Evidence The GOP Should Not Govern – They Want to Use Christian Biblical Law

GOP lawmaker calls for Biblical law: Washington state Rep. Matt Shea publishes manifesto calling for the execution of all males who refuse to follow “Biblical law.”

In a disturbing development, Washington state Rep. Matt Shea releases a four-page Christian manifesto titled “Biblical Basis for War.” The document calls for “Biblical law”, and suggests that those men who support gay marriage and abortion rights should be executed.

NBC News reports on the four page manifesto released by Shea:

It’s a radical Christian call to arms, outlining 14 steps for seizing power and what to do afterward in explicit detail. It calls for an end to abortions, an end to same-sex marriage, and if enemies do not yield and everyone obey biblical law, all males will be killed.

Vice News reports:

Washington state Rep. Matt Shea admitted Wednesday that he wrote and distributed the four-page document, called the “Biblical Basis for War,” which includes 14 sections on how biblical war can and would unfold. Shea, a Republican who represents Spokane in the state’s House, is up for re-election in the midterms next week. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Shea’s Christian manifesto calling for Biblical law states:

If they do not yield – kill all males.

In an email to The Spokesman-Review newspaper, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said that he sent the manifesto to the FBI for investigation, noting:

The document Mr. Shea wrote is not a Sunday school project or an academic study. It is a ‘how to’ manual consistent with the ideology and operating philosophy of the Christian Identity/Aryan Nations movement and the Redoubt movement of the 1990s.

The goal of these groups has always been to create a white homeland consisting of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington. The ideas presented in the (biblical war) document are how these groups intend to seize control, by force, should there be a governmental collapse or civil war.

However, Rep. Shea sees nothing wrong with his manifesto calling for Biblical law and the execution of those who oppose it. In a Facebook Live video released earlier this week Shea defended his manifesto while making ridiculous claims that he is being persecuted and that the U.S. is really a Christian nation:

Bottom line: Washington state Rep. Matt Shea has published a Christian manifesto calling for the execution of all males who refuse to follow “Biblical law.”

Here you can create the content that will be used within the module.

Trey Gowdy Fox News Spygate

I am going to write more about this.  This is just a placeholder.


REP. TREY GOWDY, R—S.C., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I think there are two things important to understand. Number one, the source of President Trump’s frustration. Brennan say he should be in the dustbin of history. Comey said impeachment is too good of a remedy. Clapper doesn’t like him, Loretta Lynch, said call it a matter, not an investigation.

Schiff said he had evidence of collusion before we even began the investigation, and 60 Democrats have voted to impeach him before Bob Mueller has come up with a single solitary finding. That’s what’s got him frustrated.

What should have him hearten is the fact that Chris Wray, Rod Rosenstein, and all the senior folks at DOJ now were all Trump appointees. So, here is what’s fair to ask, what did the FBI do? When did they do it? What was the factual predicate upon which they took whatever actions they took and against whom were they directed?

But remember, Martha, it was President Trump, himself who said, number one, “I didn’t collude with the Russia but if anyone connected with my campaign did, I want the FBI to find that out.” It looks to me like the FBI was doing what President Trump said I want you to do, find it out. He is not the target. So, when Schiff and others don’t make that clear, they’re doing the disservice to our fellow citizens. He is not the target.

MACCALLUM: But this raises the question that the president raised in this — in this one of those tweets, there were a lot of them. In which we talked about quite a bit here last week, is if that were the case, why didn’t they give him a little briefing?

So, here is what we found out. You know, we do have somebody who asked some questions of George Papadopoulos. We do have somebody who’s asked questions of Carter Page. Here’s what you need to know.

GOWDY: I think, defensive briefings are done a lot. And why the Comey FBI didn’t do it? I don’t know, but Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein have at least made it clear to us, Donald Trump was never the target of the investigation. He is not the current target of the investigation. Now, keep in mind that can all change depending on what a witness says.

But as of now, I think Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein are stunned whenever people think Trump is the target of their investigation. I’ll leave it up to them how to brief the president, or how to brief his lawyers.

MACCALLUM: Was that point of view that you’re talking about right now, was that strengthened when you went into this briefing last week?

GOWDY: Yes, I am — I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got. And that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, given the things that were over here on your right hand, all the frustrations, do you think it’s problematic the way the president has — is tweeting about this all the time? Because he feels like he needs to get — he needs to vent. He’s got to get his message out there. Is it legally problematic in your mind what he is doing?

GOWDY: I think any time you create prior statements, you give Mueller or other folks a chance to question you on them and ask what was your factual basis, why did you say that? The president should have access to the best legal minds in the country. And I think he should take advantage of those. And he has got some really good communicators that are on his staff and at his — at his call. If I were his lawyer, and I never will be, I would tell him to rely on his lawyers and his comes folks.

MACCALLUM: All right, here is one of them, Rudy Giuliani, speaking with Bill Hemmer over the holiday weekend. Watch this.

BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS CO-ANCHOR: What’s wrong with the government trying to figure out what Russia was up to?

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Nothing wrong with the government doing that. Everything wrong with the government spying on a candidate of the opposition party, that’s a Watergate, a spy gate. I mean, and without any warning to him. And now, to compound that, to make it into a criminal investigation bill? That’s why this is a rigged investigation.

GOWDY: There are two things wrong with what the former U.S. attorney said. Number one, no one knows whether this is a criminal investigation. Mueller was told to do a counterintelligence investigation into what Russia did. And number two, President Trump himself in the Comey memos said if anyone connected with my campaign was working with Russia, I want you to investigate it.

And it sounds to me like that is exactly what the FBI did, I think when the president finds out what happened, he is going to be not just fine, he’s going to be glad that we have an FBI that took seriously what they heard. He was never the target, Russia is the target.

MACCALLUM: So, it sounds to me as if you would advise him that there’s no problem with him sitting down with Robert Muller.

GOWDY: Oh, absolutely no. I have always said, I think you want to sit down with Bob Mueller. You’ve told us publicly there was no collusion, you’ve told us publicly there was no obstruction. Say in private what you’ve said publicly, limit the scope to exactly what the — what the Mueller memo is, but if he were my client and I’d say if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you need to sit down and tell Mueller what you know.

MACCALLUM: you know, we had — there was one judge who said that the scope was all over the place. Do you feel comfortable with the scope of this investigation, and do you feel like your committee has been shared with to the extent that, that exists, that the scope exists?

GOWDY: I’m not sure what the scope of the Mueller probe is. But I know this, Rosenstein is the one who created the memo.


GOWDY: It’s not Bob Mueller’s fault.

MACCALLUM: Have you ever seen that memo?

GOWDY: I have — I have. I’ve seen the memo that you’ve seen also. The other memo some of my colleagues want to see is a more narrow admission.

MACCALLUM: I want to basically say, investigate Russia and all — anything related to it.

GOWDY: And as a frontal way line at the end, and of course, if there’s any criminality look at that to me. We run towards the criminality, but I would think everyone would want to know what Russia did. So, I mean, with whom if anyone is the second part? The first question is what did Russia do?

MACCALLUM: All right, we’ll see. Trey, thank you very much.

Evidence Woman Are Gaining Power

Stacy Abrams, the history-making African-American female Democratic nominee for Georgia governor, is more evidence women are gaining power in the US.

Many more women are running for elected office, especially this year — the year in the echoes of Donald Trump’s “hot mic” tape in which he boasts about grabbing women to kiss them and grope their private body parts. This year when the #metoo movement is still gaining steam.

In 1970, there was just one female Senate candidate. Today, there are 49 to 54 women running, depending on whether and which third-party candidates you include, according to a new count by CNN. There were 394 women running for the House and 56 in governor’s races (including third-party candidates), as of last Wednesday.

Certainly more state primary elections will winnow those numbers and fewer women will appear on ballots in November.

But still: This year boasts a record share — 22 percent — of female candidates for Senate seats, a peak not seen since 1994, when the share was 19 percent.

Elle Magazine writes, “It’s too early to call it the ‘year of the woman’ but if these first weeks of the 2018 primaries have told us anything, it’s that women’s electability is surging, and it could become a national trend.”

Recently in Pennsylvania’s primary, eight women won their House races.

But let’s talk just Democrats.

Already, women have some new “firsts” goals: Come November we could see the first black female governor in the United States, the first lesbian serving in Congress from Texas, the first Democratic woman representing Kentucky in the House.

Sure the odds are tough, but what else is new? All of these scenarios moved closer to reality last week following a round of primary elections in those red states.

Look at Georgia, and not just with the crucial win of Abrams over another female primary contender. There were solid female candidates all over Georgia’s Democratic primary ballot. In a state where no woman currently holds statewide elected office, Georgia on Tuesday had two Democratic women running for governor, two running for lieutenant governor, one running for secretary of state, two running for insurance commissioner, and two running for Georgia’s highly visible and controversial Public Service Commission. Three out of six Democratic candidates for the 7th congressional district were women, and one is now in a July run-off race. There’s also a woman in a run-off for the 6th District.

In Georgia’s 180-member House of Representatives, 34 Democratic women signed up to compete for seats previously held by Republicans. This is on the heels of Georgians electing the first two Latina and the first Vietnamese female state representatives, joining other African-American and white women elected to the state legislature in 2016 and 2017.

Georgia Republicans usually out-vote Georgia Democrats in primaries by about 290,000 votes. This year, it was 54,000.

Democrats are said to have struggled to find a voice in recent elections. We’re not so sure.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. And Donald Trump has done much to help Americans realize that pocketbook issues are not just for rich people, D.C. swamp politics or tribalism.

But there’s still much work to do, and perhaps nowhere more so than Tennessee — one of the bottom five states for percentages of female candidates running for Senate since 1994. (This year two women are seeking high office in the Volunteer State, but both are Republican Trump cutouts.)

Let’s not take the good old boys’ networks for granted, Democrats.

As Stacy Abrams said Tuesday after she won the nomination in Georgia:

“In the book of Esther, there’s a verse that reminds us — we were born for such a time as this.”

Evidence Liberals Are Bad – Liberals Are Shutting Down Choice for Birth Moms

The Daily Signal provided evidence Liberals are bad in a post called “How Liberal Activists Are Shutting Down Choice for Birth Moms”

While, I don’t agree with the conclusions in the post, and I question some of the evidence they provide, the narrative they present is reasonable.  And I respect it as an important topic.

I think families should be able to place a child in a home they want and agree with.  If placing a child in a home with a similar faith is important, then that should be fully honored.  It’s wrong, in my humble opinion, to deny a family their choice in this way.

Looking at the links provided in the post, I don’t think those links provide evidence that supports their conclusions.

But, apparently, Christians see their faith under attack and to them, this is further evidence of that truth.

Here is what they say.

Across the country, liberal activists are accusing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies of discrimination because they prefer placing children with married moms and dads. The situation has left faith-based agencies with a difficult choice: violate their religious beliefs about sexuality and marriage, or shut down.


“I would never tell a gay couple, ‘Oh, because you two are in love with each other and you’re not a heterosexual couple, don’t even think about adopting a child.’ That’s not what I’m saying,” Kelly Clemente, a birth mother who placed her son for adoption, told The Daily Signal. “What I’m saying is that birth mothers have the right to choose.”

In at least four states, birth mothers don’t have the right to choose because faith-based agencies were pressured to close. In Illinois, after serving the community for more than 50 years, Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption and foster care services. At least 2,000 children were disrupted, and thousands more foster parents were lost as a result.


In all of these states, plenty of agencies exist that will facilitate adoptions to same-sex couples. But still, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are moving forward with lawsuits trying to force all adoption providers, including those of faith, to facilitate adoptions to same-sex couples.


As a result, some are turning to the federal government to pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, a bill that would protect the rights of birth moms, and the rights of faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to continue operating in accordance to their religious beliefs.


“Birth mothers already sacrifice so much,” said Clemente. “I don’t think that they should have to sacrifice their faith, too.”