What’s interesting in the news today?
As always, Open Thread.
First up, a woman we were just talking about. And another potential State Dept. scandal. From TheNYPost
“One of the Senate’s most aggressive investigators is probing longtime Hillary Rodham Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s employment status, asking how she got a sweetheart deal to be a private six-figure consultant while still serving as a top State Department official.”
“Abedin, who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff when Clinton was secretary of state, later became a “special government employee” who was able to haul in cash as a private contractor.”
“Grassley, the top Judiciary Committee Republican, wrote that he was concerned her status “blurs the line between public- and private-sector employees, especially when employees receive full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work.””
Rep. Gohmert of Texas pointed out the undue influence people like Huma and her friends have. From Mediaite
“On the House floor on Friday, Texas Representative Louie Gohmert accused various federal agencies of aiding Islamic terrorists organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America in their attempts to enact Sharia Law.
“We need to address the political correctness that is blinding our agencies and blinding our military of its ability to see who the enemy is, because it’s getting people killed,” Gohmert said. “When you refuse to acknowledge that the Afghans you’re training, may be willing to turn their guns you’re training them on and kill you…until you recognize that and who our enemy is, and that our enemy can be among us, and that our enemy can be in uniforms that we’re supposed to be friendly with, then more Americans are going to be killed needlessly.”
Gohmert accused the Obama administration of changing policy so that the FBI, State Department, and others had to “partner with” CAIR and ISNA, rather than treat mosques as terrorist recruitment centers.”
While the Obama admin ignores the extremism in mosques, they target and harass peaceful non-extremist churches. From TheExaminer
“On Thursday the Examiner provided an exclusive report indicating that the Obama administration had implemented a covert program beginning in 2009 that was intended to spy on conservative, evangelical Christian churches.”
“That program involved infiltration — sending in government operatives to join churches for the purpose of data collection. The government snoops would keep their eyes and ears open for criticism of the Obama administration, talk of Tea Party participation, conversations about gun ownership, and a number of other issues.”
“But a special report issued today by Fox News indicates that the program went far beyond infiltration and snooping. The IRS was used to harass Christian churches if they were identified as places where large numbers of anti-Obama citizens congregated for worship.
The Obama administration, according to the report, considered any public criticism of administration policies to be political in nature and should therefore impact whether or not these congregations were allowed to gain or keep their tax exempt status.”
What’s wrong with this picture?
____________________________________________________
Meanwhile in other State Dept scandal news… Back to TheNYPost
“In the latest black eye for the scandal-ridden State Department, a whistleblower claims she was run out of the foreign service after complaining about a consul general’s alleged office trysts with subordinates and hookers.
Kerry Howard says she was bullied, harassed and forced to resign after she exposed US Consul General Donald Moore’s alleged security-threatening shenanigans in the Naples, Italy, office.”
“Howard is just the latest whistleblower to allege that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department allowed sexual misbehavior to continue unchecked.
Last week, The Post reported that Aurelia Fedenisn, an investigator at the department’s inspector-general office, wrote a memo outlining eight cases of supposed sexual misconduct, but that they were removed from an IG report.”
____________________________________________________
In other Obama admin scandal news…. From C-Net
“The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”
If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.”
Nice huh?
____________________________________________________
Wandering Views 
“On Thursday the Examiner provided an exclusive report indicating that the Obama administration had implemented a covert program beginning in 2009 that was intended to spy on conservative, evangelical Christian churches.”
“That program involved infiltration — sending in government operatives to join churches for the purpose of data collection. The government snoops would keep their eyes and ears open for criticism of the Obama administration, talk of Tea Party participation, conversations about gun ownership, and a number of other issues.”
It would be very hard to infiltrate a Baptist or other evangelical church. A snoop would have to be baptised or present a letter from another recognized Baptist church. Then, he would have to show some interest and capability for service before he could get into the inside of the church structure.
Of course, if all he wanted to do is listen to the sermon or attend SS classes, he wold be welcome.
If he/she had attended our service yesterday, he would have heard a good sermon on the Seventh commandment about adultery. He would have heard a few word’s about the same sex marrage agenda.
Trying to remove tax exempt status from FBCHNC would raise a ruckus.
🙂 See Kim’s QoD about sayings.
LikeLike
Chas has the proper response to the Examiner’s accusation. There’s no doubt the NSA and the IRS are used to harass organizations but infiltrate churches …… its pretty hard to integrate into an evangelical church. And the NSA/IRS work is nothing new and some senior Republicans are dismayed this is coming out simply because it has and will occur under a Republican administration.
There seems to be an inordinate amount of interest in the former sec’y of state and what occured under her watch. Could it possibly be related to the popular perception that she is the de facto Democratic candidate for 2016 and the Republicans are throwing dirt early and often.
It seems Jan Brewer has recieved the message that Obamacare will save the state money and is pushing for Obamacare in Arizona over Republican objections.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/14/arizona-governor-jan-brewer-pushes-through-medicaid-expansion-despite-death-threats-and-party-opposition/
LikeLike
what do you folks think about this
What the left do not want to understand or refuse to understand is trying to find a balance between Gay Rights and Christian Rights is where the struggle lies. History shows where ever gay rights are pushed Christian Rights are restricted or removed, in order to protect the GLBT Community Values, because they see the Bible Believing Christian as a threat to their values.
We are seeing this being played out in the Military, where the soldier who is a Christian, are being told that his beliefs are compare to hate groups and that they must keep their views to themselves or face UCMJ Action, if a gay soldier complains. Christian’s Chaplains are being told not to talk about marriage being between one man and one woman, because it may offend the gay soldier. In Schools, gay moral values are being push as being normal, and the Christian students in the school are told, they cannot speak about the issue, because it may offend the gay student. On college campus, Christian’s groups and Christian’s business are being denied access, because they believe in marriage between one man and one woman only and that the gay life style is a sexual sin. We see this with Christian Business, where the Christian owner is being dragged before Civil Rights Courts, because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman.
The issue what people do not want to understand is this is not about civil rights, it is moral / value issues. I understand why the left and the GLBT Community desire to make this about a Civil Right Issue because they believe it removes the moral / value issue argument and it gives them the ability to restrict or remove Bible Believe Christian Freedom.
As a Christian, we see this not as a civil issue but a moral / value issue. Christian’s do not want to outlaw people who are being gay, because it does not work that way. We believe it is a sexual sin, that is it., that people trapped in that life can change at the Cross. We do not support the bigots out of Kansas, Who believe people who are gay cannot find forgiveness. This goes against God’s Word. We do not support those who reject God’s Word and claim to part of the Christian Church (which have been losing members ) , who believe people who are gay do not need to find forgives for their sexual sins. This view goes against God’s Word.
Many not all, but many on the left and in the GLBT Community, believe that those who support marriage between one man and one woman are bigots and should have their rights restrict or removed when need to protect the GLBT Community. They believe if a Christian talks about or preaches that the gay life style is a sinful life style, this makes us a bigots, and we should have our rights restrict or removed when need to protect the GLBT Community.
What is happen many on the left and in the GLBT Community desire to restrict or removed Bible Believe Christian rights, in order to get what they desire. Which is control over what moral standard will be the standard for the Nation. It is reveal in how they address the issue and the length they go in denied the truth that where ever gay rights are push Christian Rights are restricted or removed.
LikeLike
kbells asked me to comment on the Hunt case in Florida.
In Canada and many US states, the age of consent is 16 (until 2008 it was 14 in Canada) with Romeo and Juliet provisions for younger children. 12-13 years can consent with persons up to two years older and 14-15 year olds can consent with persons up to 4 years older. Thus, the Florida situation would be legal elsewhere.
The intent of age of consent laws is to prevent sexual exploitation of children by adults through seduction, manipulation, etc. Its thought (and usually true) teens don’t have the maturity or experience to consent to sexual activity with older more experienced persons. In Florida, we have two high school teens in a mutually consenting relationship (the older teen graduated after the parent complaint was filed) hence prosecuting this case doesn’t really match the intent.
As a dad, I sometimes cringe when my grade nine daughter tells me of the attention she receives from grade twelve boys. However, I do realize she knows how to handle the attention and more importantly she knows what I think. Obviously, the parents of the younger teen didn’t approve of the relationship but using the legal system to prevent it is not good parenting. In most cases, they will probably push the teen further away from them. They didn’t have to accept the teen’s choices but they shouldn’t use the legal system to prosecute the other teen. I tell my daughter which boys I think are inappropriate and originally she needed to find out for herself but she pretty much trusts my judgment. The parents and teen don’t have the same trust and shared understanding and the legal system won’t change that.
For me, it matters not whether its homosexual or heterosexual in nature but whether consent is freely given and understood. And I see no reason to think otherwise.
LikeLike
The question of who has start this fight is also based on what side of the issue you fall under.
You ask this question to many on the left and many in the GLBT Community, they say it is the Bible Believing Christian, who they see as bigots, for standing against and speaking out against the GLBT Community. They view our object to gays rights as forcing our values onto them.
You ask this question to the Bible Believing Christian, it is many on the left and many in the GLBT Community, that started this fight, by dragging people, companies, cities, states and the Nation into Court Rooms to have judge force their moral values onto us. It is many on the left and many in the GLBT Community, that views their moral values and standards on marriage is superior to Our Nation’s history on marriage which has been between one man and one woman. We view their assault on marriage and on people, companies, cities, states and the Nation, as forcing their values onto us.
What is the solution to the problem? What is the balance between the Bible Believing Christian standards and values, our Nation’s standards and values and many on the left and many in the GLBT Community standards and values? I do not believe we will ever come to an agreement that will stop the fight.
LikeLike
HRW, the bottom line on the Hunt case is not weather you approve of the law but weather she broke the law. Would a male in the same situation get this much support? Would the parents be vilified? I personally would not stand for my 14 year old being seduced by an 18 year old. She should get the same sentence a man would get.
LikeLike
Roy
It has to come down ultimately to respecting one another’s vies and defending one anothers rights to freedom of expression and religious belief. When stated as a binary choice then you’re right the fighting never stops. But when viewed as a non-binary issue, we can come to some agreement.
I don’t think right-wingers have the right to legislate their beliefs on to everyone else any more than I think left wingers do. So it comes to what and where can we agree to live and let live.
LikeLike
KBells, You must be blissfully unaware of the current hierarchy of victimhood that has replaced all other form of law in the US. Homosexual not only trumps black, brown, disabled or female, it also trumps rape victim. Therefore, in the US, Ms. Hunt is the victim of homophobia and must be protected and exonerated.
Since the Hunt case is in Florida, it may impact a more famous case. As we speak, George Zimmerman (like Jason Coliins and the former NJ governor) is probably “discovering” he is “gay”. I have no doubt that under therapy he will recall a repressed memory that Treyvon’s final words were a “gay slur”. I think that would guarantee an acquittal and perhaps phone calls of apology from the President, the prosecutor, the Governor, Jesse Jackson et al.
LikeLike
And now an episode of RCN (Rick’s Classic News) featuring Mrs. Thatcher saying things that many of us believe, but no politician would have the courage to say in 2013:
LikeLike
kbells — I thought my rather long winded answer indicated I thought Florida’s age of consent law was wrong. I’ve never been a fan of felony charges for age of consent violations especially when the difference in age is 4 years and the offender just turned 18. Without a “Romeo and Julliet” provision the law is ridiculous no matter the type of relationship.
The relationship began before the teen turned 18 and naturally continued after this. Its obvious this is mutual and free consent.
Is there more support for offender because its a gay relationship? Work backwards, was the complaint originally filed by the parents of the younger girl because it was a gay relationship? In many cases these types of relationships are ignored or not known by authorities unless there is a complaint. The complaint was filed because the parents were upset with the type of relationship not the age difference,. And thus the interest.
And yes I’ve seen similar types of interest in cases involving heterosexual relationship. One involved an 18 and 17 year old couple and an other where a 16 year old was charged with statutory rape for having sex with a 17 year old girl. As I said these laws are ridiculous without a “romeo and juliet” provision
LikeLike
Every now and then two examples of government stupidity work together for good.
http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/government_makes_gender_change_effortless_on_paper
We can now expect all male business owners who get government work to instantly “become” women in order to qualify their businesses as woman-owned businesses and obtain preferences. Ironically, since most are married to women they will also instantly become lesbians, another feather in their caps in 2013 America.
LikeLike
CB – Oh, how I wish you were right (that both sides could respect the rights of the others).
But what I have seen is that if one disagrees with the notion of same-sex marriage for any reason at all, one is labeled “ignorant” at the very least, but most usually is labeled as a “hater” or a “bigot”. My niece cut off her relationship with me because I could not fully “celebrate & embrace” her upcoming same-sex wedding.
She asked me if I could, via email, but I hadn’t gotten around to answering her when she wrote again saying she knew the answer was no. She said that my loving her, my showing hospitality & love to her & a couple of her gay friends (male & female) in the past was “not good enough” (her words).
During a Facebook “discussion”, I’ve been told that I have no right to say anything against same-sex marriage. I was told that I should join Fred Phelps’ Westboro church because I obviously was as hateful as they.
The “funny” thing about all this? In these exchanges, with my niece & the others, I never once came out & said I was against SSM. What did I say that earned me such bile? I was trying to say that there are people who oppose SSM for reasons other than hatred, bigotry, or ignorance. That’s it, but that was bad enough in their eyes. (I even shared a couple links by gay people who oppose it.)
This whole situation deeply saddens me.
LikeLike
Karen, I understand what you are going through. My brother has not spoken to me in almost 3 years because I do not support gay rights. The funny thing is when I go home, his lover comes by to get my brother son. We always spent time talking together.
LikeLike
A kind of funny exchange on one of those Facebook discussions…I, who have read about & looked at both sides of the issue, was called close-minded by a young woman who refuses to look at the other side of the issue. Yes, really. 🙂
LikeLike
It’s heartbreaking, Pastor Roy.
LikeLike
I’m with Chas. Infiltrate away.. Maybe some of the operatves will get saved.
LikeLike
As for religious expression vs. Same sex marriage. One is in the Bill of Rights the other is not.
LikeLike
HRW, my sources say Hunt suduced the child after she turned 18.
LikeLike
Every situation is different Karen — I don’t know what your niece is thinking or going through. I can tell you that my evangelical parents and I went through a long period of estrangement. I did not invite them to my wedding because to do so would only have brought on another lecture about how I am a terrible reprobate, etc. etc. Things are slightly better now but we simply don’t talk about it. Many people are not able to do that — the LGBT ones and the evangelical ones.
You and Roy have every right to express your religious beliefs on the issue. You don’t have every right to expect that people will agree with your beliefs. Or as my Dad used to put it — “I respect your right to have the relationships you want to have; I just don’t respect your relationship.” As you might imagine such a statement does not make for bridging differences. He might have stopped with the first clause — it would have made a difference.
LikeLike
CB – I’m sorry you have such a strained relationship with your parents. I hope their attitude towards you will soften as time goes by.
As for my niece, I have never spoken (nor written) to her about her relationships or the fact that she is lesbian/bisexual (she changes back & forth as to how she describes herself). I have treated her as I always treated her – with love & kindness. I’ve treated her gay friends the same.
Without realizing what she was really saying, she basically told me that she’s cutting off our relationship because of my faith.
LikeLike
Sorry to hear that Karen. Your niece sounds young and unaccountably afraid.
LikeLike
Perhaps so, CB, but I don’t know why. Her parents & their friends are all quite liberal, & supportive of the gay community. Her mom has had several close gay friends through the years. And even the conservative Christian side of her family (hubby & I) have been loving & kind, not making any issue out of her sexuality.
LikeLike