PipeLineNews Archives: November 2019

So You Want to Look into the Religious Beliefs of Public Officials?
STEPHEN M. KIRBY

 

November 24, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution prohibits a “religious test” from being required in order to qualify for any office or “public trust” in the United States. But in the last few years we have seen some interesting examples in which a person’s religion was examined when that person was being considered for public office.

In September 2017, Senator Diane Feinstein expressed concern about a judicial nominee’s Christian religion and stated:

Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you... [1]

In December 2018, Senators Mazie Hirona and Kamala Harris expressed concern about a judicial nominee’s membership in the Knights of Columbus, a 137-year-old fraternal Catholic charitable organization. These Senators considered positions taken by the Knights, which simply conformed to Catholic teachings, as “extreme” and raised the question about whether the nominee would end his membership if he was confirmed as a judge. [2]

It seems now that even current elected officials are not exempt from this religious scrutiny. In April 2019, Pete Buttigieg,a potential Democrat presidential candidate and current Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was asked if he thought President Trump was a Christian. Buttigieg responded:

I'm reluctant to comment on another person's faith, but I would say it is hard to look at this president's actions and believe that they're the actions of somebody who believes in God. [3]

That same month, Buttigieg had criticized Vice President Pence for his opposition to homosexual marriage based on Pence’s Christian faith; Buttigieg added:

I don't have a problem with religion, I'm religious too. I have a problem with religion being used as a justification to harm people. [4]

There was even an April 2019 article in The Atlanticabout how potential Democrat presidential candidates were now bringing up their religious beliefs, and some were even referring to the Bible and to the importance of Christ.[5]

With these precedents in mind, let’s turn our attention to the current U.S. Congress.

[Read More]
Islam in Conflict with the Constitution: Holding Muslim Public Officials Accountable to the 1stAmendment

STEPHEN M. KIRBY

Introduction

Novenber 24, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - As I pointed out in a previous article , it has become increasingly common to question the beliefs of Christian public officials, or those Christians aspiring to public office in the United States. With this as our precedence, let’s take a similar approach to the religion of Islam and those who follow that religion.

This is the first in a series of articles in which we will see that Islamic Doctrine is largely incompatible with, and often violates many of the fundamental tenets found in the United States Constitution. In this first article, we shall be looking at Islam and the 1stAmendment guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of religion; this is part of the Constitution that Muslim public officials publicly swear to support, defend, and bear allegiance to, while their religion demands the very opposite.

We must start holding Muslim public officials accountable for those contradictions between their religion and the Constitution they swear to uphold. This article provides you the information you need to understand those contradictions, and then ends with suggested action items.

The Oath of Office

Public officials and elected representatives at all levels of government across the United States take an oath of office. This includes school board and city council members, mayors, law enforcement officers, state officials and members of the United States Congress.

For example, here is the Oath of Office for members of the United States House of Representatives; it starts out:

I, [state your name] , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same… [1]

[Read More]
Islam in Conflict with the Constitution: Holding Muslim Public Officials Accountable to the 8thAmendment

By STEPHEN M. KIRBY

November 24, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - The first article in this series[1]explained the purpose of the series and then briefly examined the significance of the oath of office for public officials and the foundations of Islamic Doctrine. The article then looked at Islam and the 1stAmendment to the U.S. Constitution, focusing on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you have not read the first article, I strongly encourage you to do so before proceeding with this article.

This is the second article in the series, and it looks at Islam and the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 8thAmendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment; this is part of the Constitution that Muslim public officials publicly swear to support, defend, and bear allegiance to, while their religion demands the very opposite.

We must start holding Muslim public officials accountable for those contradictions between their religion and the Constitution they swear to uphold. This article provides you the information you need to understand those contradictions, and then ends with suggested action items.

We will be examining the following punishments which are allowed, and even sometimes commanded by the Koran and/or the teachings and example of Muhammad, Islam’s final prophet:

  • Amputation and death for theft
  • Amputation of a hand and foot from the opposite sides
  • Amputation of the fingers and toes
  • Beheading
  • Burning people to death
  • Crucifixion
  • Flogging
  • Stoning to death
  • Torture

Let’s start out with the punishments for theft allowed under Islam.

[Read More]
Islam in Conflict with the Constitution: Holding Muslim Public Officials Accountable to the 13thAmendment

By STEPHEN M. KIRBY

Novenber 24, 2019 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org - This is the final article in a series that resulted from my May 8, 2019 article that addressed the idea of looking into the religious beliefs of Muslim public officials.[1] The first article in this subsequent series examined some important concepts and then focused on Islam and the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed by the 1stAmendment to the U.S. Constitution. [2] The second article focused on Islam and the 8thAmendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.[3]

This final article looks at Islam and the 13thAmendment. The 13 thAmendment prohibits slavery; this is part of the Constitution that Muslim public officials publicly swear to support, defend, and bear allegiance to, while their religion supports slavery.

We must start holding Muslim public officials accountable for those contradictions between their religion and the Constitution they swear to uphold. As with the previous articles this one provides you the information you need to understand those contradictions along with some suggested action items, and then there are some concluding thoughts.

[Read More]
KaaaaBoom! House Minority Leader McCarthy Drops Schiff-Bomb, GOP Allowed To Call Witnesses
 


November 21, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Well, well, well...looks that super-intellect Adam Schiff has placed his little game in deep jeopardy. In the runup to the California Representative's latest witch hunt he failed to note a requirement contained in the ground rules for his exercise in hijacking an election. Posted by Keving McCarthy, the section clearly delineates the rights of the minority in this admittedly skewed process...developing...

[Read More]
Grassley’s Make Believe Warpath - The Rot That Is DC

November 11, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – It appears [in the sense of being a cardboard cutout designed to present a false impression] that the “patience” of one of DC’s most powerful, albeit low-profile players, Senator Charles Grassley [R-IA], is being sorely tested by the “extended rollout” of the forever anticipated IG report into the FISA abuse that provided the FBI with a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign and then the Trump Presidency.

In a little noted October 21 Twitter posting, Grassley quipped that “all of the delays and excuses why the Horowitz IG FISA report isn’t public yet after several months of anticipation of its issues leads me to the suspicion it’s going to be ‘deep six’ by the Deep Sate.” [emphasis ours - ED]

Aside from the obvious merit of Grassley’s concern, perhaps the most important aspect of the Tweet is that he alone among Senate leaders [such as they are] is unafraid to recognize the existence of the - DEEP STATE, certainly the most controversial term in the DC Swamp.

But as the months have dragged on with zero progress on springing Horowitz’ findings from the clutches of the FBI’s Director, Christopher Wray, Grassley, just hours ago, posted a related Tweet.

“If FISA Inspector General Horowitz report doesn’t come out next week when they said it would then I will be very disappointed & left to wonder WHAT THE GAME IS? Is someone at FBI or DOJ tying IGs hands??”

As suggested in the lede paragraph, we are having NONE of the word-game shenanigans that Grassley and his brethren are playing.

[Read More]
Your Democracy in the Hands of Traitorous Commie RATS

Congressman Nunes' Full Opening Statement

Congressman Jim Jordan Crushing a Confused Ambassador Taylor

Congressman John Ratcliff Tearing Ambassador Taylor Up

Congresswoman Sefanik Grills Schiff Over Rules of Evidence, Jim Jordan Demands ID of "Whistleblower" [Eric Ciaramella]

[Read More]
Quid-Pro-Quo for Morons

By WILLIAM MAYER

November 12, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Over the last week or two the news media has in lockstep manner pushed the idea that President Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors because of a “quid pro quo” deal he struck with the new president of Ukraine.

The substance of that charge is based upon an "interpretation" of the call [necessary since the text was released over a month ago, meaning the actual wording is not in question] by the President's enemies wherein they assert that a $400M foreign aid transfer was somehow made contingent upon the Ukraine leader "digging up dirt on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter," working with the U.S. Justice Department officials as part of an official inquiry into what degree, if any, Ukraine worked to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

That investigation is now ongoing and involves multiple agencies as well as President Trump’s White House and personal lawyers.

Now the law concerning “quid pro quo” agreements is easy to understand, especially in the current setting of all of this taking place within the federal government, but for simplicities sake lets limit it to the substance that was covered during the now “infamous” Trump-Zelensky conversation .

1. The President of the United States is the CHIEF law enforcement officer in the nation, meaning that his powers in this area are near plenary, assuming there is a need to fully exercise them.

2. There have been multiple "official" investigations [of very limited scope] regarding whether Russia or any other country illegally sought to influence the 2016 cycle. But Ukraine? Not so much.

3. Reading the plain text of the conversation it was Zelensky, not Trump who first raised the issue of “draining the swamp” in his own country, meaning he was first to express concern about his predecessor’s possibly unlawful, certainly unethical behavior.

4. Trump however did ask Zelensky for a favor, the performance of which was NOT specifically linked to the aid package. The President wanted Zelensky’s administration to ferret out exactly what happened in Ukraine preceding the 2016 election. He mentioned Mueller and other aspects of the wide-ranging probe.

5. At this point in the conversation President Trump asked Zelensky to work with the American Attorney General, William Barr.

6. Continuing, the President talked about his desire to understand exactly what transpired in Ukraine in the run-up to November, that might have illegally influenced the 2016 U.S. election, mentioning Vice President and his son Hunter’s actions regarding the corporation, Burisma Holdings, on whose board Hunter sat while being compensated at $83,000 a month.

[Read More]
Mark Levin - Another Fraudulent “Conservative”

November 5, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – Let’s get this straight, I do NOT know Levin, but I never considered him the heavyweight he pretends to be.

Right now, it is Tuesday, November 5 at about 3:30 PM PDT. Mark Levin just went psycho about the media refusing to name Eric Ciaramella, to whom yesterday’s piece [Got Dem Eric Ciaramella Blues] was lovingly devoted.

This got Levin turned off, perhaps permanently.

Does this fat windbag really not grasp the monstrous irony of pointing to other media sources for failing to name Eric Ciaramella when he cowers in the corner pissing on himself, afraid to do what he has excoriated the press about?

It’s really unbelievable, but one needs to know a bit about Levin’s gig.

Perhaps the most important is that he was a NEVER Trumper from the get-go, so his cowardliness could have been predicted. His brand of conservatism is that of the National Review variety, effete and oh so correct - the party of George Will and little Billy Kristol.

Pathetic.

[Read More]
Got Dem Eric Ciaramella Blues

November 4, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – For the record, the name is Eric [Charly] Ciaramella and according to sources too numerous to list here he seems to be near, if not at, the center of the Ukraine insanity that has replaced the Russia hoax as DC’s current kerfuffle.

Regarding investigative journo Paul Sperry who first broke the story:

“But the name of a government official fitting that description - Eric Ciaramella - has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry….RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias…”

Ciaramella has threatened legal action against those who see him as a threat to the republic; he [allegedly…wink-wink, nod-nod] being the apparent behind the scenes Brennan true believer who [again reportedly] worked with DNC hack, “Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American” [funded by the DNC] to slime the president.

The alt-Right ‘Net is awash in reporting regarding Eric [Charly] Ciaramella, meaning he has gone from obscurity to ubiquity in less than a week

Oh my… did we say that his name is Eric [Charly] Ciaramella ?

Good, it’s a gift that keeps on giving.

[Read More]