Daily Archives: October 12, 2015

California forces Christians to disobey own beliefs


California forces Christians to disobey own beliefs

New law orders faith-based organizations to refer women to abortionists

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/california-forces-christians-to-disobey-own-beliefs/#rqWUiqe4fy8xYjLw.99

California’s Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a compelled speech plan into law that orders faith-based organizations to refer women to abortionists – even though the same idea was tried earlier in New York – and failed.

Brown’s signature on AB 775 just days ago already has triggered a series of lawsuits, because it forces religious pregnancy clinics to tell women and girls that California has public programs to provide immediate – and free or low-cost – abortions.

Officials with the Pacific Justice Institute announced on Monday the filing of lawsuits in both southern and northern California on behalf of clinics.

Those organizations provide free medical services and counseling “as an alternative option to abortion to women facing unwanted pregnancies,” the organization said.

“Forcing a religious pro-life charity to proclaim a pro-abortion declaration is on its face an egregious violation of both the free speech and free exercises clauses of the First Amendment,” said Brad Dacus, chief of the institute.

“We will not rest until this government mandate is completely halted.”

The complaint explains the law forces Christian medical clinics to give to women a message with which they profoundly disagree.

“The content of the government message memorialized in AB 775 directly contradicts the foundational religious principles upon which A Woman’s Friend operates, as well as the message it conveys to its clients regarding abortion,” the complaint explains. “As a result, A Woman’s Friend is subject to imminent adverse enforcement action against it by defendant.”

The law’s message is, “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including allo FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social servicdes office at (insert the telephone number].”

It also requires the message not only be handed out but also posted on the walls of waiting rooms – in a specified size of type and size of sign.

The clinic, A Woman’s Friend, “offers, and will continue to offer, to women and girls a variety of services at its clinic. Said services include medical consultations, pregnancy testing, ultrasound examinations and medical referrals. The plaintiff also provides education related to sexually transmitted diseases and infections, informations and abortion procedures, prenantal education, nutrition information and fetal development education.

“They also provide Bible-based post abortion emotional and spiritual healing and recovery courses, and other practical support related to pregnancy.”

It does not, the complaint explains, “counsel girls and women to obtain abortions.”

“A Woman’s Friend holds the bibilically based conviction that human life is a precious gift of immeasurable value given by God and that the taking of innocent human life by abortion is evil and a sin.”

The second organization cited in the complaint is the Crisis Pregnancy Center of Northern California, which offers services similar to A Woman’s Friend.

For both, the complaint states, “The requirement that plaintiffs disseminate the state of California’s message for which the clinic disagrees violates its rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the state through the Fourteenth Amendment. The law mandates speech that plaintiffs would not otherwise make.”

It continues, “At a minimum, the act unconstitutionally compels plaintiffs to speak [a] message that they have not chosen, with which they do not agree, and that distract, and detract from, the messages they have chosen to speak.”

The action seeks a judgment that the law is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

“The context of delivering this government message is the center of a public debate over the morality and efficacy of abortion, for which these clinics provide alternatives,” the lawsuit reads.

WND reported only this summer the resolution to a similar fight in New York.

At the time, constitutional attorney Herbert W. Titus of William J. Olson, P.C. told WND that according to the First Amendment, you “can’t be forced to carry someone else’s message.”

In New York, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said the state could require crisis pregnancy centers to disclose whether they have a licensed medical provider on staff but not whether the center provides abortions or referrals, because that runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The ruling was left untouched by the Supreme Court.

Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for decades at several universities, said it’s “not the government’s business to force anybody to carry the message of anyone else.”

“That is certainly what’s being done here.”

Thomas Jefferson, he noted, described that very action as “sinful and tyrannical.”

“It’s fairly typical of California, [which is] always on the cutting edge of making us more and more like a fascist country, in which the state determines what we can say and what we can’t say,” Titus told WND.

Titus also has served as a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney with the Department of Justice. He holds degrees from Harvard and the University of Oregon and for several years had his own daily radio program. He has testified on constitutional issues before Congress and state legislatures.

The California bill makes no attempt at accommodation

‘Go Home, Go Golf!’ Obama’s hostile greeting in Roseburg shows THIS town knows how to protest


The good folks of Roseburg, Oregon didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet and play “Hail to the Chief” for President Barack Obama’s Friday afternoon visit to the survivors and grieving families of the Umpqua Community College shooting.

In fact, many were downright hostile.

Hundreds of people showed up — some openly carrying — with signs telling the president what they would prefer him to do, as they lined the streets to greet the motorcade.

Breaking 911 tweeted a photo that got a lot of response:



Kelsey Grammer Dons Controversial Pro-Gun, Anti-Abortion T-Shirt



Controversial.” “Bizarre.” “Outrageous.”

Kelsey Grammer took a strong pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment stand with his wardrobe choice this week.

The Frasier actor’s wife Kayte posted a photo to her Instagram page Wednesday showing Grammer wearing a T-shirt from pro-life organization Abort73.com.

The T-shirt’s message, referring to abortion: “Would it bother us more if they used guns?”

On its website, the Abort73.com organization, founded by the Christian Loxafamosity Ministries, describes its mission to “creatively and comprehensively educate students about the injustice of abortion, and provide them with simple tools to help pass that education along to others.”

Kayte posted a photo of herself wearing the same T-shirt last week, with the caption “#standwithbabies.”

Unsurprisingly, Grammer’s T-shirt choice sharply divided Twitter:

Of course, the “pro-choice” community also had their say:

@KelseyGrammer you drunken, adulterous. The world would be a better place if your were aborted. With or without a gun… It’s never to late.

— joe mangipano (@joebtg) October 9, 2015

I don’t like Kelsey Grammer anymore.

— Callie Mills (@justsnackss) October 9, 2015

A representative for Grammer did not immediately respond to Breitbart News’ request for further comment.

Of course, Grammer’s conservative political leanings have been well-known for years. The actor founded conservative TV station RightNetwork in 2010 but the station was forced to shut down due to bankruptcy issues shortly after.

Video: Mind Controlled Morons Don’t Even Understand What Silver Is

Want a 100 oz Silver Bar for Free? (Worth $1600) Almost 7 POUNDS of .999 Fine Silver Bullion!

Sheriff Clarke weighs in on ‘war on police,’ gun debate

WARNING: New depression “treatment” is double the trouble

Daily Dose with Jack Harrison

If at first you don’t succeed, drug and drug again!

That’s mainstream medicine in a nutshell: Throw any and all meds you have at the patient and see what, if anything, sticks.

A bizarre new study sums up that attitude perfectly, claiming to find a new way to treat tough-to-beat depression in seniors — and it’s to just keep loading them with so many meds they’ll barely know their own names.

On the plus side, maybe they’ll also lose track of their depression.

This study focused on older folks already on antidepressants, but getting no relief.

Now, anyone with half a brain would STOP a drug that isn’t working, especially when it’s one with as many risks as an antidepressant.

But it turns out you don’t need half a brain to conduct a study. All you need is a bad idea and a government grant. So in this case, researchers armed with your tax dollars told the seniors to keep on taking the drug that didn’t work — AND, along with it, a powerful and dangerous antipsychotic medication.

They quickly declared victory when 44 percent of the patients went into remission, and urged docs to try the “two-drug approach” in depressed seniors.

But guess what? The placebo also “worked” in 29 percent of patients.

The absolute difference between the drug and the placebo is a pathetic 15 percent.

Maybe it would be worth it anyway if the drugs came with no risks. But antipsychotics aren’t safe for anyone, and they’re especially dangerous for seniors.

In the new study, a quarter of the patients on the drug became agitated and distressed, a common antipsychotic side effect, versus just one person on the placebo). And 17 percent suffered Parkinson’s-like symptoms, versus less than 2 percent of patients on the placebo.

Antipsychotic drugs can also leave you unsteady on your feet, increasing the risk of a bone-snapping fall… kill off brain cells faster than a dope habit… and even increase your risk of death.

You don’t have to face ANY of those risks to beat the blues. All you need are some time-tested brain-boosting natural remedies.

St. John’s wort will often do the trick, but check with a doctor first as it doesn’t always mix well with meds. In addition, B vitamins and the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil can also help lift your mood without putting your life on the line.

Delivering a one-two punch to bad science,
Jack Harrison


The Love of a Dog

doggie pic

Let’s Thank The Anti Gun Crusaders For Right To Carry Laws Spreading Like Wildfire.

This is a beautiful thing.    🙂  The map below shows how since 1986  when there were only 8 (blue) “Shall issue”, and 1 (Green) “Unrestricted” States

To now in 2015 when there  35 “shall issue”, and  7 “Unrestricted” From 9 states to 42 States in about 30 years. Thanks you dumb ass libs.


The Pacific Trade Agreement is an Attack on Sovereignty


The Pacific Trade Agreement is an Attack on Sovereignty

In 1958, six European nations agreed to participate in what was then termed a “Common Market.” Fifteen years later, several additional countries in Europe joined and the relationship became known as the “European Community” (EC). In 1986, the EC expanded to 12 nations and the term “European Union” (EU) supplanted the previous label. Now the EU has become the dominant political and economic governing body for 28 formerly independent European nations.

There were warnings about what was taking place. In 2003, Czech President Václav Klaus objected to the proposed EU Constitution. He stated: “This is crossing the Rubicon, after which there will be no more sovereign states in Europe.” He was ignored.

That same year, British authors Christopher Booker and Richard North released their important book The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union. They termed the EU “a slow-motion coup d’état.” Their book received the silent treatment.

In 2004, Mike Nattrass, a leader of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party, thundered, “The EU was sold to the British people as a trading agreement and turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.”

And in 2007, former German President Roman Herzog lamented: “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from [EU headquarters in] Brussels.” He concluded that his country should no longer be considered an independent nation.

In 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev, the former ruler of the USSR, had raised a different type of red flag. While in Britain, he described the EU as “the new European Soviet.” Few took that revealing remark seriously.

It is now 2015. Led by President Obama, the United States has agreed to link arms in a trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim nations. Labeled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the proposal has been promoted as a beneficial trade agreement that will enhance U.S. trade, counter China’s exports, create jobs here at home, protect the environment, enforce human rights, and more. But a close examination of what is known about this pact (no copies have been made available, other than what has leaked out) reveals that it is far more than a mere trade pact. Instead, it should be viewed as the beginning of a process similar to the one employed to create the European Union.

Negotiations leading to completion of this pact have been conducted in secrecy, even to the point of refusing to provide members of Congress with copies. Congress is given 90 days to mull over passage or refusal but no amendments are allowed because Congress has already given the president authority to forbid congressional changes. Not only that, but TPP negotiators want to keep portions of the document secret for at least four years even if Congress okays it. Why any member of Congress would agree to all of this is somewhat mind-boggling.

Mr. Obama won’t admit it, but TPP is designed to be the beginning step in a political and economic union that will result in our doing to ourselves precisely what has been done to 28 nations in Europe.

Members of Congress, both House and Senate, must hear from voters about this. If TPP isn’t rejected, a huge chunk of our nation’s independence will have been traded away. If asked, Gorbachev might even refer to a ratified TPP as “the new Pacific Soviet.”

Contact Congress today in opposition to TPP! Be sure to also call as that carries a greater impact than an email (Senate: 202-224-3121, House of Representatives: 202-225-3121).

John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission.

Gun-free Zones Contribute to Mass Slayings, Say Many Experts


Gun-free Zones Contribute to Mass Slayings, Say Many Experts

In the aftermath of the October 1 shootings at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, that resulted in the deaths of 10 people, including the shooter, the predictable calls for more gun control came from those on the Left. However, many of those calling for anti-gun measures such as universal background checks, gun registration, and bans on “assault weapons” ignore the fact that practically all mass shootings like the one in Oregon have taken place in “gun-free” zones.

This point was made in several articles written recently by knowledgeable authors who are experts in the area of guns and crime.

One of these writers, John R. Lott Jr., is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. In an October 7 article posted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, Lott noted that the gun-control law that President Obama and fellow Democrats have constantly promoted wouldn’t have stopped the shooting at Umpqua Community College — where expanded background checks have been in place since August — nor would it have stopped any of the other mass public shootings that have occurred during Obama’s presidency.

Lott made the additional point that practically all mass public shootings take place in what are deemed “gun-free zones,” including the Oregon shooting. Noted Lott:

If the media more regularly reported when a shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, more people would realize that gun-control laws don’t deter criminals who are looking for select targets where people can’t fight back. More Americans would come to feel that gun ownership makes them safer.

While acknowledging that Oregon law does allows those with concealed handgun permits to carry their weapons on school property, Lott noted that this right is largely negated by the schools’ practice of placing weapons bans in both faculty and student handbooks. This disarmament is practiced so fanatically that Umpqua president Rita Calvin will not even let the college’s security guards carry guns.

Lott concluded, “What all these rules mean is that no potential victims — students, faculty, or those unaffiliated with the college — were able to defend themselves in the classroom where the attack occurred.”

A similar point was made in an October 7 article in the Washington Times by J. Kenneth Blackwell, who is a former Ohio secretary of state and mayor of Cincinnati, and is a senior fellow and policy board member of the American Civil Rights Union. Blackwell referred back to a study released by Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center last year, indicating that 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 have taken place in designated gun-free zones.

Blackwell offered his explanation for why this holds true:

Mass shootings are committed by mentally ill people to achieve a form of immortality, or by political zealots to terrorize the public. They know the more they kill, the more publicity they’ll get. They also know the only way they will be stopped is by a good guy with a gun, so they choose to attack in places where they know nobody else will be armed.

In another article published by the Chicago Tribune on October 4, Erich Pratt, the director of communications for Gun Owners of America, reminded readers that every public mass shooting since 1950, except for two, has taken place in a gun-free zone. In addition to the Umpqua College shooting, he cited those in the Lafayette, Louisiana, theater; the Charleston, South Carolina, church; and the military recruiting center in Tennessee. Pratt noted that guns were outlawed at all these locations, but the killers ignored the bans.

In contrast, Pratt asked readers to consider a representative list of the locations where armed citizens have stopped shooters over the past year: the La Raza bar in Youngstown, Ohio; a car service driver defending himself on a street corner in Chicago; at the Falah barber shop in Philadelphia; Pastor Terry Howell Sr. at Living Water Fellowship church in Osceola County, Florida; at the Vaughan Foods food processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma; and by an armed doctor, Lee Silverman, at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania.

Pratt also offered as an example an attempted mass shooting in 2012 at the Clackamas mall in Oregon. When a gunman began killing, a man named Nick Meli drew his concealed firearm and pointed it at the gunman, scaring him into taking his own life.

Noted Pratt, “Nick Meli was breaking the ‘no guns policy’ at the mall, but there are many survivors who are glad he did. Gun-free zones are the problem. Let’s repeal them.”

In yet another article questioning the wisdom of gun-free zones, published in the Eurasia Review for October 8, Jim Kouri, a board member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, quoted John Snyder, who serves on the advisory boards of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Federation of Police and Concerned Citizens.

Snyder pointed out that Umpqua Community College was known to everyone as a facility that prohibited firearms on campus. Said Snyder:

Gun rights folks have been blasting gun free zones for years. The mass shootings at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon [proves] how nuts gun free zones really are. The anti-gun policy in Oregon prevented any lawful armed citizen from stopping the killing. One teacher with one gun could have cut the carnage.

Snyder did not pull any punches in his assessment of those who believe that prohibiting guns will deter mass killings:

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that someone willing to commit a crime like murder, in this case multiple murders will not think twice about it because of a law or regulation against guns. The law-abiding individual who does obey the policy against guns is left at the mercy of the murderer. Unfortunately, many policy makers don’t have even an ounce of common sense. They don’t have any.

Of course, there is much more to the debate about the right to keep and bear arms than whether or not guns keep us safe from half-crazed mass murderers. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, just 16 years after British soldiers attempted to seize the arms reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. This citizen militia, organized to defend the colonists against the tyranny of the British crown, was what the authors of the amendment had in mind when they used the term “militia” in conjunction with the right to keep and bear arms.

While events such as the recent tragedy in Oregon make us aware of the immediate ill effects of denying our citizens the right to defend themselves, it is also important to keep the big picture in mind — the right to defend not only our lives, but our freedom, as well.

Related articles:

Where Did Sydney Jihadi Shooter Get a Handgun in “Gun-free” Australia?

Behind Chattanooga: Radicalization, Gun-free Zones, and U.S. Foreign Policy

California Shooting: The Missing Element

Another School District Arms Its Teachers

After Crushing Defeat, Obama and Gun Grabbers to Revive Effort

Connecticut Lawmakers to Infringe Further on Citizens’ Gun Rights

Facing Firm Opposition, Obama Renews Assault on Gun Rights

False Solutions to Gun Violence

South Dakota Adopts Law Allowing Armed Teachers at School

Florida High School Student Suspended for Disarming Gunman

Targeting Schools

States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control

Kentucky Sheriff Vows to Protect Residents from Obama Gun Control

NRA: Another Dangerous Flip-Flop on Gun-Free School Zones

The San Antonio Theater Shooting the National Media Ignored