Please read current events
from a variety of sources.
Constitution 201: Founders vs. Progressives
December 3, 2012
The Hawaian Reporter
By Stephen Zierak
This lesson is taught by Dr. Thomas West, the
Paul & Dawn Porter
Professor of Politics at HillsdaleCollege.
teaches courses in American politics, focusing on
the U.S. Constitution, civil
rights, foreign policy, and the political thought of
Founding. He also teaches the political
philosophy of Aquinas, Hobbes,
and Locke. Dr. West is a Senior Fellow of the
Claremont Institute, and he
has previously taught at the University of Dallas.
received his BA from Cornell, and his PhD from ClaremontGraduateUniversity.
interested in seeing and hearing this lecture, or
any of the others in the
series, may register at
constitution.hillsdale.edu. There is no fee.
The Founders believed that the purpose of government
was to secure the
unalienable rights of American citizens to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness by protecting against violations by foreign
enemies. The Progressives believe that the
purpose of government is to
give you the benefit of government programs, while
changing you into a more
socially responsible individual.
As we watch the Founder’s vision slip away with the
advent of big government
and the welfare state, we might wonder what went
wrong. Some American
conservatives blame the language of the
Founding. They believe that the
equality and rights talk has led to Obama, that
Progressivism was derived from
expressions in our revolutionary documents.
Actually, nothing could be
farther from the truth. Progressivism was a
radical departure from the
Founding, as can be seen in comparisons around six
points of contrast:
(1) What is freedom? (2) Purpose of
(3) Domestic policy? (4) Foreign
Consent of the governed? (6) Government limited
Open Doors: Violence
Targeting Christians Increasing in Syria
Contact: Jerry Dykstra, Open Doors USA, 616-915-4117,
SANTA ANA, Calif., Nov. 1,
2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- The targeting of
Christians in war-torn Syria
is increasing, according to Open Doors sources.
"The car bomb in Jaramana was targeting the Christian
and Druze community as a group, since the area has no
political ties or buildings," a local Christian source
explained about the large bomb blast in the Damascus
suburb on Monday.
According to contacts in the neighborhood, 11
Christians where killed and one Muslim killed in the
explosion. The blast left 69 people, all Christians,
wounded. Twenty are in critical condition.
Open Doors' country coordinator for Syria
says: "The attack took place during the final day of
Eid al-Adha (Muslim holiday). Observers hoped the
four-day holiday would mark a temporary ceasefire, but
that hope proved to be false. I see this as another
example that Christians are increasingly targeted."
A believer from Damascus reports
that last Sunday a car bomb was found in a Christian
neighborhood in the old part of the city. The car was
parked next to two churches, a Maronite and Latin
church. The two churches were warned and church
officials instructed all their parishioners to go home
in case the bomb exploded. Authorities were successful
in disabling the bomb.
Situation in Aleppo, Homs
An Open Doors contact in Aleppo reports
that, "the situation is not getting any better, but we
are hoping the situation will cool down."
Last week Open Doors received a report from a
believer in Aleppo,
the largest city in Syria,
that about 100 insurgents infiltrated a main street in
a Christian area of the city. Aleppo is one of
the hot spots in the 21-month civil war between rebels
and the Syrian government. According to the report,
the Syrian army quickly surrounded the insurgents and
drove them out.
Another believer reports that in some of the
predominantly Christian villages in the Homs
area there is not a threat against the entire
Christian community, however, individual Christians
are being targeted.
In a village in the ChristianValley, a
region west of Homs
three Christian men were kidnapped and one killed.
"One of my contacts is stuck there, waiting to find a
way back to Damascus.
The roads are the worst now," the believer shares.
The Open Doors country coordinator for Syria
adds: "The violent situation deeply hurts the entire
Syrian population, the Christian community as well as
other people groups. But about two or three weeks ago
we observed an increase of violence that specifically
is targeting Christians or Christian neighborhoods.
Bombs now are placed in Christian areas where there is
no strategic or military target at all. We are deeply
concerned about our brothers and sisters and call all
churches and all Christians to continue praying for
this dangerous situation for Christians."
Jerry Dykstra, media relations director for Open
Doors, says the request for prayer from Syrian
Christians comes as the International Day of Prayer
for the Persecuted Church (IDOP) will be observed in
the United States
on Sunday, Nov. 11.
All politics is local, even the US
election as seen by Kenyans
Villagers in the home village
Obama's father are cheering on the Democrat, while
Kenyan Mormons are excited by challenger Mitt
Kenyans are closely watching the US
presidential election, with two groups in particular
rooting for each of the candidates.
US President Barack Obama’s reelection bid is
preoccupying the people in Nyang’oma Kogelo, his
Kenyan father’s home village, as challenger Mitt
Romney’s run is invigorating Mormons in the East
Mr. Romney’s candidacy has thrust the Christian group
into the spotlight here, with its leaders on
Monday unveiling a website called Kenya Mormon
Newsroom to help answer questions ignited by the
American political process. Leaders say the church
maintains a firm political neutrality.
“In the most recent past, questions have been asked
about who we are. The reasons is we have a member of
the church running as president of the UnitedState of America,”
Elder Hesbon Usi, an official here with the Mormons'
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints. “Since people do not have the right
source of information and truth they are looking for,
a lot tend to go to other websites that are
misleading. They get information that is not correct.”
Elder Thomas Hatch, a former Utah state
senator who now serves as the church’s deputy director
of public affairs for the region, said questions the
church has encountered have prompted leaders to share
more through a network of websites.
Hatch says Mormons would relish the idea of a Romney
presidency, hoping it would bring the church out of
obscurity. However, he cautioned that there could be
many downsides as well as upsides, since presidents
have to make tough decisions.
“If Mr. Romney is seen as a Mormon president,
there could be retaliation by other countries against
our church and missions,” he says.
Meanwhile, in Nyang’oma Kogelo, the western Kenyan
village that is home to the president's
step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, the community is
organizing daily prayers for Obama, with special
prayers reported in churches and mosques. Often
gathering in small groups to listen to news and
discussions on FM radios from mobile phones, the
residents say they have learned Obama was facing a
“We would like to organize bigger meetings to show
support, but we fear the security is not good.
Terrorists may attack us because of our Obama links.
The threats and attacks in Kenya
make use very cautious,” says Vitalis Ogombe, the
chairman of a community group called the Obama Kogelo
For them, the interest in the American election is
driven by pride more than economic or material gains,
since Obama is viewed as a grandson there.
“We are proud because we have seen he can make a good
global leader. People now know us globally because of
him. We are praying that he continues,” says Mr.
But since Obama’s election in 2008, Kogelo can also
count material gains. Electricity has been installed
in the area and infrastructure improved. Micro-finance
organizations and nongovernmental organizations have
also moved here to help improve the community’s living
standards. The local people say they are better since
he became president.
For Jesse Mugambi of the University of Nairobi,
America foreign policy on Africa
remains the same, irrespective of whoever is the
“The voters out there will decide what is good for
them, and Kenyans will put up with whoever wins. That
is what democracy demands,” he says.
Some analysts have also considered an Obama loss.
Charles Onyango-Obbo, in an opinion in the Daily
Nation today, analyzed why an Obama loss would be good
for him and the world.
“Obama has the energy and smarts to be an influential
international citizen and non-state actor to join
Clinton and Gates as the non-white face at the top of
international NGO priesthood. To do that, he has first
to lose the election,” wrote Mr. Onyango-Obbo.
Sixty Percent of US Muslims
Reject Freedom of Expression
Thursday, 01 November 2012
violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish “Innocence
of Muslims” video, which simply depicted a few of the
less salutary aspects of Muhammad’s biography,
international and domestic Islamic agendas have openly
converged with vehement calls for universal
application of Islamic blasphemy law. This demand to
abrogate Western freedom of expression was reiterated
in a parade of speeches by Muslim leaders at the UN
General Assembly. The US Muslim community echoed such
admonitions, for example during a large demonstration
and in a press release by the Islamic Circle of North
Now the results of polling data collected by Wenzel
Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US
Muslims, indicate widespread support among rank and
file American votaries of Islam for this fundamental
rejection of freedom expression, as guaranteed under
the US Constitution. The first amendment states,
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press;
When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam
or Muhammad should be permitted under the
Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied
“no,” while only 42% affirmed
this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech,
i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma.
Indeed, oblivious to US
constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a
largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that
those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S.
should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and
17% were “unsure”. Moreover, fully 12% of this
Muslim sample even admitted they believed in
application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment
for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US
code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who
criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”
Also, consistent with such findings 43% of these US
Muslims rejected the right of members of other faiths
to proselytize to adherents of Islam, disagreeing,
citizens have a right to evangelize Muslims to
consider other faiths.” Additional confirmatory data
revealed that nearly two-fifths (39%) agreed “…that
Shariah law should be considered when adjudicating
cases that involve Muslims,” while nearly
one-third (32%) of this American Muslim sample
believed “…Shariah law should be the supreme law of
the land in the US.”
These alarming data remind us that despite
intentionally obfuscating apologetics, Sharia, Islamic
law, is not merely holistic, in the general sense of
all-encompassing, but totalitarian, regulating
everything from the ritual aspects of religion, to
personal hygiene, to the governance of a Muslim
minority community, Islamic state, bloc of states, or
global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political
aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient
antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian
systems. Specifically, Sharia’s liberty-crushing and
dehumanizing political aspects feature: open-ended
jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian
Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western
liberties—including freedom of conscience and
speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death;
discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast,
vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to
subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which
violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft,
stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol
And the US Muslim data mirror global Islamic trends.
Previously, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic
Conference (subsequently renamed the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation [OIC])—the largest voting bloc in
the UN, which represents all the major Muslim
countries, and the Palestinian Authority—had sponsored
and actually navigated to passage a compromise U.N.
resolution insisting countries criminalize what it
calls “defamation of religion.” Though the language of
the OIC “defamation of religion” resolution has been
altered at times, the OIC’s goal has remained the
same—to impose at the international level a
Sharia-compliant conception of freedom of speech and
expression that would severely limit anything it
arbitrarily deemed critical of, or offensive to, Islam
or Muslims. This is readily apparent by reading the
OIC’s supervening “alternative” to both the US Bill of
Rights and the UN’s own 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, i.e., the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration
repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic
supremacism (Koran 3:110, “You are the best
nation ever brought forth to men . . . you
believe in Allah”); and its last
articles, 24 and 25, maintain [article 24], “All
the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration
are subject to the Islamic Sharia”; and [article 25]
“The Islamic Sharia is the only source of
reference for the explanation or clarification to any
of the articles of this Declaration.” The gravely
negative implications of the OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo
Declaration are most apparent in its transparent
rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10,
Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is
prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man
or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to
convert him to another religion, or to atheism.
Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle
stated elsewhere throughout the document, which
clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called
apostates from Islam, as well as “blasphemers”:
There shall be no crime or punishment except as
provided for in the Sharia. Everyone shall have the
right to express his opinion freely in such manner
as would not be contrary to the
principles of the Sharia. Everyone shall have the
right to advocate what is right, and propagate what
is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil
according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.
Information is a vital necessity to society. It
may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may
violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets,
undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate,
corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
Institutional Islam in North
America—epitomized by the Assembly of
Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)—also endorses and
promotes this Sharia supremacism. AMJA’s mission
statement maintains that the organization was,
“founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. . . . AMJA is a
religious organization that does not exploit religion
to achieve any political ends, but instead provides
practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and
the nation’s laws to the various challenges
experienced by Muslim communities. ” It is accepted by
the mainstream American Muslim community, and
regularly trains imams from throughout North America. Notwithstanding
this mainstream acceptance, AMJA has issued rulings
which sanction the killing of apostates,
“blasphemers,” (including non-Muslims guilty of this
“crime”), and adulterers (by stoning to death);
condoned female genital mutilation, marital rape, and
polygamy; and even endorsed the possibility for
offensive jihad against the U.S.,
as soon as Muslims are strong enough to wage it.
Finally, it should be noted, 81% of this sample of
Muslim Americans were either “definitely for Obama,”
or “leaning Obama”.
shot by Taliban in Pakistan
remains in critical condition, and local government
posts reward for attackers' capture
11 October 2012
A Pakistani schoolgirl fighting for her life after
being shot by Taliban gunmen has been transferred to a
specialist hospital in the army garrison town of Rawalpindi.
Malala Yousafzai, 14, was unconscious and in a
critical condition after being shot in the head and
neck as she left school in the Swat region on Tuesday,
but doctors said she had moved her arms and legs
On Wednesday surgeons at an army hospital in the
regional capital, Peshawar, removed
a bullet from Malala's head. She has been taken to the
Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi
for further treatment."Pray for her," her distraught
uncle, Faiz Mohammad, said before the ambulance left Peshawar.
Two British doctors who were attending a seminar in Pakistan
at the time of the attack joined local surgeons in
treating Malala on Thursday. One of the two other
girls shot with Malala is out of danger, the other
remains in a critical condition.
A Taliban spokesman said Malala had been targeted for
trying to spread western culture, and that they would
try to kill her again if she survived. Malala's
father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, who runs a girls' school,
said his daughter had defied threats for years,
believing the good work she was doing for her
community was her best protection.
The regional governor, Masood Kausar, said officials
had identified the attackers. The local government has
posted a 10m rupee reward for their capture. "The
security agencies are closely working with each other
and they have a lot of information about the
perpetrators. We hope they will soon capture them and
bring to justice," Kausar said.
The attack outraged many in Pakistan,
and there were small, impromptu rallies in many
cities. Schools closed across Swat in protest over the
shooting, and a small demonstration was held in her
home town, Mingora. Pakistan's
prime minister and the heads of various opposition
parties joined the human rights group Amnesty
International and the United Nations in condemning the
Malala had spent the last three years campaigning for
girls' education after the Taliban shut down girls'
schools. She received Pakistan's
highest civilian award but also a number of death
threats. In 2009 the army pushed the Taliban out of
Mingora, but the attack showed the militia's ability
to strike even inside heavily patrolled towns.
A dark feeling of
betrayal and stunned disbelief washed over me as I
read the newspaper headline, "Jordanians press for
democratic reforms" in the October 6, 2012 Orlando
The Myth of Islamic Democratic Reforms
The mainstream media,
U.S. State Department, and President Obama fed us a
steady stream of news in 2011 that Egyptian youth were
protesting in the streets for an Arab Spring of
democratic reforms in Egypt.
Fast forward to 2012 and we learned The Muslim
Brotherhood orchestrated the propaganda of democracy
to get support from the Obama Administration in the
ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
While the press was
printing gallons of ink reporting the Muslim
Brotherhood would pursue democratic reforms in Egypt,
Mohammad Morsi was consolidating his political base
with the Salafi Islamist fundamentalist, whose
objective was to institute a Sunni led Shariah
compliant Islamic State in Egypt by overthrowing the
colonialist dictator and friend of the United States,
The utopian mantra from
the liberal left of democratic reforms blooming in Egypt
on a warm and sunny Arab Spring day were proven
wrong. Now these same journalists and
politicians are falling for the same lie again out of
When will our mainstream
press learn that Shariah compliant political Islam and
our Jeffersonian democracy are not compatible?
Understanding the PLO's failed coup of Jordan in the 1970's
will help you to see what Jordan
can expect from the Muslim Brotherhood in
Black September in Jordan
In September of 1970,
the Nobel Peace Prize recipient Yasser Arafat, nephew
of Nazi collaborator Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini,
tried unsuccessfully to violently overthrow the Kingdom
from King Hussein.
organization lost over 2,000 Muslim men in the
attempted Black September coup of their Jordanian
Muslim brothers and were violently expelled from their
History seems to be
repeating itself again, except now The Muslim
Brotherhood is making a play to wrestle control of Jordan from the
colonialist dictator and friend of the United
If King Abdullah II
tries to appease The Muslim Brotherhood he will find
himself either dead or in exile wondering how he lost
his throne. King Abdullah II need look no
further than Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Assad to see his
future, if he continues on his current path.
Understanding The Islamic Threat Doctrine
Islamic Threat Doctrine is essential in predicting
events as they unfold on the ground and anticipating
what to expect will happen in the future.
Fortunately for the American people, our Islamist
adversaries are more than happy to tell us exactly
what their doctrine and objectives are.
We will now learn the
Islamic Threat Doctrine from a well respected Islamic
Jihadist who was tops in his class amongst his Jihadi
peers. Today's teacher of the doctrine is Sheikh
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi or by his title, "Emir of Al
Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers." On June 7,
2006 Mr. Zarqawi was killed when a USAF F-16 dropped
two 500 pound guided bombs on his safe house in Baqubah, Iraq
prematurely ending his career of violence and butchery
to achieve his political objectives.
Shortly before his
death, Mr. Zarqawi conducted an in depth interview
with the Al-Furican Foundation for Media Production,
an entertainment arm of Al-Qaeda. Hidden deep in
the interview Mr. Zarqawi explains clearly what the
Islamic Threat Doctrine is and it's objectives.
These two paragraphs
below should change your life forever and how you view
the world around you. Al-Qaeda terrorist Musab
fight in the way of Allah, until the law of Allah
is implemented, and the first step is to expel the
enemy, then establish the Islamic state, then we
set forth to conquer the lands of Muslims to
return them back to us, then after that, we fight
the kuffar (disbelievers) until they accept one of
have been sent with the sword, between the hands
of the hour"; this is our political agenda."
is necessary to accept the fact that it is an
obligation for every Muslim to rush to help each
other and it is also very necessary to agree that
the houses of Muslims are just one house. The
enemies (the disbelieving nations) have imposed
boundaries and divided the lands of Muslims to
tiny nations however we do not believe in them and
the boundaries of Sax Bacon do not restrict us.
We, the Muslims are one nation and the lands of
Islam are one land, we fight for the sake of
"there is no god but Allah".
The Muslim Brotherhood
in the Middle East and Northern Africa are "expelling
the enemy" and establishing an Islamic State as they
did in Egypt.
and the Muslim Brotherhood consider the muslim
colonialist dictators as enemies of Shariah compliant
The Islamic Threat
Doctrine Mr. Zarqawi articulated above is being
implemented in coordinated steps to achieve their
short term objective of unifying, "Muslims to rush
to help each other...and Muslims are of one house."
The coordinated attacks on 9/11/12 on U.S. interests
in the Middle East and Northern Africa was the real
warning to America, not the red herring of an internet
When the Islamist
enemies of the United States
tell you exactly what they want to do and why -
believe them. When the soldiers of Allah
conducted 20+ coordinated attacks on U.S. interests in the
Middle East and Northern Africa
on 9/11/2012, they were telegraphing they can
recreate these coordinated attacks at any time of
their choosing -- in law enforcement circles they call
that a clue, as John Guandolo likes to say.
What Our Islamist Enemies Fear Most
The one thing our
Islamist adversaries fear most is an American public
that understands the basics of The Islamic Threat
Doctrine. Thomas Jefferson read the Qur'an to
fight and defeat the Muslim Barabary Pirates in Tripoli
back in 1801. Now you must learn The Islamic
Threat Doctrine to understand the Islamists who
attacked our embassy in Tripoli on
The future of America rests on how many
Americans learn The Islamic Threat Doctrine as
articulated by Mr. Zarqawi. Then you must
teach your friends, family, and community what Mr.
Zarqawi and his Islamist ideological brothers
consider their definition of Victory.
the Muslims are one nation and the lands of Islam
are one land, we fight for the sake of "there is
no god but Allah".
What we believe as
Americans and our man made laws is of small concern to
our Islamist enemies. The followers of Islam
believe "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his
messenger" and that was the message on the black flags
that flew above our overrun embassies and consulates
when they were attacked on 9/11/2012.
God Bless America
and God Bless Our Troops.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan
Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United
West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty.
His email is: email@example.com
By Babette Francis
- posted Thursday, 4
and political debate
polls on the US
presidential elections show that Obama is leading
Romney by a few percentage points, and crucially is
leading in the "swing" states, notably Ohio, which Romney needs to
win to have any hope of becoming President of the US.
Obama gets 95% or more of the African-American vote,
which is understandable given the US
history of slavery and discrimination against
African-Americans. However what is not so
understandable is why Obama in recent polls appears to
be leading among Catholic voters, despite the US
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) having lobbied
strenuously against Obama's Health Care mandate
pointing out its moral flaws and attack on religious
freedom and conscience rights.
Perhaps the USCCB needs to take some responsibility
for the confusion among Catholic voters, so many of
whom seem to be willing to vote for the most
pro-abortion President in US history - and the first
to support same-sex "marriage" - because the message
from the bishops has been somewhat mixed.
In April before Congressman Paul Ryan (Republican,
Wisconsin's lst District) was chosen by Mitt Romney to
be his Vice-Presidential candidate in the US November
elections, Ryan proposed a budget plan which was
adopted by the Republican-majority House of
Representatives Budget Committee, 21-9. However, the
US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was been
critical of Ryan's budget implying that it 'failed a
basic moral test':
....The Catholic bishops of the United
recognize the serious deficits our country faces,
and acknowledge that Congress must make difficult
decisions about allocating burdens and sacrifices
and balancing resources and needs. However, deficit
reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must
protect and not undermine the needs of poor and
vulnerable people. The proposed cuts in the budget
fail this basic moral test.
The USCCB was specifically concerned about
alterations to the Child Tax Credit to exclude
immigrant families (it is not clear whether this cut
is targeted primarily at illegal immigrants), cuts in
the food stamps and the Social Services Block Grant.
While the USCCB mentions serious deficits, I wonder
if they can get their heads around the 16 TRILLIONS of
debt, and that some economists estimate that by 2020
the US may
be unable to pay the interest on this debt. I have
difficulty in imagining a trillion but then I am just
a housewife who knows one cannot "spend one's way out
of debt" - a strategy which appears to be President
Obama's rescue plan.
Not all bishops agree with the USCCB statement.
Bishop Boyea, Lansing, said
“There have been some concerns raised by Catholic
economists about what was perceived as a partisan
action against Congressman Ryan’s proposed budget ....
Statements that endorsed specific economic policies
revealed a lack of humility. We need to learn far more
than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen
more than we need to speak...."
Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Kansas City,
agreed the USCCB committee neglected the principle of
subsidiarity which calls for solutions to be provided
close to people in need. He suggested drafters of the
statement needed to rethink a tendency to advocate for
government assistance, and USCCB proposals should not
ignore the ballooning national deficit. “Sometimes
we’re perceived as just encouraging government to
spend more money, with no realistic way of how we’re
going to afford this”.
Archbishop Allen Vigneron, Detroit, echoed
Archbishop Naumann’s suggestion that the proposed
document focus more on the family as the central
social institution and spoke of how the
“disintegration of the family” had fueled the demand
for government assistance.
Warm support for Paul Ryan came from Cardinal Dolan
of New York who described Ryan as a "great public
servant" and praised his “call for financial
accountability, restraint and a balanced budget” as
well as his “obvious solicitude for the poor.” He
emphasized there are differences in “prudential
judgment” over how to assist the poor.
Ryan's diocesan Bishop Morlino, Madison, wrote:
... I am proud of Paul Ryan's accomplishments as
a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my
prayers go with him and his family as they endure
the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign
sentiment in America troubles Muslims
By Moni Basu, CNN
Sept. 5, 2012 (CNN) – When the nation pauses
to remember 9/11 next week, a group of Tennesseans
will gather at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Franklin
for a commemoration. But it will be more than that.
On the program, called "The Threat in Our Backyard,"
is a lecture on Islam in public schools and a short
film on Sharia finance.
It's a program organized by people who feel the
American way of life is threatened by Islam - in
particular, Sharia, or Islamic law.
Sharia would bring ruin to America, says Greg
Johnson, vice president of the 9/12 Project Tennessee,
a sponsor of the event that advocates for shifting
government back to the intent of the Constitution's
He says he has nothing against Muslims, but he takes
issue with the tenets of Islam.
Sharia, he believes, would mean that practicing
homosexuals would be put to death, women would not be
educated and would be married off to men chosen by
their fathers, and non-Muslims would become kafirs -
nonbelievers - relegated to second-class citizenship.
"And I don't want that coming to America,"
He's not alone in his fears.
A tide of anti-Islam sentiment has been swelling
across America in recent months, strong enough to
prompt one imam to wish for the days immediately after
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when
President George W. Bush declared that Muslims were
not our enemies; that the war on terror was against a
select few who acted upon their hate for America.
"In the 11 years since, we have retreated," says
Abdullah Antepli, the Muslim chaplain at DukeUniversity
who likes to call himself the Blue Devil Imam.
Muslims make up less than 1% of the U.S.
population. Yet, say Muslim advocates, they are a
Hate crimes against Muslims spiked 50% in 2010, the
last year for which FBI statistics are available. That
was in a year marked by Muslim-bashing speech over the
Islamic center near ground zero in Manhattan
and Florida Pastor Terry Jones' threats to burn
Antepli likens the current climate to McCarthyism.
Left unchecked, he says, anti-Muslim fervor, like
racism and anti-Semitism, has the potential to evolve
into something dangerous.
This year's holy month of Ramadan, which ended August
19, was marred by a spate of violence at U.S.
Islamic centers that included a fire, a homemade bomb
and pig parts. The incidents were unprecedented in
scale and scope, says the Council on American-Islamic
At least seven mosques and one cemetery were attacked
in the United States
during Ramadan, according to the council and other
groups that track such incidents.
Particularly visible on the anti-Muslim radar has
been the state of Tennessee, where
a mosque opened during Ramadan after two years of
controversy. The new Islamic center in Murfreesboro
opened a few weeks ago after delays caused by legal
wrangling, community protests and vandalism.
Also in Tennessee,
incumbent congresswoman Diane Black found herself
publicly opposing Sharia after her opponent Lou Ann
Zelenik made it a campaign issue.
State senatorial candidate Woody Degan's website also
"VOTE CONSERVATIVE! VOTE Anti-Sharia, VOTE Against
Internet Taxes, Vote FOR Gun Carry Rights! VOTE for
your PERSONAL RIGHTS!"
And Gov. Bill Haslam recently came under fire for
hiring lawyer Samar Ali, a Muslim woman from Tennessee,
to work in the international division of the state's
economic development department.
Ali's critics called her Sharia-compliant and a
website called Bill H(Islam) attacked the governor for
pursuing "a policy that promotes the interest of
Islamist (sic) and their radical ideology."
The website links to another that discusses, among
other things, Islamic infiltration of public schools.
"I cannot stress enough the seriousness of their push
to spread their religion to all non-Muslims throughout
our country," says website author Cathy Hinners,
another speaker at next Tuesday's 9/11 event in Franklin.
"Why? Why are Muslims so adamant that we accept their
religion? The answer is simple. The answer is in black
and white. The answer is in the Muslim brotherhoods
"Strategic Goal for North
America." It's called a global
caliphate. One religion, one government, one law...
In November 2010, more than 70% of voters in Oklahoma
approved a ballot initiative to amend the state's
constitution that banned courts from looking at "legal
precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically,
the courts shall not consider international law or
The amendment died after a federal court ruled it
"That was very explicitly anti-Islamic," says Glenn
Hendrix, an Atlanta
lawyer who specializes in international law. "It
specifically referenced Sharia."
This year, 33 anti-Sharia or international law bills
were introduced in 20 states, making it a key issue.
Six states - Louisiana,
South Dakota, Kansas, Arizona,
Louisiana and Tennessee
- adopted such laws prior to 2012.
lawmakers attempted to pass a bill this year that
would have made it a felony to practice Sharia, but it
The Council on American-Islamic Relations says the
anti-Sharia bills are based on draft legislation
promoted by David Yerushalmi, an anti-Islamic lawyer
Yerushalmi founded the Society of Americans for
National Existence, an organization devoted to
promoting his theory that Islam is inherently
seditious and Sharia is a "criminal conspiracy to
overthrow the U.S. government," according to the
Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.
"Ideally," says the center, "he would outlaw Islam
and deport its adherents altogether."
Hendrix says anti-Sharia legislation is not necessary
courts ultimately are beholden to U.S.
But it sends a strong message to the Muslim
The American Bar Association, which opposes federal
or state laws that impose blanket prohibitions on
foreign laws, says such legislative initiatives
stigmatize an entire religious community and "are
inconsistent with some of the core principles and
ideals of American jurisprudence."
Valarie Kaur, a legal advocate and hate crimes
specialist, says proponents of anti-Sharia bills are
battling an imaginary threat.
"There is no push to install Sharia law in the U.S.,"
she says. "Anti-Sharia bills target the religious
principles of Muslim Americans and fuel anti-Muslim
rhetoric and bias. As a Sikh American whose community
has too often become the target of hate, I believe
it's time to stand against all forms of racism and
An attack at a Wisconsin Sikh temple last month
killed six people. Many believe the shooter mistook
Sikhs for Muslims. A Sikh gas station attendant in Arizona
was the first victim of reprisal after the 9/11
Kaur blames tough economic times and an amplification
of hateful speech for incidents like the temple
shooting and the momentum behind the anti-Sharia
For Muslims, Sharia - which means "path to the
watering hole" in Arabic - is the divine law revealed
centuries ago in the Quran that governs all aspects of
life. More often than not, it's the most sensational
parts of Sharia - like cutting off a thief's hand -
that garner the most publicity.
courts bump up against it in cases of divorces,
inheritance, child custody, enforcement of money
judgments and commercial disputes or tort actions.
A trial court in New Jersey, for
instance, ruled that a husband, who was Muslim, lacked
the criminal intent to commit sexual assault on his
wife because Sharia permits a man to have sex with his
wife whenever he wants.
That's the kind of ruling that fuels anti-Sharia
health-care investor Andrew Miller says there's no
room for democracy within Islamic ideology. All you
have to do is look to any Islamic state, he says.
"If you wanted to pray to a large rock and that was
your God, I could care less," he says. "But the minute
you want to put a gun to my head and say you will pray
to this large rock and your family will or you will
pay the price, that's when I see a bully. I see an
overbearing ideology that wants to force and coerce
Miller describes himself as a tolerant person but not
when it comes to people dictating how others will
"That's antithetical to the freedoms that we value,
the liberty we value," he says.
The message that Islam is evil has been repeated so
many times - sometimes directly, sometimes in a more
subtle fashion - that it has sunk in as reality in the
hearts and minds of many Americans, says Antepli, the
Part of it is fear of the unknown, he says.
"I, too, would have a monstrous image of Islam if I
did not know any better."
But another part of it is orchestrated, he says,
referring to "well-organized and polished" anti-Islam
websites that have sprouted in recent years. Marry
that with ignorance and the end result is lethal,
The Center for American Progress, a liberal research
and advocacy organization, published a report last
year that attributed the rise of Islamophobia to a
"small, tightly-networked group of misinformation
The report called "Fear, Inc." lists seven
foundations that gave $42.6 million to think tanks to
promote anti-Islamic thought.
It describes "deeply intertwined individuals and
organizations" that "manufacture and exaggerate
threats of 'creeping Sharia,' Islamic domination of
the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence
against all non-Muslims by the Quran."
The issue of Sharia, say some Muslims, has become a
political hot potato in an election year.
GOP candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann
mentioned Sharia in their campaign speeches. This
year's Republican Party platform makes mention of
"Subjecting American citizens to foreign laws is
inimical to the spirit of the Constitution. It is one
reason we oppose U.S.
participation in the International Criminal Court.
There must be no use of foreign law by U.S.
courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor
should foreign sources of law be used in State courts'
adjudication of criminal or civil matters."
That's the message Miller hopes people will take away
from next week's 9/11 meeting; that the tenets of
Islam go against the constitution of the United States.
It's diametrically opposed to what people like
Antepli and Kaur will be saying as America
remembers the horror of terrorism. Hateful sentiment,
they say, is not the answer.
The Strategy Page
September 4, 2012: Despite all the publicity about
increased defense spending, there is much less talk on
how to solve the growing problem with Islamic
terrorism. This is a war going on inside Russia
and it has been getting worse in the last decade.
There are over eight million Moslems in Russia, most of them
outside the Caucasus
(where most of the Islamic terrorist activity is
taking place). But Islamic conservatism and radicalism
is becoming more popular with Russian Moslems, and
this is the usual precursor for the formation of
Islamic terror groups. There are also a growing number
of Moslem migrants from Central Asian countries that
were part of the old Soviet Union but are now
independent and less well off than Russia.
These illegal economic migrants are not welcome and
have become fertile recruiting grounds for Islamic
terror groups. Russians tend to be hostile to Islam,
mainly because of centuries of conflict between
Christian Russia and various Moslem states. This has
created a culture of resentment among Russian Moslems,
which is made worse by the pervasive corruption.
August 29, 2012: In the Caucasus (Dagestan) a female suicide
bomber killed Sheikh Said Afandi, a prominent Moslem
leader who opposed Islamic terrorism. Six others died
in the explosion.
August 28, 2012: In the Caucasus (Ingushetia) several
police raids left three Islamic terrorist dead,
several more arrested, and large quantities of weapons
and ammunition seized.
Also in the Caucasus, a group of Islamic terrorists
crossed the border from Dagestan into Georgia
and kidnapped ten villagers. Georgian police responded
and in a gun battle killed 11 of the invaders, with
the loss of three policemen. The captives were freed.
It's unclear why the Islamic terrorists crossed the
border and sought to kidnap people from a foreign
country. For many years Georgia
tolerated Chechen rebels hiding out in northern Georgia, just across
the border from Chechnya.
But a decade ago the U.S.
persuaded the Georgians to expel the Islamic
terrorists and other foreign gunmen. For the last nine
years the foreigners have been absent, or very covert
if they were there. Now there is this incident, which
has so far been unexplained.
August 27, 2012: A Russian shipyard launched the
first of six Kilo class submarines Vietnam
ordered three years ago.
August 26, 2012: In a rural part of southern Siberia several people were
infected with Anthrax, and one of them died. Anthrax
is found naturally in this area and several infected
animals (who pick up the disease while grazing in
areas where the Anthrax spores are active) were
destroyed. Anthrax is also found in some parts of the
States and other
parts of the world where climate and geographic
conditions are right for it. In rural areas of the United
Anthrax is found, people liable to be exposed are
usually vaccinated against the deadly disease. Animals
are also vaccinated, as it is the cattle and sheep
that usually spread Anthrax to humans. Vaccination is
much less common in Russia
but over a hundred people and all animals in the area
were vaccinated in order to contain this outbreak.
August 22, 2012: In the United States there was
an unsubstantiated news story about a Russian Akula
class nuclear submarine cruising through the Gulf of Mexico undetected for
several weeks in July. The United States
does not monitor submerged submarine activity in that
area and the American Department of Defense responded
that it had no record of any Akulas in the area. The
Russian Navy refused to comment.
August 21, 2012: In the Caucasus (Kabardino-Balkaria)
an Islamic terrorist died in a gun battle with police.
In nearby Dagestan,
two policemen were killed by Islamic terrorists.
Religious Freedom Means
“Sticking up for All Believers”
Ken McIntyreAug. 21,
The crowd erupted into disarmed laughter when Kevin
J. “Seamus” Hasson got to the point. “I have to say
when it comes to religious freedom and the other great
constitutional questions at the moment that are at
stake: However bad you think things are, however bleak
it looks, however dire it may seem—it’s almost
certainly worse than you think.”
That’s as good a reason as any to be better equipped
for the debates ahead. Hasson, founder and president
emeritus of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty,
made those remarks nearly four months ago upon
receiving The Heritage Foundation’s Salvatori Prize
for American Citizenship.
His acclaimed 2005 book, The Right to Be Wrong:
Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America,
is just out in a timely paperback reprint from Image
(with a new afterword).
Examples of government’s intolerance toward personal
faith in the public square have multiplied since
Hasson’s “it’s almost certainly worse” crack—from
Obamacare’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate
that employers get over their faith and provide
employees with “free” abortion-inducing drugs, to
elected officials who threaten to make an
entrepreneur’s religion a reason to deny a building
permit in their cities.
Hasson’s The Right to Be Wrong, overflowing
with real-life cases and reflecting the life’s mission
of this Notre Dame-trained lawyer and theologian, is
about why we need to protect religious freedom from
tyranny in all shapes and sizes.
“We are manning the believer’s side of the barricades
against the forces who believe in nothingness,” the
essayist and scholar said in accepting the Salvatori
Prize during an April 26 luncheon in Colorado Springs
opening Heritage’s 35th annual Resource Bank
gathering. He added:
“Therefore, we need to
defend the rights of other people who believe in
something—even if we think they believe the wrong
thing. In so doing, we are sticking up for all
believers against the nihilists. We are standing
tall for those who are convinced there is a truth,
against those who are opposed to the very idea of
anybody making truth claims in public. That is the
fight that we are in the middle of—repelling an
assault by people who believe in nothing against the
very idea of believing in anything.”
Administration's War On Persecuted Christians
Friday, 03 August 2012 Right Side News
The Investigative Project on Terrorism
The Obama administration's support for its Islamist
allies means a lack of U.S. support for their enemies
or, more properly, victims—the Christian and
other non-Muslim minorities of the Muslim world.
Consider the many recent proofs:
According to Pete Winn of CNS:
The U.S. State Department removed the sections
covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on
Human Rights that it released on May 24, three
months past the statutory deadline Congress set for
the release of these reports. The new human
rights reports—purged of the sections that discuss
the status of religious freedom in each of the
countries covered—are also the human rights
reports that include the period that covered the Arab
Spring and its aftermath.
Thus, the reports do not
provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to
Christians and other religious minorities in
predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise
of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist
forces played an instrumental role. For the first
time ever, the State Department simply eliminated
the section of religious freedom in its reports
covering 2011… (emphasis added).
The CNS report goes on to
quote several U.S.
officials questioning the motives of the Obama
administration. Former U.S.
diplomat Thomas Farr said that he has "observed during
the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration
that the issue of religious freedom has been
In "Obama Overlooks
Christian Persecution," James Walsh gives more
examples of State Department indifference "regarding
the New Years' murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt
and the ravaging of a cathedral," including how the
State Department "refused to list Egypt as 'a country
of particular concern,' even as Christians and others
were being murdered, churches destroyed, and girls
kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. "
And the evidence keeps
mounting. Legislation to create a special envoy for
religious minorities in the Near East and South
Central Asia—legislation that, in the words of the Washington
Post, "passed the House by a huge margin," has
been stalled by Sen. James Webb, D-Va.:
In a letter sent to Webb Wednesday night, Rep. Frank
Wolf [R-Va, who introduced the envoy bill] said he
"cannot understand why" the hold had been placed on a
bill that might help Coptic Christians and other
groups "who face daily persecution, hardship,
violence, instability and even death."
Yet the ultimate source of
opposition is the State Department. The Post
Webb spokesman Will
Jenkins explained the hold by saying that "after
considering the legislation, Senator Webb asked the
State Department for its analysis." In a position
paper issued in response, State Department officials
said "we oppose the bill as it infringes on the
Secretary's [Hillary Clinton's] flexibility to make
appropriate staffing decisions," and suggested
the duties of Wolf's proposed envoy would overlap with
several existing positions. "The new special envoy
position is unnecessary, duplicative, and likely
counterproductive," the State Department said
But as Wolf explained in
his letter: "If I believed that religious minorities,
especially in these strategic regions, were getting
the attention warranted at the State Department, I
would cease in pressing for passage of this
legislation. Sadly, that is far from being the case.
We must act now…. Time is running out."
There was little doubt
among the speakers that, while Webb is the front
man, Hillary Clinton—who was named often—is ultimately
behind the opposition to the bill. (Videos of all
speakers can be accessed here; for information on the
envoy bill and how to contact Webb's office, click
Even those invited to
speak about matters outside of Egypt,
such as Nigerian lawyer and activist Emmanuel Ogebe,
wondered at Obama's position that the ongoing
massacres of Christians have nothing to do with
religion. After describing the sheer carnage of
thousands of Christians at the hands of Muslim
militants, lamented that Obama's response was to
pressure the Nigerian president to make more
concessions, including by creating more mosques (the
very places that "radicalize" Muslims against infidel
In light of all this,
naturally the Obama administration, in the guise of
the State Department, would oppose a bill to create an
envoy who will only expose more religious persecution
that the administration will have to suppress or
Bottom line: In its
attempts to empower its Islamist allies, the current U.S.
administration has taken up their cause by waging a
war of silence on their despised enemies—the
Christians and other minorities of the Islamic world.
Federal Court finds Obama
appointees interfered with New Black Panther
July 30, 2012
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last
week that political appointees appointed by President
Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s
prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the
conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, who
had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents
pertaining to the New Black Panthers case. Judicial
Watch had secured many previously unavailable
documents through their suit against DOJ and were now
suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not
entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records
produced in this litigation evidenced any political
interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the
New Black Panther Party case. But United States
District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a
“series of emails” between Obama political appointees
and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within
DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of
the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding
the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which
would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General
Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not
involved in that decision. Surely the public has an
interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy
of government officials’ representations regarding the
possible politicization of agency decision-making.
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee
entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to
Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both
eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court
must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial
Watch’s requested award.
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day
2008 incident where two members of the New Black
Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place
intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a
billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated
the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed
to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia
entered a “default” against all the Panthers
defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice
Department reversed course, dismissed charges against
three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a
narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence
showing the Obama Justice Department is run by
individuals who have a problem telling the truth,”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The
decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice
Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting
and election laws.”
High court allows
president discretion in upholding law or not
The Washington Times
By Andrew P Napolitano
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
When the Obama
administration decided it had no interest in
preventing the movement of undocumented aliens from Mexico into the
States, Arizona decided
to take matters into its own hands. Based on a novel
theory of constitutional law - namely, that if a state
is unhappy with the manner in which federal law is
being enforced or not being enforced, it can step into
the shoes of the feds and enforce federal law as it
wishes the feds would - Arizona enacted
legislation to accomplish that.
The legislation created two
conflicts that rose to the national stage. The first
is whether any government may morally and legally
interfere with freedom of association based on the
birthplace of the person with whom one chooses to
associate. The second is whether the states can
enforce federal law in a manner different from that of
Regrettably, in addressing
all of this earlier in the week, the Supreme Court
overlooked the natural and fundamental freedom to
associate. It is a natural right because it stems from
the better nature of our humanity, and it is a
fundamental right because it is protected from
governmental interference by the Constitution. Freedom
of association means that without force or fraud, you
may freely choose to be in the presence of whomever
you please, and the government cannot force you to
associate with someone with whom you have chosen not
to associate, nor can the government bar anyone with
whom you wish to associate from associating with you.
Without even addressing the
now-taken-for-granted federal curtailment of the right
to associate with someone born in a foreign country
and whose presence is inconsistent with arbitrary
federal document requirements and quotas, the Supreme
Court earlier this week struck down three of the four
challenged parts of the Arizona statute, which
attempted to supplant the federal regulation of
freedom of association with its own version. It did so
because the Constitution specifically gives to
Congress the authority to regulate immigration, and
Congress, by excluding all other law-writing bodies in
from enacting laws on immigration, has pre-empted the
The court specifically
invalidated the heart and soul of this misguided Arizona
law by ruling definitively that in the area of
immigration, the states cannot stand in the shoes of
the feds just because they disapprove of the manner in
which the feds are or are not enforcing federal law.
The remedy for one’s disapproval of the manner of
federal law enforcement is to elect a different
president or Congress; it is not to tinker with the
Federal law cannot have a
different meaning in different states, the court held.
And just as the feds must respect state sovereignty in
matters retained by the states under the Constitution
(though they rarely do), so too, the states must
respect federal sovereignty in matters that the
Constitution has unambiguously delegated to the feds.
The court neither upheld
nor invalidated Section 2B of the Arizona statute -
which permits police inquiry of the immigration status
of those arrested for non-immigration offenses -
because the court found that, just as when the police
stop a person for a violation of state or local law
they may check their computers for outstanding
warrants for the person they have stopped, so, too,
they may check their computers for the person’s
Shortly after the opinion
came down, the Obama administration announced that it
will cease providing Arizona police with the
immigration status of persons in that state, and it
will not detain anyone arrested by Arizona police for
immigration violations unless those violations rise to
the level of a felony, which undocumented presence in
the United States is not. Thus, this constitutional
rebuke to Arizona
has become a personal license for the president. He
has demonstrated that he will not faithfully enforce
federal law as the Constitution requires. He will only
enforce the laws with which he agrees.
So, because the Arizona police cannot arrest
and incarcerate anyone for undocumented presence and
because they cannot deliver anyone so arrested to the
feds, what legitimate governmental purpose will be
served by what remains of Arizona’s law?
None. But the police still will harass any
dark-skinned person in Arizona as they
Have we lost sight of the
perpetual tension between human freedom and human law?
Either freedom is integral to our nature, as Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, or
it comes from the government, as the president and the
Supreme Court demonstrated they think this week. If it
is integral to our nature, no government can tell us
with whom we may freely associate. If it comes from
the government, we should abandon all hope, as the
government will permit the exercise of only those
freedoms that are not an obstacle to the contemporary
exercise of its powers.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a
former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is
the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He
is the author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When
the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal
Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).
What do you think
about this article? Does the Judge glide over the
governments enumerated responsiblity to "protect and
defend" at the expense of individual sovereignty?
See the article at the Washington
and see readers reactions.
Overlooks Christian Persecution
24 May 2012
have resided in Egypt since the 1st century A.D.,
some 600 years before Muhammad began preaching and
630 years before he solidified Islam in the Arabian Peninsula.
Muslims entered Egypt in the year 639 and by the
13th century, Islam had taken over. By the 20th
century, Christians, who formed only 10 percent of
the Egyptian population, were finding themselves
victims of on-again-off-again pogroms conducted by
current turmoil in Egypt
is increasing the number of Egyptian Christians
seeking asylum in the West and especially in America.
Most of these asylees are educated men and women
who are professionals and entrepreneurs. Banking
historically has been in the hands of Christians.
Even so, under Sharia (Islamic law), non-Muslim
“infidels” have to pay a tax called the Jizya for
living in a Muslim country, even those whose
families predated the Muslims.
Egyptian Christians and U.S. citizens of Egyptian
ancestry feel abandoned by the United States,
which currently refuses to acknowledge persecution
of Christians by Muslims, lest it offend the
President Barack Obama banks on Egyptian
Christians being too genteel to take to the
streets in protest as the radical leftists do.
On June 4, 2009, when President Obama delivered
his “New Beginnings” speech in Cairo,
he addressed the Islamic world. As with his other
speeches, this one had an air of campaign rhetoric
well-delivered with apology, empathy, and
accolades for Islam.
“We love you” chants for Obama in Cairo,
however, cannot erase the terrorist acts committed
against Christian “infidels.” These terrorist acts, which began
in earnest in the 1970s, escalated to a crescendo
during the Arab Spring of 2011-2012 in Egypt
and other Muslim countries. The chant in Egyptian
streets is now “Allah Akbar” (God is great) and
“We love death,” as radical Islamists take center
stage. In February 2011, then Presidential
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs pulled an Obama
two-step by deflecting to the U.S. State
Department questions regarding the New Years’
murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the
ravaging of a cathedral. The State Department’s answer was
silence. Human Rights Watch, however, did note
growing religious intolerance and violence against
Christians in Egypt
— after additional murders of Christians and
burning of churches. The 2011 State Department Annual
Report on International Religious Freedom refused
to list Egypt
as “a country of particular concern,” even as
Christians and others were being murdered,
churches destroyed, and girls kidnapped and forced
to convert to Islam. The Obama administration
played politics by failing to acknowledge this
terrorist behavior. In May 2012, Christians fear that
Islamists will be the finalists in the field of 13
presidential candidates for the June presidential
run-off election. The candidates who happen to be
Islamists are supported by the Muslim Brotherhood
and the Salafists. The Salafists and the MB seek
Islamic law as the basis for a new Egyptian
constitution, which will consider all non-Muslims
as infidels subject to persecution as third-class
citizens. During the Obama presidency, 31
major Islamist attacks have occurred worldwide,
not counting those in Israel, India, and Russia.
Yet the Obama administration and the Democrat
Party continue to mislead U.S.
citizens, claiming the need for empathy to assuage
Muslim sensibilities. It is time for a new foreign
H. Walsh was
associate general counsel with the U.S.
Department of Justice Immigration and
Naturalization Service from 1983 to 1994.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were admirably
clear, or so they and we thought, when they wrote in
the Fifth Amendment that no person shall "be deprived
of life, liberty or property, without due process of
Note that the framers didn't specify that the person
had to be a U.S.
citizen. And by "due process" they meant the right to
be formally charged, to challenge those charges before
a judge and to have defense counsel present.
So important was this right to due process that the
14th Amendment reiterated that its protections also
applied to the states.
Clear enough? Perhaps not.
The U.S. House recently affirmed the government's
power to detain indefinitely in military custody
suspected terrorists, even if they are U.S. citizens on U.S.
soil, without charge or trial. All that is required is
This provision does away with the presumption of
innocence. If the detainee is deemed an "illegal
combatant," the prisoner is 90 percent of the way
toward being declared guilty without the technicality
of a trial.
A coalition of Democrats and tea party-movement
Republicans, skeptical about the ever-increasing power
of a central government, failed to roll back that
power, their amendment losing by the dismaying margin
of 238 to 182.
Basically, the House reaffirmed a provision in a
defense bill that President Barack Obama signed on
In a statement accompanying the bill, Obama wrote,
"My administration will not authorize indefinite
military detention without trial of American citizens.
Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our
most important traditions and values as a nation."
That's a commendable notion. But a right is not truly
a right when someone else gets to decide whether and
when that right should apply.
The Associated Press noted, "In a face-saving move,
the House voted 243-173 Friday for an amendment that
reaffirms Americans' constitutional rights."
It says something about our current crop of lawmakers
that 173 of them would vote "no" on the Bill of
Rights. Maybe for the past 220 or so years, the
Constitution wasn't as clear as we thought.
Dale McFeatters’ column is distributed by the
Scripps Howard News Service.
Moral Constitutional Patriots Speak
Response By Dr. Gene A. Youngblood
Council Meeting of 5/22/2012
council has introduced ordinance 2012-296.This bill
is cloaked under the disguise of equal
opportunity and non-discrimination in the
bill states that the city of Jacksonville
seeks to build a reputation as a welcoming
community for bright and talented
members of the workforce, and seeks to be
competitive in attracting new industries to
the bill seems to focus only on a “special class,”
ignoring the U.S.
Constitution and religiousliberties.
Jacksonville, Florida as well as other cities and
states across America already have multiple
layers of federal, state and local laws,
boards, and commissions that prohibit
discrimination based on race, religion, sex,
or national origin.This bill would add any “perceived sex”
(perceived sex, gender identity, or expression as
found on pages 3 (lines 7 and 20) and page 4 (lines
1-2)) and would abridge free speech.
WHEREAS The U.S.
Constitution, Florida Constitution, the EEOC, and
several other civil rights laws, all provide more
than adequate oversight and protection
against discrimination in every area in the
Ordinance 2012-296 provides and would codify
rules and regulations that would surpass
and/or circumvent our U.S. Constitution,
Florida Constitution, and present laws-thus, the
bill is unconstitutional.
22-24 on page 3 would bring about chaos,
major additional workplace expenses,
and confusion.This provision would force every business
to provide unisex restrooms.States
such as California
among others, that
have instituted such practices are
now watching industry, trade and new
businessesleave their state,
thus causing an extra burden on homeowners
being required to pay higher property taxes.Is this
what we want in Jacksonville?
Ordinance 2012-296 clearly recognizes that
the requirements of this bill go beyond
the U.S Constitution as revealed in lines
1-5 of page 3, wherein the reference to the bill’sconstitutionality has been stricken.
WHEREAS Page 4,
lines 1-3, provides for a person’s actual or perceived
sexuality, it would be impossible to
legislate or police.This will cause a major increase in tax
money to investigate and/or enforce.This means
that a man may “only” perceive he
is a woman and can enter a woman’s
restroom or demand special exceptions.This would
also allow pedophiles and multitudes of
other perverts to file discrimination
charges against businesses.
2012-296 will be costly and prohibitive
making the end result a net
loss of business or industry coming to
clear, based on requirements in the bill as
found on page 4, lines 6-8.
Ordinance 2012-296 would be overreaching and
overly encompassing by forcing a business
owner to go against his moral
conscience, to comply with the essence
of law that would be contrary to his moral,
Ordinance 2012-296 will create a special “super
class” of protected people that the
U.S. Constitution, Florida Constitution, and state
laws do not recognize as having “special
privileges.”Remember: “Thou shalt
not lie with a man, as with a woman; it is an
abomination.” (Lev. 18-22).
406.102 of ordinance 2012-296, “Declaration of
policy” is clearly overstepping the
bounds of the U.S. Constitution and the Florida
the major cost for the city to be in
compliance will further increase our $58
million budget deficit.The moral,
ethical property owners will be charged
increased fees and taxes to pay
for this immoral law that would circumvent
WHEREAS Page 10
lines 7-16 of ordinance 2012-296 will further increase
the cost of providing housing in our
section will also cause very serious escalation
of tax dollars for the city to be in compliance
of this bill.
WHEREAS Page 2,
lines 1-6 make it clear that 2012-296 is designed
for more than just an equal rights
bill for labor.This bill would “in fact” make it illegal
for anyone speaking out about any
religion in any “antagonism.”This bill
would impose regulations on free speech
in the public arena.This bill is unconstitutional!
WHEREAS It is
the position of the undersigned patriots, clergy
and moral leaders that this bill should not
be approved in any form or part
thereof, based on the following summary:
bill would establish a “special class”
of citizens, contrary to our Constitution.
bill would provide for broad application and
enforcement of a law that is not in compliance
with the U.S. Constitution.This bill
bill would greatly infringe Constitutional
Rights in the free exercise of one’s moral
bill would bring about a major tax
increase for Jacksonville
property owners.We already have a $58 million
bill would criminalize free speech as
relates to various religions or homosexuality
as prescribed in God’s Word, the Bible.The
Bible declares “sodomy,
and those who practice this vile,
evil, lifestyle; God hasgiven
them over to a reprobatelife.”Rom.
bill would marginalizeChristians
and “all” moral, ethical citizens of
and give special privilege to the “sodomites”.
bill would reduce, not increase the
desirability and social climate for businesses
to settle in Jacksonville.
bill uses a “straw man,” false premise
that businesses have in history past refused
to come to Jacksonvillebecause this bill does not exist.Produce
one suchrejection of Jacksonville.
bill will createdivision, discord,
debate and declension in our city
that is not welcomed or wanted.
bill is in conflict with and contradicts
everything moral, ethical, and Biblical.We do not
want Jacksonville, Florida to be another San
Francisco.Remember, a human law,
regardless of good intentions, cannotcircumvent
or nullifyGod’s law.God’s Word
both in Old and New Testament is replete
with God’s condemnation of sodomy!Remember: “Righteousness
exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach (shame,
insult) to any people!” Prov. 14:34
2012-296 is introduced as a works bill, but
it is, in fact, a far-reaching,overreaching,
unconstitutional effort to develop and codify
a “special class” of citizens under
the cloak of “anti-discrimination.”
have discrimination in Jacksonville?
have discrimination in America?
Christian teacher in a government controlled school
is threatened with dismissal just
because as a Christian, he had his personal
Bible on his desk.
teacher is forbidden to say, “God bless
you,” or “We are praying for you,” to a
student is not allowed to wear a t-shirt
with a Christian symbol, yet immoral or anti-God
slogans are accepted.
When a second
grader is forbidden to thank Jesus
over her lunch because the teacher said she was on government
moral ethical parents are not told when the
schools planned a recognition day for
sodomites in our schools April 21, 2012.This is
Christians are not allowed to have Christian
clubs (after school) in most public schools,
yet all other non-Biblical, ungodly clubs are
allowed to meet.
are told that we cannot pray in Jesus’ name,
yet, Islamic-jihadists are free to worship
and pray to Allah in public schools in America
which provide special “halal” meals.
small startup churches are not allowed to
meet in school buildings for services in many
YouTube pulls Christian videos, but allows
the ungodlygarbage over the same
When a Christian
school is persecuted by city government
and when the decision is questioned,
the Christian school is levied with “retaliatory”
teachers in South
Florida have to meet in a supplycloset to pray, or be fired!
Christian worker is forbidden to put
a verse of Scripture on herprivate cubicle wall or be fired.
Christians are required to pay taxes
which are then used to support a “special class”
of individuals who have chosen to
live ungodly, dissipatedlifestyles
and demand acceptance.
city will not allow any religious ads to be
purchased on the side of city buses,
but will allow any other ads.
preachers are arrested in some cities for “disturbing
the peace,” when Islamics, homosexuals,
pedophiles and other deviantsare
free to assemble.
city council or branch of governmentcodifies “any” law that is unconstitutional
just to appease the “sodomites” in their
We publicly reject
this entire bill and go on record
that we will vote against any council
person running for re-election
or any public office in Jacksonville
or the state of Florida.We will
endeavor to call, email, notify and engage every
patriot in Jacksonville
against the approval of bill 2012-296.
orders women's restrooms open to male
University caves in
after warning from Obama DOJ
May 24, 2012
On orders from Barack Obama’s Department of Justice,
officials with the University
Smith have given permission
for a 38-year-old man to use the women’s restrooms on
The report comes from Campus Reform.org, which
explained that the individual also is seeking to have
someone pay for a sex reassignment surgery to change
from male to female.
Already living as a female, the individual,
identified in the report as Jennifer Braly, started
using women’s restrooms on campus, but quickly was the
subject of complaints from women who saw him there.
The university had tried to make accommodations,
designating gender-neutral restrooms in some
Not good enough, however.
Braly filed a complaint with the Civil Rights
Division in the Department of Justice under Attorney
General Eric Holder, school officials reported. The
DOJ contacted the school.
“[T]he office of civil rights basically made its
expectations through the attorney and the decision was
made to respond to that direction,” said Mark Horn,
the vice president of university relations. “[T]he DOJ
complaint caused revisiting of our thinking.
“In the eyes of the law this individual [Braly] is
entitled to use the bathroom that she identifies
with,” Horn said.
The DOJ complaint was filed by Braly after the
university told him to use any of the gender-neutral
restrooms on campus.
“One problem to this is there are not unisex
bathrooms in every building,” Braly wrote in an online
essay about how other people should contribute to his
surgery costs. “Especially the two main buildings
where most of my classes are, so I have to go to a
completely different building to use the restroom.”
While the university offered to convert other
restrooms to gender-neutral, Braly said that wasn’t
The Campus Reform report said while anatomy matters
little to the DOJ, it still remains a concern for
“‘I disagree with allowing a male to use the female
restrooms,” Amanda Shook, a senior at UA, told Campus
Reform. “Even if they are a transgendered person, they
are still a man, and should have to use the men’s
The DOJ and school both have declined to release the
letter giving the school directions on the dispute,
Campus Reform reported.
The DOJ told Campus Reform that the records “pertain
to a currently active Civil Rights Division
enforcement and access to the records should therefore
be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)
since disclosure thereof could reasonably be expected
to interfere with Civil Rights Division enforcement
While Braly did not respond to Campus Reform requests
for comment, there is an extensive monologue by Braly
on the fundraising website WePay.
That reflects that $75 has been contributed to the
estimated $18,500 costs of the surgery.
Braly writes that his finances are depleted because
when a second marriage ended, a custody battle
“drained all my funds.”
“I am now a full-time student at the University
of Arkansas Fort Smith.
Most of my life is pretty normal as fitting into
female society. I am passsable (sic) and have a
part-time job. At the university I am running into
problems all over the place.”
Braly explains that the choice to use women’s
restrooms was unnoticed for a time.
“Then I took General Psychology and had asked the
professor if I could give a lecture on Gender Identity
Disorders for some extra credit. She not only allowed
me to speak to my class but her other 2 classes as
well. She also referred me to another professor and I
spoke in his class too.
“I was excited I was educating people about being a
transsexual and the other types of Gender Identity
Disorders. Those lectures would be the beginning of
all my problems. As I did get many great responses
from students how my lectures greatly changed their
perspective of what transsexuals are, some students
were not so accepting.
“Some saw me using the womens public restrooms and
complained to the university that they didn’t think I
should be using the restroom with them.”
The report also complains that Braly didn’t get
special accommodations in living arrangements.
“There came a problem that they would not let me room
with males, and I could not room with females either
unless I became friends with them and disclosed all my
medical information to them…” the report continues.
“I tried to be creative and work with them on this,
but to no prevail (sic),” the report said.
“Regardless of where I am at in my transtion (sic) I
should have the same rights as every other female.”
Part of the reason for requesting donations for the
surgery is because Braly’s income goes partly toward
the monthly costs of hormone treatments as well as
“required psychotherapy for transsexuals.”
— The Reformed Church in this prosperous suburb has
for years packed a lot inside its walls, including
addiction counseling, a housing program, dance groups,
gatherings for developmentally disabled people, a
restaurant, a thrift shop and space to worship for
hundreds of people from half a dozen religious
Some of the Indonesian Christians
seeking to avoid deportation wear ankle monitors to
ensure compliance with court orders.
Many Indonesians came to New Jersey
on tourist visas.
Now, the church is taking on another role: sanctuary
for five Indonesian Christians facing deportation and
fearful of religious persecution in their homeland.
“When I got here, I felt safety,” said Arthur Jemmy,
36, an Indonesian who had been scheduled to be
deported on April 30. “I feel really terrified to go
back to Indonesia.”
The situation has challenged the church’s co-pastor,
the Rev. Seth Kaper-Dale, to weigh the law against his
moral and religious beliefs.
“You can read all sorts of stuff about the trouble
you can get in if you prevent the government from
doing its job on immigration,” Mr. Kaper-Dale, 36,
said. “We have to stand with the oppressed even if the
law of the land sometimes doesn’t exactly coincide
with the teachings of peace and justice and love found
Indonesian Christians in central New Jersey
began seeking Mr. Kaper-Dale’s help a decade ago. Most
had left Indonesia on tourist visas in the late 1990s
and early 2000s and then stayed in the United States
after their visas expired, finding jobs in the
region’s warehouses and factories. They feared
returning to Indonesia
because of religious persecution by that country’s
Muslim majority, they said. All filed asylum
applications, but they were rejected by the American
government because they had filed too long after their
In 2009, Mr. Kaper-Dale, who has been the church’s
co-pastor, with his wife, Stephanie, since 2001,
brokered an unusual agreement with immigration
authorities: The Indonesians, then numbering 72, would
be allowed to stay temporarily and work, but the
permission could be rescinded at any moment.
With the extra time, Mr. Kaper-Dale hoped, the
Indonesians would be able to secure permanent legal
status, either through the courts or changes in
immigration laws in Washington.
In any case, he said, the Indonesians should be
eligible for long-term relief under the Obama
administration’s policy of focusing its deportation
efforts on serious criminals and immigrants who pose a
threat to public safety.
But late last year, the Department of Homeland
Security began ordering the Indonesians to appear at
its Newark office,
prepared to return to Indonesia.
Despite aggressive lobbying by Mr. Kaper-Dale and
other advocates for immigrants, the deportations
began. On Jan. 3, a member of the group, Freddy
Pangau, was sent back to Indonesia.
In the weeks that followed, another five were
On March 1, the day Saul Timisela was scheduled to be
deported, Mr. Kaper-Dale opened the doors of the
church to him. Mr. Timisela was wearing an electronic
monitor that immigration officials had attached to his
ankle weeks earlier to ensure compliance with court
dates and the deportation order.
“Today, we will cry out to God, and cry out to the
president, asking that he stop deporting Indonesian
Christian refugees who are neither criminals nor
egregious immigration offenders,” Mr. Kaper-Dale wrote
in an e-mail to reporters.
In interviews, the Indonesians said they were eager
to find a path to legal status in the United States and
continued to fear religious persecution in Indonesia.
In a recent report, Human Rights Watch said that the
Indonesian authorities had “failed to adequately
address increasing incidents of mob violence” directed
at religious minorities, including Christians, and
that local governments had closed hundreds of
Mr. Timisela, 45, said that in 1998, several months
before he left Indonesia,
anti-Christian rioters decapitated his cousin’s
husband, a pastor, and burned down his church. When
Mr. Timisela arrived in the United States
to attend a youth conference, his family urged him to
“I hope they understand what we’re doing here,” he
said of the American government. “We’re looking for a
better life, freedom of worship.”
Immigration officials said they were reviewing
appeals for prosecutorial discretion on a
“case-by-case basis,” suspending the deportation of
some of the Indonesians who posed no threat to public
safety and had strong familial and community ties in
the United States.
Ross Feinstein, a spokesman for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, an arm of the Homeland Security
Department, said the agency had extended stays of
removal for 25 of the Indonesian Christians in central
New Jersey since last fall “due to the specific
circumstances” of their cases.
Mr. Kaper-Dale is banking on the passage of a bill in
the House of Representatives that would allow certain
Indonesians who fled persecution in their homeland
from 1997 to 2002 to resubmit asylum claims that had
been denied because they missed the one-year filing
On the bulletin board in his office, the pastor has
posted a large spread sheet. It lists all the
Indonesian Christians who have sought his help and the
status of their cases, from their immigration
registration numbers to the citizenship of their
children, the status of their spouses and the date of
their scheduled deportations.
“I used to have to keep very careful track, but now I
have it in my head,” Mr. Kaper-Dale said. “I know
their lives — inside and out.”
years following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s
Baha’is faced escalating persecution. Hundreds were
executed or “disappeared,” and thousands were
imprisoned or denied employment. Their crime: living
in a rigidly theocratic state but believing in the
ultimate unification of all religions.
At the United Nations last fall, Canada’s Foreign
Affairs Minister John Baird cited the plight of Iran’s
Baha’is, women, Christians and dissident Muslims while
announcing plans for a Canadian Office of Religious
Freedom. Six months later, it’s still not entirely
clear how the office will operate or what it will do
beyond a vague mandate to address religious
persecution around the world. Baird continues to hold
consultations with religious leaders in Canada
Many of them have high hopes that the new office will
fulfil Baird’s pledge at the UN “to defend the
vulnerable, to challenge the aggressor, to protect and
promote human rights and human dignity, at home and
abroad.” Amid the hopeful voices, though, are
accusations that consultations haven’t been broad or
transparent enough, and fears that the office may
simply be a ploy to lure religious voters.
Few dispute that religious persecution is a problem.
According to the U.S.-based Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life, restrictions on and hostilities over
religion affect 2.2 billion people, a third of the
Religious persecution ranges from hostility between
faiths — such as attacks by radical Islamists on
Coptic Christians in Egypt — to state-sanctioned
suppression of all religions (as in North Korea),
minority religions (Christians in Saudi Arabia) or any
believers seen as enemies of the state (Jehovah’s
Witnesses and some evangelical Christians in Eritrea).
Official restrictions on religion range from France’s ban on
wearing face-covering veils, such as the Islamic
niqab, to death sentences in Iran
for abandoning the Muslim faith. Almost a third of the
world’s nations have laws against apostasy, blasphemy
and defamation of their dominant religion. A handful
enforce them vigorously.
where all religions are subject to state scrutiny and
control, the banned Falun Gong alleges that
practitioners of the movement have been used as live
organ donors and then executed. China
has consistently denied the charges.
In 2010, Christians were estimated to comprise 33
percent of the world’s population. The Pew Forum study
found that Christians were harassed in more countries
— 130 — than any other faith group. Muslims, harassed
in 117 countries, were second. And although Jews make
up only about one percent of the world’s population,
they are fourth on the list, harassed in 75 countries.
Don Hutchinson, vice-president of the Evangelical
Fellowship of Canada (EFC), was a panelist at the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade’s initial consultation on the proposed Office of
Religious Freedom in Ottawa last fall.
Subsequent media coverage implied that evangelical
Christians were guiding the office’s design.
The notion that Stephen Harper’s Conservative
government has teamed up with Christian conservatives
is not new. In her 2010 book, The Armageddon
Factor, author Marci McDonald outlines how
Harper — who grew up in the UnitedChurch but
now attends an evangelical Christian and Missionary
Alliance church — has carefully nurtured those
Hutchinson, a lawyer with a long record of
pro-Christian human rights work, brushes off those
concerns and denies reports that the consultation was
closed or secretive. He also says it’s natural that as
a Christian and the chair of a group of evangelicals
working on the issue of persecution (the Religious
Liberty Commission), he is mainly concerned about
Christians. “So, we’re out engaging on the persecution
of Christians,” says Hutchinson, “but
I can tell you that the Baha’i community is engaging
for the Baha’is and . . . that the different Muslim
communities are engaging on behalf of their
communities. And we can go down the list.”
Len Rudner, director of community relations and
outreach for the newly created Centre for Israel
and Jewish Affairs, calls the proposed new office “a
“This is certainly more than simply speaking out
because we believe our community has something to
gain,” he says. “It’s not just about us.”
If Baird’s office is attempting to push only the
concerns of certain groups, it’s covering its tracks
exceptionally well. In his speech to the UN, after
promising to stand up for persecuted minority
Buddhists and Muslims in Burma, Baird
mentioned concerns about “gays and lesbians threatened
with criminalization of their sexuality in Uganda.”
That’s not a statement all evangelical churches would
encourage. As well, Canadian representatives of Falun
Gong have been welcomed at consultations, something
that is sure to annoy Baird’s counterparts in Beijing
when he travels there to promote trade.
Joining Christian, Jewish and Baha’i groups at last
fall’s consultation were Shia, Sunni and Ahmadiyya
Muslims, plus Hindus and Buddhists. Due in part to
travel budget cutbacks, the Canadian Council of
Churches monitored the event by Internet. The UnitedChurch
sent Ottawa Presbytery staffer Rev. Lillian Roberts.
If the creation of the office had any hidden agenda,
she says, it wasn’t apparent at the consultation.
Still, says Imam Abdul Hai Patel, past co-ordinator of
the Canadian Council of Imams, mainstream Muslim
groups like his were not invited to the Ottawa
meeting. He attended a later Toronto-area consultation
along with Roman Catholic Cardinal Thomas Collins.
In the government’s defence, Muslim groups are
numerous and varied. Reaching all of them is not easy.
The Muslim Canadian Congress, which did attend the
consultation, claims to represent the majority of
Canadian Muslims — who, according to the group’s
founder, Toronto-based author and radio host Tarek
Fatah, defy stereotypes by rarely attending mosques,
by opposing Shariah law and by not wearing the hijab.
Fatah, who bills himself as an enemy of militant
Islam, says the proposed Office of Religious Freedom
is “quite timely.” And he’s blunt about why. “The main
issue here is we’re not talking about the mistreatment
of, say, Muslim immigrants in Greece,
but the abysmal condition of Christians in Muslim
lands,” says Fatah. He chides liberal Christian groups
for their reluctance to speak out against the
persecution of other Christians.
Announcing the beginning of World Interfaith Harmony
Week earlier this year, United Church Moderator Mardi
Tindal quoted the United Nations’ acknowledgment that
“Our world is rife with religious tension and, sadly,
mistrust, dislike and hatred.” Yet, as Fatah suggests,
is one of those groups that rarely speak out against
specific instances of persecution of fellow
Christians. Gail Allan, in charge of the
denomination’s interchurch and interfaith work, says
the church is committed “to be attending to
persecution of all communities of faith, wherever that
might take place,” and works through the World Council
of Churches and its own global partners wherever
religious persecution is seen as a problem.
As Allan also points out, UnitedChurch
analysis often sees non-religious forces behind what
seems to be religious persecution. Early in 2011, for
example, the church wrote Coptic Christian church
leaders to express concerns over the bombing of a
Coptic church in Alexandria, Egypt.
The letter noted that church bombings in Egypt and Iraq
had been “condemned by Muslims and Christians alike
and are not at their root expressions of religious
hatred or intolerance.” Allan says the ongoing tension
between Copts and majority Muslims in the Middle East is “part of a
political, economic and social conflict that needs to
“I have been challenged by the Jewish community . . .
over the years for a general Christian inattention to
the persecution of Christians around the world,” says
Canadian Council of Churches general secretary Rev.
Karen Hamilton. “That’s not to say there are any easy
answers, but maybe we need to pay a little more
FormerUnitedChurch moderator Very Rev.
Lois Wilson says the proposed Office of Religious
Freedom “sounds wonderful” — during her four years in
as a senator, she tried unsuccessfully to persuade the
foreign affairs department to establish an advisory
group on religion. She also learned a thing or two
about how Ottawa
works. “I can’t help but feel that this was put in
place to get votes,” says Wilson. “That’s
the only reason they do anything, including the
Liberals and the NDP.”
| Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012
is widening the war on al-Qaida in Yemen,
expanding drone strikes against the terror network a
year after the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama
counterterrorist forces will now be allowed to target
individuals found to be plotting attacks on U.S.
territory, even if U.S.
intelligence cannot identify the person by name, two
practice required militants to be identified as part
of a lengthy legal vetting process. Now, tracking an
individual in the act of commanding al-Qaida fighters
or planning an attack on U.S.
territory or American individuals can land the person
on the shoot-to-kill list, officials said.
this means in practice is there are times when
counterterrorism professionals can assess with high
confidence someone is an AQAP leader, even if they
can't tell us by name who that individual is," one of
the officials said, referring to al-Qaida in the
House did not approve wider targeting of groups of
al-Qaida foot soldiers, a practice sometimes employed
by the CIA in Pakistan,
and strikes will only be carried out with Yemeni
government approval, officials said.
policy will widen the war against AQAP, Yemen's
al-Qaida branch, which has gained territory in
fighting against the Yemeni government… as al-Qaida's
branch is seen as gaining ground against a government
that is allied with the Americans.
year of political turmoil in Yemen, since the start of
revolts linked to last year's Arab Spring, is "making
it harder for them (the Yemeni government) to take a
focused effort against al-Qaida" one of the officials
said. "So these are counterterrorism tools designed to
interests and homeland."
expanded strikes would not be used in support of the
Yemeni government's fight against internal opponents,
the official added.
has carried out 23 airstrikes in Yemen
since last May, with twelve of those strikes in 2012,
according to The Long War Journal, a website that
counterterrorism and militant activity.
Copywrite 2012 AP
This article can be read in its entirety at
on terror is over," or so claims an unnamed senior
State Department official, as reported by National
Journal's Michael Hirsh in his recent article "The
Post al-Qaida Era."
Really? Well, if the war is over, I must have missed
the peace treaty signing ceremony. I also haven't
noticed a decline in incendiary rhetoric, or the
disarmament -- or at least laying down of arms -- that
usually accompanies the end of war. Does this mean we
can do away with full-body scanners and TSA pat-downs?
constitutional amendment declaring that corporations
aren't people, after all
It's not only Republicans looking for constitutional
amendments these days.
DFLers (Democratic Farmer Labor Party members) in the
Minnesota House and Senate have introduced bills
asking Congress to call a constitutional convention to
propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that
would clarify that corporations are not people.
There's been much consternation on this point,
particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a
corporate political spending case that corporations
have a First Amendment right to free speech.
The bill introduced by DFLers wants the
constitutional amendment to say:
rights protected by the Constitution of the United States
are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited
liability companies, and others established by the
laws of any state, the United States,
or any foreign state shall have no rights under
this Constitution and are subject to regulation by
the people, through federal, state, or local
privileges of artificial entities shall be
determined by the people, through federal, state, or
local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent
Federal, state, and local government shall regulate,
limit or prohibit contributions
and expenditures, including a candidate's own
contributions and expenditures, for the purpose
of influencing in any way the election of any
candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, state, and local government shall require
that any permissible contributions and
expenditures be publicly disclosed.
judiciary shall not construe the spending of money
to influence elections to be speech under the
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be
construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
In the state House, the bill was introduced and
referred to committee.
Catholic Bishops Urge
‘Campaign’ for Religious Freedom
April 12, 2012
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops issued a
proclamation on Thursday calling for every priest,
parish and layperson to participate in “great national
campaign” to defend religious liberty, which they said
is “under attack, both at home and abroad.”
In particular they urged every diocese to hold a
“Fortnight for Freedom” during the two weeks leading
up to the Fourth of July, for parishioners to study,
pray and take public action to fight what they see as
the government’s attempts to curtail religious
“To be Catholic and American should mean not having
to choose one over the other,” said the statement,
issued by the bishops ad hoc committee on religious
For more than half a year, the bishops have put the
religious liberty issue front and center, but it has
not yet galvanized the Catholic laity and has even
further polarized the church’s liberal and
conservative flanks. In an election year, liberal
Catholics have accused the bishops of making the
church an arm of the Republican Party in the drive to
defeat President Obama — an accusation that the
“This ought not to be a partisan issue,” the bishops
say in their statement in a section addressed to
political leaders. “The Constitution is not for
Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for
all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be
led by our elected representatives to ensure that it
In the document, the bishops seek to explain that
their alarm is not only about the mandate in the
health reform act that requires even Catholic colleges
and hospitals to have insurance plans that cover birth
control. They cite seven examples of what they say are
violations of religious freedom, including immigration
laws in several states that they say make it illegal
to minister to illegal immigrants.
They also assert that the government has violated the
religious freedom of Catholics by cutting off
contracts to Catholic agencies. Several states have
denied financing to Catholic agencies that refused to
place foster children with gay parents. And the
federal government refused to reauthorize a grant to a
Catholic immigration organization that served victims
of sex trafficking because as a Catholic group, it
would not provide or refer women to services for
abortion and birth control.
Quoting from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s
“Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” the bishops say that
unjust laws should be either changed or resisted. “In
the face of an unjust law,” the bishops wrote, “an
accommodation is not to be sought. If we face today
the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America,
in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the
courage not to obey them.”
Youcef Nadarkhani Spends 35th Birthday Behind Bars
Law and Justice
By Tiffany Barrans
April 11, 2012
Today, is Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s birthday, and
our sources in Iran
confirm that he is still alive. Thirty-five years ago,
on the 23rd of the Farvardin month of the Persian
Calendar, Youcef was born in Iran.
This is the third birthday that Pastor Youcef has
been forced to celebrate behind bars, condemned to
death in Iran
for apostasy – becoming a Christian in a regime
governed by Shariah (Islamic) law.
Tomorrow, marks exactly two and a half years of
imprisonment – 913 days illegally held in prison for
Both the Iranian Constitution and the International
Declaration of Human Rights, of which Iran
is a signatory, not only forbid executing someone for
their faith but expressly protect religious freedom.
Despite these assurances of religious freedom, Iran
continues to imprison Pastor Youcef indefinitely for
charges related solely to the exercise of his faith.
Today, Christians and supporters of Pastor Youcef all
around the world are holding a fasting and prayer
vigil for the persecuted pastor to bring attention to
his plight. Just last week, hundreds of Christians and
supporters of religious liberty attended a vigil and
march for Pastor Youcef’s release in Hamburg, Germany.
These are just a few examples of the increasing
international pressure being placed on Iran
to release Pastor Youcef. Nations like the United Kingdom, Brazil, and many
others are directly demanding that Iran
immediately and unconditionally release Pastor Youcef.
The ACLJ’s Tweet for Youcef campaign is now reaching
nearly 1.5 million Twitter accounts around the world
each day with updates about Pastor Youcef. His story
has reached over 91 percent of the United Nations
member states, including Iran.
The Tweet for Youcef Brazil campaign
Portuguese also continues to see tremendous growth.
Even with this increasing international pressure on Iran
for Pastor Youcef’s release, it is critically
important to remember that Pastor Youcef is still in
an Iranian prison under a death sentence that could be
carried out at any time. The only reason that he is
still alive today is because of the international
outcry against this abhorrent situation. It is not
enough that Iran
remove his death sentence, rather we must demand his
ultimate and unconditional freedom.
Please continue to pray for Pastor Youcef. As a
Birthday present for Pastor Youcef and symbol of
solidarity for those persecuted for their faith,
please let the world know that you support Pastor
Youcef by signing up to Tweet for Youcef today.
His accusations of
judicial activism are off the mark
April 5, 2012
years of barely mentioning Obamacare due to its
unpopularity in the polls, it is now seemingly all
President Obama and his aides find themselves talking
about. But instead of defending the mandate’s
constitutionality — the main issue in question for the
Supreme Court — the President unwisely decided to
launch an attack on the court itself.
At a press conference on Monday, Obama expressed the
belief that the Court would not take an
“unprecedented, extraordinary step” by overturning the
law. He then went on to caution the “unelected” court
against reaching any other conclusion, and spoke of
concerns about judicial activism.
In fact, overturning unconstitutional laws is exactly
the job of the Supreme Court.
But the real story is how he went after the justices.
This is rare behavior for a President, but it’s not
the first time Obama has ventured into this taboo
territory. In January 2010, the President complained
in his State of the Union Address about the court’s
decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election
Commission, holding that the government may not keep
corporations or unions from spending money to support
or oppose candidates in elections.
Judicial activism is seeing things in the
Constitution that aren’t there just to get a specific
result. The Commerce Clause is in the Constitution,
but so is the 10th Amendment, meaning that whatever
isn’t written down here is left to the states. While
Obama might think he has no option but to demagogue
the Supreme Court should his law get struck down, he
has no business in meddling in its affairs, playing
politics with matters of pure law.
The Constitution is designed to limit the vast growth
of government. The Founders put many checks and
balances in place to protect liberty and impede the
progressive agenda of expanded government. The real
activism is on the part of liberals who want to
subvert the original meaning of the Constitution.
The judicial system, it should be noted, isn’t taking
the President’s comments lightly. Following the
President’s controversial comments, a three-judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit, ordered the Justice Department to answer by
Thursday whether the Obama administration believes
that the courts have the right to strike down a
federal law (Marbury v. Madison). The
whole purpose of the Court, since Marbury v. Madison,
is to make sure that laws enacted by Congress do not
conflict with the Constitution. As Justice John
Marshall said of Marbury in 1803, if the Constitution
is not superior to an ordinary law, why have a
It makes for a real conundrum for the President in a
tough election year, but it’s one of his own making.
Obama is asking the court to radically rethink the
Constitution and read the Commerce Clause as giving
him unprecedented power. He is turning the 10th
Amendment into a guideline. And he is now putting the
court in a position where it is reviewing two
centuries of established precedent, all while he
criticizes that same court.
If this mandate is struck down, he will have to
defend more than his words. He’ll have to defend how
he spent the last four years wasting his time, and
ours, with a law that was never really constitutional.
Is the Health Care Law
Constitutional? No, Strike It Down
DAVID J. PORTER, VISION FOR CENTER & VALUES
Editor’s note: A version of this article
first appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. Neither Porter nor his firm are
involved in the ACA litigation.
This summer, the Supreme Court will decide whether
Congress violated the Constitution when it enacted the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which
contains an “individual mandate” requiring virtually
every American to purchase health insurance. Based on
the Constitution’s text and structure, and judicial
interpretations of the relevant provisions, the
mandate should be struck down.
is one of 26 states to have attacked the ACA’s
constitutionality. They seek to uphold the
Constitution’s basic division of power between the
national government and state governments.
The framers and those who ratified the Constitution
withheld from Congress a plenary police power to enact
any law that it deems desirable. Instead, the powers
granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution
are limited and enumerated. The 10th Amendment
emphasizes this structure by affirming that all powers
not given to Congress “are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
Given that background, the states’ argument against
ACA is simple: Even under the broadest interpretation,
Congress’ enumerated powers do not authorize a federal
law that forces individuals to purchase health
ACA’s defenders argue that Congress’ authority to
impose the mandate is granted by any of three
constitutional provisions: the Commerce Clause, the
Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Taxing Clause.
However, under the original understanding of those
provisions and the more expansive interpretation given
to them by the Supreme Court in recent decades, the
mandate is an unprecedented assertion of federal
control that violates the framers’ constitutional
As Congress itself said in the ACA, the mandate
purports to regulate each individual’s “economic and
financial decision” whether to purchase health
insurance. But if that is a valid exercise of Commerce
Clause power, then there is literally no end to
Congress’ power over individuals.
Finally, ACA’s defenders argue that even if the
individual mandate is not supported by the Commerce
Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is
nevertheless constitutional because it is a tax. For
example, the penalty for noncompliance is calculated
as a percentage of household income for income tax
purposes, and it is self-declared on the taxpayer’s
income tax return.
Congress foreclosed this argument by separating the
individual mandate from the penalty. The mandate
itself offends the constitutional separation of
powers; it cannot be saved by pointing to a penalty
for noncompliance. In any event, the monetary fine was
deliberately structured as a “penalty” and not as a
“tax.” Congress could have provided health insurance
for all Americans by invoking its Article I power
“[t]o lay and collect Taxes,” but following President
Barack Obama’s lead, it refused to do so for political
reasons.The federal government's Taxing clause
argument has been rejected by every court that has
reviewed the ACA, and the Supreme court is not likely
to adopt it, either. Nor should it.
The Moral Liberal Guest
Contributor, David J. Porter, J.D., is an
attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, a
trustee of Grove CityCollege, and
a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values.
The opinions expressed by the author are his own.
Our Constitution (Amendment I)
says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
Ladies and gentlemen, our
government, under the leadership of a socialist
agenda that is determined to shred our beloved
Constitution, thus destroying our freedoms.
We live in a very dark era, our
national media have determined not to present real
truth in news, or they report with such bias as to
nullify the facts. We are watching a complicit
Senate give right-of-way to the Executive Branch of
Government to control our nation.
We now have a nation being
directed and dictated to by about 200 un-elected
czars that are proud socialists and/or sodomites.
God help us to stand up, speak up, and act as the
ethical, moral nation we once were. Believers are to
be salt and light.
What is Freedom? Where do we get
our freedoms? God has given us our freedoms and we
have codified them, “…All men are created equal and
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness…”
Senator Rand Paul said, “Without
the right to life, there can be no liberty or
pursuit of happiness.”
Ladies and gentlemen, God has
provided us with the greatest nation and
Constitution on the face of the earth. He has
charged us with the responsibility of vigilance,
commitment and involvement in the protection of our
What is freedom?
FREEDOM ISa raw milk
farmer not fearful of the Gestapo breaking into his
FREEDOM ISpraying in
Jesus’name without fear or intimidation.
FREEDOM ISa child
who can take a sack lunch to school without fear of
it being taken.
FREEDOM IS being able to fly the
American flag without breaking a law.
FREEDOM IS to be able to read the
Bible in a public classroom without arrest.
FREEDOM IS being able to reject
Shariah Law as unconstitutional without threats from
FREEDOM IS going to be at night
without fear of invasion by U.S.
officials under the NDAA, which will give the
President the sole authority without Congressional
approval, if deemed “a national emergency”.
FREEDOM IS openness of our
government in Washington,
rather than Pravda style dictatorship.
FREEDOM IS deciding our own food
menu, diet and medical care without governmental
intervention or directive.
FREEDOM IS allowing every child
conceived to have “life” protection under our
FREEDOM IS living in a land where
the government cannot intrude into the church.
Separation of church and state is
Biblically God-based rather than mandated by a law
of rulers. King Uzziah entered into the temple to
offer sacrificethough eighty one priests begged him not to,
as is the fitting duty and responsibility of the
church. Uzziah did it anyway, and God killed him,
therefore we must say, “Government! Hands off God’s
church! Stop the marginalization of believers!”
FREEDOM IS the ability to render
to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God,
without the government (city, state or national)
using back door fees to rob God’s offering plate.
Where would America
be today without our churches?
FREEDOM IS having a government
that is restrained by the U.S. Constitution:
American law and NO international, foreign, or
Koranic-Shariah law in our courts.
FREEDOM IS having our educational
system returned to our state and local leaders from
the czars in Washington.
FREEDOM IS not having the
government mandate faith/religious, Christian people
to have to choose between conscience, constitution
or confiscation by government. Our churches, church
schools and universities should not be forced to
provide abortion or contraception against our
Biblical, theological or spiritual convictions.
FREEDOM IS not being forced to
provide murder by abortion at taxpayers’ expense.
FREEDOM IS having Presidential
candidates provide a legitimate birth certificate
and proof of citizenship before running for office.
FREEDOM IS knowing that we have
Constitutional Second Amendment right to keep and
FREEDOM IS knowing that our
children in school are being taught TRUE American
history without the distortions, deletions, and the
promotions of Islam in our textbooks.
FREEDOM IS knowing that our fee
simple title dees to our properties are secure
without fear of the EPA Gestapo seizing it to
protect a snail or rodent.
FREEDOM IS in the final analysis
knowing God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, and NOT
being fearful to call the name of Jesus from the
FREEDOM IS not apologizing for
breaking things and killing people in a just war.
The book of Daniel, Chapter Three
tells us of three young men who refused to bow to a
law. They were thrown in the fiery furnace, but
because of their faith in God, they did NOT burn!
Daniel was thrown into the den of lions for refusing
to obey a godless law. The lions became his pillow-
God delivered him!
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I read
you some quotes from our founding fathers-
“Without freedom of thought there
can be no such thing as liberty without freedom of
speech.” –Benjamin Franklin
“Those who would give up
essential liberties to purchase temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin
“If it be asked, What is the most
sacred duty and the greatest source of our security
in a republic? The answer would be an inviolable
respect for the Constitution and laws- the first
growing out of the last- a sacred respect for the
Constitutional law is the vital principle, th
sustaining energy of a free government.”
- Alexander Hamilton
“When the people fear their
government there is tyranny; when government fears
the people, there is liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
“The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance” – Thomas Jefferson
“In matters of style, swim with
the current. In matters of principle, stand firm
like a rock. – Thomas Jefferson
Ladies and Gentlemen- Let’s send
a message to Washington,
Loud and Clear- “We the People”:
WE WILL not surrender our
Constitution on the account of convenience.
WE WILL not sacrifice our
convictions on the altar of coercion.
WE WILL not submit our church
rights to the rule of unelected czars in Washington.
WE WILL not be silent and allow
socialism to subvert our Constitution.
WE WILL be vigilant, visible,
vocal and vote in every election.
WE WILL have “Revolution” at the
The Bible is very clear in Acts
5:29 that “we ought to obey God rather than man.”
May God Bless You and God
Christian Missions Play Key Role Amid Rumors of 'New
From The Christian Post
By Luiza Oleszczuk, Christian Post Reporter
March 13, 2012
As reports coming from Sudan paint an increasingly
gruesome picture of the Khartoum government allegedly
planning to wipe out the country's ethnic populations
and non-Muslims in the southern region of the Nuba
Mountains, local Christian missions are playing an
important role, as even the United Nations has no
access to the country's embattled southern regions.
Experts have been warning that Sudan's Islamist
government might be planning a genocide comparable to
the one conducted in the country's western region of Darfur between 2003 and 2004,
when the Arab government targeted black tribes. It is
estimated that 300,000 people died at the time. The
government is reported to be conducting systematical
killings of the people (including allegedly using air
bombings) of the NubaMountains, a
region in the south of the country that is
approximately 30 percent Christian. Targeted are also
the inhabitants of another southern region called the
The south of overwhelmingly Muslim Sudan used to be
traditionally Christian and ethnically tribal African,
as opposed to the mostly Arab north. Most of the south
seceded in 2011 and formed South
Sudan. But many Christians and African
tribes, which are being targeted, still remain north
of the border, where they reportedly face a constant
While the Islamist government forces were ravaging
the south, including burning churches and killing
pastors, foreign missionaries started entering the
region. One of them was Samaritan's Purse, one of the
most prominent missionary ministries in the world,
administered by the Rev. Franklin Graham, his
daughter, Cissie Graham Lynch told The Christian Post
This mission, related to Billy Graham's Evangelistic
Association (BGEA), opened a Bible school in the NubaMountains region in SouthKordofanState in
2007, after many local pastors were killed, with the
purpose of educating a new generation of Christian
"They built Bible college there because during the
war the northern part of Sudan
came down and burnt hundreds of churches," Graham
Lynch told CP. She and her father attended the first
graduation of the students there. "Samaritan's Purse
built many of the churches back, but realized that
many of the pastors were killed, so they built a Bible
college there to be able to train pastors."
The Bible school was bombed on Feb. 1 this year by
the Sudanese air force, the ministry claims. The
mission also has a camp in South
Sudan, which has been experiencing
occasional bombings from the north through the past
year. A Samaritan's Purse refugee camp there was
bombed in November.
Many people of the NubaMountains
region have been fleeing Sudan to South Sudan, and Samaritan's
Purse has been the first foreign organization to
establish camps able to accommodate the refugees, a
source told CP recently.
"It's horrific what these Christians in southern Sudan
went through," Graham Lynch told CP.
"We need to be praying for these people because this
is a serious issue that cannot be ignored," she added.
Samaritan's Purse offices are in a constant state of
prayer for the missionaries who risk their lives on
the ground in Sudan
and South Sudan, as
well as other missions, Graham Lynch said. Those
people are there "by God's will," she added.
"That is the major part of our ministry – praying for
our staff members. Praying for the situation and
praying for the people of Sudan,"
Another U.S.-based Christian mission with a prominent
presence in Sudan
is Persecution Projects Foundation.
With missions in several locations across the country,
Persecution Projects Foundation has been bringing
relief, the Gospel and advocacy services to the
persecuted people, its president told CP recently.
The presence of foreign missionaries seems
particularly important given that the Khartoum
government is reportedly not allowing
official relief organizations, including the United
Nations, into the region. The U.N., the U.S.
and other world bodies and groups have condemned the
attacks that are taking place against civilians.
"I recently returned from several days in South Sudan
– specifically Yida refugee camp, where I
encountered bone-chilling stories of the nightmare
unfolding in the Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
states just north of the border in Sudan," Rep. Frank
R. Wolf (R –Va.) who visited a refugee camp in
southern Sudan (featuring 25,000 people at the time) wrote in a blog last week. "In
speaking with the refugees in the camp, I heard echoes
– accounts of ethnic cleansing, mass murder and
rape of innocent civilians in the region."
Wolf recounted stories the local Nuba people told
him, including those of rape and murder, as well as
soldiers saying: "We don't want anyone who says they
are a Christian in this village."
A former top U.N. humanitarian official in Sudan,
Mukesh Kapila, warned last week that Khartoum's
military is carrying out crimes against humanity in
the region that remind him of Darfur. Kapila
reportedly recalled seeing military planes striking
villagers, the destruction of food stocks and
"literally a scorched-earth policy," upon his recent
"Darfur was the
first genocide of the 21st century," he told The
Associated Press. "And the second genocide of the 21st
century may very well be taking place now, in the NubaMountains."
The former U.N. official also said the NubaMountains
region is facing an oncoming hunger crisis because the
region's residents were not working the fields for
fear of airstrikes.
Recently U.N. has called upon the governments of Sudan and South Sudan to pick up
non-violent efforts to settle the status of an
oil-rich border region called Abyei, which is a
subject of dispute between the two countries, on the
economic and political fronts.
But the NubaMountains
violence seems to be inspired chiefly by ethnic and
is ethnically 70 percent Arab, with the rest of the
population being indigenous African peoples like the
Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Beja, Nuba, and Dinka Ngok.
The country had been in the state of civil war for the
past two decades largely on ethnic and religious
grounds, until 2005, when the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) was signed, overseen by the United States.
In July 2011, the southern, mostly Christian territory
seceded, establishing South
Sudan. That summer, the government of Sudan,
which is a country that is 70 percent Muslim, broke
the peace agreement and began targeting the ethnic
Nuba people in the south, as well as Christians and
any apostates from Islam, according to reports. The
Nuba population numbers about 500,000, of which about
30 percent are Christians of various denominations.
In 2008, the prosecution of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) filed 10 charges of war crimes
incumbent President Omar al-Bashir, three counts of
genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of
murder. Al-Bashir was accused of masterminding and
implementing "a plan to destroy in substantial part"
three tribal groups in Darfur
because of their ethnicity. Warrants for the arrest
were issued by in 2009 and 2010. Nevertheless,
al-Bashir remains the current president of Sudan.
Groening and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 2/28/2012
A legal expert, a former Navy chaplain, and a
pro-family leader agree that a Pennsylvania
judge should be removed from the bench for throwing
out an assault case lodged against a Muslim who
attacked an atheist dressed as a zombie
Muhammad at a Halloween parade last year.
Judge Mark Martin is an Iraq war veteran and
a convert to Islam, according to GeorgeWashingtonUniversity
law professor Jonathon Turley. The incident, recorded
on video, occurred on October 11, 2011 at the
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Halloween parade. Ernie
Perce, an atheist, was attacked by Talaag Elbayomy, a
Muslim, because of the former's costume.
Judge Martin threw out video evidence of the assault,
dismissed the testimony of an eyewitness officer, and
then lectured the atheist victim about the
sensitivities of the Muslim culture. He stated in
court that Elbayomy was obligated to attack the victim
because of his culture and religion.
"They are so immersed in it," Martin says in a
recording made available to the media. "And what
you've done is you've completely trashed their
essence, their being. They find it very, very, very
offensive. I'm a Muslim. I find it
offensive." [Editor's note: Judge Martin has told
Associated Press that he has received hundreds of
calls, many under the mistaken impression he is a
Muslim. He says he is, in fact, a Lutheran.]
Gordon Klingenschmitt is a former Navy
chaplain who was forced out of the service for
publicly praying in Jesus' name while in uniform. He
now runs "The Pray In Jesus Name Project" and says the
judge is basically conveying the message that if you
mock Muhammad, you deserve to get beaten.
"He freed the Muslim attacker and said basically it's
okay to choke atheists if they insult Islam," he
Klingenschmitt also finds it outrageous that Judge
Martin told Perce that mocking Muhammad in Muslim
countries is punishable by death.
"This is a different country. We live in America
where we have a free society," the former Navy
chaplain points out. "And Christians have historically
protected the rights of minorities to express their
religious or anti-religious views."
So he believes Martin should be removed from the
bench, and Mat Staver of Liberty
Counsel agrees. The latter tells OneNewsNow Judge
Martin's decision an indication of what may be coming
if sharia is used in the U.S.
judge actually had the audacity to rule in favor of
the attacker, saying that the attacker was compelled
to attack this individual because it was an insult to
Islam and the Prophet Muhammad," Staver reports.
And Diane Gramley, head of the American Family
Association (AFA) of Pennsylvania,
suggests that the judge's religion "tainted" how he
looks at the law.
"That definitely changes everything, because if he's a
Muslim convert, then that definitely has tainted his
view of the law, and he is looking at sharia law and
making his decision," she offers. "You cannot look at
a situation where a Muslim has physically harassed,
physically attacked an atheist -- granted the guy's an
atheist who's in a parade; he's dressed as a Muslim --
but that's not against the law."
Staver finds the ruling to be almost unbelievable.
"This situation is one involving a judge that needs to
be removed from the bench," the attorney suggests. "He
is clearly instituting sharia from the bench, using
sharia law as a basis to ultimately acquit a person
who actually committed an assault and a battery
against an individual."
Professor Turley also notes that another atheist,
dressed as a zombie Pope, was marching beside the
zombie Muhammad, but no outraged Catholics attacked
"If a Christian had been doing the harassing, I don't
believe the judge would have dismissed those charges,"
Gramley contends. "I think in this case, Judge Martin
is showing preference to the Muslim."
Staver concludes that this is the type of case that
has prompted several states, including Oklahoma,
to work on legislation to prohibit courts from using
sharia or foreign laws and court rulings as a basis
for decisions in American courts. In Oklahoma's
case, however, the measure was overturned in federal
sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will
make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile,
hoping he will eat you last — but eat you he will.”
— Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan was the consummate collector of great
quotations. The one about the crocodile was borrowed
and adapted from Winston Churchill. “Winston Churchill
took a dim view of neutrals. For him there were only
two options in the face of Hitler: fight or surrender.
Each neutral, Churchill said on 20 January 1940,
‘hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the
crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the
storm will pass before their turn comes to be
devoured. But I fear — I fear greatly — the storm will
What was true of Hitler and Nazism is equally true of
radical Islam. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
brought the crocodile story up to date when he spoke
before the 66th session of the General Assembly at the
United Nations on September 23, 2011, following
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ speech:
And these critics continue to press Israel to make
far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s
They praise those who unwittingly feed the
insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as
bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of
us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy
barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very
least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.
Appeasers to the Islamic worldview keep telling us
that only a small percentage of Muslims are radicals.
Some say it’s about ten percent. I’m not great at
math, but I do know that ten percent of one billion is
100 million. That’s a lot of radical Muslims who want
to see every aspect of Western culture destroyed.
What has President Obama’s apology for burning
already Muslim-desecrated Qurans done for America?
“Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the
wound of us — the Muslims — caused by the Burning of
Quran in the US,”
the commander of Iran’s
Basij force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqd said.
He then added: “Their apology can be accepted only by
hanging their commanders; hanging their commanders
means an apology.”
The Islam world always saw President Obama as a dupe,
a useful idiot, who would believe that appeasement
toward a sworn enemy of the United States
would bring about peace. In reality, the plan of the
Islamic world has always been the destruction of all
President Obama’s June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt,
was the start of the appeasement process. The Muslims
smelled fear and inevitable capitulation.
All of this reminds me of the long out-of-print book
by John Ames Mitchell (1848–1918) — The Last
American (1889) — that I have in my library.
There is a sobering message on the dedication page and
the book’s closing words:
“To those thoughtful Persians who can read a warning
in the sudden rise and swift extinction of a foolish
people [the Americans] this volume is dedicated. . . .
Again upon the sea. This time for Persia, bearing our
wounded and the ashes of the dead [the last American];
those of the natives are reposing beneath the GreatTemple
[U.S. Capitol]. The skull of the last Mehrikan
[American] I shall present to the museum at Teheran.”
There are several ink etchings in The Last
American. One shows “The Ruins of the GreatTemple,”
a devastated United States Capitol. Pray and act that
it will not be so.
Homeschooling families will soon be forbidden from
teaching that homosexual sex is sinful as part of
their schooling program, according to the government
of Alberta, Canada.
Under the province’s Education Act, homeschoolers and
religious schools will be banned from “disrespecting”
people’s differences, Alberta Education Minister
Thomas Lukaszuk’s office told LifeSiteNews just last
“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool,
private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate
disrespect for differences,” said Donna McColl,
Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications. “You
can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life,
you just can’t do it as part of your educational study
Paul Faris, president of the Home School Legal
Defence Association of Canada, told the news website
the Ministry of Education is “clearly signaling that
they are in fact planning to violate the private
conversations families have in their own homes. A
government that seeks that sort of control over our
personal lives should be feared and opposed.”
According to the report, a government spokesman said,
“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family
life. You just can’t do it as part of your educational
study and instruction.”
HSLDA and other homeschool organizations have
expressed concerns that the new Alberta Education Act
would to force “diversity” education on all
schools – including private and home schools.
The legislation, known as Bill 2 in the Legislative
Assembly of Alberta, requires that all schools
“reflect the diverse nature and heritage of society in
promote understanding and respect for others and
honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.”
LifeSiteNews reports that the Human Rights Act has
been used to target Christians and conservatives
across the country, especially those who hold
traditional beliefs about homosexuality.
McColl added that Christian homeschooling families
can teach biblical lessons on homosexuality in their
homes, “as long as it’s not part of their academic
program of studies and instructional materials.”
“What they want to do about their ideology elsewhere,
that’s their family business,” she said. “But a
fundamental nature of our society is to respect
According to the report, when McColl was asked by
LifeSiteNews to explain the distinction between
homeschoolers’ education and their family life, she
replied that the question involved “real nuances” and
said she would need to get back to reporter with
In a second interview, McColl explained that the
government “won’t speculate” about specific examples
and said she hadn’t been given a “straight answer” on
what precisely constitutes “disrespect” – adding that
families “can’t be hatemongering, if you will.”
The news site reports several Canadian provinces –
including Quebec, Ontario, British
Columbia and now Alberta – have
seen major battles in the last two years over
“increasing normalization of homosexuality in the
Patty Marler, government liaison for the Alberta Home
Education Association, told the website she was
astonished at the Ministry’s candor. She wondered how
the government would stipulate the difference between
homeschoolers’ school and family time.
“We educate our children all the time, and that’s
just the way we live. It’s a lifestyle,” she said.
“Making that distinction between the times when we’re
homeschooling and when we’re just living is really
hard to do.”
She added, “Throw in the fact that I do use the Bible
as part of my curriculum, and now I’m very blatantly
going to be teaching stuff that will be against [the
Alberta Human Rights Act].”
In 2009, the Alberta Human Rights Act was amended to
classify marriage as an institution between two
“persons,” rather than a man and a woman.
“When I read Genesis and it talks about marriage
being one man in union with one woman, I am very, very
clearly opposing the human rights act that says it’s
one person marrying another person,” Marler said.
Faris noted that the most troubling issue is how
government is attempting to control homeschoolers and
how they teach their own children in their own homes.
He added that many homeschoolers have been receiving
misleading information when they call the Minister’s
office, which has been saying, “‘Look, there are no
changes here. We’re not going to do anything
differently,’ and other things like that.”
“The long arm of the government wants to reach into
family’s homes and control what they teach to their
own children in their own homes about religion,
sexuality and morality,” Faris said. “These are not
the words of a government that is friendly to
homeschooling or to parental freedom.”
LifeSiteNews noted that the Progressive Conservative
government has 67 of the 83 seats in the Alberta
Legislature, so the bill is almost certain to pass.
However, with an election coming up, the new
right-wing Wildrose Alliance Party may have a strong
law would forbid homeschoolers to teach the Bible
by Joel McDurmon on Feb 28, 2012
For those who would like a snapshot of where
liberalism and Statism lead, they need only look to
our northern neighbor Canada. LifeSiteNews.com reports
on Alberta’s new proposed law forbidding even
homeschoolers from teaching what the Bible plainly
Under Alberta’s new
Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools
will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts
are sinful as part of their academic program, says the
spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.
“Whatever the nature of
schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic
school – we do not tolerate disrespect for
differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant
director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on
“You can affirm the
family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t
do it as part of your educational study and
instruction,” she added.
Reacting to the remarks,
Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defence
Association said the Ministry of Education is
“clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to
violate the private conversations families have in
their own homes.”
“A government that seeks
that sort of control over our personal lives should be
feared and opposed,” he added.
I mildly disagree: such a government is indeed a
tyranny, but it should not be “feared.” It should be
opposed with legitimate organization, without
fear, and resisted. We must stand for freedom
and live without fear.
By the way, we have such liberals already stateside
as well. I wrote about this very agenda—leftists
wanting to pass legislation to control the curricula
of homeschoolers—already a few years ago. Here’s a
section from the longer article:
In fact, some recent
leftists have come out openly in favor of controlling
even homeschooling. I spoke at American Vision’s
Worldview Superconference in 2007 on the
topic “There’s an Atheist After Your Child!” I quoted
from recent outspoken atheist Daniel C. Dennett:
We should have a national
curriculum on world religions that is compulsory for
all school children, from grade school through high
school, for the public schools, for the private
schools, for the home-schooling.…
“Compulsory”? Well, of course, we already have that in
regard to some things: math, science, reading, etc.
But Dennett wants in your house, and wants to control
the content of the religious education of your
children as well. He continues, “because if we taught
the young people of a country this, then you could
teach them whatever else you wanted and I wouldn’t
worry about religions.”
The atheist wants to
insulate your children against whatever you may add in
catechizing them. Of course, this assumes that you
catechize your children. These atheists hate the idea
of religious catechism. Atheist Richard Dawkins, in a
tirade against baptism, refers to the participation of
“a superstitious and catechistically brainwashed
babysitter.” In these guys’ minds, religious
catechism is “brainwashing,” but of course, it’s OK
for them to call for a compulsory national curriculum
of religion as they see it.
Dennett goes on: “I think
any religion that can flourish under those conditions
would be a benign, a valuable, a wonderful religion.”
I guess, for him maybe.
Of course, he just assumes that he by default knows
truly what is valuable. Truth is, he’s got no real
standard by which to judge that which is benign, or
valuable, or wonderful. “Valuable”? Valuable for whom?
Who decides what is valuable and what is not valuable
in education or in general? If you believe like
Dennett that there is no transcendent Creator God,
then aren’t words like “valuable” and “wonderful” left
up to each individual to determine? In that case,
“valuable” and “wonderful” will be determined
politically and culturally by either a dictator (like
Franco or Stalin), or a group of dictators (think
Roe-v-Wade, 5–4 decision). You might just as well hear
Franco say, “Any leftist who can flourish under my
conditions would be ‘a benign, a valuable, a wonderful
So, I’m sorry, but I’m
not going to let the atheists or leftists define for
me what kind of religious instruction is benign, or
valuable, or even acceptable. But Dennett wants this,
and he continues to say,
I think … if you look at
the “toxic” religions, they are all of the religions
that survive by the enforced ignorance of their young;
and all we have to do, I think, is, we can tell
people, “You can home-school your kids, you can give
them 30 hours a week of religious instruction, but
you’ve also got to teach them what the people that are
not of your faith believe, and you have to teach them
about the history of all faiths in question, including
Now, like I said, I have
no problem teaching my child about other religions,
and I (we) certainly have no problem teaching them the
History of our faith (we can do it better than they
can). But I sure am not going to sit by while this
atheist assumes he has the right to tell me whether I
can or cannot home-school, or how to do it, or what I
“have to” include.
So who does he think he
is? Where does he think he gets the right to assume
that kind of authority? (Well, it’s because he’s an
atheist and an intellectual, and he thinks there’s no
One higher than him, and he’s smarter than most
people.) But how does this work out? Dennett says,
Children below the age of
consent are a special case . . . parents are stewards
of their children. They don’t own them—you can’t own your
children—You have a responsibility to the world, to
the state, to them, to take care of them right.
You may, if you like, teach them
whatever creed you think is most important, but I say
you have a responsibility to let them be informed
about all the other creeds in the world, too.
Children are a special
case? Why are they being singled out? Because
the atheists have realized the power of capturing the
next generation. They’ve chosen the path of least
resistance, which is the indoctrination of children.
But they have to get around the influence of
home-schools and private schools.
Other atheists such as
Richard Dawkins argue “in favor of censorship” of
family education for this so-called “special case of
children” (that’s a direct quote from his book: notice
the use of the same rhetoric by both guys). Dawkins
quotes fellow atheist Nicholas Humphrey:
[M]oral and religious
education, and especially the education a child
receives at home, where parents are allowed – even
expected – to determine for their children what counts
as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Children,
I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds
crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas – no
matter who these other people are. Parents,
correspondingly, have no God-given license
to enculturate their children in whatever
ways they personally choose: no right to limit the
horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them
up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to
insists they follow the straight and narrow paths of
their own faith.
In short, children have a
right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and
we as a society have a duty to protect them from it.
So we should no more allow parents to teach their
children to believe, for example, in the literal truth
of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives,
than we should allow parents to knock their children’s
teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.
So, this group of
atheists is unanimous in pushing that children are a
special case, require special attention by the state,
they should not be left to parents for their education
without state supervision, even to the extent of State
control of religious education in the home.
The child has a “right” to be protected from these
“toxic” beliefs such as belief in the literal truth of
the Bible, which is equivalent, for the atheist, to
physical abuse and masochism. Again, unduly
associating conservativism with violence, all the
while really just wanting more power over other
people’s children than any genuine conservative ever
Religious liberty is
a frail thing, easily abused or neglected
Think what you wish of President Barack Obama's
attempt Friday to end a fierce skirmish over insurance
coverage of drugs that prevent conceptions and induce
The president said he would guarantee that coverage,
without cost to female recipients. Under his modified
mandate, he said, "religious organizations won't have
to pay for these services, and no religious
institution will have to provide these services
directly." It's the "directly" — and the persistent
distinction between "religious organizations" and
"religious institutions" — that's sure to keep this
In Obama's scenario, that is, religiously affiliated
institutions such as schools, hospitals or
charities would supply insurance for their workers'
other health services; employees who also want
contraceptives would get them from the insurers.
What's unclear is who actually pays for the drugs —
the insurers or the employers? If insurers simply
divert money from health premiums paid by the
religious institutions to cover contraceptive costs,
then employers who have religious objections to buying
these drugs will end up footing the bill. We'll all
learn, as more details come forward, whether this new
directive is a full recognition of religious rights,
or a shell game.
Our previously stated opinion, offered Feb. 3, hasn't
changed: The Obama administration, by not providing a
broad conscience exemption for this insurance mandate,
is denying Roman Catholic and other religions their
right — the first right enumerated in the First
Amendment — to freely live by their faith.
This is, though, a useful debate: Mandated
contraception coverage is but the latest twist in an
endless American discussion about religious freedom.
In the course of this debate, though, the White House
and some proponents of compulsory coverage have relied
on four fallacies
that ought to give all of us pause — not only in this
instance, but in the next, and in all that come after
Even Catholics say ... : While
leaders of many faiths have objected to any
contraceptive coverage mandate, no one has spoken more
vociferously than the U.S. Conference of Catholics
Bishops. Last week, though, The New York Times
reported that a majority of Catholics favor the
contraceptive mandate, according to "recent polls
which Obama officials were pointing to on Tuesday ...
" Problem already. What a majority of self-described
Catholics (or Presbyterians or Sunni Muslims) thinks
is of great importance to discussions, maybe
disagreements, within each faith. But disagreement
within the faith doesn't abrogate the constitutional
right to practice that faith free of government
Public opinion polls find ... : Planned
Parenthood and other supporters of a mandate pointed
last week to broader polling results showing that a
majority of all Americans, not just Catholics, agree
with mandated coverage. That's good to know. But to
the extent this argument suggests that public opinion
should dictate government policy in matters of
conscience, no other questions asked, then this is
perilous turf. Example: Should opponents of capital
punishment surrender their objections because, in the
most recent polling reported on its website, Gallup
finds that Americans continue to favor the death
penalty, 61 percent to 35 percent?
We offered a grace period: White
House spokesman Jay Carney, among others, has noted
that the original mandate included a one-year
enforcement delay. The stated intent was to give
religiously affiliated employers time to adjust.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Archbishop Timothy
Dolan of New
York puzzled over that
delay — "as if we might suddenly be more willing to
violate our consciences 12 months from now." If any
government action is an affront to a constitutional
right, waiting a year to implement its enforcement
doesn't make it any less objectionable.
If you keep to yourselves, you're exempt: Obama's
Friday to distinguish between "religious
organizations" and "religious institutions" suggests
that he still sees the latter as different, because
they serve many people of other faiths, or of no
faith. By that reckoning, the University of Notre Dame
isn't exempted from a mandate that might exempt, say,
the offices of Chicago's
archdiocese. The head of Catholic Charities USA wryly
observed early on that Jesus and his apostles wouldn't
get an exemption from the Obama mandate, because they
ministered to people of other faiths. The Union of
Orthodox Jewish Congregations objects that the White
House position essentially is that "if a religious
entity is not insular, but engaged with broader
society, it loses its 'religious' character and
liberties. ... The administration's ruling makes the
price of such an outward approach the violation of an
organization's religious principles." Like the grace
period, the administration's reluctance to offer a
blanket exemption doesn't relieve believers from what
they see as a collision of legal directive and
We don't yet know every detail of the Obama
administration's evolving policies on contraception.
We do, though, take seriously the concerns — from the Constitution
forward — that religious freedom is a frail
thing, easily abused or neglected. Given that American
heritage, the White House may have a difficult time
establishing in federal courts that the policy
separation of religious organizations and religious
institutions is anything more than a distinction
without a difference.
The right thing for President Obama to do is to
exempt from his rules any entity that would be forced
to contravene its religious teachings and beliefs. The
president needs to consult what should be, in this and
future similar disputes, our nation's guiding
Make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.
Sound familiar? Many people gave their lives to
protect those words — especially the unequivocal "no."
Persecution Increased Most In Sudan, Nigeria,
by: Compass Direct News
January 4, 2012
By Jeff M.
and northern Nigeria
saw steeper increases in persecution against
Christians than 48 other nations where Christians
suffered abuse last year, according to an annual
ranking by Christian support organization Open Doors.
– where northern Christians experienced greater
vulnerability after southern Sudan
seceded in a July referendum, and where Christians
were targeted amid isolated military conflicts –
jumped 19 places last year from its 2010 ranking, from
35th to 16th, according to Open Doors’ 2012 World
Watch List. In northern Nigeria, a rash of Islamist
bombings, guerrilla-style attacks and increased
government restrictions on Christians contributed to
the region leaping by 10 on the list, from 23rd to
“Nigeria continues to be the country where the worst
atrocities in terms of loss of life occur, with over
300 Christians losing their lives this year, though
the true number is thought to be far higher,”
according to the Open Doors report, noting that the
Islamic extremist Boko Haram (literally, “Western
learning is forbidden”) became increasingly violent
across the reporting period through most of 2011.
As it has the previous nine years, North Korea
topped the list as the country where Christians are
most persecuted, with a persecution index of 88. The
list is based on a questionnaire filled out by Open
Doors in-country field personnel and cross-checked
with independent experts. Countries are then ranked
according to their points total, or index.
and northern Nigeria
saw their persecution indices rise more than other
countries’ – Sudan
by 16.5, from 37 in 2010 to 53.5 last year, and
by 9, from 44 to 55. The persecution index for three
other countries rose by at least 5 points – Egypt from 47.5 to
from 30 to 36, and Indonesia
from 26.5 to 31.5.
In terms of ranking, Egypt
landed at 15 in the 2012 list after being ranked 19
last January, before political chaos loosened the grip
on Islamic extremists; Ethiopia
went from 43rd to 38th place, and Indonesia
from 48th to 43rd place. Most of the countries on the
list, 38 out of 50, have an Islamic majority –
including nine of the top 10.
“As the 2012 World Watch List reflects, the
persecution of Christians in these Muslim countries
continues to increase,” said Carl Moeller,
president/CEO of Open Doors USA. “While many thought
the Arab Spring would bring increased freedom,
including religious freedom for minorities, that
certainly has not been the case so far.”
In the case of Sudan,
the secession of mainly Christian southern Sudan left Christians
in (north) Sudan
“much more isolated under President Omar al-Bashir,”
who is wanted for crimes against humanity, according
to the Open Doors report.
“In response to the loss of the south, he has vowed
to make his country even more Islamic, promising
constitutional changes,” the report states. “On the
ground, however, Christian communities have been
attacked in complex battles over resources, and
estimates of thousands killed by the Sudanese military
are known of, yet impossible to verify.”
Territorial violence flared on border areas with
South Sudan in the provinces of Abyei, South Kordofan
and Blue Nile, and
“Christian communities were disproportionately
affected,” according to the report.
In Egypt, a bomb attack on a Coptic church in
Alexandria killed at least 21 Christians on New Year’s
Day, 2011, and the Feb. 11 ouster of President Hosni
Mubarak was followed by a series of Islamic extremist
attacks on Christians that culminated in the Maspero
massacre in Cairo on Oct. 9, “when the military turned
on its own citizens,” killing 27 Coptic Christian
demonstrators, the report notes.
“Some were shot by soldiers or ran over by tanks,
while others were killed by Muslim extremists,” the
report states. “At the closing of 2011, Islamist
parties flourished in the November elections,
prompting some to speak of an Arab Winter instead of
an Arab Spring for Christians.”
moved from 20th place to 21st on the list, “mainly due
to other countries comparatively getting worse,”
though it still has the world’s largest persecuted
church of 80 million, the report notes. That it
dropped out of the top 20 this year “is due in large
part to the house church pastors knowing how to play
‘cat and mouse’ with the government,” the report
states – that is, knowing how not to attract the
attention of authorities, such as not putting up
church name signs, limiting worship attendance to no
more than 200, and not singing too loudly.
A new addition to the list is Kazakhstan at 45th
place, and Colombia
returned to the list at 47th after being absent in the
2011 and 2010 editions.
moved onto the list due to the passage of “an invasive
and restrictive religion law” requiring the
re-registration of all religious communities, the
report notes. The law will make youth work virtually
illegal and put all religious acts under government
scrutiny, it adds.
had been included on the World Watch List annually
before 2010, with left-wing insurgencies as well as
paramilitary groups targeting Christian pastors.
During the reporting period these movements “have
branched into narco-trafficking, and Christian leaders
that will not cooperate in the drug trade are targeted
for assassination,” the report notes. “Five were
killed this year, and it is thought the number could
be as high as 20.”
After North Korea,
the top 10 on the list are Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, the Maldives, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Pakistan.
entered the top 10 for the first time with a spike in
radical Islamist violence that included the
assassination of the nation’s highest-ranking
Christian politician, Federal Minister for Minorities
Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, for his efforts to change Pakistan’s
SAUDI ARABIA - MODERATE VOICE OR
Saudi Arabia’s hardline
ultra-conservative religious council, the Majlis
al-Ifta’ al-A’ala working in conjunction with Kamal
Subhi, a former professor at the King Fahd University,
have just released a ‘scientific study’ that has come
to some rather outlandish conclusions.
In response to the growing pressure
from women’s groups in Saudi Arabia
to lift the ban on women driving, the report has
warned that doing so would "provoke a surge in
prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."
Within ten years of the ban being lifted, the report’s
authors claim, there would be "no more virgins" in the
Islamic kingdom. And it pointed out "moral decline"
could already be seen in other Muslim countries where
women are allowed to drive.
Just a few weeks earlier, the
Kingdom’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and
the Prevention of Vice has proposed a law to stop
women from revealing their "tempting" eyes to the
public. Should this law be passed, it would in effect,
force Saudi women to more or less cover their entire
bodies from head to toe – including their eyes.
clearly is passing through a stressful period: not
because the Crown Prince died earlier this year and
his likely successors are all tottering through their
twilight years; not because the Kingdom’s arch rival,
is driving for a deployable nuclear weapon; nor even
because revolutionary forces are sweeping the region.
No, to all indications in the international media, the
real problem is all the Mutawain (Saudi morals police)
jockeying for extra duty to select exactly which
female eyes henceforth will have to be covered in
This is the absurdity of Saudi Arabia
today. Even as its aging royal rulers (King Abdullah
is 88 years old) observe fellow Arab regimes going
down around them like ten pins, the Kingdom’s
leadership knows it lacks the most basic resources of
a modern state to meet the inevitable demands of its
youthful population. It’s not that this brutal police
state lacks the repressive security forces or material
resources to deal with a popular protest movement.
It’s that neither these, nor all the vast oil wealth
in the Peninsula, can stop the sands of time which are
rapidly counting down the hours on a regime decked in
the gaudy glitz of modern excess but trapped in a
savage mindset from the 7th century.
A new book “Saudi Arabia and
the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the
West’s Fatal Embrace,” presents a disturbing look at
the realities of the Saudi Kingdom, whose rigid
Wahhabist Islamic code locks it into a bigoted,
jihadist, misogynist world view grounded in
anti-Western animus and Jew-hatred. Without the
Saudis’ key role in the global oil-based economy and
calculated largesse to policymakers, think tanks, and
universities to help smooth the way, it surely would
be an uphill slog otherwise for their armies of
well-heeled lobbyists. As it is, for decades the
Saudis have counted on petro-dollars and Western
cupidity to ensure official submissiveness in the face
of blatant financial support to Muslim terrorist
groups, mega-mosques and Islamic Centers, and the
shariah-promoting literature and textbooks that stoke
jihad in all of them.
Before the well-organized onslaught
of the so-called “Arab Spring” in 2011, the SaudiKingdom may well have
believed its most critical challenges came from its
Shi’ite Persian nemesis across the Gulf and Iran’s
Sunni al-Qa’eda allies on the Peninsula (AQAP). In the
space of months, however, it was no longer a question
of escaping the turmoil but of damage control. Having
dispatched three more-or-less secular dictatorships in
2011, the al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood forces on
the march across North Africa
have made no secret of their intent to take aim at
“corrupt” monarchs next year. A young, restless
population with inadequate opportunities for
meaningful work, next to zero approved social outlets,
and plenty of access to the latest technology toys
with which to view how the rest of the 21st century
world lives, leaves an unprepared Saudi leadership
facing the inevitable clamor for expanded political
and social rights.
Only the lack of an organized
opposition characterized by the total absence of
political parties or trade unions and real fear among
the Saudi urban middle class that revolt against the
House of Saud could set loose chaos that would split
apart the country’s regional, religious, and sectarian
fault lines have kept the place together this long.
But it is Western, especially American, willingness to
turn a blind eye to Saudi terror funding, support for
the Da’wa stealth jihad campaign led by the Muslim
Brotherhood, and backing for the spread of Shariah
Compliant Finance that enables the charade of Saudi
“partnership” to stand.
A few crumbs like King Abdullah’s
September 2011 decree that Saudi women will be allowed
to serve in parliament in 2012 and vote and stand as
candidates in 2015 municipal elections are hardly
enough to satisfy the pent-up energy of the 50% of the
Saudi population whose every move in life remains
chained to primitive, misogynistic and often violent
notions of gender roles. Even as Saudi society
deprives itself of intellectual and professional
contributions from half its population, its aging,
hypocritical rulers indulge in polygamous and
hedonistic lifestyles According to a WikiLeaks
cable from 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh reported
that King Abdullah "remains a heavy smoker, regularly
receives hormone injections and 'uses Viagra
Change is coming to the Saudi
desert kingdom whether the Saudis are ready or not.
All things considered, trends already in motion do not
look good over the long-term for the House of Saud, no
matter how many hundreds of billions the King hands
out. Foreign policy outreach to establish a network of
economic and political ties with potential global
partners such as China, Japan, and Russia is not a bad
idea either, just inadequate to deal with what is
essentially an internal problem: how to unleash the
potential of all Saudis to compete in the modern world
and loose the shackles that have hobbled them since
the dawn of Islam.
Saudi youth, both male and female,
have some choices to make, choices their diminishingly
lucid elders probably cannot make, about what kind of
society they want to live in. U.S. and Western
leaderships have some shackles of their own to cast
off, beginning with energy dependence and willful
blindness about the Saudi commitment to shariah Islam,
jihad, and the subjugation of Dar al-Harb (the
non-Muslim world) to Dar al-Islam (the Muslim world)
Absent is the realization that equality, individual
liberty, minority protection, pluralism, rule of
man-made law, and tolerance are the building blocks of
civil society that undergird a true democracy, and
that these things are not necessarily genetically
coded in human beings but must be defended and
nourished, neither the House of Saud nor American
exceptionalism can expect to weather intact the storms
Clare M. Lopez, a senior
fellow at the Clarion Fund, is a strategic policy
and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle
East, national defense, and counterterrorism
US Government to apply
peer pressure to your Islamophobia
December 14, 2011
by J.E. Dyer
Hillary Clinton’s promise on this matter has been out
there for months, but a virtually unadvertised
conference in Washington,
D.C. this week has
resurrected the Clinton quote
from July 2011.
Back in July, at a conference of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul,
Clinton pledged that
would take action against “religious intolerance” in America.
It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on that.
said, in her remarks, “No country, including my own,
has a monopoly on truth or a secret formula for ethnic
and religious harmony.” But if any country comes
close to having such a monopoly, it is, in fact, the United States.
One of the core principles of our founding was
religious freedom; the purpose of guaranteeing it was,
explicitly, to discourage religious strife; and to
fulfill that purpose, the drafters of the Constitution
prohibited Congress from making any law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
The US has
not avoided religious enmity entirely, but we have
kept the law and the government on
the side of enforcing a peaceful, quiescent
environment for the practice of religion, to a greater
extent than any other nation that has ever
existed. This environment has existed side by
side with robust and sometimes disgusting criticisms
of other people’s religions, which we have always
allowed as free speech.
And it is worth taking another moment to remember why
we determined to allow such free speech. We
didn’t do it because it is “good,” in any positive
sense, for people to say vile things about each
other’s beliefs. It may be perfectly good, or at
least not repulsive, for people to say reasonably
critical things about religious beliefs. But
whether it’s ridiculous allegations about Jews, absurd
accusations against Catholics, or today’s fresh-milled
20-something atheists calling Christians
“Christofascists,” the point of free speech was never
to encourage idiocies of this kind on the theory that
we need more of them.
The point of free speech is to keep the government
out of the business of deciding whether they’re “bad”
or “good.” Government is incompetent to decide
such questions, and they should therefore not be
within its scope of authority. Precisely because
government has civic authority, its
involvement in classifying critical speech should be
somewhere between severely limited and
non-existent. The step from government having an
opinion to government repressing intellectual freedom
is perilously short. Government can’t wave a
magic wand to kindly and gently fix people’s thoughts;
it has only the hammer of force and punishment, and
that means making every unapproved thought into a
“nail.” The American Founders understood this
about government, and insisted therefore on keeping
its powers limited, constitutionally explicit, and
So when Hillary Clinton promises the following,
she is on wholly un-American, anti-liberal ground
In the United States
… we are focused on promoting interfaith education and
collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws,
protecting the rights of all people to worship as they
choose, and to use some old-fashioned
techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so
that people don’t feel that they have the support to
do what we abhor.
OK, so the US
government is going to use peer pressure and shaming
on us. (The tools, by the way, of “worker
soviets” in the sanguinary workers’ paradises of the
What exactly is it that we abhor? Elizabeth
Kendal has an excellent summary at her Religious
Liberty Monitoring website of the history behind the
UN push to “combat religious intolerance,” and it is
worth talking the time to understand how a number of
terms – Islamophobia, “defamation” of religion, and
“incitement” against religion – have been conflated
over the last decade. Getting forms of
intellectual discretion wrapped up in “what we abhor”
is an ongoing project in the misnamed effort to
“combat religious intolerance.”
But another entry point is the definition of
“Islamophobia” cited by the typical Islamophobia
watchdog. The definition was produced by a
British think tank, The Runnymede Trust, in the 1990s,
and was consciously constructed as an analogue to
definitions of Judeophobia or anti-Semitism.
These are its basic elements:
1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static
and unresponsive to change.
2) Islam is seen as separate and “other.” It
does not have values in common with other cultures, is
not affected by them and does not influence them.
3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is
seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive,
threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a
“clash of civilizations.”
5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is
used for political or military advantage.
6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are
rejected out of hand.
7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify
discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion
of Muslims from mainstream society.
8)Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
Most of these elements are susceptible of extremely
ambiguous interpretation. Credentialed academics
like Samuel Huntington and Victor Davis Hanson would
be indicted by some of them. And in almost any
case you can think of, deciding that these criteria
correctly classify the actions of non-Muslims is a
matter not of objective judgment but of partisan
Regarding #6, for example, both non-Muslims and
Muslims are likely to reject some criticisms from each
other out of hand – because our beliefs about some
things are fundamentally different. There are
Muslim leaders, after all, who constantly reject
Western criticisms of sharia out of hand. And
there are Muslim leaders who don’t. There is no
valid reason why any Westerner should be charged with
“Islamophobia” for ignoring or rejecting criticisms of
Western practices by Muslims.
Consider the practice of veiling women. When an
imam criticizes Western society for failing to veil
women, I have no heartburn whatsoever in rejecting
that criticism as invalid and inapplicable to my life
and my society. How absurd to suggest that I am
being “Islamophobic” by doing this.
I recognize, of course, that many Muslim women don’t
wear a veil, and many clerics are fine with
that. Muslims don’t do the same things in every
part of the world. And I prefer civic approaches
in the West that seek to live with the practice of
veiling where it is important to some citizens.
I disagree with the veil being imposed on women, but
99% of the time, the issue isn’t one that affects me
directly or requires me to register an official
But the fundamental issue here is the status of
women. Declaring it to be a “phobia” when people
adhere to their original opinions about that is something
no government should
be in the business of doing.
At what point would a government decide that it was not
Islamophobia when a person “rejected out of hand”
criticisms of the West made by “Islam”? Where
would the line be drawn? Can I reject, for
example, Islam’s criticism that the West doesn’t
accept Mohammed as a prophet of God? Or does
this criterion indicate that I am allowed to reject
it, but only after giving some positive display of
having considered it without “prejudice”? And if
so, how will that work, exactly? Will I carry a
card with me, certifying that I was observed by a
competent authority to give due consideration to the
criticisms of my society made by Islamic leaders?
This is not a laughing matter; the 20th century was a
vast, vicious playground for exactly such measures of
control over the intellectual lives of peoples and
societies. The criticism we should be leveling
here is not against “Islam” or “Muslims,” it is
against our own government, and the factions of our
own, Western/American political spectrum that conceive
of government as a method of administering anti-phobia
The idea of government, for too many in America,
has gone wildly off-track. Hillary Clinton’s
acknowledgment that the Obama administration can’t
make black-letter laws against free expression about
Islam, but that it will use peer pressure and shaming
to try to shape and discourage the people’s
expression, is a perfect example of the corruption of
the governmental idea in our once-constitutional
nation. Our basic problem in this regard is not
Islam; our problem is the growing failure of our
governments at all levels to adhere to America’s
standard of individual liberty and limited
government. We chose that standard not because
criticism of others is necessarily or absolutely
“good,” but because intellectual liberty itself is.
Judaism and Christianity are, along with Western
philosophy, the progenitors of that idea of
liberty. The positive, absolute good of liberty
is what we must proclaim and defend. And in our
nation, on our terms, Islam has the opportunity to
thrive as Judaism and Christianity have, by being
consistent with it. It cannot be the other way
J.E. Dyer’s articles
have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,”
Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own
blog, The Optimistic Conservative.
If you want an indication of how Republicans – whoever
their presidential nominee is – will run against
President Obama, check out this slick new video from the
Republican National Committee.
The video is made up largely of Obama’s own words;
from his ’08 campaign and his Yahoo/ABC News interview
with George Stephanopoulos when he said Americans
“aren’t better off than they were four years ago.”
Also note the use of images from the Occupy Wall
Street protests to make it look as though the primary
target of the movement is President Obama.
Burma Crackdown On Local
Bible Studies, Worship, report
October 31, 2011
By BosNewsLife Asia Service
RANGOON, BURMA (BosNewsLife)-- Authorities in Burma,
also known as Myanmar, are imposing new restrictions
on Christian and other religious activities in the
Kachin State region, an influential religious rights
group said Monday, October 31.
Britain-based Christian Solidarity
Worldwide (CSW), which has investigated the situation
said local churches have received a letter warning
them that advance permission is required for events
such as worship and Bible studies.
CSW told BosNewsLife that the letter titled
“Concerning Christians conducting cultural training"
was send on October 14 by the government's Chairman of
Maw Wan Ward in PhakantTownship.
The document "refers to an order by the General
Township Administration Department requiring
Christians in Phakant Township to submit a request at
least 15 days in advance for permission to conduct
"short-term Bible study, Bible study, Sunday school,
reading the Bible, fasting prayer, Seasonal Bible
study and Rosary of the Virgin Mary Prayer," CSW
"A request for permission must be accompanied by
recommendations from other departments, and must be
submitted to the Township Administration Office."
CSW said it had obtained a copy of the document in
Burmese, and a translation, last week. Churches in Burma
are already required to obtain permission for any
events other than Sunday services, but this new
regulation "imposes further severe restrictions,"
according to CSW investigators.
CSW's East Asia Team Leader Benedict Rogers said
that “For many years, successive Burmese regimes have
suppressed freedom of religion and imposed serious
restrictions on Christians and other religious
said both "Christians and Muslims in particular
have been the target of discrimination and
persecution. It appears that despite changes in
rhetoric, there has been no change of attitude,
particularly at a local level, on the part of Burmese
authorities to religious minorities."
He claimed that Burma
is already "regarded as one of the world’s worst
violators of religious freedom" and is one of the
United States State Department’s 'Countries of
Particular Concern' list.
"To impose a requirement on churches and individuals
to seek permission to read the Bible, pray, fast and
hold a Sunday school is an extreme restriction and an
extraordinary further violation of freedom of
He added that his group had urged Burmese authorities
to withdraw this requirement, in PhakantTownship and in any other
parts of the country where it may have been issued,
"and to uphold freedom of religion for all the people
Additionally CSW has urged the Burmese government to
invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur for
Freedom of Religion or Belief to visit the country,
"and conduct an independent investigation.”
Burmese officials have not reacted to the latest
allegations. However Burma's
government has in the past denied wrongdoing
describing reports to the contrary as "Western" or "U.S.
A lawyer linked through the Council on American
Islamic Relations to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood
has been identified as the driving force behind the
Occupy Orlando protests that have been staged in
Johnson Park, according to a video report from Tom
Trento of the Florida Security Council and The United
The report from the organization that "educates and
activates freedom minded people" to strategize the
propagation of the exceptionalism of Western
civilization over "the totalitarian choke-hold of
Shariah Islam" explains that the same attorney who
represented the Islam-bent parents in the famous Rifqa
Bary dispute obtained the permit for the Occupy
Orlando event and was on scene giving directions.
"You're not going to believe ... the evidence ...
that links this movement with a key Muslim individual
who's associated with CAIR and the Muslim
Brotherhood," Trento explains on the video. "This
individual has assumed a leadership [role] if [he is]
not the leader of this movement in Orlando."
The "Muslim activist lawyer" was identified as Shayan
Elahi, who was the losing counsel for the parents of
Rifqa Bary in a custody dispute that developed in
Bary fled the Ohio home of her Muslim parents because
she accused them of threatening her after they
discovered her conversion to Christianity. She
traveled as a teenager on her own to friends in
Florida, and ultimately gained her independence when
she turned 18.
Elahi was counsel for Bary's parents when they were
seeking to have her returned home. CAIR also was
integral to the parents' strategies regarding their
daughter and the various parties cooperated on the
Trento’s video report about Elahi's activities at
The presence of Elahi at the events, and his
signature on the permit that was issued for the
gathering are not the only indications of a radical
element behind the "occupations."
Trento noted that the "Occupy Orlando" FaceBook page
reads; " ... we plan to use the revolutionary Arab
Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy
The group Mass Resistance reported that old-stream
media reports on the Occupy Boston protests, "the
flood of communist, anarchist, anti-Israel, and
similar literature that permeates ... is simply
The organization's visit to the scene of the protests
found "political ideology of communism, socialism and
anarchism, with additions of anti-Israel, pro-Muslim,
law-breaking, and other radical advocacy.
"Plus, like so many left-wing venues after a few
days, the park they've taken over is now filthy and
smells of urine."
In Egypt and in several other countries of North
Africa in recent months, uncontrolled demonstrations
and protests have led to upheaval, and those factions
have been blamed for the overthrow of Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak and other leaders friendly to
Their replacements have been almost without exception
those groups and organizations linked to the Muslim
Brotherhood, a faction that has a worldwide Islamic
caliphate as one of its goals.
The Florida Independent was able to reach Elahi, who
confirmed he was at the protests, "volunteering [his]
legal services as just another proud American and a
member of the movement."
Trento reveals in his
video how Elahi repeatedly tried to intimidate his
crew at the Orlando protests, pointedly calling him a
"bigot" and a "racist bigot."
"Anyone think attorney Elahi, who lost the Rifqa Bary
case, lost the race for a judgeship, is looking for a
place to mark up his first win by co-opting an
incoherent movement primarily made up of 'hippies and
anarchists' so that he can build a political base for
his Islamic goals?" Trento asked.
"We attended the 'Occupy Orlando' event to analyze
and understand this movement, but the anger of an
insecure Muslim attorney may have provided for us an
important component to understand and defeat the
cultural jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood, right here
in beautiful, sunny Florida," he wrote.
Tom Tillison from the Florida Political Press also
reported what Trento discovered: that the permit for
the event was signed by Elahi.
Tillison also raised the issue of the city's
concessions for the group, noting that while the
permit was supposed to be submitted three days in
advance, it actually was submitted and approved for a
protest within 24 hours. And the application states
the time was supposed to be from 8 a.m. until 8:59
p.m. on Oct. 15, yet the group remains camped there
"Does this mean that the protesters are in violation
of city ordinances government the use of city owned
Finally, he wondered about the extended stay, since
there are no restrooms on site.
RANGOON, BURMA (BosNewsLife)-- Authorities in Burma,
also known as Myanmar, are imposing new restrictions
on Christian and other religious activities in the
Kachin State region, an influential religious rights
group said Monday, October 31.
Britain-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW),
which has investigated the situation in Burma,
said local churches have received a letter warning
them that advance permission is required for events
such as worship and Bible studies.
CSW told BosNewsLife that the letter titled
“Concerning Christians conducting cultural training"
was send on October 14 by the government's Chairman of
Maw Wan Ward in PhakantTownship.
The document "refers to an order by the General
Township Administration Department requiring
Christians in Phakant Township to submit a request at
least 15 days in advance for permission to conduct
"short-term Bible study, Bible study, Sunday school,
reading the Bible, fasting prayer, Seasonal Bible
study and Rosary of the Virgin Mary Prayer," CSW
"A request for permission must be accompanied by
recommendations from other departments, and must be
submitted to the Township Administration Office."
CSW said it had obtained a copy of the document in
Burmese, and a translation, last week. Churches in Burma
are already required to obtain permission for any
events other than Sunday services, but this new
regulation "imposes further severe restrictions,"
according to CSW investigators.
CSW's East Asia Team Leader Benedict Rogers said
that “For many years, successive Burmese regimes have
suppressed freedom of religion and imposed serious
restrictions on Christians and other religious
said both "Christians and Muslims in particular
have been the target of discrimination and
persecution. It appears that despite changes in
rhetoric, there has been no change of attitude,
particularly at a local level, on the part of Burmese
authorities to religious minorities."
He claimed that Burma
is already "regarded as one of the world’s worst
violators of religious freedom" and is one of the
United States State Department’s 'Countries of
Particular Concern' list.
"To impose a requirement on churches and individuals
to seek permission to read the Bible, pray, fast and
hold a Sunday school is an extreme restriction and an
extraordinary further violation of freedom of
He added that his group had urged Burmese authorities
to withdraw this requirement, in PhakantTownship and in any other
parts of the country where it may have been issued,
"and to uphold freedom of religion for all the people
Additionally CSW has urged the Burmese government to
invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur for
Freedom of Religion or Belief to visit the country,
"and conduct an independent investigation.”
Burmese officials have not reacted to the latest
allegations. However Burma's
government has in the past denied wrongdoing
describing reports to the contrary as "Western" or "U.S.
WND Exclusive Congressman to keynote CAIR
fundraiser with terror co-conspirator D.C.
group identified by FBI as Hamas-front features
workshops on countering 'anti-Shariah campaign'
1:00 am Eastern
Democratic Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia is headlining a
fundraiser this weekend for the controversial Council
on American-Islamic Relations along with an imam tied
to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who urges the
violent overthrow of the "filthy" U.S. government and
the establishment of Islamic law.
CAIR's 17th annual banquet Saturday at the Crystal
Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va., features the theme
"Making Democracy Work for Everyone."
Imam Siraj Wahhaj, designated by the Justice
Department as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the
WTC bombing, is promoted as a keynote speaker along
The evening banquet concludes a day-long leadership
conference offering workshops on subjects such as
"counteracting Islamophobia," "challenging
scapegoating of Muslims in the 2012 election" and
countering "the anti-Shariah campaign," referring to
state legislative efforts to ensure Islamic law is not
implemented in the U.S.
As WND reported, Moran, a longtime supporter of CAIR,
was forced to step down from his leadership role as
regional whip in 2003 after he blamed the influence of
the Jewish community for the U.S. war in Iraq.
Wahhaj's presence at CAIR's 2009 annual banquet
prompted an activist group to launch a campaign to
urge the hosting hotel, the venue for this year's
event, to cancel.
As WND reported, Wahhaj, a regular CAIR fundraiser
and a former member of its advisory board, initially
was a featured speaker but ended up giving only a
short fundraising appeal at the banquet.
As late as nine days prior to the 2009 banquet, CAIR
featured Wahhaj and White House adviser Dalia Mogahed
in its promotions as its two marquee names. But on the
eve of the event – after WND reports of Wahhaj's
radical views as documented in WND Books' best-seller
"Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's
Conspiring to Islamize America" – a press release did
not even mention them.
Wahhaj is one of many Muslim leaders affiliated with
CAIR who have been named or prosecuted in U.S.
terrorism-related investigations. CAIR itself was
named by the Justice Department as an "unindicted
co-conspirator" in the Holy Land Foundation probe in
Texas, the largest terrorism-finance case in U.S.
An imam at Masjid Al-Taqwa in Brooklyn, Wahhaj is on
record urging a violent overthrow of the "filthy" U.S.
government assisted by jihad warriors armed with Uzis.
In a videotaped May 8, 1992, sermon obtained by the
authors of "Muslim Mafia" titled "Stand Up for
Justice," Wahhaj makes it clear that, contrary to
CAIR's media guide, he believes jihad means "holy
war," not merely a "struggle to better oneself."
"If we go to war, brothers and sisters – and one day
we will, believe me – that's why you're commanded [to
fight in] jihad," the Brooklyn-based Wahhaj says.
"When Allah demands us to fight, we're not stopping
and nobody's stopping us."
Wahhaj preaches that Islam teaches violent
insurrection in "infidel lands" such as America,
points out the "Muslim Mafia" co-authors,
counterterrorism investigator Gaubatz and
"Infiltration" author Paul Sperry.
"Believe me, brothers and sisters, Muslims in America
are the most strategic Muslims on Earth," Wahhaj says
in the 1992 sermon, arguing the government can't drop
bombs on warring Muslims in the U.S. without causing
The American government's "worst nightmare is one day
that the Muslims wake these people up in South Central
Los Angeles and other inner-city areas," he says in
Wahhaj exhorts the faithful to go into the "hood and
the prisons and convert disenfranchised minorities,
and then arm them and train them to carry out an Uzi
jihad in the inner cities."
"We don't need to arm the people with
nine-millimeters and Uzis," he says. "You need to arm
them with righteousness first. And then once you arm
them with righteousness first, then you can arm them
[with Uzis and other weapons]."
CAIR tells the public in its media guide, however,
"There is a common misperception among Westerners that
the Quran teaches violence."
Wahhaj makes it clear, nevertheless, he sees Islam as
a uniquely militant religion.
Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson obtained a video
of a Wahhaj speech in Toronto Sept. 28, 1991, titled
"The Afghanistan Jihad" in which the imam declared:
Those who struggle for Allah, it
doesn't matter what kind of weapons, I'm telling you
it doesn't matter! You don't need nuclear weapons or
even guns! If you have faith in Allah and a knife! If
Allah wants you to win, you will win! Because Allah is
the only one who fights. And when his hand is over
your hand. whoever is at war against my friends, I
declare war on them.
Citing Emerson, "Muslim Media" notes Wahhaj once
likened the U.S. to a trash bin and prayed it would
"crumble" and be replaced by Islam.
"You know what this country is? It's a garbage can,"
Wahhaj said. "It's filthy."
Texas School District Fully
Vindicates Christian Student After Wrongful Suspension
October 11, 2011
Liberty Alerts, Liberty
The Fort Worth Independent School District has issued
a letter to Liberty Counsel fully vindicating high
school freshman Dakota Ary, who was given in-school
suspension for telling another student that he
believes homosexuality is wrong because of his
Christian faith. The letter is in response to Liberty
Counsel’s demand letter requesting full vindication
and a full retraction of the suspension. The
district’s letter will be placed in Dakota’s permanent
file to further clear his record. Liberty Counsel is
representing Dakota in this case.
The District’s letter apologized for the delay in
returning Dakota back to the classroom, and stated
that “Dakota has the right to express an opinion in a
manner consistent with law and policy.”
Dakota was in Kristopher Franks’ German language
class at Western Hills High School when the topic of
homosexuality arose. Dakota said to one of his
classmates, “I’m a Christian and, to me, being
homosexual is wrong.” Franks overheard the comment,
wrote Dakota an infraction, and sent him to the
principal’s office. The class topic was religious
beliefs in Germany. During the discussion, one student
asked what Germans thought about homosexuality in
relation to religion. Another student then asked to
hear some translated terms such as “lesbian.” These
questions provoked the conversation about Christianity
and Dakota’s expression of his opinion to one
The discipline referral form says the comment was out
of context, even though the lesson for the day was on
religious beliefs. Franks charged Dakota with
“possible bullying” and indicated, “It is wrong to
make such a statement in public school.” Two weeks
prior to this event, Franks displayed a picture of two
men kissing on a “World Wall” and told his students
that homosexuality is becoming more prevalent in the
world and that they should just accept it. Many of the
students were offended by Franks’ actions and his
continually bringing up the topic of homosexuality in
a German language class. Franks was temporarily placed
on administrative leave with pay last week.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty
Counsel, commented: “We are pleased that the school
district vindicated Dakota Ary. No public school
teacher should use the position of authority to bully
students to accept homosexuality. That is what this
teacher did, and he got his hand caught in the cookie
jar. We want to make sure this never again happens to
US Bishops Defend the
Freedom of Religion in the Face of Growing Threats
of Catholic Bishops Office of Media Relations
WASHINGTON, DC (USCCB) - The U.S. bishops
have established a new Ad Hoc Committee for Religious
Liberty to address growing concerns over the erosion
of freedom of religion in America. Archbishop Timothy
M. Dolan, president of the United Sates Conference of
Catholic Bishops (USCCB), established the ad hoc
committee after consulting with the USCCB
Administrative Committee during the Committee's
September 13-14 meeting in Washington.
The Administrative Committee meets three times a year
and conducts the work of the bishops' conference
between plenary sessions. He announced formation of
the ad hoc committee in a September 29 letter to the
U.S. bishops Archbishop Dolan also named Bishop
William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, to chair the
Support for ad hoc committee work will include adding
two full-time staff at the USCCB, a lawyer expert in
the area of religious freedom law, and a lobbyist who
will handle both religious liberty and marriage
Bishop Lori said he welcomed "the opportunity to work
with fellow bishops and men and women of expertise in
constitutional law so as to defend and promote the
God-given gift of religious liberty recognized and
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution
of the United States."
"This ad hoc committee aims to address the increasing
threats to religious liberty in our society so that
the Church's mission may advance unimpeded and the
rights of believers of any religious persuasion or
none may be respected," he added.
In a letter to bishops to announce the ad hoc
committee, Archbishop Dolan said religious freedom "in
its many and varied applications for Christians and
people of faith, is now increasingly and in
unprecedented ways under assault in America."
"This is most particularly so in an increasing number
of federal government programs or policies that would
infringe upon the right of conscience of people of
faith or otherwise harm the foundational principle of
religious liberty," he said. "As shepherds of over 70
million U.S. citizens we share a common and compelling
responsibility to proclaim the truth of religious
freedom for all, and so to protect our people from
this assault which now appears to grow at an ever
accelerating pace in ways most of us could never have
Archbishop Dolan said the committee will work closely
with national organizations, charities, ecumenical and
interreligious partners and scholars "to form a united
and forceful front in defense of religious freedom in
our nation," and its work will begin immediately.
He added that "the establishment of the Ad Hoc
Committee is one element of what I expect to be a new
moment in the history of our Conference. Never before
have we faced this kind of challenge to our ability to
engage in the public square as people of faith and as
a service provider. If we do not act now, the
consequence will be grave."
Archbishop Dolan said that, although he and his
predecessor as USCCB President, Cardinal Francis
George, had sent private letters to President Obama on
religious liberty in the context of redefining
marriage, none of those letters received a response.
"I have offered to meet with the President to discuss
these concerns and to impress upon him the dire nature
of these actions by government," Archbishop Dolan
Archbishop Dolan listed six religious liberty
concerns arising just since June:
-Federal Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) regulations that would mandate the coverage of
contraception (including abortifacients) and
sterilization in all private health insurance plans,
which could coerce church employers to sponsor and pay
for services they oppose. The new rules do not protect
insurers or individuals with religious or moral
objections to the mandate.
-An HHS requirement that USCCB's Migration and
Refugee Services provide the "full range of
reproductive services"-meaning abortion and
contraception-to trafficking victims and unaccompanied
minors in its cooperative agreements and government
contracts. The position mirrors the position urged by
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the
ongoing lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
MRS's contracts as a violation of religious liberty.
-Catholic Relief Services' concern that US Agency for
International Development, under the Department of
State, is increasingly requiring condom distribution
in HIV prevention programs, as well as requiring
contraception within international relief and
-The Justice Department's attack on the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), presenting DOMA's support for
traditional marriage as bigotry. In July, the
Department started filing briefs actively attacking
DOMA's constitutionality, claiming that supporters of
the law could only have been motivated by bias and
prejudice. "If the label of "bigot" sticks to
us-especially in court-because of our teaching on
marriage, we'll have church-state conflicts for years
to come as a result," Archbishop Dolan said.
-The Justice Department's recent attack on the
critically important "ministerial exception," a
constitutional doctrine accepted by every court of
appeals in the country that leaves to churches (not
government) the power to make employment decisions
concerning persons working in a ministerial
capacity.In a case to be heard this term in the U.S.
Supreme Court, the Department attacked the very
existence of the exception.
-New York State's new law redefining marriage, with
only a very narrow religious exemption. Already,
county clerks face legal action for refusing to
participate in same-sex unions, and gay rights
advocates are publicly emphasizing how little
religious freedom protection people and groups will
enjoy under the new law.
Yousef Nardarkhani faces execution on
Posted: 4 October, 2011
Mission Network News
Iran (MNN) ― The life of an Iranian pastor continues to
hang in the balance as the Iranian state media is now
getting involved in the case. 34-year-old Pastor Yousef
Nardarkani was arrested two years ago this month for
protesting Muslim education for his children because he
is a Christian. He was convicted of apostasy, but now
new false charges are being leveled against him.
Todd Nettleton with Voice of the Martyrs says, "Now
they're saying that what he's actually going to be
executed for is not apostasy, not becoming a Christian,
but actually rape and extortion that are the charges
that he will be executed for. So it's really a
180-degree turn for the Iranian government."
According to Nettleton, this is mindboggling. "After an
initial court hearing, an appeal to the Supreme Court,
and then another hearing back at the local court --
after all those hearings where they never talked about
extortion and never talked about rape, now they're
saying he's actually going to be executed for rape and
A bit of good news about this case, according to
Nettleton, is that "the international pressure is
working. The Iranian government is hearing from people
around the world, including regular people like you and
me, as well as government officials and government
agencies. They're saying, 'Listen, you cannot put this
man to death for being a Christian. That's a complete
violation of human rights.' The Iranian government is
hearing that, and it's having an effect."
Please help Pastor Nardarkhani. Nettleton by praying for
him as he continues to be in prison. You can also "go to
PrisonerAlert.com [where] you can write Pastor Yousef
himself and also send e-mails to Iranian government
officials, including the office of President
Ahmodinejad. So we can pray first, and then we can also
have a voice for him, as well."
WASHINGTON — While diplomatically inconvenient for
the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas' attempt to get the U.N. to unilaterally
declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread
sympathy. After all, what choice did he have?
According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace
is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel
that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and
continues to build settlements.
It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the
truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact,
Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to
open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby
creating Israel's first national consensus for a
two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister
to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months —
something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.
To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for
nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out
when the freeze expired. Last month he reiterated that
he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel
gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond
the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish
Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is
not just absurd. It violates every prior peace
agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to
be the subject of negotiations, not their
Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called right of
return,which would demographically destroy Israel by
swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning
the world's only Jewish state into the world's 23rd
Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as
recently as last month in New York: "We shall not
recognize a Jewish state."
Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the
long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:
•Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime
Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian
state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly,
the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem.
Arafat refuses — and makes no counteroffer, thereby
demonstrating his unseriousness about making any
deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage
terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.
•Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton
Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.
•Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the
ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100
percent of the West Bank (with land swaps),
Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with
the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new
Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the
city's holy places, including the Western Wall —
Judaism's most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an
international body which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the
conflict would be over and Palestine would already be
a member of the United Nations.
This is not ancient history. All three peace talks
occurred over the past decade. And every one
completely contradicts the current mindless narrative
of Israeli "intransigence" as the obstacle to peace.
Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the
new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied,
precisely as happened in Gaza.
So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying
yes would have required them to sign a final peace
agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they
consider the Muslim patrimony.
The key word here is "final." The Palestinians are
quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo.
Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires,
like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal.
Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that
ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a
Jewish state still standing.
After all, why did Abbas go to the U.N. last month?
For nearly half a century, the United States has
pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the
formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the
Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace
of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for
peace three times since. And been refused every time.
Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the
U.N.: to get land without peace. Sovereignty
with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state.
Statehood without negotiations. An independent
Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.
This is the reason that, regardless of who is
governing Israel, there has never been peace.
Territorial disputes are solvable; existential
conflicts are not.
Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing
but an invitation to suicide.
Washington Post Writers Group
Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist.
See what Obama
promises Arabs after 2012 election
Democrats fear treatment of Israel is
The Obama administration told the Palestinian
Authority it cannot significantly help advance a
Palestinian state until after the 2012 presidential
elections, a top PA official told WND.
The official, however, said the U.S. will press for a
Palestinian state quickly if President Obama is
"The main message we received from the U.S. is that
nothing will happen in a serious
The PA official said Obama "will not accept the
Palestinian request of a state at the (U.N.) Security
Council and cannot help on the ground for now."
"We were told to wait for Obama's reelection, and
that before then nothing serious will happen for a
state," the official continued. "But after the
reelection, the U.S. said the schedule will be short
to reach a Palestinian state."
Obama's policies toward Israel have been highlighted
in local and national campaigns, with many Democrats
fearing voters will oppose them due to the perception
the president is anti-Israel.
Obama's treatment of Israel was a significant issue
in the recent election of Republican Bob Turner to
former Rep. Anthony Weiner's seat in a district that
had not elected a GOP candidate since 1923.
Also, presidential contenders such as Texas Gov. Rick
Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., have been
strongly criticizing Obama on Israel.
Through the Sanctity of Life Act
Pro-Abortion Judicial Tyranny
the National Prolife Alliance
There is no question that the largest
obstacle in the fight to enact pro-life legislation
to protect the unborn is the federal court system.
Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v.
Wade, the courts have repeatedly thwarted
efforts to enact even the most modest pro-life
a hostile court system resigned to blocking all
meaningful progress, pro-lifers are now turning to
the Constitution to end this pro-abortion judicial
Alliance members are not waiting around for a
pro-life majority on the Supreme Court to demand an
end to abortion-on-demand.
In addition to leading
the fight to protect the Constitutional right to
life of unborn babies from conception by passing a
Life at Conception Act, National Pro-Life Alliance
members are mobilizing grass-roots support for an
additional measure to remove jurisdiction over
abortion from the federal courts.
Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress
the power to limit jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court and the lower federal courts.
And this new legislation in Congress
would do just that.
all authority from the courts to rule on cases
involving abortion, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2011
[H.R. 1096] would restore the authority of popularly
elected officials to pass laws to limit or ban
abortion without interference from unelected,
activist pro-abortion judges.
themselves to pressing for limited laws to slightly
control abortion in the more outrageous cases,
hoping not to offend the courts.
passing the Sanctity of Life Act, Congress can
finally put an end to this judicial tyranny once and
Constitution Explicitly Grants Congress the
Authority to Strip Courts of Jurisdiction
Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
"The Supreme Court
shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law
and fact, with such exceptions, and under such
regulations as the Congress shall make."
such an exception for the issue of abortion,
Congress can finally end judicial tyranny and
abortion-on-demand. And simply by building
grass-roots support to limit judicial overreaching,
the Sanctity of Life Act will pressure activist
judges to watch their step.
cosponsor Representative Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life
Act of 2011 [H.R. 1096] today.
convict pastor for 'giving out Bibles' $300 fine, 1 year
probation, ordered to stay 1,000 feet away from
scene of his 'offense'
Posted: September 01, 2011
By Bob Unruh
The pastor of a Wichita, Kan., church who has spoken
on public streets against homosexuality, the influence
of abortion interests in his state and other biblical
issues says he has been convicted on charges related
to his decision to hand out Bibles at a Muslim mosque
– in a courtroom staffed and filled with Christians.
The counts against Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One
Christian Center, known as the church "without walls,"
technically were two counts of loitering and one count
of disrupting a business.
Click here to read more:
He was convicted by a six-member jury in Wichita
District Court and today was sentenced to a $300 fine,
a year of probation and ordered not to be within 1,000
feet of the Islamic center where last fall he handed
out pamphlets containing portions of the Bible.
What is startling, he told the judge and courtroom
during a 15-minute statement in court, is that the
conviction came about through Christians.
He told the court and judge:
Wichita, you are confused, I am not your enemy, Islam
'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'
Islamists believe that it is okay to lie if it is to
help in the cause of Allah.
My own government called a foreign Islamist to testify
for them against me, a born American, Christian
peacefully handing out free Bibles.
How sad, how incredibly sad.
WND previously reported on the dispute that brought
Holick into court again. At the time of his arrest, he
warned that Islamic law, Shariah, is creeping into
American through preferential treatment provided by
law enforcement and the courts.
Today, he told WND that he was handing out a book
containing English and Arabic versions of the biblical
books of John and Romans, as well as a DVD containing
testimony from former Muslims.
He said he was able to make the accusation against
the court and jurors because of information he's
gotten from those who know the arresting officer and
the judge and the prosecutor's statement about
attending church. Holick said he has dealt with the
city attorney in previous cases, and during jury
selection four of the six jurors affirmed that they
attend a regular Christian service.
He said his attorney talked with jurors after the
conviction and found out they were swayed by the
police statements that Holick didn't move, or didn't
move fast enough, when police instructed him.
Holick had been handing out the Bible portions on a
sidewalk adjacent to the Wichita mosque. He also went
into the driveway where it crossed the sidewalk to do
the same. It apparently was that action that the
police cited for their counts of loitering and
obstructing a business. Holick noted, however, there
was no testimony that he had obstructed anyone.
According to the report in the Wichita Eagle,
Sedgwick County District Judge Phil Journey handed
down the sentence to Holick.
"The only reason you were the one arrested is because
you were the only one who disobeyed the police
orders," the newspaper reported the judge said.
The report also said Journey discussed how the First
Amendment assured Holick's right to express his
religious beliefs but also allowed laws that would
regulate how he practices his faith.
A WND message requesting comment from the court left
after hours was not returned.
Holick told WND he was a little surprised that the
judge let him make a 15-minute statement but noted
that the judge later stated his disagreement with the
He had said, "This is about an idolatrous government
that has rejected the Lord God Jesus. This is about a
government that has turned from the Lord God to the
many gods of pluralism.
"Listen to the 911 call by the mosque. Not one
reference to any traffic problems, no[t] one
indication of cars being blocked. No, it is clear that
the reason they called was because – we were there
peacefully offering free Bibles," he said. "To which
the police, city attorney, and courts were all too
willing to act with expediency and malice to silence
the Gospel of our Lord Jesus."
He continued, "Rest assured, your actions will have a
great chilling effect on the Gospel of our Lord, but I
suspect you know that and are glad. Rest assured that
this conviction is already running through the Wichita
Islamic social network like an August Texas grass
fire. Because I use the public sidewalk to offer
Bibles to those driving out, I stand here before this
He cited a consent decree reached with the city
earlier when he previously was arrested for speaking
of Christianity in a "traditional public forum."
The city paid $11,700 in damages and promised "to
permit Mark Holick to engage in his First Amendment
rights in the future on the same terms and conditions
as all other citizens."
"Honorable men keep their word," Holick said.
In that earlier case Holick was arrested by police
sharing his religious beliefs on a public sidewalk
outside a homosexual festival in the city. He was
arrested but, the charges eventually were dropped, and
he later brought a civil case.
It was settled, and U.S. District Judge Thomas Martin
described the arrest:
Plaintiff was preparing to share his religious
beliefs with others on the public sidewalk near the
entrance of Heritage Park in Wichita, Kansas, where a
Gay Pride event was about to take place … within 5
minutes of arriving at that location, plaintiff was
threatened with arrest if he did not leave, and then
immediately arrested when he refused to leave,
handcuffed, placed in a squad car in front of members
from his church, including adults, youth, and
children, processed at the police station by having
his mug shot taken, fingers printed, and placed in a
cell with others.
The judge noted that all charges against Holick later
were dismissed, and the civil rights complaint was
filed for the wrongful arrest.
"The defendants do not contest that they violated
plaintiff's constitutional rights," the judge wrote.
“Christians shouldn't be penalized for expressing
their beliefs," said Joel Oster, a senior legal
counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which
represented Holick, at the time of the settlement. "We
are pleased city of Wichita officials will now ensure
that Pastor Holick is free to exercise his First
Amendment rights in public without fear of arrest."
Officials in Winchester, Va., will alter their noise
ordinance and adjust its enforcement following a First
Amendment lawsuit against city procedures that
censored speech that might annoy some people,
according to a legal team fighting the battle.
The city agreed to revise the challenged provisions,
halt enforcement until the changes are made and pay
undisclosed monetary damages and attorney's fees,
according to today's announcement from the Rutherford
"We're pleased that the city of Winchester has
finally agreed to recognize that the right to speak
freely cannot to be conditioned upon how others feel
about the message," said John W. Whitehead, president
of the Rutherford Institute. "As former Supreme Court
Justice Hugo Black recognized, 'The very reason for
the First Amendment is to make the people of this
country free to think, speak, write and worship as
they wish, not as the government commands.'"
The issue arose over a city crackdown on a street
preacher's activities. The speaker contended the
policy should be abandoned because it's not
constitutional to base an individual's First Amendment
speech rights on someone else's "comfort." Police had
shut down the preacher when a passerby allegedly
complained he was "uncomfortable."
"The city of Winchester's noise ordinance goes far
beyond the scope of permissible regulation for a
traditional public forum," said a brief in support of
a request for summary judgment in the case between
Winchester, Va., and Michael Marcavage of the Repent
America Christian ministry.
Marcavage regularly preaches the message of the Bible
at street festivals and other occasions across the
Last year, he was at the Apple Blossom Festival in
Winchester. After checking with the police department
ahead of time, he used a public address system to
carry his message to listeners.
However, he was ordered to shut it down, resulting in
a legal challenge to the ordinance.
"The ordinance constitutes an outright prohibition of
certain verbal expression without any reference to
objective characteristics of that expression, such as
volume, and it does so through the use of vague terms
and unascertainable standards," said the Rutherford
Institute brief, compiled by Rita M. Dunaway.
Specifically, it pointed out the conversation in
which Lt. John Danielson of the Winchester Police
Department ordered Marcavage to stop using his
equipment, which he earlier had been told was
"This complaint [from a passerby], according to the
officer, rendered Marcavage's expression a violation
of the city's noise ordinance, which prohibits sounds
that 'annoy' or 'disturb' others. Marcavage
immediately phoned the Winchester police chief, who
had informed him prior to the Festival that street
preaching with a handheld microphone would not violate
any local laws. However, upon receiving Marcavage's
call on the day of the Festival, the police chief
insisted that the officers would enforce the ordinance
against the preachers if any citizens complained about
the noise," the institute reported.
"It was later revealed that law enforcement officials
were ordered to go undercover for the purpose of
monitoring the street preachers. According to one
police officer's statement, he used a recording device
to film the preachers as they expressed their
sincerely-held religious beliefs during the 2010 Apple
Blossom Festival," the group said.
The Obama administration issued
talking points for commemorations of the 9/11 attacks
at home and around the world.
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 29, 2011
WASHINGTON — The White House has issued detailed
guidelines to government officials on how to
commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11
attacks, with instructions to honor the memory of
those who died on American soil but also to recall
that Al Qaeda and other extremist groups have since
carried out attacks elsewhere in the world, from
Mumbai to Manila.
The White House in recent days has quietly
disseminated two sets of documents. One is framed for
overseas allies and their citizens and was sent to
American embassies and consulates around the globe.
The other includes themes for Americans here and
underscores the importance of national service and
what the government has done to prevent another major
attack in the United States. That single-page document
was issued to all federal agencies, officials said.
After weeks of internal debate, White House officials
adopted the communications documents to shape public
events and official statements, and they sought to
strike a delicate balance between messages designed
for these two very important but very different
audiences on a day when the world’s attention will be
focused on President Obama, his leadership team and
The guidelines list what themes to underscore — and,
just as important, what tone to set. Officials are
instructed to memorialize those who died in the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks and thank those in the military, law
enforcement, intelligence or homeland security for
their contributions since.
“A chief goal of our communications is to present a
positive, forward-looking narrative,” the foreign
Copies of the internal documents were provided to The
New York Times by officials in several agencies
involved in planning the anniversary commemorations.
“The important theme is to show the world how much we
realize that 9/11 — the attacks themselves and violent
extremism writ large — is not ‘just about us,’ ”
said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity
to describe internal White House planning.
Some senior Obama administration leaders had
advocated a lengthy program of speeches and events to
mark the anniversary, but the final decision was for
lower-key appearances by Mr. Obama and other senior
leaders only on the days leading up to the anniversary
and on Sept. 11 itself.
Mr. Obama in his weekly address on Saturday said that
this year’s anniversary will be one of “service and
“We need to make sure we’re speaking to a very broad
set of audiences who will be affected by the
anniversary,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national
security adviser, said in a telephone interview on
That may be, but some American counterterrorism and
intelligence officials are complaining that the White
House missed out on tying together the 10th
anniversary with recently announced strategies to
combat terrorism and violent extremism into a more
coherent, longer-term plan. “They don’t do that kind
of long-term planning,” said a senior counterterrorism
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid
disciplinary measures from the White House. Mr. Rhodes
rejected that criticism, saying these themes have
threaded through many of Mr. Obama’s speeches in
As the White House sharpens its messages for the
commemorations, officials say they have also stepped
up efforts to spot signs of foreign or domestic
terrorist plots timed around the anniversary. So far,
they said, they had not detected any specific plots or
an increase in threats.
Officials interviewed at several federal departments
said they would consult the White House guidelines,
but had been given broad leeway to hold commemorative
events at their agencies.
One significant new theme is in both sets of
documents: Government officials are to warn that
Americans must be prepared for another attack — and
must, in response, be resilient in recovering from the
“Resilience takes many forms, including the
dedication and courage to move forward,” according to
the guidelines for foreign audiences. “While we must
never forget those who we lost, we must do more than
simply remember them —we must sustain our resilience
and remain united to prevent new attacks and new
At the same time, Obama administration officials
caution that public commemorations here should not
cast the United States as the sole victim of
terrorism, an argument underscored by killings and
maimings from extremist attacks overseas.
Some senior administration officials involved in the
discussions noted that the tone set on this Sept. 11
should be shaped by a recognition that the outpouring
of worldwide support for the United States in the
weeks after the attacks turned to anger at some
American policies adopted in the name of fighting
terror — on detention, on interrogation, and the
decision to invade Iraq.
So the guidelines aimed at foreign audiences also
call on American officials to praise overseas partners
and their citizens, who have joined the worldwide
effort to combat violent extremism.
“As we commemorate the citizens of over 90 countries
who perished in the 9/11 attacks, we honor all victims
of terrorism, in every nation around the world,” the
overseas guidelines state. “We honor and celebrate the
resilience of individuals, families, and communities
on every continent, whether in New York or Nairobi,
Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or
The death of Osama bin Laden was viewed as reason for
officials to “minimize references to Al Qaeda.” While
terrorists affiliated with Bin Laden’s network “still
have the ability to inflict harm,” the guidelines say,
officials are to make the point that “Al Qaeda and its
adherents have become increasingly irrelevant.”
The guidelines say the absence of Al Qaeda playing
any significant role in the “Arab Spring” uprisings
against longtime autocrats in the Middle East and
North Africa should be cited as evidence that Bin
Laden’s organization “represents the past,” while
peaceful street protesters in Egypt and Tunisia
“represent the future.” Left unsaid was that many of
the deposed leaders were close American allies and
partners in counterterrorism operations.
Resilience is a repeated theme of the communications.
“We celebrate the resilience of communities across the
globe,” the foreign guidelines state.
Or, as Mr. Rhodes put it in the interview: “It’s a
statement of strength that the United States can
outlast our adversaries. We’re stronger than the
terrorists’ ability to frighten us.”
The domestic guidelines, entitled “9/11 Anniversary
Planning,” are shorter and less prescriptive than the
talking points created for overseas audiences. For
example, they note that the ceremonies will honor
Americans killed in the Sept. 11 attacks but also “all
victims of terrorism, including those who had been
targeted by Al Qaeda and other groups around the
But these guidelines also acknowledge that Americans
will expect government leaders to explain what steps
have been taken to prevent another 9/11-style attack
and to encourage Americans to volunteer in their
communities this Sept. 11.
The domestic guidelines also ask something of
Americans that has been lacking in Washington: “We
will also draw on the spirit of unity that prevailed
in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.”
If there has been a single thread that has
connected the previous 11 editions of The Iowa
Independent’s Power Rankings, it has been an overall
feeling of discontent among Republicans as activists
in the state search for someone who represents their
views and that they believe also stands a good chance
of unseating Democratic incumbent Barack Obama.
With the Ames Straw Poll a memory and, thanks in part
to a timed entry by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, showing
very little bounce for the top two finishers, our
panelists seem more intent on the political end game
and which candidate has the mixture of organization,
charisma and “that special something” to take the race
all the way to the finish line.
If the caucuses were held tonight, here’s how our
panel believes they would end:
1.Rick Perry — Despite
the fact that the governor of Texas hasn’t yet proven
himself from an organizational standpoint in the
Hawkeye State — and won’t likely have to in advance of
the caucuses due to his later entry — our panelists
cannot deny that Perry has brought something to the
race that has been missing.
“Many activists have said
to me, ‘I’ve been holding out for a winner!’
Republican activists may agree with the agenda of a
[Michele] Bachmann or a [Rick] Santorum, but they
aren’t convinced those candidates can beat Obama.
There’s a buzz around Perry that says he can,” notes
one of our panelists.
Others on our panel,
however, are curious if Perry’s lead is more of a
honeymoon period — something that will wane as the
newness of his candidacy wears off.
“His current buzz does
make him the flavor of the month — just like [Mike]
Huckabee and [Donald] Trump before him — but there is
more to him than just that,” notes another panelist.
“He appeals to all segments of the party, [at least]
to varying degrees. That huge undecided number that
keeps showing up in Iowa polls may have found their
hairstyle of choice.”
Candidates may rise on
appeal, but they must have substance to win the
first-in-the-nation caucuses. What the panel wants to
see from Perry going forward are signals that his
campaign is organizing at the grassroots level in
Iowa, working the ground and drawing increased
“If the caucuses were
held today Perry would instantly coalesce a group of
former Tim Pawlenty supporters and soft supporters of
others to finish very strong, but at this point in
time he doesn’t have the organization on the ground to
marshal enough of them to pull it out.
“Still, there is little
denying the initial roll-out of his candidacy has been
impressive and, if things keep trending the way they
currently are, he’s the one to beat.”
Perry’s performance in
upcoming debates and his interactions on the campaign
trail in Iowa and other early states could still sway
his candidacy further up or down. And, while it is
unlikely that more fiscally-minded Republicans would
be swayed by the entry of former Alaska Gov. Sarah
Palin in the race, it is likely that some more
socially-minded Iowa conservatives could. That could
spell trouble for Perry’s honeymoon, at least in Iowa.
“While it is true that
there are some who simply won’t support a woman, there
are some who will — even if that woman is Palin, who
comes with history. She still appeals to a segment of
the GOP that feels America hasn’t been promoted in
that Ronald Reagan style it should be, and there is no
one, perhaps other than Reagan himself, who makes
Republicans feel better about themselves than Palin.
That’s her advantage over other conservatives already
in the race including Bachmann, although Bachmann has
been pulling such references into her own speeches.
Such ‘lifting up’ by Palin will be hard for Iowans to
2.Michele Bachmann —
For the first time since late June, the Minnesota
Congresswoman doesn’t lead our Hawkeye State Power
Rankings and, perhaps more importantly, she came
dangerously close to being knocked out of the top two.
Since late March, when
Bachmann began to seriously hint that she would pursue
a White House bid, she has remained a favorite of our
panelists. They viewed her as someone who could appeal
to the state’s influential social conservative base as
well as a candidate that could count on support from
the tea party movement — both being influential for
the upcoming caucuses. The straw poll should have been
a proving grounds for her Iowa organizational skills
(and to a certain extent it was) but, under the shadow
of a Perry announcement, it simply didn’t provide a
“Winning the straw poll
still has its privileges. One of those privileges is a
vastly superior organization compared to a guy who’s
been in the race for only two weeks, and has just made
a handful of stops in Iowa while facing no real
scrutiny from voters or his fellow competitors yet.
That said, Bachmann is not trending in the right
direction at the moment, and she needs to recapture
the momentum she had heading into Ames. Perhaps
letting voters see the woman of depth I have seen
privately, and not the woman of talking points I often
see publicly, is a good place to start.”
Another panelist notes
that “Bachmann still has two big things going for her
in Iowa: She’s from a neighboring state, which can
only benefit her when it comes to ground organization,
and she’s a known quantity.
“Let’s face the fact that
despite some of rifts here in our state, many of which
have been promulgated by supporters of other
candidates, Bachmann is someone that activists here
know and know well. There is very little shock value
left when says things that maybe don’t completely add
up, or when she ruffles feathers in local circles.
It’s expected, and just like all other expectations in
Iowa, when she exceeds them — when says things that
really resonate and does well with retail politics —
she really, really shines. If she comes into the state
and works even the smallest bit to dispel some of the
more negative press, it will do her campaign a world
of good and she will win on caucus night.”
Criticisms leveled by
Pawlenty that Bachmann was prone to misstatements may
not have ultimately benefited his campaign, but our
panelists believe they likely injured Bachmann’s, at
least to some extent.
“One can dismiss
occasional things like mixing up whether John Wayne
was born in Winterset or Waterloo and maybe even
whether August 16 was Elvis’s birthday or the day he
died, but at some point one will start to wonder
whether it’s just an occasional flub or a pattern that
is worrisome. Recently Bachmann claimed that if she
becomes president gas prices would go down to $2 a
gallon. That’s not a factual mistake, but it certainly
caused a lot of people, including a lot on the right,
to roll their eyes. Bachmann fought hard to make
herself be perceived as a serious, top-tier candidate.
She needs to stop the mistakes if she expects to
maintain that standing.”
3.Ron Paul — The
biggest news to come out of Texas congressman’s
presidential bid in the wake of the straw poll were
news reports that he was being ignored in the wake of
his strong second-place finish. Our panelists took
note of the strong finish, and they continue to
believe that overall Paul’s fiscal message is
resonating better with state activists than it did in
2007. But when it comes to the game of expectations,
they feel Paul just managed to meet them in Ames and,
thus, didn’t do anything overly extraordinary to
warrant higher placement.
certainly don’t want to hear it, but he probably
peaked at the straw poll,” notes one panelist. “There
were plenty of stories during the last two weeks about
how the media were ignoring Paul’s very close second
place finish straw poll. I suspect that it was less a
matter of purposefully ignoring Paul as opposed to
choosing to focus their resources on candidates who
were perceived as more likely to be able to capture
“Paul received over three
times as many votes at the Straw Poll as he did in
2007. That speaks to both an improved organization and
more focus on his economic message. Even so, when Paul
starts to speak on other issues his libertarian roots
show themselves. Many Republicans are not happy with
the wars we are fighting, but they usually don’t think
that we should just pull back to our borders. Some
Republicans are in favor of legalizing marijuana, but
that position isn’t one widely held. In other words,
despite his obvious success at the Straw Poll, Paul
will have a difficult time appealing to a broader
Another panelist has
already moved on to wonder where the libertarians and
similar factions of the party will go when “they
finally figure out that their guy is not moving
forward in this process.”
“Look, there’s a lot to
be said for loyalty, and there is no doubt that Ron
Paul’s supporters are loyal — but I have to wonder if
they’ve ever heard the phrase about being ‘loyal to a
fault.’ At this point, I don’t think they are doing
their candidate any favors by ramping up his
expectations to levels that he doesn’t actually have
the base support to meet.”
Another panelist believes
Paul could have won the straw poll — and beat
expectations — if it wasn’t for his debate performance
two nights before.
“His organization flexed
its muscle at the straw poll, and that strong second
place finish came after his brutal debate performance
just 48 hours prior. That tells me two things: Paul’s
support isn’t going anywhere, and Paul can’t grow
beyond that base of support. I believe Paul would’ve
won the Straw Poll if not for his queasy answer on
Iran and nuclear weapons. That moment in that debate
illustrated the dynamic Paul finds himself in. The
current economic climate in the country has made his
base coalition more loyal than ever because he’s been
proven right all these years. On the other hand, his
foreign policy positions are still too far out there
to grow that coalition to a winning coalition.”
4.Mitt Romney — There
are more questions than answers surrounding the former
governor of Massachusett’s campaign. That is, his Iowa
strategy or, more aptly, his lack of an Iowa strategy
seemed pretty well mapped out in advance of Perry’s
entry. Our panelists now wonder if ignoring the
Hawkeye State, or keeping Iowa activists at arms
length, is going to be enough to put him in the
state’s top three — something he critically needs to
do, even if he is banking on a New Hampshire victory.
As one panelist notes,
“Mitt still has the 23 percent he’s had since he
started his presidential campaign (back in junior high
But there’s more than
just low poll numbers at stake. Romney was hoping
residual 2008 supporters and here-and-there visits to
Iowa would be enough to keep him “playable” in the
first-in-the-nation caucuses. He had, for all
practical purposes, conceded the state to a more
social conservative candidate of the same ilk as a
Huckabee — someone that the other early states
wouldn’t find as appealing as his more moderate, if
not sometimes conflicted, stances. But if Iowa and
another of the leading four states go to the same
candidate, Romney’s weak performances could be enough
to shut him down before the contest moves on to states
that are decided more by ad buys than retail politics
(where he doesn’t necessarily excel).
“If a four candidate
field emerges from the starting four states, that
bodes well for Romney, who is extremely well financed
and can move into a Super Tuesday situation with
multiple ad buys and other voter outreach. But if
Perry is able to land claim to both Iowa and South
Carolina, Romney will need to provide more than just a
New Hampshire victory. He will need to take Nevada,
which might be possible because there is strong Mormon
representation there. So far, however, I’ve not seen
Romney doing retail in anywhere other than New
Hampshire, and not a actively there as he did in Iowa
“Either Romney will need
to start paying more attention to Iowa, which isn’t
likely given the past history, or he is going to have
to start concentrating more heavily on South Carolina,
which also isn’t likely given that state also has a
social conservative bent, or in Nevada. He simply
cannot allow any one candidate to pull more of a boost
than he does from these early contests.”
5.Rick Santorum — Most
of our panelists agree that Santorum has a loyal
following in Iowa based predominantly on his rigid
social conservative stances. Most also agree that his
base support has not yet grown to a point of making
him a real contender in the upcoming caucuses, and
that they aren’t sure where he will be able to garner
more supporters in this current field of candidates.
“If this was 2007,
Santorum would probably be faring better than he is
now,” a panelist laments. “The fact of the matter is
that you can’t build a campaign on issues — fiscal or
conservatives — that are also held by your opponents.
He doesn’t have anything, at least not yet, that makes
him stand apart from the field. He doesn’t have
executive experience. He lost his last election. He
doesn’t have a compelling story to tell and, as a
result, he seems to be a candidate that many activists
like personally but are not supporting for the
While a handful of our
panelists still envision a scenario where Santorum
could play spoiler (a la Huckabee 2008), even most of
those believe his fortunes, good or bad, may actually
rest with the undecided candidacy of Palin.
“Obviously, if Palin
enters the race, there will be automatic buzz within
social conservative circles — the same circles where
Santorum has made the most headway. That could spell
trouble for his campaign both from a standpoint of an
established base, and from the standpoint of her much
greater name recognition — which might be more
appealing for any undecideds on caucus night.
“On the other side of
that coin, if Palin decides not to run, there could be
some social conservatives that have been holding their
support that will move toward Santorum, giving him a
greater edge on caucus night when Iowans speak on
behalf of their chosen candidates before the GOP
balloting. Such conservatives can give very
impassioned speeches that can really help their chosen
caucuses where second choices can play a distinct and
defining role, GOP caucuses are a single secret ballot
affair devoid of realignment and viability thresholds.
So, just because Santorum appears to be a
second-choice candidate for many, the situation
doesn’t serve him as well as it would on the other
side of the political aisle.
“There is a solid base of
former Huckabee supporters I know that just will never
buy into Bachmann’s presidential candidacy until they
have to because they’re either uncomfortable with a
woman for president, and/or she has not proven to them
she’s ready for the job. On the other hand, Huckabee
himself has done little to hide his skepticism of
Perry, who chose to endorse Rudy Giuliani over
Huckabee four years ago. So who’s the alternative?
Clearly not Ron Paul, who some Huckabee supporters are
as leery of as they are Mitt Romney — albeit for
different reasons. That leaves Santorum, who more and
more has been speaking their language the past few
8/14/2011 Iran (Mohabat News)
– According to the Iranian Christian News Agency
“Mohabat News” Doctor Majid Abhari, advisor to the
social issues committee of the parliament in Iran, has
announced the seizure of six thousand five hundred
copies of the holy bible in the way between the city
of Zanjan and abhar in north-west of Iran.
He also said that “these
missionaries with reliance on huge money and
propaganda are trying to deviate our youth.” In an
interview with a government news agency *(Mehr) he
added: “with regard to the activities of these
Christian missionaries to deceive people specially
youngsters, they have begun a huge campaign by
spending huge sums and false propaganda for deviating
He did not present any more
details about the seizure of 6500 gospels and said,
“these books were made with the best paper in the
world in pocket size. He added, “The important point
in this issue that should be considered by
intelligence, judicial and religious agencies is that
all religions are strengthening their power to
confront Islam, otherwise what does this huge number
of bibles mean?
Prior to this, in November of
2010, police officers and revolutionary guards seized
300 bibles from a bus after its inspection and in a
shameful action burned them all in the village of
Insulting the Christian
bible is in the continuation of an organized campaign
by agencies that view anti-Christian propaganda on the
top of their agenda. There have
always been major concerns among Islamic republic
officials about conversions to Christianity among
people. This is after three decades of expensive
Islamic propaganda and a generation that has been
grown up in Islamic teaching and is facing this change
Islamic republic considers itself the responsible
guide for people's thoughts. So what is their fear of
the importation and distribution of non-Islamic
WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring
Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick
characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a
"Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call
Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.
Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a
pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway,
including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7
and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on
the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.
Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the
Internet, many media reports have characterized the
terrorist – who says he was upset over the
multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's
Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian
Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik
writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has
doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does
assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as
well as his own pagan Nordic culture.
Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose
evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims
of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and
science, it is essential that science takes an
undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe
has always been the cradle of science, and it must
always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal
relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively
religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic.
However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian
The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no
support within either the Catholic or Protestant
churches for his violent ideas.
"I trust that the future leadership of a European
cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure
that the current Church leadership are replaced and
the systems somewhat reformed," he writes. "We must
have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade
with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia
and creating three Christian states in the Middle
East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the
de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members
should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant
Church had an important role once, but its original
goals have been accomplished and have contributed to
reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have
a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal
pope who is willing to fight for the security of his
subjects, especially in regards to Islamic
While Breivik says he considers himself "100-percent
Christian," he also expresses pride in his
"I am very proud of my Viking heritage," he writes.
"My name, Breivik, is a location name from northern
Norway, and can be dated back to even before the
Viking era. Behring is a pre-Christian Germanic name,
which is derived from Behr, the Germanic word for Bear
(or 'those who are protected by the bear')."
And while characterizing himself as "Christian" and
"Protestant," Breivik says he supports "a reformation
of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by
Likewise, media reports frequently characterized
McVeigh as a "Christian," though he adamantly denied
any religious beliefs or convictions – placing his
faith in science.
Breivik adds, "I went from moderately agnostic to
Religious worship and study is never noted in the
manifesto as part of Breivik's routine in preparing
for his mission of mass murder.
Breivik also points out that his association with
Christian cultural values is one of political
expedience rather than religious commitment or faith
"My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am
not proud of my own traditions and heritage," he
explains. "My choice was based purely pragmatism. All
Europeans are in this boat together, so we must choose
a more moderate platform that can appeal to a great
number of Europeans – preferably up to 50 percent
(realistically up to 35 percent)."
Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons,
which many Christians consider to be a cultic
organization. More specifically, he calls himself a
Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to
make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not
motivated by Christian faith.
"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious
person, as that would be a lie," he says. … Religion
is a crutch for many weak people, and many embrace
religion for self-serving reasons as a source for
drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional
state [for] example during illness, death, poverty
etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly
that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not
yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet."
A pro-family lobbying organization in New York is
challenging the state's new law legalizing same-sex
marriage, claiming improper procedure and back-room
payoffs should render the law "null and void."
In a lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, officers of New Yorkers for
Constitutional Freedoms argue that the state's
Marriage Equality Act was passed only with the help of
suspended voting rules, shady campaign contributions
and a violation of the New York State Open Meeting
"In what many are heralding as a big step forward for
gay rights," the lawsuit charges, "others are
questioning whether the corrupt legislative process by
which the Act passed renders the entire Act a
Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for Governor Andrew Cuomo,
blasted the suit as "without merit," but Mathew
Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and
dean of Liberty University School of Law, disagrees.
"Back room tactics were rampant in the passage of
this law," Staver wrote in a statement announcing
Liberty Counsel's assistance in the filing of the
suit. "New York law requires that the government be
open and transparent to keep political officials
responsible. When government operates in secret and
freezes out the very people it is supposed to
represent, the entire system fails. … The law should
be set aside and the process should begin again to
allow the people a voice in the process."
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Act became law
Meetings that violated
the state's open meeting laws, including a
closed-door gathering reported by the New York Times
in which billionaire and New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg lobbied with Republicans to vote for the
The suspension of
normal Senate voting procedures to prevent senators
who opposed the bill from speaking;
Failure to follow
Senate procedures that require a bill must be sent
to appropriate committees prior to being placed
before the full Senate for a vote;
violation of a constitutionally mandated three-day
review period before the Legislature votes on a bill
by issuing a "message of necessity";
A private dinner with
Republican senators at the governor's mansion, with
the public and press excluded, in which Governor
Cuomo attempted to persuade passage of the Act;
Fulfilled promises by
elected officials and Wall Street financiers to make
large campaign contributions to Republican senators
who switched their vote from opposing to supporting
The New York Daily News reported that Bloomberg,
indeed, contributed over $10,000 apiece to the
campaigns of four Republican senators who voted in
favor of same-sex marriage.
Βloomberg aide Micah Leaher told the paper, "The
mayor said he would support Senate Republicans who
stood up – and he did."
"It is unfortunate that state senators chose to
protect their personal interests, rather than the
people they were elected to represent," said Rev.
Jason J. McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers
for Constitutional Freedoms, in a statement. "Some of
the players may have changed, but it looks like same
old Albany game. It is time the curtain be pulled back
and the disinfecting light of good government shine
upon the Cuomo administration and our state
that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine
editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document,
Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many
grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution.
If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's
article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine
respect for the founding values of our nation.
Stengel says: "The
framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes,
they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the
protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of
speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us
the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a
human being, that women were not allowed to vote and
that South Dakota should have the same number of
Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And
I'm not even going to mention the Electoral
My column last week
addressed the compromise whereby each slave was
counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes
of determining representation in the House of
Representatives and Electoral College. Had slaves
been counted as whole people, slaveholding states
would have had much greater political power. I agree
the framers were not gods and were not infallible,
but they had far greater wisdom and principle than
The framers held
democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a
matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none
of our founding documents. John Adams said:
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon
wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was
a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as
anti-democratic that South Dakota and California
both have two senators, but the framers wanted to
reduce the chances that highly populated states
would run roughshod over thinly populated states.
They established the Electoral College to serve the
same purpose in determining the presidency.
recognized that most human abuses were the result of
government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even
in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because
of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the
federal government limited in its power. Their
distrust of Congress is seen in the language used
throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights says
Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe,
shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as
disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not
believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or
natural, rights, they would not have provided those
distrust for government is found in the
Constitution's separation of powers, checks and
balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions,
such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to
override a veto and the requirement that
three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes
to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If
the Constitution was intended to limit the federal
government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement
is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads: "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
is five pages online, and I've only commented on the
first. There's also little in the remaining pages
that reflects understanding and respect for our
nation's most important document.
is a wise and thoughtful economist and editorialist
who has had a lot to say about America and the
Constitution over the years. This article can be
found in its entirety at
An organization that represents the 75 percent of
American citizens who want more control over illegal
immigration is calling for the impeachment of Barack
Obama over his involvement in the transfer of weapons
to Mexican drug lords and his efforts to provide
amnesty to illegal aliens.
"President Obama is no longer the legitimate
president of the United States," said William Gheen,
president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, in
calling for the action today.
"By arming drug and human smugglers with assault
weapons that have been used to kill American and
Mexican citizens and police forces, and by ordering
amnesty for illegal aliens which has been rejected by
both the Congress and the American public more than
eight times, Obama has committed a form of treason
against the United States and must be removed from
office by Congress," he said.
His call joins a chorus of other voices who already
have expressed the idea. Those comments have come from
a number of columnists and commentators, one member of
Congress, a former member of Congress and retired
military leaders. Even Vice President Joe Biden, then
a senator, at one point said he would support
impeachment of a president who misuses the executive
power to take the nation into a war.
Gheen cited the developing "Operation Gunrunner"
scandal in which federal agents had gun shops sell
weapons to customers suspected of links to Mexican
drug gangs. He also pointed ot Obama's "recent edict
instructing federal employees to establish a form of
amnesty for illegal aliens in defiance of the
Congress, existing federal laws, and the U.S.
Gheen noted Obama's ICE director, John Morton, issued
a memo June 17 to all ICE field office directors,
special agents-in-charge and chief counsel,
authorizing them to decline to remove illegal aliens
who meet the qualifications for amnesty under the
DREAM Act amnesty – which has failed repeatedly in
He also said congressional investigations have
"determined that Obama's ATF and Justice Department
have been supplying assault weapons to the drug
cartels that import most of America's cocaine,
methamphetamine, and illegal immigrants."
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is a national
organization with more than 40,000 supporters who
represent the majority of Americans who want America's
existing immigration laws enforced, Gheen said.
He said the issue is that the president "made it
clear to the American public that he does not care
what they think, what the current federal laws are,
what the U.S. Constitution says, or what Congress has
"Congress must take immediate action to stop Obama or
the American Republic will fall. What use are
elections, candidates, or the Congress, if the
executive branch rules by decree?" he said.
"Never before in the history of the United States has
an occupant of the White House displayed less concern
for the Constitution and the rule of law than Barack
Obama. It's about time somebody said it: It's time to
impeach Obama," Farah wrote.
Attorney Larry Klayman, a former Justice Department
prosecutor, founder of Judicial Watch and now of
Freedom Watch, agreed.
Klayman cited Obama's decision to refuse to defend
the federal Defense of Marriage Act, his pursuit of
Arizona in court over its decision to defend its
citizens from illegal aliens invading the state, his
"visceral hatred and subversion of the state of
Israel" and others.
The first statement from a member of Congress on the
issue came from U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who
responded to this question from Think Progress: "I
know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they
don't reverse course [regarding trials for terror
suspects] here, we ought to be talking about possibly
impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or
even President Obama to try to get them to reverse
course. Do you think that is something you would
Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective
support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to
repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our
civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that
they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost
WND also reported that former congressman and GOP
presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said for current
members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath
to defend the United States against enemies "foreign
and domestic," they need to file impeachment charges
Tancredo wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington
Times that Obama's "refusal to live up to his own oath
of office – which includes the duty to defend the
United States against foreign invasion – requires
senators and representatives to live up to their
oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that
means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama."
Above are just several examples of a long string ofvoices decrying executive
neglect of upholding the oath to defend,and as well as abuses of power that point to
the impeachment remedy. To read this article in its
entirety visit World Net Daily at:
Responding to the IRS removal of tax-exempt status
for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a
Virginia congressman has asked the federal agency to
investigate whether the D.C.-based Muslim lobby group
has "illegally received or solicited funds from
foreign governments or agents."
Republican Rep. Frank Wolf said in a letter to IRS
Commissioner Douglas Shulman that he wants to resolve
the question of whether foreign and potentially
hostile governments have funded CAIR, which was named
an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest
terror-finance case in U.S. history.
Wolf brought to the IRS's attention a copy of a
recently disclosed letter from CAIR Executive Director
Nihad Awad to Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi in which
Awad appears to solicit money for a CAIR project.
"I am concerned that Awad and CAIR may be soliciting
– and receiving – funds from other unsavory foreign
governments and organizations, including some that may
be sponsors of terror," Wolf wrote.
The lawmaker also cited reports that indicate Awad
and other CAIR representatives may have traveled to
Sudan to solicit funds from Sudanese President Omar
Hassan Bashir, whose hard-line Islamic regime has been
held responsible for more than 2 million deaths in a
jihad against Christians and animists in the country's
IRS earlier this month purged CAIR from its list of
tax-exempt organizations. Donations to the group are
no longer tax-deductible, even though CAIR continues
to claim on its website that contributions are
The gross delinquency raises new suspicions that CAIR
– identified in a recent terror-finance case as a
front group for Hamas – is concealing from the
American public details about its already shadowy
CAIR is a regular staple of the cable news programs
where it claims to be a "Muslim-American civil rights
The Washington-based group receives millions of
dollars in donations, pledges and other support from
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other
terror-tied Arab states, as revealed in the bestseller
"Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's
Conspiring to Islamize America."
As WND has reported, CAIR has filed a lawsuit against
"Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz and his son,
Chris, who collected thousands of pages of CAIR
documents destined for a shredder while working as an
CAIR's complaint asks a federal judge to expunge all
copies of "Muslim Mafia". A lawyer defending the
Gaubatzes says CAIR is attempting to eliminate
evidence that could lead to criminal prosecution.
"Muslim Mafia" presents evidence that CAIR spokesman
Ibrahim Hooper has misled Washington reporters about
the source of most of CAIR's financial support.
Although Hooper has repeatedly denied that CAIR
receives foreign support, smoking-gun video footage
obtained during the Gaubatzes' six-month covert
investigation of CAIR indicates otherwise.
A State Department cable citing Hooper by name,
moreover, directly contradicts Hooper's denials about
foreign support, according to "Muslim Mafia," which
exposes the secret inner workings of CAIR, among other
radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America.
CAIR in January 2007 prepared a secret "strategy"
memo launching what the "Muslim Mafia" authors call a
hostile influence operation against Congress to
undermine homeland security and anti-terror efforts.
The memo states that CAIR would try to "influence"
the intelligence committees, along with committees
dealing with homeland security and justice, while
placing interns in "congressional offices."
CAIR has been successful in both endeavors, using
Mideast funds free of taxation in the process.
Read article in its entirety at
World Net Daily at
By Bill Vidonic PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The solicitor for Pittsburgh Public Schools says a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a former eastern
Pennsylvania police chief couldn't claim free speech
in a private employment matter was a sound one.
"I think it represents a common-sense distinction
between getting up at a public meeting and saying,
'I'm an employee, I live here, and taxes are too
high,' which are matters of general concern, and
work-related speech," Ira Weiss said of the decision
But Pittsburgh labor attorney Joshua Bloom said the
ruling is another example of citizens' rights in the
courts being chipped away.
"The courts have ruled that people can petition and
file grievances, but now they're saying it's OK (for
governments) to destroy their lives if they do it. It
makes no sense," Bloom said, adding, "The Supreme
Court seems to be endorsing a culture of tyranny,
secrecy and coercion in the public workplace."
The case originates in the Luzerne County borough of
Duryea, which fired police Chief Charles Guarnieri in
2003. He filed a union grievance, and after an
arbitrator returned him to the job, council drew up 11
directives for his return, including that he had to
have council permission for overtime. The directives
were thrown out after Guarnieri filed a second union
grievance, and then he sued in civil court, saying the
directives were in retaliation for the first
Guarnieri said the retaliation violated the petition
clause of the First Amendment, which allows citizens
to petition the government for redress of grievances.
In an 8-1 ruling, U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled
that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred and
that Guarnieri should have had to show he spoke as a
citizen on an issue of public concern, which is what
the First Amendment's speech clause requires.
"The right of a public employee under the Petition
Clause is a right to participate as a citizen, through
petitioning activity, in the democratic process,"
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "It is not a right to
transform everyday employment disputes into matters
for Constitutional litigation in the federal courts."
He added, "It is precisely to avoid this intrusion
into internal governmental affairs that this Court has
held that, while the First Amendment invests public
employees with certain rights, it does not empower
them to 'Constitutionalize' the employee grievance."
Guarnieri's case has been sent back to the lower
court for reconsideration.
The ruling hurts not only public employees, Bloom
said, but also private citizens who depend on
government workers to keep an eye on government.
"Public employees are in the best position to speak
out about corruption, illegalities, incompetence,
oppression and waste," he said.
"The Supreme Court recognizes that just because
someone is a public employee, it doesn't give them the
right to sue for matters that are purely
employment-related for First Amendment issues," Weiss
said. "If it's a complaint about their employment
status, it's not a whistleblower case."
What's worse than asking ninth-graders intrusive
and sexually explicit questions on a school survey,
even if they do live in a liberal district?
It's discovering misbehavior, coming to exactly the
wrong conclusion about the causes and recommending
more harm be done.
A new report published by the Centers for Disease
Control shows that teenagers in public schools who
believe themselves to be homosexual or bisexual are
taking more risks all across the board. While this
should not come as a big surprise to the average
American with common sense, it is a stunning
revelation to our psychobabbly federal public health
professionals. After all, they can't even bring
themselves to say "Stop it!" to men who have anal
sex with other men.
But now that we have this information, it gives an
important snapshot, if we evaluate it appropriately.
However, the CDC researchers jumped to predictable
conclusions. Among the solutions was the need for
"supportive" school environments – meaning, approval
of homosexuality – including more "gay straight
alliance" clubs and pro-homosexual teacher diversity
training. Also, health-care settings and workers
need training to be more "open and nonjudgmental."
The researchers believe these kids just suffer from
low self-esteem – which may be true – but they
assume it's the fault of others, including the
general social stigmatization of homosexuality.
Then, of course, with no supporting evidence, they
apparently adopt the "gay" lobby's position that
views against homosexuality are unwarranted and
inevitably provoke bullying and self-harm.
Homosexuality is either innate, or benign, or both,
according to the unsupported, accepted narrative.
Yet let's look at some details of the CDC findings
that don't jibe with these conclusions. For
instance, are we actually supposed to believe that
low self-respect or social rejection because of
one's homosexual identity causes teens to refuse to
wear seat belts? That was one of the risk behaviors
higher among "sexual minority" youth. How about
driving after having consumed alcohol? What about
being abused by a date or being forced to have sex?
Wouldn't that be "gay-on-gay" violence? This would
put at least some "gay" kids in the category of
"bullier/abuser." Whoops! There goes another talking
Seriously, the percentages reporting dating
violence are distinctly higher among the "sexual
minority" youth. Why aren't we seeing a
proliferation of anti-violence programs aimed
specifically at these kids?
Or how about having already, at their tender ages,
had sex with at least four people? Is promiscuity a
common reaction to real or perceived discrimination?
Or failing to use a condom if they are having sex?
The problem here, of course, is the solutions
themselves are biased and discriminatory. Nor would
they be applied in comparable situations. For
instance, there's considerable evidence that
overweight students experience bullying and social
rejection more than others. And, these kids more
often attempt suicide and engage in other risky
conduct. So, where are the obesity-affirmation
school programs? Why not recommend those?
As usual, political correctness has swallowed
common sense. This data reveal troubled kids with
issues that often pre-date puberty, heading down a
road of self-harm. Others along the way may
contribute, but the core dysfunction doesn't go away
by joining a "gay straight alliance."
Ironically, all this is being reported along with
another alarming and related indicator. From another
section of the CDC comes the latest HIV surveillance
report with these findings about young males:
MSM [males who have sex with males] aged 13–24 had
the greatest percentage increase (53 percent) in
diagnoses of HIV infection from 2006 through 2009.
Yet public schools must keep on "affirming" this
behavior? This is educational and medical
malpractice. Truly caring adults would be looking at
the big picture, not exploiting already troubled
kids for a harmful political agenda. No matter what
causes these kids to engage in dangerous behaviors,
encouraging them to embrace one more – homosexuality
– is only going to bring more heartbreak and harm
into their already complicated lives.
This article has been abbreviated. It may be
read in it’s entirety at
Just 13 percent of high school seniors who took the
2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress,
called the Nation's Report Card, showed a solid grasp
of American history. Results released Tuesday showed
the two other grades didn't perform much better, with
just 22 percent of fourth-grade students and 18
percent of eighth-graders demonstrating proficiency.
The test quizzed students on topics including
colonization, the American Revolution and the Civil
War, and the contemporary United States. For example,
one question asked fourth-graders to name an important
result of the U.S. building canals in the 1800s. Only
44 percent knew that it was increased trade among
"The history scores released today show that student
performance is still too low," Education Secretary
Arne Duncan said in a statement. "These results tell
us that, as a country, we are failing to provide
children with a high-quality, well-rounded education."
Education experts say a heavy focus on reading and
math under the federal No Child Left Behind law in the
last decade has led to lagging performance in other
subjects such as history and science.
"We need to make sure other subjects like history,
science and the arts are not forgotten in our pursuit
of the basic skills," said Diane Ravitch, a research
professor at New York University and former U.S.
assistant education secretary.
Of the seven subjects on the national test, students
performed the worst in U.S. history. Officials with
the National Assessment Governing board, which
oversees the tests, say the results aren't comparable
to the other tests because different students take
each exam in different years.
The scores on the history test did not vary
remarkably from years past; in 1994, for example, 19
percent of fourth-grade students scored proficient or
better in U.S. history.
More than 7,000 fourth-grade students, 11,000 eighth
graders and 12,000 high school seniors from a
nationally representative sample took the test last
To be considered proficient, they had to get certain
scores out of 500. For fourth-graders, the score was
243. Eighth-graders needed 294, and 12th graders had
to get a 325.
Judy Brodigan, who was head of the elementary social
studies curriculum for the Lewisville, Texas, school
district for a decade, said history and social studies
classes aren't as much of a priority for school
districts as math and reading. She noted that many
states only test history and social studies starting
in middle school, which means elementary school
students don't get the background they need in the
"When the foundation isn't built in elementary
school, these students are coming to middle school
lacking crucial skills," Brodigan said. "What it means
is that in what is becoming a more and more global
society, American students are more and more at a
Educators said history is critical to students
learning how to become better citizens and
understanding how the country's political and cultural
systems work. Students need to not only recognize
leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham
Lincoln, but also understand why they were important
to the development of the country.
"Overall the quality and success of our lives can
only be enhanced by a study of our roots," said Steven
Paine, former state schools superintendent for West
Virginia. "If you don't know your past, you will not
have a future."
President Obama’s health care law received a chilly
reception Wednesday from a federal appeals court that
seemed wary of approving a major expansion of
government coercion over the economic activity of
millions of Americans.
Acknowledging they are breaking new ground in
considering this case, the three-judge panel of the
11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in Atlanta
questioned whether there is any precedent in more than
two centuries in which the Supreme Court has upheld a
law that forces individuals to buy a private good or
service - in this instance, the individual mandate
that every American obtain health insurance.
“If we uphold the individual mandate in this case,
are there any limits on Congress‘ power left?” said
Chief Judge Joel Dubina, appointed by President George
H.W. Bush, who seemed most hostile to the Obama
The other two judges, both appointed by President
Clinton, peppered each side with questions, but
signaled their own concerns about the lack of specific
precedent for upholding this type of mandate.
“I want to know, going back to the first principles,
is there anything out there that actually suggests
that Congress can compel a private party to buy a
private product on the open market if they’re not
disposed to do so,” Judge Stanley Marcus said.
Wednesday’s nearly 2 1/2-hour hearing is the third
time an appeals court has heard a case on the issue,
which all sides believe will eventually end up in
front of the Supreme Court.
lawmakers accountable for fair state districts
June 8, 2011
Now is the time for Florida voters to hold the
Legislature accountable to obey the state Constitution
on the critical issue of redistricting.
Enshrined in the document since the 2010 elections
are two Fair Districts amendments that require
lawmakers, using 2010 Census data, to redraw
legislative and U.S. congressional districts in a
nonpartisan way before the 2012 elections.
And end a long, sordid record of politicians drawing
maps to favor whatever party holds the reins of power,
protect incumbents against competition and give voters
little choice at the ballot box.
Democrats wrongly did it in the 1990s, when they
controlled Tallahassee, and Republicans wrongly do it
Just take a look at Florida House District 29 for
evidence of the bizarrely shaped districts that have
resulted from the gerrymandering. It trails south in a
thin strip from North Brevard to rural Indian River
County to maximize the number of Republican votes.
The seat was won by Rep. Tom Goodson in the GOP
primary in August last year. Predictably, the Cocoa
Republican faced no Democratic opposition.
Other districts in the state snake across as many as
eight counties, linking far-flung cities or
illogically divide communities.
Outrage at the practice led Florida voters to pass
the Fair Districts amendments by 63 percent last year,
a margin mirrored in Brevard County. That showed broad
support across party lines for a less partisan
approach to redistricting.
In a victory for democracy last week, the U.S.
Department of Justice — which must review election law
changes because of previous racial discrimination in
voting in some Florida counties — reaffirmed the
wisdom of Fair Districts, giving the amendments the
The ruling counters false claims by lawmakers, trying
to preserve their hold on power, that Fair Districts
would hinder minorities’ voting rights.
It also sends a loud message that tactics to obstruct
the reforms must end, including from Florida House
Speaker Dean Cannon.
The Winter Park Republican joined the House to a
misguided lawsuit to kill the congressional Fair
Districts rules coming from U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown,
D-Jacksonville and Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Miami. The
suit should be dropped immediately.
That lawsuit is only the latest recent attempt by
lawmakers to preserve their power and block the
voters’ will. Here is the shabby history:
-- In 2010, then Senate President-designate Mike
Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and other mostly GOP
state lawmakers tried to sabotage the effect of Fair
Districts, voting to put on fall ballots a tricky
counter amendment that would have nullified the reform
In September, the state Supreme Court rightly yanked
the proposed amendment as misleading.
-- Three days after taking office this year, Gov.
Rick Scott secretly halted the routine clearance
process for the redistricting amendments, refusing to
send them promptly for review by the Justice
Department, as required by law.
The Justice Department’s approval of the Fair
Districts standards is big step forward, but no time
for advocates to rest on their laurels.
Legislative committees are charged with coming up
with new district boundaries by June 2012.
You can bet there’ll be more attempts to undermine
the wholly sensible requirements that districts be
contiguous, compact geographically, and not drawn to
favor or disfavor any party or incumbent.
How great is the danger of extremist violence in the
name of Islam in the United States? Recent
congressional hearings into this question by Rep.
Peter King (Republican of New York), chairman of the
Committee on Homeland Security, have generated a
firestorm of controversy among his colleagues, the
press, and the general public. Though similar hearings
have taken place at least fourteen times since 2001, King
was labeled a latter-day Joe McCarthy and the hearings
called an assault on civil liberties and a
contemporary witch-hunt. Yet the larger dilemmas
outlined by both the congressman and some of his
witnesses remain: To what extent are American Muslims,
native-born as well as naturalized, being radicalized
by Islamists? And what steps can those who are sworn
to the protection of American citizenry take that will
uncover and disrupt the plots of those willing to take
up arms against others for the sake of jihad?
Root Causes and Enabling Mechanisms
While scholarly inquiry into the
root causes and factors supportive of terrorism has
accelerated since the September 11, 2001 attacks on
the United States, there are few empirical studies
that attempt to measure the relationship between
specific variables and support for terrorism. To date,
almost all of the professional and academic work in
this field has been anecdotal surveys or case studies
tracing backward through the personal profiles of
terrorists and the socioeconomic and political
environments from which they came.
An item that may help to
understand the growth of modern jihadism appears in
Marc Sageman's 2004 study, which found that 97 percent
of jihadists studied had become increasingly devoted
to forms of Salafist Islam highly adherent to Shari'a
(Islamic law) while on their path to radicalization,
despite many coming from less rigorous devotional
levels during their youths. This increase in devotion
to Salafist Islam was measured by outwardly observable
behaviors such as wearing traditional Arabic,
Pakistani, or Afghan clothing or growing a beard.
When viewed together, a picture emerges that may give
researchers, as well as law enforcement officials, a
way to monitor or potentially to predict where violent
jihad may take root. Potential recruits who are swept
up in this movement may find their inspiration and
encouragement in a place with ready access to classic
and modern literature that is positive toward jihad
and violence, where highly Shari'a-adherent behavior
is practiced, and where a society exists that in some
form promotes a culture of martyrdom or at least
engages in activities that are supportive of violent
jihad. The mosque can be such a place.
That the mosque is a societal apparatus that might
serve as a support mechanism for violent jihad may
seem self-evident, but for it to be a useful means for
measuring radicalization requires empirical evidence.
A 2007 study by the New York city police department
noted that, in the context of the mosque, high levels
of Shari'a adherence, termed "Salafi ideology" by the
authors of the report, may relate to support for
violent jihad. Specifically, it found that highly
Shari'a-adherent mosques have played a prominent role
There is a need for the study and corroboration of a
relationship between high levels of Shari'a adherence
as a form of religious devotion and coalitional
commitment, Islamic literature that shows violence in
a positive light, and institutional support for
violent jihad. By way of filling this lacuna, the
authors of this article undertook a survey
specifically designed to determine empirically whether
a correlation exists between observable measures of
religious devotion linked to Shari'a adherence in
American mosques and the presence of violence-positive
materials at those mosques. The survey also sought to
ascertain whether a correlation exists between the
presence of violence-positive materials at a mosque
and the promotion of jihadism by the mosque's
leadership through recommending the study of these
materials or other manifest behaviors.
Identifying Shari'a-Adherent Behaviors
Shari'a is the Islamic system of law based primarily
on two sources held by Muslims to be respectively
direct revelation from God and divinely inspired: the
Qur'an and the Sunna (sayings, actions, and traditions
of Muhammad). There are other jurisprudential sources
for Shari'a derived from the legal rulings of Islamic
scholars. These scholars, in turn, may be adherents of
differing schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Notwithstanding those differences, the divergence at
the level of actual law is, given the fullness of the
corpus juris, confined to relatively few
marginal issues. Thus, there is general unity and
agreement across the Sunni-Shiite divide and across
the various Sunni madh'habs (jurisprudential
schools) on core normative behaviors.
Surveyors were asked to observe and record selected
behaviors deemed to be Shari'a-adherent. These
behaviors were selected precisely because they
constitute observable and measurable practices of an
orthodox form of Islam as opposed to internalized,
non-observable articles of faith. Such visible modes
of conduct are considered by traditionalists to have
been either exhibited or commanded by Muhammad as
recorded in the Sunna and later discussed and
preserved in canonical Shari'a literature. The
selected behaviors are among the most broadly accepted
by legal practitioners of Islam and are not those
practiced only by a rigid subgroup within
Islam—Salafists, for example.
Among the behaviors observed at the mosques and
scored as Shari'a-adherent were: (a) women wearing the
hijab (head covering) or niqab
(full-length shift covering the entire female form
except for the eyes); (b) gender segregation during
mosque prayers; and (c) enforcement of straight prayer
lines. Behaviors that were not scored as
Shari'a-adherent included: (a) women wearing just a
modern hijab, a scarf-like covering that does
not cover all of the hair, or no covering; (b) men and
women praying together in the same room; and (c) no
enforcement by the imam, lay leader, or worshipers of
straight prayer lines.
The mosques surveyed contained a variety of texts,
ranging from contemporary printed pamphlets and
handouts to classic texts of the Islamic canon. From
the perspective of promoting violent jihad, the
literature types were ranked in the survey from severe
to moderate to nonexistent. The texts selected were
all written to serve as normative and instructive
tracts and are not scriptural. This is important
because a believer is free to understand scripture
literally, figuratively, or merely poetically when it
does not have a normative or legal gloss provided by
The moderate-rated literature was authored by
respected Shari'a religious and/or legal authorities;
while expressing positive attitudes toward violence,
it was predominantly concerned with the more mundane
aspects of religious worship and ritual. The severe
material, by contrast, largely consists of relatively
recent texts written by ideologues, rather than
Shari'a scholars, such as Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid
Qutb. These, as well as materials published and
disseminated by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, are
primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at using Islam to
advance a violent political agenda.
Mawdudi (1903-79), for one, believed that it was
legitimate to wage violent jihad against "infidel
colonizers" in order to gain independence and spread
Islam. His Jihad in Islam, found in many of
the mosques surveyed, instructed followers to employ
force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:
Similarly, Qutb's Milestones serves as the
political and ideological backbone of the current
global jihad movement. Qutb, for example, sanctions
violence against those who stand in the way of Islam's
These materials differ from other severe- and
moderate-rated materials because they are not Islamic
legal texts per se but rather are polemical works
seeking to advance a politicized Islam through
violence, if necessary. Nor are these authors
recognized Shari'a scholars.
The same cannot be said for some classical works that
are also supportive of violence in the name of Islam.
Works by several respected jurists and scholars from
the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, dating
from the eighth to fourteenth centuries, are all in
agreement that violent jihad against non-Muslims is a
The caliph … makes war upon Jews, Christians, and
Zoroastrians … provided he has first invited them to
enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will
not, then invited them to enter the social order of
Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax.
The caliph fights all other peoples until they become
Muslim … because they are not a people with a book,
nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle
with paying the poll tax.
The Fiqh as-Sunna and Tafsir Ibn Kathir
are examples of works that were rated "moderate" for
purposes of this survey. The former, which focuses
primarily on the internal Muslim community, the
family, and the individual believer and not on violent
jihad, was especially moderate in its endorsement of
violence. Relatively speaking, the Fiqh as-Sunna
expresses a more restrained view of violent jihad, in
that it does not explicitly call for a holy war
against the West even though it understands the
Western influence on Islamic governments as a force
that is destructive to Islam itself.
Nonetheless, such texts do express positive views
toward the use of violence against "the other," as
expressed in the following:
Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet, upon whom be
peace, said, "The ties of Islam and the principles of
the religion are three, and whoever leaves one of them
becomes an unbeliever, and his blood becomes lawful:
testifying that there is no god except God, the
obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan." …
Another narration states, "If anyone leaves one of
[the three principles], by God he becomes an
unbeliever, and no voluntary deeds or recompense will
be accepted from him, and his blood and wealth become
lawful." This is a clear indication that such a person
is to be killed.
Similarly in Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
Perform jihad against the disbelievers with the
sword, and be harsh with the hypocrites with words,
and this is the jihad performed against them
The survey's findings, explored in depth below, were
that 51 percent of mosques had texts that either
advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a
Shari'a-based political order or advocated violent
jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance
to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were
moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir
Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent
had no violent texts at all.
This article has been abbreviated, it includes
specific writings and survey results that you will
find of interest. The article in its entirety can be
Israel is the only
country that has guaranteed freedom of all faiths in
Jerusalem, which must remain undivided, Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Congress
Tuesday. In unusually strong language, he told
members of Congress that Judea and Samaria are
part of the ancient Jewish homeland that our
forefathers walked in and that the 650,000 Jews
living there "are not ‘occupying’ the region.”
He strongly criticized the changed versions of
history that are being promoted by others.
Interrupted dozens of
times by standing ovations, after minutes-long
applause as he entered the chamber, Netanyahu also
said that there are 300 million Arabs in the Middle
East, but the only ones who are free are Israeli
Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu noted in his opening remarks that the
"ground is still shifting” in the Middle East and
that the uprisings in the Muslim countries represent
people’s demands for liberty.
He thanked the United
States for helping Israel reach its defense
capabilities despite the “tough” economy. He
jokingly said that the United States doesn't have to
help build Israel--it is already built. More
seriously, he said that the United States doesn't
have to send soldiers to defend Israel, because
Israel defends itself.
Minister did not change any of his
policies, and put paid to rumors that he was
going to announce new concessions. He expressed his
policies in down-to-earth and homey language that
clearly enthused the legislators. U.S. Vice
President Joe Biden was on the podium to receive
him. U.S. President Barack Obama was on his way back
to the United States from a visit to Ireland.
He jokingly noted that
Israel is larger than the Delaware, Biden’s home
state, and larger than Rhode Island, “but that’s
Prime Minister Netanyahu
remarked that the entire length of the Washington
Beltway is larger than the width of the Israel
that the Palestinian Authority demands, which would
be 9 km. wide, hardly "strategic depth"..
He made it clear that he
is willing to agree to borders for a Palestinian
Authority country that would place some Jews outside
of Israel’s borders, but did not mention that this
would be only in settlement blocs and
gave the impression of giving up less, rather than
Netanyahu also stressed
that the borders must be negotiated because Israel
“will not return to the indefensible borders of
1967.” He relied on his interpretation of U.S.
President Barack Obama’s statement that any future
borders of Israel will not be identical with the
1949 Armistice Lines that existed until the Six-Day
War in 1967. He repeated his insistence that the
Jordan River have an Israeli Army presence,
remarking that in the MIddle East, peace depends on
the ability to defend oneself.
The president has called
for “land swaps,” a concept that Prime Minister
Netanyahu did not mention and one which has little
chance of getting off the ground because Israeli
Arabs have little interest in giving up their
freedom and economic security as Israeli citizens.
The vast majority of Jews
living beyond the 1949-1967 borders live
in greater Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv,” the
Prime Minister said in his address. “These areas and
other places of historic, strategic and national
importance will be incorporated into the final
borders of Israel," he asserted.
Prime Minister Netanyahu
also buried the issue of “refugees,” meaning the
Arabs who either fled Israel in the wars in 1948 and
1967, or their descendants.
"Jews around the world
have a right to immigrant to the only Jewish state,
and Arabs around the world should have the right to
immigrate to a Palestinian state.” he told Congress.
In case anyone doubted
his intentions, he added, “This means that the
refugee problem will be solved outside the borders
Repeating that the
obstacle to peace is not the creation of a
Palestinian State to which six successive Israeli
Prime Ministers agreed, but the Palestinian
acceptance of the existence of a Jewish
State, Netanyahu called to Abbas to tell
Palestinians clearly that Israel has a right to
exist. Meanwhile, he said, incitement continues
in PA school curricula, squares are named after
terrorists and the only reward Israel got for
leaving Lebanon and Gaza was 12,000 rockets fired at
"Imagine a siren sounding
and giving you 60 seconds to find shelter before a
missile strikes. You couldn't live with that. No one
can live with that,” he said emphatically,
adding, "Israel is not what is wrong in the Middle
East. Israel is the only thing that is right in the
Most of the legal challenges to Obamacare, the
president's signature legislation that allows the
federal government to take over health-care
decision-making, focus on the "unconstitutional
individual mandate" that defines sitting in one's
living room as "interstate commerce" and demands the
purchase of government-approved health
However, there's a new round of alarms developing
over what critics have described as the ultimate
"death panel," concerns that have been raised because
Barack Obama himself suggested giving an
already-unaccountable board more authority.
It's the idea of Obama's Independent Payment Advisory
Board, which is one of 150 board and commissions
established by Obamacare but is the most notorious
because it would be made up of 15 Obama-appointed
individuals and would dictate Medicare
policy affecting millions of seniors and disabled
Americans with essentially no congressional or
It was during Obama's recent speech in which he
condemned a plan to cut the deficit by Rep. Paul Ryan,
R-Wis., he referenced Obamacare and its critics.
"What they'll say is, well, you know what, that will
never work because it's government imposed and it's
bureaucracy and it's government takeover and there are
death panels," the president said. "I still don't
entirely understand the whole 'death panel' concept.
But I guess what they're saying is somehow some remote
bureaucrat will be deciding your health care for you."
Obama then specifically said his panel's authority
should kick in at an earlier time than it already is
scheduled to become the law.
U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, who has authored "Doctor
in the House" on the issue of the nationalization of
health care, said the IPAB was a bad idea when ex-Sen.
Tom Daschle, D-S.D., proposed it before voters removed
him from office, and it hasn't gotten better.
"Now for the first time ever the primary party for
health care for seniors, Medicare, is going to be able
to tell you what kind of care you can get, where and
when you can get it and worst of all, when you've had
enough," he told WND today.
"If all you're looking to do is be able to figure how
to take care of old people cheaply, this is the way to
go," he said. "If what you want to provide is
meaningful medical care, why would you set up or
embellish a system that leads to waiting lists and
He cited Obama's recent comments, and said the board
will become "the central command and control system"
and the "primary tool" to limit, ration, reduce or
Among other reactions was Stanley Kurtz at National
Review Online, who followed Obama's vague references
with an explanation.
"They're back. Rationing, death panels, socialism,
all those nasty old words that helped
bring Republicans victory in 2010 … They're back
because of IPAB. Remember that acronym. It stands for
The Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is the
real death panel, the true seat of rationing, and the
royal road to health-care socialism.
"Policy wonks and political junkies may know a bit
about this health-care rationing panel, but most
Americans have barely heard of it. That has got to
change," he wrote.
Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential
candidate, initially referred to "death panels" in
Obamacare referencing the end-of-life instructions
that originally were included.
"But IPAB is the real death panel (as Palin herself
later noted), a body of unelected bureaucrats with the
power to cut off care through arbitrary rules based on
one-size-fits-all cost calculations," Kurtz wrote.
It was in Obama's speech decrying Ryan's money-saving
plan that he suggested expanding the authority of the
individuals he would expect to pick.
"We will change the way we pay for health care – not
by the procedure or the number of days spent in a
hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and
hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And
we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by
strengthening an independent commission of doctors,
nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at
all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce
unnecessary spending while protecting access to the
services that seniors need," he said.
There were a multitude of similar alarms being raised
after that speech, but those actually taking action on
the issue are those at the Goldwater Institute in
Its attorneys have filed a lawsuit over the
provision, arguing that nowhere in the Constitution is
the concept of an all-powerful and non-reviewable
"No possible reading of the Constitution supports the
idea of an unelected, stand-alone federal board that's
untouchable by both Congress and the courts," said
Clint Bolick, litigation
director for Goldwater.
The organization describes the authority Obama
endorses for IPAB: It wouldn't have to follow the
basic steps for adopting and enforcing administrative
rules. Its payment schedules and policies couldn't be
examined by courts and automatically would become law
unless amended by Congress through a difficult and
complex procedure. And even if Congress would repeal
the board in 2017, Obama's strategy automatically
delays the effectiveness of that repeal until 2020.
The Institute's lawsuit in federal court opposes IPAB
as simply unconstitutional – and it apparently is the
only lawsuit challenging Obamacare on this crucial
'Protecting any new federal agency from being
repealed by Congress appears to be unprecedented in
the history of the United States," said Diane Cohen,
the Goldwater Institute's lead attorney in this case.
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for
Constitutional Litigation represents a number of
clients in this lawsuit including U.S. Reps Jeff
Flake, Trent Franks and John Shadegg of Arizona. The
congressmen have supported repeal of the Independent
Payment Advisory Board.
Other reactions to Obama's plans include:
Wall Street Journal said, "Mr. Obama … is relying on
the so far unidentified technocratic reforms of 15
so far unidentified geniuses who are supposed to
give up medical practice or academic research for
the privilege of a government salary. Since the
board is not allowed by law to restrict treatments,
ask seniors to pay more, or raise taxes or the retirement age, it can mean
only one thing: arbitrarily paying less for the
services seniors receive, via fiat pricing.
"Now Mr. Obama wants to give the board the
additional power of automatic sequester to enforce
its dictates, meaning that it would have the legal
authority to prevent Congress from appropriating tax
dollars. In other words, Congress would be stripped
of any real legislative role in favor of an
unaccountable body of experts."
New York Times noted that both Democrats and
Republicans "fear" and oppose the board.
"Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board's
cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the
growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals.
Supporters say the board will be able to make tough
decisions because it will be largely insulated from
legislative politics. Lawmakers do not agree."
It cited statements from Ryan, Sen. John Cornyn,
R-Texas, and Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa.
wrote, "The IPAB will be, essentially, the rationing
board that will decide who gets what care. Its
decisions will be guided by a particularly vicious
concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years … If you have
enough QUALYS ahead of you, you'll be approved for a
hip replacement or a heart transplant. If not,
you're out of luck.
From Kurtz, "Obama
promised tax hikes for 'the rich,' and vaguely
alluded to plans to expand IPAB's powers as deficits
mount. Of course, even as he laid the groundwork for
strengthening IPAB, Obama gave no real hint of the
massive health-care rationing that would imply.
Meanwhile, Obama officials have granted 1,040 waivers
to the new law already, because many groups,
especially unions who supported Obama, and companies,
contend they simply cannot meet its requirements, so
shouldn't have to.
The total prompted a video commentary on Obama
The site is sponsored by Let Freedom Ring, Americans
for Tax Reform, CWA, 60 Plus, Independent Women's
Voice and the College
Republican National Committee. It allows visitors to
e-mail the Obama administration asking for their own
waivers. Visitors can select whether they want to ask
for exemptions from the law's $500 billion in tax
increases, taxpayer funding of abortion or the
individual health insurance mandate, among others.
In the federal courts, Obamacare already has been
declared unconstitutuional by at least two federal
judges and it appears en route to a decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court. Also, numerous state legislatures
are considering state legislation that simply would
exempt their state's citizens from its requirements.
One state had a proposal to make it a crime to try to
enforce Obamacare provisions.
JERUSALEM – The new Egyptian government
has refused to share
important intelligence information with Israel,
including details of a terrorist plot against Israelis
thought to be imminent, WND has learned.
Last week, officials in Jerusalem warned of the
possibility of Hezbollah terrorist attacks against
Israeli targets overseas, saying "a planned attack is
already in motion," Israel's Channel 2 reported.
Security officials here
believe Hezbollah is not planning an attack so large
that it would lead to another war with Israel, but
they said the Iranian-backed group would attempt a
hard hit on overseas Israeli targets in the immediate
In light of the immediate threat, Israel requested an
exchange of information on Hezbollah with Egypt's
intelligence apparatus, but Cairo refused to
cooperate, according to security officials here who
spoke to WND.
The officials said such information sharing was
routine under the previous regime of President Hosni
The officials said Egypt is thought to have an
important bank of information on Hezbollah cells,
particularly in the Sinai desert following the arrests
and interrogations several months ago of a major
Hezbollah cell accused of plotting against Mubarak.
WND reported the vast majority of that cell escaped
from Egyptian prison in February amid the chaos then
engulfing Mubarak's regime.
Members of the cell were arrested in June 2009. At
the time, Egypt's public prosecutor, Abdel-Magid
Mohammed, announced the country had arrested 13
alleged Hezbollah agents on suspicion of planning
attacks inside Egypt.
In 2009, WND was first to report Iranian soldiers
aiding the Hezbollah members were nabbed in Egypt.
A senior Egyptian security
official, speaking from Cairo, told WND in 2009 his
country had information Hezbollah cells – working with
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – had been
coordinating terrorist activities inside Egypt with
al-Qaida elements known to be present in the Sinai.
The accusation that Iranian-backed agents were
working with al-Qaida could not be verified by Israeli
security officials. If accurate, it would mark a major
turning point for Hezbollah, which has openly clashed
with al-Qaida over ideology. Hezbollah espouses a
strict Shiite Islamic belief system,
while al-Qaida adheres to fundamentalist Sunni Muslim
Al-Qaida has been blamed for a string of major,
deadly suicide bombings inside Egypt the past few
years mostly targeting hotels and other tourist sites.
The Egyptian government previously has admitted it was
likely al-Qaida was still operating in the Sinai.
The Egyptian security official speaking to WND said
the Hezbollah-Iranian agents in Egypt were working
with al-Qaida to plot attacks against tourist sites,
particularly those known to be popular with Israelis.
According to separate informed security officials
with direct knowledge of the situation, Hezbollah,
working directly with Iran, began setting up cells
inside Egypt at least two years ago. The cells
consisted of well over 80 agents, said the sources.
The goals of the cells operating in the country
include plotting to destabilize the Egyptian regime to
advance Iranian interests, planning attacks against
Israelis at tourist sites, aiding Hamas in Gaza and
establishing a base of Iranian operations along the
strategic Suez Canal.
The pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat reported Egypt
arrested the chief of the Hezbollah cell, identified
as Sami Shehab. The newspaper claimed Shehab confessed
his cell monitored tourist sites in the Egyptian
resort cities of Taba, Dahab and Sharm el-Sheikh, and
tracked Israeli ships passing through the Suez Canal.
Latest signs of Egyptian militancy
The purported refusal of Egypt to share intelligence
information with Israel comes amid fears in the
country of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood seeks to restore the Islamic
caliphate, a political empire that once ruled the
Middle East. Both Hamas and al-Qaida are Brotherhood
Earlier this month, former International Atomic
Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who had
previously announced his intentions to run for the
presidency of Egypt, said "if Israel attacked Gaza we
would declare war against the Zionist regime."
The same day, Egypt's foreign minister said Cairo was
ready to re-establish diplomatic ties with Tehran
after a break of more than 30 years, signaling a clear
shift in Iran policy since the fall of Mubarak.
"The Egyptian and Iranian people deserve to have
mutual relations reflecting their history and
civilization," said Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby
after meeting with Iranian official Mugtabi Amani.
Days after Mubarak stepped aside, Egypt allowed the
passage of two Iranian warships through the strategic
Suez Canal for the first time since 1979.
Also WND reported last month the Egyptian military
command met with Hamas to discuss ways to build a
better relationship with the Islamist organization.
If the United Nations unilaterally declares a
Palestinian state, Israel should respond by
immediately annexing the Jewish communities in the
strategic West Bank, declared a Knesset member from
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud
Danny Danon, the deputy speaker
of Israel's parliament, pointed out the 1993 Oslo
Accords restrict both Israel and the Palestinian
Authority from taking unilateral action outside of
However, he contended that if the PA follows through
with seeking a U.N. declaration of a Palestinian
state, and the international body approved the motion,
the Jewish state should take unilateral measures of
"We should (then) announce that we are annexing the
Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, immediately.
The same way (Prime Minister) Menachem Begin did it
with the Golan Heights and we did it in Jerusalem, we
should do the same with the Jewish communities of
Judea and Samaria."
Danon was speaking in a radio interview with Aaron
Klein, WND's Jerusalem bureau chief who hosts an
investigative program on New York's WABC 770 AM Radio.
The Likud Knesset member was referring to the Israeli
annexation of the eastern sections of Jerusalem, which
contain the Temple Mount, after it recaptured the
territory in the 1967 Six Day War.
Also, Israel in 1981 annexed the Golan Heights, which
looks down on Israeli population centers, after
neighboring Syria twice used the plateau to mount ground invasions into the Jewish
Danon told Klein that any U.N.-created Palestinian
state would be "like a state on Facebook."
"They will get a lot of 'likes,'" he said. "People
will support them. Countries will support them. But on
the ground we will have to make sure that we control
the borders. We control the security
He warned a Palestinian country would be a "state of
terrorism" that would be controlled by Iran.
Judea and Samaria, commonly referrer to as the West
Bank, contains large Palestinian cities as well as
Israeli communities, some in biblical cities, such as
Beit El and Hebron.
The Palestinians seek a state in the pre-1967
borders, meaning the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern
The PA been saying for at least two years they may
seek a vote at the United Nations Security Council for
the declaration of a Palestinian state.
Previously, PA officials stated the Obama
administration would not veto a U.N. Security Council
resolution calling for a Palestinian state.
In 2009, Ahmed Qurei, former PA prime minister and
member of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee, told WND in
an interview that the PA "reached an understanding
with important elements within the administration" to
possibly bring to the U.N. Security Council a
resolution to unilaterally create a Palestinian state.
Asked to which "elements" he was referring, Qurei
would only say they were from the Obama
In a clear attempt to pave the way for a U.N. vote on
the matter, the international body announced last week
the PA possesses the capacity to function as a state.
"In six areas where the U.N. is most engaged,
government functions are now sufficient for a
functioning government of a state," stated a U.N.
report released last Tuesday.
The six areas were "governance, rule of law and human
rights; livelihoods; education
and culture; health; social protection; and
infrastructure and water."
Still, the report cautioned, "The key constraints to
the existence and successful functioning of the
institutions of a potential state of Palestine arise
primarily from the persistence of occupation and the
unresolved issues in the Israeli-Palestinian
The reference to "occupation" is controversial, since
the territories were never part of any previous
Palestinian state, and Israel is historically tied to
the West Bank.
By Eli Lake Wed., April 13,
The Washington Times
Mrs. Myrick was particularly concerned about the role
the Muslim Brotherhood plays in the United States.
The federal government has no strategy to counter the
Muslim Brotherhood at home or abroad, according to the
chairwoman of the House panel that oversees
counterintelligence and terrorism.
“The federal government does not have a comprehensive
or consistent strategy for dealing with the Muslim
Brotherhood and its affiliated groups in America,”
Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick said during a hearing
Wednesday. “Nor does it have a strategy for dealing
with the Brotherhood in Egypt or the greater Middle
The North Carolina Republican is chairwoman of the
House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism, human
intelligence, analysis and counterintelligence. Mrs.
Myrick said at the hearing that she planned on
scheduling closed classified hearings on the Muslim
Brotherhood this session with government officials.
Established in 1928 in Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood
is widely considered the first organization to push
for political Islam or Islamism, a movement that seeks
to replace civil law with Islamic or Shariah law.
Islamists were repressed for decades by the
governments in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia.
But with the wave of uprisings that have toppled those
governments, political parties and social movements
inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood may be poised to
try to assume political power in those countries for
the first time.
At the hearing, during which nongovernment experts
gave testimony, opinions on this point differed.
While millions of outraged Americans protest what
they see as a lawless and power-mad Obama
administration, many wonder how much clout individuals
can really have in reining in a wildly out-of-control
But suppose, in addition to citizens with little
power beyond their vote, those standing up to the
federal government were named Virginia, Texas,
Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Tennessee,
Montana, Maine, South Dakota – and many more?
Incredibly, though under-reported by the
establishment press, that's exactly what is happening
right now, as the April issue of Whistleblower
documents in-depth, in "STATES OF REBELLION: How
legislators and governors nationwide are openly
challenging a rogue president."
A wide-ranging rebellion is indeed under way – by a
large majority of states – against what they claim are
intolerable and blatantly unconstitutional
encroachments by the federal government. And they are
seriously intent on declaring such unconstitutional
laws null and void in their state.
Here's how Thomas E. Woods Jr., author of the
bestselling book, "Nullification: How to resist
federal tyranny in the 21st century," succinctly lays
out the issue in the April Whistleblower:
Nullification begins with the
axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the
Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no
effect. Nullification simply pushes this
uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is
unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect,
it is up to the states, the parties to the federal
compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce
it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the
federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its
own law. Nullification provides a shield between the
people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the
Take Obamacare: Most people know the GOP-led House of
Representatives repealed it (though the
Democrat-controlled Senate almost certainly will not,
nor will Obama ever sign it). And many also know 27
states are challenging Obamacare in court. But what
few understand is that at least 11 states are
attempting to legislatively nullify Obamacare
within their borders. So far, an act to nullify the
entire federal health-care law has become state law in
Montana and Idaho, has been approved by one house in
North Dakota, and introduced in eight other states –
New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas,
Wyoming, South Dakota and Oklahoma.
What about the federal government's labyrinthine gun
laws? Eight states have already passed laws – signed
by their governors – telling Washington its firearms
regulations are not valid in those states for weapons
manufactured and purchased
in-state. Many other states are on the same
There's much more: Utah last month became the first
state to make gold and silver legal tender in that
state. Twenty-four states are defying Obama by copying
Arizona's immigration law – the one the Obama Justice
Department sued Arizona over. Lawmakers in 40 states
are working to halt the epidemic of "anchor babies"
establishing "birthright citizenship." And 13 states
are considering laws that would require every
presidential candidate – including Barack Obama – to
prove he is a natural-born citizen before his name can
be placed on that state's ballot in presidential
OF THE LAND
WorldNetDaily Exclusive Supremes asked to
restore fallen troopers' crosses 'One
atheist group's agenda shouldn't diminish the
sacrifice of officers'
Posted: April 21, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to bring a
decision from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Denver into alignment with its precedents in a
dispute over cross memorials to fallen Utah state
highway patrol troopers.
Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund today said
they have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court
that asks the court to affirm the constitutionality of
roadside memorial crosses honoring the fallen
The high court last year concluded in another case
that a cross erected by a private group on public
property in honor of fallen members of the military
ADF argues that the precedent also should apply to
the Utah dispute.
"One atheist group's agenda shouldn't diminish the
sacrifice made by Utah highway patrol officers and
their families. We are asking the Supreme Court to
allow the families of the fallen to honor their loved
ones through these constitutionally permissible
memorials," said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione.
"The Supreme Court recently signaled that
individualized memorial crosses honoring fallen
troopers simply do not amount to a government
establishment of religion. That guidance applies
directly to this case," he said.
A district court judge affirmed the constitutionality
of the memorials, but when the dispute was elevated to
the Denver court, the judges condemned the crosses on
the narrowest of margins, 5-4.
The four judges who dissented raised strong
objections to the censorship that the decision
appeared to impose.
"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does
not require eradication of all religious symbols in
the public realm," the Supreme Court wrote in its 2010
decision regarding a cross memorial in the Mojave
Desert. "A cross by the side of a public highway
marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper
perished need not be taken as a statement of
governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The
Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any
public acknowledgment of religion's role in society."
Argued the ADF brief, "The 10th Circuit's decision
conflicts with this court's Establishment Clause
precedent. The 10th Circuit invalidated the challenged
roadside memorials by (1) fixating on their cross
shape, (2) ignoring most of their features, history,
and context, and (3) opining that the Establishment
Clause forbids such displays unless the overall
setting nullifies any religious significance."
However, "This court … has denounced each of these
analytical missteps. In short, the 10th Circuit's
approach, if allowed to stand, will prohibit the
government from accommodating public displays of
religious symbols, forbid a widely embraced means of
commemorating fallen heroes on public property, and
manifest an unconstitutional hostility toward
ADF warned that if the Utah crosses are disallowed,
the result "could jeopardize similar memorials
honoring other fallen heroes across the nation,
including 14 crosses on Colorado's Storm King Mountain
where firefighters lost their lives in a 1994
The case originated with complaints from American
Atheists who sued the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah
Transportation Department, alleging the memorials are
a government establishment of religion.
That claim was pursued even though the memorials are
funded and maintained by a private group, the Utah
Highway Patrol Association, which supports patrol
officers and their families.
WND columnist David Limbaugh, when the earlier ruling
banishing the crosses was released, blasted the
judiciary for its "allergy" to Christianity.
"Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so
allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity
that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon
off the chief allergen: Christianity," he wrote at the
"The egregious constitutional infraction here is not
that the government put up the signs, which it didn't,
but that the memorials were placed along public roads.
Thus, 'reasonable' passing motorists – as opposed, I
guess, to those afflicted with anti-Christian road
rage – might well assume that the government is
endorsing the Christian religion. Horror of horrors.
My gosh, what would the largely Christian founders
He continued. "I don't think it's a reasonable
inference at all that the government is making a
religious statement by permitting the
placement of these memorials along the public highway.
On the other hand, I think the government would be
(and is) making a statement against Christianity by
denying this group access because of its paranoia
about going into Christian-spawned anaphylactic
The memorials have remained in place during the court
process, but their future depends entirely on the high
court accepting the case and reversing the lower
Plainclothes security personnel film
as they gather to load detained worshippers onto a
waiting bus near a building that leaders of the
unregistered Shouwang house church had told
parishioners to gather in Beijing, China, April 10,
Police in China detained hundreds of Christian
worshippers as they gathered for an outdoor service in
Beijing. The detentions are the latest in a crackdown
on individuals and groups deemed by the government to
pose a threat to social stability.
The worshipers were from the unregistered, Christian,
Shouwang House Church in Beijing. Their church
leaders asked them to gather at an open-air venue for
Sunday services, after they were evicted from their
usual place of worship last week.
Hundreds of uniformed and plain clothes police
officers were deployed to stop the outdoor service.
Around 200 Christian worshippers wererounded up and detained in a nearby school and
others were forced onto buses by police and driven
away to an unknown location. Several foreign
journalists were detained for short periods and some
were physically intimidated by plain clothes police.
Shouwang Church Pastor Yuan Ling told reporters Sunday
he was unable to go to the venue because police had
put him under house arrest Saturday night.
The director of the Britain-based China Aid
Association, Bob Fu, says the worshipers feel
this is the price they will pay gladly for what he
describes as their faith and their freedom.
"We have seen the government use very harsh tactics
against believers, including extra-legal procedures,
like forced disappearance, kidnapping some of the most
prominent Christian human-rights activists," said Bob
The round up of Christian worshipers is the latest in
a far-reaching crackdown on individuals and groups the
government says may pose a threat to social
stability. The communist government has been
worried about uprisings similar to those in the Arab
world taking hold in China, following anonymous online
calls for demonstrations.
Prominent activist, lawyers, writers and artists -
including internationally renowned artist Ai Weiwei -
have recently been detained and charged with a variety
of crimes including subversion and tax evasion.