Tag: After

Psychopathic Leftists Investigating High School Football Coach Because He Likes To Pray After Games

Bremerton Football Coach Investigated For Post-Game Prayers – KING

.

.
The Bremerton School District is investigating a football coach for praying after high school football games. District policy states “school staff shall neither encourage nor discourage” students from praying.

Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy, who is still coaching, said he always prays after games on the 50-yard line. He said sometimes he’s alone, sometimes players join him.

“I never asked anyone,” Kennedy said. “They just all showed up one day and the next thing I know, the other team was showing up with us.”

KING 5 spoke to Kennedy at Monday’s JV football game, He’s the assistant head coach for Bremerton High’s varsity team and the head coach for the JV squad. After Monday’s game, Kennedy still prayed on the field, and a large crowd made up of players and parents from both Bremerton and its opponent took part.

“I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, and it’s been about protecting the freedom of other people,” he said. “It’s about the freedom, and people can believe whatever they want. I’m just exercising my right. The game is over, and I just thank god for every one of these young men that are out here.”

It’s not yet clear what promoted the district investigation, but many in the stands at Monday’s game assumed it came as the result of a complaint or concern about the separation of church and state.

“It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” said Bill Bailey, who was actually cheering for Bremerton’s opponent to win the game, but says he supports Kennedy’s post-game prayers completely. “If they don’t like it, they don’t have to participate.”

The district would not comment on the ongoing investigation, except to say that Coach Kennedy has not been fired or placed on administrative leave. News of the investigation spread online over the weekend, sparking protest on a Facebook page called “Support Joe Kennedy.”

Kennedy told KING 5 he’s not worried about losing his job. Instead, his team remains his top priority.

“I don’t really worry about all that nonsense,” he said. “The only thing I worry about is the kids. It’s not about what my beliefs are, it’s about believing in each other. It’s about the sport that we love.”

Parents in the stands on Monday told KING 5 they’ve watched Kennedy pray after every game for years. Some didn’t seem to understand why it’s all of a sudden become an issue.

“Maybe there are some people who don’t go to church and don’t want their kid exposed to it, but you can’t stop it for everyone,” said Wanda Stone. “He doesn’t tell the kids that if they don’t come out and pray they’re not going to play. The kids are voluntarily going out there.”

A rally in support of Coach Kennedy is planned for Friday – the day Bremerton High School’s varsity team takes the field.

The prayer Kennedy prayed after Monday’s game lasted only about 13 seconds.

“Lord, I just want to lift up all these warriors that came out here to compete today,” he prayed. “I don’t care what their beliefs are. We do believe in this sport. We believe in football, we believe in a team and competition. It’s all about the game. In your name, Amen.”

Many who bowed their heads with him also said “Amen” and cheered when he finished praying.

District policy states that staff members can’t encourage or discrouage a student from engaging in non-disruptive oral or silent prayer. So there’s nothing wrong with students or student athletes praying, it’s just a question of what role the teacher or coach is playing in that prayer. It appears that is what the district investigation will try to determine.

It’s not yet clear when that investigation will be complete.

.

.

Senate RINOs Line Up To Defend Bitch McConnell’s Honor After Ted Cruz’s ‘Mr. Smith Goes To Washington’ Speech

Senior Senate Republicans Tebuke Ted Cruz For Mitch McConnell ‘Lie’ Attack – The Guardian

.
…………

.
Senior Senate Republicans lined up on Sunday to rebuke Texas senator Ted Cruz for attacking majority leader Mitch McConnell, in an extraordinary display of intra-party division played out live on the Senate floor.

As the Senate met for a rare Sunday session, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas each rose to counter a stunning floor speech Cruz gave on Friday in which he accused McConnell, of Kentucky, of lying.

None of them mentioned Cruz by name but the target of their remarks could not have been clearer.

“Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated in other venues and perhaps on the campaign trail, but they have no place among colleagues in the United States Senate,” said Hatch, the Senate’s president pro tempore. Cruz is running for president.

“The Senate floor has even become a place where senators have singled out colleagues by name to attack them,” Hatch continued, “ …and impugn their character in blatant disregard for Senate rules.

“Such misuses of the Senate floor must not be tolerated.”

After Hatch spoke, Cruz rose to defend himself for making the accusation that McConnell had lied when he denied striking a deal to allow a vote to revive the federal Export-Import Bank.

He said he agreed with Hatch’s calls for civility but declared: “Speaking the truth about actions is entirely consistent with civility.”

Around 20 senators of both parties were on the floor to watch some of the speeches. Cruz’s floor speech on Friday had brought nearly unheard-of drama and discord to the chamber.

The responses to it were just as remarkable, as senior Republicans united to defend an institution they revere and take down a junior colleague of their own party who has gone from being an occasional nuisance to being a threat to the Senate’s very ability to function with order.

McConnell said that given support for the Export-Import Bank, no “special deal” was needed to bring it to a vote.

The little-known bank is a federal agency that helps foreign customers to buy US goods. Conservatives oppose it as corporate welfare and are trying to end it.

The Senate was meeting on Sunday to vote on the bank as well as on a repeal of President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act. Both were amendments to a must-pass highway bill that the Senate is trying to complete ahead of a 31 July deadline.

If Congress does not act by then, states will lose money for highway and transit projects in the middle of the summer construction season.

On Sunday, by a vote of 67-26, the Senate limited debate on a measure that would reauthorize the bank until September 2019.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.
Ted Cruz Rebuts Bitch Supporters

.

.

.

Hillary Deleted Emails After Congressman Issa Asked Her About Private Email Addresses In 2012

Issa Asked Hillary In 2012 About Private Email Address, Clinton Deleted Emails After Inquiry – Big Government

.

.
Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked in an official congressional inquiry from former House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) about whether she used a private email for government work as far back as 2012.

The letter from Issa to Clinton, sent on Dec. 13, 2012 and obtained by Breitbart News after an explosive New York Times expose on it late Tuesday evening, specifically asks eight detailed questions about government record-keeping.

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal e-mail account to conduct official business?” the first question reads. “If so, please identify the account used.”

The next two questions asked about whether she or other senior agency officials used text messages or alias email accounts to send or receive government work messages – and the fourth question asks for specific details on the agency’s policies on such accounts.

“Please provide written documentation of the agency’s policies regarding the use of non-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business, including, but not limited to, archiving and record keeping procedures, as well as disciplinary proceedings for employees in violation of these policies,” Issa asked Clinton.

The next question follows up on that. “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using non-official accounts?” Issa asked Clinton.

The next question asks about social media accounts before the final two of the eight questions to Clinton hone in yet again on agency policies.

“What agency policies and procedures are currently in place to ensure that all messages related to official business sent or received by federal employees and contractors on private, non-governmental e-mail accounts or social networking platforms are properly categorized as federal records?” the seventh question to Clinton from Issa reads.

“Have any agency employees been subject to disciplinary proceedings for using non-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business since January 20, 2009?” the final question from Issa to Clinton reads. “If so, please provide a list of names, dates of proceedings, and final outcomes.”

An identical version of Issa’s letter to Clinton was also sent to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Attorney General Eric Holder, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, NASA administrator Charles Bolden, GSA administrator Daniel Tangherlini, Small Business Administration administrator Karen Mills, and Office of Management and Budget director Jeffrey Zients.

At this time, it is unclear if any other of the agencies responded to Issa’s inquiry. But thanks to a New York Times report from Michael S. Schmidt on Tuesday evening, it is now known that the State Department – through Thomas B. Gibbons, the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs – responded to Issa’s letter after Clinton left office.

Clinton resigned from the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013 – as Schmidt wrote on Tuesday evening, “seven weeks after the letter [from Issa] was sent to her.”

Gibbons waited several more weeks, until March 27, 2013, to respond to Issa’s letter on the State Department’s behalf. Gibbons did not answer in that letter whether Clinton used a personal email address, and it’s unclear based on the Times report – which does not include the full text of the letter Gibbons sent back to Issa – how specific he was in answering any of the other questions Issa had for Clinton and her State Department.

“When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies,” Schmidt wrote.

From the two sections of the letter Schmidt did quote in his piece, however, it is clear that Clinton was in violation of the State Department policy that employees should not be using personal email addresses to conduct official business.

Any employee who had a personal account, Gibbons wrote in the letter according to Schmidt’s report, “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”

Gibbons added, according to Schmidt, that “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’”

Schmidt also paraphrased another portion Gibbons’ letter by writing that the “State Department offered training on its record management programs to its employees.”

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach on Tuesday, Schmidt wrote, “declined” to “answer questions about why it had not addressed Mr. Issa’s question about whether Mrs. Clinton or senior officials used personal email accounts.”

“The department responds to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” Gerlach told Schmidt instead of answering specific questions. “In its March 2013 letter, the department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail.”

There are several major takeaways from this development, as it breathes brand new life into the scandal rocking Clinton as she just launched her 2016 presidential campaign this week.

The first is that she was clearly aware that her private email account was a serious issue as far back as during her time at the State Department.

Secondly, she deliberately decided to not respond to the inquiry – waiting for officials at the State Department to do so well after she resigned, and even further after the deadline for a response. The actual deadline was Jan. 7, 2013.

The third major takeaway is that after Clinton was made aware this was an issue, she deleted upwards of 30,000 emails that she or her staff deemed to be private and not government-related. Since the full text of Gibbons’ response to Issa at this time is unavailable, it’s unclear what the official policy was – according to him – for preserving or archiving such records, or ensuring as Issa put it proper categorization of such messages.

At her widely panned press conference at the United Nations last month, Clinton herself claimed that it is a government official’s personal responsibility to determine what messages are worthy of keeping records of and which ones are not.

“In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work,” she said in response to a question about that angle of the scandal. “I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear. For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced. And I feel like once the American public begins to see the e- mails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications, which I think will be quite interesting.”

It’s absolutely clear at this time, however, that she deleted emails after receiving Issa’s inquiry.

In fact, in a document released in early March 2015 – in response to the widespread media scrutiny she was receiving – the “Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton” made clear the decisions about which emails to delete and which ones to keep was made after a 2014 correspondence with senior State Department officials, well after Issa’s letter.

“Following conversations with Department officials and in response to the Department’s October 28, 2014 letter to former Secretaries requesting assistance in meeting the Department’s record-keeping requirements, Secretary Clinton directed her attorneys to assist by identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records,” the Clinton document reads. “This entailed a multi-step process to provide printed copies of the Secretary’s work-related emails to the Department, erring on the side of including anything that might potentially be a federal record. As the State Department has said, Secretary Clinton was the first to respond to this letter.”

Kurt Bardella, a former senior adviser to Issa when he was chairman of the committee–who, in the interest of full disclosure, now serves as a communications aide for Breitbart News Network–but served with Issa at the time this letter was sent to Clinton, said there are more questions than answers that are coming from this development.

“The fact is in December of 2012, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was directly asked if she used a private e-mail account,” Bardella said. “Why did the State Department wait until after Secretary Clinton left office to respond to the Issa letter? Were Secretary Clinton’s efforts to deliberately conceal her official activities through use of her private e-mail prompted by then-Chairman Issa’s request? As is status-quo with the Clintons, there are far more questions than answers and it’s likely that these revelations of her secrecy are just the tip of the iceberg.”

Clinton has been oddly secretive in her first few days as a presidential candidate. In an interview with Breitbart News earlier on Tuesday, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus argued that Clinton’s campaign rollout has been deliberately underwhelming, and she is “hiding” because she is afraid of answering any real questions from press or voters about her email scandal.

“The reason why she didn’t give a speech is because she can’t avail herself to the media,” Priebus said. “She cannot get herself in a situation where she’s going to have to deal with a question about Benghazi or about the emails or about her speeches or about the Clinton Foundation or about her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. She wants to be able to have a few days and a couple weeks of peace and change the subject from what’s been plaguing her and the only way she can do that is by hiding and that’s what she’s doing: Hiding.”

.

.

Liberian Man’s Semen Tests Positive For Ebola After He Is Declared Cured

Man’s Semen Tests Positive For Ebola After He Was Cured – Big Government

.

.
A Liberian man was quarantined in India despite supposedly being cured of Ebola after samples of his semen tested positive for the deadly virus.

A 26-year-old native of Liberia arrived in New Delhi with a certificate from the Liberian health ministry saying that he was cured of the disease. But India wasn’t entirely satisfied with the claim and performed some tests of its own.

The World Health Organization already warns male survivors not to have sexual intercourse for up to seven weeks after being cleared of the disease. The WHO even thinks that sex may have been how some victims got the disease.

“It is reiterated that the person concerned is a treated and cured case of Ebola Virus Disease,” the Indian health ministry reported. Authorities said they would keep the man in isolation until all his bodily fluids tested negative for the virus.

.

.

Unreal! Army Officials Say Deserter Bergdahl Could Return To Active Duty After Treatment

Bergdahl Could Return To Active Duty After Treatment – New York Post

.

.
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could return to active duty after he completes medical treatment for being held captive for five years by the Taliban, Army officials said Friday.

“The goal of reintegration is to return a soldier to duty,” said Colonel Bradley Poppen, a psychologist who will be treating the 28-year-old Idaho native at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.

Bergdahl returned to the US early Friday after spending 12 days in Germany as part of his recovery process. He was captured by the Taliban in 2009 and released May 31 in a swap that freed five high-level Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.

The former prisoner of war has chosen not speak to his parents since his release, officials said.

“It is a returnee’s choice to make that determination when, where and who they want to” reconnect with, said Poppen. “ I believe the family understands that process at this time.”

He said the family is not in Texas to welcome his son.

The army officials also said they’re “pleased” with Bergdahl’s physical state and that they’ll be working with him daily during the “reintegration process.”

They said Bergdahl hasn’t had any exposure to the mounting controversy surrounding his release and that they’ll introduce those aspects little by little.

Major General Joseph DiSalvo said he greeted Bergdahl at around 1:40 a.m. Friday as he got off the plane from Germany. Bergdahl was in uniform and saluted the general.

“He appeared just like any sergeant would when they see a two-starred general – a little bit nervous but he looked good and saluted and had good deportment,” said DiSalvo.

.

.

Corruption Update: Fraud Claim Against Eric Holder, Other Democrats Bolstered After Ruling

Fraud Claim Against Holder Bolstered After Ruling – WorldNetDaily

Allegations of fraud against Attorney General Eric Holder, other top Justice officials, several prominent Democratic operatives – including a major contributor to Hillary Clinton – and Credit Suisse Bank has been re-ignited by a federal bankruptcy judge’s decision that also apparently has derailed the U.S. Senate bid of a former Democrat governor.

.

The decision July 10 by Judge Bruce A. Markell dismissed a bankruptcy judgment against real estate developer Tim Blixseth.

Blixseth, the founder of the Yellowstone Club, a luxury ski and golf resort in Montana, has alleged that Credit Suisse made a criminally fraudulent loan to Yellowstone Club that led to the bankruptcy judgment, which stripped Blixseth of ownership of the resort. Blixseth alleges he was defrauded by an elaborate scheme engineered by his ex-wife and Ron Burkle, the supermarket king who raised more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Though seemingly unrelated, the bankruptcy decision appears to have prompted former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer to announce Saturday that he does not intend to pursue a bid to run in 2014 for the U.S. Senate. The seat has been held by retiring Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, a prominent proponent of Obamacare who in recent months has described the health care law as “a train wreck.”

WND reported in June 2012 that several hundred pages of documents allege Holder and Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s criminal division, have intervened to block recommended federal prosecutions in an ongoing dispute involving the Yellowstone Club, a private golf and ski resort now owned by Burkle and international bank Credit Suisse.

WND also reported allegations by Blixseth attorney Mike Flynn that Holder and Breuer sought shield from federal criminal prosecution of Credit Suisse Group AG a client of the Washington-based law firm Covington & Burling, as well as key Democratic Party operatives suspected of playing a role in allegedly fraudulent mortgage financing and bank lending practices.

Before joining the Department of Justice in the Obama administration, Holder and Breuer were partners at the international law firm Covington & Burling.

Judge Markell’s decision last week dismissed a $40 million fraud judgment against Blixseth that had been enforced by U.S. bankruptcy judge Ralph Kirscher, a Democrat appointed to the bankruptcy court by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1999 during President Clinton’s second term of office.

Blixseth and Flynn have repeatedly charged that Kirscher’s bankruptcy decision was fraudulently influenced in a 2009 meeting with Montana’s governor at the time, Schweitzer. The meeting resulted in a decision to allow Blixseth’s ex-wife and Sam Byrne, a Boston real estate investor with ties to the Democratic Party, to buy the Yellowstone Club at a price substantially below market value after the bankruptcy had been declared.

Flynn further alleged in a letter shared with WND, addressed to the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, that Burkle, Byrne and Schweitzer funneled more than $1.2 million through the Democratic Governor’s Association in 2008 to the Montana Democratic Party for the benefit of Schwitzer’s re-election campaign.

Flynn asserts in the letter to the DOJ that the “money laundering scheme – having Burkle and Byrne with their friends donate to the Democratic Governor’s Association and then to the Montana Democratic Party, for the benefit of Schweitzer – appears designed to conceal Burkle and Byrne’s financial relationship with Schweitzer while at the same time Burkle and Byrne were taking over the Yellowstone Club and using their relationship and ‘political capital’ and ‘political favors’ with Schweitzer to do it.”

After his re-election in 2009, Schweitzer created two highly controversial funds, The Council for a Sustainable America and The American Sustainability Project, into which Burkle and Byrne funneled $335,000, Flynn said.

Flynn further charged that in early 2010, the Montana Democratic Party political machine with the backing of Holder and Breuer “targeted” Blixseth with a baseless criminal investigation.

Among recent developments is the entry into the Yellowstone case of a whistleblower who claims to have been paid $6 million by Blixseth’s former wife to hack into Blixseth’s computers to obtain highly confidential information that she shared with Burkle and Department of Justice criminal investigators.

Flynn explained to WND his current concern that Holder may have ordered the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section to block the whistleblower’s application for immunity to prevent disclosure of corruption by the various Democratic Party political operatives involved in the Yellowstone case, including Holder and Breuer.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Texas Senate Passes Bill Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks

Texas Republicans Finally Pass New Abortion Limits – CNS

Republican lawmakers passed a bill that would give Texas some of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws and force most of its clinics to close, leading Democrats to promise a fight over the contentious measure in the courts at the ballot box.

.

More than 2,000 demonstrators filled the Capitol building in Austin to voice their opposition to the bill, including six protesters who were dragged out of the Senate chamber by state troopers for trying to disrupt the debate. The Republican majority passed the bill unchanged just before midnight, with all but one Democrat voting against it.

“Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life,” said Gov. Rick Perry, who will sign the bill into law in the next few days. “This legislation builds on the strong and unwavering commitment we have made to defend life and protect women’s health.”

Democrats promised a legal challenge to the measure, which will ban abortions after 20 weeks, require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and require all abortions to take place in surgical centers. Only five out of Texas’ 42 existing abortion clinics meet the requirements to be a surgical center, and clinic owners say they can’t afford to upgrade or relocate.

“There will be a lawsuit. I promise you,” Dallas Sen. Royce West said on the Senate floor, raising his right hand as if taking an oath.

Democrats proposed 20 amendments to the bill, including making exceptions in cases of rape and incest and allowing doctors more leeway in prescribing abortion-inducing drugs. But Republicans would have none of it.

The bill is one of many championed in Republican-led states this year by anti-abortion groups set on challenging the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, which established a woman’s right to get an abortion until the point in which a fetus could viably survive outside the womb. A fetus is generally considered viable at 22 to 24 weeks.

Texas falls under the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has shown a willingness to accept more stringent limits on abortions.

By passing the new restrictions, Republicans pleased the Christian conservatives who make up the majority of primary voters. But they inspired abortion rights supporters to protest at the state Capitol in numbers not seen in Texas in at least 20 years.

Demonstrators packed normally boring committee hearings to voice their anger over the abortion bill and managed to disrupt key votes. They finished a lengthy filibuster by Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis, of Fort Worth, by jeering for the last 15 minutes of the first special legislative session, effectively killing the bill.

That’s when Perry called lawmakers back for round two. But opponents said the fight is far from over and used the popular anger to register and organize Democratic voters.

“Let’s make sure that tonight is not an ending point, it’s a beginning point for our future, our collective futures, as we work to take this state back.” Davis told 2,000 adoring supporters after the bill passed.

The Texas Republican Party, meanwhile, celebrated what they consider to be a major victory that makes Texas “a nationwide leader in pro-life legislation.”

“As Democrats continue to talk about their dreams of turning Texas blue, passage of (the bill) is proof that Texans are conservative and organized and we look forward to working with our amazing Republican leadership in the Texas Legislature as they finish the special session strong,” a party statement said.

Friday’s debate took place before a packed gallery of demonstrators, with anti-abortion activists wearing blue and abortion-rights supporters wearing orange. Security was tight, and state troopers reported confiscating bottles of urine and feces as they worked to prevent another attempt to stop the Republican majority from passing the proposal.

Those arrested or removed from the chamber included four women who tried to chain themselves to a railing in the gallery while singing, “All we are saying is give choice a chance.” One of the women was successful in chaining herself, leading to a 10-minute recess.

Sen. Glen Hegar of Katy, the bill’s Republican author, argued that all abortions, including those induced with medications, should take place in an ambulatory surgical center in case of complications.

Democrats pointed out that childbirth is more dangerous than an abortion and there have been no serious problems with women taking abortion drugs at home.

Cecile Richards, the daughter of former Gov. Anne Richards and president of Planned Parenthood, said Texas Republicans and abortion opponents won this political round — but it could cost them down the road.

“All they have done is built a committed group of people across this state who are outraged about the treatment of women and the lengths to which this Legislature will go to take women’s health care away,” she said.

The dedication of those activists will be tested during the 2014 elections. Democrats have not won a statewide seat in Texas since 1994, the longest such losing streak in the nation.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.