Sunday, March 13, 2016






Trump Chicago Rally


Violent Left-fascists shut down Trump rally; Cruz, Rubio, Kasich blame Trump

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

About our free speech event in Garland, Texas last May, which was intended to be a stand for free speech against violent intimidation, Donald Trump said: “I watched Pam earlier, and it really looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing drawing Muhammad? I mean it’s disgusting. Isn’t there something else they could be doing? Drawing Muhammad?…They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody? What is she doing? Why is she doing it? It’s probably very risky for her — I don’t know, maybe she likes risk? But what the hell is she doing?”
And now, after Leftist fascist thugs forcibly shut down one of his events in Chicago last night, Trump’s Republican opponents, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, are effectively saying,Well, he had it coming, he brought it on himself, just as Trump did of Pamela Geller after Garland.
Is there no candidate who understands the importance of the freedom of speech? Rubio comes closest to articulating it below, but then shows he doesn’t understand it himself. He says: “Whether you disagree with someone or what he’s about to say…you don’t have a right to take away the First Amendment right of people to speak freely.” But then he says, “I think he bears some responsibility for the general tone.” So the thugs shut down the Trump rally, and it is at least partially Trump’s fault, because he told people (obviously facetiously) to beat up people who were trying to disrupt his events.
No one should call for any kind of violence, even jokingly, in these overheated times, but the idea that the Leftists shut down Trump’s rally because he said that is ridiculous. Do Rubio, Cruz and Kasich think that the Leftists who shut down Trump’s rally don’t think of them in much the same way they think of Trump — as “racists” and “bigots” who must be violently opposed? Maybe they do, because their rallies haven’t been shut down. But that’s coming, and that day is coming faster now that the three of them have tacitly encouraged the rioters by claiming that Trump is at least partially responsible for what they did.
In that scenario, you see, it becomes incumbent upon Trump not to say anything that Leftist thugs might dislike, or he will bear partial responsibility for what they do. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, of course, will also have to be careful not to “create an environment” that might force the Left-fascists to shut them down as well. But unless they become clones of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, they will inevitably end up creating that “environment” anyway, despite their being more decorous and careful than Trump. And then they will be responsible for what they get, won’t they?
The simple principle has been utterly forgotten, but it is nonetheless still true: no one bears responsibility for anyone else’s actions, unless that person is being coerced. No matter what he has said, Donald Trump didn’t force the Leftists to shut him down, and he bears no responsibility for doing so or for “creating an environment” in which these kinds of things happen. The only people responsible are the Leftist thugs themselves. They could have reacted in any number of other ways to what Donald Trump has said and advocated, just as Muslims don’t have to riot and kill when they see cartoons of Muhammad, and if they choose to do so, they alone bear the responsibility for their actions.
Neither Trump, nor Cruz, nor Rubio, nor Kasich seem to get this elementary point. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders? Forget it. It should be a basic requirement that someone who wants to be the President of the United States should understand the importance of the freedom of speech and be determined to defend it. Instead, we have now six candidates who have all shown that they are willing to sacrifice it under certain circumstances, and acquiesce to a tyranny of the violent. These are dark days indeed, and it’s only going to get worse.
“Protesters cheer when Trump rally canceled, jeer supporters, Associated Press, March 12, 2016:
CHICAGO (AP) — Hundreds of jubilant protesters chanted victory cries and jeered at glum Donald Trump supporters as they filed out of an auditorium where the Republican presidential candidate abruptly canceled a campaign rally Friday night.
Outside, the tenor of hours long protests shifted when one protester passed on word of the cancellation through a megaphone on the campus of the ethnically diverse University of Illinois at Chicago. The crowd roared in delight and began chanting: “We stopped Trump! We stopped Trump!”
The protesters closed in on the building, obstructing most of the exits just as Trump supporters began filing out. The Trump supporters had little choice but to push through the anti-Trump crowds that parted only slightly, yelling, “Racists go home!”…
“Cruz, Rubio and Kasich criticize Trump for creating ‘environment’ for Chicago protest,” by David Weigel, Washington Post, March 11, 2016:
…Rubio, who is camped out in his home state in advance of the March 15 primary, told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that Trump was finding out that his “words have real consequences.” But roughly half of Rubio’s analysis was a criticism of the political left. After stating his appreciation for Chicago’s police, Rubio said that the protests needed to be put in contest.
“This is Chicago, protesters are an industry,” he said. “It is clear, just from watching some of these images, that this was an organized effort, an orchestrated effort, from groups that wanted to disrupt this event, and Chicago is a hub for that sort of activity. I would also say that people have a right, whether you disagree with someone or what he’s about to say – and I certainly disagree with Donald Trump on many things, it’s why I’m running against him for president – you don’t have a right to take away the First Amendment right of people to speak freely. I think you’ve seen some of this on college campuses recently. There was an article, not long ago I think, that [conservative commentator] Ben Shapiro tried to speak on a campus, and they basically shut him down. So I think this is crossing over into the broader society, and it’s problematic.”
With that said, Rubio criticized Trump for his well-documented mockery of the people who interrupted his rallies.
“I wouldn’t say Mr. Trump is responsible for the events of tonight,” said Rubio, “but he is most certainly, in other events, has in the past used some pretty rough language, saying in the good old days we used to beat these people up, or I’ll pay your legal bills if you rough them up. So I think he bears some responsibility for the general tone.”
As Rubio was wrapping up, Cruz was standing outside a dinner event in Rolling Meadows, Ill., for an impromptu press conference. He took a harsher tone, significantly stepping up what he’d said to radio host Hugh Hewitt earlier that night.
“The responsibility for that lies with protesters, who took violence into their own hands.But in any campaign, responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate is responsible for the culture of a campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord,” Cruz said, citing an event in Florida that had already led to a criminal complaint, but not heretofore been mentioned by a rival candidate….
Asked if Trump should have gone ahead with the rally, Cruz paused for a moment, then said the decision should have been based on public safety.
“But I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence, to punch people in the face,” said Cruz. “The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates, and today is unlikely to be the last such instance. We saw, earlier today, in St. Louis, over 30 arrested. That’s not how our politics should occur. You know, the city of Chicago in 1968 saw some ugly days, when politics descended into hatred and incivility and even violence. It is my hope that in 2016 we can appeal to our better angels, to avoid going down that road once again.”…
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, whose scheduled MSNBC town hall was pre-empted by the Chicago chaos, issued a statement late Friday night that pinned the blame on Trump himself.
“Tonight the seeds of division that Donald Trump has been sowing this whole campaign finally bore fruit, and it was ugly,” said Kasich. “Some let their opposition to his views slip beyond protest into violence, but we can never let that happen. I urge people to resist that temptation and rise to a higher level….

Redshirts shutdown Donald Trump rally in Chicago

Bernie Sanders supporters SHUT DOWN TRUMP RALLY

Donald Trump Chicago Rally gets shut down by Bernie Sanders protesters & near riot breaks out!
Published on Mar 12, 2016
On March 11th 2016 Donald Trump had a rally that ended up being postponed due to Bernie Sanders supporters protesting inside & outside the UIC Pavilion. 

Sheriff Blames Obama, Clinton and Sanders
for Trump Rally Chaos
Published on Mar 12, 2016
Sheriff Blames Obama, Clinton and Sanders for Trump Rally Chaos

Sheriff David Clarke appeared on Fox News Saturday morning with Neil Cavuto to discuss the chaotic scene outside the canceled Donald Trump rally in Chicago last night. Not surprisingly, the sheriff offered some strong opinions about what happened last night and who is to blame.

The interview started with Clark telling Cavuto that people should not back down to the “bullies and goons” who attempt to disrupt these rallies, but then quickly turned to the discussion of whether Trump stokes the violence at his rallies.

The sheriff refused to blame Trump, instead saying the question should be about the roles of Clinton, Sanders and even Obama in creating divisions within our society for political gain.

“Look at some of the rhetoric and language used by Mrs. Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders at their rallies and their debates. How they criticize the police, they attack the police, they stoke up racial animosity. The president of the United States is the one that created this division… stoking up racial discord, class warfare, gender warfare for the last eight years. For people to blame this on Donald Trump is way out of bounds.”

Sheriff Clarke went on to say that that the only reason the focus is on Trump is because he is a threat to the political atmosphere that allows mobs of people to shut down political events of people they do not agree with under the guise of a protest. Clarke told Cavuto that this is not necessarily unique to Trump and that he believes the same thing would also happen to Cruz or Rubio if they happened to be leading in the polls now. Overall, he was adamant that the type of behavior people saw last night cannot be rewarded or viewed as acceptable.

“This has to be crushed … I don’t care whether these goons don’t like what the candidates are saying. I don’t believe we should have to shut down just to keep the peace…. The goons need to back off and they need to be silenced. Not the people on the side of law and order,” Clarke concluded.

St. Louis, Missouri:
Blood Spilled At Violent Anti-Trump Rally
Published on Mar 12, 2016
Black Lives Matter aggressively confronts Trump supporters as St. Louis Trump rally descends into chaos. 


NSA is watching you

It’s Official: NSA Data Will Soon Be Used By Domestic Law Enforcement

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

If you’re reading this, then I’m willing to bet that you’ve been called many different names throughout your life. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say they were names like kook, paranoid, conspiracy theorist, alarmist, insane, or gullible. And after this week, you can go by a new name: Vindicated.
I’m of course talking about recent revelations from the NSA. Long before Edward Snowden came along, it was no secret that the NSA was spying on everyone without good cause. Anyone who believed that fact was called a conspiracy theorist, but their fears were eventually validated.
These same people also understood that the NSA’s surveillance powers would never be used exclusively against terrorists and hostile governments. The power they have is just too tempting for any government. If various government agencies weren’t using the NSA’s surveillance apparatus to solve domestic crimes, it was only a matter of time before it was used for just that.
And again, they called us conspiracy theorists for believing that. And again, we were right all long.
A while back, we noted a report showing that the “sneak-and-peek” provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy. The ACLU of Massachusetts blog Privacy SOS explains why this is important:
What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes.
 Anybody who knows anything about how governments work, should not surprised. You can’t give them any kind of power, and expect them to use it responsibly. You can’t give them any stipulations. Eventually they’ll find a legal loophole to work around any limitations that have been placed on them.
In other news, the Pentagon admitted this week that they’ve been deploying military drones over the United States for domestic surveillance purposes. Much like the NSA’s surveillance apparatus, we were assured that drones were for terrorists in faraway lands. Nothing so Orwellian would ever be used against ordinary American citizens at home. Yet here we are, with more to come.
Perhaps you’re beginning to see a pattern. Everything our government uses against foreign enemies, eventually makes its way back home. Every war is an opportunity to try out new technologies, before turning around and using them against American citizens. It just goes to show, that war really is the health of the state.



Reports indicate that the Obama administration, labor unions, and George-Soros linked non-governmental organizations are encouraging legal aliens to become naturalized citizens ahead of the elections. The agenda behind the push appears to be to defeat Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
“I want to vote so Donald Trump won’t win,” Hortensia Villegas, a Mexican immigrant, told the New York Times earlier this week after attending a naturalization workshop in Colorado. “He doesn’t like us,” she told the Times, adding that she felt compelled to register after a decade of living in the country illegally.
According to the New York Times, the Obama administration has been working with labor unions and organizations, such as the George Soros-linked National Partnership for New Americans, to motivate immigrants to seek naturalization in an effort to register over one million more voters before November. “People who are eligible are really feeling the urgency to get out there,” said Tara Raghuveer, deputy director of the National Partnership for New Americans, a coalition that helped put on the workshop in Denver. “They are worried by the prospect that someone who is running for president has said hateful things.”
It does not come as a surprise that Soros would be behind the drive to defeat a presidential candidate who is adamant about enforcing the borders. As a notorious globalist, Soros has made no qualms about his resentment toward national borders, as they present an obstacle to a New World Order.
And Soros has been outspoken about his contempt for some of the Republican presidential contenders who have advocated for stronger borders and enforcement of immigration laws. In a 2015 opinion piece written by Soros that appeared in The Guardian, Soros opined, “As 2016 gets underway, we must reaffirm our commitment to the principles of open society and resist the siren song of the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, however hard that may be.”
At the Soros-funded, pro-open borders Migration Policy Institute, the White House announced last year it would contribute $10 million in federal grants, aka taxpayer dollars, to assist immigrants through the naturalization process, prompting criticism that the president is simply using taxpayer funds to expand the Democratic Party’s voter base.
Following the White House’s announcement, the online Daily Caller reported that the “true motivation” of the President’s plan was quite clear because it has been done by the Democrats before. The Daily Caller wrote, “In August 1995, Vice President Al Gore along with then-White House Director of Special Projects Rahm Emanuel created the Citizenship USA program: a plan that, in the words of a former White House aide, sought to ‘produce 1-million new citizens before Election Day.’”
Despite assertions that the Citizenship USA program was intended simply to fix the broken immigration system, the Daily Caller asks, “Why did the program only apply to key swing states, why did it last only for one year, and why were the naturalization ceremonies accompanied by voter registration drives in venues the size of Soldier Field?”
Twenty years later, not much has changed. The Obama administration has recruited Fernando Valenzuela, a Mexican-born pitcher who naturalized last year, and Jose Andres, a Spanish-American chef, to create marketing advertisements and appear at swearing-in ceremonies to encourage others to naturalize.
Naturalization drives have been planned in 15 states, including key states like Nevada and Florida. The New Americans Campaign, a non-profit group funded by organizations such as the Ford Foundation and partnered with groups such as the radical La Raza, plans to complete 1,500 naturalizations at a session being hosted at the Marlins Park baseball stadium on March 19.
And the naturalization campaign has already seen some success according to the Times.
“Naturalization applications increased by 11 percent in the 2015 fiscal year over the year before, and jumped 14 percent during the six months ending in January, according to federal figures. The pace is picking up by the week, advocates say, and they estimate applications could approach one million in 2016, about 200,000 more than the average in recent years,” the Times writes.
The Times adds that there have been “naturalization rush[es]” in the past that have been triggered by threats of fee increases, but this one is clearly linked to the upcoming election. “There is no hard deadline for immigrants hoping to vote in November, but with the agency currently approving naturalizations in about five months, immigrant groups are pressing to get applications in before May 1 to allow new citizens time to register to vote,” the New York Times reports.
And The Guardian reports that unions are attempting to capitalize on comments made by Donald Trump to galvanize Latinos into getting out to vote.
Maria Ponce of iAmerica Action, an immigrant rights campaign sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), told The Guardian, “Our messaging will be very sharply tied to the political moment, urging immigrants and Latinos to respond to hate with political action and power.”
But observes that despite the mainstream media’s attempts at portraying Trump as anti-Hispanic, he has been successful in primaries where the population was largely Hispanic, such as Webb County, Texas, “America’s most Hispanic city,” as observed by The Guardian. There, Trump won approximately 35 percent of the Republican primary vote.
Trump’s victory in Webb County compelled The Guardian to write that the outcome “provided harder evidence that Trump has not been shunned by conservative Latinos,” and “may have even inspired them into action,” as he earned more votes in Webb County this primary than were cast in its 2012 primary in total.
Trump has attempted to shake the image the media is painting of a disgruntled racist, instead continually asserting that he does “well with Hispanics,” and some polls seem to support that. In fact, Trump did significantly better in a January New York Post poll of Hispanic Republican voters than his Latino-American counterparts, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
According to that poll, conducted by the Beck Research for the American Federation for Children, 38 percent of the voters favor Trump, while 15 percent supported Cuban American Ted Cruz and 8 percent preferred Cuban American Marco Rubio.
The Trump campaign asserts that there is a reason he remains fairly popular amongst Hispanic voters. Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, said, “No one will benefit more from Mr. Trump’s pro-worker immigration reforms than the millions of immigrants who already call America home.” Hicks notes that the Trump platform includes “limiting the ability of corporations to replace them with new, lower-wage workers brought in from abroad.”
Hicks adds that the “core moral principle” guiding Trump’s immigration policy is his preference for increased wages over importing foreign workers, and that is a stance that is highly popular amongst Hispanic voters, as seen in polls.


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

In attempts to differentiate herself from her Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton is ramping up her rhetoric against the National Rifle Association (NRA). During a town hall meeting in Durham, North Carolina, on Thursday, Clinton said, “I will take on the gun lobby.… It is time, my friends, [to] stand together and say enough.”
On stage with her was a recently formed group called Mothers of the Movement including the mothers of victims of gun violence, such as the mother of Trayvon Martin, Sybrina Fulton. The group first popped up four days before the Democratic primary in Columbia, South Carolina, in February to voice their support for Clinton’s anti-gun agenda. At that meeting each of the mothers shed crocodile tears over the loss of their sons who, they said, were killed not because they were committing a crime but instead because they were “racially profiled” and “mistreated” because of their skin color.
This was red meat for Clinton, who outlined an updated and refined agenda that she promised to enact if elected president. She said she would move ahead by executive order if Congress didn’t go along. Her agenda includes:
• Reinstate her husband’s ban on assault weapons, enacted in 1994 but allowed to expire 10 years later because of its ineffectiveness;
• Provide more federal aid (and strings) to “support” local police departments;
• Expand domestic violence to include not just married people, but also anyone dating someone, as well;
• Pass a bill repealing the ban on suing gun manufacturers over illegal use of their products by criminals;
• Turn gun hobbyists into gun dealers by redefining just how many guns a hobbyist is allowed to sell privately before having to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and
• Close the “Charleston loophole,” referring to the current rule that if a background check hasn’t been completed within three days, that the purchase is allowed to be completed. The criminal who gunned down churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, was allowed to purchase his weapon after three days when the FBI hadn’t blocked the purchase within the three-day period.
Clinton continues to promote her anti-gun agenda in the face of increasing public support not only of private ownership of firearms, in accordance with rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but for the NRA itself. A Rasmussen poll in December last year asked those polled if they agreed, or disagreed, that “the NRA supports gun policies that make all Americans safer.” Sixty-one percent of those polled agreed, with 35 percent indicating that they agreed strongly.
Previously a poll conducted by Gallup last October asked those polled if they held a “favorable” or “unfavorable” view of the NRA itself. Fifty-eight percent held a “favorable” view, with 26 percent holding a “very favorable” view of the group. An indication of just how much the culture has shifted in favor not only of the NRA, but gun ownership in general, can be shown: When Gallup asked that same question in 1995, just 42 percent of those polled held a favorable view, a 16-percentage point improvement in just 20 years. As Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist noted: “These poll results are even more striking given the negative attacks leveled at our organization during the last several months by President Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, [Hillary] Clinton, and other anti-gun elites who leverage vast media conglomerates to do their bidding. That a majority of Americans are able to see through the propaganda shows how much anti-gunners continue to underestimate the NRA.”
And not just the NRA, either. Support for Clinton’s reinstatement of her husband’s assault-weapons ban continues to diminish, as well. A poll conducted by the anti-gun establishment ABC/Washington Post following the shooting in San Bernardino, California, showed a majority opposed to reinstatement of the ban. Back in 1994, support for the ban touched 80 percent. Now it’s just 45 percent.
Clinton is speaking into the wind. Her message is not resonating in an increasingly pro-gun culture, but it does serve as reminder that the attack on the Second Amendment continues despite that cultural shift.




Nathan Deal

Republican Bible Belt Governor Bashes 

Bill Protecting Objectors to ‘Gay Marriage’ 

as UnChristian

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

ATLANTA, Ga. — The Republican, Southern Baptist-identifying governor of Georgia recently cited the Bible in denouncing a proposed bill to protect objectors to same-sex “marriage,” as he asserts that the move is not Christlike.
In speaking to reporters following a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Atlanta on March 3, Gov. Nathan Deal said that he would reject any bill that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith.”
He was referring to a recent legislative move to combine H.B. 757,  also known as the Pastor Protection Act, with S.B. 284, the First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia. As previously reported, the Pastor Protection Act unanimously passed the Georgia House, finding support among Democrats and Republicans alike.
“No minister of the gospel or cleric or religious practitioner ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination … in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or the United States,” it reads in part.
The First Amendment Act of Georgia mandates that “[g]overnment shall not take any discriminatory action against wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes, speaks or acts in accordance with a sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”
On Thursday, Gov. Deal cited the Bible in asserting that the proposed laws were somehow unChristian.
“I think what the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world and said to those of belief, ‘This is what I want you to do,'” he said. “We do not have a belief—in my way of looking at religion—that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”
Deal then pointed to the biblical account of the woman at the well to further his point. The woman had been married five times and was living with a man who was not her husband. Jesus called upon the woman to turn to His truth to find Living Water.
“What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs,” he said.
Deal, who personally believes in marriage as being defined as the union of one man and one woman, said that he does not see those who disagree as being a “threat” to Christians. Deal attends First Baptist Church of Gainesville, which has several female pastors on its team.
“We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us,” he asserted. “We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs or who may not even agree with what our Supreme Court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route.”
“I hope that we can all just take a deep breath, recognize that the world is changing around us, and recognize that it is important that we protect fundamental religious beliefs,” Deal continued. “But we don’t have to discriminate against other people in order to do that. And that’s the compromise that I’m looking for.”
The office of Georgia House Speaker David Ralston issued a statement in response to the governor’s comments, outlining that Ralston is open to working out a compromise on the proposals.
“Speaker Ralston appreciates and shares Governor Deal’s sincere commitment to protecting religious liberties while ensuring that Georgia continues to welcome everyone with genuine southern hospitality,” it said. “Productive conversations continue with the governor’s staff as well as other members of House leadership regarding HB 757 and the Speaker is confident that we can find a way to move forward together.”

Why does God hate sin?

"God hates sin because it is contrary to His perfect and holy nature. It is impossible for God to do anything wrong. He cannot lie. He cannot cheat us. He cannot misrepresent the truth. Therefore, we can see that holiness, which is the opposite of sin, is the standard as set by God Himself.
Sin causes separation between ourselves and God (Isaiah 59:2). Such separation has a horrible consequence: damnation. Therefore, God would hate anything that separates us from His perfect love and perfect standard of holiness.
Sin takes many forms. It can be aggressive as in rape and murder. It can be passive as when we do not do what is right and let others suffer. Sin can take the form of misrepresentation so that such things as adultery is called "an affair," homosexuality is called "an alternative lifestyle," and abortion is called "the right to choose."
God must punish the sinner. If He did not, God would be approving of that which is contrary to His Holiness. God must deal with sin and, unfortunately for unbelievers, they will face the consequences of their sin if they do not trust in the person of Jesus Christ who removes the wrath of God from all who would believe and trust in Him."


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

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Lawmakers in Florida have voted to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, as well as to place new requirements on abortion facilities that mirror those currently being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.
House Bill 1411 reallocates funds that abortion providers had been receiving as Medicaid reimbursement, and prohibits the government from contracting with organizations that offer abortion services—with the exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Abortion facilities receive approximately $200,0000 a year in Medicaid funds.
“A state agency, a local governmental entity, or a managed care plan … may not expend funds for the benefit of, pay funds to, or initiate or renew a contract with an organization that owns, operates, or is affiliated with one or more clinics,” the bill reads.
Current state and federal law prohibits funds from being used toward abortion, but Florida lawmakers believe that the state shouldn’t help keep abortion facilities in business either.
“We pay their light bill, we pay their salaries, we pay all kinds of things when the state contracts with these clinics,” Sen. Aaron Bean, R-Fernandina Beach, outlined on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “Let’s get Florida out of the abortion business. That’s what this bill does.”
The bill also requires abortionists to obtain admitting privileges or transfer agreement with a local hospital and mandates stricter inspections at abortion facilities. In Texas and Mississippi, where admitting privilege laws have been passed, some abortion facilities have faced possible closure as they have been unable to find hospitals that willing to work with them.
“If an any owner, operator, or employee of an abortion clinic fails to dispose of fetal remains and tissue in a sanitary manner … consistent with the disposal of other human tissue in a competent professional manner, the license of such clinic may be suspended or revoked, and such person commits is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree,” the legislation additionally outlines.
H.B. 1411 passed the Senate by a vote of 25-15 on Wednesday after being approved by the House Senate 25-15. It now will be sent to the desk of Gov. Rick Scott, who has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the legislation.
Cecile Richard, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, claimed that the law will leave some women with no place to go to obtain health care.
“This bill would strip many women of their access to basic health care, such as cancer screenings, birth control, and abortion. As a health care provider, Planned Parenthood knows how laws like this leave women devastated,” she said in a statement. “Women in Texas have been forced to drive hundreds of miles to access abortion, or self-induce abortion without medical supervision.”
However, others note that the funds will be reallocated to other women’s health organizations in the state—as long as they do not end the lives of unborn children.
As previously reported, in its annual report released in late December, the national office of Planned Parenthood outlined that the organization performed 323,999 abortions nationwide during the 2014-2015 fiscal year.
However, while the organization also claimed that it is “stronger than ever,” its figures showed that the number of women visiting Planned Parenthood is the lowest in almost a decade. The report totals its services provided as being 9,455,582, with business being down by nearly a million persons from the year before, when figures totaled 10,590,333.


After Sending A Carrier Strike Group 
To Confront China, US Sends 
3 Nuclear Bombers To The Pacific
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Last week, the U.S. Navy announced they dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea. Consisting of the John C. Stennis aircraft carrier, two cruisers, two destroyers, and the 7th Fleet flagship, the US is making their mission clear — we are not scared of kicking off World War III.
Now, only a week later, they are flexing even more military might, announcing they have deployed three B-2 Spirit nuclear stealth bombers to support the U.S. Pacific Command. U.S. forces in the Pacific have been saber rattling with China for months.
According to Stars and Stripes,
On Tuesday, North Korea announced it has developed the capability to put a miniaturized nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile, the same day that the Air Force deployed the B-2s. The Air Force did not specify where the B-2s would be based.
“Recent events demonstrate the continued need to provide consistent and credible air power throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific region,” said Gen. Lori J. Robinson, Pacific Air Forces commander. “Our ability to demonstrate credible combat power while training and inter-operating with our network of like-minded partner nations is vitally important.”
Not only is the military deploying nuclear bombers to the region, but they are also flexing their might by conducting the largest combined amphibious exercise of its kind to date.

The exercise, known as Ssang Yong, which means ‘Twin Dragons,’ consists of approximately 9,200 U.S. Marines and 3,100 U.S. Navy personnel who will work alongside 4,500 ROK Marine Corps, 3,000 ROK Navy, 100 Australian Army and 60 Royal New Zealand Army forces.
“The sheer number of personnel involved is extremely impressive,” said Capt. Ed Thompson, commander, Amphibious Squadron 11. “There are a lot of moving parts and things that need to align for a successful exercise. When they do, it is truly amazing to see how we operate together.”
The area where Ssang Yong is taking place is only a stone’s throw away from the disputed region in the South China Sea, where, according to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the Chinese are militarizing the region and the U.S. is being forced to act.
However, as Fu Ying, a spokeswoman for China’s National People’s Congress said,
The accusation [that China is militarizing the region] can lead to a miscalculation of the situation. If you take a look at the matter closely, it’s the US sending the most advanced aircraft and military vessels to the South China Sea.
But the US seems unconcerned with the facts and more intent on provoking a fight.
“China must not pursue militarization in the South China Sea,” Carter said in a speech in San Francisco earlier this month. “Specific actions will have specific consequences.”
The region in question is known as Xisha in Chinese and Ho├áng Sa in Vietnamese, and is a group of islands, reefs, banks and other maritime features in the South China Sea. It is controlled (and occupied) by the People’s Republic of China and also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.
This dispute over who lays claim to the region dates back decades, and physical violence has erupted between the disputing parties on multiple occasions as recently as 1974. However, since then, the dispute has remained peaceful — until now.
The U.S. is attempting to claim that the Chinese presence in the region is some new conflict and are touting straw men such as closed trade routes as a reason for flexing their military sway. But there is no evidence that trade will be affected at all.
No country in their right mind would hinder its ability to export, and China shows no signs of halting exports any time soon.
In October, an anonymous defense source told Foreign Policy that the U.S. was determined to put on a“show of military might.”
“It’s not a question of if, but when,” the official was quoted as saying.
Well, it appears that the ‘when’ is now.
The U.S. is already engaged in proxy wars with Russia in Ukraine and Syria, which have the potential to devolve into an open conflict between the superpowers. Attempting to intimidate the Chinese in their own backyard seems like an incredibly ill-conceived move at this time.
American actions will inevitably only serve to bring the Russo-Sino strategic military alliance into closer consultation with one another in an attempt to stem U.S. global imperialism.
While this may be splendid news for defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, it’s extremely dangerous news for the rest of the world. One strategic miscalculation could result in events spiraling drastically out of control.