Please read just a few of the headlines that World Net Daily has published.
LAW OF THE LAND
Supremes: Cities can refuse religious monuments
Ruling allows governments to decide which markers to display in public parks
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that governments in the U.S. are not required to post or display every statement offered by private organizations.
The ruling came in a case stemming from a dispute in Utah in which a religious organization called Summum demanded the city of Pleasant Grove display a monument containing its seven "aphorisms." Summum argued the city already had accepted a donated monument displaying the Ten Commandments in a city park.
Lawyers with the American Center for Law and Justice, who defended the city, said a requirement that governments display any message offered was "scary" and would lead to absurd scenarios.
"The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a Hitler memorial?" said the ACLJ's Frank Manion in a previous interview with WND.The non-profit legal group also had suggested that according to Summum's logic, the nation could be required to allow a "Statue of Tyranny" in New York Harbor to accompany the Statue of Liberty.
The Supreme Court's ruling concluded those fears are "well founded."
At the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, judges had ruled that Summum was entitled to have its monument displayed by the city.
The ACLJ contended Ten Commandments monuments nationwide were the real targets of the legal action, because in many circumstances, cities or other governments likely would order such monuments removed rather than order acceptance of others.
Today's decision, ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told WND, is a "huge victory."
"This decision allows government to convey messages about its own history of its community, and includes religious monuments," he said. "Religious monuments are not treated differently than others. Most significantly, the government get to make the selections."
The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, explained the Constitution "does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government's own vision" for the parks.
A monument is not the same as a message delivered in a public forum, either, the opinion said.
"Speakers, no matter how long-winded, eventually come to the end of their remarks; persons distributing leaflets and carrying signs at some point tire and go home; monuments, however, endure. They monopolize the use of the land on which they stand and interfere permanently with other uses of public space. A public park, over the years, can provide a soapbox for a very large number of orators – often, for all who want to speak – but it is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression," said the court.
"There may be situations in which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is providing a forum for private speech, but this case does not present such a situation. Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech," the opinion said.
"Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land … We think it is fair to say that throughout our Nation's history, the general government practice with respect to donated monuments has been one of selective receptivity."
The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. David Souter filed an opinion concurring in judgment.
In his arguments to the high court, Sekulow said another ruling in the case would "create havoc in America over how local, state and federal governments choose to memorialize significant events."
He suggested the basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property. The answer is 'Yes,'" he said. "The fact is that government speech means the government can control its message. For example, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."
"Summum's assertion of a right to force its monument upon the city has no legitimate basis in Supreme Court case law," Sekulow said.
Summum, founded in Salt Lake City in 1975, calls itself a church. The group sued Pleasant Grove in federal court, alleging that because the city had a donated Ten Commandments monument in a city park, the First Amendment required the city to accept and display a monument to Summum's seven aphorisms.
The aphorisms, according to the group's website, predate the Ten Commandments and include: The principles of psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender.
The "church" claims the aphorisms were written on the
original stone tablets given by God to Moses, which he broke when he
saw the Israelites had manufactured a golden calf idol during his
absence. The organization says the tablets were broken because Moses
realized people couldn't understand the aphorisms, so he came down a
second time with the Ten Commandments.
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Senator questions Obama eligibility
Shelby: 'They said he was born in Hawaii,
but I haven't seen any birth certificate'
WASHINGTON – A U.S. senator has weighed in on the continuing controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility for office by saying he has never seen proof the new president was actually born in Hawaii.
"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told constituents in Cullman County. "You have to be born in America to be president."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state's procedures allowed at the time?
Reporters arrested for 'offending Islam'
Article says Muhammad killed Jews, had sexual relations with 9-year-old
JERUSALEM – Two newspaper executives were arrested yesterday on charges of "intent to outrage" the "religious feelings" of Muslims.
Their alleged crime? Republishing an article that refers to Islam as "oppressive" and states the religion's prophet, Muhammad, had sex with a 9-year-old girl and ordered the murder of Jews.
The incident unfolded in India, where Ravindra Kumar, an editor, and Anand Sinha, publisher of the country's Statesman newspaper, turned themselves into police following complaints from local Muslims. The complaints cited a law that makes illegal the "malicious intent" to "outrage religious feelings." The two were released on bail today.
The Statesman had republished an article Feb. 5 originally printed in Britain's Independent newspaper titled, "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" The author, columnist Johann Hari, was lamenting what he said was the erosion of rights to criticize religion."I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a 9-year old girl and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him," Hari wrote.
Although the piece prompted little outcry in Britain, angry Muslims reportedly have been demonstrating in front of the Statesman's offices. Baton-wielding police broke up several protests the past two weeks.
Kumar already issued a public apology for reprinting the article.
"The essential ingredient of the law under which we are charged is malicious intent," Kumar told reporters today.
"But how could we anticipate the protest when the article generated no controversy in Britain, which has substantial Muslim population, after it was carried originally by the Independent?" he said.
India, the world's second most populous country, is mostly Hindu. About 13 percent of the population is Muslim.
"There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7, or 8. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife," said Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, an officiant for marriages.World Net Daily
For more information on this topic, Click Here
FAITH UNDER FIRE
School rejects parents' religion after 'sincerity test'
Subjects mom, dad to 'sincerity test' after filing vaccination exemption
A mother and father in New York were subjected by their school district's attorney to a faith "sincerity test," which ultimately ruled their beliefs were too questionable to qualify for a religious exemption to mandatory student immunization.
Ron and Rita Palma filed the exemption with their son's school district in 2006 after coming to the conclusion the year before that the required vaccinations violated their conscience and sense of God's leading for their family.
Rather than accept the standard exemption form, however, the Bayport-Blue Point Union Free School District demanded the couple meet with school attorney David Cohen. The Palmas have twice been compelled to sit down with Cohen to be interrogated about their faith and their convictions about vaccines.
"If you believe God is on your side," Cohen asked in the most recent of the two interviews, conducted last fall, "does that mean he's not on the side of someone who believes in immunization?"
"Do you have conversations with God? Has God told you not to immunize?" the attorney asked. "Explain it to me."
Cohen described to the Palmas' attorney that the purpose of the interview was two-fold: to determine whether the Palmas' beliefs are actually religious, as opposed to philosophical or political; and to determine whether the beliefs are "sincerely and genuinely held."
The school district's most recent interrogation of the Palmas was videotaped, and a segment – which shows the attorney, Cohen, while the Palmas and their attorney sit off-screen – can be seen below:Rita Palma told WND that being compelled to defend her faith before an attorney and answer questions about her family's lifestyle, diet, medicinal choices and personal convictions was "unbelievably invasive."
"It's almost beyond words what we were put through," Palma said. "It's such an abusive power, it's so arrogant that 'outrageous' doesn't even label it correctly. It's something you can't even imagine that somebody would take it upon themselves to do – to judge the sincerity of your belief.
"Particularly in a school district," Palma said, "taking it upon themselves to judge your relationship with God? Have you ever heard of such a thing?"
Not only were the Palmas grilled, however, their attempts to file religious exemptions were also ultimately denied.
Following both interviews, the first in 2006 and the last in 2008, the school district deemed the Palmas' beliefs were not sincerely held.
"This determination," wrote the school in 2006, "was made based upon your meeting with the school attorney and information which we received, which significantly calls into question your stated beliefs."
Rita Palma explained to WND that her choice not to immunize her children was a decision of conscience and of following God's leading. In the interview with the lawyer, Palma further explained that she sees a distinction between medicine as a healing for sickness and vaccines, which she described as injecting a sickness as step toward heath. The latter, she insisted, violates her understanding of trust in God and his design for the body.
The school district's denial, however, cited a medical test Palma gave her son as evidence that her beliefs are too inconsistent to be sincerely and genuinely held.
The district's second denial, in 2008, further criticized the Palmas, a self-described Catholic family, for misquoting the Bible and claimed that if their objection was truly a matter of religious conviction, they could have sought something other than public school for their son.
The Palmas appealed the original denial to the state's commissioner of public education, only to be denied again.
Now, with the help of New York State Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, the Palmas are working to prevent other parents from enduring the same interrogation or contra-conscience mandatory immunization of their children.
Gottfried, chair of the state Assembly's health committee, has sponsored New York bill A00883, which amends state law to ban "sincerity tests" and states, "The current common practice of government agencies scrutinizing and judging a parent's religious beliefs is inappropriate in a democracy that values the First Amendment.
"There could be concern that some parents might falsely claim a religious exemption," the bill continues. "But it is greatly outweighed by the burden that the intrusive, prolonged inquiry imposes on bona fide objectors forced to defend their religious beliefs."
WND contacted the offices of attorney David Cohen for response or comment but received no reply.World Net Daily
For more information on this topic, Click Here
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Judge tells Christian: 'I would kill you'
Reportedly threatens woman who chooses to worship Jesus
A woman arrested at the Cairo airport because her identity card described her as a Christian has been threatened for her faith by the judge in her case, according to a new report.
As WND reported, authorities in Egypt deprived the woman's two children, ages 2 and 4, of food to try to coerce her to abandon Christianity and return to Islam.
According to the Assyrian International News Agency, a woman identified as Martha Samuel Makkar was arrested Dec. 13 as she, her husband, Fadl Thabet, and two sons were trying to leave Cairo for Russia.
Makkar, formerly known as Zainab Said Abdel-Aziz, was accused
of carrying forged government documents, because she identified herself
as a Christian. Islamic law forbids Muslims from abandoning the faith.
Now, according to Compass Direct News, she has been granted bail, and released to rejoin her husband and sons at home pending her forgery trial.
However, the release was not without complications.
Makkar's lawyer, Nadia Tawfiq, reported that Judge Abdelaa Hashem questioned Makkar closely about her Christian faith during a courtroom hearing.
The decision to grant her bail came Saturday in the hearing before Hashem after Makkar told the judge about her new Christian faith and her abandonment of Islam.
Tawfiq told Compass Direct "the judge then said, 'I want to talk with Martha alone,' so we all left the room, and he said to her, 'Nobody changes from Muslim to Christian – you are a Muslim.'
"And she said, 'No, I am a Christian.' He told her, 'If I had a knife now, I would kill you,'" the lawyer said.
Makkar, 24, has said she's been enduring death threats from police and members of her extended family for the five years since she converted.
There is no established legal precedent in Egypt for allowing people to leave Islam. And national law doesn't provide a channel through which to change the religious designation on an identity card.
The Compass report said George Abyad, 67, and Masood Guirges, 55, employees of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Alexandria, also were arrested on suspicion they aided Makkar with her papers.
The American Center for Law and Justice has participated in a fight to keep a man who fled Egypt from being deported from the U.S. A recent decision from the 3rd U.S. District Court of Appeals gave Sameh Khouzam the right to challenge Egypt's "diplomatic assurances" that he would not be tortured on his return to the Middle East nation.
Egypt has been demanding his extradition in a homicide case he alleges is trumped-up. The case has been highlighted by spokesman Sam Grace of Coptic News. He praised U.S. District Judge Thomas Vanaskie's earlier ruling that Khouzam "most assuredly has a right not to be tortured."
"We live in a time that is really as bad if not worse than the time of the martyrs," he said.
Multitudes of Christians have been attacked, and many killed, yet not one Muslim ever has been convicted in the attacks, he said.
"The why is very simple, because Shariah law says the blood of the Muslim should not be shed for the blood of an unbeliever," he said.
Grace said since Egypt's constitution concludes laws derive from the Quran, persecution of Christians is not only allowed but endorsed by the government.
"In the last 10 years, more than 5,000 Christians have been massacred in Egypt," he told WND. "Hundreds of businesses and homes first have been looted, then burned and destroyed. Churches have been burned and destroyed."
Grace told WND that attacks, lootings and burnings are common in Egypt on Fridays, after the local imam preaches violence against Christians at his mosque.
"The life of a Christian in Egypt is now worth zero. Every Muslim now knows killing a Christian [is not prosecuted]," he said.
A report from the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights concluded Coptic Christians in Egypt have been harassed, tortured and killed by Muslims for 1,400 years.
"They have been subjected to all kinds of hate crimes
including, the abduction of young Coptic girls, the killing of Coptic
women and children and the destruction of their places of worship," the
World Net Daily
Judge sides with Savage over CAIR
Denies claim for fees in copyright lawsuit
A federal judge today denied a further attempt by the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations to extract attorney fees and costs in a case nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Savage brought against the Muslim lobby group.
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected CAIR's request for reconsideration of her Nov. 12 order denying a motion that Savage pay attorney's fees to the Washington, D.C.-based group.
Illston previously dismissed Savage's copyright infringement and RICO lawsuit alleging CAIR illegally published singled-out quotes and audio excerpts from his show regarding Islam, misappropriated his words and used the clips for its own fundraising purposes, damaging the value of his copyrighted material.As WND reported, Savage called Illston's November decision a "huge victory for me, personally, but also for the rest of America who is afraid of this lawsuit-happy group of intimidators."
Savage said Illston is a "bona fide liberal, yet she followed the law in the fees motion."
"CAIR tried to tell her in their claim that she 'should get' me, because they were all liberals," he said. "You have to read their sloppy claim to believe it. Now, people will not be afraid to file suits if they have a legitimate claim against CAIR or any other Soros-funded group."
CAIR waged a public campaign using excerpted Savage remarks to urge advertisers to boycott his top-rated program. CAIR stated its campaign successfully resulted in Savage losing $1 million in advertising.
Part of Savage's lawsuit alleged CAIR received millions in foreign funding and that the Islamic group may have been wrongfully acting as a lobbyist or agent for a foreign government, violating its nonprofit status.
Savage also alleged CAIR was engaged in racketeering, describing the group as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that helped fund the 9/11 attacks, a contention strongly denied by CAIR.
But Illston concluded it is legal to use excerpts of a public broadcast for purposes of comment and criticism.
Illston wrote in her ruling that Savage could try to rewrite the racketeering portion of his suit to better fit the specifics of his case.
In May 2007, CAIR was identified by the government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving the Holy Land Foundation, a charity allegedly affiliated with Hamas. Federal prosecutors listed CAIR under the category: “Individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.”
The government also listed Omar Ahmad, CAIR's founder and chairman emeritus, under the same category.
CAIR is registered as a nonprofit organization recognized as tax-exempt under IRS codes, which restrict "lobbying on behalf of a foreign government." CAIR's website claims it receives no foreign government support.
But CAIR's headquarters near the U.S. Capitol until recently was owned by the ruler of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the ruler's foundation has pledged $50 million to capitalize a long-term CAIR public-relations campaign.
The UAE formally recognized the Taliban, and Dubai reportedly acted as the transit point for cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Two of the hijackers were from the Emirates, and one served in the UAE military.
Until 2005, the Al Maktoum Foundation run by Dubai's ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid held the deed to CAIR's headquarters just three blocks from the Capitol. The same foundation reportedly has held telethons to raise money for families of Palestinian "martyrs" during the intifada – or terrorist war – started in September 2000 against Israel. It recently pledged a $50 million endowment for CAIR.
CAIR argues that any assertions it receives money from foreign governments is "disinformation."
"This is yet another attempt to invent a controversy," the group said. "CAIR's operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims."
CAIR, however, has never publicly acknowledged $1 million controlling interest that the ruler of Dubai's foundation took in its national headquarters just one year after 9/11.
The group also received $500,000 from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the sheik whose $10 million relief check after 9/11 was rejected by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after he blamed U.S. policy toward Israel for the attacks.
"There is nothing criminal or immoral about accepting donations from foreign nationals," CAIR asserted. "The U.S. government, corporations and non-profit organizations routinely receive money from foreign nationals."
"Bin Talal is not a member of the Saudi Arabian government," the group added in a statement. "He is a private entrepreneur and international investor."
This may be a distinction without a difference, Savage's lawyers argued, since bin Talal is a member of the Saudi ruling family.
World Net Daily
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Terrorists gush over CNN coverage of Mecca pilgrims
'Defeat for Christians,' proof Islam 'will shine all over the world'
JERUSALEM – CNN's extensive coverage this week of the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca is a defeat for evangelical Christians and proves it is only a question of time before Islam will be "shining all over the world," according to Muslim terrorists in Gaza speaking to WND.
Starting last Saturday and continuing until Wednesday, CNN provided regular coverage of the Hajj, the largest annual pilgrimage in the world. The fifth pillar of Islam requires every able-bodied Muslim to travel to Mecca at least once in their life in a demonstration of solidarity with fellow Muslims and in an act of individual submission to Allah.
CNN aired several live reports from this year's Hajj, including a live shot of the end of the pilgrimage in which Muslims in attendance encircle the Kabah – the holiest Islamic building in Mecca – seven times, in a counter-clockwise direction. The news network also provided extensive online coverage, including several articles and an entire special section of the CNN website dedicated to the Hajj.
CNN regularly provides coverage of festivals of other religions, including extensive Christmas reporting and occasional coverage of Jewish holidays.
The Hajj reporting was sure to draw accolades from the many Muslims among CNN's national and international audience. Apparently this extends to some radical Muslims and terrorists in the Gaza Strip, who may have read a little too much into the coverage.
"The fact that the Americans, who are the biggest enemies of Islam, are so interested in the Hajj proves they want to know what is this thing threatening their culture. They want to understand what is this religion that is defeating them in the U.S., in Iraq, in Palestine, everywhere," said Muhammad Abdel Al, spokesman and a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terrorist organization.
"This (CNN coverage) proves it's a question of time when Islam will be shining all over the world," Abdel-Al told WND.
Abdel-Al's Committees' is responsible for scores of suicide bombing, shooting attacks and rocket launchings against Jewish civilian population centers. The group carried out a 2003 roadside bomb attack that killed three American contractors.
Abdel-Al said he didn't personally watch the CNN coverage. He said he heard about it in several Arabic language news reports boasting of CNN's interest in the Hajj.
Also sounding off about the news network was Abu Islam, chief of Jihadiya Silafiya, a Palestinian Islamist organization ideologically allied with al-Qaida values. The group took responsibility for several attacks targeting Christians in Gaza, including the bombing of a Christian bookstore there accused of missionary activity.
"Since CNN gives the Hajj so much coverage, it means there is no way that Islam is defeated. We bless CNN for this great gesture that can improve relations between the West and between Islam. They did it because they checked with audience and found they are so interested in knowing Islam," said Abu Islam.
"I am calling all Americans to see how Islam is a religion of modesty where the richest person in there world and poorest person in the world can meet in Mecca and they have no differences. As long as we believe in Allah, then Allah says Islam will be winning, so Americans understand they cannot defeat Islam."
Abu Islam called CNN's Hajj coverage a "defeat for
the radical Christian evangelists who wanted to show Islam only in a
dark way. We are defeating these people through their homes in their
LAW OF THE LAND
Cops use banned noise ordinance against street preacher
Court orders limit tossed, but officers say it doesn't apply to them
Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund earlier this year settled a case against Ithaca, N.Y., over an ordinance that violated the free speech rights of a street preacher. A federal court banned enforcement of the disputed rule, which restricted sounds that could be heard from 25 feet away.
But it took only a couple of visits from another street evangelist, and the attorneys were back in court with another action against Ithaca. Police officers who were told about the court order insisted it didn't apply to them, because they weren't involved in the first case.
The original 1999 dispute, involving Kevin Deegan, was settled earlier this year, according to ADF officials. The resolution included a court order prohibiting officials "from enforcing a municipal code that ... restricts sounds on public streets, sidewalks, or paths that can be heard from 25 feet," which, the legal group noted, would ban sneezing or cell phone rings."Three months ago, a friend of Kevin's, Jim Deferio was standing at Kevin's accustomed spot on the commons, doing a little preaching of his own. He, too, was approached by police officers who told him he'd have to stop, since he was violating the same city ordinance their predecessors had invoked against Kevin," the ADF said in a new report.
"The next week, Kevin went back to the spot with Jim, and the two of them were approached by police, citing the same law. Kevin produced a copy of the federal court order authorizing him to exercise his rights, but the officers told him – incredibly – that the order didn't apply to them – only to the specific officers who had confronted Kevin years earlier," the ADF reported.
"So, now ADF is representing Jim. We've filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Ithaca on his behalf, along with a motion asking the court to suspend the ordinance while the case moves forward."
Nate Kellum, a senior counsel with ADF, commented.
"Police officers cannot step beyond their authority and illegally suppress Christian speech in defiance of a court order," he said.
The new complaint explains, "This is a civil rights action challenging city ordinances and policy, on their face and as applied, that prohibit noise heard 25 feet from its source in the City of Ithaca. These precise ordinances and policy of City of Ithaca have already been declared unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and enjoined by this court in Deegan v. City of Ithaca, et al."
The original case involving Deegan came when he was delivering a Gospel message in Ithaca Commons. Officers cited Deegan under the noise ordinance – the only apparent use of that ordinance in its history at that time – despite any number of "recreation activities, celebrations, demonstrations, rallies, musical performances, poetry readings, speeches, and other expressive undertakings" that have gone on there.
Deegan was told the city banned sound loud enough to be heard more than 25 feet away.
"Kevin was understandably stunned," ADF said. "Under those restrictions, public sneezing would be illegal on the streets of Ithaca. So would almost every other activity then under way on the commons. Indeed, as a noise expert hired by the Alliance Defense Fund (which represented Kevin) testified, this city ordinance would outlaw even such everyday sounds as the clicking of boots, small children playing, a ringing cell phone, and normal-decibel conversations."
Ultimately, the appeals court panel ruled in favor of Deegan's First Amendment right to free speech, even on the Ithaca Commons, ADF reported.
"Noisy free speech abounds here, yet Mr. Deegan was limited to a whisper," Kellum said.
The appeals court ruling said the city's officials could not "justify their even stricter regulation of Deegan's speech in the Commons, which is a public forum bustling with the sounds of recreation, celebration, commerce, demonstration, rallies, music, poetry, speeches, and other expressive undertakings."
World Net Daily
For more information on this topic, Click Here
Muslim plea to Obama: Return to 'Islamic roots'
'Allah will reward you for all who convert in your footsteps'
JERUSALEM – Claiming Barack Obama has roots in the Islamic religion, an Egyptian cleric has broadcast a plea urging Obama to convert to Islam while warning if the U.S. doesn't withdraw its troops from the Middle East and provide aid to Muslims, those "eager for [death]" will attack America.
"My message to [Obama] is threefold," declares Egyptian cleric Hassan Abu Al-Ashbal, speaking last week on the state-funded Al Nas religious television network. "First, I invite him to convert to Islam. This is the call of the Prophet and of Allah. Oh, Obama – convert to Islam, and you will be saved.""You, Obama, are among those who have pledged before Allah – Allah who created you, sustained you, and brought you to this position – to be a Muslim who believes that Allah is the one God, especially since you have some kind of roots in Islam," declares Ashbal. "Convert to Islam, and you will be saved. All glory and honor lie in following Allah and his messenger, Muhammad. Know that the true religion is the religion of Islam, and all other religions are fabricated religions, which are null and void – religions that were abrogated by the shari'a of Muhammad."
Continues Ashbal, "I hope that Allah will reward you twice: once for converting to Islam, and another reward for all those who will convert in your footsteps. If you want glory, you will find it in Islam. If you want honor, you will find it in Islam. In religions other than Islam there is utter humiliation, even if you are the president of the entire world."
The Egyptian cleric says if Obama refuses to convert to Islam, his administration should at the least "withdraw your huge armies and military bases from the lands of the Muslims."
"Know that all your predecessors have ended up in the garbage bin of history, and that America's black and bleak history in the land of the Muslims and the Arabs constitutes an evil omen for you, your predecessors, and your successors," Ashbal states.
Ashbal further warns there will be no peace "as long as a single Muslim child lacks food, drink, medicine, or housing," implying suicide bombers would strike American targets.
"If you refuse," Ashbal declares, "and insist on remaining in Muslim lands, know that Allah still plants in [Muslims] obedience to Him, and that they are willing to wait for paradise, which is closer than their own shoelaces. Know, Obama, that in the lands of Islam, there are people who seek death, and are eager for it, even more than you and your people are eager for life – any kind of life, even a life of humiliation."
Ashbal's remarks were captured, translated and transcribed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI.
Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'
Obama repeatedly has denied he is a Muslim. His presidential campaign website contained the statement, "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
But as WND has reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim.
Obama's campaign had several times wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the senator's childhood faith.
Commenting on a Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque "something the presidential candidate said he never did," Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim."
Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.
Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion.
After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled "also as a Muslim, according to documents" in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.
Laotze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted: "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."
Indeed, in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledged studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."
"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.
The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim.
Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.
"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old.
The Kaltim Post said Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.
"I remember that he studied mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.
Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.
Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who described Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."
"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house," Amir said. "If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny."
The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.
"We prayed, but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque," said Adi. "But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played."
Obama's official campaign site contained a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page stated, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."
But the campaign changed its tune when it issued a "practicing Muslim" clarification to the Los Angeles Times.
An article in March by the Chicago Tribune apparently disputes Adi's statements to the L.A. paper. The Tribune caught up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama.
But the Tribune found Obama did attend mosque.
"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia," states the Tribune article.
It quotes Obama's former neighbors and third-grade teacher recalling how the young Obama "occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article "cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim" actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.
In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.
The first few lines of the call to prayer state:
Allah is Supreme!
Some attention also has been paid to Obama's paternal side of the family, including his father and his brother, Roy.
Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, Obama stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."
Still, Obama maintains he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.
make clear what the facts are: I am a
Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to
the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the
United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the Times of London
earlier this year.
Campaign warns Americans about looming Shariah code
Detroit billboard says religious law imposed by Islam threatens rights
Shariah, or Islamic law, may be spreading around the world, but it isn't going to be established in the United States without opposition, vow members of the United American Committee.
Officials with the non-profit have erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.
"SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA," warns the sign.
The UAC says it's "dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam" and works to "educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism."
The group's mission is to battle against "the ideological aspects of the war on terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America.""Shariah law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Shariah such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights," the organization stated.
Tom Trento, a spokesman, said, "Muslims are the biggest victims of Shariah law in the world. We hope this message inspires the Muslims of America who came to this country to escape Shariah to stand up against it."
The organization's website, whose address is featured on the billboard, highlights a video of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian Muslim who escaped the Middle East and has become a fierce critic of Islam and Shariah.
"At times, it feels to me that Shariah is following me to the United States," Sultan says in the video, referring to radical Islamic charities and organizations operating in the U.S.
Sultan also points out that in Britain and France Shariah is being enforced in various ways in certain communities. Britain recently sanctioned the establishment of Shariah courts for civil matters among Muslims, the UAC noted.
"Our Constitution is not compatible with Shariah," Sultan said. Under the religious rules, "Women and children are deprived of rights we in the West take for granted."
"Homeless in America is more attractive to me than living as a woman under Shariah," she added. "I don’t want to face again the hell that I had kicked off 20 years ago. My biggest obligation is to preserve the free spirit of this wonderful country and not allow destructive forces to ruin it."
The UAC billboard is in Luna Pier, 10 miles north of Toledo and 20 miles south of Detroit on Interstate 75, officials said.
The announcement about the sign comes as Islam expert Daniel Pipes warns in a report in the Jerusalem Post Shariah is advancing one step at a time into Western Europe and North America.
Pipes cited the recent case of a Scottish judge who "bent" the law to acknowledge a polygamous household, a status allowed under Shariah.
"The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one's driving license. The defendant's lawyer explained his client's need to speed: 'He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving license he would be unable to do this on a regular basis,'" Pipes reported.
"Sympathetic to the polygamist's plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license," he said.
The report said the ruling suggests monogamy, "long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law."
Pipes reported at least six Western jurisdictions now accept harems, including Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Australia and Canada. Canada, for example, acknowledges "a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid."
WND reported just days ago a Heritage Foundation expert's warning the U.S. also needs to maintain active opposition to plans for "religious anti-defamation" laws both within its borders and on an international scale or face consequences.
In a report published on the foundation's website, Steven Groves said the U.S. "must remain wary of continuing efforts by U.N. member states to gain wider acceptance of the 'defamation of religions' concept." The proposal primarily targets any criticism of Islam.
Proponents "will continue to push the 'defamation of religions' agenda at the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and at other international forums such as the April 2009 Durban Review Conference," Groves warned.
Groves is the Heritage Foundation's Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.
He also said within its own borders, the U.S. should refuse to recognize "a new legal cause of action that bans insults or criticism of religion," because it would provide no benefit whatsoever.
States already have laws to condemn religious discrimination and prosecute acts of incitement to violence, he argued. The federal government "should tread extremely lightly where disputes over religious doctrine are concerned. The U.S. does not need a national speech code that would restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans, no matter how offensive that speech may be to any particular religious denomination."
Groves cited the 2005 attempt by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., who wanted to require that the Islamic holy book, the Quran, be treated with "dignity and respect."
"Any attempt to establish a criminal or civil 'defamation of religions' law in the United States … must be strongly opposed," Groves said. "Attempts to introduce such legislation may be incremental – notably, in May 2005, when a group of U.S. congressmen sponsored a resolution," he said. "Such piecemeal legislation must be closely guarded against."
According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry."
The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate its instructions.
Revealingly, a recent report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND, said Britain's MI6 intelligence service identified a group that raises funds with impunity in London as the organization whose militia members in Somalia imposed a Shariah death sentence on a 13-year-old rape victim.
The report describes how the group recently imposed the brutal punishment on a child in the Somalian town of Kismayo.
A 13-year-old girl, described in an intelligence report as "little more than a pretty child," was sentenced to be stoned to death by the all-male court.
It imposed the sentence on Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow after she had complained to the local Shariah court that she had been gang-raped by, among others, her cousins.
But the court found her guilty of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning.
She was taken from the courthouse to a local sports
stadium. There she was buried up to her neck in sand and then stoned in
front of a 1,000-strong crowd.
For more information on this topic, Click Here
DEAL OF THE DAY
See Islam video banned in Detroit
Free Press rejected paid offer to distribute award-winning film 'Obsession'
How powerful is the video documentary "Obsession" – an exposé of radical Islam's agenda throughout the world?
So powerful that at least one metro daily newspaper has refused a paid deal to distribute free educational copies of the acclaimed DVD to subscribers.
The Detroit Free Press recently turned down a paid insertion of the video, saying "it would have been potentially divisive and counterproductive to the good work the local Arab and Muslim organizations and individuals are doing to contribute to the rebirth of Detroit and Southeast Michigan."
"Obsession" is an exposé of the brand of radical Islam that brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11 – not a video tirade against Arabs and Muslim-Americans doing good work in their communities.
Detroit's censorship follows other attempts to quash "Obsession" that also made headlines, such as when administrators from Pace University attempted to prevent the documentary's screening, fearing Muslim opposition. Similar incidents occurred at the State University of New York-Stonybrook, Georgia Tech University as well as in the Winnipeg, Manitoba, community.
So what's so scary about "Obsession"? Using actual video footage from Arabic TV rarely seen in the West, as well as interviews with former terrorists, "Obsession" documents the calls for world domination and global jihad made by Islamic leaders daily. No need to read between the lines here – their message is loud and clear. The undercover footage shows suicide bomber initiations, the indoctrination of young children into hate and violence, secret jihad meetings and public celebrations of 9/11.Due to its vivid exposition of the terrorists' ideology and methodology, "Obsession" has been used by numerous military and security personnel for educational purposes.
And yet, "Obsession" has become "the movie Hollywood doesn't want you to see," due to the fact that despite overwhelming public interest, no distributor was willing to pick up the film for release because of its controversial nature.
Despite all the opposition, the feature-length edition of
"Obsession" – which was awarded Best Feature Film at the Liberty Film
Festival and a Special Jury Award at the WorldFest Houston – is now
being released to the public.
World Net Daily
Teach Arabic or Recruit Extremists?
New York City's Arabic-language public school, the Khalil Gibran International Academy, opens its doors this week, with special security, for 11- and 12-year-old students. One hopes that the prolonged public debate over the school's Islamist proclivities will prompt it not to promote any political or religious agendas.
Count me as skeptical, however, and for two main reasons. First is the school's genesis and personnel, about which others and I have written extensively. Second, and my topic here, is the worrisome record of taxpayer-funded Arabic-language programs from sea to shining sea.The trend is clear: pre-collegiate Arabic-language instruction, even when taxpayer funded, tends to bring along indoctrination in pan-Arab nationalism, radical Islam, or both. Note some examples:
Only in the case of the Iris Becker Elementary School in Dearborn, Michigan, is the Arabic-language program not obviously pursuing a political and religious agenda. Its program may actually be clean; or perhaps the minimal information about it explains the lack of known problems.
The above examples (and see my Web log entry "Other Taxpayer-Funded American Madrassas" for yet more) are all American, but similar problems predictably exist in other Western countries.
This troubling pattern points to the need for special scrutiny of publicly funded Arabic-language programs. That scrutiny should take the form of robust supervisory boards whose members are immersed in the threat of radical Islam and who have the power to shut down anything they might find objectionable.
Arabic-language instruction at the pre-collegiate
and the U.S. government rightly promotes it (for example, via the "National
Security Language Initiative" on the national level or the "Foreign Language in Elementary Schools"
program on a local one). As it does so, getting the instruction right
becomes ever more important. Citizens, parents, and taxpayers have the
right to ensure that children attending these publicly funded
institutions are taught a language skill—and are not being recruited to
anti-Zionism or Islamism.
From www.danielpipes.org |