Guess Who Wants You To Pay For Abortions For Obama’s Illegals?

shutterstock.com

The anti-American loonies in the American Civil Liberties Union want us to pay for abortions for illegal aliens. In the contorted minds that make up the ACLU, since they allege that 60 to 80% of the females who sneak into our country are sexually assaulted, we the American taxpayers are somehow liable to pay to kill the children that result from these rapes.

Naturally, these lowlife leftists are not in favor of the obvious answer to the problem they allege, which is to tighten up the borders so these “victims” can’t come into our “terrible country.”

The ACLU’s “better” idea is to force religious organizations like Catholic Charities to pay for the murder of these innocent infants so their “victim” mothers don’t have to be burdened with unwanted children in their new life as a Democrat voter and parasite living off of taxpayers. As they see it, religious organizations would then not be able to “impose their religious beliefs on these teens by denying them access to contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion.”

For the ACLU, this serves at least two important purposes. Not only does it fill the illegal aliens’ goodie bags; it also puts religious organizations (deeply hated by the ACLU) in their place, humiliating them by forcing them to violate their beliefs. And to add even more insult to injury, the ACLU wants us to buy contraceptives for these female burglars–which they will hand out presumably during their registration as new Democrats.

This bunch has already scored a big victory at our expense because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement is readying a ruling “that will force American religious relief agencies to provide abortions and contraception services to the illegal immigrants those groups serve.”

Unfortunately, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded with a typically weak and almost apologetic comment; demands that it distribute contraceptives and pay for abortions “create moral concerns.”

The irony here is that female illegals seeking to kill their children are actually acting in an atypical manner. It doesn’t take these invaders long to understand that the more children they have, the more money they can steal from us. Moreover, at least some are Catholics who would be repulsed by Catholic organizations handing out contraceptives and killing babies; but none of that matters to the ACLU – it never does.

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

ACLU Threatens School District After Principal Acknowledges Student Prayer Group

shutterstock.com

As Christians continue to bemoan the ostensible attacks of leftist activists in the U.S., groups like the American Civil Liberties Union keep providing grist for their mill. Former U.S. Rep. Allen West recently shared one such story, brought to his attention by an email from an outraged mother.

“I wanted to get in contact with you because this week my son’s school principal came under attack by the ACLU,” she wrote. “A parent (who is not affiliated with the school) contacted the ACLU because they heard our principal was praying for the kids.”

The leftist legal group did in fact send a complaint to the superintendent of the Louisiana school district, asserting Walnut Hill Elementary/Middle School Principal Albert Hardison “has engaged in a pattern of religious proselytization by sending message to parents invoking prayer, and through a lengthy ‘Principal’s Message’ on the school’s website.”

In the offending message, Hardison cited the importance of “the blessings of God, the love of our family, and the knowledge imparted by our teachers” as pursuits more important than money.

“Yep,” West wrote in response to the passages cited in the ACLU complaint, “them’s fightin’ words if you ask me, and must never be uttered in public lest they violate the legal rights of all.”

His facetious opposition was echoed in earnest by Marjorie Esman, executive director of ACLU’s Louisiana chapter.

“This letter is to inform you that these messages violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and comparable provisions of the Louisiana Constitution,” she wrote, “and they must stop immediately.”

Do you believe any mention of God within a public school setting violates the First Amendment? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Is This Texas Republican Enabling Police Brutality?

a katz / Shutterstock.com  a katz / Shutterstock.com

At a time when the entirety of Western civilization is focused on eliminating police corruption and ending the suffering that unlawful police departments inflict upon citizens, a Texas State Representative, Jason Villalba (R-Dallas), is ramping up his crusade against civil liberties, seeking to diminish public oversight of police action.

This month, Representative Villalba introduced a bill that would prohibit:

  • filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 25 feet of the officer; or
  • filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 100 feet of the officer while carrying a handgun

(thereby criminalizing basic rights enumerated in the first and second amendments to the US Constitution.)

Villalba has included language in the bill that provides an exception for government-defined “members of the press,” mimicking the failed attempt by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to curtail free speech with her amendment to the 2013 Free Flow of Information Act.

Activists within the Texas Liberty Movement indicate that Viallba’s bill will be opposed in the House, although no legislators have gone on record to confirm this yet.

Critics of the bill say that it is a continuance of a frightening trend in government to criminalize lawful behavior, limit human rights, and eliminate citizen oversight.

On Friday, Murdoch Pitzgatti, the President and co-founder of Come and Take It Texas, said:

When filming anything in public becomes illegal, the First Amendment has died. Where the First Amendment is restricted, the Second Amendment will be used to remedy the situation.

Pitzgatti added: “Under this bill, concealed handgun license holders must stay even further away while filming. We will not follow an unconstitutional law, especially one that singles out law-abiding citizens that have been vetted and have undergone extensive background checks and treats them like criminals.”

The bill stands in marked contrast to the efforts made by Texas citizens, including police and lawmakers, to increase oversight of police actions through the use of body cameras and other measures. Similar initiatives, put forth on the national level, have received nearly universal support in the wake of Ferguson and other highly publicized incidents involving police shootings.

Like Feinstein, Villalba would have the legislature ignore the ways in which technology has enabled journalism to evolve, narrowly defining “journalist” in such a way that would criminalize the work done by many of today’s most powerful and influential members of press.

Sadly, these attempted end-runs around the First Amendment are far from isolated occurrences. Over the past decade, a multitude of evidence has surfaced that reveals an increasing animosity towards the press on the part of government–though this animosity has not gone unchecked.

In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously in favor of Simon Glik, who was arrested and charged with illegal wiretapping for making a video recording of police actions in Boston. Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for ACLU Massachusetts, called the case “…a resounding victory for the First Amendment right to openly record police officers carrying out their duties in a public place.”

The right to a free press is an American principle that predates the founding of the republic. In an Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec (1774), the First Continental Congress wrote:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.

Fifteen years later, the people’s right to criticize government specifically compelled the Founders to include within the Bill of Rights the statement that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Americans have long cherished the right to a free press–and rightfully so. Efforts by those in government to flout this basic premise of our constitutional republic clearly recalls the Nazis’ Reichstag Fire Decree, which in 1933 made criticism of the government a criminal offense in Germany and paved the way for the terror of national socialism.

But what terrorizes minions of big government, like Jason Villalba, is a free people exercising their natural rights unimpeded by regulation.

Another highly publicized bill filed by Villalba this session, under the guise of protecting religious liberty, would amend the Texas constitution to allow state and local governments to “burden” a person’s free exercise of religion if “the burden is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest…” Villlalba has since folded under the pressure coming from both sides of the issue and withdrawn support for his own bill, leaving Representative Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth) to pick up the slack.

Last year in US News & World Report, Jason Stverak wrote:

The term “public servant” has become the vogue euphemism that career politicians and government employees use for themselves, but it more aptly applies to people working for the common good and the betterment of their community. Journalists fit under this umbrella because they are a check on those in power, and our government should be applauding anyone who puts in the legwork to uncover the truth instead of drawing arbitrary lines to hinder them.

Take note, Villalba; that’s the way real Texans think.

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

This Symbol Of Christmas Is Under Assault, But Here’s Why America’s Freedom Depends On It

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

Tis the season for the heartwarming Christmas letters from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  You know the routine.  Each holiday season, these groups send letters to municipalities threatening lawsuits if the recipient municipality will not remove a nativity display from a particular public property.

Last Christmas, I wrote an article explaining why it is frivolous to remove nativity displays from government property.  In that article, I observed that a nativity display is the antithesis of an apotheosis display.

To recap that article, a nativity display celebrates the moment in time God becomes a man, while an apotheosis display celebrates the moment in time man becomes a god.

I then pointed to the “Apotheosis of Washington” painted on the domed ceiling of the U.S. Capitol rotunda by Constantino Brumidi.  Ironically, Brumidi was commissioned by the government to paint the Apotheosis for $40,000.  Next, I asked the rhetorical question, “Why is it unconstitutional to have a nativity display on public property, but not a government-commissioned apotheosis display?”

Now I want to explain why it matters that cities and towns across America remain allowed to display nativity scenes on public property at Christmas.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he explained that our freedoms come from God.  “All men are created equal,” he says, and “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Jefferson also clearly stated that the purpose of civil government was “to secure these rights.”

A nativity display on government property reminds us that all humans have unalienable rights- rights that cannot legitimately be taken away- because these rights come from God.  A nativity display celebrates the source of our rights and reminds our government officials that it is their duty to help secure these rights.

Similarly, a nativity scene on government property reminds us that we are a republic, not a democracy. Our republic acknowledges God as the source of our unchangeable rights. A democracy is vastly different. The rights granted in a democracy are determined not by God, but by the ever-changing opinions of the majority of mankind.

Ultimately, the present battle waged by the FFRF and ACLU is a battle over who gets to be God. Who will be acknowledged as the source of our rights?  Will it be God, or will it be man?

Given the nation’s present woes and injustices, it is altogether fitting that nativity displays remain in the public arena as a guiding light and reminder to all of the source of our freedoms.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Doug Carter and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

 

About the author:

Doug Carter is currently an instructor of Ethics, Old Testament, New Testament, and World Religions in N. C.

Photo credit: shutterstock.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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What Holder And Obama Are Doing To This Border Agent Exposes Their Backward Thinking

Murrieta Border Patrol Station

Nearly two years ago, a Mexican teen was shot to death by a U.S. Border Patrol agent near the fence that separates the United States from Mexico. A few weeks ago, the ACLU, acting on behalf of the mother of 16 year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, filed suit against Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The lawsuit claims the boy was innocently playing basketball just before he was shot in the back. The Border Patrol claims the teen was throwing rocks across the border, endangering the agent’s life.

Now, it’s learned that Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to investigate this shooting, as well as at least one other, by CBP agents in Arizona.

According to a post on the typically left-leaning buzzfeed.com:

CBP, and in particular the Tucson Sector in Arizona, use of force against undocumented immigrants and Mexican citizens inside their home country has come under increasing scrutiny over the last year, and the investigations come on the heels of a federal civil lawsuit filed by the family of a 16-year-old Nogales, Mexico, boy who was killed during a cross-border shooting by CBP.

The involvement of Justice Department headquarters could represent a significant shift in how the Obama administration is addressing violence along the border. FBI investigators almost never bring criminal charges against CBP agents and officers, and human rights organizations have accused the administration of turning a blind eye towards the border.

News of this stepped-up probe by Holder’s Justice Department comes shortly after an earlier report of a leaked intelligence analysis by CBP that brought to light serious border-security issues — problems many argue are created, or made worse by, Obama administration policies of lax border enforcement.

Here are highlights of the critical CBP analysis via breitbart.com:

Among the significant revelations are that individuals from nations currently suffering from the world’s largest Ebola outbreak have been caught attempting to sneak across the porous U.S. border….

As of July 20, 2014, 1,443 individuals from China were caught sneaking across the porous U.S. border this year alone….

Twenty-eight individuals from Pakistan were caught attempting to sneak into the U.S. this year alone….

Thirteen Egyptians were caught trying to sneak into the U.S. this year alone….

Four individuals from Yemen were caught attempting to sneak into the U.S. by Border Patrol agents in 2014 alone….

So, here we have an Eric Holder civil rights investigation underway into actions of besieged Border Patrol agents whose job is made all the more difficult and dangerous because of actions/inactions of Holder’s boss, Barack Obama.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom