Skip to content

Obama Plays Word Games with Executive Power

Obama Plays Word Games with Executive Power published on



Liberty Update

Obama Plays Word Games with Executive Power
By Ashton Ellis
Tuesday, December 23 2014

Far from signaling restraint, this shift indicates a deliberate strategy to expand the scope of the president’s power by concealing it through little-known directives.

President Barack Obama and his allies like to say he’s issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors, giving the false impression that his unilateral actions can be compared on the same terms.

“The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama said in Texas last summer. “So it’s not clear how that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Around the same time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) couldn’t resist chastising Republicans for being hypocritical in a floor speech defending Obama’s penchant for unilateral executive action. “While Republicans accuse President Obama of executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer executive orders than any two-term president in the last 50 years.”

Jay Carney, then acting as Obama’s press secretary, made a similar point. “There is no question that this president has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did.”

All of those statements are designed to make it look like Obama’s use of unilateral executive action is nothing new, and in fact, far less numerous than his predecessors. They feed the narrative of a president mindful of his limitations who acts well within predetermined boundaries.

But a closer look at the evidence shows that all of those characterizations are just an elaborate word game to obscure what Obama is really doing. What Obama, Reid and Carney don’t say is that for the first time in history the president uses more presidential memoranda than executive orders to achieve his policy goals.

As of last Tuesday, Obama has issued 195 executive orders, and 198 presidential memoranda, according to an analysis by USA Today. This translates into “33 percent more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight,” reports the paper. That’s also 45 percent more than Bill Clinton.

Far from signaling restraint, this shift indicates a deliberate strategy to expand the scope of the president’s power by concealing it through little-known directives.

From a legal standpoint, there’s no difference between an executive order and a presidential memorandum. “[T]here is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order,” says an opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. It goes on to state, “We are of the opinion of no basis for drawing a distinction as to the legal effectiveness of a presidential action based on the form of the written document through which that action is conveyed.”

Both types of documents direct executive bureaucracies to prioritize – or implement – presidential policies. Though each has been used at least since the Truman administration, Obama’s heavier reliance on presidential memoranda signals an ominous shift away from political accountability. Unlike executive orders, memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and not comprehensively published in the Federal Register where they can be accessed by members of the public.

They can also be controversial. After the Sandy Hook shooting when Obama was unable to get gun control legislation through Congress, he turned to a series of presidential memoranda to impose some of the same restrictions on his own. One particularly questionable tactic was expanding the information available to the federal background check database – a potential invasion of privacy that Congress did not authorize.

More recently, Obama used a memorandum – also called a presidential directive – to instruct immigration agencies to halt deportations against an entire class of illegal aliens. This move, which applies to as many as five million people, is perhaps the most expansive use of presidential power in the domestic sphere. And yet, because it did not occur through an executive order, Obama doesn’t count it or the 197 other memoranda when framing his record on executive action.

Inside the Obama administration it’s clear that under the category of “executive action” fall both executive orders and presidential memoranda. Saying otherwise is a brazen act of deliberate deception.

New Year’s Eve Billboard In Times Square with Godly Message – Video

New Year’s Eve Billboard In Times Square with Godly Message – Video published on


Christian Group Blasts Left With Bold New Year’s Eve Billboard In Times Square
Creationist organization Answers in Genesis chose one of the most widely viewed locations in the world for its brief, pointed New Year’s Eve advertisement. Founder Ken Ham explained in a Facebook message that his group chose New York City’s Times Square as the backdrop for its 15-second billboard message. “As you’re watching the ball drop at Times Square on New Year’s Eve on TV,” he wrote, “our brand-new animated digital billboard message of freedom will be playing right there.”

Not only does the message recognize God as the source of America’s freedom; it also takes a shot at leftists who have tried to silence Ham’s group and others like it. “To all our intolerant liberal friends,” the billboard reads, “Thank God for freedom.” The organization offered a detailed explanation for its decision to purchase the prominent billboard, concluding the message has four distinct purposes. First, the spot was designed to identify the hypocrisy of anti-Christian activists who “claim to pursue tolerance” but are in fact “some of the most intolerant people around.”

The message makes a clear case that forcing the removal of Christian symbols “flies in the face of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.”

Answers in Genesis also wants to deliver the message that a relationship with Jesus Christ is the only path to “the freedom each person so desperately needs to be freed from slavery to sin.”

Finally, the organization hopes to share the true meaning of the cross and a “reminder of the true message of Jesus Christ.”

Mia Love – Repeal and Replace OCare Video

Mia Love – Repeal and Replace OCare Video published on




Major Corporations Funding Gay Indoctrination in Elementary Schools

Major Corporations Funding Gay Indoctrination in Elementary Schools published on


Major Corporations Funding ‘Gay’ Indoctrination in Elementary Schools Across America

BarbWire

on 30 December, 2014 at 06:55

——————————————————————————–

From MassResistance:

It’s every parent’s nightmare, but true: Major U.S. corporations are funding a campaign of sophisticated, psychologically intrusive “gay” indoctrination programs targeting very young children in elementary schools across America. It’s part of a very well-planned and well-funded effort to reach children as young as possible without their parents’ intervention.

From the “Welcoming Schools” website

The national program, called “Welcoming Schools”, skillfully works on the minds of young children in three ways:

(1) Introducing the concept of homosexuality to children.

(2) Telling them that homosexuality is normal and natural.

(3) Telling them that their parents or friends who portray homosexuality in a less than positive way are bad people – intolerant, bigoted, etc.

The “Welcoming schools” website has even posted a video that describes their program and shows how effective these psychological techniques are in molding young children’s minds:

As MassResistance has reported, major US corporations are enabling this through large donations to the radical national LGBT group Human Rights Campaign (HRC). HRC created and runs the Welcoming Schools program and has representatives in regions around the country pushing it in elementary schools.

Of particular concern and outrage was the recent arrest of HRC’s founder and current Board member, Terry Bean, for “third degree sodomy” of a 15-year-old boy. HRC has had no comment on that incident, but it continues a vicious campaign of harassment against pro-family leaders with whom it disagrees. But this has not deterred corporate donations to HRC in any way that we can determine.

Bringing it into the schools
Among the vehicles they use to bring this into the schools are the “anti-bullying” laws which the national LGBT movement lobbied heavily for in states across the country over the last several years. As MassResistance warned at the time these laws, which were largely written and/or influenced by LGBT groups, invariably have little to do with legitimate anti-bullying behavioral science. Instead they require schools to provide LGBT “diversity training” and mete out punishment for “anti-gay” opinions or discussion.

Not surprisingly, nothing is said to kids about the extensive medical and psychological dangers of homosexual behavior, including a range of diseases, addictions, domestic violence, and other social pathologies.

Confronting the corporations that fund this
The companies pouring money into HRC read like a who’s who of corporate America. You can see some of the names

http://hrcboston.org/sponsors/ Here.

But MassResistance is fighting back. As we’ve reported, we have been helping people to contact these companies – by phone, email, and letter – and tell their corporate staffs in no uncertain terms what we think of their actions – and demand that they stop it.

It’s quite shocking. Companies that many of you patronize at one time or another are using your money to subvert your own young children’s minds to accept and support a dangerous perversion.

When people manage to actually speak with corporate representatives, the companies don’t deny what they’re doing. They talk about how proud they are to be fighting for “tolerance” and “diversity.” They seem to have no misgivings at all when outraged parents contact them.

We contacted these four companies — to start with.

What that tells us is that we need to step up this fight. Most of these companies have never heard from pro-family people before. They only hear from radical homosexual activists. With your help, that will change!


Author
BarbWire
About BarbWire.com.

——————————————————————————–

Obama, Sharpton on Race Relations -No Interest in Being Post-Racial Video

Obama, Sharpton on Race Relations -No Interest in Being Post-Racial Video published on




WSJ’s Jason Riley Tears Into Obama, Sharpton on Race Relations ‘No Interest in Being Post-Racial’
On the most recent edition of Fox News Sunday, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley blasted President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and activist/MSNBC host Al Sharpton for having “a vested interest in pushing a false narrative, which is that racism is an all-purpose explanation of what drives what’s wrong in black America.” When asked by host Chris Wallace to explain why there remains a debate in the U.S. over race and the criminal justice system, Riley pointed out that the “the left has no interest in being post-racial” despite pretending to be in favor of it.

Instead, Riley stated that the left seeks to “divvy us up by race and gender and sexual orientation and then making specific appeals based on those characteristics.” In reference to the “false narrative” he spoke of earlier, Riley elaborated:

The problem is not police shooting black men. That is not what is driving the homicide rate in this country. It is non-police shootings of black men that is driving the homicide rate, yet we have protesters all over this country pushing a false narrative and everyone from the President on down refusing to simply correct the record here.

A few minutes later in the show, the black conservative columnist had another chance to address the issue of how African-Americans commit a large share of the murders and property crimes in America:

Clearly, there is excess force used by police in some of the instances, but that’s not producing this high black body count in this country. Tension between the black community and the police department stems from black criminality in this country, high black crime rates. Blacks are about 13 percent of the population but commit more than half of all murders in this country. Blacks are arrested at two to three times their number in the population for all manner of violent crime, all manner of property crime.

While the issue should and needs to be resolved, Riley opined that the President, Attorney General, and their ally in Sharpton show no interest in seeing tensions subside.

Obama Will Shut Border Agency To Aid Illegals

Obama Will Shut Border Agency To Aid Illegals published on



Obama Will Shut Border Agency To Aid Illegals

President Barack Obama will block 2015 funding for the Department of Homeland Security if Republicans includes spending curbs on the president’s executive amnesty, says a top aide. That amnesty action includes the award of work permits, drivers’ licenses, Social Security cards and tax rebates to at least four million illegal immigrants, despite the wage-cutting surplus of American workers in Obama’s economy. The adviser, Dan Pfeiffer, told a Huffington Post interviewer Dec. 29 that the president would “absolutely not” sign a 2015 spending bill that would include limits on amnesty spending.
Would Obama veto the spending curbs? “Yep,” Pfeiffer said.

But Pfeiffer’s veto threat is likely superfluous, because the GOP’s top congressional leaders have gone silent on their early-December promises to curb the amnesty spending after February.

 

Handle Obamas Veto Pen – Video Bring it On

Handle Obamas Veto Pen – Video Bring it On published on




How should Republicans handle Obama’s threat to use his “veto pen” in the coming two years? Charles Krauthammer says the GOP should say: “Bring it on, Mr. President.”
Speaking to Kimberly Guilfoyle on “Greta” last night, the syndicated columnist and Fox News commentator advised the GOP: “Let the president show where the party stands, and let the country know that with a new Republican president, this stuff–which is very popular–will be able to get through.”

Chipolte Fast-Food Chain to Apologize to NYPD

Chipolte Fast-Food Chain to Apologize to NYPD published on


Chipotle Employee’s ‘Spontaneous, Unplanned Action’ Forced the Fast-Food Chain to Apologize to NYPD
Oliver DarcyDec. 29, 2014 8:00pm
Chipotle Mexican Grill issued an apology Monday after an action taken by an employee at a New York City restaurant.

“It’s disgusting how people don’t respect cops anymore,” Jackie Cortes, a retired NYPD lieutenant, told WPIX-TV.
A spokesperson for Chipotle said that nine officers were trying to order food at a location in Brooklyn when an employee put his hands in the air. The gesture appeared to be in reference to the “hands up don’t shoot” motion made by Ferguson protesters upset over the shooting death of Michael Brown.
The officers immediately left, according to WPIX, and some have since called for a boycott of the national chain.

On Monday, the CEO released a statement apologizing for the incident.

“We work very hard to ensure that every customer in our restaurants feels welcome and is treated with respect. Clearly, the actions of this crew member undermined that effort,” the statement said. “Our investigation has shown that this appears to have been a spontaneous, unplanned action taken by an individual crew member and was not a coordinated effort by the staff of the restaurant.”

“In no way was the behavior of this crew member consistent with our culture and our values as a company,” it added. “We have taken appropriate actions with regard to the crew member involved, but we are not at liberty to discuss the specific actions taken.”

A Year of Liberal Double Standards

A Year of Liberal Double Standards published on



A Year of Liberal Double Standards
By Jonah Goldberg

December 31, 2014 12:00 AM

A Year of Liberal Double Standards
What seems like staggering hypocrisy is actually remarkably consistent from liberals’ perspective.

Many conservatives finished the year angry about the same thing they were angry about at the beginning of the year: liberal double standards.

As I write this, GOP House whip Steve Scalise is in hot water over reports that he spoke to a group of racist poltroons in Louisiana twelve years ago. Whether it was an honest mistake, as Scalise plausibly claims, or a sign of something more nefarious, as his detractors hope, remains to be seen.

But one common response on social media is instructive. Countless conservatives want to know: Why the double standard? Barack Obama was friends with a domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. His spiritual mentor was a vitriolic racist, Jeremiah Wright. One of his administration’s closest advisers and allies is Al Sharpton, a man who has inspired enough racial violence to make a grand dragon’s white sheets turn green with envy.

Meanwhile, the Democratic party venerated the late senator Robert Byrd, a former Klansmen himself. He was one of 19 senators (all Democrats) to sign the Southern Manifesto opposing integration. One of his co-signers was William Fulbright, Bill Clinton’s mentor.

When Republicans are in power, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” When Democrats are in power, dissent is the racist fuming of “angry white men.”

Peaceful, law-abiding tea-party groups who cleaned up after their protests — and got legal permits for them — were signs of nascent fascism lurking in the American soul. Violent, anarchic, and illegal protests by Occupy Wall Street a few years ago or, more recently, in Ferguson, Mo., were proof that a new idealistic generation was renewing its commitment to idealism.

When rich conservatives give money to Republicans, it is a sign that the whole system has been corrupted by fat cats. When it is revealed that liberal billionaires and left-wing super PACs outspent conservative groups in 2014: crickets.

When Republicans invoke God or religious faith as an inspiration for their political views, it’s threatening and creepy. When Democrats do it, it’s a sign they believe in social justice.

One can do this all day long. But while examples are easy, explanations are hard.

I don’t know who first said, “Behind every apparent double standard lies an unconfessed single standard” (and as far as I can tell, neither does the Internet), but whoever did was onto something.

What looks like inexplicably staggering hypocrisy from the conservative perspective is actually remarkably consistent from the liberal perspective.

Well, “perspective” is probably the wrong word because it implies a conscious, deliberate, philosophical point of view. What is really at work is better understood as bias, even bigotry.

If you work from the dogmatic assumption that liberalism is morally infallible and that liberals are, by definition, pitted against sinister and — more importantly — powerful forces, then it’s easy to explain away what seem like double standards. Any lapse, error, or transgression by conservatives is evidence of their real nature, while similar lapses, errors, and transgressions by liberals are trivial when balanced against the fact that their hearts are in the right place.

Despite controlling the commanding heights of the culture — journalism, Hollywood, the arts, academia, and vast swaths of the corporate America they denounce — liberals have convinced themselves they are pitted against deeply entrenched powerful forces and that being a liberal is somehow brave. Obama, the twice-elected president of the United States, to this day speaks as if he’s some kind of underdog.

Frank Rich, the former New York Times columnist and theater critic, recently interviewed Chris Rock for New York magazine. He wanted to know why right-leaning comedian Dennis Miller isn’t as funny (at least according to Rich) as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. He asked Rock, “Do you think that identifying with those in power is an impediment to laughter?”

It was a hilarious and revealing moment. Stewart — who recently had to turn down a pleading request from NBC to take overMeet the Press — has long identified with liberals in power. Moreover, he’s easily one of America’s most powerful liberals, routinely creating and enforcing liberal conventional wisdom (much as Rich had done from his perch at the Times). Miller, meanwhile, has nowhere near the same cultural clout precisely because he doesn’t affirm the single standard at the heart of liberalism: “We’re the good guys.”

— Jonah Goldberg is a senior editor of National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2014 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Can a Christian Oppose Amnesty?

Can a Christian Oppose Amnesty? published on



You Cannot Be A Christian & Oppose Amnesty?
By Frank Camp
John Paul Brammer tries to manipulate Christians to oppose amnesty.

“When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.” – Stephen Jay Gould

Americans have become a people accustomed to sound-bites. Perhaps relying on Twitter as a news source has had an ill effect, or maybe believing The Daily Show to be a sufficient source for political news has caused us to view important issues through a reductionist lens, or it could be that we are simply becoming less, and less willing to read beyond the headlines. Regardless of the why, the issue remains: we don’t bother to look beyond the scope of our own–often intentionally minute–understanding in order to fully explore the pertinent issues facing us as a nation. This downsizing of our intellectual vigor has led us to conflate emotional arguments with reasoned ones. Case in point: amnesty.

John Paul Brammer of Blue State Review recently penned a column with the title: “Who Would Jesus Deport?” In his pretentious column (see: screed), he questions the Christianity of those who oppose amnesty because it doesn’t seem like something Jesus would do.“How can the majority of the GOP claim to be Christian when they support tearing families like this apart? It begs the question: Who would Jesus deport? There’s a reason immigrants take shelter in churches. There, they are given what they need, and they are protected from authorities that typically will not pursue enforcement actions in a place of worship. Sounds like something Jesus would do for people, doesn’t it? Christianity, in my view, is about giving. It’s about selflessness. It’s about protecting the weak and a willingness to sacrifice what you have to better the lives of others, even if they can’t give anything in return.”

In his column, Brammer commits a cardinal sin of argumentation: conflating emotions with logic, and reason. His basic argument is as follows:

A: Deporting illegal immigrants could lead to some families being separated.

B: Separating families is cruel, and not Christlike.

C: Therefore, opponents of amnesty cannot call themselves Christians.

In his argument, Brammer fails to mention the numerous other legitimate issues that might cause one to oppose amnesty, not the least of which is that in coming here, illegal immigrants broke the law of the United States. Brammer uses his own, personal version of Christ to redirect the amnesty argument, and send it off the rails. His implication is that one cannot be Christlike if one is also opposed to amnesty, which he hopes will cause people to eject the baby with the bathwater. “Well, if opposing amnesty means tearing a mother away from her child, we must be wrong on all fronts!” I say as I aggressively pet my rabbit. It’s an effort to reduce a complex issue–one with many legal, criminal, and social facets–down to a single point.
Brammer took a contentious issue, sprinkled in some tears to tug at our heart strings, wagged his finger a bit, and made himself a nice little straw man. His intention with this straw man—as with all straw men—is to change the argument to suit his own needs. Liberals don’t want to grapple with conservatives over amnesty because they know they cannot win the argument with logic, and reason. And that is the only way arguments like these can be won: with reason, and a logical through-line.

Don’t ever be manipulated by these tactics. Whenever a liberal is losing a debate, they will do whatever it takes to change the conversation—and emotional argumentation is one of their most common maneuvers. It takes what should be a debate, and changes it into an argument. Once an argument has been initiated, it is only a matter of time before your opponent becomes indignant, and shuts the conversation down. We are programmed to fear offending others, so when this happens, we usually just give up. Don’t do it. When your opponent’s passions flare, keep the argument focused on the issue at hand. They will squirm and they will rant, but they cannot escape reason.

John Paul Brammer wants you to believe that opponents of Obama’s amnesty are cruel, un-Christian ogres, and that supporters of amnesty by executive fiat are kind, compassionate souls, because they don’t want to “tear families apart.” It’s a crudely drawn straw man that is intended to stir emotions, and make you question yourself. Don’t. You have reason on your side, and reason beats tears.

© 2014 The Last Resistance

Ben Carson pledges support for Israel

Ben Carson pledges support for Israel published on




2016 hopeful Ben Carson pledges support for Israel

.

JERUSALEM (AP) — In his first visit to Israel, prospective Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said he is in awe of the Jewish state, inspired by its ancient holy sites, impressed by the resilience of people living in a perpetual conflict zone — and deeply disappointed in President Barack Obama.

“I do not believe that Obama has been one to cultivate the relationship,” said Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who has emerged as a favorite of some conservatives in the early field of possible GOP candidates.
“I would make it very clear that Israel and the United States have a long, cordial relationship, and I don’t think we should ever leave the Israelis in a position of wondering whether we support them,” Carson said in an hourlong interview with The Associated Press in Jerusalem. “And that certainly is a question now.”
Carson, 63, perhaps best known for his groundbreaking work in separating conjoined twins, is largely unknown to most Americans. But he’s earned hero status among conservative activists thanks to his outspoken criticism of Obama’s health care law.
His rags-to-riches story — he had a hardscrabble childhood in inner-city Detroit — and his deep Christian faith also appeal to potential voters. While Carson has said he is “strongly considering” a bid, supporters have already opened offices in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

He is one of more than a dozen Republicans eyeing the presidency, and those with little international experience, such as Carson, are working to strengthen their resumes before formally announcing their 2016 plans.

Speaking to the AP, Carson expressed views that are common among Israel’s nationalist right wing. He showed sympathy for Israel’s much-maligned settlement movement and questioned the desire among Palestinians for peace. He even suggested that instead of Israel relinquishing captured land to make way for a Palestinian state, neighboring countries such as Egypt should provide the space for a future Palestine.

Carson is visiting Israel as a guest of “The Face of Israel,” a private group that sponsors trips for “influential decision makers” to promote a positive image of the country and counter “threats to Israel’s international legitimacy.” The trip has included visits to Israel’s northern front with Syria and the southern border with Gaza, and meetings with military officials and everyday people.
Although the U.S. remains Israel’s closest and most important ally, Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have little personal chemistry and have frequently clashed. The U.S. has been outspoken in its criticism of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — captured areas claimed by the Palestinians as parts of a future state. At the same time, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has made numerous trips to the region and elsewhere to try to broker a peace deal.

Carson said the criticism of the settlements has been exaggerated, and he asserted that Palestinian hostility toward Israel is what is preventing peace in the region. Of Netanyahu, Carson said, “I think he’s a great leader in a difficult time.”

While he expressed sympathy for the plight of Palestinians, Carson said Israeli security concerns were more important in the short term, noting that after Israel’s withdrawal of troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the territory was overrun by Hamas militants. An Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, he said, would be even riskier, given its proximity to major Israeli cities. “Until such time as their neighbors are no longer desirous of their elimination,” he said, Israel’s continued control of the West Bank “makes perfectly good sense.”

There is little disagreement among the GOP’s top prospects on American policy toward Israel, given religious conservatives’ overwhelming support for the Jewish state and the influence of conservative donors like billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, an outspoken Israel supporter who donated more to Republicans in the last presidential contest than anyone else.
Carson said he expects to make a decision on seeking the presidency by May. If he wins the job, he promised a different approach toward Israel.

“I would make sure that Israel knew that we had their back,” he said. “Because if their neighbors know that we’re backing them up, they’re not going to be anywhere near as aggressive.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a corrupt douchebag politician!

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a corrupt douchebag politician! published on



Reminder from the Los Angeles Times: Arnold Schwarzenegger is a corrupt douchebag politician!

On the last day and in the closing hours of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Administration, the Governator did a political favor for a powerful progressive socialist democrat, Fabian Nuñez. He commuted the 16-year negotiated sentence (plea bargained down from Murder) to a lesser sentence of 7 years. While leaving the others involved in the incident to pay their full price to society.

Basically, the politicians son was involved in an altercation where one young man, Luis Santos, was stabbed to death and another gravely wounded. The little bastard told his buddies that his father would fix the situation – and by all accounts, at least for his son, the old man got Schwarzenegger to carry his water.

Núñez’s son, Esteban was convicted of manslaughter pursuant to a guilty plea in connection with the fatal stabbing of 22-year-old college student Luis Santos during a drunken brawl on San Diego State University campus in October 2008, after being refused entrance to a fraternity party. Three other men were also beaten and stabbed in the incident but survived. Esteban and his three alleged accomplices initially entered not guilty pleas; Esteban and his friend Ryan Jett pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, and the other two accomplices pleaded to lesser charges, after jury selection started in early May 2010. He was sentenced on June 25, 2010 to 16 years in prison for the death of Santos. He was also sentenced under two additional felony counts.

On January 2, 2011, outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger commuted the sentence of Esteban Núñez, reducing it from 16 years to seven years, stating that he felt the 16-year sentence was “excessive” given that Núñez was not “the actual killer” and Santos’ fatal wound was supposedly inflicted, not by Núñez himself, but by his accomplice, Ryan Jett.Because neither Núñez nor Jett admitted to the killing, both were sentenced equally. Too bad the other guy’s dads didn’t have the political juice to have their son’s sentences commuted.

The sordid tale is recounted in the Los Angeles Times …

In a recent interview with The Times, Fabian Nuñez put it bluntly. “I used my relationship with the governor to help my own son,” he said. “I’d do it again. There it is. I would do it again.”

He said Schwarzenegger had followed Esteban’s criminal case closely, and the two of them had discussed it regularly. “I would brief the governor from time to time. He was a friend. He would ask, ‘How are you doing?’ He had compassion. There was no deal making, just two human beings, two fathers.”

Nuñez wouldn’t reveal precisely what he said to Schwarzenegger. But if his remarks to The Times are any indication, he spoke angrily of justice thwarted, of how his son was wronged by a deceptive, “ultraconservative” judge.

“He lied to get my son to accept a sentence which did not fit the crime,” he said. “When you’re dealing with a judge like him, and an overzealous district attorney, with a deputy district attorney who is very ambitious and is looking at their high conviction rates, the last thing that’s going to stand in their way is some Latino politician representing East Los Angeles.”

Nuñez said his ties to Schwarzenegger merely leveled a playing field that had been tilted against his son. “He corrected a wrong that a judge imposed on my son. I believe any father would do what I did.”

As Schwarzenegger settled into his post-politics life, the questions dogged him for a few months.

In April 2011, KCAL-TV Channel 9 reporter Dave Bryan caught Schwarzenegger slipping out the back door of a Hollywood conference where he had been celebrated for his record on climate change. Schwarzenegger knew what was coming. He kept walking, and muttered: “Don’t ask me the same question, OK? Because otherwise you’re boring the hell out of me.”

Watch: Arnold Schwarzenegger reacts in April 2011 to questioning about his commutation of Esteban Nuñez’s sentence. See the entire KCAL Channel 9 segment » “I think a lot of people want to know,” Bryan said. “Why did you reduce the sentence for Esteban Nuñez?” Schwarzenegger made a loud snoring sound. He kept walking amid his entourage, his expression frozen somewhere between a smile and a grimace, as if willing the reporter out of existence. Bryan persisted.

“Governor, why won’t you talk about it? Governor? Why did you wait until the last minute, sir, before you left office? Was it a favor for Fabian Nuñez, Governor? Governor, why did you commute the sentence,Governor?”

Schwarzenegger gave his fullest public explanation to a Newsweek reporter that month. “I happen to know the kid really well. I don’t apologize about it,” he said. “There’s criticism out there. I think it’s just because of our working relationship and all that. It maybe was kind of saying, ‘That’s why he did it.’ Well, hello! I mean, of course you help a friend.”

In his 2012 autobiography “Total Recall,” which is more than 600 pages long, Schwarzenegger makes no mention of the commutation. Nor are answers obtainable in the official file; he ordered it sealed for 25 years.

Source: On the eve of a murder trial, a deal is struck. But will it stick? – Los Angeles Times

If the Governor did nothing wrong, why did he seal the official file for 25 years?

Bottom line …

RINO (Republican In Name Only) Governor Schwarzenegger lies to California and signs the highest tax increase in the nation. Schwarzenegger lies to his wife, cheats with the nanny, and produces a secret son. Schwarzenegger commutes the 16-year plea bargain manslaughter sentence of someone who should be punished as a murderer to 7-years. And, as the ultimate insult, he orders his painter to “paint out” his wife as California’s First Lady in his official state portrait.

And, now the douchebag wants to be respected as a movie star and a political statesman as he pushes his global warming nonsense to the impressionable masses. Thanks to the Los Angeles Times, we are reminded what a phony hypocrite and douchebag Schwarzenegger really is in real life.

Remember that if the asswipe Schwarzenegger should surface again in public life.

— steve

Christians, Stand Your Ground Against Homofascism

Christians, Stand Your Ground Against Homofascism published on



Christians, Stand Your Ground Against Homofascism – You can win!
Matt Barber10 hours ago

“For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him.”

– Philippians 1:29

Defense of God’s design for natural marriage – along with the God-given, constitutional freedom of conscience to decline participation in and, thereby, endorsement of, its unnatural and sin-based counterfeit, so-called “gay marriage” – is now among America’s premier civil-rights struggles. I know from whence I speak, as 10 years ago I was fired from a major fortune 100 company for writing, on my own time and on my home computer, an op-ed acknowledging the requisite binary male-female nature of authentic marriage and human sexuality.

Rather than rolling over and accepting this injustice, I sued in federal court. God used that situation not only to bless me and my family with a significant monetary settlement, but to place me on the front lines in the fast-escalating war against religious liberty. I share this not to boast, but, rather, to encourage you – to illustrate God’s marvelous faithfulness in my own life.

As Christians, we are called to stand our ground, in love, against all wickedness. We do so not because we are righteous – we are not – but because of Christ’s righteousness in us. As Christ followers, we are to follow Christ. We are to stand for His truths. When we do, and while we may face persecution, He will ultimately honor our faithfulness for His own glory and purpose.

It’s getting ugly out there, and it will only get worse. The cases are piling up. We’ve now seen dozens of bakers, photographers, florists, inn keepers, magistrates, county clerks and other people involved in various vocations surrounding marriage suffer persecution for merely declining to become complicit in sin. Christians are being financially ruined and even facing jail time for refusing to lend their time, talents, gifts and abilities to sanction unnatural marriage rituals.

Let us be abundantly clear. Same-sex “marriage” is evil. It is sin. All good things come from God the Father, and all wickedness comes from the father of lies. If God designed biblical marriage and natural human sexuality, and He did, then we are left no doubt as to who designed its counterfeit – as to who fabricated counter-biblical “gay marriage” and otherwise perverted God’s perfect purposes for human sexuality.

As faithful Christians we cannot, indeed we must not, endorse or participate in that which God calls evil. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (see Isaiah 5:20). We must reject sin.

There have been a number of good and well-intentioned folks who, rather than participating in these pagan “gay marriage” rituals, have either resigned employment or, if business owners, closed their doors altogether. While this is admirable, I submit that, if and when you, dear Christian, are placed in a situation that compels you to choose between obedience to God’s just laws or man’s unjust laws, which you not only refuse to obey the unjust laws, but refuse to quit.

Stand your ground.

I suggest that when any Christian business owner, magistrate or county clerk is told that he must participate in a sinful, “gay marriage” ceremony, that he not only refuse to do so, but that he refuse to step down. Do not resign your post. Force the government to overtly persecute you – to take punitive action against you for your righteous stand. Even if you face chains.

Pray for courage, and God will provide it.

The Apostle Paul set the example when, while chained to a wall in a Roman prison, he wrote the following to the church in Philippi:

“Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.” (Philippians 1:12-14)

Not only did Paul supernaturally face anti-Christian persecution without fear. He faced it with great joy.

“Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and God’s provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance. I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:18-21)

After several magistrates in North Carolina recently stepped down rather than being forced to preside over same-sex “marriage” rituals, Mat Staver, chairman and founder of Liberty Counsel, one of America’s fastest-growing civil-rights law firms, pledged the following: “I appreciate the conviction of these magistrates, but rather than resign they should remain at their post. Liberty Counsel will represent them, but once they resign there is not much we can do to help.”

Staver noted that in 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unconstitutionally imposed same-sex “marriage” on the Commonwealth, Catholic Charities ceased its adoption ministry because it refused to place children in same-sex households.

“The commitment to Church teachings and conscience is commendable,” said Staver, “but Catholic Charities should not have voluntarily ceased its adoption ministry. If the government wants to impose an intolerant agenda on people of faith and trample their religious convictions, then let it happen in public for all to see. I cannot believe the American people will long tolerate this intolerant agenda.”

“Where would the civil-rights movement be if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. voluntarily went home when he faced opposition?” asked Staver. “Where would we be today if Rosa Parks had voluntarily moved to the back of the bus? The quest for religious freedom was the reason American was born. We cannot voluntarily give up this unalienable right,” he said.

As Paul concluded,

“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ … without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved – and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him.” (Philippians 1:27-29)

When standing for truth, be not ashamed. Be of great courage and great cheer no matter what trials you may face.

And be blessed for the opportunity.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Worldwide War Against Free Speech

Worldwide War Against Free Speech published on



The Worldwide War Against Free Speech

a.. Abuse of Power
(Politico) – Sony’s decision to withdraw its movie The Interview under threat from North Korea—at least temporarily—did not happen in a vacuum. It is part of a rising trend that I call “grievance fundamentalism,” which is, bit by bit, squelching free speech around the world. It’s not just the hyper-sensitive Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang; more and more people and groups think they have a special right not to be offended – from Moscow to Manhattan, from Bombay to Berlin. Dictators and movements with an oppressive agenda are learning the language of grievance fundamentalism and use it with some success. I am speaking from experience. I went through something similar after my newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published 12 cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Mohammad in September 2005.

In response, violence erupted in January and February 2006 and hundreds of people were killed, embassies were burnt down in the Middle East and Danish products were boycotted in the Muslim world, though few people in fact had seen the images of the Prophet.

And I was accused of being complicit in these crimes because I had published the cartoons. Even a serious newspaper like The New York Times wrote that the cartoons “incited violent and even deadly protests in other countries” – as if the perpetrators were robots without a mind to make a decision on how to react.

In the same way, Sony could be hold accountable for a terrorist attack – God forbid – as revenge for the movie, a comedy that depicts the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. It’s like accusing a rape victim: Why did you wear a short skirt at the discotheque Friday night?

Free speech is getting an increasingly bad name even in democracies. Earlier this year the Swedish artist Dan Park was convicted in a hate speech case and sentenced to six months in jail after nine of his images were exhibited in a private gallery in Malmo. The court ordered his works destroyed. They were denounced as racist, though an art critic explained that they in fact were targeting racial discrimination with the language of sarcasm. There was no debate whatsoever in Sweden about the imprisonment of Park. The public applauded the verdict.

In the fall of 2014 Christ Church in Oxford, England, cancelled a debate about abortion. The pro-choice and pro-life arguments were to be presented by men. This caused furious feministic Oxford students to set up a Facebook page with demands for the debate to be called off on the grounds that the protesters were deeply offended. Only women had a legitimate right to discuss the issue, the implication being that only Nazis have a right to debate Nazism, and only Communists are entitled to talk about Communism. Christ Church caved in.

So did the London Barbican when in September of this year it pulled the plug on an exhibit exploring racism by the white South Africa artist Brett Bailey. A re-creation of a human zoo from the 19th century that features African performers in cages, it was intended to provoke a debate about slavery, colonization and racism, but the artist was instead accused of racism himself. People behind the petition to cancel the exhibition argued that they wanted barbaric things of the past to remain in the past. The logic is amazing: If you don’t talk about any given thing it will cease to exist. This is the way a totalitarian regime treats the real world. If you ban certain words the reality behind them will disappear.

Grievance fundamentalism, and the belief that a thought police can create an offense-free world that will be better, is also popular within the European Union. A few years ago the EU adopted a policy framework that requires every member state to pass legislation against hate speech and Holocaust denial. It means that several new democracies had to pass additional laws limiting free expression and in order to balance the books some of them passed laws banning denial of the crimes of Communism as well. When I researched my new book, The Tyranny of Silence, I was surprised to find out that the majority of laws against Holocaust denial in Europe were passed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. One would think that they might have made some sense in the post-war years when there was a widespread fear in Europe for a repetition of the mass killings, but in a new Europe, united and free, half a century after the fact?

This new trend is driven by a belief that evil words sooner or later will lead to evil deeds, and that there is no principle difference between the two. This sounds to me like dangerous logic, popular among fanatics who equate blasphemy and terror, who identify critical words with violent actions. It is widespread in countries like Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, where both terror and blasphemy are crimes punishable by death.

This logic was also behind the clamp-down on dissidents behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Critical words were perceived like physical attacks on the regimes in the Communist bloc. In this kind of world it can be difficult to figure out the difference between an offensive cartoon or movie and committing mass murder.

To me it is a reverse logic that involves evaluating speech on the basis of the reaction it generates, without considering whether those reactions are proportionate or reasonable, or whether the thing that is said is legal or meaningful or uttered as a satirical comment. Basically it amounts to giving people who feel like reacting with violence a free hand to decide whether speech incites terror.

The fact is that none of us can control or determine the reactions of others to what we say. Words or images cannot in themselves cause action. This is even less so in a democracy than in a dictatorship where state propaganda is used to create reality. Probably that’s why Kim Jong Un and his propaganda machine believe that a comedy of fiction equals factual action.

To uphold free speech in a democracy, it’s crucial to distinguish between words and deeds. Both democracies and dictatorships do qualify certain actions as crimes, though they do apply different kinds of punishment. Both systems prohibit theft, speeding, tax evasion and other violations of the law. The crucial distinction between open and oppressive societies ought to be unconditional freedom of speech.

Unfortunately that isn’t the case in most liberal democracies anymore as the examples above show. In that sense the relationship between words and deeds begin to resemble one another in the free and non-free world. There’s no principal distinction between them. Evil words ought to be banned like evil deeds, because words are actions and they create the reality they express. Any dictator like Kim Jong Un believes this is the case, but why should free societies accept this absurdity, though the grievance lobby, do it with the best of intentions?

Thus we are witnessing, in effect, an unholy alliance between oppressive regimes like North Korea and grievance fundamentalists in international organizations like the European Union and the UN and powerful lobbies, NGOs, student organizations and parts of the human rights industry in democracies that call for more legislation against hate speech. By doing so, they are blurring the distinction between words and actions, between offensive words and violent actions undermining our understanding of the nature of human actions and moral responsibility, and what it means to live in a democracy.

In today’s grievance culture, with its identity politics and cultivation of the victim, the grievance lobby has succeeded in shifting the fulcrum of the human rights debate from freedom of speech to the necessity of countering hate speech; from the individual pursuing individual liberties to the individual being aggrieved by the liberties taken by others. That shift becomes counterintuitive, the logic increasingly absurd. Those aggrieved by free speech are defended, while others whose speech is perceived as offensive to such a degree that they are exposed to death threats, physical assault, and sometimes even murder are deemed to have been asking for it: “What did they expect offending people like that?”

Thus, perpetrators are transformed into victims, victims into perpetrators, and it’s impossible to know the difference. The distinction between critical words and violent actions, between a picture and a violent reaction, between tolerance and intolerance, between civilization and barbarism is being dissolved.

That’s what happens if we fail to insist on the distinction between words and actions, the distinction between movies in which an acting head of state is killed and the actual killing of a political leader. To escape the logic of Kim Jong Un and people like him we have to take a hard look at ourselves and our own culture. We have been preparing the ground for this for a long time through repeated calls for self censorship among artists, writers, museums, theaters and moviemakers. It will take the understanding of the fact that in a democracy we enjoy many rights that the people of North Korea can only dream of: the right to vote, the right to freedom of religion and speech, the right to freedom of assembly, to freedom of movement and so on and so forth. But the only right we do not and should not have in a liberal democracy is a right not to be offended. Instead of sending people to sensitivity training when they say something insensitive, we all need insensitivity training. We all need thicker skins if freedom of speech is to survive in the age of grievance fundamentalism.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/the-worldwide-war-against-free-speech-113788.html#ixzz3MvMprdcF