Search Results for:

Wow: Senator Catches Obama Red-Handed Violating The Law He JUST Signed

Freshman Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark., found that President Barack Obama is already in direct violation of a law he just signed in late May regarding the Iran nuclear deal.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act specifically provides that Congress must receive “all nuclear agreement documents, including any related to agreements ‘entered into or made between Iran and any other parties.’ It expressly includes ‘side agreements.’ This requirement is not strictly limited to agreements to which the U.S. is a signatory,” Sen. Cotton and Rep. Mike Pompeo wrote in a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Cotton and Pompeo recount that they traveled to Vienna a few weeks ago to meet with officials of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There, they learned “that certain elements of this deal are—and will remain—secret.” They further discovered that those involved with the talks, including the Obama administration, specially allowed the IAEA and Iran to have two side deals.

The first has to do with the IAEA’s inspection of the controversial Parchin military complex. The site is a suspected location of Iran’s long range missile and nuclear development. The second side deal has to do with what the nation must reveal about its nuclear program to date.

The legislators argue that both are vital issues if the deal will have any chance of success. They also make clear that the administration has been inconsistent in its responses regarding the existence of these agreements and whether Congress will have access to review them.

The two sent a letter to the Obama administration requesting access to all relevant information, so the agreement can be adequately reviewed.

To ensure there is enough time for this review, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a resolution last Thursday calling for the clock to not start until all relevant “side deals” are made available to Congress, according to The Hill.

His resolution reads, in part:

The 60-calendar day period for review of such agreement in the Senate cannot be considered to have begun until the Majority Leader certifies that all of the materials required to be transmitted under the definition of the term ‘agreement’ under such Act, including any side agreements with Iran and United States Government-issued guidance materials in relation to Iran, have been transmitted to the Majority Leader.

Dan Calabrese, writing for CainTV, called into question the whole premise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, noting it runs contrary to the Constitution. Congress has a way to approve treaties–and it is not by majority vote in both Houses, which the president can veto. “It’s called treaty ratification, and it requires two-thirds of the Senate. For congressional Republicans to give Obama an alternative [only requiring him to sustain a veto] to that is one of the most mind-blowingly stupid things I can ever remember them doing. And that’s saying something.”

Do you believe the Iranian nuclear deal should have to do through the normal treaty ratification process? Please leave your thoughts below. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Two Mind-Blowing Words Obama Just Said To Africans Reveal Everything About His Priorities

Simply considering some of the words the young African woman used in her appeal to President Obama, one might think she was talking about the Planned Parenthood aborted-baby-parts scandal in the United States. At a presidential summit in Washington for the Young African Leaders Initiative, the woman from Kenya described how people are being “killed and their body parts harvested.” She asked Obama to raise awareness so that these long-practiced “atrocities” could be brought to an end.

However, as CNS News points out, the Kenyan woman wasn’t referring to the scandalous practices of federally supported Planned Parenthood; rather, she was talking about the ritualistic killing of albinos in Africa and the use of their severed limbs in primitive pagan ceremonies. Obama — who has personally and through his surrogates consistently supported the highly controversial activities of Planned Parenthood — was quick to condemn what the woman described as the killing of young innocents and the harvesting of their body parts half-way around the world.

Obama used two words to describe the practice, blasting it as a “foolish tradition.” The president then told the gathering at the White House, “It is infuriating and I have no patience for it.”

By clicking on the video above, you can see for yourself how the president reacted strongly and decisively in saying the killing and dismembering of albinos in Africa is “crazy.” It was the kind of presidential display of disgust that so many anti-abortion activists and critics of Planned Parenthood wish Obama would make in regard to America’s biggest provider of abortions that reportedly allows the organization to harvest fetal body parts that are then sold for science.

As Western Journalism just reported, GOP presidential aspirant Donald Trump just said he’d be in favor of a government shutdown this fall in order to defund Planned Parenthood.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: Obama’s Connection To Planned Parenthood Runs Much Deeper Than Most Realize

As Western Journalism reported last week, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest went to great lengths in his effort to sell the Obama administration’s position that recent allegations against Planned Parenthood are unfounded. After the Center for Medical Progress released a series of videos depicting apparent negotiations over the sale of aborted body parts, Earnest spoke for Obama in complaining that the evidence was presented in a “fraudulent way.”

A recent CNS News report offers a clear indication that Obama’s current defense of the nation’s most prolific abortion facilitator is the product of a close relationship with the organization’s president.

Cecile Richards has reportedly visited the White House dozens of times during the Obama administration – dating back to his very first day in office.

Her 39 presidential visits began with four during Obama’s first year in office and a relatively modest two during 2010. In 2011, however, Richards began to appear on the White House guest registry more often.

She logged her arrival seven times that year, six in 2012, and 13 in 2013. Last year, she visited the White House four times and has been twice so far this year.

In addition to meeting with Obama, Richards has met with at least 10 other White House officials – not including several personal visits with the first lady.

Many CNS News readers discussing the news in the site’s comments section expressed indignation.

“And folks think funding PBS is an abuse of taxpayer money,” one commenter wrote. “It pales in comparison to what PP does.”

Another went so far as to suggest Obama “needed guidance from Cecile on death panels.”

h/t: Washington Free Beacon

Should Planned Parenthood be defunded? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Pilots At NYC Airport On ‘High Alert’ After The Mysterious, Dangerous Thing Spotted In Sky

Image for representational purposes only.

Airline pilots flying into America’s busiest airports are faced with an increasing danger from buzzing drones, as shown by this past weekend’s events in New York City.

On Sunday, a drone flew within 25 feet of a jetliner preparing to land at JFK International Airport, days after the Department of Homeland Security warned police agencies of drones being used as weapons after two drone sightings at JFK last week.

Sunday’s close call took place when the pilot of Shuttle Airways Flight 5911, arriving from Richmond, Va., spotted a black, four-rotor “quadcopter” off his left wing as he approached the runway at roughly 100 mph. The jet was a mere 15 feet from touching down at the time.

On Friday afternoon, the FAA said Delta and JetBlue pilots each reported sighting a drone. The Delta pilot reported that the drone was flying about 100 feet below the aircraft. If a drone flies that close to an airplane, there’s a chance it can be sucked into a turbine, or strike the plane.

“While many of these encounters are not malicious in nature, they underscore potential security vulnerabilities … that could be used by adversaries to leverage (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) as part of an attack,” according to the federal memo.

Aviation experts say a larger drone with metal components could cause vast damage to a plane.

“Imagine a metal and plastic object — especially with (a) big lithium battery — going into a high-speed engine,” Jim Williams, the head of the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), has said. “The results could be catastrophic.”

Sully Sullenberger, the captain who brought down US Airways 1549 in the Hudson River six years ago after a bird struck the engine, said technology can be a menace if not properly controlled.

“It allows people to do stupid, reckless, dangerous things with abandon,” Sullenberger said.

Drones without official clearance are prohibited from flying within five miles of New York City-area airports.

h/t: WCBS

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

US Supreme Court Has Legalized Religious Discrimination Since 1947

In 1947, Justice Hugo Black erroneously used extra-constitutional language from one personal letter Thomas Jefferson wrote (among volumes) to redefine the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Black argued in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), that the government could not “pass laws that aid one religion … (or) aid all religions.” He gave no explanation as to why the government should oppose a policy that positively affects its citizens.

As a result, the language, to “be separate” from religion, evolved into, “not being entangled with” religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court added to the First Amendment a three-part condition, known as the Lemon Test, to determine future Establishment Clause rulings. The Lemon Test conditions ask if the subject in question:

  1. Has a secular purpose;
  2. Has the “primary effect” of either “advancing or inhibiting” religion; or
  3. Entails an “excessive entanglement” between government and religion.

Oddly, a court that cannot define “religion” ruled on religion using non-law for its reasoning, then argued churches (and all things religious) must be separate from society. By the Court’s reasoning, if the government cannot “advance” religion, religion should be uninvolved in every area where the government is involved. And, also for no clear reason, the government can support “secular” causes.

The Lemon Test, in effect, asserts that all laws must have a secular purpose, thereby systematically institutionalizing discrimination against all non-secular views. It also presupposes that religious purposes automatically exclude secular ones, as if they are mutually exclusive from one another, when they are not.

To suggest that the church and state should not be entangled when they already are evidences substandard jurisprudence.

Churches are already and continue to be subject to state laws and borders as well as federal laws and regulations. If what is “religious” is not already entangled by government laws, why would there be a need for a Constitutional Amendment which emphasizes religion as a preeminent freedom?

The government, by its bureaucratic nature, is already entangled in every aspect of society—in order to affect public policy and laws. The very fact that the government is already entangled in every area of life is what prompted the Founders to devise a Constitution to protect citizens from its encroachment. Nine of the first ten amendments to the Constitution specify what the government “shall not” do.

Worse still, the Supreme Court unsuccessfully attempted to define “aid” and “entanglement.” Michael W. McConnell identified the Court’s duplicity in a 1997 American Bar Association Journal article. The Court has held:

THAT RELIGIOUS COLLEGES MAY RECEIVE GENERAL PURPOSE GOVERNMENT GRANTS, BUT RELIGIOUS HIGH SCHOOLS MAY NOT; THAT GOVERNMENT MAY SUBSIDIZE BUS TRANSPORTATION TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS BUT NOT BUS RIDES FOR THEIR STUDENTS ON FIELD TRIPS; THAT GOVERNMENT MAY PAY FOR BOOKS BUT NOT MAPS OR FILM PROJECTORS; THAT IT MAY REIMBURSE SCHOOLS FOR THE COST OF STATE-MANDATED STANDARDIZED TESTS BUT NOT STATE-MANDATED SAFETY MAINTENANCE; AND THAT IT MAY PAY FOR DIAGNOSTIC, BUT NOT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES TO CHILDREN AT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

As such, the Court continued to cause further confusion. Religion was clearly not separate from public life; the Court continued to rule on cases regarding conscientious objection, contraception, marriage, education, parenting, and even taxation, which it redefined as “penalties.”

Recognizing the litany of problems associated with the Court’s error, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, and the Court modified the Lemon requirements in 1997. Three new criteria were to be applied when ruling on the issue of “separation.” The Court should consider whether the statute:

  1. Results in governmental indoctrination;
  2. Defines its recipients by reference to religion; or
  3. Creates an excessive entanglement with religion.

Despite these changes, at issue remains what secularists and non-religious advocates prescribe to allow—due to their self-proclaimed generosity—limited freedoms of religious expression, belief, conscience, and worship. Religion, they argue, should be “tolerated” to a certain extent in civil society; but politically, religion does not matter, and socially, religion is irrelevant and has no real public consequence.

Yet the vast majority of religions do have public consequences—both constructive and destructive.

What resulted from Court rulings since 1947 was the legally institutionalized religion of secularism and legally institutionalized discrimination based solely on religion—violating the First Amendment’s “Shall Not.”

Five years after Black’s ruling, Justice William O. Douglas warned that America was in danger of “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” A decade after Douglas’ warning, Justice Potter Stewart said the Court was moving toward “the establishment of a religion of secularism.” Fifty-five years later, their concerns proved correct.

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth