Archive for the ‘Freedom of Speech’ Category
In 2008 and then again in 2012, after retired four-star General Colin Powell endorsed and then voted for Barack Obama, the former Secretary of State’s sanity was already in question. At least now, after having his email account hacked by high-level security-breacher Guccifer, Colin Powell’s besmirching of the Republican Party’s “shift to the right” and “identity crisis” finally makes sense.
It seems that for years the mannerly and always professional Colin Powell has been cyber-comporting with a 46-year-old Romanian European Parliament member, Social Democrat, and past spokesperson for Romanian president Ion Iliescu named Corina Creţu. So it’s safe to say that Colin Powell was probably the one in the throes of an “identity crisis.”
As vice chair of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Corina Creţu, who once called Powell the “love of her life,” had, on occasion, spoken out against cruelty to women worldwide. Yet thanks to her progressive mindset, seducing in hopes of ‘sharing’ someone else’s husband must not be a problem for her.
The fact that Colin Powell would associate with a communist sympathizer, never mind carry on titillating banter with a woman 30 years his junior, indicates risky and immature behavior just a notch above Weinergate. Either way, the revelations do put into context Powell’s ability to support progressive socialist Barack Obama. General Powell lowered standards within his marriage, which apparently translated into lower standards politically.
Not for nothing, but it is kind of ironic that Colin Powell, whom many believed voted for Barack Obama simply because he’s black, cyber-cheated on his African-American wife Alma with a blonde Marxist from Romania.
Colin’s connubial infidelity and cyber-flirting was going on during the time the general was hitting the talk show circuit, calling Barack Obama a “transformational figure.” That right there proves that the former Secretary of State’s ability to discern right from wrong had already been severely compromised.
In an older email, Corina Creţu wrote Powell “Good weather to make you come,” to which he responded, “You and the weather could make that happen.” Yikes, General Powell, who knew?
Then, when the famously fickle Powell attempted to end the cyber-canoodling, much like the Republican Party came to realize in 2008 and 2012, Ms. Creţu probably noticed that something about the general had changed.
Clearly dejected and heartbroken, Creţu wrote, “I am sorry, we are completely deplorable as we don’t assume what we had together [sic].” Over the past few years, the spurned Romanian official intermittently provoked the general in emails that indicated that her fluency in English probably wasn’t what attracted the articulate statesman in the first place.
Nonetheless, in late 2011, Corina the Persistent dropped Powell another lovelorn lamentation, where she said she missed him… loved him “too, much, too many years… [and] fond finally a reaistc love [sic].” Included in Creţu’s sentiments was no doubt the same thing that Republicans have been contemplating about Colin Powell for years: “I hope to be at least afriend to you [sic].”
Recently, the notorious Guccifer hacked into Powell’s AOL account. Fearing the worst, the general’s reaction was similar to the one Anthony Weiner had when he requested that Sydney Leathers scrub their erotic exchanges. Allegedly, Colin Powell also asked the Romanian seductress to delete their emails.
Sorry, but only in Obama-supporter circles could you have a Huma and an Alma being cheated on by a Weiner and a Colin. And who would have ever thought that America would reach a point where a retired four-star general would be emulating a cyber-sex fiend like Anthony Weiner?
When nabbed, unlike Mr. Weiner the former Secretary of State did not bring up his commitment to the middle class, but he did confess that during his tenure at the State Department, he and Corina “occasionally attended the same diplomatic and international meetings.” The diplomatic nature of the relationship was confirmed in an email in which Corina asked, “Is first time when you tell me, dplomatically, of course, that is better not to speak until the holiday [sic]?”
Powell shared that “over time,” while rehashing the minutes of diplomatic and international meetings, “the e-mails became of a very personal nature, but did not result in an affair.” Let us consider that this is a two-timing, I mean two-time Obama supporter who pledges faithfulness to the Republican Party and, despite admitted online cheating claims, he’s been faithful to his wife for half a century.
What Colin has failed to explain was how he made the jump from potential Republican presidential candidate to supporting a left-winger like Obama, or how the conversation changed from diplomatic and international affairs to suggestions that Corina lie naked sipping wine with him on a couch.
Mr. Powell clarified: “Those type [sic] of e-mails ended a few years ago. There was no affair then, and there is not one now.”
Not that Anthony Weiner or Colin Powell would care, but for the record, Jesus did say, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
To date, the perpetually-conflicted Colin Powell remains married to the very classy Alma, and if you can believe it, as of January 2013 still considered himself a member of the Republican Party. Quintessential Colin Powell: Faithfulness in word, but in deed, evidently not so much.
In the end, the moral of the story is this: after being disloyal to a party that would have supported him all the way to the White House and straying from a wife who has stood by him for 50 years, it’s clear now that Colin Powell’s unfaithfulness is something Americans can count on.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/the_dependably_unfaithful_colin_powell.html#ixzz2bxH4Bzl6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Late Sunday, former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., wrote on Facebook that the time is coming for patriots to teach Barack Obama, a man he described as a “usurper” and a “charlatan,” the same lesson Americans taught King George in the Revolutionary War.
“The time draws near to teach this usurper and charlatan the lesson our forefathers taught King George III. We will not be ruled by arrogance and edict,” he wrote.
West started by observing that Americans will be celebrating the 237th anniversary of the nation’s independence.
“But are we a free people?” he asked.
He cited the recent Supreme Court case overturning a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, calling it “an ill-conceived ruling” that he said places sexual behavior over the will of the people.
“We are free to love anyone or anything we desire in America, but that does not correlate to rights beyond the unalienable ones Jefferson articulated 237 years ago,” he explained.
He went on to mention a grant given to the Los Angeles Unified School District designed to train students to promote Obamacare to family and friends.
“LA Unified will also use tax-paid staff to promote ObamaCare through phone calls tostudents’ homes, in-class presentations, and meetings with employees eligible for ObamaCare’s taxpayer-covered healthcare, the grant award says,” he added.
According to Fox News, $990,000 was given to the school district for the effort, described as a “pilot” program to see if teens could be trained as messengers for Obamacare.
“Obama said he would fundamentally transform America,” he wrote before saying the time has come to teach Obama a lesson.
by Chelsea Schilling
Americans outraged by the federal government’s spying programs took to the streets on Independence Day for “Restore the Fourth” protests in an estimated 100 American cities, including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Memphis and Miami, plus international cities such as London and Munich.
The “Restore the Fourth” national protest was named after the Fourth Amendment, which was intended to protect Americans against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
The NSA’s PRISM online surveillance program was exposed by Edward Snowden only weeks ago. Americans soon learned that at least nine Internet companies reportedly submitted to government surveillance of their servers: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple.
“Restore the Fourth,” initially organized on Reddit, describes itself as “a non-partisan, unaffiliated group of concerned citizens who seek to strengthen the Fourth Amendment with respect to digital surveillance by the U.S. government.”
Philadelphia, Pa., “Restore the Fourth” rally (Photo: Jeff Kolakowski)
“The July 4th demonstrations seek to demand an end to the unconstitutional surveillance methods employed by the U.S. government and to ensure that all future government surveillance is constitutional, limited, and clearly defined,” the group explained.
“Restore the Fourth aims to ensure that the will of the people is reflected in the government of the United States of America. This movement intends to bring an end to twelve years of Fourth Amendment abuses, and demonstrate the need for a return to the Constitution. All Americans should stand with them in this cause to protect the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Before a throng of enthusiastic supporters in Temecula, Calif., Congressman Allen West (R-Fla.) on Friday defended the principles of limited government and stressed the importance of the upcoming presidential election in what the conservative blog The Right Scoop describes as a “must watch” speech.
And it’s burning up the Internet now.
“Two-hundred and thirty-six years ago, some men sat around and they thought about a land of dreams,” Rep. West said. “And they thought about a place where the individual and their rights and freedoms would be preeminent. They thought about a place where there would be liberties and freedoms. They thought about a place that could be a republic.”
“We cannot live in a land of dreams where we have record unemployment; where we have a record amount of Americans who live in poverty; where we have a record amount of Americans on food stamps and using EBT cards,” he added.
The Florida congressman continued, emphasizing the important role fiscal restraint plays in fending off the desiccating qualities of statism.
He concluded on a historical note: “The question that you have to ask yourself, between now and the 6th of November and continuing on, when you look at yourself in the mirror, ‘Was I a summer soldier? Was I a sunshine patriot?’”
Or did I make a stand to gain the admiration of such a good generation, so that when the history books [are written], the history books will say: “On the 6th of November of 2012, the American people once again remembered what the land of dreams was about. They remembered their fundamental principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. They remembered the great lesson of liberty that says, ‘It’s about their individual sovereignty.’ They restored the freedoms of their free market. They stood for their traditional cultural values and they made sure that the walls that protect the longest running constitutional republic that the world has ever known — they stood as watchmen on the walls to secure those freedoms and liberties for future generations.”
“That’s what you have to ask yourself!” Rep. West concluded. “That’s what has to be in the history books!”
Thought your free speech rights, those given by God and protected by the U.S. Constitution, were assured in the United States?
A representative of Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has refused – over and over – to answer a question from a member of Congress about the agency’s dedication to freedom of speech.
It was during this week’s hearing by the House Constitution subcommittee, headed by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., where Tom Perez, of the DOJ’s civil rights office, repeatedly wouldn’t respond to Frank’s question.
In fact, Franks repeated the question four times: “Will you tell us here today simply that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion.”
WND has reported on the issue multiple times in the past. The issue primarily revolves around the idea contained in a proposal that has been made many times in the United Nations by the Islamic-led interests there.
The concept is that there should be a “Defamation of Religions” law internationally that would make it criminal to speak negatively about any “religion,” although the proposals always have focused on Islam.
The idea is “nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech,” according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.
The Human Rights First organization has chimed in, saying the idea simply violates fundamental freedom of expression norms.
Tad Stahnke, of Human Rights First, said the concept is “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression.”
The issue also has been addressed by Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, in an interview with WND at the time, because of the pending threat to the freedoms in America.
“This is a battle for our basic freedoms,” he warned. “This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness. To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell’s 1984 because of what it really does.”
He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.
Worse would be the “chilling” effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.
“This would be a huge blessing to those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes,” he said. “This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United States and other places who don’t see this for what it is.”
Sarah Palin recently showed her support for Chick-fil-A on Twitter.
Imagine that it is possible to be a homophobic, right-wing zealot one moment and a gay-loving uber-liberal the next, simply by crossing the street.
In this author’s locale, it is possible (Chick-fil-A and Starbucks sit right across from one another). But that’s only if you allow yourself to believe that the customers of fast food restaurants and other businesses should be labeled simply because they prefer their chicken fried in peanut oil and like to sip coffee in a place with hip music playing in the background and a free Wi-Fi connection.
Does it really matter how companies feel about whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Instead of asking themselves that simple question, Americans on both sides of the debate have decided to instead jump to their feet — in largely meaningless ways — and engage themselves in a debate that has nothing to do with marriage equality or moral tradition.
Several months ago, Starbucks made clear that it supports the right of gays to marry. Some conservatives flipped out and, to the dismay of some Christian coffee lovers, a handful of pastors called for a Christian boycott of the company.
“Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God… Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to,” Steven Andrew, evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement at the time. “However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord’s side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?”
Andrew probably joined the likes of Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and thousands of conservatives yesterday for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. The event was aimed at encouraging conservatives to go to the restaurant after its CEO Dan Cathy said he supports traditional marriage in an interview with a Christian publication. The company has come under heavy fire from gay-rights groups and been boycotted by many people.
The takeaway message is that Christians should avoid the evil sodomite sympathizers at Starbucks and gay rights activists should avoid peanut-fried, right-wing chicken from Chick-fil-A, right? If that’s the case, here are a few other things people on both sides should boycott:
In case you forgot, those of you who are in favor of women’s equality need to support the 45 companies that pulled advertising from Rush Limbaugh’s talk show after he called Sandra Fluke a slut. His other advertisers are clearly misogynists.
Conservatives should boycott Target stores. Target sells gay greeting cards.
If you are a gay-rights fan, be sure that you avoid any petroleum products with ties to Saudi Arabia. The LGTB-unfriendly nation frequently imprisons and kills people for homosexual activities.
Don’t like homosexuality or Libertarians? Steer clear of Paypal, Facebook and several other tech companies, because innovator and businessman Peter Thiel is both gay and a Libertarian and has ties to several Internet companies that you likely use on a daily basis.
If all of this is beginning to sound a bit over the top, it is because it is over the top. There are more than 311 million people in the United States; we will never all agree completely. Rather than have a sensible debate on whether gay marriage should be legal, Americans have collectively chosen to have a shouting match about who is on what side.
Conservatives will have to accept at some point that the cat is out of the bag with regard to American homosexuality and, short of adopting the legal tactics of certain theocratic nations, it is not going to go away. And gay-rights activists must realize that some people simply do not agree with their lifestyle, and believe that it is neither natural nor moral.
In considering those two things, marriage traditionalists and gay-marriage advocates can find a common enemy: government-sanctioned marriage. Traditionalists and Christians view marriage as the union of a man and woman in the eyes of God first and foremost. Secularists view the union as a contractual one, man-made and legally binding. A traditionalist would never accept a government form as the only thing needed to be married, and a secularist would surely have similar disdain for a marriage not legally binding but God-sanctioned.
Any aspect of marriage that is provided by the government form should be freely attainable by all individuals. That is, any two, three, four and so on people in a free society should have the right to enter a contract that allows for the transfer of wealth, hospital visitation and other rights when a person is ill or dying, the sharing of common assets and the distribution of those assets in the event of breach of contract. In a free society, people have a natural right to assemble and associate as they will, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others to do so. The Federal government has not given married couples the special privilege of entering into that contract; it has simply denied others the right to do so — not just people who are gay, but also straight, single people.
When the Federal apparatus and its legislative minions discuss marriage, they are discussing the contractual, not the religious, aspect of the institution. And when they veer into discussing the religious definition of marriage, either in favor or against gay marriage, they abrogate the Constitutional guarantee of a political body that lacks the power to shape religious policy.
If legal gay marriage becomes standard from sea to shining sea, homosexuals who wish to be married and a whole boatload of bleeding-heart liberals will feel vindicated by the symbolic victory. Likewise, if conservatives and traditionalists are able to revive a strict adherence to the Defense of Marriage Act, they will feel a hard-fought battle against moral decay and a threat to their religious value has been won. But, aside from perceptual victory, nothing is going to change. In the first scenario, traditional Christian institutions will not feel that because bureaucracy changed its mind that God will as well and suddenly ordain gay marriages. And, in the second scenario, people who have made the decision to accept alternative sexual practices aren’t likely to stop.
If the debate about gay marriage is to ever be resolved, Americans will have to decide whether the discussion is about religion, legal contracts, the validation of an alternative lifestyle, moral decay or simply what types of people should patronize which establishments. In the meantime, when you sit down to enjoy your chicken sandwich or overpriced specialty coffee, check out a few other recent headlines. You may find that a Nation in decline on all fronts has much scarier problems than whether gays should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the government.