Views: 1144

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Robin... Good try, but you didn't make the final cut... your fired.  Next time check in with immigration first... get a green card and then revaluate.


Caption ;

See!?! I told ya Ted. These silly people are still expecting a political superhero to come to their rescue.


  A BETTER TEAM     CRUZ / TRUMP !!!!!!!

Pat Robertson flays plan for Quran as 'law book


Christian televangelist and 1955 Yale Law School graduate Pat Robertson said he was shocked when the school sent out a mailing asking him to read the Quran as a respectable “law book.”

“The 700 Club” host told viewers Monday he recently received a booklet from Yale entitled “Reading the Quran as a Law Book.” The document was written after Joseph Lowry, an associate professor from the University of Pennsylvania, gave a lecture at the school Aug. 25.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from ...

“This follows Yale’s decision to create a Center for Islamic Law and Civilization after a Saudi businessman gave a $10 million donation to the law school,” Robertson said. “The dean says, and I quote, ‘Islamic law has a long and proud tradition, which encompasses great intellectual achievements.’ He’s got to be kidding! This is Yale Law School. They’re in the tank to the Saudis!”


(Photo: CNB News video screenshot)

Robert Post is a dean and professor at Yale Law School.

Lowry’s presentation suggested Muslims have much more leeway to interpret the Quran than non-Muslims understand.

“The Quran encourages frequent and open-ended reflection [of good works], in addition to promulgating specific rules, adherence to which is a necessary condition for salvation,” Lowry said during his lecture. This fact, that the Quran seems to promote the idea that there is generally ethical behavior, means we cannot say that the Quran is hyper-legislative and uninterested in broader conceptions of ethics. Indeed, the general character of what we might call ‘good works clauses’ leads a lot of scope for ethical speculation.”

Dani Sleiman, an expert in Islamic law who watched almost two hours of Lowry’s analysis of the Quran, disagreed.

“The Quran is the solid ground, the foundation upon which every Muslim follows,” Sleiman told Robertson. “There is no such thing as figuratively or optional. They have to follow the commandments of the Quran, so I’m really not sure what he’s basing it on. I read his book and most of his descriptions were of suggestions. He’s using terms like ‘suggested’ and ‘great unknown’ and ‘no real evidence’ and ‘assume.’ He’s trying to draw a theory. He’s trying to somehow dig out of it a way to show that the Quran has some peaceful verses.”

Robertson asked Sleiman how Lowry would explain Shariah law, which “has to do with the subjugation of women. It has to do with a husband having the privilege of beating his wife. It has to do with beheadings.”

Sleiman said it appeared as though Yale was dangerously attempting to give Islam a spiritual makeover.

“The Quran is basically a commandment. It’s the law. It’s principles and [Muslims'] understand that Allah wants every single [person] to follow these words. When Yale tries to basically endorse or apply the laws, then there will be no separation between the state and Islam.”

now this is change !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bam! Shazam, Batman... Robin has no green card.

A winning team for America!!

like the cartoon except Cruz should be wearing trumps outfit and Donald should be the one that should be robin.  Cruz is the only leader in the republican party. 




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service