Tuesday, September 6, 2016


Liberal Government Tries to Brainwash Christian Into Accepting 

Homosexual Lifestyle!

Published on Jul 7, 2015
Crumbling Freedom: Cake Artist Sent to 'Reeducation'. Jack Phillips, a Christian baker, refused to make a gay wedding cake. This landed him in trouble with the law. Now, he faces "compliance" requirements that threaten the First Amendment. A part of this requirement is to be forced to accept the homosexual lifestyle. This is brainwashing by the U. S. Government.

Why the story of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop matters
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

At the far end of a parking lot in an inconspicuous strip-mall in suburban Denver sits Masterpiece Cakeshop.
In the summer of 2012, two men enter the shop. One of them heads straight for the wedding cake displays, which sits in an area painted in muted colors and strewn with lace table cloths.
The employees tasked with handling the front of the shop are busy tending to consumers, so owner Jack Phillips, the kind of guy who’s more comfortable dealing with sugar paste than strangers, jumps in to help out.
We’d like you to design a cake for our wedding, the man explains, motioning to his partner at the other side of the shop.
Sorry, Phillips responds, I can’t create specialty cakes for gay weddings. If you’d like, I can sell you anything else you want — cupcakes, pastries, whatever.
Anger flushes over the would-be customer, who stands up, curses, and flips off Phillips while he heads for the door — a reaction that is well within the normal bounds of serious disagreements in American life.
The entire episode takes, maybe, 30 seconds.
When Phillips declined to participate in celebrating the wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig that day, his life was upended in ways that people who argue passionately about the culture war on social media or political blogs might not fully appreciate.
But those 30 seconds were clarifying in many other ways. It showed us that most of the media are incapable (or unwilling) to lay out the debate over religious freedom in an honest or enlightening way. It’s shown us that many of those who praise the diversity of American life have, in reality, lost their compassion and the ability to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their worldview.
Those 30 seconds have shown us that those in power — including every presidential candidate — are unwilling to stand in the way of a state that has the power to crush dissent by forcing citizens to choose between their livelihoods and their faith. No one likes to be called mean names.

Lakewood, Colorado

Aesthetically speaking, Masterpiece Cakeshop feels like the past. In Lakewood, a well-established neighborhood situated between Denver and the foothills in eastern Jefferson County, prosperity is crowding out the commercial diversity. There’s a Whole Foods and King Sooper within a mile of Masterpiece. Both are eating into Jack’s bottom line, and both would probably make you a 10-layer cake celebrating your polyamorous transgendered wedding if you asked.
Masterpiece opened in 1993 here, not far from where Phillips has lived most of his life. His mom and dad, a World War II vet who fought on the European front, brought up his two sisters and two brothers nearby, attending high school only a couple of miles from the shop.
The people of Lakewood grapple with many of the tensions of contemporary American life, including the increasingly intrusive presence of the state. Three of the top five employers in the city are government institutions. Locals refer to the seat of power in Jefferson County as “Taj Mahal,” and with its outsized importance comes convoluted regulatory demands and, over the years, a fair amount of corruption.
Not that any of those factors concern the T-shirt-and-jeans-outfitted Phillips, who admits his disposition is conservative though not especially ideological. When Sean Hannity pops up in our conversation about the looming presidential election — a contest he follows only tangentially — Phillips admits that though he might be able to pick the famous conservative talker out of a lineup, “I don’t know if I’ve ever listened to him.”
Phillips was brought up a Baptist of sorts. Like a lot of Americans, he stopped attending church as soon as he was old enough to get away with it, only to find God again when he had kids — a son and two daughters. Now, nothing matters more, he says.
A half hour after Mullins and Craig storm out of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the store’s phone rings. An irate caller asked Jack if he’s the jerk who turned away the gay couple. Well, no, I just don’t design cakes for same-sex weddings; I didn’t turn away anyone, he explains.
This distinction fails to pacify the agitated man, and after offering an array of colorful suggestions, he hangs up. In the hour between the incident and closing time that Thursday night, Phillips estimates he received another six comparably incensed calls berating him for cake-denying bigotry. When he finally got home, his inbox is fuller than it’s ever been. And it’s not because locals have a sudden hankering for Funshine Cookie Pops.
Jack begins his demanding work at 6 a.m. the next morning, so he can prepare for a Bible study class he hosts on Fridays. The phone is already ringing. It rings all day. All day Saturday (probably all day Sunday) and all day Monday, as well. Angry voices, swearing at him; demanding cakes; threatening him. Jack stops answering.
Then the protestors show up.
One of the disadvantages of showing off your righteous passion in a suburban parking lot in Lakewood, Colorado is that very few people can see or hear you. So the activists picketing Masterpiece that weekend were forced to pick up their rainbow flags and move to a busy intersection on nearby Wadsworth Ave — right across the street from another bakery. Actually, within the five square miles radius of Masterpiece there are a dozen places that could have accommodated the jilted couple.
Then again, this has nothing to do with a cake.
On Monday, the TV stations showed up. By Tuesday, Jack was on local news. Then the social conservatives of Focus on The Family, which is located in Colorado Springs, called. And then Fox News. By Wednesday, everything blew up.
“I heard about it three days after it broke,” Nicolle Martin, Phillips’ lawyer tells me, “and I’m not typically a local news follower.” What Martin said she saw on television was a man of faith being maligned as a bigot and a hater for doing nothing more than following his conscience.
“Oh my goodness, I thought: I’m going to tell this gentleman that he has a right as an artist not to create something that expresses an idea that is against his will and faith, and that he is still free to operate his small business,” she goes on. “I just wanted him to know that he wasn’t alone should something legal should come of this — even after they get their 15 minutes of fame.”
Martin is relatively new to First Amendment litigation, having worked in insurance law most of her career. Then, as she started having kids, she transitioned into corporate law. The latter, she assures me, is prosperous but far less stimulating intellectually and spiritually. After hearing her choke up about the case, it’s pretty obvious.
Martin’s office was kitty-corner from Masterpiece, so she drove over and dropped off her card. Don’t worry, she assured Phillips, “common sense will prevail.”
cake 1 (1024x717)

The Tribunal

The first letter from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission arrived soon enough. Americans, evidently, no longer share a “common” sense about societal norms. So Mullins and Craig had lawyered up immediately — contacting the ACLU, once champions of free expression and now champions of hurt feelings.
The charges against Masterpiece Cakeshop were riddled with mistakes — it named the wrong statute and the wrong entity, for starters. Nevertheless, the Phillips’ years-long, business-obliterating Kafkaesque journey through state hearings, protests, lawyers, and possibly a Supreme Court case had begun. Jack would be hauled in front a tribunal that would determine whether his Christian faith was genuine.
It is worth mentioning that public accommodation laws have been on the books for a while. Phillips had never turned anyone away in his shop, and the incident at Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012 went down before gay marriage was legal in Colorado, or anywhere else in the country, for that matter. In fact, at the time of the incident, Colorado’s constitution featured an amendment, passed in 2006 by a 56 percent margin, codifying marriage as a union between one man and one woman. (Disclosure: as a columnist at The Denver Post during these battles, I regularly argued in support of gay marriage.)
The commission was not above retroactive punishment, however. At the time, being found guilty of violating civil rights laws didn’t only mean the end of his Phillips’ life’s work. The punishment for refusing to make a special cake for a gay wedding was $500 and one year in prison per charge (jail time was only later amended out of the law when general public learned about the statue).
The shop was not only ordered to alter its policy and start participating in gay weddings or else face debilitating fines, it was told to provide comprehensive staff training, ensure compliance, then file quarterly obedience reports with the government for two full years. In these reports, Phillips was to describe exactly which remedial measures the shop had taken to conform, and document the reasons any other patrons were denied service.
Colorado’s Thought Police would teach Phillips how to stop himself acting on any ideas that were heretical.
The commission could only pass quasi-criminal judgments. In the end, these charges had to be authorized by the attorney general, who was charged with executing complaints and filing formal proceedings. In this case, that person was John Suthers, a Republican. He did.
“Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be — I mean, we — we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.” 
— Diann Rice, Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 7/25/14
Phillips’ dad had helped liberate Buchenwald from the Nazis in 1945. He’s not around anymore, though you imagine he’d probably have some fascinating thoughts about a government official who compares the extermination of six million people with a couple being slightly inconvenienced in procuring a specialty wedding cake.
Like any self-righteous zealot, Rice functions without concern for the practical implications of her power. In a rational world, her nonsensical haranguing would be dismissed as the ravings of an ignorant freshman who was cracking open Chomsky for the first time. In this world, Rice is appointed by the governor to mete out punishment on once free men.
Rice’s attack is not unique. Christians are regularly compared to Southern segregationists and racists, when in reality the comparison is best reversed. Yes, the power of Jim Crow reflected popular will, but it was sanctioned by the state. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is similarly empowered by the state to use its arbitrary power to destroy the reputations, businesses, and lives of those who happen to offend their sensibilities.
To anyone who believes the State of Colorado is a non-ideological arbiter of justice and laws governing discrimination rather than activists enforcing their own morality on others, consider this.
In 2015, a Christian activist named Bill Jack walked into three separate bakeries, one an erotic-themed shop, and asked for each to design a cake in the shape of a Bible, with one side saying, “God hates sin – Psalm 45:7,” and the other, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22.” On another cake, Jack requested that the bakery inscribe a Bible verse on one side: “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8” and on the other “God loves sinners.”
In all instances, the proprietors refused to take the project. And why should any American be forced to create something that clashes against their conscience? So Jack, obviously hoping to prove a point, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Christians, after all, are also ostensibly a protected class in the state.
What to do? Well, the commission decided that bakers who discriminate against Christians were offended by content of the message and not the patron’s Christianity. At the same time, the commission claimed the opposite was true for Phillips, whom they asserted wasn’t offended by the gay wedding cake itself but rather by the sexual orientation of the couple.
“There’s no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it,” responded Mark Silverstein, the legal director for Colorado’s American Civil Liberties Union. Despite some reports to contrary, Jack says he didn’t ask for any “obscenities” — defined as extremely offensive word or expressions — on the decorations. The problem is simple that we’re still not at the point where the commission or the ACLU can openly state that this is about enforcing new progressive norms and unsavory biblical quotes did not deserve the same protection.
When the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commission to punish Phillips, this is what a judge had to say:
The Division found that the bakeries did not refuse the patron’s request because of his creed, but rather because of the offensive nature of the requested message. Importantly, there was no evidence that the bakeries based their decisions on the patron’s religion, and evidence had established that all three regularly created cakes with Christian themes.
In other words, freedom of expression is contingent on a commission of unelected bureaucrats burrowing into the consciousness of those involved and ascertaining what they’re really thinking. A judge is then tasked with decide what expression of faith is acceptable.
Welcome to America, 2016.
cake 7 (1024x732)Coexist, Or Else
When Jack and his wife opened their business in the early ’90s, they made a decision: Masterpiece would adhere to their Christian values. So, no alcoholic cakes. No Halloween cakes. No bachelor or bachelorette party cakes — at least, nothing salacious. When potential customers would call Masterpiece over the ensuing 20 years inquiring about these types of desserts, the owners would gently tell them about other bakeries in the area that would meet their needs.
From time to time, a gay couple might also ask about a wedding cake. And they were always given a similar answer.
“Wedding have always been our specialty,” Phillip says again. “We can make pastry trays. We can make cupcakes. But a wedding ceremony is a unique event — it’s not a cake for a picnic. It has meaning for me.”
According to the commission, this was all a fa├žade so that 23 years down the road, when society’s ideas about marriage changed, Jack could reject a gay couple looking for unique cake. That’s how deep his hatred ran. Of course, the idea that this reserved couple — Jack’s wife was in the back when I visited, too shy to speak to me — were using their Christianity to mask some furtive bigotry would be seem absurd to anyone who spent five minutes in this place.
When I meet Phillips he seems busy, with timers going off, triggering him to run to the back to deal with his ovens. After the incident, with the help of Focus on the Family and others, Christians began coming to the bakery from around the area to lend their support. This community has allowed Masterpiece to survive. As Jack’s celebrity fades, that support is petering out. Without specialty wedding cakes, there is no viable business in the long-run. That was a reality the shop had been grappling with even before even before the commission decided to shut them down.
“When I opened there were only like five bakeries in town,” Jack says. “Now, there is one nearly across the street. And you have the supermarkets, too.”
Throughout my conversation with Phillips, I try to pierce through the matter-of-factness of his tone and detect a hint of bitterness or anger about the situation. The idea that government can destroy 23 years of your work over a petty grievances of a single couple might induce some resentment in even the most peaceful among us.
“I don’t think any stronger feelings or lesser feelings about government than before,” responds Phillips, who hasn’t uttered a single negative word about Mullins and Craig. “They’re dealing with too many things they shouldn’t be. And I thought that before.”
The only time I sense any displeasure from Jack is when I broach the topic of mass-producing confectionary treats. It might sound cheesy to us, but there’s a real artistry in what he does. When you see his work up close, you get a sense of the individuality and care put into each cake. Jack can create a virtual replica of anything — like the people on “Cake Boss” and others.
By the way, he informs me, those reality baking shows hurt his business: “Everyone thinks they can do it now.”
He shows me a binder filled with pictures of the most impressive creations over years — the Millennium Falcon or the Eiffel Tower, and plenty of original pieces that impress this layman. I doubt anyone can do it.
It’s this artistry and craft that sits at the core of the case. He’s not making a snack. He’s saying something. “The question is, are you free to believe anything you want, and just not act on it?” says Martin. “Can you force someone to communicate a message he fundamentally disagrees with?”
The answer is, yes. At least so far.
The Colorado state Court of Appeals upheld the administrative-law judge ruling against Masterpiece, and then the Colorado Supreme Court decided against hearing the case. So his lawyers have now petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.
For various reasons, including the media’s simplistic should-we-allow-people-to-discriminate coverage of these kinds of stories, most people seem to be unable to comprehend that this is about a lot more than supposed “discrimination.” Phillips doesn’t want to be forced to endorse the ceremony any more than I as a Jew would want to be forced to write a column praising the greatness of a Scientology.
This isn’t some phony cult concocting a new doctrine. Millions of Christians hold some form of a genuine, centuries’-long religious conviction that prohibits them from celebrating gay marriages. If you still support state coercion against them, then we might as well concede that religious freedom and true freedom of expression aren’t compatible with our new conception of a contemporary society. So the question is: Does the average American really believe society has a right to demand that a person paint or write a novels — or make cakes — that celebrate acts that undermine their beliefs? It might be too late for his business, but Phillips’ case will go a long way in letting us know the answer.



New legislation would stop payment, 

force Iran to pay U.S. terror victims

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

Congress is set to consider new legislation that would block the Obama administration from awarding Iran billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in what many describe as a ransom payment, according to a copy of the legislation obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) will introduce on Tuesday new legislation that would prohibit the Obama administration from moving forward with all payments to Iran, according to the bill, which would also force Iran to return billions of dollars in U.S. funds that have already been delivered to Tehran by the White House.
Rubio’s bill—a version of which is also being introduced in the House by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.)—would mandate that Iran pay American victims of terrorism some $53 billion in reparations for past attacks planned and coordinated by the Islamic Republic.
The legislation comes amid a growing scandal surrounding the Obama administration’s decision to pay Iran $1.7 billion earlier this year as part of an effort to free imprisoned U.S. hostages. The payment, details of which were kept secret from Congress and the American people, is expected to become the focus of several congressional investigations in the coming weeks.
“President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio said in a statement provided to the Free Beacon. “The U.S. government should not be in the business of negotiating with terrorists and paying ransom money in exchange for the release of American hostages. Doing so puts more Americans in danger, as President Obama himself admitted.”
The State Department recently reissued a travel warning for U.S. citizens traveling to Iran due to the possibility of kidnapping and imprisonment by the Iranian government.
Rubio said his new bill “would stop the Obama administration from making any further payments to Iran from the [Treasury Department’s] Judgment Fund until Iran returns the ransom money it received and pays the American victims of Iranian terrorism what they are owed.”
“President Obama may have attempted to appease our enemy with pallets of cash secretly delivered on an unmarked cargo plane, but Iran continues to cheat on the nuclear deal, harass our military, hold Americans hostage, and fund terrorism around the world,” Rubio added. “Iran should be held accountable, and the Obama administration’s misguided policies must be stopped.”
Rubio’s bill, called the No Ransom Payments Act, is co-sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn (R., Texas), Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), and Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.).
“Congress is taking a clear stand—demanding Iran return the more than $1 billion the Obama Administration wrongly gave them and putting a stop to any and all future money this administration, or any administration might want to give to state sponsors of terrorism like Iran,” Pompeo, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Free Beacon. “The American people know this is an unacceptable use of their taxpayer dollars and we wholeheartedly agree. It is unprecedented and dangerous for President Obama to be doling out millions to the Islamic Republic of Iran—in the dead of night, under wraps, and in cash. Kansans expect and demand better from their government.”
Rubio on Tuesday also filed a separate piece of legislation that would stop the Obama administration from permitting U.S. corporations and banks from selling Iran aircraft and mechanical parts.
The Obama administration has sought to issue waivers to remove sanctions on companies and banks that could facilitate these transactions with Iran.
Congressional leaders and regional experts have warned that Iran routinely uses its national air carrier, Iran Air, to conduct terror operations and transport military forces into war zones in Syria and elsewhere.


Published on Sep 6, 2016
Hillary Clinton nearly hacks up a lung uncontrollably coughing during a speaking event in Cleveland, OH. With an ambulance as part of her motorcade and a gurney on standby, will Hillary even survive the 2016 Presidential election?


VIDEO : Dr. Drew FIRED from CNN for Telling the TRUTH about Hillary ...
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

When HLN cancelled Dr. Drew in August, the network said the decision was “mutually agreed” upon by both network executives and the show’s host, Dr. Drew Pinsky — but according to a report, executives at CNN (HLN’s sister network) pressured Pinsky to retract comments he made about Hillary Clinton’s health before the show was cancelled a few days later.

“CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting Drew,” a source close to Pinsky told the New York Post‘s Page Six. “First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.”
During a radio interview with John McIntyre on August 16, Dr. Pinsky commented on the release of the Democratic presidential candidate’s medical records, saying that based upon the information he had reviewed with another doctor, he was “gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care.”
“Both of us concluded that if we were providing the care she was receiving, we would be ashamed to show up in a doctors’ lounge,” Dr. Pinsky concluded. “We would be laughed out. She’s receiving sort of 1950s level care by our evaluation.”
Eight days later, CNN executive vice president Ken Jautz announced that the last episode of Dr. Drew would air September 22.
“Dr. Drew and his team have delivered more than five years of creative shows and I want to thank them for their hard work and distinctive programming,” Jautz said in a statement announcing the show’s cancellation. “Their audience-driven shows, in particular, were innovative and memorable TV. And Dr. Drew has been an authoritative voice on addiction and on many other topical issues facing America today.”
The cancellation was framed as part of a broader shakeup at HLN, including the end of Nancy Grace’s long-running show on the network.
But a source close to Dr. Pinsky told Page Six that the host’s comments on Clinton’s health led to a series of “nasty” phone calls and emails from network executives that were “downright scary and creepy.”
A representative for CNN did not immediately return Breitbart News’ request for comment.
Dr. Pinsky had previously commented on questions surrounding Clinton’s health, which has become an issue in the 2016 race as critics attempt to show she is physically unfit for the presidency. During a radio interview in January, Dr. Pinsky said he was concerned with the “quality of the overall care” Clinton was receiving. He also discussed Clinton’s health during a January 19 episode of his HLN show, and later apologized for violating HLN and CNN editorial standards by citing an “unsubstantiated report.”
Meanwhile, questions about Clinton’s health have continued to dog the candidate with just two months left until Election Day. On Friday, the FBI released documents that revealed that Clinton told Bureau investigators during a July 2 interview that she could not recall all of the briefings she had been given on handling sensitive information due to a concussion she sustained in 2012.
“Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received,” the FBI documents stated.


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

An evolution-propagandizing illustrated children’s book is drawing praise from the secular community and currently ranks as a best seller on
“Annabelle & Aiden: The Story Of Life” is a 26-page children’s book that was published last month. Advertised as an “inspirational storybook” that will help kids “gain a basic understanding of evolution,” the book walks readers through the history of life according to Charles Darwin.
Featuring a “wise owl” who describes evolution to two young girls named Annabelle and Aiden, the book proselytizes evolution using rhyming text and whimsical illustrations.
“Why do we look the way that we do? With hands and feet in neat sets of two?” asks Anabelle in the book’s opening pages. “What made my eyes? And what made my nose? And the shape of my body from my head to my toes?”
In response to Anabelle’s questions, the owl describes the evolutionary theory of life’s origins, beginning with a lifeless blob millions of years ago.
“In a little corner, on a tiny blue dot, deep under the ocean, in a very special spot…An itty bitty thing woke up anew, and came alive. I tell you, it’s true!” the owl says.
“But to share this world, it needed a friend,” the owl continues. “So it pushed and it pushed and it managed to create a perfect copy of itself: a new friend and mate.”
The owl goes on to say that “slight random changes” created all the species of life in the world today, including humans.
“Every living thing, people from every single race, their dogs, cats, and flowers, came from the same exact place,” the owl asserts. “A young boy in Africa, the grass, bugs and bees, your teacher’s pet parrot who speaks Cantonese. We are all related.”
In addition to the dialogue between the owl and the girls, pro-evolution statements are interspersed throughout the book.
“Every animal, every single form of life, all share a common ancestor,” one page in the book says.
“If you go back far enough, people, like most mammals, evolved from fish,” another page claims.
A few well-known evolutionists, including Bill Nye and Lawrence Krauss, have praised “Annabelle & Aiden” for its potential to convince young readers of evolution’s validity. Last week the book was recognized on as the #1 best seller in the children’s prehistoric books category.
The book’s author, J.R. Becker, believes evolution is an “established fact” that should be taught to children from a young age.
“I simply see myself as doing absolutely nothing more than delivering facts to children,” Becker said in a recent interview with “If there’s ‘controversy’ about that, well, I try to ignore that noise.”
As previously reported, evolutionists are increasingly targeting young children in their campaign to spread Darwinian mantra. Last year, an evolution-promoting author published a children’s book titled “Grandmother Fish” that tells preschoolers they are the byproducts of evolution and the descendants of fish.
“Yes, secularists know where the battle is in this culture: it’s for the hearts and minds of the next generation. And they are growing increasingly aggressive in trying to capture the next generation—starting from a younger and younger age,” wrote Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham in a review of “Grandmother Fish.” “That’s why parents and church leaders need to be active in discipling the next generation to stand on the authority of God’s Word from the very beginning.”


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

Also speaking was Yasir Qadhi, who has taught that Muslims can seize the property of non-Muslims in jihad: “The life and property of a mushrik [one who worships others besides Allah] holds no value in the state of jihad….which means if they don’t say la illaha illa Allah, their lives and property are halal” — that is, permitted to be taken by the Muslims.
Dalia Mogahed was speaking as well. Obama’s former adviser on Muslim affairs once appeared on a British television show aired by the pro-Sharia group Hizb ut-Tahrir, where she said: “Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” How have we misunderstood Islamic law? We have associated it with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that…to many people seem unequal to women.” The Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,” she claimed: most Muslim women worldwide, she said, associate it with “gender justice.”
Another speaker was Tariq Ramadan. French journalist Caroline Fourest in Brother Tariq notes that Ramadan is “remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather [Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna], a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Islamic law in the West. She explains that he invests words like “law” and “democracy” with subtle and carefully crafted new definitions, permitting him to engage in “an apparently inoffensive discourse while remaining faithful to an eminently Islamist message and without having to lie overtly — at least not in his eyes.”
And then there is the celebrated Khizr Khan. Intelius records that Khizr Khan has worked at Hogan Lovells Llp. According to the Washington Free Beacon, “Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign.” The Free Beacon added that the Saudi government has “supplied the Clinton Foundation with millions. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million.”
Why is the DHS Secretary appearing among this rogue’s gallery? The answer is obvious: because he shares their agenda.
“The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was established in July 1981 by U.S-based members of the Muslim Brotherhood with a background as leaders of the Muslim Students Association (MSA). As author and terrorism expert Steven Emerson puts it, ISNA “grew out of the Muslim Students Association, which also was founded by Brotherhood members.” Indeed, Muslim Brothers would dominate ISNA’s leadership throughout the Society’s early years. Striving “to advance the cause of Islam and serve Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life,” ISNA was highly dependent upon Saudi funding during its early years.” — from Discover the Networks
In its latest filing before the federal district court in Dallas on behalf of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and its affiliate organization, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) in the Hamas-terrorism financing case, the ACLU has made a noteworthy admission.
Rather than deny that there is copious evidence tying ISNA and NAIT to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the brief argues that such evidence is merely dated. In a curious footnote on page 7, the reply states:
Assuming the authenticity of documents’ dates, the most recent documents to mention either ISNA or NAIT are dated 1991, Gov. Exhs. 3-3 and 3-85, but the majority of the documents are older. Almost all of the numerous exhibits that purport to show financial transactions and that contain any mention of ISNA or NAIT are dated 1988 and 1989 (there are two dated 1990), almost a decade before the majority of the overt acts the government alleges in support of its conspiracy charges against the HLF defendants.
So ISNA and NAIT are not saying that the documents tying their organizations to Hamas are “inauthentic,” but that the problem with the evidence is just that it is old. Then, even more curiously, the reply goes on to argue something that the government has not even alleged:
Even if the “evidence” provided some basis for alleging criminality against petitioners, the government’s discussion of it shows the government utterly fails to grasp the singular weight and consequence that an official accusation of criminal conduct carries in our criminal justice system and in our society.
But, of course, the government has not charged ISNA or NAIT with criminal conduct, or the two groups would be indicted in their own right, rather than un-indicted co-conspirators who worked with the Holy Land for Relief and Development (HLF), the defendant and alleged Hamas-front. The reply brief then, as Shakespeare might write, “doth protest too much.”

DHS Secy to Hamas-linked ISNA: 

“Your story is the quintessential American story”

EXCERPTS: (Johnson) “Your story is an American story, told over and over again, generation after generation, of waves of people who struggle for, seek, and will eventually win your share of the American dream. Know the history of this country and you will know that — whether it’s Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Muslim Americans — this will be true.”
(Spencer) "Yes, you remember when Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans flew those planes into the towers, and bombed the Boston Marathon, and murdered 13 Americans in cold blood at Fort Hood, and four in Chattanooga, 15 in San Bernardino, and 49 in Orlando, and tried to commit mass murder at Garland and so many other places. You remember those global terror organizations made up of Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Irish, etc. committing acts of violence around the world, and threatening the imminent conquest of the U.S. and the rest of the free world."