MEDICAL ERRORS THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN U.S.

MEDICAL ERRORS THIRD LEADING CAUSE 

OF DEATH IN U.S.

Published on May 7, 2016

A new Johns Hopkins study shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.

“Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t require reporting of [medical] errors in the data it collects about deaths through billing codes, making it hard to see what’s going on at the national level.” And another element of harm that is often overlooked is the number of severe patient injuries resulting from medical error. Some estimates would put this number at 40 times the death rate, or every year in the US, there are 10 million severe injuries as a result of medical errors.

Experts claiming the safety and effectiveness of vaccines represent a system that kills 3 million Americans per decade and severely injures 100 million Americans.

http://www.infowars.com/new-holocaust...

“We are burying a population the size of Miami every year from medical errors that can be prevented.” —Leah Binder, The Leapfrog Group

Study: Medical Error is the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.

BY Marco Cáceres

SEE: http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2016/05/study-medical-error-is-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the United States, according to a new study published in the medical journal BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).1 The study, co-authored by Martin Makary, MD, professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and research fellow Michael Daniel, also of Johns Hopkins, defines medical error as:

an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome, the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (an error of execution), the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (an error of planning), or a deviation from the process of care that may or may not cause harm to the patient.

In their analysis, Dr. Makary and Daniel found that medical error claims approximately 251,000 lives annually, surpassed only by heart disease (614,348) and cancer (591,699) as the deadliest killers and well ahead of respiratory disease (147,101), accidents (136,053), stroke (133,103), Alzheimer’s (93,541), diabetes (76,488), influenza and pneumonia (55,227), kidney disease (48,146), and suicide (42,773).

Dr. Makary was quoted by The Washington Post as saying, “It boils down to people dying from the care that they receive rather than the disease for which they are seeking care.”

The Post article also quoted Frederick van Pelt, MD of healthcare consultancy The Chartis Group of Chicago, IL, who noted that medical error also accounts for a large number of “severe patient injuries.” According to Dr. Pelt, “Some estimates would put this number at 40 times the death rate.”

If accurate, such estimates would put the number of severe injuries due to medical error in the U.S. at more than 10 million per year.

The number of deaths that Dr. Makary and Daniel attribute to medical error are significantly higher than previous estimates by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which the Hopkins researchers acknowledge as the most commonly cited. In their study, Dr. Makary and Daniel point to a 1999 IOM report which “describes an incidence of 44,000-98,000 deaths annually.”1

But Dr. Makary and Daniel say the IOM study was “limited” and “outdated” and was not “based on primary research conducted by the institute but on the 1984 Harvard Medical Practice Study and the 1992 Utah and Colorado Study.”

The Makary/Daniel numbers, however, are significantly lower than the 440,000 deaths attributed to medical error by The Leapfrog Group of Washington, DC in its 2013 Hospital Safety Score survey.

While the Leapfrog survey uses the term “hospital error” and, therefore, may have a broader definition of “medical error” than the study by Dr. Makary and Daniel, it is still worth noting. The bottom line is that an awful lot of Americans are needlessly dying at the hands of those who are charged with caring for them when they are ill or injured. According to the president and CEO of The Leapfrog Group, Leah Binder:

We are burying a population the size of Miami every year from medical errors that can be prevented. A number of hospitals have improved by one or even two grades, indicating hospitals are taking steps toward safer practices, but these efforts aren’t enough. During this time of rapid health care transformation, it’s vital that we work together to arm patients with the information they need and tell doctors and hospitals that the time for change is now.3

So what is the solution? According to Joseph Mercola, DO, there may not be an easy solution. Dr. Mercola has advised to “simply minimize your interactions with the conventional system.” He does not believe the “system” offers very much in terms of “prevention or treatment of chronic disease” anyway. He says, “More often than not, conventional strategies in no way shape or form address the underlying cause of your disease.”4

Given the high number of deaths and injuries being caused by the medical system in our country, the basis for Dr. Mercola’s counsel does not appear to be unfounded.

POLICE SEARCHING FOR "PEEPING TOM" WHO RECORDED GIRL IN TEXAS TARGET DRESSING ROOM

POLICE SEARCHING FOR "PEEPING TOM" 

WHO RECORDED GIRL 

IN TEXAS TARGET DRESSING ROOM

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/06/police-searching-for-peeping-tom-who-recorded-girl-in-texas-target-dressing-room/; 

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

FRISCO, Texas — Police in Texas are searching for a young man who recorded a girl as she was changing her clothes in a Target dressing room.

According to reports, the incident occurred at approximately 7 p.m. on Tuesday night at the Frisco location. The girl told her parents that a man was peeking over the wall with a cell phone as she was getting changed in the dressing room.

Her parents told store employees, but the man had already left the building. However, surveillance cameras were able to capture him on camera.



The suspect appears to be in his late teens or early 20’s and has dark hair and a slim build. He was wearing a red t-shirt, blue jeans and a baseball cap. Police are now seeking the public’s help to identify the individual.

“With the phones where you can do anything you want,” parent Melanie Arbet told Fox 4 News, “it’s kind of scary.”

As previously reported, just last week, a Florida woman chased a convicted voyeur as he fled his local Target store when she recognized him from a previous encounter at the grocery store.

Candace Spivey of Yulee told reporters that she was shopping in the bikini section when she was approached by Jeffrey Polizzi, who asked, “Shouldn’t we make sure it’s not too, like, sheer or clear?” He was later charged with reckless driving after frantically fleeing the scene.

On April 23, a man from Missouri was arrested at the Brentwood Target after he allegedly recorded a woman trying on a swimsuit. Matthew Foerstel now faces a charge of invasion of privacy, a felony, over the incident. He had spent a year in jail in 2013 after filming an 11-year girl as she was partially nude in the dressing room of another department store.

Gerry Wagoner, writing for Fulcrum7, says that Target’s new restroom and dressing room policy poses a problem in that it increases the chances that such incidents will occur, leaving women and young girls feeling violated.

“The left will insist this has nothing to do with letting transgender people use the rest room of their choice, but here’s why they’re wrong: Some guy decides to wander into the ladies’ dressing area. An employee sees him. Does the employee stop him? How does the employee decide? Maybe the guy doesn’t look transgender, but is that the test? Who has defined it? And if anyone does define it, who’s to say activists won’t change the definition next week?” he said.

Over a million Americans have signed a pledge not to shop at Target until it changes its policy to ensure the safety and privacy of women and children. Some who have objected to the store policy state that they are not as concerned about “transgendered” persons as they are about pedophiles and voyeurs who will see an opportunity to act upon their illicit desires.

ARMY CAPTAIN SUES OBAMA OVER WAR POWERS

ARMY CAPTAIN SUES OBAMA 

OVER WAR POWERS 

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/23119-army-captain-sues-obama-over-war-powers; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“My conscience bothered me. When I was commissioned by the President in May 2010, I took an oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war....  How could I honor my oath when I am fighting a war, even a good war, that the Constitution does not allow or Congress has not approved?”

These are the words of Army Captain Nathan Michael Smith (shown in inset), who has filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against President Barack Obama. Captain Smith is challenging the president’s decision to deploy additional special operations forces to the Middle East, to combat ISIS.

The legal challenge was filed one day after a Navy SEAL was killed in combat in Iraq, the third since a coalition, led by the United States, began its military campaign against the “Islamic State” in 2014.

Smith actually supports military action against ISIS, calling them “an army of butchers.” But he believes it is unconstitutional for a president to go to war without authorization from Congress. And Smith contends that it is a violation of his own oath to the Constitution to fight such a war, without that authorization.

The lawsuit complaint states, “Captain Smith suffers legal injury because, to provide support for an illegal war, he must violate his oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution of the United States,” citing an 1804 Supreme Court decision, Little v Barreme. In that case, the court ruled, “A commander of a ship of war of the United States, in obeying his instructions from the President of the United States, acts at his peril. If those instructions are not strictly warranted by law, he is answerable in damages to any person injured by their execution.”

The Little case arose from the undeclared war with France during the presidency of John Adams. Congress gave Adams authority to seize ships sailing to France. Adams, however, ordered the capture of vessels coming from France, as well. After George Little seized a Danish ship coming from a French port, acting under the authority of President Adams, he was sued for damages. Chief Justice John Marshall opined that Captain Little could be sued for damages in the case. In plain words, Adams had exceeded the authority given him by Congress, which opened Little to legal jeopardy. This case provides a precedent for Smith to challenge Obama’s actions today.

Smith’s lawsuit contends that Obama’s actions in the Middle East have demonstrated a “pattern of lawlessness.”

Deployed to Kuwait as an intelligence officer at Camp Arifjan, Smith works in the headquarters of the Combined Task Force — Operation Inherent Resolve, which oversees the entire U.S. and Coalition counter-ISIS campaign in Iraq and Syria. While observing U.S. military operations at close range, Smith stated that he was happy to see attacks upon ISIS. But noting opposition to the operation back in the United States, he began to ask himself, “Is this the Administration’s war, or is it America’s war?”

The Constitution tells us that Congress is supposed to answer that question, Smith said, “but Congress is AWOL.”

Obama has relied on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, passed in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and a second act of Congress, the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Military Force (“2002 Iraq AUMF”) as the legal basis for air strikes in the region and now, for placing ground forces into the region.

Even members of Obama’s own Democratic Party are now expressing concern, as the president has now sent 250 additional soldiers — boots on the ground — into potential combat. Senator David Kaine said at a recent hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I am deeply concerned about the legal basis for this war, both domestic and international.”

In a 14-page complaint, Captain Smith cited the 1973 War Powers Act, which stipulates that when the president introduces armed forces into hostilities, “or into situations where hostilities are imminent, he must ...  get approval from Congress within sixty days to continue the operation.” According to the War Powers Act, this authorization must come either in the form of a declaration of war, or specific statutory authorization. If not, he must “terminate the operation within thirty days after the sixty day period has expired.”

Because President Obama has failed to obtain the approval of Congress for his war against ISIS in Iraq or Syria, within the 60 days, and has also not terminated the war, the complaint argues the war “therefore is illegal.”

The complaint also cites the president’s failure to follow the “Take Care clause” of the Constitution. In Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president is required to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” As a result of this failure by the president to “take care” that the War Powers Act be “faithfully executed,” Captain Smith has been unable “to determine whether he can reconcile his military actions as an officer with his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” The complaint notes, that in the past, presidents have published an opinion, prepared either by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, or by the White House Counsel, to “justify” similar military actions, but Obama has not done so.

Another argument used by the Obama White House is that he has constitutional authority to conduct the war as “commander-in-chief,” citing Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Smith’s complaint, however, contends that such authority “does not override the War Powers Resolution’s requirement that the president must obtain the consent of Congress within the time specified by the Resolution before committing the country to on-going war.”

It is unfortunately common for Americans to refer to the president as the “commander-in-chief,” but that title is restricted to his role over the armed forces of the United States. In that role, the president and his subordinates are bound by the Constitution of the United States and the statutes of Congress. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution is quite clear: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Among those powers “herein granted” by the Constitution to Congress, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is the power to declare war. Once Congress has declared war, the president then has legal authority to conduct that war as “commander-in-chief.” He has no independent power to go to war on his own, without prior authorization from Congress. And the president has no more authority over individual American citizens as “commander-in-chief” than any other American.

In a letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Madison explained why this is so important. “The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention clearly agreed with Madison. When Pierce Butler offered a motion to vest the power to “make war” in the hands of the president, his motion did not even get a second.

In an attempt to justify its present course of action, the Obama administration is arguing that he is using the authorization of force resolutions used in the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. But ISIS did not even exist during those wars, rendering that argument specious.

Presidents of both political parties have clearly exceeded their constitutional authority for decades in this area. Captain Smith’s lawsuit is needed to rein in the executive’s disregard for the constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war. And Smith is also correct for the practical reason he alluded to. For a war to be “America’s war,” that war has to have authorization by Congress. Otherwise, it is simply the war of whatever person happens to be occupying the White House. In a republic, rather than a monarchy, that is the way it should be.

HYPOCRITICAL PAY PAL, APPLE LECTURE NORTH CAROLINA, BUT DO BUSINESS IN LGBT HOSTILE COUNTRIES

Hypocritical PayPal, Apple lecture North Carolina, but do business in countries far more hostile to sodomites

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/hypocritical-paypal-apple-lecture-north-carolina-do-business-in-countries-far-more-hostile-to-sodomites/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Washington Times – Thursday, April 7, 2016

PayPal drew a line in the sand when North Carolina enacted a law prohibiting people from using the restrooms of the opposite sex, but critics say that line got washed away on the shores of Malaysia, a nation that consistently ranks among the least LGBT-friendly in the world.

The company canceled its plan to build a global operations center in Charlotte after the passage of HB2, which CEO Daniel Schulman called discrimination against the transgendered. He noted that the move would cost North Carolina 400 well-paying jobs.

But Malaysia’s Penal Code 187 — which punishes homosexual conduct with whippings and up to 20 years in prison — did not stop PayPal from opening in 2011 a global operations center there that it estimated would employ 500 workers by 2013.

“We chose Malaysia because of its highly skilled, globally competitive and multilingual workforce, in addition to a world-class business environment and technology infrastructure,” John McCabe, senior vice president for global operations, said at the time.

But PayPal is not an isolated corporation, nor is Malaysia an isolated country.

Whether it’s Apple opening stores in Saudi Arabia or American Airlines looking to dominate the Cuban travel market, many of the companies that have threatened to cut business ties to North Carolina over its bathroom bill are eager to do business in countries with regimes far more repressive of gays (and everyone else).

PayPal’s international headquarters are located in Singapore, where sexual contact between males is punishable by up to two years in prison, and even littering can be punished by flogging. The company has a software development center in Chennai, India, where same-sex marriage is prohibited.

Matt Sharp, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said PayPal’s actions internationally speak louder than its words at home.

“They’ve got a political agenda that they’re trying to push in the U.S. But it definitely does not line up with what their actions are saying around the world in places like Malaysia and others,” Mr. Sharp said.

Apple is among the other major corporations that have taken to the pulpit to lecture North Carolina for its sins despite doing business with anti-gay foreign regimes. CEO Tim Cook was one of several high-profile tech CEOs who signed a letter to Republican Gov. Pat McCrory calling on him to repeal the legislation.

“We are disappointed in your decision to sign this discriminatory legislation into law,” the letter reads. “The business community, by and large, has constantly communicated to lawmakers at every level that such laws are bad for our employees and bad for business.”

But, as Mr. Sharp points out, that has not stopped Apple from opening stores in Saudi Arabia, where gay people are regularly executed in public and cross-dressing is also a criminal offense. Pro-gay and trans advocacy are illegal, as is every religion except Islam.

“We’ve seen the same thing with Apple and some of these other companies that are fine doing business in Saudi Arabia and other countries that are extremely oppressive of the LGBT community,” Mr. Sharp said.

North Carolina Rep. Robert Pittenger noted that PayPal also provides its payment services in countries where restrooms are the least of the transgender community’s worries.

“PayPal does business in 25 countries where homosexual behavior is illegal, including 5 countries where the penalty is death, yet they object to the North Carolina Legislature overturning a misguided ordinance about letting men in to the women’s bathroom?” said Mr. Pittenger, a Republican, in a statement. “Perhaps PayPal would like to try and clarify this seemingly very hypocritical position.”

‘No comparison’

If PayPal is worried about the well-being of its gay employees and customers, then Malaysia may not be the best place to set up shop.

The 2013 Spartacus Gay Travel Index, which rates the “most dangerous countries for homosexuals to visit and live in,” ranked Malaysia the 142nd-least-gay-friendly nation in the world — tied with countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Pakistan.

A spokeswoman from PayPal did not respond to questions about how anti-gay laws in Malaysia affected the company’s decision to build an office there. But she said PayPal’s canceled expansion in North Carolina reflects the company’s “deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect.”

“These principles of fairness, inclusion and equality are at the heart of everything we seek to achieve and stand for as a company,” the spokeswoman said. “And they compel us to take action to oppose discrimination.”

Responding that there’s “simply no comparison” between the laws in North Carolina and Malaysia, Mr. Sharp said PayPal should take action to oppose discrimination abroad, as its domestic rhetoric calls those values a central component of its corporate mission.

“If they are serious about this, I think they ought to be pressuring some of these international countries that they’re working in to provide real protection against punishment and imprisonment that’s happening in other countries,” Mr. Sharp said. “Especially internationally, they’re focused on the money.”

Free markets, free people?

Deena Fidas, director of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Workplace Equality Program, said PayPal’s approach to gay rights abroad can help the plight of gays and the transgendered.

“Businesses are going to be making strategic decisions based on a variety of factors, and the fact that they’re not ceasing operations in other locales doesn’t diminish this very important moment where they’re sending a very clear message,” Ms. Fidas said.

“The reality is that right now, at any given moment, businesses are expanding in locales that have some problematic laws on the books for the LGBT community,” she added. “But what we’ve found is the private sector can be a bastion in an otherwise unwelcoming climate.”

A lot of expanding into locales that offer gays an unwelcoming climate is occurring among corporate critics of North Carolina’s bathroom bill.

A spokeswoman for American Airlines, which has its second-biggest hub in Charlotte, called such laws “bad for the economies of the states in which they are enacted.” And the National Basketball Association, which has scheduled next season’s All-Star Game for Charlotte, said it is “deeply concerned that this discriminatory law runs counter to our guiding principles of equality and mutual respect.”

However, both corporations are eager to do business in China — American operates flights to Beijing and Shanghai; the NBA played two exhibition games in China before this season and will play two more this fall in the basketball-crazy country.

In addition, earlier this spring, American Airlines made clear that it plans to use its Miami hub for business in communist Cuba, petitioning for 12 of the 20 available daily flights to the Cuban capital and requesting flights to five other Cuban cities.

China, Cuba anti-gay laws

While neither China nor Cuba criminalizes homosexuality as a form of bourgeois decadence, as each did during the Cold War era, gay rights are severely limited.

Both nations have constitutional provisions defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a holy grail far beyond what America’s religious conservatives can hope to pass in 2016.

In both countries adoption by gay couples is banned, and anti-discrimination laws operate on the basis of sex, race, religion and other categories but do not protect the transgendered. Cuba’s anti-discrimination laws do cover gays, but only in some fields.

Also, both countries are still officially one-party dictatorships that routinely arrest and beat anti-government protesters, limit the activities of dissidents and restrict depictions of homosexuality.

The official China Television Drama Production Industry Association posted new regulations stating that “no television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviors, such as incest [and] same-sex relationships.”

Some “progress” does happen though.

In 2010 Malaysia’s Film Censorship Board revoked a ban on depicting gay people in movies — but under the stipulation that the films “portray good triumphing over evil and there is a lesson learned … such as from a gay [character] who turns into a [straight] man.”

When asked by The Washington Times for comment, American Airlines responded with a statement that criticized discrimination against gays and with a link to a statement last year extolling its high Corporate Equality Index rating from the Human Rights Campaign.

Neither statement addressed the question about its business ties to China and Cuba (or even mentioned either country by name) or their consistency with what American says are its values.

Spokespeople for Apple and the NBA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

But if the marketplace can alleviate the plight of minorities around the world — as some laissez-faire economists have argued and Ms. Fidas says — then are American, the NBA, PayPal and others doing gay and transgendered people in North Carolina a disservice by threatening to curtail business activities in that state?

“The push-pull is that businesses can both leave in the face of lagging lawmakers, and they can also blunt the force of some of these anti-LGBT bills” by staying, Ms. Fidas said.

But Mr. Sharp’s interpretation was less generous. He said the business community’s reaction in North Carolina is just the latest example of corporate hypocrisy — pointing out the speck in the eyes of other Americans while ignoring the planks in their own.

“It’s sort of two-sided — one set of rules for the United States and another set of rules internationally,” he said.

TOP LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BOARD MEMBER DEMOSS SAYS HE WAS FORCED OUT OVER FALWELL'S TRUMP ENDORSEMENT

TOP LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BOARD MEMBER DEMOSS SAYS HE WAS FORCED OUT OVER FALWELL'S TRUMP ENDORSEMENT  

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/06/top-liberty-university-board-member-says-he-was-forced-out-over-falwells-trump-endorsement/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

LYNCHBURG, Va. — A top board member of Liberty University says he was forced out of his position for expressing objection to President Jerry Falwell Jr.’s endorsement of Donald Trump, as Falwell declared the presidential candidate a Christian despite showing no fruit of being converted.

As previously reported, Mark DeMoss, the founder of the Atlanta-based public relations firm DeMoss, has served as the chairman of Liberty University’s executive committee for 25 years.

In speaking with the Washington Post in February, DeMoss remarked that that Falwell’s endorsement of Trump was a “mistake” as the Republican presidential candidate’s life runs contrary to the values of the school, which heralds itself as the world’s largest Christian university.

“I’ve been concerned for Liberty University for a couple of months now, and I’ve held my tongue,” he said.

As previously reported, in recent months, Falwell has repeatedly sought to assure the American people of the mud-slinging, foul-mouthed candidate’s Christianity, pointing to Trump’s charitableness as being the “fruit” that Jesus spoke of that characterizes a man who is born again.

“I’ve seen his generosity to strangers, to his employees, his warm relationship with his children,” he said on CNN’s “Legal View With Ashleigh Banfield” last month. “I’m convinced he’s a Christian. I believe he has faith in Jesus Christ.”

“I’ve had conversations with him just within the past few weeks about his faith, and I have no doubts he is a man of faith and he’s a Christian,” Falwell also stated on Fox’s “Hannity.”

“Matthew 7:16 tells us that ‘By your fruits you shall know them.’ Donald Trump’s life has borne fruit,” he told students during Trump’s appearance at Liberty University in January. “Fruit that has provided jobs to multitudes of people, in addition to the many he has helped with his generosity.”

“In my opinion, Mr. Trump lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the Great Commandment,” Falwell declared.

But in speaking with the Washington Post, DeMoss, took issue with Trump’s ongoing practice of name-calling and trash-talking those who stand in his way.

“Donald Trump is the only candidate who has dealt almost exclusively in the politics of personal insult,” DeMoss explained. “The bullying tactics of personal insult have no defense, and certainly not for anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ. That’s what’s disturbing to so many people. It’s not Christ-like behavior that Liberty has spent 40 years promoting with its students.”

He additionally outlined that he was concerned that Falwell compared Trump to his father, the late Jerry Falwell, Sr.

“It bothered me that he said Donald Trump reminded him of his father,” DeMoss stated. “Donald Trump certainly does not demonstrate Jerry Falwell, Sr.’s graciousness and love for people. Jerry Falwell Sr. would never have made fun of a political opponent’s face or makeup or ears. He would not have personally insulted anybody—ever.”

He said that he wished to go public about the matter in order to be a voice for others at Liberty who are concerned about Falwell’s endorsement, noting that even one former student mailed back his diploma in disgust.

But now, DeMoss says that he was soon forced out of his position on the board over his remarks to the Washington Post.

“Jerry and a number of fellow Liberty University trustees expressed to me and to the other trustees their disapproval of my speaking publicly about the subject,” he told Warren Throckmorton of Patheos this week. “At our April 21 executive committee meeting, the committee voted to ask me to resign from the committee I had chaired for many years. I agreed, and did so in remarks to the full board the following morning.”

“Subsequently, on Monday, April 25, I sent a letter to Jerry and the chairman of the board and the new chairman of the executive committee, tendering my resignation from the board I had served for 25 years,” he said.

Liberty University denies that it formally asked DeMoss to resign and says that he was rather asked to stay—with an apology.

“While members of the Executive Committee individually asked Mark DeMoss to resign from the Executive Committee, no vote was ever taken by the Executive Committee to ask Mark DeMoss to resign. On Thursday, April 21, he was encouraged by members of the Executive Committee to remain on the Board and apologize to the Board,” an unidentified representative told Throckmorton.

“At the Board of Trustees meeting the following day, Mark DeMoss offered an apology to the Board and tendered his resignation from the Executive Committee. The Board of Trustees voted unanimously to accept the apology of Mark DeMoss in the Christian spirit of love and grace,” the university stated.

It said that DeMoss then submitted his resignation four days after the meeting.

“He was not removed from the Board of Trustees nor did the Board of Trustees ask for his resignation,” it asserted.

But DeMoss says this is not the case as he was never asked by the board to apologize—only by Falwell weeks earlier—but was rather contacted by the university attorney and advised that if he did not resign, he would be voted out.

“I was not encouraged by members of the Executive Committee to remain on the board; Jerry Jr. was the only committee member who spoke to me that evening—after they had the attorney [Liberty’s general counsel] call and ask for my committee resignation,” he told Throckmorton.

“The committee said nothing to me about apologizing to the board the next morning. Jerry had suggested that two months earlier and I told him I would do so in person at the April 22 meeting,” DeMoss also noted.

He said that he did not tender his resignation during the board meeting, but informed them of his action.

“I tendered my resignation the night before to the attorney who called me on behalf of the committee,” DeMoss explained. “He told me if I chose not to resign they would vote to remove me [from the committee].”

_____________________________________________________

ALSO SEE: http://urbanchristiannews.com/2016/05/liberty-university-board-member-mark-demoss-resigns-over-trump-endorsement/

POPE FRANCIS CALLS FOR A ONE WORLD RACE DESPITE MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS RAMPAGING THROUGH EUROPE & COMMITTING CRIMES EVERYWHERE

POPE FRANCIS CALLS FOR A ONE WORLD RACE 

John Kerry Declares Borderless World
& World Government

Published on May 8, 2016

John Kerry declares the worlds borders dissolved to usher in the globalist nightmare scenario.

JUDGE ROY MOORE SUSPENDED: FEDS TO 'MAKE' HIM MARRY GAYS

JUDGE ROY MOORE SUSPENDED: 

FEDS TO 'MAKE' HIM MARRY GAYS 

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/judge-roy-moore-suspended-feds-to-make-him-marry-gays/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Judge Roy Moore suspended:  Feds to MAKE him marry Gays.

“For the second time in his career, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore faces charges before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary and potential removal from office,” reports AL.com.

“Until that court hears and rules on those charges, Moore will be suspended with pay from his position atop the state’s highest court.

“On Friday, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission forwarded charges to the commission, accusing the chief justice of violating judicial ethics in his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“Despite a ruling by a federal judge in Mobile making same-sex marriage legal in Alabama last year, and in the face of a United States Supreme Court ruling last year making its legality the law of the land, Moore instructed probate judges throughout Alabama to ignore those higher courts and to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Watch!  TV news Video footage of cross-dressing man suing Judge Moore–>

“Moore’s actions led the Southern Poverty Law Center to file complaints with the commission, which acts much in the same way as a grand jury. When it receives a complaint, the commission investigates and decides whether to forward charges to the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

“The process remains secret unless charges are made, as happened Friday evening. Unless Moore reaches a settlement, he will be tried before that court, with the Alabama Attorney General’s Office prosecuting.

“On Friday evening, SPLC President Richard Cohen said that Moore has disgraced his office and should be removed.”

Dr. Chaps’ comment:  I just received the following update from Kayla Moore, his wife:

“Today Chief Justice Roy Moore held a press conference addressing the complaints still pending against him. Friends, lines are being drawn in this country. It’s… not about what Chief Justice Roy Moore thinks. It’s not about what Ambrosia thinks. This is about what the law says and what marriage, in fact, is in Alabama. May God give us all grace to be found on the right side. Neutrality in this is NO OPTION.”

Let’s pray for God’s justice, not Obama’s feds, in this case on state’s rights.

Let’s petition Congress to defend DOMA and amend the Constitution.

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)

Or select our free option here.

Let’s join those candidates calling for a Constitutional Amendment, and petition Congress.

_____________________________________________________

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended 

for Ordering Probate Judges 

Not to Issue Same-Sex Licenses

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/07/alabama-chief-justice-roy-moore-suspended-for-ordering-probate-judges-not-to-issue-same-sex-licenses/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has been suspended from the bench and now faces possible removal for ordering probate judges not to issue licenses to homosexuals after an organization that creates lists of “hate groups” filed an ethics complaint against Moore.

As previously reported, in 2013, two lesbians in the state sued Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn Alabama’s marriage amendment after one of the women was denied from adopting the other woman’s child.

In January 2015, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled in favor of the women, prompting Moore to send a memo to probate judges throughout the state, advising that they are not required to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples as he believed that Grenade’s ruling only applied to the two women.

“[N]othing in the orders of Judge Grenadae requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses that are illegal in Alabama,” he wrote. “Pursuant to … the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alabama probate judges are not subject to those orders because the probate judges are not parties or associated with any party in those cases.”

“[T]he injunction and the stay or the lifting thereof can only apply to the sole defendant, the Alabama attorney general,” Moore said. “I urge you to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution and the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. So help you God.”

Moore also wrote a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley, urging him to “uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity.”

“Be advised that I will stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority,” he stated.

Bentley issued a statement soon after, vowing to fight to defend Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

“The people of Alabama elected me to uphold our state Constitution, and when I took the oath of office last week, that is what I promised to do,” the governor said. “The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution.”

As confusion ensued over Moore’s letter to probate judges, one judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the full Alabama Supreme Court for further guidance. In March 2015, six of the nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court released a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state. Moore recused himself from the matter and was not included in the order.

“As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the 148-page order read. “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

But the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a judicial ethics complaint against Moore over his letter to Gov. Bentley, and the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) submitted 28,000 petition signatures to the JIC calling for Moore’s removal.

In January, Moore sent another letter reinforcing the full court’s order six months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” he wrote on Jan. 6.

But he also noted that his order does not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive.

“I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire court, which continues to deliberate on the matter,” Moore wrote.

On Friday, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) announced that it had filed ethics charges against Moore as a result of the SPLC complaint, and suspended the chief justice while he faces a trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

“Clearly, probate judges could no longer exercise a ministerial duty to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based solely on their same-sex character,” the JIC wrote, stating that Moore was “bound by the United State Supreme Court’s interpretation and application” of the U.S. Constitution.

“Moore has disgraced his office for far too long,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen in a statement. “He’s such a religious zealot, such an egomaniac that he thinks he doesn’t have to follow federal court rulings he disagrees with. For the good of the state, he should be kicked out of office.”

In 2003, SPLC co-founder Morris Dees became the central opponent against Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments on the state Supreme Court grounds, arguing that the chief justice “placed this monument here to acknowledge the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men.”

In addition to taking issue with Moore, SPLC has been known for compiling its list of what it calls “hate groups” due to their biblical stance on homosexual behavior, including Focus on the Family and Family Research Council among its over 1,000 listed organizations.

In 2012, Roy Corkins, who was arrested after entering the offices of Family Research Council with a loaded gun, numerous rounds of ammunition and over a dozen Chick-fil-A sandwiches, told the FBI that his planned massacre was motivated by the “hate group” list on the SPLC website.

“How did you find [this organization] earlier?” an investigator asked in recorded video footage. “Did you look it up online?”

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins replied. “I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

Tony Perkins, who leads Family Research Council, said that while the Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes Christian organizations as “hate groups,” it is instead the Center itself that is being hateful and inciting hatred with its actions.

In response to Friday’s announcement of the ethics charges and his subsequent suspension, Moore remarked that the JIC has no jurisdiction over the matter and pointed to homosexual activists who seek to remove him from office.

“The Judicial Inquiry Commission has no authority over the Administrative Orders of the Chief Justice of Alabama or the legal injunction of the Alabama Supreme Court prohibiting probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” he said in a statement.

“The JIC has chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda,” Moore continued. “We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail.”

________________________________________________________

THE PRETENDED OFFENSES OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE
BY Jake MacAulay
SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/MacAulay/jake161.htm; 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In June of 2015, the U.S. Supreme court asserted the opinion that gay couples had the right to marry under the US constitution. On the heels of this opinion, last year a federal judge ruled same-sex marriage was legal in the state of Alabama.

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore postulated that the US Supreme Court, and the federal judge’s ruling, was at odds with a unanimous decision by the Alabama Supreme Court that stated marriage is between one man and one woman. Moore then issued an administrative order to state probate judges stating they should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

This sparked a whirlwind for the good Chief Justice who was suspended from his job last week and faces possible ouster after the anti-American Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) filed a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC); which then forwarded the case to the Court of the Judiciary. What was the crime?

In the Declaration of Independence our Founding Fathers used the term “pretended legislation” to describe legislation that does not square with what the Declaration refers to as the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” As a result, this legislation had no lawful authority. And though our founders were guilty of breaking many pretended laws, they referred to these offenses as “pretended offenses.”

Chief Justice Moore’s legal council recently released a statement that read:

"He did nothing wrong. The politically motivated complaints filed with the JIC have no basis in the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

In other words, if the Chief Justice was drunk on the bench, he would have broke the canons (rules) of Judicial Ethics. Of course the judge has done nothing to break ethical rules, which means the only motivation for the enforcement of these pretended offence is politics.

Moore’s statement continues:

“The Alabama Supreme Court is the only body that has statutory authority to overrule administrative orders of the Chief Justice."

Simply stated, Moore gave an administrative order to probate Judges to stop issuing licenses. If this was an ethical violation, only the supreme court of Alabama can enforce a penalty.

What Moore’s persecutors are attempting is an end-run around the rule of Law. They want The Supreme Court of the United States to be the author of law and thereby create “Pretended Legislation” in their favor.

So now the same court that removed Moore from office in 2003 for his refusal to follow a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state’s judicial building, will decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics, and he could be removed from office if found guilty of this pretended offense.

But thankfully Moore is not laying down on this. He recently stated:

“The JIC has chosen to listen to people like … a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda. We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail.”

God knows the outcome, but one thing is certain: His laws are not “pretend” because your rights are unalienable, regardless of what a king or court enforces.