It must really suck to be Sarah Silverman

Moral retardation? Or Moral destitution? Or maybe just the antics of a truly despicable person who is obsessed with killing babies and mocking Christianity? Stacy McCain has Sarah Silverman at her very worst,

The Daily Caller’s Caroline May caught this on Friday: In a 5-minute video for “Lady Parts Justice” — the pro-abortion group she formed last year with Daily Show producer Lizz Winstead — Sarah Silverman pretends that she was visited by Jesus Christ, who told her to spread a pro-abortion message. Also, Jesus gives Silverman an orgasm:

This kind of pro-abortion fanaticism is always difficult for me to comprehend. It’s hard to imagine anyone could have such a bloodthirsty enthusiasm for killing babies, but it is especially hard to believe womencould harbor this kind of monomaniacal death fetish.

There is a video at the link, but I will spare you that. There is one more thing that describes this video, and Silverman’s history of mocking Christianity. It is boring frankly. Yes, we get it, you do not believe in Christianity so you mock it, wow, talk about not being cutting edge. If Silverman and her ilk REALLY want to be edgy, why don’t they mock Islam? Certainly Sharia Law is much worse on women than Christianity isn’t it? Honor killings, forced marriages, reducing women to little more than property. Yet Silverman remains silent on that. Talk about things that make you go hmmmm. Aleister answers my query

Do I even need to ask why Sarah Silverman never pokes fun at Islam, a faith with a less than perfect record on women’s rights? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest it’s because people who publicly ridicule Islam have a tendency to turn up dead.

Want to prove you’re really a feminist, Sarah?

Go to Afghanistan and advocate for the right of women to learn to read like Laura Bush did.

Hold a press conference and demand that Obama pay female White House staffers the same as men.

Go to China and speak out against their one child policy, it hasn’t worked out too well for female babies.

Of course, this really is not about women’s rights for Silverman. this is about bashing Western culture and the Christian faith that is such a big part of American culture and heritage. Silverman is a Leftist, and Leftists despise America. America was founded on individual rights, and small government. That is what Silverman and her fellow Leftists truly loathe. To Silverman the truly evil thing is not dictatorships, or Totalitarianism. It is not the trampling of liberties either. After all our liberties come from God, and I think we can see how Silverman thinks about God. No, evil, to the Sarah Silverman’s of the world is Individualism which rejects Leftism and its lies. See, Silverman IS very religious, and her religion is Collectivism. And everything between Left and Right boils down to Collectivism vs Individualism. We know what side Silverman is on don’t we?

Common Core Writing Assignment: Think Like A Nazi And Explain Why Jews Are Evil (Video)

Common Core Writing Assignment: Think Like A Nazi And Explain Why Jews Are Evil (Video) – Gateway Pundit

Coming soon to a classroom near you…

.

A new Common Core writing assignment asks students to think like a Nazi and explain why Jews are evil.

This story first broke back in April:

.

.
The Times Union reported, via Poor Richard’s News:

Think like a Nazi, the assignment required students. Argue why Jews are evil.

Students in some Albany High School English classes were asked this week as part of a persuasive writing assignment to make an abhorrent argument: “You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!”

Students were asked to watch and read Nazi propaganda, then pretend their teacher was a Nazi government official who needed to be convinced of their loyalty. In five paragraphs, they were required to prove that Jews were the source of Germany’s problems.

The exercise was intended to challenge students to formulate a persuasive argument and was given to three classes, Albany Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard said. She said the assignment should have been worded differently.

“I would apologize to our families,” she said. “I don’t believe there was malice or intent to cause any insensitivities to our families of Jewish faith.”

One-third of the students refused to complete the assignment, she said.

Vanden Wyngaard said the exercise reflects the type of writing expected of students under the new Common Core curriculum, the tough new academic standards that require more sophisticated writing. Such assignments attempt to connect English with history and social studies.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Evil Whores Of Satan Forcing Churches To Get Permits For Baptisms

Government Forces Churches To Get Permits For Baptisms – Gateway Pundit

There is no aspect of your life from birth to death that our government doesn’t want to control and that even includes being BAPTIZED BY YOUR CHURCH.

.

In a stand-off between Baptists seeking to exercise their religious rights and the National Park Service, the National Park Service just blinked, backing off of a requirement that churches get a permit (a two day process) before baptizing people in public waters.

…In Missouri, where this matter came to a head, people gather together on river banks to witness baptisms. As choir members sing hymns, the preacher leads the new believer into the water for a full immersion baptism. In terms of environmental impact, this temporary plunge into the river is about as minimal as one can get, an impact that is equal to, or even less than, the effect from swimmers, fisherman, or weekend frolickers who head out to the same waters for fun and sport.

…Nevertheless, the Park Service recently began a new policy requiring churches that wished to hold baptisms in public waters to apply for a special permit at least 48 hours in advance of the baptism. The Park Service justified this recent demand by saying that the permits were necessary to “maintain park natural/cultural resources and quality visitor experiences, specific terms and conditions have been established.”

…In Missouri’s Ozark Mountains, the Park Service went one step further: it closed the road that led to a sandbar abutting a popular baptism site. And when we say closed, we mean closed. The Park Service didn’t just put up a “No Access” sign on the roadway. Instead, it blocked the road with boulders. While young and healthy people can still hike to the sand bar, elderly people, whether they are congregants or new believers, can no longer get there.

…On August 21, Rep. Jason Smith (Missouri, R) heeded the complaints of his constituents and wrote a letter to the NPS asking what the heck was going on…

…Between citizen outrage and Rep. Smith’s threat to bring the matter before the full Congress, however, the Park Service quickly reversed its new policy, writing to the Congressman that, “As of today, the park’s policy has been clarified to state that no permit will be required for baptisms within the Riverways. I can assure you the National Park Service has no intention of limiting the number of baptisms performed within the park.”

There’s a lesson here for both Christians and conservatives. The government has no qualms about pushing people around, but if you’re willing to stand up for yourself and shine a light on what they’re doing, you’d be surprised how often the bureaucratic bullies will run for the hills rather than try to defend their autocratic behavior to the public.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama Regime Sides With Evil Once Again

Obama To Egyptian Christians: Don’t Protest The Brotherhood – Front Page

As Egyptians of all factions prepare to demonstrate in mass against the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi’s rule on June 30, the latter has been trying to reduce their numbers, which some predict will be in the millions and eclipse the Tahrir protests that earlier ousted Mubarak. Among other influential Egyptians, Morsi recently called on Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros II to urge his flock, Egypt’s millions of Christians, not to join the June 30 protests.

.

While that may be expected, more troubling is that the U.S. ambassador to Egypt is also trying to prevent Egyptians from protesting – including the Copts. The June 18th edition of Sadi al-Balad reports that lawyer Ramses Naggar, the Coptic Church’s legal counsel, said that during Patterson’s June 17 meeting with Pope Tawadros, she “asked him to urge the Copts not to participate” in the demonstrations against Morsi and the Brotherhood.

The Pope politely informed her that his spiritual authority over the Copts does not extend to political matters.

Regardless, many Egyptian activists are condemning Patterson for flagrantly behaving like the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge. Leading opposition activist Shady el-Ghazali Harb said Patterson showed “blatant bias” in favor of Morsi and the Brotherhood, adding that her remarks had earned the U.S. administration “the enmity of the Egyptian people.” Coptic activists like George Ishaq openly told Patterson to “shut up and mind your own business.” And Christian business tycoon Naguib Sawiris – no stranger to Islamist hostility – posted a message on his Twitter account addressed to the ambassador saying “Bless us with your silence.”

Indeed, the U.S. ambassador’s position as the Brotherhood’s lackey is disturbing – and revealing – on several levels. First, all throughout the Middle East, the U.S. has been supporting anyone and everyone opposing their leaders – in Libya against Gaddafi, in Egypt itself against 30-year U.S. ally Mubarak, and now in Syria against Assad. In all these cases, the U.S. has presented its support in the name of the human rights and freedoms of the people against dictatorial leaders.

So why is the Obama administration now asking Christians not to oppose their rulers – in this case, Islamists – who have daily proven themselves corrupt and worse, to the point that millions of Egyptians, most of them Muslims, are trying to oust them?

What’s worse is that the human rights abuses Egypt’s Coptic Christians have been suffering under Muslim Brotherhood rule are significantly worse than the human rights abuses that the average Egyptian suffered under Mubarak – making the Copts’ right to protest even more legitimate, and, if anything, more worthy of U.S support.

Among other things, under Morsi’s rule, the persecution of Copts has practically been legalized, as unprecedented numbers of Christians – men, women, and children – have been arrested, often receiving more than double the maximum prison sentence, under the accusation that they “blasphemed” Islam and/or its prophet. It was also under Morsi’s reign that another unprecedented scandal occurred: the St. Mark Cathedral – holiest site of Coptic Christianity and headquarters to the Pope Tawadros himself – was besieged in broad daylight by Islamic rioters. When security came, they too joined in the attack on the cathedral. And the targeting of Christian children – for abduction, ransom, rape, and/or forced conversion – has also reached unprecedented levels under Morsi. (For more on the plight of the Copts under Morsi’s rule, see my new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.)

Yet despite the fact that if anyone in Egypt has a legitimate human rights concern against the current Egyptian government, it most certainly is the Christian Copts, here is the U.S., in the person of Ms. Patterson, asking them not to join the planned protests.

In other words, and consistent with Obama administration’s doctrine, when Islamists – including rapists and cannibals – wage jihad on secular leaders, the U.S. supports them; when Christians protest Islamist rulers who are making their lives a living hell, the administration asks them to “know their place” and behave like dhimmis, Islam’s appellation for non-Muslim “infidels” who must live as third class “citizens” and never complain about their inferior status.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Evil, Marxist Witch Calls For Banning More Than 150 Types Of Firearms

Feinstein Calls For Banning More Than 150 Types Of Firearms During Dramatic Press Conference – Daily Caller

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein staged a dramatic press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill with 10 weapons at her side and unveiled legislation instituting a government ban on more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Feinstein announced the introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein – who has long history of calling for gun bans – would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.

During the press event at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Democrats described these firearms as “dangerous military-style assault weapons.” The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Feinstein said the country’s “weak” gun laws allow massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur.

“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that – but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said in literature handed to reporters at the Thursday event.

Others who joined the Democrats for the press conference included Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Washington National Cathedral dean Gary R. Hall.

This sort of stunt from Feinstein – displaying weapons for dramatic effect while discussing new gun laws – is hardly new. Joe Morrissey, a Democratic delegate in Virginia, caught some colleagues by surprise last week by bringing an AK-47 onto the floor of the House of Delegates while calling for gun control.

And David Gregory, the moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” found himself in hot water for displaying a high-capacity gun magazine during an interview with a leader of the National Rifle Association in December. NBC studios are in Washington D.C., where having possession of such magazines is illegal. While DC police investigated the incident, no charges were filed.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

*VIDEO* Barack Obama Defended Infanticide

*VIDEO* Everything You Need To Know About The Leftist ‘Occupy’ Movement In America

Obama Administration Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos

Obama Administration Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos – LifeNews

Lila Rose, the head of the Live Action organization that released videos showing Planned Parenthood centers helping undercover investigators posting as sex traffickers, says the Obama administration is ignoring the potential crimes.

The videos showed Planned Parenthood abortion centers in three states and the District of Columbia assisting alleged sex traffickers in arranging abortions and STD testing for underage girls victimized by the sex trade. One staffer has already been fired in New Jersey over her actions logged on camera and the House of Representatives approved an amendment de-funding the national abortion business.

But the Obama administration is taking a different approach.

The FBI launched an investigation after Planned Parenthood tipped off the federal government before the release of the videos in an action that Rose says was an attempt to cover itself before the national controversy began over the actions of its employees.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would not prosecute anyone involved in assisting the alleged sex traffickers.

“It is my understanding that the FBI actually has looked at that matter” and “prosecution was declined in that matter,” Holder said, according to the TPM web site, during a House subcommittee hearing.

Speaking about sex trafficking in general, Holder added, “As I said, this is something that is a priority of the department, it’s a priority of mine. If you look at the fact that Craigslist has dropped their adult ads — that’s a significant thing. And that happened as a result of meetings that occurred in my office and some work that some organizations who we met with did, and we’ve had other meetings about other publications that have continued to do this.”

“This is not something that we’ve done very loudly or sought attention about, we’ve only sought results,” he added.

But TPM indicates Rose has responded and said she is disappointed the Obama administration is ignoring the evidence her group presented.

“An untold number of women, and possibly underage girls, are being exploited and likely in danger and the Justice Department is looking the other way,” Rose said in a statement.

“We are extremely alarmed by today’s statement by the Justice Department regarding Planned Parenthood,” Rose said. “We alerted the Justice Department, in writing, several weeks ago that Live Action conducted no activities in Indiana as reported by Planned Parenthood to the FBI. Therefore, unless there was another sting operation that we are unaware of, there likely was an actual sex trafficker in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Indiana, asking for their assistance.”

“The Justice Department has completely dropped the ball,” she added.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

How Martha Coakley Helped To Keep An Innocent Man In Prison For Purely Political Reasons

Martha Coakley’s Convictions – Wall Street Journal

The role played by the U.S. Senate candidate in a notorious sex case raises questions about her judgment.

The story of the Amiraults of Massachusetts, and of the prosecution that had turned the lives of this thriving American family to dust, was well known to the world by the year 2001. It was well known, especially, to District Attorney Martha Coakley, who had by then arrived to take a final, conspicuous, role in a case so notorious as to assure that the Amiraults’ name would be known around the globe.

The Amiraults were a busy, confident trio, grateful in the way of people who have found success after a life of hardship. Violet had reared her son Gerald and daughter Cheryl with help from welfare, and then set out to educate herself. The result was the triumph of her life—the Fells Acres school—whose every detail Violet scrutinized relentlessly. Not for nothing was the pre-school deemed by far the best in the area, with a long waiting list for admission.

All of it would end in 1984, with accusations of sexual assault and an ever-growing list of parents signing their children on to the case. Newspaper and television reports blared a sensational story about a female school principal, in her 60s, who had daily terrorized and sexually assaulted the pupils in her care, using sharp objects as her weapon. So too had Violet’s daughter Cheryl, a 28-year old teacher at the school.

But from the beginning, prosecutors cast Gerald as chief predator—his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role. It was that role, the man in the family, that would determine his sentence, his treatment, and, to the end, his prosecution-inspired image as a pervert too dangerous to go free.

The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults’ prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.

Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with “a magic wand.” She would be convicted of these charges. Cheryl had cut the leg off a squirrel.

Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.

Gerald was sent to prison for 30 to 40 years, his mother and sister sentenced to eight to 20 years. The prosecutors celebrated what they called, at the time “a model, multidisciplinary prosecution.” Gerald’s wife, Patricia, and their three children—the family unfailingly devoted to him—went on with their lives. They spoke to him nightly and cherished such hope as they could find, that he would be restored to them.

Hope arrived in 1995, when Judge Robert Barton ordered a new trial for the women. Violet, now 72, and Cheryl had been imprisoned eight years. This toughest of judges, appalled as he came to know the facts of the case, ordered the women released at once. Judge Barton—known as Black Bart for the long sentences he gave criminals—did not thereafter trouble to conceal his contempt for the prosecutors. They would, he warned, do all in their power to hold on to Gerald, a prediction to prove altogether accurate.

No less outraged, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein presided over a widely publicized hearings into the case resulting in findings that all the children’s testimony was tainted. He said that “Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted.” The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly—which had never in its 27 year history taken an editorial position on a case—published a scathing one directed at the prosecutors “who seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that had never occurred.”

It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case. Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women’s reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.

That left Cheryl alone, facing rearrest. In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl’s case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted.

No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of “a primary male offender.” According to Ms. Coakley’s scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.

Before agreeing to revise Cheryl’s sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults’ attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.

In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor’s Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald’s sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the “extraordinary if not bizarre allegations” on which they had been convicted.

Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board’s findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board’s ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.

On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald’s commutation.

Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to “take responsibility” by confessing his crimes. He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment.

The Amirault family is nonetheless grateful that they are together again.

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was “formidable” and that she was entirely convinced “those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants.”

What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley’s concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.

If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.