Armed FBI Raid Terrorizes Innocent Catholic Family of Nine

Armed FBI Raid Terrorizes Innocent Catholic Family of Nine

Have you heard the latest in government tyranny, excess, and overreach, using a heavily-armed FBI SWAT team to effectuate a simple arrest of a conservative, religious, family man?

Read this article.

Or this one.

Mark Houck, a devout Catholic, conservative writer, sidewalk preacher (someone who preaches the word of God on a sidewalk in front of a place such as an abortion clinic) and founder of a men’s anti-pornography ministry called The King’s Men was arrested last Friday at his rural Pennsylvania home. In front of his children. By more than 25 armed FBI agents. For a made-up crime.

Mark’s crime? LifeSiteNews describes them as follows:

On several occasions when Mark went to sidewalk counsel last year, he took his eldest son, who was only 12 at the time, she explained. For “weeks and weeks,” a “pro-abortion protester” would speak to the boy saying “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things,” such as “you’re (sic) dad’s a fag,” and other statements that were too vulgar for her to convey.

Repeatedly, Mark would tell this pro-abortion man that he did not have permission to speak to his son and please refrain from doing so. And “he kept doing it and kind of came into [the son’s] personal space” obscenely ridiculing his father. At this point, “Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back.”

The FBI’s warrant and subsequent indictment claimed that a Planned Parenthood escort was injured when he fell to the ground, but the family says the only injury the man suffered was very minor and required only “a Band-Aid on his finger.” Following the incident, both the Philadelphia police department and the district attorney declined to press any charges, as Mark’s act was deemed self-defense.

The escort even sued Houck by filing a private criminal complaint in Philadelphia Municipal Court, but the case was dismissed after the escort failed multiple times to even attend a court hearing.

The incident in question occurred on October 13, 2021, nearly one year before the FBI’s intrusion in to the Houck home. Apparently Joe Biden’s Department of Justice disapproved of the decisions of a major police department, a district attorney and a municipal court and felt that Mark Houck belongs in jail.

So they acted, with around 25 armed FBI agents against a humble family man, in his home on a Friday morning. Mark’s wife, Ryan-Marie, shared the following about the arrest:

Ryan-Marie, who is a homeschooling mother, described how the SWAT team of 25 to 30 FBI agents swarmed their property with around 15 vehicles at 7:05 a.m. this morning. Having quickly surrounded the house with rifles in firing position, “they started pounding on the door and yelling for us to open it.”

Before opening the door, she explained, her husband tried to calm them, saying, “‘Please, I’m going to open the door, but, please, my children are in the home. I have seven babies in the house.’ But they just kept pounding and screaming,” she said.

When he opened the door, “they had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” Ryan-Marie described.

When they came in, they ordered the kids to stay upstairs. “Our staircase is open, so [the kids] were all at the top of the stairs which faces the front door, and I was on the stairs as well, coming down.”

“The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic,” she explained.

The Justice Department has charged Mark with a violation of what is called the Freedom to Access to Clinic Entrances Act (or “FACE Act”), “which makes it a federal crime to use force with the intent to injure, intimidate, and interfere with anyone because that person is a provider of reproductive health care.” See Press Release by United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Court documents claim that Mark twice assaulted this escort because he was a volunteer reproductive health care clinic escort. No mention was made of the fact that this escort was verbally abusing Mark’s son and encroaching on his personal space. Neither was any statement made that both the police department and district refused to press charges against Mark for his very legitimate actions.

No, Biden’s Justice Department decided to arrest Mark Houck, at gunpoint, in front of his wife and children, nearly a year later, for what they claim is a simple assault.

Preposterous! Tyrannical! Wrong!

Even if there were merit to the government’s claim that Mark violated this FACE Act (which there does not appear to be), or even if you disagree with how Mark chooses to make his point in front of abortion clinics, you cannot look at the government’s actions and think they are okay.

Our federal government has armed so many of its departments with high-end weaponry that no one is safe anywhere. The FBI has long used firearms in pursuit of bad guys, as it should, but has moved on to doing the same for any arrest, even of non-violent offenders or those who have never made any sort of physical threat against others. The USDA, the Post Office, the IRS and nearly every other federal agency has its own armed police force used to enforce civil violations.

This problem is not new, but the way the Biden Administration is acting is new. It seems that in Biden’s America, the federal government is stepping up its tyrannical efforts to ensure that citizens of the United States comply with whatever the feds say, want or determine to be in the best interest of the government.

Fear. That is what Biden wants you to feel.

These actions must stop. Mark Houck and his family are only the latest in examples of the federal government’s overreaching and illegal intrusion on our liberty.

Take a stand. Call your Senators and Congressional representatives to demand a stop to these government actions that terrorize our children and families!

Madame “Extremely Careless” President

Madame “Extremely Careless” President


Do you want an extremely careless president?  How about one who’s actions do not rise to the level of even a reasonable person?  Well, that’s what you will get if Hillary Clinton is elected! 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) has thoroughly investigated Hillary Clinton’s use of personal, instead of secure State Department, e-mails and servers during her tenure as Secretary of State (“SOS”), according to FBI Director James B. Comey in a press conference this morning.  He will provide the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and Secretary Loretta Lynch (his boss) the results of the FBI investigation and his recommendations on potential action.

You can read the full text of Director Comey’s remarks here, and we’ll discuss them below.  Or, for those who like lists, here is the short version:

  1. Hillary Clinton and her colleagues acted in an extremely careless manner in their use and handling of top secret and classified State Department e-mails through a personal server and account.
  2. Many of her e-mails were classified at the TopSecret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.
  3. The FBI found thousands of additional e-mails sent by or to Hillary Clinton, which she did not provide or disclose.
  4. Any reasonable person should have known that an unclassified system was no place for her State Department electronic conversations.
  5. Clinton used several different servers and server administrators during her four years at the State Department, as well as numerous mobile devices to send and receive e-mail.  Not just one.
  6. The FBI found that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people Clinton communicated with and that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account” because she used it so often overseas, in territories of sophisticated adversaries.
  7. In spite of all this, the FBI will recommend that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton because “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
  8. Even though the FBI recommends no charges against Clinton, that does not mean that charges would not be appropriate against a different person doing the same things.
  9. While Clinton may not face criminal charges, her actions were extremely careless and beyond what a reasonable person would have considered appropriate.

The results of the FBI investigation are that Hillary Clinton and her colleagues were extremely careless in their electronic communications:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.  None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Another finding was that Hillary Clinton and her colleagues did not turn over all of the e-mails she sent and received while serving as SOS, as she has so firmly stated on many occasions:

“The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.”

Okay, so Hillary Clinton used her own e-mail server for State Department e-mails – it was secure in its own right, so (in Hillary Clinton’s own words, very apropos in this setting) – What difference does it make?  Why does any of this matter?  It is all just about how Clinton sent and received e-mails, right?  Wrong!  So wrong.

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

But, apparently, in spite of all their hard work and findings, the FBI has determined and recommended that “no charges are appropriate at this time.”  As announced by Director Comey:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

What?  The bureau charged with enforcing and investigating violations of federal law is now making decisions for the Department of Justice prosecutors, suggesting that if their interpretation of the facts differs from that of the FBI, the DOJ prosecutors would be “unreasonable.”  That is not their decision to make.  Ever!

But, alas, Bill Clinton’s secret runway visit with Lynch ensured that she and her department would accept her police department’s (FBI) recommendation, so as to avoid accusations of conflict of interest.  (By the way, did you see the news that Clinton is considering retaining Lynch as Attorney General?)

But, lest you think Clinton’s actions are okay and you, too, will avoid any criminal investigation for committing similar criminal acts, take note that Director Comey was very clear that his decision applies only to Hillary Clinton and that others, even in the same circumstances, might not be so lucky:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

What?  This finding applies only to Hillary Clinton, candidate for President of the United States.  No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her, states Comey, but that sounds as thought that same prosecutor might suddenly become reasonable if prosecuting someone other that Hillary Clinton?  Comey says that Hillary is not guilty but you might be.  Wow.

So, Hillary Clinton is free to move about the country, seeking your vote for president.  Will you give it to her?





HTML Snippets Powered By :