issues in Bahrain. We can expect another Hezbollah/Hamas style entity to gain strength, something that cannot please Saudi Arabia.
Business Insider writes, “Yemen is home to the al-Qaida branch considered most capable of attacking external targets and that took credit for the January attack on the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo. And the Houthis are a Shi’ite militia movement allied with Iran. The absence of the US from Yemen during a time when a Tehran-backed group is consolidating power will hardly reassure American allies in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia. The Sanaa embassy is also reportedly the site of a CIA station whose capabilities might be curtailed now that its diplomatic cover has been lost.”
I wonder if the CIA covert operators were forced to destroy their weapons as well?
Does President Obama have any credibility to fight ISIS? That’s not for you to answer — I pose the question to our enemies, as they have the ultimate vote. And they are voting loudly. Just ask the families and friends of the four Americans who’ve been killed.
We are allowing evil to exist and persist. Sir Edmund Burke stated, “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” And no, Congressional authorization for Obama won’t do anything to change the evil of Islamic terrorism. Why? Because some inane liberal progressive socialist will make a foolhardy decision to make our Warriors lay down their weapons.

Marines ordered to destroy weapons while fleeing US 

embassy in Yemen; Obama broadcasts everything he’s not going to do against ISIS


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

A police officer Abbas Husain talking to eighth graders during community day at 

Herbert Hoover School in Edison in this 2010 file photo (Alexandra Pais/For The 


Matt Friedman | NJ Advance Media for By Matt Friedman | NJ Advance Media for 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on February 10, 2015 at 8:30 AM, updated February 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM
TRENTON — New Jersey schools would be required to teach students how they should interact with police officers under proposed legislation a sponsor says could protect both kids and cops.
The bill, (A4130), introduced last week, would require school districts to come up with instructions for students as part of their Social Studies Core Curriculum Content Standards that would include "the role and responsibilities of a law enforcement official in providing for public safety" and "an individual's responsibilities to comply with a directive from a law enforcement official."
One of the sponsors, state Assemblyman Ralph Caputo (D-Essex), said the bill was inspired partly by recent incidents of police shootings around the country, including the death of Michael Brown in Ferugson, Mo.
"Kids have to learn how to behave when they're being investigated or talked to, because they could put themselves in jeopardy," Caputo said. "It's also a good effort to protect the police. Kids have to recognize their authority when they're being questioned and how to conduct themselves."
Caputo said the legislation takes no sides as to who was right and wrong in the incidents. It just seeks to stop altercations before they start.
"When a kid jumps out of a car, he may appear to be threatening but he's not - he just may not understand what those protocols are," Caputo said.
In New York City, a high school principal brought New York Civil Liberties Union representatives into the classroom to coach kids on what to do. The group instructed students to be polite and keep their hands visible, according to reports, as well as on their constitutional rights. And school officials in Linwood, in south Jersey, told the Press of Atlantic City last month that they were considering how to teach students safe interaction with police.
Assemblywoman Grace Spencer (D-Essex), a co-sponsor, said that the teaching could "break down any misconceptions that children might have from either misinformation or just the wrong portrayal of police officers through media."
Spencer is a municipal prosecutor in Newark and has a brother on the city's police force, as well as another who is a retired from the force.
"Not every police officer is bad. Not every police officer is necessarily good. However, there are certain things that you should and should not do when you encounter the police that will not cause a situation to escalate into something that could become dangerous for either person involved," she said.
Although the legislation leaves it up to the district to come up with the curriculum, which would be taught from elementary through high school, it should be characterized by "mutual cooperation and respect."
Pat Colligan, president of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association, said he agrees with the idea behind the bill, though he would like to know more about how it would be implemented.
"I kind of wish they'd have reached out to us in the beginning," Colligan said. "I think any dialogue is positive dialogue. I'd be all for it as long as it's a well-rounded class and people understand some of the limitations that we have when we're dealing with a deadly force situation ... It's usually time. People seem to think we have this 10 minute period to think out what we're going to do when you're given that short amount of time and short distance."
Ari Rosmarin, public policy director for the New Jersey ACLU, said the legislation is missing a critical component.
"The bill calls for education on young peoples' roles and responsibilities, but it's missing the third R: rights. The classroom is the appropriate place for a know-your-rights education," Rosmarin said. "Recent events make a strong case for New Jersey's young people being made aware of their rights and how to protect them when interacting with the police."
Rosmarin said his group hopes to work with the sponsor to include those provisions, and that "we hope to see officers receive equally robust training about interacting with young people in New Jersey's community."
The chief sponsor of the bill, Sheila Oliver (D-Essex), did not respond to requests for comment. The measure has nine sponsors in total, seven from Essex County and two from Passaic County.