Wednesday, February 24, 2016


Obama Administration Wants to Ensure Illegals Can Vote in November Election

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

“About 80 percent of the people who are given amnesty, when they’re registered to vote, will vote Democratic,” noted Texas congressman Lamar Smith in 2014. While his number could be a bit low, he was shining a light on a poorly hidden agenda: Today’s immigration, illegal and legal, amounts to a Democrat get-in-the-vote scheme. And now it’s apparent that the Obama administration is attempting to cut to the chase and enable illegal aliens themselves to cast ballots.
In fact, the federal government’s current actions are so outrageous that just yesterday a federal judge called them “unprecedented” and “extraordinary.” American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson provides some background:
The National Voter Registration Act, aka Motor Voter, aka auto fraudo, ostensibly was set up to ensure that people would be able to vote without much effort at all. It has now been hijacked to enable noncitizens to register and vote.
As part of that act, an independent commission, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), was set up, with two members each nominated by leaders of the two major parties in order to help states comply with the law, despite the fact that the 17th Amendment of the Constitution explicitly lays out that the states have the power to set the “[q]ualification requisite for electors.”
This situation got really interesting when some states, such as Arizona, wanted to include citizenship-verification requirements with voter-registration forms. This is when “the institutional Left — including the League of Women Voters, People for the American Way, Common Cause, Project Vote, and Chicanos for La Causa — brought a lawsuit [against Arizona] claiming that the EAC hadn’t approved such requirements,”wrote National Review’s Hans A. Von Spakovsky on Sunday. But the story got stranger still.
The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2013 that while the EAC would have to agree to any voter-verification changes to the federal form before they could be made, Arizona could sue the agency if it refused to do so. And the Court made clear that the state would have a lot of leverage in such a case. Arizona then made the request for such changes, but it was denied by a single EAC bureaucrat, Alice Miller, who was merely the acting executive director at the time.
Yet it appears that Miller didn’t even make the decision. Von Spakovsky reports that sources inside the Department of Justice (DOJ) told him “it was partisan, left-wing lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department who actually drafted the denial letter.” This is striking, the writer explained, because the EAC is supposed to be an “independent,” non-partisan agency. Moreover, the DOJ officials, Von Spakovsky reminds us, are “the same cadre of lawyers that dismissed a voter-intimidation charge against members of the New Black Panther Party who physically threatened voters in Philadelphia to help President Barack Obama get elected in 2008; that has waged a war on voter ID and other election-integrity measures; and that has refused to enforce the Voting Rights Act in a race-neutral manner as called for by the plain text of the statute.” As to the last trespass, note that while under oath, whistleblower and ex-DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams revealed in 2010 that the bureaucracy had a policy of not pursuing “voting-rights cases involving black perpetrators and white victims.”
The good news is that after some intra-agency reorganization, the EAC reversed Miller’s decision and allowed states to include the citizenship-verification requirements with the federal voter-registration form. But no good deed goes unlitigated in today’s America, and that brings us to this month’s happenings. Now the Left wants to reverse the reversal and, on February 12, filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court to accomplish just that.
The plaintiffs include the aforementioned “institutional Left” groups, and there was a hearing just yesterday in which they requested a restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) against the EAC. And who was defending the federal agency? Why, federal lawyers, of course — from the DOJ. It was a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.
Von Spakovsky wrote Monday about how he attended the hearing, presided over by District of Columbia federal judge Richard J. Leon:
This morning, as I predicted would happen in an article on Sunday, the U.S. Justice Department took a dive and filed a pleading in which it not only failed to defend the actions of the EAC, but agreed with the plaintiffs and consented to both a TRO and a PI. Judge Leon called the pleading “unprecedented” and “extraordinary.” He said he had never seen such a document in his entire experience as a lawyer or a judge. He was obviously astonished that the Justice Department was not defending the agency, and it was soon clear he was not going to allow DOJ to just roll over.
The atmosphere in court was so ridiculous — the plaintiffs showed up with 12 lawyers, although only one was actually going to argue the case — that Judge Leon called it a “travelling roadshow.” He then opened the hearing, writes Von Spakovsky, “by reading into the record an astonishing letter he had just received from the chair of the EAC, Christie McCormick. It informed the court that DOJ had told the EAC that it would not defend the agency, and that it would not allow the EAC to hire its own counsel. McCormick informed the judge that she believed DOJ was not fulfilling its duty and obligation to defend the EAC and had a potential conflict of interest.” So the fix was in.
Fortunately, Judge Leon applied his own fix, having issued orders just before the hearing allowing both the State of Kansas and the Public Interest Legal Foundation to defend the EAC’s position with their own lawyers. In fact, “It was clear that Judge Leon was shocked at what DOJ had done. While he gave the plaintiffs 20 minutes to argue their case, he gave the lawyer from the Federal Programs Branch of DOJ only five minutes because he said that DOJ was obviously on the same side as the plaintiffs,” reported Von Spakovsky. And the plaintiff’s lawyer was pretty shocking as well: He became so desperate at one point that he actually characterized the EAC as being like Nazi Germany.  
So matters didn’t exactly go the plaintiffs’ way. Judge Leon denied their request for the PI and said he’d announce his decision on the TRO today.
And all this is just so illegals can vote in our elections — which is happening. In fact, a 2014 study found that enough non-citizens cast ballots to influence close races. It’s no surprise that Democrats have steadfastly opposed voter-ID measures, either (even though identification is required for most everything else, from receiving government benefits to visiting the White House). Seventy to ninety percent of legal immigrants vote Democrat upon naturalization, and the figure for illegal migrants is at the upper end of that range.
This use of immigration to empower statists via cultural and demographic genocide isn’t limited to the United States, and it has at times been acknowledged. Andrew Neather, a former advisor to ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, admitted in 2009 that one of the goals of the mass immigration authored by his Labour Party was “to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” Barack Obama said last year he was “pretty optimistic” that conservatism would be drowned out because immigration was making the United States “more of a hodgepodge of folks.” Even more outrageously, there was this report, which tells us that “Obama’s amnesty plan is to use illegal aliens as ‘seedlings’ … [who will] ‘navigate, not assimilate,’ as they ‘take over the host,’ create a ‘country within a country’ and start ‘pushing the citizens into the shadows,’” as I wrote in March. But most brazen of all was Swedish multiculturalist social engineer and Social Democrat politician Mona Sahlin. She bluntly said in 2001, “The Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.”
It’s an old story. If you can’t get the people to change the government, just change the people. 


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

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Next time you visit your doctor, be careful how you respond to his questions, or you may just be branded “mentally ill” and subjected to “treatment.” That is because a panel advising the Obama administration, in partnership with Big Psychiatry, wants to make doctors subject all American adults and children over age 12 to screening for alleged “mental health” disorders — particularly depression, at least to start with. Then, anyone found to harbor any alleged mental disorder, including children as young as eight, should undergo “therapy,” often including powerful psychotropic medications that experts say have dubious value but often come with well-documented and highly dangerous side effects.
Your ObamaCare plan will be forced to pay for it, whether you want it or not, thanks to the federal government's commandeering of the health-insurance industry under the so-called Affordable Care Act. And eventually, younger and younger children will be in Big Brother's cross hairs for mental and behavioral health “services,” whether parents want it or not. School teachers, social workers, and more are all already being enlisted in the federal government's search for supposed “mental and behavioral health” issues — a list that is perpetually expanding as psychiatrists invent new “illnesses.” The outcry against the federal government's obsession with your mind and the minds of America's children, though, is growing louder, as critics call the agenda “depressing” and worry whether it is another scheme to disarm more Americans.     
The controversial “recommendations” include screening all Americans between the ages of 12 and 18 for depression. A separate but related recommendation seeks to have all U.S. adults checked for “mental illness,” too. And consider that the list of “illnesses” is subjective (homosexuality was a mental disorder a few decades ago) and is constantly expanding as psychiatrists vote to create new ones, literally, as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — the “Bible” of psychiatry that has been widely criticized, even by leading psychiatrists.
The latest demands come from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF. The influential outfit, appointed by the Obama administration's increasingly radical Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recommends various unconstitutional federal health policies for Big Brother to decree into pseudo-law via regulation.
Its latest recommendations for children and adolescents 12 and older were published earlier this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “The USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years,” the HHS task force said in the summary of its position. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.” Why the federal government believes it has any business coming between patients and doctors — or where it believes the constitutional authority for such meddling is found — was not immediately clear.
The outfit also left the door open for recommending such “screening” for children under 12, too. “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children aged 11 years and younger,” the Obama HHS panel wrote. The recommendations also call for using controversial medications such as Prozac to drug children between 12 and 17, while advocating powerful psychotropic substances such as Lexapro for children as young as eight.   
Already, about one in 10 American school-aged boys has been labeled and drugged under the guise of “Attention Deficit Disorder” (ADD) and “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” (ADHD). However, even the late Dr. Leon Eisenberg, often described as the “father” or “inventor” of the diagnosis, said before his death in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel that the alleged disease was “a prime example of a fabricated disorder.” With the list of “disorders” expanding rapidly, and with that list labeling more and more normal behaviors as symptoms of alleged illness, critics have warned that the trend is deeply troubling.
When it comes to adults, the advisory panel, which purports to be independent, wants to cast an even broader net. “The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women,” said the outfit, which adds that its views should not be construed as the official position of the “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality” or Obama's HHS. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”    
In its “rationale” for recommending that all U.S. adults be screened for depression, the panel claims that the “illness” is “common in patients seeking care in the primary care setting.” It also cites “adequate evidence” allegedly showing some “improvements” if its advice is followed.
Then, unsurprisingly, the outfit downplays the very serious risks documented by The New American magazine and many other sources — including government and Big Pharma itself. For instance, the panel admits that antidepressants are “associated” with harms, including an increase in suicidal behavior, an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, fetal harm, and more. But despite that, the task force “concludes with at least moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit” to screening all American adults. And by all, the task force means all: “The USPSTF recommends screening in all adults regardless of risk factors,” it said.
Big Pharma and Big Government were no doubt pleased with the conclusion. But not everyone was. Among those expressing concerns was Dr. Ron Paul, the liberty-minded former congressman from Texas and GOP presidential contender, who called the proposed mandatory screenings a “depressing thought” in his weekly column. “Basic economics, as well as the Obamacare disaster, should have shown this task force that government health insurance mandates harm Americans,” wrote Paul, a medical doctor. He warned that, among other problems, the scheme would raise insurance costs. Even more troubling is that it would likely result in new federal databases containing the results of the screenings, which would be used to deny even more Americans their right to keep and bear arms.  
“Today, some mental health professionals think that those who believe in limited government, free-market economics, or traditional values suffer from mental disorders,” Paul explained, echoing growing concerns among watchdogs monitoring the psychiatric industry. “If mandatory depression screening becomes a reality, it is likely this mental health screening will be expanded to cover screening for other mental illnesses. This could result in anyone with an unpopular political belief or lifestyle choice being labeled as 'mentally ill.'”
Other commentators also directly suggested that the new demands for more “mental health” screening may be related to Obama's agenda to infringe on gun rights. “With executive actions aimed at getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, the timing of this report's release is rather curious,” wrote Trey Sanchez with Truth Revolt, a conservative-leaning outlet. “It seems reasonable to assume that mass screenings will produce more diagnoses of depression, even for those patients who showed up a little blue that day. But maybe that's the point: the more people there are that can be labeled 'mentally ill' (indeed a disservice to those suffering from actual mental illnesses), the less gun permits approved.”
It is hardly the first time in recent memory that Obama's HHS has demanded extreme and anti-constitutional intrusions under the guise of “health.” Indeed, the HHS has become increasingly bold in its demands for totalitarianism. Last year, for example, it unveiled a push to target American adults with vaccine mandates. In collaboration with Big Business and special interests, bureaucrats outlined the “National Adult Immunization Plan” (NAIP) to track Americans' vaccination records, wage a massive propaganda campaign to “encourage” more inoculations, and foist more controversial vaccines on adults against their will. Critics noted that the agenda includes eventually imposing vaccines at gunpoint.
More recently, HHS, in partnership with the increasingly radical U.S. Department of Education, unveiled a draft policy statement in which families are referred to as Big Brother's “equal partners” in child rearing. As if that was not enough, the document called for expanding “home visitation” programs. “Home visits by a nurse, social worker, or early childhood educator during pregnancy and in the first years of life can make a tremendous difference in the lives of many children and their families,” argued Obama's HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell last year in announcing more “grants” to send government workers to family homes.
The “equal partners” scheme also comes with important “mental health” implications, as the policy statement makes clear. “Ensure constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health,” the document demands. “Ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.” In the policy statement's “recommendations” for states — much of which will be imposed through federal bribes — state governments are told to “expand early childhood mental health consultation efforts.”
Of course, there is no constitutional authority for federally mandated “mental health” exams or any other meddling in healthcare or family life. Nor is there authority for a Department of “Health and Human Services” to exist. As HHS and other unconstitutional agencies continue to expand, so does the threat they pose to the liberties, well-being, and prosperity of the American people. It is time for the public to demand that Congress defund and shut down all unconstitutional agencies before the lawlessness and totalitarianism become even more extreme.  
Related articles:


Kasich Credit Gage Skidmore-compressed
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — During an appearance on Monday at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, Republican presidential candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich suggested that religious businesses shouldn’t be able to decline to service same-sex celebrations.
Kasich, who identifies as an Anglican, and personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, was asked a variety of questions ranging from the topics of climate change, religious freedom, immigration and creationism. Reports note that at times Kasich was careful in his responses, including in discussing religious freedom.
He suggested that while churches should have conscience protections, businesses should “move on” in regard to homosexuality.

“I think frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them. But if you’re a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake, make them a cupcake,” said the Ohio governor. “Let’s not have a big lawsuit or argument over all this stuff. Move on. The next thing, you know, they might be saying if you’re divorced you shouldn’t get a cupcake.”
The businesses that have found themselves fighting civil rights complaints for declining to service same-sex “weddings” have all stated that they regularly serve homosexuals, and have done so for years, but cannot fulfill orders that would be tantamount to participation in an event that would make them “partakers in another man’s sins.” (1 Timothy 5:22) None have declined to make cakes or sell flowers in general to homosexuals.
As previously reported, during a presidential debate last August, Kasich, 63, was asked by Fox’s Megyn Kelly what he would do if one of his children came out as a homosexual since he personally opposes same-sex nuptials. He outlined that he recently attended the “gay wedding” of a friend and cited “strong faith” and “God’s unconditional love” as factors in doing so.
“[G]uess what? I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay,” Kasich explained. “Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or I can’t love them.”
“So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That’s what we’re taught when we have strong faith,” he stated. “I’m going to love them no matter what they do, because you know what? God lives me unconditional love. I’m going to give it to my family, and my friends, and the people around me.”
“Issues like that are planted to divide us,” Kasich asserted.
Peter Ould, a former homosexual who now serves as a minister for the Church of England, outlined last year that marriage is meant to mirror Christ and His bride, the Church, and so Christians should not involve themselves in anything that would profane the sacred institution.
“Marriage is a God-given ordinance that speaks to more than just the love between two people. Biblical teaching on marriage shows us that the union of a man and woman is the icon of the union of Christ and His Church,” he said. “The Book of Revelation envisions the great wedding feast at the end of time, the union of the Bridegroom and His bride.”
“So doing marriage incorrectly is an act of idolatry. It’s a rejection of both the ordinance God has given and the meaning of that ordinance,” Ould continued. “Since the gender of the participants in marriage is important, mixing those sexes up destroys the point marriage was meant to represent. How can a Christian be involved in such a thing?”




Published on Feb 23, 2016
Hillary Clinton has reached new levels of hypocrisy as she discusses how much the gospel means to so many people. Cruz and Rubio exposed.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes
LAS VEGAS, Nev. — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a vocal supporter of abortion and same-sex “marriage, was cheered enthusiastically during Sunday’s Stellar Awards in Las Vegas, which heralds itself as “the premier gospel event that recognizes and honors African American artists.”
While the event will not be televised until March 5, the show’s producers at TVOne posted footage of Clinton’s speech on YouTube following her appearance.
“Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton makes a surprise visit to the Stellar Awards!” the video description reads.
During her brief, one-minute talk, Clinton told those gathered that gospel music provides a source of encouragement to those who are experiencing difficult times.
“We all face troubles, don’t we,” she said. “And it’s easy to get discouraged. And then all of a sudden maybe you hear a song in church, you hear it on the radio, maybe a friend is singing it.”
Clinton then quoted from the hymn “His Eye Is on the Sparrow” as attendees cheered and clapped enthusiastically.
“I sing because I’m happy. I sing because I’m free. For His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He’s watching me,” Clinton recited.
“So I know this is not just about music. It truly is about the message,” she said. “It’s about the gospel and all that it means to so many of us.”
As the Democratic candidate concluded her speech, one woman yelled out “President Clinton!” and others again cheered loudly.
“I want to thank you. I wish all of you well—not just in these awards but in every day, in every way,” she said. “I am grateful that you are in our lives. A lot of people need to hear that message and you are helping to deliver it. Thank you and God bless you.”
In being interviewed following the event, Clinton told News One Now, “I am a person of faith, and I’m a person who finds inspiration and support and meaning in many different ways. But what’s better than raising your voices to God and being able to connect [in a way] that brings others along with you?”
As previously reported, last month, dozens of African American “pastors” from across the nation gathered at Philadelphia’s Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church where they laid hands on Clinton to “decree and declare the favor of the Lord” on her for the presidency.
“Until He comes again, Secretary Clinton and President-to-be Clinton, we decree and declare from the crown of your head to the soles of your feet that the favor of the Lord will surround you like a shield, in Jesus’ name,” the clergy said, repeating after Kirbyjon Caldwell, who leads Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston.
However, some ministers nationwide have spoken out against Hillary Clinton, noting that her beliefs and policies run contrary to the word of God.
“If a church member asks in 2016 if I can support Hillary Clinton, I can unequivocally respond, ‘Not in this lifetime,’” writes Bryan Ridenour on his blog “America, Look Up.” “If we vote for leaders who support abortion on demand, then we essentially hold the surgical knife that strips life from the womb. If we vote for leaders who support and champion gay marriage, we in effect officiate at their ceremonies. God holds us accountable for what we do behind the voting booth curtain.”
“To those apathetic to the spiritual condition of America, we cannot expect God’s blessing if we kowtow to Hollywood’s mores and Washington’s track record of lies and deceit,” he said. “If we love America, we must bitterly cling to the Bible and our constitutional and God-given rights. Let’s not forget: ‘Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…’ Psalm 33:12.”

Ted Cruz Faith In Action
Published on Jan 19, 2016
Recently, Senator Ted Cruz sat down with over 100 pastors and faith leaders to talk about how his Christian faith has shaped his worldview and how it would guide his decision-making as the next President of the United States. This short 18-minute documentary – Cruz Faith In Action — tells the story of how Ted Cruz came to be the man and leader he is today beginning with his father’s acceptance of Christ. You will hear directly from Rafael Cruz, Ted’s father, along with Pastor Gaylon Wiley, the man who led Rafael to Christ and then baptized Ted when he came to Christ. Senator Cruz then recounts how his Christian faith impacted him, his family, and shaped his conservative Biblical views. He also provides us with a refreshing reassurance about how his Christian beliefs and principles will guide him as President – from the appointment of Supreme Court Justices to defense of religious liberties.




President sneers after making joke at late Supreme Court justice's expense

Published on Feb 23, 2016
In a recent speech Obama tastelessly joked about replacing judges at the expense of recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The anger generated by this comment resonated throughout America.

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

During his National Governors Association speech Monday, President Obama joked there was a lot to get done during his final days in office, including “appointing judges.” 
“Some of you may be in the final year of your term, working as hard as you can to get as much done as possible for the folks you represent, fixing roads, educating our children, helping people retrain, appointing judges, the usual stuff,” the president jested, as the crowd in attendance burst into laughter.
Last week, the president was criticized after it was announced he would not be attending the funeral of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Obama was further lambasted when it was reported he spent less than two minutes paying his respects to Justice Scalia during the Saturday service at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.


Montana-based artist Ben Garrison's take on Obama, the death of Scalia and the Constitution