Archive for the ‘Freedom of Speech’ Category

George Soros’ MEDIA MATTERS Orchestrated O’Reilly Smear Campaign According To Leaked Email

Megyn Kelly Rips ‘Confused & Wrong’ Guest Over Muhammad Cartoons: ‘This Is Protected Speech!’

Fox News’ primetime lineup is divided on the wisdom of the “Draw Mohammed” cartoon contest that two shooters showed up at on Sunday night. Greta Van Susteren scolded the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Pamela Geller for putting cops at risk, while Bill O’Reilly said that “insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid” and only hurts the cause of fighting the jihad. But Megyn Kelly is standing firm on the importance of the free speech issue, and a lot of what she had to say tonight was in response to O’Reilly, rebutting him by saying the relevant question isn’t whether they “said something offensive,” but “what do we want to do about a group that wants to kill us.” She ended up clashing with guest Richard Fowler, who was surprised to find himself agreeing with O’Reilly. He insisted it’s offensive and unhelpful, but Kelly passionately argued, “Even if you hate her message, she was promoting free speech.” She very blatantly rebutted what O’Reilly said, told Fowler he’s “fundamentally confused and wrong,” and ended the segment by saying, “I’m concerned about the America you would have us live in.”


FAITH ‘This Is a Christian Country’: National Leader Sends Out Astounding Easter Message — but He’s Not an American

by Dave Urbanski
A world leader offered an Easter video message over the weekend filled with affirmations directed toward the Christian church that could come off sounding a bit strange to some — only because such words don’t seem to be stated in such overt ways on such public stages much at all these days.

The central theme of this leader’s two-minute-and-25-second address was that his nation is “a Christian country.”

So who offered the inspirational message?

British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“Easter is a time for Christians to celebrate the ultimate triumph of life over death in the resurrection of Jesus,” Cameron began. “And for all of us, it’s a time to reflect on the part that Christianity plays in our national life.”

“The church is not just a collection of beautiful, old buildings; it is a living, active force doing great works right across our country,” he continued, noting how the church helps the homeless, the addicted, the suffering and the grieving.

“Across Britain, Christians don’t just talk about ‘loving thy neighbor’, they live it out in faith schools, in prisons, in community groups,” Cameron noted. “And it’s for all these reasons that we should feel proud to say, ‘This is a Christian country.’ Yes, we’re a nation that embraces, welcomes and accepts all faiths and none, but we are still a Christian country.”

Cameron also urged his fellow citizens to speak out about the persecution of Christians around the world.

Check out the clip below:

Post-Hobby Lobby, Courts Grant Injunctions Against Obamacare Abortion Drug Rule for 7 Groups

Within 24 hours of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Obama administration was wrong to impose its contraceptive and abortion drug regulation on small companies that oppose it on religious grounds, two federal courts granted emergency injunctions to seven non-profit groups that also oppose the rule.

In a July 1 news release from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the non-profit law firm stated that the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and five Catholic institutions in Wyoming — Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne, Catholic Charities of Wyoming, St. Joseph’s Children’s Home, St. Anthony Tri-Parish Catholic School and Wyoming Catholic College – were granted temporary waivers from the mandate.

Also, a separate federal court granted a temporary injunction to Wheaton College to protect it from the mandate.

The Obamacare rule, set by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), required that nearly all employers (with 50 or more workers) offer health insurance that covered contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs without co-payments. If a company or group refused to follow the rule, they faced potentially crippling fines.

As the Supreme Court noted in its ruling on Hobby Lobby, the for-profit, family-owned business faced penalties of $475 million per year, which would have bankrupted the company. Co-plaintiff Conestoga faced fines of $33 million per year, and co-plaintiff Mardel faced $15 million per year. (See Burwell-v-Hobby-Lobby.pdf)

Mother Angelica, a Catholic nun and founder of the international Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). (Photo: EWTN)

“Thanks to the courts’ decisions, Eternal Word [EWTN] can now freely practice what they preach. The death knell is sounding for the HHS Mandate,” Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund and counsel for Eternal Word, said in the release.

“The ruling in Hobby Lobby and then these two rulings in quick succession show that the HHS Mandate is on its last legs when it comes to religious non-profits,” she said. “The sad part is that it has taken almost three years of litigation to get to a result the Administration should have supported in the first place because it is the right thing to do.”

“Government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing nuns to violate their religious convictions,” said Windham.

In another news release, the Becket Fund called the ruling in favor of the Eternal Word Television Network, which was founded by a semi-cloistered nun, Mother Angelica, and focused on spreading the Catholic Church’s teachings, a “resounding victory for religious freedom.”

“We are thankful that the Eleventh Circuit protected our right to religious freedom while we pursue our case in court,” said EWTN Chairman and DEO Michael Warsaw. “We want to continue to practice the same Catholic faith that we preach to the world every day.”

“The seven religious institutions that obtained protection today join the 80 percent-plus of HHS legal challenges that have resulted in favorable rulings supporting religious freedom,” the Becket Fund stated, adding that “there are currently 100 lawsuits challenging the unconstitutional HHS mandate.”

Using an abortion-inducing drug, as well as other contraceptives, and sterilization, is contrary to the Catholic faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ‘criminal’ practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.” (2322)

The Catholic Church also teaches that deliberate use of a contraceptive or sterilization to “render procreation impossible” is “intrinsically evil.” (2370)

In its June 30 ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the majority of justices on the Supreme Court said that four of the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.”

The label on the FDA-approved contraceptive drug Plan B states that “this product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release.) It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation).”

The Supreme Court ruling further said, “In these cases, the owners of three closely held for-profit corpora­tions have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.”

Supreme Court rules on 'Hobby Lobby' vs. Obamacare


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in a 5-4 decision ruled that a closely held corporation is exempt from Obamacare’s abortifacient mandates.

The decision in the case brought by Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based chain with about 13,000 employees, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinet maker, was about the government’s required payments for birth control – but specifically abortion-inducing birth control.

Obamacare originally planned for every individual and entity to fund the abortion industry, and the administration already had been pressured to provide exemptions for churches and accommodations for religious nonprofits.

The Hobby Lobby case focused on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects the individual beliefs of Americans.

The court opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said, “HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice.”

The opinion continued, “It (RFRA) employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of ‘persons,’ but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of humans who own and control them.”

The opinion said while the dissent argues RFRA “does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby and Mardel (an affiliate company of Hobby Lobby) because they cannot ‘exercise … religion,’ … they offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion.”

“The corporate form alone cannot explain it because RFRA indisputable protects nonprofit corporations. And the profit-making objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants.”

The court said that “business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the ‘exercise of religion’…”

While the court ruling was not a sweeping First Amendment freedom of religion ruling, it concluded, “HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion. … It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.”

The opinion made clear the priority of protecting religion.

“RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs. … It is not for the court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.”

The question presented in the case was whether any law in the United States, such as a nationwide health-care management system imposed by the government, can be so important that Washington can order people to violate their religious faith, on contradiction to the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment?

The issues raised by the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, and the Hahn family, owners of Conestoga Wood, also have been raised in literally dozens of cases across the nation.

The Greens and Hahns said their Christian faith prevents them – under any circumstances – from participating in enabling the deaths of unborn babies. Obamacare requires employers to cover abortion-inducing drugs in health-care plans for their employees on request.

The demands align with President Obama’s longstanding support for abortion under any circumstances. He even argued, while a state senator in Illinois, against requiring doctors to provide live-saving help to babies who survive abortions.

Government attorneys have claimed they aren’t asking the people as individuals to violate their faith. But the family owners insist their businesses are inseparable from their personal faith.

The issue even drew a key Obamacare supporter into the dispute on the side of the religious families.

Former Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., provided the deciding vote for Obamacare, even though he had objected to the plan to have taxpayers fund abortions.

He gave up his opposition, drawing scorn from pro-lifers as a traitor, when Obama promised to issue an executive order separate from the law that would respect prohibitions on federal funding of abortion and freedom of conscience and religion.

Stupak wrote a commentary published by USA Today to support the Green and Hahn families.

“As a private citizen,” he wrote, “I’m proud to stand with the Green and Hahn families and their corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, in seeking to uphold our most cherished beliefs that we, as American citizens, should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act.”

He said his objection is to the Obamacare mandate that forces businesses and their owners to cover “methods of contraception that may cause the abortion of new embryos: new human beings.”

Stupak said that in the “battle over the ACA’s passage, pro-life Democratic members of Congress negotiated with the president to ensure that the act would not be employed to promote abortion.”

He “received an ironclad commitment that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored,” he said.

But the authors of the Obamacare law and subsequent regulations simply bulldozed over faith objections.

While Obama’s bureaucrats have granted hundreds of exemptions to various rules and regulations under Obamacare, they steadfastly have refused to make an allowance for faith issues.

The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases are just two among nearly 90 lawsuits pending over the Obamacare abortifacient mandate.

One of the most pointed cases was brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who run homes for the elderly in Denver and other locations.

The nuns have argued in court documents their faith prohibits them “from participating in the government’s program to distribute, subsidize, and promote the use of contraceptives, sterilization, or abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”

The government has persistently demanded that the Little Sisters “give up” their position on abortion, a brief filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in their case charges.

“The government has fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and continues to fight in this court, to force the Little Sisters to execute and deliver its mandatory contraceptive coverage form. … If the Little Sisters refuse, the government promises to impose severe financial penalties,” the brief notes.

The district court that ordered the Little Sisters to sign a form authorizing a third-party promotion of abortifacients “essentially re-writes the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs for them.”

“Standard moral reasoning underpins the Little Sisters’ refusal to designate, authorize, incentivize, and obligate a third party to do that which the Little Sisters may not do directly,” the brief stated.

“And regardless of what the trial court and the government think the Little Sisters should believe, the undisputed fact is that they do believe their religion forbids them from signing EBSA Form 700. It was not for the district court to disagree with the line drawn by the Little Sisters.”

The Becket Fund has been representing Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, GuideStone, Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network, Ave Maria University and Belmont Abbey College.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing a long list of other plaintiffs.

Officials estimated Hobby Lobby could face $1.3 million in daily fines for refusing to pay for abortifacients as Obama demands.

There still remain a number of cases challenging Obamacare on additional allegations of unconstitutionality.

In one, attorneys for Matt Sissel – a small-business owner who wants to pay medical expenses on his own and has financial, philosophical and constitutional objections to being ordered to purchase a health plan he does not need or want – say the Obamacare bill was unconstitutionally launched in the U.S. Senate, and is therefore invalid.

They have argued to a federal appeals court that the authors of the Constitution meant different things when they used different words.

The words are “amend” and “originate.”

Their explanation came as they noted that the Constitution requires all tax bills in Congress to begin in the House of Representatives. They charged that Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., manipulated the legislation that eventually gave America Obamacare by taking the bill number for an innocuous veterans housing program that had been approved by the House, pasting it on the front of thousands of Obamacare pages and voting on it.

That means, they say, that the entire law was adopted unconstitutionally and should be canceled, including its $800 billion in taxes.

The argument essentially makes the Constitution itself a silver bullet to kill Obamacare.

The case, brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, is based on the Constitution’s Origination Clause.

The eventual decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit likely will be advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PLF principal attorney Paul J. Beard II told WND said following a recent court hearing that government attorneys claimed the U.S. House did not voice objections at the time of the votes to the fact the Senate had gutted a bill, inserted Obamacare and then approved it.

But Beard said the vote took place was at a time when no one was considering Obamacare as a tax-raising measure, because the Obama administration was arguing that the fees, payments and penalties weren’t taxes.

In fact, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that labeled them as taxes, when the issue was before the court the first time.

Also, the attorneys argued, the Constitution allows the Senate to “amend” House bills, even though it requires tax measures to “originate” in the House. So exactly what do “amend” and “originate” mean?

Beard explained that the authors of the Constitution had different intents when they used different words, so it is unlikely the founders’ intent was the same when they allowed “amending” but not “originating.”

Whatever decision is reached, he told WND, it likely will be submitted to the court again, in a request for en banc hearing, and later, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It is our goal to get this before the Supreme Court again,” he confirmed.

The first trip to the court was a challenge to Obama under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 Obamacare is a tax – likely the biggest tax increase ever in America – also was constitutional.


OBAMA GOVERNMENT OUT OF CONTROL: Senator and NV Gov Condemn Feds and Favor Rancher in Land Dispute

The Dependably Unfaithful Colin Powell

by Jeannie De Angeliscolin-powell-sm

Colin Powell
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:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Allen West: Time to teach 'usurper and charlatan' Obama lesson on freedom


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!”

SEO Powered By SEOPressor