Cartoons

Dear Racist, Looting, Rioting Scumbags in Baltimore…

By  Steven Crowder

We live in an age of sensationalism. We find ourselves in an era where every headline has to grab your attention, regardless of its substance in order to generate your digital patronage.

That’s the news industry in which we live.

I’m hoping this can cut through that.

To the looters, to the vandals, the felons, the people in Baltimore (and elsewhere) ruining this great Republic of ours: before you call me a racist, before you call me insensitive… understand that to use both would be an oxymoron.

It is my complete lack of any interest in your race, background, gender, personal beliefs and/or struggles that makes me an insensitive jerk. I accept that. It also makes me incapable of discrimination.

You are animals. If you are able to destroy the home or business of your neighbor, you’ve lost your humanity. If you are able to harm your fellow man, to scare their children, to do so with a clean conscience, merely because of something that some cop may or may not have done, which has nothing to do with you… you are a horrible human being. You disgust me, as you should anyone who wishes to be a part of civilized society.

Leftists will come to your defense and demand “understanding”. You deserve none. We are past the point of understanding. You deserve justice.

I reserve my “understanding” for the people you’ve hurt, for the businesses you’ve cost countless sums of money, blood, sweat and tears. If that makes me “insensitive”, then you are the one who is placing greater value on the grievance of the felons, than that of the tax-paying, law abiding citizen. You are siding with the criminal, over the local business owner.

I was raised in Canada, and moved to the United States as soon as I was legally able. This is not the America I sought. This is not the shining city on a hill which I admired from afar. It turns my stomach, and it makes me even more sick to know that people like me will be vilified for voicing these opinions.

This isn’t just a dark day for America, this is a dark day for humanity. These actions don’t merely bring shame on any individual race. Rather, the human race. To all the decent people left, kiss your wives and hug your children. We are on the cusp of darkness the likes of which this country has never seen.

Signed, One Insensitive Jerk.

Read more: http://louderwithcrowder.com/dear-racist-looting-rioting-scumbags-in-baltimore/#ixzz3YbrJ9yi8

Baltimore mayor decries violence after deliberately encouraging it

By James Simpson

At the outset of the riots that are now sweeping Baltimore, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake held a press conference, telling reporters that the city was allowing violence in an effort to make sure rioters were able to "exercise their right to free speech" and to defuse the situation. "It's a very delicate balancing act, because while we tried to make sure that they [meaning the rioters, not the victims] were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well..." she said. She thought that would put the city in "the best position to deescalate."

Under orders, police held back and did nothing while rioters engaged in repeated acts of violence, including smashing car windows, destroying police cars and attacking individuals and private businesses. More than a dozen police have been injured, some seriously. This was the mayor's idea of respecting the rioters' First Amendment rights.

How is it possible that anyone could be so delusional, so mind-numbingly stupid, so utterly incompetent, that they would believe allowing rioters to go nuts would somehow pacify them? Predictably, they took her encouragement as opportunity for even more violence and widespread looting. The city is burning and the governor has declared a state of emergency. Now she is calling those very same people, thugs.

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake personifies the mindless, entitlement mentality that has ruined inner cities throughout the U.S. The wild, defiant and often violent behavior of criminals in this city is enabled and encouraged by an attitude always looking to blame someone else. We don't know how or why Freddie Gray was injured, or what killed him, though it doesn't look good for the police. We do know he was a career criminal with a record of violent crime and drug arrests.

Perhaps the mayor should consider why, despite astronomical taxes and every social welfare program known to man, Baltimore remains a cesspool of unemployment, crime and drugs. It is at least in part because the city continues to elect idiots like Blake. This is the same mayor who, while encouraging blacks to express their frustration through violence, has welcomed illegal aliens with open arms, stealing away black jobs and black businesses.

The residents of these places will not get "justice" until they figure out that their problems are their problems, and until they face them nothing will change. Continually re-electing clowns who publicly justify errant behavior while screwing the residents every which way from Sunday will only encourage more.

Mitt Romney does not mince words

by Oliver Darcy

Mitt Romney blasted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton Thursday, telling radio show host Hugh Hewitt that he was “stunned” when he read the New York Times report documenting cash flowing from the Russians amid a uranium deal.
“You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it,” Romney said. “I mean, it looks like bribery.”
“I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20-percent of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails,” the former Massachusetts governor added. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.”

“But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.”

Asked to react to Clinton’s campaign saying that “no one has produced a shred of evidence” that supports the claim, Romney said the report was very clear.

“Well, it’s blah, blah, blah,” he said. “The story that came from the New York Times is pretty straightforward, which is that millions upon millions of dollars were given to the Clinton Foundation at the same time by a group of people who had uranium assets, and shortly thereafter, these people came to the State Department for approval to be able to sell these assets to Russia for a huge price tag. And those are the facts.”

“And if those things are connected, as they certainly seem to be, it’s a form of bribery,” Romney added. “And that’s what it appears to be, and that is of course what’s going to have to be delved into, and I’m afraid this is a, this is bigger than just her presidential campaign. I mean, this is a question about whether or not the United States secretary of state was bribed to grease the sale of strategic assets to Russia.”

The Question George W. Bush ‘Quietly Asked’ Dana Perino That She ‘Waited a Beat’ to Answer

by Oliver Darcy

President George W. Bush was hurt he was not included in the 2008 Republican Convention, Dana Perino writes in her new book “And the Good News Is.”

Perino, who served as press secretary under Bush, wrote that there was a sense the McCain-Palin campaign “was stalling to make a decision” whether or not to include Bush “until it was too late for us to leave in time.”

Bush did address the convention by satellite, but did not appear in person.

“So instead of addressing the GOP that night, the President gave a short statement on hurricane preparedness” as Hurricane Gustav approached, the former White House press secretary wrote.

Perino wrote that at the end of the statement, Bush noticed a live shot of the convention.

He quietly asked, ‘Do you think they know they’re insulting me?’

I waited a beat, looking at the screen with him.

‘Yes, sir. I believe they do.’

Perino wrote that as they locked eyes she remembered “feeling angry on his behalf and yet so close to him that I gave up caring about the campaign at all anymore.”

Perino’s book was released earlier this week and documents the years she served as the White House press secretary. While promoting it Tuesday, she made news after she called Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid the most “poisonous figure” in Washington, D.C.

No, Senator Rubio, Homosexuals Aren’t Born That Way

by Bryan Fischer

I don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for a vast and enormous majority of the people. The bottom line is I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with.” ~ Sen. Marco Rubio, April 19, 2015

Marco Rubio has become the latest GOP presidential candidate to stumble badly over the issue of homosexuality. Sen. Rand Paul hurt himself by saying that gay “marriage” is okay, as long as it’s a matter of private contract, a view which will satisfy no one.

Dr. Ben Carson hurt himself by asserting that people do change their sexual orientation (correctly using prison as an example) and then retreating under fire and promising never to talk about homosexuality again.

Sen. Rubio is now the victim of a self-inflicted wound, by saying something that is politically correct but scientifically, medically and genetically wrong. Our public policy on homosexuality should be based on the best in scientific research, and Sen. Rubio’s position isn’t.

As I have written before, it’s time to send the “born that way” myth to the graveyard of misbegotten ideas, buried in the plot next to the myth that the sun revolves around the earth.

Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons wrote in Archives of General Psychiatry (March 1993) that, “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.” In other words, nurture plays a greater role in sexual preference than homosexual activists want you to believe.

As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council points out, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue seriously for the theory of genetic determination. If homosexuality were fixed at birth, as the misguided thinking of homosexual activists goes, then if one twin is homosexual, the other should be as well. The “concordance rate” should be 100%.

But it’s not. One early proponent of the “born that way” thesis, Michael Bailey, conducted a study on a large sample of Australian twins and discovered to his chagrin that the concordance rate was just 11%.

Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, researchers from Columbia and Yale respectively, looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found concordance rates of just 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins.

They determined that social environment was of far greater significance, and their research led them to reject “genetic influence independent of social context” as an explanation for homosexuality. They concluded, “..[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” In other words, post-birth experiences shape sexual orientation, not genes.

Bearman’s and Bruckner’s research is born out by no less than eight major studies of identical twins in the U.S., Scandinavia and Australia over the last two decades. They all arrive at the same conclusion: gays aren’t born that way.

As Sprigg observes, “If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now — no one is ‘born gay.’”

Strikingly, honest homosexuals agree. In an astonishing column published in the winger-left publication, “The Atlantic,” openly “queer woman” (her words) Lindsay Miller says flatly, “In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way.”

Tellingly, she argues that saying people are “born this way” is a form of condescension, and she resents it mightily. “I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that queers ‘can’t help it,’ and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity.”

Ms. Miller concludes her piece by saying, “The life I have now is not something I ended up with because I had no other options. Make no mistake — it’s a life I chose.”

The implications, of course, of this simple truth are far-reaching. If homosexual behavior is a choice, then our public policy can freely be shaped by an honest look at whether this behavioral choice is healthy and should be encouraged or unhealthy and dangerous and consequently discouraged.

The elevated health risks associated with homosexuality are by now so well established that not even homosexuals pretend otherwise. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association warns that active homosexuals are at elevated risks of HIV/AIDS, substance and alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety, hepatitis, a whole range of STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, Human Papilloma Virus, and anal papilloma, and prostate, testicular and colon cancer.

Bottom line: this is not behavior that any rational society should condone, endorse, subsidize, reward, promote or sanction in domestic policy or in the marketplace. It’s a choice, and a bad one at that. It’s long past time for our culture – and our presidential candidates – to say a simple and direct “No” to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.

Social conservatives need and deserve a candidate who will base his social policy agenda on genetics, science, biology, the best in health research, and on biblical morality. Sen. Rubio has failed that test. (See “No, Senator Rubio, Homosexuals Aren’t Born That Way”, originally posted HERE)

  Read more: http://joemiller.us/2015/04/no-senator-rubio-homosexuals-arent-born-that-way/#ixzz3Y2jtHdQJ Read more at http://joemiller.us/2015/04/no-senator-rubio-homosexuals-arent-born-that-way/#8EAPI07bUO8OkKaF.99

Comment

someone wrote this comment which I thought made sense:

"And your argument is that the supposed "wiring" differences were natural from birth and not caused by environmental influences growing up? .... I would comment that having sex at all, whether heterosexual or homosexual or any other way IS a choice. Always has been. While all of us are biologically "wired" to desire sexual contact, the decision to act on that desire is purely choice. The entire subject is always discussed as if we all have some kind of right to engage in any activity that makes us feel good. That is simply false. We are expected to exercise self-control and be in command of our desires, not the other way around.

My Father was Gay. Why I Oppose Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.

by Dawn Stefanowicz

It took me decades to come to my views on same-sex “marriage” in light of my personal experiences.

From infancy, I was unwittingly identified under the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) umbrella. During the first 30 years of my life, I garnered many personal, social and professional experiences with my father, whom I always loved, and his partners. My father, a successful executive recruiter, taught me a strong business ethic.

My Childhood

I was exposed to a lot of expressed sexuality in the home and subcultures. I experienced uncountable losses. Gender was supposed to be boundless; yet, I did not see my father and his partners valuing, loving and affirming women. My father’s preference for one gender (male) created an inner sense of inequality for me.

As a dependent child and teen, I was not allowed to say anything that would hurt the feelings of the adults around me. If I did, I could face ostracism or worse. During my twenties, I achieved both academic and career goals, but for a long while, I denied the impact my childhood had had and lied to protect my father and his partners.

In 1991, my father died of AIDS. None of my father’s partners/ex-partners are still alive.

I did not have all the words to express my thoughts and feelings until my late twenties and early thirties, so it took a while before I went public, but I knew that my father never would have supported same-sex “marriage.” Naturally, he knew that every child is created from both a father and a mother. He never required me to call any of his sexual partners “dad;” instead I called each of them by first name. My father told me that he always wanted children.

The Push to Quiet Me and Others

Due to media silencing, political correctness, GLBT lobbying efforts and loss of freedom of speech, it is very hard to tell my story.

But I am not alone. Over 50 adult children from alternative households, plus ex-spouses with children, and parents who have left the “gay” lifestyle have contacted me. Very few children will share their stories publicly.

For many of us adult children of gay parents, we have come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is more about promoting adults’ ” “desires” than about safeguarding children’s rights to know and be raised by their biological parents.

I feel so strongly about this issue that I have testified before lawmakers in Canada, regarding hate crime legislation, same-sex marriage and age of consent laws, and I have testified in nine U.S. states, to the 5th Circuit and to the Supreme Court, and in other countries.

How Same-Sex Marriage Has Changed Canada

Statements like this are lies: “Permitting same-sex couples (now also throuples) access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.”

When same-sex marriage passed in Canada in July 2005, parenting was immediately redefined, removing parentage from its biological origins. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now, all children have “legal parents,” as defined by the state, which means parental rights have been usurped by the government.

In effect, same-sex marriage permits state powers to override the autonomy of biological parents. Necessary parental rights to teach children your beliefs, express your opinions, and practice your personal faith are infringed upon by the state when your beliefs, opinions and or faith practices are in opposition to what is taught and promoted at school. In fact, in Ontario, Canada, the Human Rights Commission regulations permeate and surround all public education.

For example, if you teach your children that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong and that every child has a father and a mother, and that only man-woman sex in marriage is allowed, you run the risk of thought police questioning your beliefs, especially if your children discuss these subjects in the classroom.

Consequently, parents experience state interference when it comes to moral values and teachings about family, parenting and sex education in schools. Also, children are deprived of knowing and being raised by both their biological father and mother since same-sex marriage allows for children to have same-sex parents where at least one parent is unrelated to the child.

Additionally, since the undefined term “sexual orientation” was added as a protected category under Canada’s hate crime law in 2004 and same-sex marriage became legalized in 2005, guaranteed fundamental freedoms of the Canadian Constitution have been reinterpreted, eroded and/or nullified by activist courts and quasi-courts with no real juries, also known as the Human Rights Commissions. The federal Human Rights Commission (HRC) has had a three-decade 100 percent conviction rate for hate speech.

Though Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed in 2013, which came into effect in 2014, many people believe that a similar act will be proposed soon after the 2015 federal election. At the same time, many of the Canadian provinces have similar hate speech codes with high conviction rates which effectively restrict speech and blogging freedoms. Activists and special interest groups have long supported censorship of speech and internet communications in Canada.

Human Rights Tribunals/Commissions in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their speech and expressions in opposition to particular sexual behaviors. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The Commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

Yet the plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

Religious Freedoms Under Attack in Canada

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forms the first part of the Constitution Act 1982, everyone was to have been guaranteed the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.

In reality, these freedoms have been restricted. Businesses must provide goods and services to all customers, without regard to business owners’ conscience rights. Employers’ hiring practices cannot discriminate, even if a potential employee’s sexual practices and relationships are frowned upon. (For example, a religious college couldn’t refuse to hire someone who didn’t share the college’s views on sexuality without risking a Human Rights Commission complaint.)

Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family and sexuality are restricted. Activists often sit in on religious assemblies, listening for anything discriminatory towards GLBT, so a complaint can be made to the Human Rights Commission. Most faith communities have become politically correct to avoid fines and loss of charitable status.

Canadian media is restricted by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the media censoring arm of government and similar to the Federal Communications Commission. If the media air anything considered discriminatory towards GLBT, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and Human Rights Commissions can charge fines and restrict future airings.

I am a witness and I don’t want America to lose her hard-won freedoms as my fellow Canadians have. Marriage must remain between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Megyn Kelly: Obama Scolding Christians Could Have Chilling Effect

By Jennifer G. Hickey
Fox News host Megyn Kelly believes President Barack Obama's recent comments about the "less-than-loving expressions by Christians" could have a chilling effect on those who want to speak out against ongoing religious persecution of their religious brethren.

"I mean, the question is whether those comments do real damage not just to morale among Christians about what their own president thinks of them, but… that they feel he won't stand up for Christians who are under threat," Kelly said last night on "The Kelly File," according to Mediaite.

Kelly was reacting to off-script comments made by Obama to an audience at Tuesday's Easter Prayer Breakfast in which he reflected upon his own faith.

"On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned," he said possibly referring to the current controversy over religious freedom legislation in Arkansas, Indiana, and several other states.

"But that's a topic for another day… I was about to veer off. I'm pulling it back," the president added.

Kelly took exception to the timing of Obama's criticism.

"His remarks come as Christians are increasingly being targeted by terrorists worldwide," she added, referring to the 147 Christians who were killed in a recent attack at a university in Kenya.

The president's decision to publicly scold Christians is not the first time he has created controversy.

In a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February, Obama called on the audience not to forget the "terrible deeds" people have committed in the name of Christ.

"Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ," noted Obama.

Obama's Easter Prayer Breakfast comments came after Pope Francis used his Easter homily to urge the global community to speak out against the persecution of Christians.

Pope Francis urged "concrete participation and tangible help in defense and protection of our brothers and our sisters, who are persecuted, exiled, slain, beheaded, solely for being Christian," according to Reuters.

Obama's repeated references to the sins of Christians while not discussing the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of the attacks exposes a fundamental hypocrisy, says Nina Shea, the director for Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom.

"In an attack in Syria over the past weekend, the administration had no problem expressing condolences for the Alawites and Ismailis who were murdered," Shea told The Christian Post. "This is in stark contrast to President Obama and the State Department's failure to mention that Christians were hunted down and executed in Kenya during the same period. This is a typical pattern for the administration."

Obama Ignoring Christian Slaughter

Article by Newt Gingrich
President Obama has a strange pattern of citing Christians for violence and intolerance on the one hand but refusing to identify them as the targets of Islamist supremacists on the other.

In fact, in his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast the president stretched back more than 800 years to declare that "during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." 

This was a remarkably one-sided history of a long series of wars between Christians and Muslims in which atrocities were common on both sides. The president may not know that Saladin had more than 200 knights beheaded on July 4, 1187, or that in 1680 Turks cut off the heads of 813 Christians in Otranto, Italy (a group Pope Francis declared saints for their willingness to die for Christ). 

There were atrocities on both sides of these wars. Yet President Obama only found the violence perpetrated by Christians worth mentioning.

Referring to more recent history, this is how President Obama chose to describe an Islamic supremacist murdering Jews in France earlier this year “violent, vicious zealots who . . . randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris."
The dishonesty of this statement is breathtaking. There was nothing random about the attack. It was deliberate. The attacker didn't "randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris". The attacker himself said in the media that he went out to kill Jews. The "folks" in the President's language were Jews. The “zealots” were Muslim supremacists.

Why does President Obama find it impossible to say "a Muslim supremacist deliberately killed a group of Jews in a religiously inspired attack"?

President Obama was similarly abstract when commenting on the beheading of Egyptian Christians by ISIS in a televised act of religious hatred. He issued a statement saying it was a "despicable and cowardly murder of 21 Egyptian citizens in Libya." He described it as "the wanton killing of innocents."

Once again President Obama hides from what truly motivated the killing. ISIS wasn't randomly killing Egyptians. ISIS was killing Christians. The victims weren't, as the President asserted, just "innocents." The victims were guilty of being Christian.

Finally, consider the recent killing of Christians in Kenya. When radical Islamist terrorists killed more than 140 people at Garissa University College, the Associated Press reported, “The attackers separated Christian students from Muslim ones and massacred the Christians.”

How did the Obama Administration describe this religiously motivated massacre? The president's statement referred only to "innocent men and women . . . brazenly and brutally massacred."

Once again he failed to identify the religion of the dead or the religion of their killers — in both cases the factor that explained the events. Sarah Kaplan of the Washington Post captured this refusal to describe Christian and Jewish victims in a remarkable recent article, "Has the world ‘looked the other way’ while Christians are killed?"

She reports: "David Curry, president of the nonprofit Open Doors USA, which advocates for persecuted Christians worldwide, believes so. 'We see a continued pattern in many of these regions of violence and persecution against Christians,' he said in a phone interview. 'But the West and Western governments, including the U.S., when they conflict-map these issues, they refuse to address the fact that Christians are being targeted.’"  . . .  "According to Open Doors, 2014 saw a huge increase in violence against Christians. 

"Researchers for the group found that 4,344 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons between Dec. 1, 2013 and Nov. 30, 2014 — more than twice the number killed during the same period the previous year. Curry says those numbers are a low estimate, as the group only counts incidents in which the victim can be identified by name and an exact cause has been attributed.

"In its annual 'World Watch' report, which ranks the 50 countries where persecution of Christians is most severe, the group said the past year “will go down in history for having the highest level of global persecution of Christians in the modern era” and suggested that 'the worst is yet to come.'”

Kaplan went on to quote Pope Francis over Easter weekend: “Our brothers and our sisters. . . . are persecuted, exiled, slain, beheaded, solely for being Christian,” he said, his expression tense, his cadence slow but deliberate. 

Speaking from a window of the Apostolic Palace, the Pope said that there have been more “martyrs” for Christianity in recent years than in the early centuries of the faith. “I hope that the international community doesn’t stand mute and inert before such unacceptable crimes, which constitute a worrisome erosion of the most elementary human rights. I truly hope that the international community doesn’t look the other way.” 

The persecution of Christians is a theme that ran through most of the pope’s speeches this weekend. At a Good Friday procession, he decried the world’s “complicit silence” while members of his faith are killed. On Sunday, he devoted his Easter address to a grim accounting of global conflicts where Christians and others have been killed.

I was moved to write this lengthy newsletter by Cardinal Wuerl's Easter Sunday homily at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (where Callista sings in the choir).

The Cardinal enjoined: "Today we must raise our voices on behalf of suffering Christians around the world, victims of terrorist/extremist attacks simply because they dare to say Christ is risen.  . . .”

He went on: "Pope Francis, in his Easter message . . . asked all of us not to remain silent. . . .  in the face of this terrible plague — violence on our Christian brothers and sisters and all others suffering religious persecution.”

His plea inspired me to ask you to join in speaking out and telling the truth.

If enough of us insist on identifying the religious victims of this war against Christians and Jews, perhaps the president will have the courage to join us in telling the whole truth.

Once we confront the truth, we can begin designing strategies to defeat the Islamist supremacists who would force us to submit or die.

Walker Doesn’t Mince Words When Responding to ‘Unbelievable’ Jab From Obama on Iran

by Oliver Darcy

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) responded Wednesday evening to criticism President Barack Obama levied against him for his position on the nuclear talks with Iran.

Previously, Walker said he would void any deal Obama makes with Iran if it allows the country to continue uranium enrichment. On Tuesday, Obama responded and said Walker was taking a “foolish approach” and that “perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.”

Walker, who is widely expected to make a run for the White House in 2016, did not mince words when responding during a Fox News appearance.

“It’s unbelievable,” Walker said. “This is a president who should spend more time trying to work with governors and Congress instead of attacking them. But it’s not the first time … he went after me not too long ago for signing right to work in Wisconsin as well.”

“The thing about that statement, this is a guy in the last year who called ISIS the JV squad, who called Yemen just last Fall … a success story, had a secretary of state under Hillary Clinton that gave Russia a reset button and then they ultimately went into the Ukraine, this is a guy who I think shouldn’t have the audacity to be schooling anyone on foreign policy,” Walker added.

Bill O'Reilly: Obama More 'Skeptical of Christians' Than of Muslims

By Greg Richter
President Barack Obama's comment at this week's Easter Prayer Breakfast that some Christians are acting "less than loving" makes him appear critical of Christians, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly says.

"The fact is that all human beings fall short. We are all sinners," O'Reilly said on Wednesday's "The O'Reilly Factor." 
"But in the political arena, it seems like President Obama is more skeptical of Christians than he is of Muslims. That may not be true, but that's what it feels like."

Obama also said at the National Prayer Breakfast in February that Christians should not get on a "high horse" when discussing the wrongs of some adherents of Islam.

Many people think Obama was referring on Tuesday to the religious freedom law recently passed by the state of Indiana, O'Reilly said. Opponents of the law say it targets gay customers.

"Does Mr. Obama believe that those opposed to gay marriage are biased against gays? Does he believe those who don't want public funding for abortion are anti-women?" O'Reilly asked. "Does he believe that those who oppose the nuke deal with Iran want war? If he does not believe those things, then what's the beef with allowing religious Americans a legal remedy to state moral objections to mandated policies?"

Obama's liberal allies are committed to "demonizing those who oppose their vision," O'Reilly said. "Perhaps the president might address that lack of love at his next prayer breakfast."

Richard Land: At Easter Event, Obama Took 'Sly Pot Shot' at Christians

By Courtney Coren
President Barack Obama's recent comments on religious issues shows that "he has a very strange definition of freedom of religion," says Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary.

"He believes in freedom of religion as long as you agree with him, but if you disagree with him on gay marriage, for instance, then he wants to weaponize the government against you," Land told J.D. Hayworth on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV.
"He doesn't speak up for florists and bakers and photographers who don't want to be coerced into having to participate in a gay wedding when they find this to be morally reprehensible," he said. 

"I believe they have a right to say, 'we are not going to provide that service for you,'" he said. "There is no community in America where they won't be able to find people to provide that service. 

"Why do they want to compel someone to, under penalty of law, violate their conscience?" Land asked.  "This is the weaponization of government, and it's one of the things that Mr. Obama is very good at," he added. 

At an Easter Prayer Breakfast on Tuesday, Obama said that while he reflects on his Christianity, "I am supposed to love, and I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned."  

Land said that he thought "it was a curious venue, an Easter breakfast, to take a sly pot shot at Christians.  "Most people feel that he was referencing the recent flap in Indiana," he said.  "In the recent flap in Indiana, it was the Christians who were the objects of hate, it was the Christians who were the objects of prejudice, it was the Christians who were bullied and it was the Christians who were threatened, not non-Christians," he said. "The president has an odd way of looking at things." 

bama Denounces ‘Less-than-Loving’ Christians at Easter Prayer Breakfast

by Matt Wilstein 

Towards the end of his speech at Tuesday morning’s Easter Prayer Breakfast, PresidentBarack Obama appeared to veer off script to make some comments that implicitly referenced the fierce debate that has been raging over the last week about “religious freedom” laws in Indiana, Arkansas and elsewhere.

“On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love,” Obama said. “And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.” As the crowd began to murmur, the president backed off, saying, “But that’s a topic for another day.”

“I was about to veer off,” he explained. “I’m pulling it back.”

“Where there is injustice we defend the oppressed,” Obama said, returning to his prepared remarks. “Where there is disagreement, we treat each other with compassion and respect. Where there are differences, we find strength in our common humanity, knowing that we are all children of God.”

The moment drew the attention of Fox News, which played this section of the speech on air. “The divisiveness over some issues coming up, but not Christians under attack around the world,” Martha MacCallum noted, referring to the recent attack on a Kenya university that explicitly targeted Christians.

Harry Reid is proud he lied about Mitt Romney's taxes

BY ASHE SCHOW
Harry Reid, D-Nev. has no regrets about his 2012 claims that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.

The outgoing Senate Minority Leader even bragged to CNN that the comments, which had been described as McCarthyism, helped keep Romney from winning the election.

"They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn't win did he?" Reid said during a wide-ranging interview.

So, in Reid's world, it is perfectly acceptable to make a defamatory charge against an opponent to damage his campaign.

Reid first made the accusation against the former Massachusetts governor in a 2012 interview with the Huffington Post. At the time, Reid claimed that a Bain Capital investor told him Romney didn't pay taxes for the previous 10 years. This, Reid claimed, was why Romney hadn't released his tax returns.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years!" Reid said. "Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain, but obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"

A few days after the HuffPo interview, Reid madethe same charge on the Senate floor, this time claiming as fact that Romney paid no taxes.

"As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns," Reid said. "So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not."

Even though Reid made a slanderous statement that Romney had in fact paid not taxes, without mentioning anything about his Bain source or skepticism, he cannot be sued for that particular statement. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states that members of Congress shall "be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The only exceptions to this rule are for treason, felonies and "breach of the peace."

After his floor speech, Reid made the claim again, except this time he again cited his "extremely credible source" for the accusation.

So when Reid directly accused Romney of being a tax dodge, he did so from the safety of the Senate floor. Outside the protection of legislative immunity, Romney was only possibly a tax dodge.

Not only does Reid not think he did anything wrong, he's actually proud that his lies might have helped cost Romney the election.

Fox's James Rosen Questions Earnest on Harry Reid's Romney Rudeness vs. Obama Civility Lectures

By Tim Graham

In his remarks dedicating the Edward M. Kennedy Institute on Monday, President Obama imagined how a child would see the replica of the U.S. Senate there and imagine the dialogue as “elevated” and “purposeful.....before she’s old enough to be cynical.” He lamented that party lines or philosophies become “barriers to cooperation or respect.” On Wednesday, the Washington Free Beacon noted Fox correspondent James Rosen asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest how that matched Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s cynical and partisan 2012 strategy of claiming without evidence that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes: 

JAMES ROSEN: Those remarks struck me because this week, we saw my CNN colleague Dana Bash do an interview with the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, in which she asked him about his decision in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign to take to the Senate floor and accuse Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes, and demanding that Mitt Romney in fact prove that he had paid his taxes.

And when Dana Bash asked him about this, she mentioned that some people considered it McCarthyite, and of course, no evidence has ever been produced to show that Mitt Romney failed to pay his taxes. I wonder if President Obama, who has lamented this incivility in our politics, this disrespect in our politics, has any view of Harry Reid telling Dana Bash in response to this question, “Well, Romney didn’t get elected, did he?"

JOSH EARNEST: I haven’t had the opportunity to talk to the president about Senator Reid’s interview. Obviously, Senator Reid is somebody who’s going to decide for himself what he says on the Senate floor. He is obviously a vocal supporter of the president, and they have a partnership that will go down in history as a remarkably productive one. But ultimately it’s up to Senator Reid to decide what he’s going to say on the House [sic] floor, and there are a number of things that Senator Reid, over the course of his career I think that he has said pretty proudly were independent of the views of anybody else. They represent only his own.

ROSEN: But it’s the president’s choice and his spokesman choice to call out conduct unbecoming of our highest elected officials, when it is in fact unbecoming. Are you going to take that opportunity now?

EARNEST: Not for something that’s three years old.

Of course, Reid's bold refusal to apologize on CNN is three days old, not three years old.

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/04/01/foxs-james-rosen-questions-earnest-harry-reids-romney-rudeness-vs-obama#sthash.AAaE2RX0.dpuf