‘Obama Truth Team’ Orders GoDaddy To Shut Down Website

Comments Off on ‘Obama Truth Team’ Orders GoDaddy To Shut Down Website

Doing what a dictator does best…..shut down dissent or opposition: What about the 1st amendment and free speech? Hagmann wasn’t threatening anyone, just tellng what he saw as the truth.

A political website that contained stinging criticism of the Obama administration and its handling of the Fast and Furious scandal was ordered to be shut down by the Obama campaign’s ‘Truth Team’, according to private investigator Douglas Hagmann, who was told by ISP GoDaddy his site contained information that was “maliciously harmful to individuals in the government.”

Hagmann, CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc., a private investigative agency serving a roster of Fortune 500 clients, was given 48 hours by GoDaddy to find a new home for his website before it was deleted.

Hagmann was told the reason for the shut down was because the website featured “morally objectionable” material. After GoDaddy refused to identify the complainant, only saying that it was not “any official government agency,” further investigation by Hagmann revealed that the order came from a group tied to Obama campaign headquarters.

Speaking with the chief investigator in the GoDaddy Abuse division, Hagmann discovered, “Ultimately it was found that the complaint originated ostensibly with a group associated with the campaign to re-elect Barack Hussein Obama.”

Turning to his contacts within government, Hagmann then contacted spoke with another source who confirmed that the ‘Obama Truth Team’ was responsible for the shut down order.

“I’m laying this right on the doorstep of the Obama Truth Team,” said Hagmann.

The ‘Obama Truth Team’ is an outreach of the Obama 2012 re-election campaign that urges supporters to “help fight back against the attacks on President Obama and his record” by reporting supposed misrepresentations and lies. However, as ABC News reported, the ‘Truth Team’ has mischaracterized legitimate criticism as smears in an effort to chill dissent against Obama. It has also been caught fibbing on a number of other occasions.

The same methods of intimidation were also very much in force during the 2008 campaign season. Under the guise of the ‘Obama Truth Squad’, influential public figures in Missouri including St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, and Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, promised to “respond quickly, forcefully, and aggressively” to “lies” about Obama.

Hagmann is now warning that any independent website which forcefully dissents against the Obama administration could be targeted next.

“I respectfully ask that you spread the word – that the Obama “Truth Team” is out in full force, scouring any U.S. based web sites of any size or influence (yet small enough to be pushed around) that contains any information deemed “objectionable” to the Obama re-election campaign. Perhaps it’s already too late. Regardless, people need to wake up now and listen to what we’ve been saying. There might not be a tomorrow,” Hagmann told us in an email.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Michele Bachmann: Washington is taking notice of HHS mandate backlash

Comments Off on Michele Bachmann: Washington is taking notice of HHS mandate backlash

Yeah….we are mad about the unconstitutional mandate and we won’t stand for it. I hope the Supreme Court stikes the whole thing down maybe next week, but I’m not holding my breath.

For opponents of the HHS mandate who are worried that the mainstream media has blacked out their message, one advocate on the Hill has an encouraging message: lawmakers in Washington are definitely taking notice.

Former presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told LifeSiteNews.com that opposition to the mandate, which drew tens of thousands of Americans to over 160 rallies across the country earlier this month for the second time this spring, was “not invisible at all” to her fellow lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The Congresswoman spoke at the D.C. rally against the mandate, where she called religious liberty “the heart and soul” of the insurance coverage battle.

“This isn’t invisible at all. This is known very well by lawmakers all across – on both sides of the aisle,” said Bachmann, who provided a strong conservative foil to the incumbent in her GOP presidential bid that ended in January.

Although abortion has always been a contentious issue, she said, her colleagues understand that the mandate represents “a giant leap beyond” the typical back-and-forth on social issues in Washington.

“Now the Federal Government requires—forces—Americans, even if it’s a violation of my conscience and my sincerely held beliefs, I am forced to have to pay for other people’s abortions. We can’t have that … we’re going to draw a line in the sand,” said Bachmann.

Religious liberty advocates have emphasized that the emergency contraception drug Plan B (which would be funded under the mandate) states in official packaging that the chemicals can abort a young embryo, although the actual effect of the drugs has been disputed.

Bachmann, who is Christian, also said she is “proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder” with Catholic Church leaders, whose pleas for a broader religious exemption have met with silence from the administration.

Read more

Trial begins in suit against proposed Tennessee mosque

Comments Off on Trial begins in suit against proposed Tennessee mosque

Opponents of a proposed new mosque in Tennessee will get to make their arguments at trial beginning today, Wednesday, April 25, 2012.

A legal battle over public notice in Rutherford County’s approval of a mosque site could affect Tennessee’s definition of a newspaper as well as guidelines for how and where governments can advertise their meetings.

In a two-day trial that starts today, plaintiffs will argue that the county government failed to provide adquate public notice of its May 2010 Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission meeting, where officials were to vote on a site plan for a new mosque for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.

“In this case, the issue should be whether the published notice should have included more information about the agenda, not which publication,” Frank Gibson, public policy for the Tennessee Press Association, told The DNJ this week.

The public notice published in the Murfreesboro Post did not state that mosque site approval was on the agenda because Rutherford County’s zoning laws allow places of worship to be treated the same as residential developments. No rezoning was required; therefore, no public hearing was needed before the planning commission reviewed the site plan and voted.

Chancellor Robert Corlew III has ruled already that Islam is a religion and that the ICM holds First Amendments rights to build the mosque. Work on the first phase of the building next to Grace Baptist Church on Veals Road off Bradyville Pike, just outside Murfreesboro, started in September 2011 and is nearing completion.

Continue Reading

Secularism with the gloves off: Vanderbilt U’s assault on religious groups

Comments Off on Secularism with the gloves off: Vanderbilt U’s assault on religious groups

Like most of America’s historic private universities, Vanderbilt University was founded by Christian believers for the purpose of inculcating Christian beliefs in its students. Vanderbilt was founded in the 1870s by Methodists and later funded largely by New York’s Vanderbilt family.

Within a remarkably short period of years, Vanderbilt had forfeited its conservative Methodist roots in order to identify with the emerging secular consensus in American higher education.

As Notre Dame’s James Tunstead Burtchaell explained, Vanderbilt serves as a case study in the secularization of American higher education — a process Burtchaell described as the “disengagement of colleges and universities from their Christian churches.” Just a few decades after its founding, Vanderbilt had transformed itself into a secular university, embarrassed by its Christian founding.

As Burtchaell made clear, this was not due to demands for secularization from outside the university. It was accomplished under the direction of liberal Protestants who desperately wanted to identify with the secular elites.

Well, if that was Vanderbilt’s goal, the university has been stunningly successful.

It is unlikely that many of Vanderbilt’s students and faculty know anything of the university’s Christian history. If they do, it would be cause for further embarrassment, mixed with relief that the university is now safely in liberal and secular hands.

In more recent months, Vanderbilt’s administration decided to push secularism to the extreme — launching a virtual vendetta against religious organizations on campus. Officials of the university informed religious groups that had been recognized student organizations that they would have to comply with an absolute non-discrimination policy. This means that religious organizations (primarily Christian) must now allow any Vanderbilt student to be a candidate for a leadership office, regardless of religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

In other words, a Christian student group would be forced to allow the candidacy of an atheist. A group of Christians who believe in the Bible’s standard of sexual morality would be required to allow the candidacy of a homosexual member. There can be absolutely no discrimination, the university insists, even if that means that Christian organizations are no longer actually Christian.

In reality, that is the aim.

The university is embarrassed again — this time by the mere presence of Christian organizations on its campus. It will deal with that embarrassment by eliminating the right of Christian organizations to operate on Christian principles. It will impose its own Stalinist definition of tolerance and freedom and deny the right of Christian students to participate in recognized campus organizations that can remain authentically Christian.

The provost of the university recently defended the policy, stating that student organizations may elect their own leaders, but may not disqualify any candidate based on, among other things, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

Last week, the largest Roman Catholic student organization, Vanderbilt Catholic, announced that it will leave the university. In an open letter explaining their decision, the group stated:

“As Catholics we believe that faith in Jesus Christ and the truths that He has revealed to us through the Catholic Church are fundamental to our identity as Catholics and our mission in this life. Likewise, as a Catholic student organization, Catholic faith and practice precede all else that we do.

“We are an open and welcoming community that people of all faiths can join, but we require our leaders to share this Catholic faith and practice. A student group led by those who do not share these things might be a very worthwhile and beneficial organization, but it would not be Catholic in the fullest sense of the word.

“These faith-based requirements for leadership are as important to the integrity of our organization as musical range is for a choral group.”

Will evangelical Christian organizations reach a similar decision? The next few weeks will reveal the answer to that question. In the meantime, leaders of those evangelical groups should look to the Vanderbilt Catholic statement as an example of courage, candor, and specificity.

Leaders of Vanderbilt University, on the other hand, should be equally honest as they explain their draconian policy. The issue is not really tolerance. If so, the university would have to deal with the most intolerant and exclusivist organizations on campus –the recognized fraternities and sororities. As David French of National Review has argued, those recognized student organizations are allowed to discriminate on any ground at all, including appearance and wealth.

Continue reading

Free Speech Zones: A Danger to the 1st Amendment

Comments Off on Free Speech Zones: A Danger to the 1st Amendment

I predict the first time this Trespass Bill is challenged, it will fall. You can’t do away with the 1st amendment by passing a law, you MUST amend the Constitution and the majority of States MUST agree to it. The vote was 388-to-3 . I know Ron Paul voted against it, but don’t know who the other two were.

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

Comments Off on Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

Don’t you just love the way they pass unconstitutional laws to change the Bill of Rights instead of amending the Constitution as it calls for. I might add, the Republicans voted this thru the House…..they control it, now it’s the Senate’s turn.

Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it. (The 1st amendment guarantees the right to peacefully protest)

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Read more

Barbara Boxer: Insurance rights trumps religious rights

Comments Off on Barbara Boxer: Insurance rights trumps religious rights

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…….”

Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured.

On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced by the government to pay for medical practices against his religion.

“I mean, are they serious? Sharpton exclaimed, “How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?”

“Oh Absolutely,” Boxer said, “Let’s use an example, let’s say somebody believes that medicine doesn’t cure anybody of a disease but prayer does and then they decide no medicine.

“No medicine!” she exclaimed, “Under the Blunt amendment, they could do just that.”

Washington Examiner

Older Entries Newer Entries