Quantcast

  • Timk

    Time for “BUFF & PUFF”..
    Carpet Bomb These FOOLS off the Face of this EARTH…
    Sempre Fi’ ,Col.West

  • Denise

    Mr. West, I was on a long rant about this very subject last night on my post. These evil people are in our country. If my history lessons from college serve me correctly they will wait in plain sight for their opportunity. These are patient planners. They will live among us, work in our towns, flood our government. They are little by little taking our rights away from us and making it almost impossible to defend ourselves. America needs to open its eyes. They are here on our US soil. They have training camps in our country. Total evil is what they are. God have mercy on our country. I pray daily that American’s will notice how they are taking over and no one is noticing. Do we want our children or grandchildren murdered like these other children were. Our ancestors have fought for this country and now we have young men and women fighting for our rights to no avail. The entire situation makes me sick to my stomach. We must wake up and take charge to fix this infiltration of evil.

    • cvxxx

      Multiculturalism is the weakness that they exploit. We in the west ar only to see the Islamic hordes as refugees,workers,people wanting a better life. which can be said as true in a general sense. but what is also true is many are walking time bombs. Islam converts by the sword. A fact of history. The sword need only be sheathed until population(voting) tip points are reached.

    • Kathy Wayer

      This cult of islam is the woodworm of all religions in the world, they cannot obtain peace, so these believers delight in taking other peoples joy. This is the cult’s demise without Jesus there is no peace for the soul. Islam is a satanic cult of murder and alla is Satan. Read the book of Enoch.

    • Reba

      Very well said Denise. Look how long they planned 9-11 before attacking us. A lot of people are blind to all of this and our media does not cover it enough, so people will understand it. Our Government covers it up and encourages it, instead of doing what is right. Short of the individuals taking it on and ending up dead or in jail, no one knows what to do to stop it.

  • Michael Shaw

    Jihadists have be busy lately killing and intimidating health care workers distributing polio vaccine to Muslims. Perhaps it would be best to just let nature take it’s course.

  • http://www.liberallyconservative.com/ Don Anastas

    Not to mention a Muslim terrorist who not only entered the US but became and Obamacare navigator in Illinois. This women has so much blood on her hands she’s drowning in it. “Workplace Violence” living in America >> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372065/convicted-terrorist-worked-obamacare-navigator-illinois-jillian-kay-melchior

    • Reba

      How many more are in our system that the Government has let in?

  • Erich Pierce

    Bakers aren’t being punished for their religious beliefs. There are being punished for their intolerance.

    • Brian Smith

      If a photographer refused the state’s request to provide photographic documentation of a convicted killer’s execution, what would it be? Would it be Capitalpunismenntophobia? Would it be blamed on hate? Or would it be based on personal beliefs or religious faith and respected as such? Would they be threatened with legal and/or civil persecution and raked through the coals by the media? I realize that they are not the same. But the principle is.

      • Erich Pierce

        How is the principle the same? Choosing to not take pictures of an execution isn’t discriminating anybody. Not serving someone because of the way they were born is discrimination! Just like if someone chose not to serve someone based on their skin color or religious preference!

      • Scott Shipman

        is the science settled that people are born gay? At what point is gay determined if thats the case? where in the fetal development did that occur? If this is true, is it OK to abort a fetus if the gay marker is determined?

      • Erich Pierce

        Wow, that is the most ignorant question I’ve ever heard. “is the science settled that people are born gay?” Why don’t you talk to some gay people and find out. In the fetal development, it happens when the brain is developed. It’s possible for someone to be born with both male and female sex organs, what makes you think that someone couldn’t be born a male with the thoughts and desires of a female? Or vice versus? Just because it would be a choice for you to become gay? You can’t help who you’re attracted to. If “the gay marker” is the only reason for the abortion, then no it’s not ok.

      • Scott Shipman

        Erich, I don’t believe its an ignorant question at all, and I don’t think you understand how the brain works. I can’t conclude that a person is born gay because the science so far can’t conclude that. But I can have a philosophical discussion on the implications of that – and its not ignorant.
        The science around genetic predisposition is still largely unproven – whether it regards birth order, “the gay gene”, or other x – y chromosome priority and antigen behaviors during the birth process or the affects of hormones during development. And don’t get me started on junk DNA, either. But for the sake of argument, if there was a genetic cause, and a gene could be isolated, then isn’t it reasonable to suggest that we could also isolate and deactivate that gene (something they succeeded with in mice already)? And if so, doesn’t that make it a choice again?

        The problem with the studies that link sexual orientation to specific gene regions (of which science has not come to a consensus on which that would be), is that those studies deal with identical and fraternal twins in self selected studies, which leads to a bias. It also lacks a control group. But despite all that, concordance is at best only slightly non-trivial.

        If sexual orientation were in fact predetermined by our gene’s, then does that suggest humans (all animals) lack true free will? What does that suggest about our predisposition towards work? or our predisposition towards faith? Is there a Fundamentalist gene? Is it possible that our genes can determine, prior to birth, that we are destined to succeed or not succeed in whatever path we wander down (apparently not in our control)? Its not the education system after all. You were born to fail geometry.

        Does this suggest that there can be influence from some unknown sources that affect the gene makeup during development (maybe urban vs rural, vegan vs carnivore etc of the mother) that can determine our destiny?

        Most people associate desire with the thalamus, but sexual orientation implies a much deeper cognitive emotional nature (wouldn’t you agree?), and involves many parts of the brain, which help with emotional recognition and control. Then you have the affect of hormones on how the body interprets stimulus and and affects the brain. We know that based on gender, hormones can be different, but that even within a gender there is such a huge variance – largely related to environmental factors during fetal development and all the way to death. So, is it environment or genes?

        You also state that you can’t abort a fetus if a gay marker is determined. Assuming we remove the moral implication from the equation – why not? Is a gay fetus considered a protected class beyond a straight fetus, of which abortion is legal for any reason?

        Finally, I don’t really think you can have a full discussion on sexual orientation without relating it to self-awareness. Most psychologist suggest that an infant doesn’t have a sense of self awareness, and that its between 1 and 3 years. Ever watch an infant look at itself in the mirror?

      • Erich Pierce

        First off if they did and could find the “gay gene” isolate it and deactivate it then yes being gay would be a choice, but that is not the case.

        Humans don’t have true free will. They can’t naturally choose their color of hair, color of eyes, height, skin tone or genetic defects they will be born with or without

        It has been found in studies of the hypothalamus in gay men is closer to the size of a straight woman’s hypothalamus that it was to the size of a straight man’s. Sexual orientation, to me doesn’t involve a deeper cognitive emotional nature. The choice of the character and sexual attractiveness of who we choose to be with is a much deeper thing than sexual orientation.

        You misunderstood my statement about the abortion of a gay fetus. I said if the only reason to have an abortion was because the fetus was gay than no it’s not ok. Meaning that if the fetus was completely healthy and there were no other factors behind the abortion other than the fetus was gay than no it’s not ok. Just as if a gay person was going to abort a straight fetus just because it was straight wouldn’t be ok either. With that being said, whatever reason a woman decides to have an abortion or not is her choice. She has to live with whatever comes from her choice.

        As for the self-awareness of infants, I don’t see how that relates to sexual orientation, Their minds aren’t developed enough to focus on complex things like sexual orientation, they’re still learning about the world around them.

      • Stephanie

        I’m just playing devil’s advocate with you here but would you expect us to extend this same courtesy to pedophiles who can also not “not help who they are attracted to”- probably not the strongest argument. I don’t think in this context whether homosexuality is or is not controllable really matters. I think (if we’re using the “cake” issue) – if a baker has the right to refuse service to someone for not wearing clothing (s)he deems appropriate (standard shoes & shirts) we already assume that the business owner has the right to deny service according to hir discretion. [Yes, I am using the gender neutral pronouns].

        If you REALLY wanted to argue your view, (logically rather than emotionally) I think a better claim would likely fall in that it is a potential violation of the homosexual couple’s religious rights (though I’m not convinced that it actually is).

        In terms of the baker, I don’t know what branch (s)he practiced or identified with but I’m assuming it was something Christian? In some branches of Christianity, it is believed that ANY conscious contribution to the sin of another is a sin on the part of the participant. With this religious understanding, paying my taxes to a government that funds legalized murder through infanticide (or for argument’s sake- Germans donating to the NAZI Party during the ’40’s)- I would be held accountable by God for my enabling of said horrors. Conversely though. You’d be better off arguing that realistically cake or no cake, the couple was probably going to be together whether in “marriage” or “civil union” or via cohabitation. I do not believe the government should intervene or force anyone in the private sector to offer (non-vital) services to others. [I’m also pretty Libertarian though]
        Your argument seems to be based on forcing others to agree with viewing homosexual unions as valid marriage(s). Rather than defending homosexuality, a better point of discussion is business ethics and government intervention in general.

      • Erich Pierce

        First off comparing pedofiles to the LGBT community is like comparing apples and oranges. Pedofiles cause mental & physical damage to innocent children. Second someone that’s not served because of the clothing they are or are not wearing can go home and get changed, if someone is gay they can’t change that, they can pretend they’re not gay, but they’re still gay.

        If you want to talk about logical instead of emotional than religion needs to be removed from any debate. Logically it doesn’t make sense that a “god” exists. There have been over 2000 “gods” created by man. A good portion of those are now considered myths. So what makes Christians, Islams or any current religion’s followers, truly believe that “their god” is more than a myth like the rest of them? The point of someone saying it’s against their religious beliefs to serve a gay couple is hogwash to me. I feel it’s a cover for their intolerance. Based on the biggest point in all religion, that is to love and care for each other, people who do discriminate against gay couples are going against the words of whatever deity they follow.

        My argument isn’t based on forcing people to agree with viewing homosexual unions as valid. My argument is based on the idea that no one has the right to tell someone else who they’re allowed to spend their life with. Years ago it was against peoples “religious beliefs” that people from different races shouldn’t be married, “because it will destroy the fabric of marriage.” In this day in age marriage is not a religious thing, The benefits that come with and the rights that are recognised for a married couple are significantly different than that of two people who are just living together. I feel that if someone whatever race, ethnicity, sexual orientation… finds someone that loves and cares about them and they want to spend their lives together it’s nobody else’s business.

      • Stephanie

        As I said – I was merely playing devil’s advocate. I did not say child abusers, I said pedophiles- those with desires not necessarily those with actions. Perhaps they too are born that way. If they take no action against children but are attracted to them in a way we would otherwise deem unnatural, there is really no reason why there cannot be a comparison except that socially we consider these people mentally ill for not complying with our notions of “normal” sexuality. I do not mean to suggest that I accept pedophilia, but (minus the children factor) the way that you intuitively feel disgust for these people (because of their lack of adherence to your ideas concerning normative sexuality) is (I would imagine) what somebody hesitant to accept to LGBT feels to a lesser extent.

        I am not excusing this, (I don’t follow this site BTW – found it by someone’s link) but non-normative sexuality is often met with rejection no matter the society. It simply depends on what you personally define as “normal”. Clearly on a grassroots basis, Americans have yet to agree (though the courts seem to have made the decision for us).

        They cannot change who they are. I actually agree with you on this point more than you know. It was wrong for the baker to deny the couple a cake on the basis that they are gay. If I wanted to order a wedding cake for anything but a wedding – would they do it? Would they sell me (a Catholic) a wedding cake when they (presumably Protestant) do not agree with the religious validity of my union? Is it close minded? Yes. Do they have the right to hold close-minded views? I believe so only in that you also, clearly opposed to religion (which I personally view as ignorant)- you still have the right to say & believe what you want. I don’t condone Socialism either but the government has been concerning itself with the personal lives of its citizens for quite some time. I think most people would probably agree that it is not the case they actually acre about, but the clash of citizen vs government.

        The question becomes- where do we draw the line? It is becoming increasingly difficult to separate religion and politics as many preachers now view politics as an expression of religious identity (and vice-versa). It is a complex issue which causes great anxiety for supporters of the baker.
        The couples’ union/marriage is not contingent upon a cake. They have a right to the ceremony/ritual & other legal rights affiliated with it. As far as I am aware, there is no legal basis for the purchase of baked goods.

        That being said, religious freedom is supposed to be guaranteed by the first amendment. Whether you choose to identify with philosophy, politics, religion, or all three, it is a fundamental right recognized by our Founding Fathers that we (as Americans) cannot be forced to violate our beliefs (within reasonable means ie as long as nobody is hurt in the process).

        While it may damage the pride and hurt the couple’s feelings that others don’t welcome them with open arms, it does not in fact prevent them from getting married. It isn’t anyone’s business whether they are together or not – just like it is not anyone’s business whether someone chooses to adhere to a religion or not. The issue comes in expecting others to believe everything which we personally believe. Intolerance is a 2 ways street. While conservatives are accused of being intolerant of gays for not sharing their views towards marriage, liberals are bashing people with religious views and claiming they’re “hiding behind it” merely for disagreeing for with their own views. True tolerance includes toleration of views which are vastly different from our own (though we are always free to try and convince them otherwise). The nation is changing and gay rights are more or less inevitable. That doesn’t mean that everyone will accept it overnight though. It takes more than legal measures- it takes (slow) social change – particularly with younger generations.

        Personally I think if LGBT rights activists desired acceptance rather than legal rights, they would campaign for greater rights in gay unions. Once those had been secured, THEN take on the right to call it marriage. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage is on the basis of it being called marriage- not because they are together or because they desire legal rights. There are some though that feel duty bound to join other conservatives when these issues are tied up with headlines concerning religious freedoms. There will always be these people in any political debate.

        IDK- If you want to change the minds of ignorant or “intolerant” people – is force really the best option? Rather than slandering people for their religious beliefs why not instead try to patiently explain why gay marriage (love it or hate it) is a separate issue from consumer discrimination- that selling a cake to gays is not morally synonymous with voting for gay marriage.

        Surely there a middle road can be found.

      • Brian Smith

        I’m sorry, Erich. You are right about the principle. It was probably a poor analogy. However, the baker is not discriminating against Gays. They’ve been serving openly Gay people for years. So I really don’t think it’s the Gays themselves that are being directly discriminated against here. It is one particular activity of Gays that they won’t, and shouldn’t have to, cater to. It’s their business, their religion, it should be their choice. Their business may suffer for the lack of the Gay marriage business, but still, it should be their choice.

    • JamesOnTheWay

      What about your intolerance?

      • Erich Pierce

        What intolerance?

    • raycathode

      The baker is a private individual – he is free to serve or not serve whoever he wishes for whatever reasons he wishes. What he is not free to do is escape the consequences REALITY (not government) imposes on him – loss of customers, public scorn. Other people are free not to deal with him – you are free to go elsewhere. I’m sure there are plenty of bakers who don’t care a whit about the sexual orientation of their customers – in fact, some might be especially happy to help the couple. It is not on for governments to punish people for their beliefs, that puts them in the role of thought police.

      • Reba

        That’s why I think the Bill should have been written to protect the Businesses against a Lawsuit. If the Business did not choose to bake a Wedding Cake based on their Religion, then they should be protected against a Law Suit.

      • Erich Pierce

        You’re right the government shouldn’t intervene in the business of individual citizens. I agree the way they will be punished for their intolerance is from the lack of business by people who disagree with their words & actions.

    • Sherry Jones

      So let’s say there was a gay couple who opened a bakery and decided that they would only bake wedding cakes for other gay people. They would bake any other kind of cake for straight people, but not wedding cakes. Should they also be charged with discrimination?

      • Erich Pierce

        Yes they should be charged with discrimination!! Somebody’s lifestyle, religion, ethnicity, race, education level, whatever else doesn’t excuse them to be able to discriminate against anybody!

      • Sherry Jones

        Ok, well, kudos to you for not being a hypocrite. We don’t see that very often. But the baker in that one particular story was discriminated against for his religion. I saw the news interview with him and his wife. They have very deeply held religious convictions. They very clearly had nothing at all against that couple as people, but truly believed that their lifestyle was a sin. I don’t agree with the baker, but I do think it’s sad that when it comes to discrimination, it’s always a case of “set aside your beliefs” and never “go to another bakery”.

      • Erich Pierce

        My feelings are that people shouldn’t be discriminated against, but beliefs should be discriminated against. Beliefs that force people to discriminate against people for any reason, are wrong and need to be rethought.

      • Sherry Jones

        While I certainly can’t say I disagree with you, because I’m not even a Christian myself and have no religious beliefs, I do know that there are many Christian’s who sincerely, in their hearts, believe that homosexuality is a sin against god. They have absolutely zero hatred for homosexuals, but at the same time, cannot in good conscious do something that supports what they truly believe is a sin. I know this, because I grew up in a Christian household, have many Christian friends as well as family members, spent most of my formative years in Christian churches. So while you and I think they’re wrong, they are simply following their hearts and their conscious. Have we the right to force them to do otherwise? Does the 1st Amendment only apply to them when their beliefs are something we can agree with? That just doesn’t seem right to me. It’s certainly true that people should not be discriminated against, but their beliefs are a part of who they are. So by accepting discrimination against those beliefs, you are also accepting discrimination against those people.

  • akatom3565

    The most dangerous person in this country is the one who believes the lies and thinks this current administration is helping us instead of endangering us.

    • Kirstin ‘Honsey’ McLendon

      Sadly, that seems to be most of Americans.

  • Nanaof3kids

    Do you all notice how much worse things have gotten since we have taken God out of our lives. He is not welcome in our schools our government buildings and in the hotel in Iowa that is connected the university there. We were protected from these outside forces until we turned our backs on Him. Now you hear people say God bless America. Why would He? He won’t stay where He is not wanted. We have turned the USA into Sodom and Gomorrah. We kill our unborn children by the millions. We don’t get married any more because we will only get divorced. We can no longer celebrate the birth of Christ because we might offend a muslim. What is wrong with us? We used to be a God fearing Christ loving nation. Now we can only be ruled by atheist and race baiters. It’s time we turned back to God and let Him rule our lives. I know, I know, there are a lot of you out there who are unbelievers but if we all pray for you you might just come around.

  • http://batman-begins.com/ Rafael X

    So it’s not ok to sue the baker that wont bake a cake for a gay wedding because of religious freedom. But it’s ok to sue the muslim cab driver whose religion doesn’t allow him to be around dogs because he refuses a blind customer and his guide dog.

    • The_Patriot

      You are using a false comparison.
      If a man who had a non service dog went to him for a ride he indeed can refuse the dog from entering the cab. However since the dog is a service dog, in the case a guide dog he cannot refuse him service. the dog is essential to the survival of the man.
      Refusing to bake a cake for Gays because of their religious reasons can be done as it is not essential to anyone’s life or safety. You may not like my answer but it is correct

  • teeohpee66

    Arizona’s SB 1062 was a form of Sharia Law. Wake up people, the conservative christian politicians are trying to Sharia-fy our laws.

    • Sherry Jones

      SB 1062 was NOT a form of Sharia Law. By what logic do you make that claim? Are you actually comparing stoning or beheading someone to refusing to bake a stupid cake? Really?

  • MotherBatherick

    In addition to LTC West educating us on the evils of Islamic terrorists, I think the short online video “Fitna” also explains them pretty well, too.

  • Carrie Geren Scoggins

    Unless we stop the censorship of counter cult ministries, that which is being done unlawfully by social media, and as in the court case I have posted information and video links about below, where Google was illegally forced by court to remove a video critical of Islam, then we will not have our citizens in full truth about Sharia law, and about Islam.
    Countercult ministries have the legal right to debate the issues, including that of debating Islam, by Federal Supreme Court ruling!
    ———————–
    GOOGLE WAS FORCED BY THE COURT SYSTEM TO REMOVE A VIDEO THAT WAS CRITICAL OF ISLAM, THE VIDEO “INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS,” VIOLATING THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT RULING SUPPORTING OUR “LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE,” OVERTURNING THE HATE SPEECH LAWS.

    http://youtu.be/o6pJiW3iiLo “HATE SPEECH LAWS OVERTURNED BY THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, UPHOLDING OUR LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE,”

    http://youtu.be/opDtqSLR2AE “UN HAS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, NO JURY BY ONE’S PEERS, NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, NO BALANCE OF POWERS!”

    Story from: http://www.Israelnation.com

    GOOGLE BEING FORCED BY THE COURTS TO REMOVE A VIDEO CRITICAL OF ISLAM VIOLATES THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT GIVING US THE “LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE,” ON ANY TOPIC!THE “HATE SPEECH” LAWS, CENSORING

    THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF THOSE THAT WANT TO DEBATE ISLAM, WERE DEEMED

    UNCONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS CENSORSHIP BY THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL SUPREME COURT. THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE

    HATE SPEECH LAWS, UPHOLDING OUR “LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE.”

    CHRISTIANS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE, OR DEBATE ANY OTHER RELIGIONS, AS THERE ARE NO LAWS CENSORING RELIGIOUS DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES.

    THE HATE SPEECH LAWS WERE OVERTURNED, AND OUR LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUES, WERE UPHELD.

    THIS ENSURES THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS DEBATE, AMONG THE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, TO ARGUE, DISAGREE, AND DEBATE, OVER OTHER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND DOCTRINES. THERE IS NO FREEDOM FROM RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES, NOR IS THERE A FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS DEBATE, AS WE ARE TO PRACTICE TOLERANCE OF OTHER PEOPLE’S VIEWPOINTS THAT OPPOSE OUR OWN.

    HAVING THE “LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE THE ISSUE,” MEANS CHRISTIANS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ISLAM, AND ISLAMIC GROUPS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE CHRISTIANS. THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS CENSORSHIP, NOR CENSORSHIP OF RELIGIOUS DEBATE, IN THE UNITED STATES.

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A RADICAL IDEA, AS IT MEANS ARGUING, DISAGREEING, AND DEBATE ARE FULLY LEGAL, AND THAT MANY WILL HEAR THINGS THAT THEY ARE OFFENDED BY. THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS ALL ABOUT, AS IT OPPOSES CENSORSHIP. IT IS FREEDOM STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD, FOR ANY VIEWPOINT, TO BE EXPRESSED. THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS GIVES THE MEDIA THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE AS WELL.

    THE OLD ADAGES:

    “YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN UNTIL YOU SUPPORT THE LEGAL RIGHTS THAT YOU DESPISE.”

    “I MAY DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOUR SAYING, BUT I WOULD GIVE MY LIFE FOR YOUR FREEDOMS TO SAY IT,”

    ARE WHAT OUR NATION’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS FOUNDED UPON. FREEDOM OF SPEECH, STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD, FOR EVERY VIEWPOINT, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF CENSORSHIP.

    THE UNITED STATES’ “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,”

    KEEPS THE STATE OUT OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, OUT OF THE

    CHURCH, STOPPING ANY FORM OF RELIGIOUS CENSORSHIP,

    AND STOPS CENSORSHIP OF RELIGIOUS DEBATE.

    THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE ANTI BLASPHEMING LAWS, AS IT IS A FORM OF RELIGIOUS CENSORSHIP, WHICH WOULD CENSOR RELIGIOUS DEBATE.

    SHARIA LAW, ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS LAWS, ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AS SHARIA LAW WOULD EXECUTE ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST ISLAM.

    OUR UNITED STATES IS NOT AN ISLAMIC THEOCRACY, AS WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE INCLUDING ISLAM, AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION, LEAVING THE CHOICE OF WHICH RELIGION ONE WISHES TO FOLLOW IS LEFT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO DECIDE.

    FOR THOSE THAT ARE OFFENDED BY OTHERS VOICING THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, TOLERANCE IS EXPECTED. TOLERANCE FOR THE VARYING VIEWPOINTS BEING VOICED, AND THE DEBATE AND ARGUING BETWEEN THOSE THAT HOLD DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS FAITHS.

    RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ALLOWS FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO VOICE THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS, AND THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DISAGREE.

    #hatespeech #censorship #Republican #teaparty #religion #God #antiblaspheminglaws #UN #EU #GOP #Democrat #freedomofspeech #firstamendmentrights #firstamendment #separationofchurchandstate #freedomfromreligion #nofreedomfromreligion #religiousdebate #thelegalrighttodebatetheissue #freedom #Google #court #FederalSupremeCourt #constitutionallaw #ACLJ #JaySekulow #LibertyCounsel #freedomofreligion #USconstitution #constitutionallaw #civilrights

  • Carrie Geren Scoggins

    http://youtu.be/XjqQZs3hDs8
    CENSORSHIP OF RELIGIOUS DEBATE, AND LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE ISLAM:
    GOOGLE WAS FORCED BY THE COURT SYSTEM TO REMOVE A VIDEO THAT WAS CRITICAL OF ISLAM, THE VIDEO “INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS,” VIOLATING THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT RULING SUPPORTING OUR “LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE,” OVERTURNING THE HATE SPEECH LAWS.

  • Carrie Geren Scoggins

    THOSE THAT SUPPORT ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAWS, SUCH AS THAT IN THE UN, WHICH HAVE CRIMINALIZED DEBATING ISLAM, MADE IT ILLEGAL TO SPEAK AGAINST THE KORAN, ISLAM, OR MUHAMMAD, DO NOT LIKE THIS SAME LAW, IF IT IS NOT IN AN ISLAMIC THEOCRACY.

    THEY WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW IF IT WERE AN ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAW THAT MADE IT ILLEGAL TO SPEAK AGAINST JESUS AS THE CHRIST, OR ILLEGAL TO SPEAK AGAINST THE BIBLE, OR ANY OF THE BIBLICAL PROPHETS.

    THIS IS SHOWING THAT THIS LAW HAS THE MAKINGS OF AN ISLAMIC THEOCRACY, AND ONLY CENSORS THOSE THAT OPPOSE ISLAM.

    IF THE ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAWS WERE THAT OF CENSORING ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, THE BIBLE, JESUS AS THE CHRIST AND SON OF GOD, OR THE BIBLICAL PROPHETS, THEN LIBERALS AND NON CHRISTIANS WOULD PROTEST IN OUTRAGE, YET TO SHOW THE DOUBLE STANDARD, THIS SAME GROUP BARELY MENTIONS THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE EU NOW BRINGING IN THE ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAWS AS ISLAMIC THEOCRACY.

    CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS POLITICAL NEWSLETTER BIBLE PROPHECY TIMES EDITION

  • Paul Deckelman

    Colonel West – who was over there, saw these people face-to-face and fought against them – understands the fiendish and fanatical mindset of our Islamic jihadist enemies and the grave danger that they pose (which he succinctly sums up in the great short video below) better than ANY other major U.S. political figure from either party. It is why I had hoped that he would have run for President in 2012, or at least have been on the GOP ticket – and why I hope he runs in 2016.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJx21WXA9fY .

Back to top
mobile desktop

Join Allen on the front lines.

Sign up for Allen B. West's free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.