Kate Scanlon reports at the Daily Signal:

Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran has filed a federal complaint that he is a victim of religious discrimination after losing his job after his writing about his views on homosexuality attracted attention.

Cochran, who is also a deacon at Elizabeth Baptist Church, was terminated after controversial passages about homosexuality were discovered in his book, Who Told You You Are Naked?, self-published in 2013.

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Cochran was fired by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed after his objection to Cochran’s description of homosexuality as "vile, vulgar and inappropriate at work."

The complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Cochran by his attorney, Jonathan Crumly, who alleges that Cochran’s termination is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live without fear of losing their jobs because of their beliefs and thoughts. We are continuing to evaluate all available legal options to vindicate Chief Cochran after his unjust termination," Crumly is quoted as telling the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

"Crumly is affiliated with Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that defends freedom of religion," Scanlon reports.

Comment: Both the U.S. Constitution (1st Amendment) and Declaration of Independence (liberty, the pursuit of happiness) recognize Kelvin Cochran's unalienable human right to speak freely and publicly regarding the vile, vulgar, and inappropriate phenomenon of homosexuality.

What the mayor and his politically correct true believers in secularism are demonstrating is their hatred of real diversity, their hatred of real liberty, and their hatred of the transhistorical norms of freedom as expressed in the founding documents of the American experiment. 

Moreover, Mayor Kasim Reed of Atlanta (photo) is actually the one who is discriminating. He discriminates not only against Mr. Cochran, but also against the knowable Creator and against the Creator's verifiable norms for human freedom and dignity.

In the real world, as opposed to that of secular superstition, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. No mayor, governor, Congress, or president can reject the norms of freedom and yet maintain a free society.

In the real world, when you pull a flower up by its roots, "liberating" it from its soil, its source of life, that flower is effectively dead unless returned to its source of life. The bloom may last a while, and the ignorant may believe the bloom of life continues as before.

But the executioners know better. As do any who know the relationship between life and the source of life. 

Surely, the city of Atlanta can find a mayor who knows the difference between life and death, freedom and nonfreedom, the wrongful discrimination against the Creator and his blessings, and the rightful and compassionate critique of ethical breakdown.

Come on, Atlanta. Come on, Georgia. Up your game. Get in the fight for human freedom and dignity.

Down with authoritarianism masquerading as liberation. Up with liberty in community with God and neighbor. 

Former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran is behaving as a man freed by truth to express that truth, and live that truth, across the whole of life, including public life.

This is his birthright under God. He takes it with him wherever he goes. Into the firehouse, it is his birthright. Into the house of government, it is his birthright. And in every public space, it is his birthright.

For he is a man. He is not a slave. He is a human being, he is not a slave. Wake up, Mr. Mayor. Wake up, Atlanta. Wake up.

"Sen. Ted Cruz wants to protect taxpayers from political targeting by the Internal Revenue Service," according to Ben Smith at the Daily Signal.

"The Texas Republican introduced legislation" last Tuesday, Smith reports, "making it crime to engage in such behavior as questions still linger about the full extent of the IRS scandal."

Drew MacKenzie reports at Newsmax:

In a sickening new video from the Islamic State (ISIS), the terror group has vowed to cut off President Barack Obama's head and turn the United States into a Muslim caliphate.

A black-clad extremist, with his face covered, is shown railing against America before beheading a captured Kurdish soldier kneeling in front of him.

Moments before carrying out the execution, the ISIS fighter warned, "Know, oh Obama, that we will reach America. Know also that we will cut off your head in the White House and transform America into a Muslim province."

"The video was revealed on The Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project (Memri TV), which translated it from Arabic and posted the footage on its website," MacKenzie reports.

Anugrah Kumar reports at Christian Post:

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took on President Obama's plans to fight climate change, saying that beheadings by the terror group ISIS is a "greater threat to an American than a sunburn."

"When he [President Obama] said the greatest threat this nation faces . . . I waited . . . and then he said . . . 'It's climate change,'" Huckabee, the potential 2016 presidential candidate, said at the Iowa Freedom Summit in Des Moines Saturday.

"Not to diminish anything about the climate at all," Huckabee is quoted as saying, "but Mr. President, I believe that most of us would think that a beheading is a far greater threat to an American than a sunburn. I wish he understood that we have a real enemy . . . Islamic jihadism."

John Jalsevac writes at LifeSiteNews.com:

Is an unborn baby at 20 weeks human? It’s a straightforward question, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi couldn’t bring herself to respond to it when asked twice during a press briefing [January 23].

Both times Pelosi dodged the question, saying that politicians shouldn’t be involved in "reproductive health" choices. (Watch video of her answer here.) 

The second time the question was answered, Pelosi argued in her response that as "a Catholic and a mom of five" she has "great standing" on the issue. More, she said, than most of her colleagues, and even the pope.

"The question, and follow-up, were asked by a reporter with CNSNews in reference to the ongoing debate about a bill in Congress that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. The bill bases the ban upon the science showing that babies at that age can feel the pain of being aborted," according to Jalsevac.

"One recent poll found that 84% of Americans support the bill," Jalsevac writes.

Paul Kengor writes at American Spectator:

Sanger did not unwittingly speak to a group with a link (direct or indirect) to the KKK through a member. No, Margaret knowingly went directly to the Real McCoy -- straight to the dragon’s mouth. In May 1926, a hopeful spring day, this progressive icon, this liberal hero, this founding mother of one of liberalism’s most sacred organizations, Planned Parenthood, an organization that liberals demand we fund with tax dollars, went directly to a KKK meeting and spoke at length to the faithful.

There’s no excuse for not knowing that Sanger did this, other than the routine self-censorship and self-imposed ignorance that liberals excel at imposing on themselves. Sanger openly wrote about in her 1938 autobiography published by W.W. Norton, one of the leading New York publishing houses.

"Sanger relayed little of what she shared with the klanswomen at their rally, though apparently she was extremely successful and satisfied with herself: 'I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York'," Kengor writes.

"The Planned Parenthood founder’s KKK talk was apparently a smash hit. Not only did it go very late, after a very long wait, but no less than 'a dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered'," Kengor observes.

Go here to read the entire article "Reflections on Roe: When Margaret Sanger Spoke to the KKK."

Pete Balinski reports at LifeSiteNews.com:

Science is winning the abortion debate and making clear that the Democrats' position on the issue is "extreme, hypocritical, and inconsistent," said business leader Carly Fiorina, rumoured to be considering a 2016 presidential campaign, during the keynote address [at] a Heritage Foundation life-and-family forum in Washington, DC.

"Science is helping those of us who believe in the sanctity of life to make our case every day. Science is why more and more young people are becoming pro-life," she said at the event, which was co-hosted by the National Review Institute. 

"The former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Company pointed out how the DNA of a zygote continues to be the same DNA of the person throughout the entire spectrum of his or her life. She also noted how in utero surgery continues to shed light on the humanity of the pre-born," according to LifeSiteNews.

"Fiorina told LifeSiteNews after the event that if she were to ever lead a presidential campaign, she would not shun the issue of abortion," Balinski reports.

Brad Heath reports at USAToday:

At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.

"Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostage," Heath writes. "But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concern about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars -- and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.

"The idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what's inside is problematic," USAToday quotes Christopher Soghoian of the ACLU as saying. "Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have."

The Supreme Court in 2013, "limited police's ability to have a drug dog sniff the outside of homes. The core of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, is 'the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion'," USAToday reports.

Writing at AnchorLine, Dan Cogan explains why, having been "what many would call a 'worship leader'  for close to two decades," he now "would make the case for the abandonment of most contemporary songs."

Cogan begins by detailing his early heartfelt commitment to contemporary worship music. "When I first became involved in 'worship ministry' in an Assemblies of God youth group we sang such songs as The Name of the Lord Is a Strong Tower, As the Deer, Lord I Lift Your Name on High, and others of the era of the 1980s and 90s. Ours was considered a stylistically progressive church since we used almost exclusively contemporary songs," Cogan writes.

During this period, whenever Cogan would "visit a 'traditional' church, not only would I be unfamiliar with the hymns, I would also likely cringe when they sang them and in my heart ridicule them (the people rather than the songs) as being old-fashioned."

Cogan explains how, "over the years when I would occasionally hear a hymn, the language was always strikingly foreign, with Ebenezers and bulwarks, diadems and fetters. Which only served to confirm my bias that hymns were simply out-of-date. They had served their purpose. They had run their course."

But as he matured, Cogan noticed something was missing. Around seven years ago, the "problem with my youthful logic" began to surface. "I had come to recognize that these ancient hymns accomplished something that the new songs weren’t."

Yes, the newer worship songs "seemed to take the listener on an exciting and emotional rollercoaster," but the "old hymns engaged the mind with deep and glorious truths that when sincerely pondered caused a regenerated heart to humbly bow before its King."

When Cogan accepted his "first post as a paid member of a church staff in 2007, he "began the practice of singing one hymn each week. There were times where my peers would teasingly ask what an 'Ebenezer' was."

He would offer a "basic definition of these seemingly obsolete words we were singing, and the "response was usually something akin to, 'Oh? Cool. I never knew that!," Cogan writes. "They were being challenged to learn, not merely a new word, but how to ponder the things of God deeply when we sing His praises."

Cogan says the criteria for selecting worship music has become "more and more thorough," and "hymns have begun to take precedent in my song selection for two reasons."

The first reason is that "hymns have been sung by the giants of the faith who have gone on before us over the last two millennia." Cogan writes:

When we sing A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, we join with Martin Luther who wrote it, and with Calvin and Spurgeon and Edwards who invariably sang and cherished it. When we sing It Is Well With My Soul we are encouraged by the faith of Horatio Spafford who wrote the hymn in the wake of the tragic death of his four daughters. . . . The fact that we can join with generations past and be reminded that the Church is vastly larger than our local congregation, farther reaching than our town or state or country, and much, much older than the oldest saint living today. . . . This should birth in us a desire to sing the songs that our Family has sung together for two-thousand years.

The second reason is that "content of hymns is almost always vastly more theologically rich." Cogan explains:

The theology in the hymns is typically more sound or healthy than much of contemporary worship music. As I said earlier, contemporary songs engage our emotions more often, where the hymns engage our hearts by way of the mind.

To illustrate his point, Cogan contrasts One Thing Remains ("one of the top ten contemporary songs being sung in American evangelical churches right now") with Rock of Ages (the classic hymn by Augustus Toplady).

"There is nothing in the song particularly bad" in One Thing Remains," says Cogan, but it seems to him that the "purpose of the song is to work the listeners into an emotional state." He quotes the chorus: 

Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love never fails / It never gives up / Never runs out on me / Your love / Your love / Your love.

"With the repetition of a simple lyric like that, it isn’t a stretch to say that the composers’ goal was not to engage the listeners mind," Cogan observes.

Turning to Rock of Ages, Cogan notes that the hymn is both "doctrinally sound" and "a very moving song of our dependance upon Christ our Rock." He quotes from the hymn:

Rock of Ages cleft for me / Let me hide myself in Thee / Let the water and the blood / From Thy wounded side which flowed / Be of sin the double cure / Save from wrath and make me pure.

Cogan concludes: "So I make this plea to my fellow ministers, do not neglect these milestones from ages past. In fact, I would make the case for the abandonment of most contemporary songs."

He recommends that, "if you choose a song for congregational worship based on its content (say you have chosen a contemporary song because of it's focus on the Cross), do the hard work of finding a hymn that more than likely addresses the same topic or doctrine in a much deeper way.

"If on the other hand you have chosen a song because of the way it feels or the emotion it evokes, ask yourself whether you are depending upon the Holy Spirit or your own skills to engage our brothers and sisters in singing to our King."

Cogan's article has garnered 254 responses.

Vincent Funaro reports at Christian Post:

LifeWay Christian Stores has come under fire for selling a book based on a boy who claimed he visited heaven and who is now saying that the story is false.

The book, titled The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven, has been available since last year and tells the story of 6-year-old Alex Malarkey who suffered a horrific car accident in 2004. The crash paralyzed Alex and it was unlikely he'd survive after slipping into a coma. He awoke two months later and claimed that angels took him through the gates of heaven to meet Jesus.

Malarkey addressed the validity of the story in a letter titled "An Open Letter to LifeWay and Other Sellers, Buyers, and Marketers of Heaven Tourism, by the Boy Who Did Not Come Back From Heaven."

"I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible," he explained. "People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough."

"Malarkey's mother, Beth, addressed the matter last April in a blog, arguing that the book was not biblically sound and that it has hurt her son 'tremendously.' She also stressed that he has not made any money from book sales," according to the Christian Post.

"Alex first tried to tell a 'pastor' how wrong the book was and how it needed stopped," his mother writes in the blog. But "Alex was told that the book was blessing people." Later in the blog, she states, "Alex did not write the book and it is not blessing him!"

The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven is published by Tyndale House. Looking at the Tyndale website today, it says the book is the "true story of an ordinary boy's extraordinary journey. As you see heaven and earth through Alex's eyes, you'll come away with new insights on miracles, life beyond this world, and the power of a father's love."

The cover of the book presents Alex as the co-author of the book, even though, as noted above, his mother states flatly, "Alex did not write the book."

Conclusion: The boy who came back from heaven actually never got there in the first place, according the boy himself, who is credited by a Christian publisher with co-authoring a book that the boy's mother says the boy did not author.

And apparently there is a "pastor" out there whose notion of Christian leadership is to advise that falsehoods are OK as long as people are being blessed. Perhaps his Bible states, "Blessed are the liars, for they shall inherit the earth."

Surely, we can do better than this, can't we? Of course we can. A little pruning may be needed, however.

Richard Spencer reports at the Telegraph:

"Work began in September last year after Isil’s charge through much of the west and north of the country gave it a substantial land border with the Kingdom to the south," Spencer reports.

"The border zone now includes five layers of fencing with watch towers, night-vision cameras and radar cameras," according to the Telegraph.

The Saudi's have "also created a physical barrier along parts of the even longer, 1,000-mile border with Yemen to the south," Spencer reports.

Perhaps the U.S. could create a similar protective wall to guard against drugs, gangs, terrorists, and illegal aliens criminally intruding into our country via Mexico.

Mona Charen writes: 

By savagely attacking and murdering writers and cartoonists as well as Jewish shoppers, French Islamists have clarified something that many in the West have deceived themselves about — that the war we are engaged in is a war of ideas.

Islamists have once again reminded us that freedom itself is their target.

Read her entire column here.

Adam Kredo reports at Free Beacon.com:

Muslim leaders from across America will gather in Texas this weekend to hold the annual Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect conference, a weekend forum that is being billed as a "movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message," according to event information.

The Saturday event, which seeks to combat "Islamophobes in America" who have turned the Islamic Prophet Muhammad "into an object of hate," according to organizers, comes just a week after radicalized Islamists in France killed 17 people.

The victims died in events that began with the shooting attack on French newspaper Charlie Hebdo for its satirical cartoons that skewered the prophet.

"'Organizers of the event place the blame for Islam’s bad reputation on the media and so-called American Islamophobes who have "invested at least $160 million dollars to attack our Prophet and Islam,' according to the conference web page," Free Beacon reports.

Among the keynote speakers will be "Georgetown University professor John Esposito, founding director of the school’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which has come under fire for, among other things, hosting 9/11 Truthers and a member of Egypt’s Nazi Party," according to the Free Beacon.

"Also scheduled to attend the forum is controversial New York-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who was an 'unindicted co-conspirator' in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings trial. Wahhaj has called the FBI and CIA the “real terrorists” and expressed a desire for all Americans to become Muslim, according to the New York Post," Free Beacon reports.

 "I think I'll pass," states Rick Moran, blog editor at American Thinker.

"When 'defaming the prophet' can mean just about anything," Muslims are "going to be very busy getting outraged over 'Islamaphobes' who make jokes about Mohammed, or put his image on a toilet seat, or perhaps simply speak about him without the reverence and worship of some Muslims," Moran states. "For any of those transgressions, you can lose your head."

Conference speakers "may condemn ISIS but what will be said about the Paris terrorist attacks?," Moran asks. "Given the tone of the conference, it wouldn't surprise me if the terrorists weren't excused of their murders and perhaps justify their actions with weasel words about Islam being a 'religion of peace.'

"It's become SOP for these 'good Muslims' to dance around the terrorist question and not face the fact that many in their midst turn their outrage at insults to the prophet into murderous intent," Moran concludes.

The conference "is being backed by several Muslim groups, including SoundVision, an Illinois-based website that provides advice and products to Muslims; RadioIslam, an AM radio station based in Chicago; and MuslimFest," Free Beacon reports.

The event will be held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, which is located in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area.

Curiously, the event is not called "Stand with the Prophet" on the Curtis Culwell Center website. You will only find the words "Sound Vision Foundation, Inc." If you didn't know better, you might think it's a conference for eye doctors.

Fox News reports:

Until a few days ago, a war memorial in a public park in North Carolina included a metal sculpture depicting a soldier kneeling in prayer before a cross. But city officials voted to remove the sculpture to settle a lawsuit claiming the artwork promoted Christianity.

King, a small city of about 6,000 people 15 miles north of Winston-Salem, dedicated the memorial about a decade ago. But the statue was removed Tuesday night, immediately after The King city council voted 3-2 to end the lawsuit. Now, an empty hole can be seen where the statue once stood. . . .

As part of the agreement, the King city council also said it would stop flying the Christian flag over the memorial and would pay $500,000 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State for the legal costs the group incurred bringing the lawsuit on behalf of local Afghanistan War veteran Steven Hewett.

Comment: First, nothing in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the the city of King, N.C., from supporting artwork that exclusively promotes Christianity. The 1st Amendment explicitly tells Congress (and thus the federal government) that it "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Nor shall Congress prohibit the "free exercise thereof."

The people of King, N.C., are entirely within their constitutional rights to publicly and governmentally affirm their respect for and commitment to historic Christianity.

Second, the entire edifice of the American system of governance rests explicitly upon a real Creator who is the ultimate source of human rights ("unalienable rights"). That foundation is the way of life respected by the Declaration of Independence, which specifically and purposefully states that "all men are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to fulfill this vision, to incarnate it in our politics, governance, and in our civil society. "To secure these rights," the Declaration states, "Governments are instituted among Men."

Those who reject this liberating stance are therefore embracing not liberty but instead non-liberty. And they do so against the defining mainstream of the American experiment, a mainstream rooted in the verifiable Creator who calls his people to live on the basis of truth across the whole of life, including public life and including political life.

Anti-Declaration extremists know full well what the people of King city "are about" and "what this community stands for." Anti-Declaration extremists know it and they despise it, which is why they roam throughout the land seeking to destroy it.

And they no doubt enjoy a pay day of $500,000, as well. What an outrage -- a free people being forced to fund the liquidation of their liberty.

These rejectors, these executioners of freedom in America, are the true extremists in our midst. 

Therefore, if you are looking for those who war against human freedom, human dignity, and the American mainstream, be sure to take a good look at radical activists and at radical organizations such as People United for the Separation of Church and State.

What they never could have created in the first place, they now seek to destroy.

But freedom shall not rest. What extremists destroy, lovers of freedom and dignity in community with God and man rise up to rebuild, protect, and defend.

Fox 10 in Phoenix reports:

We've seen protests all across the country after police officers have been accused of shooting people who aren't armed.

But what would happen if one of those protesters looked at what it's like to wear a badge, and be put in a life or death situation?

Jarrett Maupin has been very vocal during the recent protests, leading marches on the Phoenix Police headquarters after officers shot an unarmed man who reportedly fought with them.

He agreed to go through a force on force training with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and went through three scenarios where you have to decide to shoot, or not to shoot.

As this video demonstrates, what Rev. Jarrett Maupin learned gave him an entirely new perspective on what police face.

"My attitude has changed," Maupin says. And so has his message.

Kaitlyn Schallhorn reports at Campus Reform:

Twelve people were left dead after two gunmen shot several staff members of Charlie Hebdo, a French magazine, but according to a humanities professor, the attack was warranted as the journalists belonged to "a newspaper devoted to hate speech."

Adam Kotsko, an assistant professor at Shimer College, a private liberal arts school in Chicago, tweeted that the terrorist attack was not surprising due to the magazine's satirical and oftentimes controversial content.

"It's no more surprising that someone would attack a newspaper devoted to hate speech than someone would beat up Westboro pastors," Kotsko said in a tweet which has since been deleted.

The professor later apologized on Twitter, "saying he chose 'the wrong example to make a general point'," according to Campus Reform.

Alex Pappas reports at the Daily Caller:

Speaker of the House John Boehner is apparently punishing Republicans who voted against his re-election Tuesday, despite previously saying he would not do so. Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent are both losing their seats on the House Rules Committee, Politico reported Tuesday evening. Both Florida Republicans voted for Webster instead of Boehner earlier in the day.

Such moves seem to contradict recent statements made by Boehner and his office. Asked last week if any Republicans who voted against Boehner would be punished, spokesman Michael Steel told The Daily Caller by email: "Boehner has said publicly that there will be no retribution for 'no' votes."

"After being told that we should now all come together and work together, we have been told late today that two of our Congressmen are being taken off of the committee they were on, simply for voting like their voters wanted," Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas is quoted as saying in a statement Tuesday."So, it appears before we can work together, we are now going to have another fight."

"In a grotesque twist of the saying 'live by the sword, die by the sword,' an Islamic State executioner in Syria who carried out beheadings for the jihadist group has been found with his head cut off," Gianluca Mezzofiore writes at IBTimes. 

"The body of the Egyptian man, known to be the deputy emir of the feared al-Hesbah (or Hisbah) force in the eastern province of Deir al-Zor, was recovered near a power plant in al-Mayadeen city, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," Mezzofiore states.

"The corpse showed signs of torture and carried the message 'This is evil, you Sheikh' written on it. The severed head also had a cigarette in its mouth. It is unclear who carried out the decapitation but the message was obvious," according to Mezzofiore.

"Islamic State's (formerly known as Isis) ban on cigarettes is one of its signature polices," Mezzofiore explains. "It has imposed a strict set of Sharia laws barring the use of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes in the territories it has conquered across a swathe of Iraq and Syria."

From Rep. Steve King of Iowa:

On January 6, 2015, I will take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; . . . I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me, God."

Then, I will be asked to put up a vote for John Boehner for Speaker.

I know the pattern of his strategy and actions for the past 12 years to the point where I can predict the results.

I am convinced Congress will not be allowed to restore its Constitutional authority under his Speakership and by refusing to do so, cannot call upon the courts to do so. How then, can I take an oath to the Constitution and put up a vote for John Boehner, almost in the same breath?

"We need a Speaker who will help us all keep our oath, including his own, to the Constitution, not one who has consistently blocked our efforts to keep ours," King states. "I will vote for an alternative candidate for Speaker. I can’t vote for John Boehner again."

Kristinn Taylor writes at Gateway Pundit:

Police in the small Alabama town of Dothan shot and killed an unarmed white man Tuesday who resisted arrest after refusing to show ID when turning in a stray animal to an animal shelter.

Robert Lawrence, who police say called himself a "sovereign citizen"’ but which his lawyer disputes, was reportedly accompanied by a woman and children at the time.

Dothan First reported Lawrence became "combative" when asked to produce identification at the animal shelter. Police reportedly first tazed Lawrence to no effect, he was then shot in the abdomen. There is no mention of Lawrence being armed.

Lawrence was taken to the hospital where he died Tuesday night.

 The Dothan Eagle reported the Alabama State Bureau of Investigations is reviewing the shooting death.

"There have been no protests, no riots and no national media coverage over the death of the unarmed white man Robert Lawrence at the hands of police," Taylor observes.

From Breitbart London:

The Gatestone Institute has produced a comprehensive review of the growth of Islam and Islamism in Britain during 2014. Breaking down all the major events by month, senior fellow Soeren Kern says that Britain is becoming increasingly Islamised, and the process shows no signs of slowing down.

According to Kern, "Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during 2014, and can be categorized into four broad themes." They are:

1) British Jihad: "Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists in Syria"

2) Spread of Sharia: "The continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain"

3) Child Sexploitation: "The sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs," and

4) Social Integration: "Muslim integration into British society."

Read the entire Gatestone report here.