President Trump and religious freedom—know your rights

Trump has done more for religious freedom in the U.S. than many recent presidents, but the media neglect to do their homework and some recent reporting shows the ignorance of journalists raised and educated in the late 20th-21st centuries. They hate him so therefore never dig into the laws and regulations. President Trump's executive order on religious liberty in May 2017 noted, "Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion." No new laws, no convoluted regulations. Simply implement the laws we had. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/05/04/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-executive-order-on-religious-freedom/?

Section 4 provided guidance (by then AG Jeff Sessions) on 20 principles of religious freedom and guidance for their implementation, followed by an appendix with supporting case law. I wonder how many journalists, pastors, church boards or school principals have read it? https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001886/download?

Every American Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, others and atheists needs to print and save Sessions' guidelines so they don't look foolish arguing and making charges about settle law.

Was it Obama, Trump or Clinton who declared federal employees may keep religious materials on the private desks and read them during breaks? Clinton. Was it Obama, Trump or Clinton who said federal employees can wear religious jewelry, invite coworkers to attend services, and discuss religious issues? Clinton.

Why do Lutheran schools have the right to employ only practicing Lutherans, or set codes of conduct for non-Lutheran employees? Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964.

Going around--don't know source of why Hillary lost, but I've heard them all

"I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost.

• Was it the Russians?
• Or was it Wikileaks ?
• Or was it Podesta?
• Or Comey?
• Or was it a sexual predator husband?
• Or was it her chief of staff's husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis?
• Was it a subpoena violation?
• Or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation?
• Or was it the congressional lies?
• Or was it the Bengazi bungle that cost several lives?
• Or was it pay for play?
• Or was it the travel gate scandal?
• Or was it the Whitewater scandal?
• Or the cattlegate scandal?
• Or the Trooper Gate scandal?
• Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with Clinton Foundation money?
• Or Comey's investigation?
• Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation?
• Or was it stealing debate questions?
• Was it deleting forensic 30,000 emails?
• Was it the Seth Rich murder?
• Was it calling half the USA deplorable?
• Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders?
• Was it the Vince Foster murder?
• The Jennifer Flowers assault?
• The Jennifer Flowers settlement?
• The Paula Jones law suit?
• The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement?
• The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe?
• The impeachment?
• The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the State Department?
• The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich?"

Anyone else but Bill Clinton would be investigated by the IRS

 From the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cold-clinton-reality-1477608696

Longtime Clinton aide Doug Band wrote a memo in 2011 to justify himself to lawyers at Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett who were reviewing his role and conducting a governance review of the Clinton Foundation . . .
"The Band memo reveals exactly what critics of the Clintons have long said: They make little distinction between the private and public aspects of their lives, between the pursuit of personal enrichment, the operation of a nonprofit, and participation in U.S. politics.

Mr. Band writes that he and his colleague Justin Cooper “have, for the past ten years, served as the primary contact and point of management for President Clinton’s activities—which span from political activity... (e.g., campaigning on behalf of candidates for elected office), to business activity (e.g., providing advisory services to business entities with which he has a consulting arrangement), to Foundation activity.”

This excerpt and all the potential conflicts it describes, plus Chelsea’s warning about business “hustling” at foundation events, would seem more than ample cause to trigger an IRS audit of the foundation. For that matter, why aren’t the IRS and prosecutors already on the case? Any normal foundation has to keep records to show it is separating its nonprofit activity from any for-profit business."

Has Nina Burleigh apologized to American women for saying disgusting things about us?

Did Nina Burleigh ever apologize for treating the President of the United States like a boy toy in a women's magazine?

"The president's foot lightly, and presumably accidentally, brushed mine once under the table," Burleigh writes. "His hand touched my wrist while he was dealing the cards. When I got up and shook his hand at the end of the game, his eyes wandered over to my bike-wrecked, naked legs. And slowly it dawned on me as I walked away: He found me attractive."

She adds: "I probably wore the mesmerized look I have seen again and again in women after they have met him. The same silly hypnotized gleam was displayed on the cover of Time magazine in Monica Lewinsky's eyes."

In an interview, Burleigh, now a New York freelancer, said she in no way felt harassed or pressured by the president but that it was "not unusual for women" to swoon over him. What is unusual, for a journalist, is Burleigh's sexually charged declaration of support for Clinton. "I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," she said." Washington Post, July 6, 1998, quoting Mirabella magazine essay she wrote.

Her full quote, not used in that WaPo story: "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." 

So, just as Hillary Clinton threw millions of women in a bucket as deplorable, this Time reporter wanted all American women to perform oral sex on the president. Who's more lewd--this obscure female journalist or the famous Donald Trump? Do you know any pro-life women who would prostitute themselves like this for a magazine article or even write such evil? Is that how to get published? 

She got a lot of flack--after all it was 1998. But she wasn't very good at prophecy, claiming there would be no problem if a man had written about a woman.  'Wake up, ladies! Were we ever to get a female President, Pete Hamill or Norman Mailer would never be so savaged and maligned and ridiculed for writing about the woman’s charms. On the contrary. They would be paid a king’s ransom by Esquire for performing the service." http://observer.com/1998/07/my-spin-through-the-cycle/

Hillary enabled and protected her husband--for political gain

“Bill Clinton was not just a workplace harasser, or even a serial adulterer; he was, and remains, someone credibly accused of sexual assault. And what goes unmentioned — for this obviously could be catastrophic for Hillary’s campaign — is that she has been his willing cohort, the energetic enabler who sought to destroy his accusers to protect their joint political and financial interests ... the Clintons have [turned] their fellow liberals and Democrats, in ...the media and beyond ... into serial equivocators and liars. Never mind that progressives continue to see (and often define) themselves as morally and ethically superior: in the fight to save Bill Clinton’s presidency there could be no adherence to larger truths, or moral consistency, or commitment to time-tested standards; all were sacrificed in defense of Clinton’s political survival.”

 http://www.city-journal.org/2016/eon0104hs.html

Clinton blames peaceful protesters not his actions at Waco for Oklahoma City

It's the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombings when Timothy McVeigh, a wacko enraged by the Waco incident two years before, decided to kill the way the government under Janet Reno had killed at Waco. Now Clinton chooses the anniversary of the Murrah Building bombing to absolve himself of any blame and to caution today's peaceful protestors. It's either convoluted thinking, or just thinking like a Democrat.

With the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing approaching, former President Bill Clinton on Thursday drew parallels between the antigovernment tone that preceded that devastating attack and the political tumult of today, saying government critics must be mindful that angry words can stir violent actions.

Recalling ’95 Bombing, Clinton Sees Parallels - NYTimes.com

The Clintons and our current President all participated in not-so-peaceful protests; in fact, Obama's friend Bill Ayers who helped launch his career in Chicago is a domestic terrorist who bombed buildings in the 60s, and his UCC Chicago pastor preached inflamatory, racist, and anti-semitic sermons, but he stayed in the church year after year. So why can one group listen to all this anti-government language, but others can not? What are they afraid of? That it might work? A conservative takeover? Why wasn't Clinton chastising the SEIU protestors who actually got arrested in their protests on Tax Day?

Obamacare: Still a Threat to Your Life

The decimation of our health care system under Obamacare begins with government mandates, regulations, bureaucracies, and controls. There are close to 100 new health care bureaucracies, boards, commissions and programs in the proposed plan pushed by Obama, according to The American Spectator.

For just a little bipartisanship, ask yourself would either Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney, both political has-beens with limited usefulness to the current administration and a long history of heart problems treated with the lastest technology by the best doctors, be alive today if Obamacare were in full bloom?

Giving out awards

A The New Republic Jonathan Chait notes in "The case against awards" that:

"A recent statistical analysis by Robert T. Hodgson, published in the Journal of Wine Economics (I kid you not), found that a wine that wins one competition is no more likely to win another competition than any other wine. Which is to say, wine awards are handed out completely at random. If you listen to movie buffs, they will tell you that the Academy Awards regularly commit unforgiveable sins of commission or omission. Look closely at any field that gives out awards, and you will probably find that injustice is more the rule than the exception.

I've often suspected as much at art shows when I look at the winners. However, since I think the point of his article was to reference Obama's recent prize when he erroneously says, "the committee frequently chooses recipients in order to encourage or empower them, rather than to reward actual achievement" at least I can't think of any examples, one person comments:

Originally the award was designed to be given to those who had done the most to bring about peace. This means it should go to international mediators and those who make peace with their internal or external enemies. While there might not be good candidates every year, there are many who fit this criterion who haven't received the award. It took the Nobel Committee in Oslo 23 years to award Carter for mediating the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. There are two figures in the Obama administration who deserve it for their work in the Clinton administration: George Mitchell for mediating the Good Friday Agreement in Belfast in 1998; Richard Holbrooke for mediating the Dayton Accords for Bosnia in 1995. Obama should give each of them half of the peace prize.

I think I could go for that--split it with people who deserve it. Although wasn't Clinton given the credit for the Belfast Agreement? He certainly is revered in Ireland.

Comparing the 2009 Health Care Agenda with the 1993 plan

About 16 years ago, on September 22, 1993, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation outlining his plans for health care reform. It was based on "The Task Force on Health Care Reform," organized by his wife Hillary in January 1993 who appointed 550 persons to 35 different working groups, each focusing on one specific feature of reform. One working group addressed the ethical foundations of the new health plan. Some members of that ethics group say there were 14, some say 15 ethical values and principles submitted. It was reported in the Feb. 1994 issue of the Journal of Family Practice and the HEC Forum 1995 and in Journal of Medicine and Philosophy in 1994 as “Ethicists and Health Care Reform: An Indecent Proposal?” by Laurence J. O'Connell, Ph.D. (a Lutheran) who then contributed his views on the 15 ethical values and principles to the “Special Report: Health Care” in The Lutheran, December 1993.

Hillarycare was a lot shorter, clearer and better researched than any of the present House and Senate versions (Obamacare), and involved much more input from the general public and specialists as opposed to just staffers and lobbyists writing what Congressmen needed to say. However, the public didn’t like an unelected official taking over their health care, and disliked her personally, although in hindsight and considering what we’ve got today from a group of Marxist and socialist advisors in the White House, her version seems much less bureaucratic and cumbersome. In any event, within a year, it was dead. Obama and friends think it was talked and debated to death, and that’s why they’ve renamed a crisis and tried to ram jam cram it down our throats in the dead of night during a recess period in August. The Republicans have been helpless to stop it; it's all in the Democrats' lap now. The start date for Obamacare is so far in the future there is no way to know what diseases, technology or cures may be on the horizon by then, so cost projection is just a fantasy. Think what has changed just within the technology of medical records, surgery for obesity and the treatment of AIDS since 1993.

But essentially the ethical underpinnings of Obamacare is unchanged Hillarycare. It has just grown to obese proportions.

The 15 ethical values as the base of the Clinton Plan as printed in The Lutheran, Dec. 1993 p. 32. These will look very familiar.

1. Health care is a fundamental human right.
2. Access to health care must be universal.
3. Benefits must be comprehensive and basic.
4. The benefits must be distributed equally to be a fundamental social good.
5. No pre-existing conditions can deprive a person of this community good.
6. It will be supported in a proportionate way by those most able to pay.
7. It will be intergenerational without weighting toward the elderly.
8. It will be rationed in a prudent and humane way because resources are finite.
9. Only truly effective treatments will be offered.
10. It will be high-quality.
11. It will be streamlined and will simplify the bureaucracy.
12. Individual choice will be evaluated and balanced against the community good.
13. Each person will contribute to the common good by being responsible and not wasting health-care resources.
14. Physicians will not be asked to engage in activities that are inconsistent with their professional commitments and their integrity will be protected.
15. There must be an effective appeal mechanism to protect individuals.

Folks, there is NO CRISIS. About 10% of American citizens (30,000,000 according to the President's last speech) do not have adequate health care. We have a huge government medical program now which covers some very well, and others very poorly, and some have chosen to not have either government nor private insurance. Under the "new" improved plan, there will still be about 5% not covered. This is a power grab. Not a reform.

For once (or twice) I agree with President Clinton

After being elected on "hope" Obama has been the biggest down talker of the people and the economy I've ever heard. President Clinton has cautiously announced that this isn't the way to give people hope, and that everyone who has bet against America in its history has lost. First he gives Obama an "A" for his first month (he doesn't mind the huge ethics lapse of Obama's staff). Then he adds his "fatherly" advice--lighten up.

Former president Bill Clinton tells Good Morning America, in an interview airing today, that he likes "the fact that (President Obama) didn't come in and give us a bunch of happy talk. I'm glad he shot straight with us. ... (But) I just want the American people to know that he's confident that we are gonna get out of this and he feels good about the long run. ... I like trying to educate the American people about the dimensions and scope of this economic crisis. ... I just would like him to end by saying that he is hopeful and completely convinced we're gonna come through this."

I have never felt so belittled and distraught as I do listening to our President hem and haw his way through a speech or interview. He is throwing bad money after bad. And then he tells us it probably won't work. Huh? The markets are responding--unfortunately--just the way Obama "hoped." The markets began plunging when it appeared in the fall that Obama-spread-the wealth would be elected. They have continued to plunge because the more he destroys the economy, the more he knows the people will turn to him. Now all the gains of the Bush years have been wiped out, and Obama appears to be the big winner.

Obama Names Bill Clinton to Presidential Post

That Iowahawk is such a kidder, but still . . . it surely looks that way. Those of you afraid of a Bush third term with McCain, are you happy about the Clinton third term?

WASHINGTON DC - Ending weeks of speculation and rumors, President-Elect Barack Obama today named Bill Clinton to join his incoming administration as President of the United States, where he will head the federal government's executive branch.

"I am pleased that Bill Clinton has agreed to come out of retirement to head up this crucial post in my administration," said Obama. "He brings a lifetime of previous executive experience as Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, and has worked closely with most of the members of my Cabinet."

Never believe a promise that they'll only tax the other guy

That's class warfare. Class envy. Obama can't reduce taxes for 95% of Americans, since about 1/3 don't pay taxes anyway. Here's what to remember the last time a charismatic candidate promised to tax the rich and give you a break.

“Back when Mr. Clinton was campaigning for president in 1992, he made a pretty direct pitch: Raise taxes on people making more than $200,000, and use those revenues to fund tax relief for the "forgotten middle class."

In an October presidential debate, then-Gov. Clinton laid out the marginal-rate increase he wanted and some of his plans for the revenue that would be brought in. He followed with a pledge:

"Now, I'll tell you this," he said. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs."

Mr. Clinton, of course, won that election. And as the inauguration approached, he began backtracking from his promise. At a Jan. 14, 1993, press conference in New Hampshire, he claimed that it was the media that had played up a middle-class tax cut, not him. A month later, he announced his actual plan before a joint session of Congress.

p. 1 NYT . . . "Families earning as little as $20,000 a year will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President's plan." About That Middle-Class Tax Cut . . .