President Putin’s Ban of Religious Freedom, Should American’s Be Concerned?


July 18, 2016

Silent SoldierBy Lorra B.

Many American’s are aware, and should be concerned, that President Vladimir Putin recently placed severe restrictions on religious freedoms in Russia making any evangelism or religious speech outside of churches forbidden. Any Christian wishing to share their faith outside of a designated worship center will be breaking the law.

This so-called anti-terrorism legislation not only attacks religious liberty, it demolishes free-speak and makes it a crime. “This new situation,” according to Dr. Haukka, President of Great Commission Media Ministries, “resembles the Soviet Union in 1929. At that time confession of faith was permitted only in church. Practically speaking, we are back in the same situation. These anti-terrorist laws are some of the most restrictive laws in post-Soviet history.”

Suppressing the rights of assembly, speech and the press, to name a few, seem routine in Moscow but many believe this has gone too far. This new legislation strikes fear among Christian Russians believing that unregistered congregations and house groups will be targeted and persecuted, according to Christian Today.

“According to Forum 18, which monitors religious freedom in Russia and former Soviet republics, the amendments to the Religion Law restrict those who can share beliefs to people with permission from members of state-registered religious groups and organizations…They also prohibit even the informal sharing of beliefs, for example responding to questions or comments.”

Any breach of this new law, effective July 20, will lead to substantial monetary penalties.

U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) wrote an article at The Daily Signal stating the new law is “an affront to free people everywhere.”

“We need to begin telling the truth about an increasingly aggressive actor in global affairs,” he said. “This Russian law would be an affront to free people everywhere—at home and abroad—who believe that rights of conscience—the rights to free speech and to freedom of religion—are pre-political.”

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

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

Suppressing speech and the media, not to mention Political Correctness, seems to be the growing trend in America. Should American’s have reason for concern that this “anti-terrorist” law someday be our reality?

By Lorra B.







dApril 8, 2015

Daily Caller: by Al Weaver 

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

“Few are more qualified to pass judgment on Obama’s goal for destroying America, than former Vice President Dick Cheney.

He sees clearly what an entire disaster the Obama administration. 

Cheney has stated that, “Obama isthe first president since WWI who believes U.S.leadership is not necessary.

Obama has clearly shown Cheney to be right.

Dick Cheney served four Republican presidents and spent six terms in the House. The former vice president specialized in defense, energy and the Middle East.

Vice president Cheney served as Bush’s surrogate chief of staff throughout his administration, with access to every layer of Bush’s White House and many surrogates on the Hill. Fiercely loyal to Bush, and with no ambition to serve as president himself, Cheney was not a “shadow president” implementing his own agenda, but rather the person implementing the details of Bush’s outlined plans.

Heavily involved in both military and national security issues at the highest levels, Cheney greatly expanded the power of both the executive branch and of the vice presidency itself, even at the risk of exerting unconstitutional powers, many of which were later explored in a Pulitzer-Prize winning series by Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman.

Cheney is generally regarded to be a man who used his power to do what he believed was necessary, and was not deterred by the consequences. Not one to either make apologies or skirt controversy, of course, Cheney’s legacy will likely continue to be debated.”

Daily Caller: In an appearance on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” Tuesday night, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that President Obama’s actions on the world stage exemplify a president who wants “to take America down.”

Cheney also touched on Obama’s comments on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, telling Hewitt that Obama is the only post-World War II president to believe that America doesn’t need “to play a leading role in the world.”

The former vice president made the appearance following the announcement of a new book on American foreign policy, co-authored by himself and daughter Liz Cheney, will be released in September.

HEWITT: Let me play for both of you a cut from earlier today. The president sat down with an NPR reporter who asked him about Scott Walker’s statement on this show last week that he’s repudiate the emerging Iran hologram — I don’t call it a deal — on day one. Here’s what the president said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Any president who gets elected will be knowledgeable enough on foreign policy and knowledgeable enough about the traditions and precedents of presidential power that they won’t start calling into question the capacity of the executive branch of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries. If that starts being questioned, that’s going to be a problem for our friends and that’s going to embolden our enemies and it would be a foolish approach to take. Perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.

HEWITT: Vice President Cheney, you’ve been boning up on foreign policy since you entered the House 30 years ago. What do you make of that statement.

CHENEY: Well it starts from a flawed presumption on Obama’s part. For most of the last 70 years since World War II, we’ve had a bipartisan record in this country between Democrat and Republican. Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, the Bush’s believed America had to play a leading role in the world and needs to maintain first class military capability to do that and occasionally use it. That the world works best with U.S. leadership. The first president, really, who doesn’t — no longer believe that fundamental truth is Barack Obama. What he’s saying, his criticism of Governor Walker — I think probably Governor Walker welcomes it. It’s almost like a paid commercial. I heard today as soon as the statement came out from Obama criticizing the governor, he immediately sent out to all of his supporters. I’m glad he did that. It’s a mark of weakness of this president that he’d say such a thing.


HEWITT: Is he naive, Mr. Vice President? Or does he have a far reaching vision that only he entertains of a realigned Middle East. That somehow it all works out in the end.

CHENEY: I don’t know Hugh. I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard. If you had somebody who, as president — who wanted to take America down. Who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world, reduce our capacity to influence events. Turn our back on our allies and encourage our enemies, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama is doing. I think his actions are constituted in my mind are those of the worst president we’ve ever had.

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

BREAKING: Boston Bombing Case: Jury Reaches Verdict in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Trial

dApril 8, 2015

Pundit From Another Planet:

BOSTON — The jury has reached a verdict in the Boston Marathon bombing trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after two days of deliberations, the U.S. attorney’s office announced Wednesday.

The statement, posted on Twitter by the federal prosecutor’s office, did not indicate when the jury would announce the results.

“Seventeen of the counts carry the death penalty. Fifteen of the counts contain a series of subclause questions that jurors must take up one by one and try to answer unanimously.”

Federal Judge George O’Toole met earlier with attorneys for both sides for about 30 minutes to address the questions raised by the seven-woman, five-man jury, which deliberated for more than seven hours Tuesday before ending the day without a verdict.

Featured Image -- 64173

“The jury’s last question sought clarification on the difference between aiding and abetting. Twenty-five of the 30 counts charge Tsarnaev with aiding and abetting, sometimes in conjunction with a broader charge.”

The charges against Tsarnaev — totaling 30 counts — fall into four main categories. Twelve pertain to two pressure-cooker bombs used at the marathon on April 15, 2013, when three people died and more than 260 were injured. Three other charges deal with conspiracy; another three cover the fatal shooting on April 18, 2013, of MIT security officer Sean Collier.

The final 12 address what happened after Collier’s murder, including a carjacking, robbery and use of improvised explosives against Watertown, Mass., police officers.

Seventeen of the counts carry the death penalty. Fifteen of the counts contain a series of subclause questions that jurors must take up one by one and try to answer unanimously.


“Can a conspiracy pertain to a sequence of events over multiple days or a distinct event?”

If Tsarnaev is found guilty, the second phase of the trial will consider whether he should be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole.

O’Toole began Wednesday’s proceedings by reading the jurors’ questions, one of which had two parts, and delivering his answers.

“Can a conspiracy pertain to a sequence of events over multiple days or a distinct event?” was the first question.

“Duration is a question of fact for you to determine,” O’Toole told the jury. It could be limited to one event or apply to more than one. Tsarnaev is charged with conspiracy in three counts, all of which name four victims who were killed during the week of April 15, 2013.

Jurors also asked whether they need to consider all the subclauses in each count, or if reaching unanimity on the overall question of guilt for that count is sufficient.

O’Toole said they must consider every subclause only if they determine Tsarnaev is guilty on that charge.

For example, if they find him guilty of using a pressure-cooker bomb outside the Forum restaurant near the marathon finish line, they must proceed to answer five more questions, including whether he caused — or aided and abetted in causing — the deaths of Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard.

If they find him not guilty on a particular count, then they can move on. In the jury verdict form, 15 of the 30 counts contain a series of subclause questions. The fact that they’re asking about protocol for subclauses suggests they’ve reached a decision on one or more of the counts.

The jury’s last question sought clarification on the difference between aiding and abetting. Twenty-five of the 30 counts charge Tsarnaev with aiding and abetting, sometimes in conjunction with a broader charge.

“Aiding and abetting is a single concept,” O’Toole told the jury….(read more)


More at Pundit From Another Planet

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.