Angry woman give’s NYC’s de Blasio a public dressing down

(The Blaze) When an angry woman confronted New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio earlier this week, the controversial mayor took the coward’s way out.

According to the New York Post, 63-year-old Vickie Paladino was driving through her neighborhood in Queens on Thursday when she saw de Blasio giving a press conference. He was there to announce $16 million in funding to fix sidewalks damaged by tree roots.

When she saw de Blasio, she ordered her husband to stop their car. Then she jumped out and began berating the mayor, who quickly turned to scurry away with his security detail. At the center of Paladino’s criticism was de Blasio’s recent trip to Germany to speak at G-20 Summit protest events.


Study: Government ‘cyber troops’ manipulate Facebook, Twitter

(Bloomberg) Governments around the world are enlisting “cyber troops” who manipulate Facebook, Twitter and other social media outlets to steer public opinion, spread misinformation and undermine critics, according to a new report from the University of Oxford.

Adding to growing evidence of government-sponsored efforts to use online tools to influence politics, researchers found 29 countries using social media to shape opinion domestically or with foreign audiences. The tactics are deployed by authoritarian regimes, but also democratically-elected governments, the authors said.

“Social media makes propaganda campaigns much stronger and potentially more effective than in the past,” said Samantha Bradshaw, the report’s lead author and a researcher at Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Research Project. “I don’t think people realize how much governments are using these tools to reach them. It’s a lot more hidden.”


Judge: Stop forcing pregnancy centers to promote abortion

Baby feet

In a case that has divided courts, a federal judge in Illinois ruled a law that would force pregnancy centers to promote abortion regardless of their moral views likely is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Frederick Kapala determined an amendment to the state’s health care laws likely will be overturned when the issue comes to trial.

He issued a temporary injunction preventing the law’s enforcement until the case is concluded.

“The amended act targets the free speech rights of people who have a specific viewpoint,” he wrote.

The law would require doctors and pregnancy care centers, even those that are pro-life, to promote abortion.

“The government is out of line when it attempts to force Americans to communicate a message that is contrary to their most deeply held beliefs,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Elissa Graves.

“In addition, the state shouldn’t be robbing women of the freedom to choose a pro-life doctor by mandating that pro-life physicians and entities make or arrange abortion referrals. The court was right to halt enforcement of this law while our lawsuit proceeds.”

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

ADF represents multiple pregnancy care centers, a pregnancy care center network and a doctor in a lawsuit challenging the law.

They argue the amendment to the existing Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

ADF said SB 1564 “forces pregnancy care centers, medical facilities, and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers ‘they reasonably believe may offer’ them.”

“Federal law prohibits the government from placing burdens on religious conscience without a compelling interest for doing so.”

The plaintiffs, the judge found, have “demonstrated a better than negligible chance of succeeding in showing that the amended act discriminates based on their viewpoint by compelling them to tell their patients that abortion is a legal treatment option, which has benefits, and, at a minimum and upon request, to give their patients the identifying information of providers who will perform an abortion.”

ADF-allied attorney and co-counsel Noel Sterett with Mauck & Baker LLC said the government “has no business forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers in Illinois to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry.”

“A law that targets medical professionals because of their pro-life views and right of conscience is unconstitutional and unethical,” Sterett said.

Thomas A. Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, said the decision “correctly interprets the Constitution to prohibit compelled speech mandating faith-based ministries to speak a message with which they are fundamentally opposed.”

“We applaud this ruling that stops the state of Illinois from forcing pro-life pregnancy medical clinics to become abortion referral agencies,” he said.

Glessner’s organization also has been involved in a similar case in California, where ADF also is representing pro-life groups.

Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned appeals court in the nation, decided to affirm the right of the state to impose restrictions on residents’ speech.

It’s not a new dispute. WND reported in 2014 almost identical arguments in Montgomery County, Maryland, where an appeals court decided against rules that would restrict the speech of pregnancy centers.

Related cases also have developed in New York, Austin and Baltimore.

The New Jersey case arose when abortion advocates in the government decided to require pro-life pregnancy centers that offer advice, diapers and other help to mothers-to-be to post a sign advising women to go to another clinic for help.

The push for the mandatory signs came from county officials who adopted the demands of pro-abortion interests such as the National Abortion Rights Action League.

But as U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasenow found, there was no evidence that such signs were needed.

“Even assuming … that [pro-life] centers are presenting themselves as medical providers and thus pregnant women are accepting their misinformation as sound medical advice, the county must still demonstrate the next supposition on the logical chain: that these practices are having the effect of harming the health of pregnant women,” the judge wrote in banning the county from imposing its signage requirement.

The judge said the county “has failed this task.”

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”



You like Steve Bannon? See his great film

White House Senior Adviser Steve Bannon

White House Senior Adviser Steve Bannon

In two years, Steve Bannon went from a fairly unknown newsman to the president’s nationally known right-hand man.

Six months after Donald Trump’s inauguration, public fascination with Bannon remains alive and well: Bloomberg Businessweek correspondent Joshua Green’s new book “Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency” rocketed to the No. 1 spot on Amazon’s list of top-selling books only a day after its release.

The book makes a strong case that Bannon was the architect of Trump’s historic win last November. Green credits Bannon with urging Trump to amplify, rather than apologize for, his strong stance against illegal immigration early in his campaign.

It was Bannon, he writes, who encouraged Trump to build a political movement around the concerns of working-class Americans instead of running on an establishment GOP platform.

And it was reporting on Bannon’s Breitbart website that did much to shape Trump’s populist leanings by the time he launched his campaign in June 2015, according to Green.

But what exactly is the worldview that has guided Bannon over the course of his lengthy career? Long before he became Trump’s White House chief strategist, and before he was executive chair of Breitbart News, Bannon worked as an executive producer in Hollywood, producing 18 films from 1991 to 1999.

However, it was his 2004 documentary “In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed” that put Bannon on the map and first brought him to Andrew Breitbart’s attention.

“In the Face of Evil,” which was based on Peter Schweizer’s book “Reagan’s War,” tells the story of Ronald Reagan’s 40-year battle against communism, which ended with triumph in the Cold War.

The movie reveals the top-secret plans of the Reagan administration and how they dismantled the Soviet empire piece by piece. It’s a story of leadership and moral courage during the bloodiest century in the history of humankind.

However, the film is not merely a history lesson. As Bannon and the other filmmakers point out, a new enemy has arisen in the 21st century to replace the communist threat of the 20th century. That new enemy is Islamic fascism, which manifested itself most powerfully in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In fact, 9/11 is what spurred Bannon to make “In the Face of Evil.”

The documentary draws a parallel between the past century’s war against communism and the current century’s war against Islamic fascism. It shows they are both part of the ongoing war between freedom and totalitarianism, and therefore Reagan’s words and deeds provide an important lesson for how the free world must combat the forces of evil today. With the worldwide Islamic terror threat having grown since 2004, the film is more relevant today than ever.

“In the Face of Evil” was ranked the best documentary film of 2004 by the Liberty Film Festival. Rush Limbaugh called it “a brilliant effort” and “extremely well done.” William Booth of the Washington Post praised it as “an epic homage to Ronald Reagan and his war on Communism.”

Mark Davis of WBAP Radio was effusive, labeling the film “a powerful reminder of what it means to stand up to evil. Parents, take your kids so that they will see what challenges America has faced in the past and how we met those challenges with toughness and success.”

“In the Face of Evil” is available in the WND Superstore. The 110-minute DVD includes the following special features:

  • A special introduction by Edwin Meese, Reagan’s former attorney general
  • Five of Reagan’s most significant and moving speeches
  • Twenty of Reagan’s three-minute radio addresses from the 1970s
  • Reagan’s greatest quotes accompanied by music and captivating images
  • An expanded Timeline of Evil
  • The original theatrical trailer

“In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed” is the project that put Steve Bannon on the map and first brought him to Andrew Breitbart’s attention.


China’s communists: Atheism mandatory for members


There are some 90 million members of China’s Communist Party, and all of them now have been banned from having religious beliefs.

According to a report in the Hindustan Times, Wang Zuoan of the repressive nation’s State Administration for Religious Affairs announced that CPC members must be atheists.

“Party members should not have religious beliefs, which is a red line for all members,” he wrote. “Party members should be firm Marxist atheists, obey party rules and stick to the party’s faith … they are not allowed to seek value and belief in religion.”

His comments were reported in the CPC’s journal Qiushi, which deals with political theory.

According to the Christian Institute in the United Kingdom, Wang promised if there are party members with religious faith should be persuaded to give it up, “and those who resisted would be punished.”

Joseph Farah’s newest book, “The Restitution of All Things,” expounds on what few authors dare to approach, the coming kingdom of God. Available at the WND Superstore.

Se Wei, a professor at the Party School of the CPC Chongqing Committee, responded to Wang’s regulations by referring to Christianity as part of “China’s religious problem.”

“Christianity in China has been accused of being a national security risk, and in the past few years, hundreds of Christian pastors and activists have been arrested,” the report continued.

The Christian Institute noted the international freedom watchdog Freedom House said in March that as many as 100 million people in China “are facing ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of persecution under communist rule.”

Christianity, however, is surging in China.

The institute said “academics predict that by 2030 China will have more than 247 million Christians, which would be more than 17 percent of the … population.”

Wang insisted, however, that religious groups should be “guided” by the state and alter their doctrine to promote “socialist core values.”

China officially is atheist. But the communist-controlled government recognizes five faiths: Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Protestantism and Catholicism.

Wang’s comments echoed President Xi Jinping.

“We must resolutely guard against overseas infiltrations via religious means and prevent ideological infringement by extremists,” Xi said.

Wang wrote: “We should guide religious groups and individuals with socialist core values and excellent traditional Chinese culture and support religious groups to dig into their doctrines to find parts that are beneficial to social harmony and development.”

Joseph Farah’s newest book, “The Restitution of All Things,” expounds on what few authors dare to approach, the coming kingdom of God. Available at the WND Superstore.



Family ‘robbed’ of land by gov’t fights back

U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court

A team of property rights advocates, lawyers and state lawmakers has joined forces for a nationwide campaign to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Murr family of Wisconsin went to court several years ago when members sought to sell a vacant parcel of land their late parents bought decades ago. The family wanted to fund repairs on the family cabin on the adjacent lot but were blocked by local officials, who contended the two parcels were actually one lot.

The recent ruling deprived the Murr family of the value of the extra piece of land, a “taking” by the government that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The family was denied any compensation for the land.

The Pacific Legal Institute, which defended the family, said the Murrs “had been effectively robbed by regulators of a family legacy.”

The government not only said the family could not sell the land, it ordered them not to make any productive use of it. The “maneuver” they used to avoid liability was to claim that the two lots were a single unit.

Now the Murr family, representatives of the foundation and others are launching an effort to reverse the high court’s decision.

What happens when the government breaks its own laws? Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals the answer in “Constitutional Chaos.”

Joined recently by two Wisconsin state lawmakers, John Groen, Pacific Legal’s general counsel, announced a plan to restore property rights nationwide.

The legislation proposed in Wisconsin, the starting point, was written by state Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst; and Rep. Adam Jarchow, R-Balsam Lake.

The goal is to prohibit “government from inventing ways to strip people of the use of their property while denying them the compensation that the Constitution requires.”

Donna Murr declared, “What happened to my family should not happen to any American, and the Supreme Court’s ruling must not be the final word.

“We are grateful to Sen. Tiffany and Rep. Jarchow for proposing tangible measures to strengthen the rights that were weakened by the Supreme Court’s decision. We are also grateful to Pacific Legal Foundation for its determination to fight nationwide until the setback from the Supreme Court’s ruling is overcome. The Murr family is proud to have helped raise everyone’s awareness about the importance of property rights, and we will continue to stand up for our own rights and those of all Americans.”

The Murrs were “victims of a government stratagem” that took their rights to use the land they inherited from their parents, Pacific Legal said.

“They were denied the ability to use or sell a vacant parcel along the St. Croix River that was handed down as a family legacy. The government declared the lot substandard – based on regulations imposed after the family purchased it. Officials said the Murrs were owed no compensation because they also own an adjacent parcel, on which their family cabin sits. By a 5-3 majority, the Supreme Court accepted this regulatory maneuver by which officials avoided paying for a regulatory taking,” the foundation reported.

The plan is to grandfather lots that were buildable when they were purchased, even if they do not meet later standards.

The foundation intends to go nationwide to seek court rulings and legal changes “that will ensure that property owners cannot be denied their constitutional rights simply because they own adjacent property or because local land use regulations might subsequently change.”

“PLF has always been recognized not only for our principles but for our persistence,” said PLF President Steven Anderson. “We have never allowed near-term obstacles to deter us from pursuing long-term victory in our ongoing fight for individual liberty. Our response to the Murr decision will be no different: We are embarking on a nationwide campaign to undo its damage and ultimately leave property owners’ rights stronger than before.”

WND reported the government told the family their additional land was not only worthless, they had to keep paying property taxes on it every year.

The parents of Donna, Joseph and Michael Murr, and Peggy Heaver, bought a St. Croix riverfront parcel and built a cabin for their own use in 1960. They also, a few years later, bought the adjacent, separate, lot as an investment, hoping to cash in when property values rose.

But in the 1970s, new land-use rules were imposed that limited the area of land that could be developed. As typically happens in those circumstances, the existing parcels were grandfathered under the previous rules, which meant the new limits wouldn’t apply.

However, in this case bureaucrats declared the rules would apply if the property owner owned an adjacent piece of land. That means the government now officially considers the two parcels purchased by the Murrs one lot, even though they legally are separate entities and property taxes still are collected every year on both.

What happens when the government breaks its own laws? Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals the answer in “Constitutional Chaos.”


American soldiers stationed in Ukraine turn 1st responders


Members of the American Thunderbirds military unit stationed in Ukraine become first responders, according to a new report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

They rescued people from a burning building.

It all happened in Lviv, Ukraine, where members of the 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team are deployed.

They were on a “morale, welfare and recreation trip” when they were drawn into the emergency.

“We were about to head back to base when we saw smoke coming from down the street, so we decided to investigate,” Sgt. Matthew Odom explained in a report posted by the U.S. Army.

Odom, of Norman, Oklahoma, is assigned to the Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 279th Infantry Regiment of the combat team, also known as the Thunderbirds, the Army said.

Odom, Sgt. Nelson Deese, Skpc. Vincent Humerickhouse, Spc. Kellar Jackson, Spc. Aaron Moore and Pfc. Kevin Polk dashed into the burning building and evacuated the third floor even before firefighters arrived, the Army said.

For the rest of this report, and more, please go to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.