Please
read current events from a variety of
sources.
May
2018
Trump’s latest appeal to evangelicals: a new
office to protect religious liberty
Trump will sign an executive order launching
the new White House Faith and Opportunity
Initiative today.
Published: May 3, 2018 Author: Tara Isabella Burton Vox.com
...The institution of faith-based initiatives is
not uncommon in the White House — Barack Obama
launched the Office of Faith-based and
Neighborhood Partnerships, and George W. Bush
instituted an Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives. Both programs were
designed to provide faith-based charity
organizations with a clear avenue to get federal
funding for their work.
That said, Trump’s initiative seems to expand
previous offices’ remit in a number of ways. For
starters, the office isn’t just focusing on
community-based or charitable initiatives.
According to the Religion News Service, it’s
also charged with informing the administration
of “any failures of the executive branch to
comply with religious liberty protections under
law.” The Trump administration has consistently
been a champion of religious liberty,
particularly insofar as it pertains to
evangelical Christian causes. ... Please
click here to read the entire article at
Vox.com.
England Moves Submarines Armed With
Cruise Missiles Within Striking Range Of Syria
Theresa May Convenes ‘War Cabinet’
Geoffrey Grider Apr. 11, 2018 Nowthenedbegins.com
Theresa May was poised last night to
defy calls for a Commons vote on military action
in Syria. The Prime Minister summoned
ministers back to London to seek their
support for joining an American-led attack on
the Assad regime within days.
EDITOR’S NOTE: British
Prime Minister Theresa May is prepared to
act with or without the consent of
Parliament, sources are now saying. UK
submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise
missiles have already been positioned off
the coast of Syria to support the United
States just as soon as President Trump gives
the go ahead to launch the missile strike.
Kinda funny to think that a potential war of
such Biblical proportions could be waged
largely on Twitter and social media, yet it
is. The end times clock is ticking, the only
question is will it blink or go boom?
Clearing the way for action,
she declared the use of chemical weapons could
not go unchallenged and said ‘all the
indications’ suggested that Bashar Assad’s
forces were responsible for Saturday’s
atrocity near Damascus.
"Colonel Bohannon had the right to exercise his
sincerely held religious beliefs and did not
unlawfully discriminate." Please
click here to read the article in The
Patriot Post in its entirety.
Islamic intimidation of the secular British
school system
Click
here to read an interesting article
from the Gatestone Institute about
intimidation of the secular British school
system.
Islamist threats that would be unacceptable
coming from other groups, are not prosecuted
by law enforcement policies in Britain.
Policies do not defend school
administrators, or the general public. But
Brits do have a choice- they can be engulfed
by the misogenist totalitarian rule of Sharia,
or die.
What will be the tipping point in America?
The First Amendment Is In Far Greater
Danger Than The Second
Frank Cannon
Town Hall
March 1, 2018
Our nation’s elites are waging
war on the American people, wielding the
institutions they’ve spent several decades
capturing to punish those who disagree with
their preferred positions and to deny them
the ability to speak publicly, all in an
effort to stifle free and open debate. And
no, this isn’t a George Orwell novel — this
is the United States of America.
While many still mistakenly
view our political arena as a skirmish
between “liberals” and “conservatives”, it
would be more accurate to describe it as an
all-out war between “elitists” and
“populists”. As my late friend Jeff Bell
argued in his 1992 book, “Populism and
Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality”,
elitists believe in a top-down approach
where a cadre of experts rule the country
and determine what is acceptable discourse
and what is not, while populists believe the
people should ultimately determine the
course of our politics and culture.
Traditionally, the “elitists”
have always had the upper hand in this
battle by controlling many of our cultural
institutions, but the respect for the will
of the people — exercised by the ability to
elect our political leaders — remained in
place. Over time, however, that respect
eroded, and today, it is completely gone.
Now the “elitists” find the “populists” to
be repugnant, backward, and bigoted, and
they believe the only way to defeat the
people is to use elite institutional power
in academia, corporate America, the
administrative state, and the mainstream
media to stifle debate, force-feed elite
opinions masquerading as facts, and stamp
out dissent.
For example, consider these
three widely held views by the American
people:
Young
children should not be taught about
transgenderism or changing their gender.
Abortion is
wrong, especially after the first
trimester.
The right to
bear arms shall not be infringed.
Despite their relative
popularity, these views are repulsive to our
elites, and in recent years, they have
sought to shut down debate on all three
topics by calling anti-gender ideology
activists “transphobic”, anti-abortion
activists “anti-women”, and defenders of the
Constitution “gun nuts” who have “blood on
their hands”. On the gender ideology issue,
elites have been wildly successful in
completely removing debate over
transgenderism from the public square and
even politics. On abortion, they have
largely failed as pro-life sentiment among
the people has proven too strong for elites
to overcome. And on guns, the jury is still
out, but elites are engaging in perhaps
their most brazenly outrageous effort to
silence opposing views to date.
It’s About Tactics, Not
Issues
The battle between elite
opinion and popular opinion is as old as
time, but the recent tactical change among
elites seeking to stifle dissenting speech
is a new, and frightening, development. In a
departure from the normal give-and-take of
American democracy, the elites have begun
using their clout within every major
institution of civil society to demonize and
punish their opposition — through public
shaming in the media, economic extortion and
retaliation by big businesses, and even
criminalization of certain protest
activities. And given their entrenchment
within these institutions, the elites face
little or no consequences for their blatant
illiberality.
A case in point of this change
has been the aftermath of the Parkland
school shooting. Despite the complexity of
the issues involved and the diversity of
views held by Americans as to the proper
response, the elites have pursued a scorched
earth campaign against those who do not hold
their black-and-white views on guns. In the
news media, a narrative emphasizing the
immediate necessity of national gun control
legislation has become a 24-hour rallying
cry, with victims of the tragedy exploited
to advance this narrative and brand those
who disagree as somehow complicit in the
violence. Meanwhile, corporations have begun
to sever ties with the NRA, sending a
message that only one side of the debate is
socially acceptable while the other is
deserving of punishment.
A similar strategy has been
playing out with the movement to normalize
the Left’s gender ideology. Despite a lack
of scientific evidence — and widespread
parental skepticism — regarding the
soundness of treating young, gender
dysphoric children with highly experimental
puberty blockers and hormonal treatments,
elites have slowly co-opted influential
medical associations in order to ensure that
these treatments are not only widely adopted
but also that alternative approaches to
gender dysphoria are marginalized and even
criminalized. Moreover, opponents of this
takeover, no matter how well-grounded their
opposition, are branded by the media and its
self-appointed experts as “transphobes” and
“bigots” while being denied any opportunity
to make their arguments in a respected
forum.
Most Americans Already
Understand What’s Happening
Make no mistake: an America
with total elite control over the population
and where dissent from their views is
vilified is not an America at all. The gun
debate is simply another battle in the
all-out war elites are waging on the
American people’s right to even have an
opinion, let alone speak out about it and
not be punished for it.
Fortunately, the American
people are fully cognizant of what is taking
place, which is why they voted for Donald
Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump
and Clinton through the two lenses voters
typically use, moral character and issue
positions, voters applied a third lens:
would their views be allowed to be
articulated at all without dire consequences
under a Clinton administration?
We cannot keep pretending, like
so many Never Trumpers do, that we are
operating in an environment of normal
political give-and-take on issues. That time
has passed. We are instead operating in a
country now where elites demonize the
populist position with such ferocity that
many are afraid to voice their opinion at
all, which is, of course, the entire point
of their strategy. Our fight is no longer
just over political issues — it is a battle
against the very tactics being used by
elites to stifle debate and destroy the
essence of what makes America great.
Frank Cannon is the president
at American Principles Project.
Islamists seem to be
influencing the British school system with
ease: there is simply no solid opposition
to them. The government even stays silent
about the harassment and intimidation.
Islamists in Britain seem to
be intent on establishing regressive
requirements, such as the hijab for young
girls, wife beating, making homosexuality
illegal, death for apostates, halala
rituals in divorce, and exploitation of
women and children through Sharia courts
as part and parcel of British culture.
That St. Stephen's School
allowed itself to be blackmailed in this
way bodes ill for both Britain and its
education system.
St. Stephen's School in East London recently
imposed a ban on hijabs (Islamic
headscarves), but reversed its decision
after administrators received hundreds of
threats from enraged Muslims.
"This
is an important step in promoting religious
extremism, mob rule and refusing to give
#Muslim young girls equal gender equality
rights.... So much for choice and individual
liberty. Terribly sad day for a secular
democracy."
While
secular British values need to be upheld to
provide equal opportunities to everyone,
regardless of caste, creed, gender or color,
Islamists seem to be influencing the British
school system with ease: there is simply no
solid opposition to them. The government
even stays silent about the harassment and
intimidation.
Was
St. Stephen's forced to succumb to the
pressure of ignorant zealots, who either do
not know or choose to ignore that under
Islamic law (Sharia), girls are not required
to cover their heads until they reach
puberty? Ignorance also seems not to have
prevented them from accusing anyone who says
or acts otherwise of "Islamophobia." It is a
form of political blackmail used by Muslim
extremists against the Western institutions,
the values of which they abhor.
Parliamentary
Under
Secretary of State for the School System,
Lord Agnew of Oulton, pledged to support the
schools that are trying to ban hijabs as
well as obligatory fasting: in Islam, young
children are not subject to either.
Lord
Agnew said that the government should
support head teachers in making difficult
and "sensitive" decisions in the face of
vitriolic opposition. We have yet to see the
effects of his statement. Supporting head
teachers is one thing, but there is also a
dire need to confront these extremists on
all levels, including law enforcement, if
they try to harass or intimidate anyone.
Someone
please
needs to back up Lord Agnew: there are only
a few such policy-makers left willing to
offer rational help during such crises.
Islamists
in
Britain seem to be intent on establishing
regressive requirements, such as the hijab
for young girls, wife-beating, halala
rituals in divorce, making homosexuality
illegal, death for apostates, and the exploitation
of women and children through Sharia
courts as part and parcel with
British culture.
Instead of making statements,
the British government needs to take
concrete steps to stop the further
infiltration of these practices into
Britain's social fabric, the warping of
children's minds, and the harassment of
whoever disagrees with those plans.
That St. Stephen's allowed
itself to be blackmailed in this way bodes
ill for both Britain and its education
system.
Khadija Khan is a Pakistani
journalist and commentator, currently
based in Germany.
Under Islamic repression, 'Christianity has
ignited like a flame'
By Bob Unrah 19 February 2018 World Net Daily
Hopeful news out of Iran....
Has Iran taken on a fight that it can never
win?
Evidence suggests that might be the case, as
the internationally renowned American Center
for Law and Justice points out that the
Islamic regime now is becoming desperate to
extinguish a surging population of Christians
inside its borders.
Iran, after all, is a nation that has exported
terrorism for decades. It has the free world
worried about its nuclear-weapons program. It
routinely threatens to destroy Israel. It
interferes with Middle East conflicts and
engages in cyberwar against the West.
But the American Center for Law and Justice
reports Christianity “has ignited like a flame
across the country of Iran, making the Iranian
government so nervous they’re desperate to
extinguish it quickly.”
Iranians are converting to Christianity at a
record-setting pace, with an estimated 360,000
to 800,000 Christians in the country.
There were fewer than 500 back in the 1980s.
“It’s difficult to take an accurate census
because fears of retribution, arrest, and
violence keep many Christian converts from
self-identifying. Iranian authorities have
been raiding the homes of suspected
Christians, confiscating their books,
computers, and other media and arresting the
men,” ACLJ said.
The government has spent millions of dollars
to fight the growing interest in Christianity,
the mission group Elam Ministries told Mohabat
News, a website that reports on Christians in
Iran.
The money has gone toward Islamic propaganda,
jailing church members, confiscation of
Christian materials and more, the report said.
Ayatollah Alavi Boroujerdi, an official at an
Islamic seminary, has confirmed that
“youth are becoming Christians in Qom and
attending house churches.”
Christians are being forced to hide their
faith to protect themselves and their
families, because worshipping Jesus “will get
you arrested, and very possibly get you
killed,” a critic reported.
“This is something we at the ACLJ have
witnessed first hand, advocating for a number
of imprisoned Christians pastors in Iran –
including Youcef Nadarkhani, who we
successfully fought to free from multiple
false imprisonments for his faith. In each of
these cases, Iran has targeted pastors in an
attempt to squelch the Christian church. It
has failed each and every time. In fact, the
attempts to silence the church has only made
it louder as Christianity grows in Iran,” ACLJ
said.
What
'peace' means to Muslims; just ask Jefferson By Bill Federer
16 February 2018
World Net Daily
Bill Federer recounts brief history of
American conflicts with brutality of Islam
“The first nation to recognize my country was
Morocco,” stated President Obama in Cairo,
Egypt, June 4, 2009.
Morocco began recognizing American colonists in
1625. Governor William Bradford described the
incident in the History of the Plymouth
Settlement. In 1625, the Pilgrims sent two ships
back to England carrying dried fish and 800 lbs
of beaver skins to trade for much needed
supplies.
What happened next?
Bradford related the fate of one ship: “They …
were well within the England channel, almost in
sight of Plymouth. But … there she was unhapply
taken by a Turkish man-of-war and carried off to
Morocco where the captain and crew were made
slaves. … Now by the ship taken by the Turks …
all trade was dead.”
...
When America became independent, it was no
longer covered by the British extortion tribute
payment to the Muslim pirates. Morocco
“recognized” the United States in 1785 by
capturing two American ships and holding the
sailors for ransom. Thomas Jefferson worked to
free them, writing to John Jay, 1787: “There is
an order of priests called the Mathurins, the
object of whose institution is to beg alms for
the redemption of captives. They keep members
always in Barbary, searching out the captives of
their country, and redeem, I believe, on better
terms than any other body, public or private. It
occurred to me, that their agency might be
obtained for the redemption of our prisoners at
Algiers.”
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William
Carmichael regarding Tripoli’s demand for
extortion tribute payment, 1786: “Mr. Adams and
I had conferences with a Tripoline ambassador,
named Abdrahaman. He asked us thirty thousand
guineas for a peace with his court.”
When Jefferson asked the Muslim Ambassador what
the new country of America had done to offend
them, he reported to John Jay, March 28, 1786:
“The ambassador answered us that it was founded
on the laws of the prophet, it was written in
their Qur’an, that all nations which had not
acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it
was the right and duty of the faithful to
plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman
(Muslim) who was slain in this warfare was sure
to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man
who was the first to board a vessel had one
slave over and above his share, and that when
they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship,
every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a
third in his mouth; which usually struck such
terror into the foe that they cried out for
quarter at once.”
Jefferson read the Qur’an, not out of admiration
but to understand why Muslims were attacking
Americans unprovoked.
Crisis Magazine
William Kilpatrick
January 2, 2018
Secularists like to advise
Christians that, for the sake of social
harmony, they ought to keep their religion to
themselves. Religion, they argue, is a private
affair between an individual and his
designated deity, and ought not to be dragged
into the public square. Moreover, they
helpfully add, it’s an imposition on others to
confront them with beliefs that they may find
offensive.
As for themselves, secularists
have no qualms about imposing their own values
on everyone within reach. They are convinced
of the rightness of their beliefs, and
consequently they don’t think twice about
forcing Christian bakers, florists, and
photographers to endorse gay weddings. They
are also convinced that they know what’s best
for your children. And what’s best for them,
they are quite certain, is that they learn all
the latest fashions in gender identity and
marriage equality. In his groundbreaking 1984 book,
The Naked Public Square, Richard John Neuhaus
argued that the public square can never be
naked for long. In other words, it cannot be
neutral about values: “If it is not clothed
with the ‘meanings’ borne by religion, new
‘meanings’ will be imposed by virtue of the
ambitions of the modern state.” In short, the committed
secularist won’t be satisfied with the removal
of the crèche from the town square. He’ll
insist that it be replaced with something that
more accurately reflects American
diversity—say, a monument to Margaret Sanger
or a statue of James Obergefell. Of course,
secular society’s reach extends well beyond
the town green. The religion of secularism is
constantly being advanced in a variety of
venues—in courtrooms, school rooms, and in the
newly remodeled bathrooms that accommodate the
newly invented genders. Fr. Neuhaus was right in
predicting that “a perverse notion of the
disestablishment of religion leads to the
establishment of the state as Church.” The
secular state quickly moves to enshrine
whatever values it currently smiles upon. And
it defends them as though they were divinely
revealed dogma. But, despite his prescience,
Neuhaus did fail to anticipate another
development—namely, that the Judeo-Christian
tradition might be displaced from the public
square not only by the state, but also by
another religion.
The possibility that Islam would
one day be a contender for control of the
public square probably didn’t enter his mind.
That’s no surprise. Except for the blip caused
by the Iranian Revolution, Islam wasn’t on
anyone’s radar in the early eighties. Yet
Islam is now well on its way to controlling
the public square in parts of Europe. And,
were it not for the election of Donald Trump
and the defeat of the Muslim
Brotherhood-friendly Clinton machine, the U.S.
would now be playing catch-up. As has often been observed,
Islam is a political religion. Some, like
Dutch MP Geert Wilders, contend that it is
almost totally political with only a thin and
deceptive veneer of religiosity. Whatever the
exact proportion of politics to religion, it’s
hard to deny that the political dimension
looms large in Islam. Muhammad, after all, was
a warlord. He conquered all of Arabia, and
within a relatively short time after his
death, his followers conquered an area larger
than the Roman Empire. Sayyid Abul A’la
Maududi, one of the most important
twentieth-century Islamic theorists, wrote
that “Islam requires the earth—not just a
portion, but the whole planet.”
ISIS Kills Scores of Christians in Retaken
Syrian Town: Report
By Conor Gaffey Newsweek.com 4/11/16
The Islamic State militant group (ISIS) killed
scores of Christians when they captured a Syrian
town recently liberated by the government, a
Syrian Christian leader has said.
ISIS swept into the town of Al-Qaryatain in
August 2015, kidnapping at least 230 civilians
including dozens of Christians in the central
Syrian town, which lies 104 kilometers (65
miles) southwest of Palmyra. The town had a
population of some 2,000 Syriac Catholics and
Orthodox Christians prior to the outbreak of
civil war in Syria in 2011, but this had dropped
to just 300 before ISIS took control.
Al-Qaryatain was retaken by Syrian government
forces with the backing of Russian airstrikes
earlier in April and reports are just beginning
to emerge of life under the extremist group for
civilians in the town. Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem
II, the head of the Syrian Orthodox Church, told
the BBC on Sunday that 21 Christians were
murdered when ISIS first captured the city.
Some died trying to escape while others were
killed for violating the terms of contracts they
had signed requiring them to submit to the
extremists’ interpretation of Islamic law.
Hundreds of Christians in Al-Qaryatain were
reportedly forced to sign so-called dhimmi
contracts, which enabled them to live under ISIS
rule in the town. The patriarch added that five
other Christians are missing and presumed dead,
while ransoms had been paid to ISIS to secure
the release of the rest of the Christians.
The civil war in Syria has had a devastating
impact on the country’s Christian contingent,
which made up approximately 10 percent of
Syria’s population before the outbreak of the
conflict. The European Parliament stated in
October 2015 that about 40 percent of Syria’s
Christian population—or 700,000 people—had fled
the country.
NOTE: Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem,
was dead for three days, and rose from the dead,
and walked among us for forty days until his
Ascension. After the Pentecost, when the Holy
Spirit came to the Apostles, they spread out to
different areas of the land to spread the good
news, of our salvation. One of the first places
they went to was what is now Syria, which was
the home of Simon Peter. Not only does ISIS
eradicate people who do not bow down to their
cult they attempt to erase the ancient traces of
preceding times like in Palmyra which was a
Roman outpost in Syria, from the first or second
century after the year of our Lord. Click
here to view more about that.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia
Feb. 18, 2016
It is hard to imagine a
greater loss to Liberty in America than has
occurred in the passing of Justice Antonin
Scalia. His understanding of the
Constitution as a pact between free people
and government, and our protection from
oppressive government, was unparalleled.
The fact that 30% of Americans do not know
who he was, speaks volumes about the state
of our Union and our education system.
My words and thoughts are totally inadequate
but you can easily find more about the great
man's life and legacy. Click
here for a link to wikipedia. Or click
here to read the thoughts of the other
Justices on the Supreme Court about him.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia.
Shariah Law at work in the Obama
Administration
Obama DHS scrubs records of hundreds of
Muslim terrorists
Published: 7 Feb 2016 World Net Daily Pamela Geller
Not only did the
Obama administration scrub counter-terror
programs of jihad and Islam, now we find out
that his administration scrubbed the records of
Muslim terrorists. If the enemedia were not
aligned with the jihad force, this would be
front-page news across the nation.
An agent of the Department of Homeland Security,
or DHS, for 15 years, Philip Haney, reported
Friday that after the Christmas Day underwear
bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to blow
up a crowded passenger jet over Detroit,
“President Obama threw the intelligence
community under the bus for its failure to
‘connect the dots.’ He said, ‘This was not a
failure to collect intelligence; it was a
failure to integrate and understand the
intelligence that we already had.'”
Haney revealed: “Most Americans were unaware of
the enormous damage to morale at the Department
of Homeland Security, where I worked, his
condemnation caused. His words infuriated many
of us because we knew his administration had
been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy
the raw material – the actual intelligence we
had collected for years, and erase those dots.
The dots constitute the intelligence needed to
keep Americans safe, and the Obama
administration was ordering they be wiped away.”
What Haney discloses is truly shocking: “Just
before that Christmas Day attack, in early
November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at
the Department of Homeland Security to delete or
modify several hundred records of individuals
tied to designated Islamist terror groups like
Hamas from the important federal database, the
Treasury Enforcement Communications System
(TECS). These types of records are the basis for
any ability to ‘connect dots.’ Every day, DHS
Customs and Border Protection officers watch
entering and exiting many individuals associated
with known terrorist affiliations, then look for
patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of
records of Muslims greatly affected our ability
to do that. Even worse, going forward, my
colleagues and I were prohibited from entering
pertinent information into the database.”
Who gave the order to scrub the records of
Muslims with ties to terror groups?
These new shocking revelations come fresh on the
heels of whistleblower testimony in the wake of
the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, revealing
that the Obama administration shut down
investigations into jihadists in America (and
quite possible the San Bernardino shooters) at
the request of the Department of State and the
DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Division. Haney noted: “They claimed that since
the Islamist groups in question were not
Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations
(SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these
groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil
liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign
nationals: When were they granted the civil
rights and liberties of American citizens?”
How is this not impeachable? When did foreign
terrorists get civil rights?
Haney described how he began investigating
scores of individuals with links to the
traditionalist Islamic Indo-Pakistani Deobandi
movement, and its related offshoots,
prominently, Tablighi Jamaat.
I have reported on this infiltration for years.
I reported on it extensively in my book, “Stop
the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide
to the Resistance.” Obama has partnered with
terror-tied groups such as the Council on
American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society
of North America, the Muslim American Society
and others. The stealth jihad in the information
battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement
of blasphemy laws under the Shariah, as Obama
ordered that counter-terror training materials
must avoid all reference to Islam and jihad.
Under Islamic law, it is prohibited to criticize
Islam.
The Obama administration is Shariah-compliant at
all costs. Its number one priority is to protect
Islam, even when it puts American lives at risk.
The cold-blooded slaughter of Americans in the
homeland by Muslims has not tempered Obama’s
Shariah enthusiasm. On the contrary, Garland,
Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UCMED, San Bernardino,
etc., have accelerated it.
My civil liberties and your civil liberties are
being abridged in accordance with the blasphemy
laws under Shariah. My organization is engaged
in 15 different free-speech lawsuits against
various cities. Our free-speech lawsuit against
Boston is heading to the Supreme Court, because
even though truthful, our ads violate the laws
of Shariah (“do not criticize Islam”). We are
being forced to adhere to Shariah mores, but
jihad murderers are given sanctuary and
protection – to slaughter Americans.
The moral, or in this case the immoral, of the
story is this: Jihad terror works.
Pamela Geller is the publisher of
AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND
Books title "Stop the Islamization of America:
A Practical Guide to the Resistance."
Wisconsin firm fires Muslims in prayer
dispute
Religious breaks disrupted production at
lawn mower, snowblower manufacturer
Published: 02/04/2016 (ABC News) A civil liberties group
said Wednesday that it plans to file federal
discrimination and harassment complaints after a
Wisconsin manufacturer fired seven Muslim
employees for violating a company break policy
that doesn’t provide extra time for prayer.
Ariens Co. terminated the workers in a dispute
that began last month when it moved to enforce
an existing rule of two 10-minute breaks per
work shift and dozens of Muslim staffers of
Somali descent walked off the job in protest.
Of the 53 employees involved, 32 have abided
with the policy, 14 resigned and seven were
terminated Tuesday, according to Ariens
spokeswoman Ann Stilp. The news of the
terminations was first reported by WLUK-TV in
Green Bay.
If shouting 'No!' doesn't work, then swat
attacker with purse
World Net Daily Published: 02/03/2016 by Leo Hohmann
A public-service advertisement running on
Finland TV instructs women in the Scandinavian
country on how to fend off a rapist.
But rather than pull out a handgun or even
pepper spray, the women of Finland are taught
to confront their attackers with bare hands
and a purse.
Rape epidemics have engulfed Finland, Sweden
and Germany in a sea of fear since the mass
influx of migrants from the Middle East and
North Africa began two years ago.
Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president
and founder of the Second Amendment
Foundation, said he found the video laughable.
Anti-Shariah activist and author Pamela Geller
posted the video on her website earlier this
week under the title "It just gets more
absurd."
Netanyahu: Islamic terrorism is
flooding the world from Jakarta to California
The prime minister says the struggle against
terrorism will take time but that Israel is
fighting hard.
Jerusalem Post by JPOST.COM STAFF BEN HARTMAN 02/04/2016
Islamic terrorism is flooding the world and
inciting millions from Jakarta to Africa and
all the way to California, said Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu during a trip on Thursday
to the Jerusalem hospital treating a Border
Police officer who was injured in yesterday's
attack at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's Old
City.
Netanyahu praised the courage of the security
forces and the courage and strength the Border
Police officer shown during Wednesday's
attack. He also expressed his condolences to
the family of Border Police officer Hadar
Cohen who was killed in the combined shooting
and stabbing attack.
Three Arab terrorists wielding machine guns,
pipe bombs and knives carried out the attack
on Wednesday killing Cohen, 19, who died of
her wounds shortly after being rushed to the
capital's Hadassa University Medical Center at
Mt. Scopus. Her partner, Ravit, was seriously
wounded and underwent emergency surgery at the
hospital. As of Thursday morning she was
considered to be in moderate condition.
"We are all saddened by the death of Hadar
Cohen, a real hero. We all embrace the
family," Netanyahu said.
The prime minister emphasized that a great
effort is being put into the fight against
terrorism, during the lengthy effort to defeat
it.
"It will take time, it is a long struggle,"
Netanyahu said. "We are in this fight, it is
not passing us by, but we are fighting it with
great force and will continue to do so."
"Kabatiya has been closed off while the IDF
and the Shin bet make widespread arrests of
wanted suspects, we have cancelled many work
permits and the attorney-general informed me
yesterday that he has added a number of houses
belonging to terrorists to be slated for
demolition," Netanyahu said of the West Bank
village, from where Wednesday's terrorists
hailed.
Police Commissioner Inspector General Roni
Alsheich paid a visit to the wounded Border
Police officer on Wednesday night.
During his visit, Alsheich praised the two
teenager Border Police officers who had
recently drafted into the force for preventing
a major terror attack.
Alsheich said “I have no doubt that a terror
cell that comes with an arsenal like this has
every intention of carrying out a massive
attack.”
Ravit and Cohen were part of a three-man
patrol along with their commander. They had
only been drafted a couple months before and
their deployment at Damascus Gate in East
Jerusalem was part of their training.
Since the attack yesterday, police and the
Border Police have drawn criticism for the
fact that the two women were posted at one of
the most dangerous flashpoints in the country
so soon after they were drafted.
The three terrorists were responsible for the
attack were identified as Ahmed Rajeh
Zakarneh, Muhammad Ahmed Kmail, and Ahmed
Najeh Abu al-Rub. All three were shot dead at
the scene. Their explosives did not detonate
and were later neutralized by a police bomb
disposal team.
No holds barred: Torrent of anti-Israel
advice found in Hillary’s emails
Jerusalem Post - Opinion By Shmuley Boteach 02/01/2016
Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent
protests in an attempt to try and force Israel
to go against its best interests? Advice like
this was par for the course with Clinton’s
advisers.
It’s already been established that one of
Hillary Clinton’s most trusted advisers, Sid
Blumenthal, sent her anti-Israel articles,
ideas and advice during her time as secretary of
state. But the stream of anti-Israel advice
received by Clinton was much more comprehensive.
In the entire forced dump of Clinton’s emails,
you will be hard pressed to find a single one
sympathetic toward the Jewish state from any of
the people she relied on. The negative,
poisonous approach to Israel throughout this
email expose shows the atmosphere that she had
established around herself. These emails seem to
demonstrate that a huge segment of her close
advisers and confidantes were attacking Israel,
condemning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
strategizing how to force Israel to withdraw
from Judea and Samaria at all costs.
This was occurring against the backdrop of
Israel’s recent Gaza withdrawal, which led to
the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. There is almost
zero mention of the huge risks to Israel’s
security in withdrawing as Clinton and the Obama
administration did everything they could to
pressure Israel to capitulate to their demands.
Take a look at a sampling of the advice being
sent to Clinton from her many advisers that we
have now become privy to.
Sandy
Berger was Clinton’s foreign policy
adviser during her 2008 presidential campaign.
In September of 2010 he sent her ideas on how to
pressure Israel to make concessions for peace.
Berger acknowledged “how fragile is Abbas’s
political position,” and how “Palestinians are
in disarray,” and that “failure is a real
possibility.” Berger was well aware of, and
informed Hillary of, the very real possibility
that Israel would be placing its national
security at grave risk in a deal that would very
likely fail and lead to a Hamas takeover.
But Berger felt the risks to Israeli lives were
worth it.
He advised the need to make Netanyahu feel
“uneasy about incurring our displeasure....”
Berger emphasizes the need “to convince the
prime minister – through various forms of overt
persuasion and implicit pressure – to make the
necessary compromises” and talks of the
“possibility – to turn his position against
him.”
Astoundingly, Berger seems to accuse the Jews in
America of racism toward Obama. He writes, “At a
political level, the past year has clearly
demonstrated the degree to which the U.S. has
been hamstrung by its low ratings in Israel and
among important segments of the domestic Jewish
constituency....” He then adds, “Domestically,
he faces a reservoir of skepticism on this issue
which reflects many factors, including
inexcusable prejudice.”
Anne Marie Slaughter was Clinton’s director of
policy planning from 2009-2011. She wrote to
Clinton in September of 2010 and devised a
scheme to encourage wealthy philanthropists to
pledge millions to the Palestinians (which no
doubt would have been embezzled by Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his
cronies as were other funds).
She wrote: “This may be a crazy idea.... Suppose
we launched a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign...
Such a campaign among
billionaires/multi-millionaires around the world
would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the
building of a Palestinian state....”
She adds: “There would also be a certain shaming
effect re Israelis who, would be building
settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”
Clinton’s response to this email: “I am very
interested- pls flesh out. Thx.”
Robert
Russo, one of Clinton’s aides and
currently her campaign’s “director of
correspondence and briefings” sent an email in
April of 2012 informing her of Netanyahu’s
father’s death and advising her to give him a
condolence call. Included with Russo’s
email is an extremely biased article attacking
both Netanyahu and his father, describing them
as virulently racist warmongers and calling the
elder Netanyahu “a behindthe- scenes adviser to
his son, the most powerful person in Israel.”
The article noted that “Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu repeatedly denied that his father was
a one-dimensional ideologue. He further
emphasized that he himself was a different
person from his father.”
But then it goes on to say, without providing
any proof whatsoever, “Israelis seemed in the
dark about the extent of paternal influence on
their leader,” and “To understand Bibi, you have
to understand the father.”
One might be forgiven for questioning Clinton’s
sympathy and sincerity when she later placed the
call and gave Netanyahu her condolences.
Thomas
Pickering, former US ambassador to Israel,
wrote to Clinton on December 18, 2011, and
suggested a secret plan to stir up major
Palestinian protests in an attempt to force the
Israeli government into peace negotiations.
He stated that the protests “must be all and
only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the
male culture is to use force.”
Pickering’s goal was to ignite protests that
would engulf the West Bank, “just like Tahrir
square.” He adds that the Palestinian
“leadership has shied away from this idea
because they can’t control it,” and they are
“afraid of being replaced.”
This idiotic reasoning that somehow only women
would participate and things would stay peaceful
is obviously absurd. As Pickering himself notes,
“Palestinian men will not for long patiently
demonstrate – they will be inclined over time
and much too soon to be frustrated and use
force. Their male culture comes close to
requiring it.”
Regardless, Pickering writes that the protests
could be used against Israel “to influence the
political leadership.”
The idea was as dangerous for the Palestinians
as it was for Israel. As Pickering himself
admits, widespread protests could overthrow
Abbas’ government, and if Palestinian men joined
in, widespread violence would inevitably break
out. It would obviously be impossible to prevent
men from participating in these demonstrations.
Yet Pickering felt this extreme risk was worth
taking, even if it meant the replacement of
Abbas with another Hamas-led government. And
even if meant violence breaking out across the
West Bank leading to a third intifada and the
murder of countless Jews. He also emphasizes the
need to hide all US involvement in this plot.
Clinton forwarded this email to Monica Hanley
and asked her to “pls print.”
Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent
protests in an attempt to try and force Israel
to go against its best interests? Advice like
this was par for the course when it came to
Clinton’s advisers.
In a follow-up column we’ll illuminate even more
anti-Israel advice that was given the
then-secretary of state. Sadly, there was just
so much of it.
The author, “America’s Rabbi,” is the
international bestselling author of 30 books
including his upcoming The Israel Warrior’s
Handbook. Follow him on Twitter @ RabbiShmuley.
Senate resolution calls for a US
constitutional convention
Posted: February 3, 2016 at 10:37 am
KFQD Radio Anchorage, Alaska
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) – An Alaska Senate
committee is set to consider a resolution
calling for a convention of the states to
propose a countermand, or veto, amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
The measure calls on legislators in the other
49 states to apply for a convention as well.
In his sponsor statement, Chugiak Republican
Senator Bill Stoltze says the resolution is
meant to restore the balance of power between
the states and the federal government.
The resolution calls for a convention of
states to amend the U.S. Constitution and
provide states with the power to vote on
nullifying federal laws.
Click here to realize that Alaska is not
the only state that has called for a
Constitutional Convention.
Turkish Court Rules Government Failed to
Protect Christians Killed in Malatya
Civil suit results in order to pay
damages to relatives of victims.
January 27, 2016
By Our Middle East Correspondent
Morning Star News
ISTANBUL, Turkey (Morning Star News) – A Turkish
court ruled on Tuesday (Jan. 26) that the
government was negligent in its duty to protect
three Christians who were tortured and killed in
2007 and ordered it to pay damages to the
victims’ families.
The Malatya Administrative Court ruled that,
nearly nine years ago, the Interior Ministry and
the Malatya Governor’s Office ignored reliable
intelligence that Turkish nationalists were
targeting the three Christians days prior to the
April 2007 killings.
At the present rate, it is doubtful what year
money might actually change hands
Man with Quran, guns arrested near
Disneyland Paris
Manhunt underway for female companion
CNN by Laura Akhoun and Jason Hanna Published: 01/28/2016
(CNN) French police are looking for a woman who
was with the Paris man who was arrested with
guns Thursday at a Disney hotel near Disneyland
Paris, police official Michael Le Provost told
CNN.
When security guards discovered the firearms,
they noticed the woman was with him, but she
eluded arrest, Le Provost said.
Bomb disposal experts are inspecting the man’s
car, Le Provost said.
Posted By David Barton On 01/27/2016 @ 10:32
pm In Education,Faith,Front
Page,Politics,U.S.,World World Net Daily
Democrats have long heralded Thomas Jefferson
(along with Andrew Jackson) as the founder of
their Party. They traditionally hold annual
Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraising dinners, and
President Obama is one of their most sought
after speakers. But this past year, Democrats
began to remove any mention of Jefferson’s
name from their functions. They claim
that this is because Jefferson was a bigoted
racist, iii but this excuse is historically
inaccurate, based on an errant modern
portrayal.
If you doubt this, ask yourself why black
civil rights leaders over the past two
centuries (such as Frederick Douglass, Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr, Benjamin Banneker,
Francis Grimke, Henry Highland Garnett, and so
many others) openly praised Jefferson as a
racial civil rights pioneer and champion, as
did abolitionists such as John Quincy Adams,
Abraham Lincoln, and others They recognized
that Jefferson led a vocal lifelong campaign
to emancipate all slaves in the United States,
but that the laws of Virginia prevented him
from freeing his own slaves. (All of this is
covered in my new book, “The Jefferson
Lies.”)
The real reason that Democrats should discard
Jefferson is that he held nearly no policy
position similar to those Democrats hold
today. Consider fifteen major categories
where the policies of Presidents Jefferson
and Obama are opposite.
Posted By Jeff Knox On 01/27/2016 @ 7:42 pm
In Commentary,Opinion
World Net Daily
The occupation of a remote wildlife
refuge turned violent yesterday when federal
agents stopped two vehicles carrying
protesters to a town hall meeting in John Day,
Oregon. Victoria Sharp, a passenger in one of
those vehicles, has reported that federal
agents opened fire on the group without
provocation after conflicting and confusing
demands for the protesters to surrender. Sharp
reported that shots were first fired at Ryan
Payne as he complied with orders to show his
hands out of the window of the vehicle in
which she was riding, but that the shots
missed. Payne was calling for police to not
shoot, as there were women in the vehicle, and
exited the vehicle, asking that the women be
allowed out.
At this point, LaVoy Finicum, one of the
spokesmen for the occupiers, who was driving
the vehicle in which Ms. Sharp was riding,
yelled out the window that they were going to
go talk to the sheriff (at the meeting in John
Day), or that agents could just shoot him. He
told the passengers to get down, and drove
forward, precipitating heavy gunfire from the
agents, and crashing the vehicle into a
snowbank.
Sharp said that Finicum then exited the
vehicle, hands in the air, yelling, “Just
shoot me then!” A volley of shots rang out,
and Finicum fell to his back, hands still over
his head, and was shot several more times on
the ground, Sharp said.
According to Sharp, agents continued shooting
at the car, striking Ryan Bundy in the
shoulder as he shielded her on the floorboard,
and deploying tear gas before finally taking
the rest of the group into custody. She also
claims that none of the protesters fired a
shot or even touched a gun during the
encounter.
The full audio of Victoria Sharp’s account is
posted on YouTube, and comes across as very
credible.
Listen to Victoria Sharp’s testimony:
Another report suggested that Finicum
"charged" at police after exiting the vehicle
but does not dispute the claim that his hands
were in the air. Cliven Bundy, father of Ammon
and Ryan Bundy, leaders of the occupation who
were both taken into custody during the
incident, has further charged that, not only
were Finicum's hands in the air, but he was
not armed at the time.
In interviews during the occupation protest,
Finicum, a soft-spoken rancher and father of
11 from Arizona, had insisted that he would
rather be killed than "put in a cement box"
prison. He said that some things were more
important than life, and that freedom was one
of those things.
The occupation was initiated in protest of the
re-incarceration of a pair of Oregon ranchers
who had been convicted of terrorism for
starting two controlled burns on their graze
lands back in 2001 and 2005. The ranchers,
father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond, were
initially sentenced to, and served short
sentences and fined $400,000 for their
actions, but a federal appeals court later
concluded that the judge in the case had
improperly waived a five-year minimum sentence
for the charges, and the two were resentenced
to that minimum and ordered to return to
prison.
I reported on the Hammond case and the
resulting protests a few weeks ago in this
column, pointing out that the stated objective
of the protest was being lost in the news
coverage of the protest itself. Ammon Bundy
and his compatriots appeared to be more
interested in generating a confrontation with
federal authorities than in drawing attention
to the Hammonds and the abusive practices of
federal agencies that led to their plight.
The death of LaVoy Finicum is a needless
tragedy.
Federal authorities had wisely been taking a
hands-off approach to the occupation, denying
Bundy and his friends the opportunity for the
tense stand-off they seemed to be seeking.
Unfortunately, politicians like Oregon's
Democrat Gov. Kate Brown, took the occupation
as a personal affront and were calling for law
enforcement to take more aggressive action to
put a stop to the flagrant defiance of federal
authority. The result is a martyr for the
fringe and escalation of the situation from a
nuisance to a volatile and dangerous level.
The strategy was clearly to "remove the head
of the snake" by capturing the leaders of the
occupation, but what if those leaders were the
cooler heads that were keeping the protest
calm and peaceful?
With the death of Finicum, in circumstances
that some are calling murder, a fuse has been
lit, and unless authorities can and do quickly
produce evidence that their actions were
clearly justified, this could blow up in a
very ugly way. And it all could have been
easily avoided.
Realistically, what harm were the protesters
doing? They were occupying buildings of a
remote wildlife refuge in a sparsely populated
area of the country in the dead of winter.
They were making no threats, harming no one,
and getting less and less attention from an
unsympathetic media. They were not supported
by any national or state militia
organizations, and their whole agenda had
pretty well fizzled.
I wish Ammon Bundy had taken my advice,
negotiated a peaceful end to the situation and
sent his supporters home to their families
weeks ago. That didn't happen, and what
happens next is anyone's guess. The remaining
occupiers must be concerned about what might
happen to them if they try to leave,
especially in light of the death of Finicum,
and by setting up roadblocks and checkpoints,
authorities have now committed manpower and
resources to potentially long, cold,
uncomfortable duty that can't help but
engender deeper frustration and resentment
between police and occupiers. Any trust that
might have developed is completely out the
window. Worse, the bloodshed may provoke other
groups to step in and escalate the mess even
further.
Perhaps this week's arrests will bring this
whole thing to a close, but I fear that it is
more likely signaling the beginning of
something much worse than protesters occupying
a wilderness outpost.
Christian persecution reached record high in
2015, report says
By William J. Cadigan, CNN Sun January 17, 2016
Christians flee persecution in the middle
east
(CNN)Last year was the most violent for
Christians in modern history, rising to "a
level akin to ethnic cleansing," according to
a new report by Open Doors USA, a watchdog
group that advocates for Christians.
In total, the survey found that more than
7,100 Christians were killed in 2015 for
"faith-related reasons," up 3,000 from the
previous year, according to the group's
analysis of media reports and other public
information as well as external experts. Open
Door's report is independently audited by the
International Institute of Religious Freedom.
Open Doors USA is an organization that works
with Christians worldwide to "equip and
encourage" those living under persecution
while also helping churches in America
advocate for the persecuted around the world.
The group's report defines Christian
persecution "as any hostility experienced as a
result of one's identification with Christ."
Open Doors found this persecution ranged from
imprisonment, torture, beheadings and rape to
the loss of home and assets, the loss of a
job, or even rejection from a community.
Speaking at the National Press Club on
Wednesday, David Curry, president and CEO of
Open Doors, introduced the annual ranking of
countries based on their severity of Christian
persecution, evaluating levels of violence
worldwide to formulate the global top 50. The
list, now in its 25th year, is topped by North
Korea for the 14th consecutive time. Curry
says that "pariah states" like North Korea are
especially hostile toward Christians.
According to the report, however, much of the
persecution faced by Christians occurs in
predominantly Muslim nations, many of which
are "failed states" that fail to protect any
of their citizens' religious liberty.
The presence of Islamic extremist factions
across the world in 2015 brought religious
persecution for not only Christians, but also
Muslims, Yazidis and other religious
minorities, the report found. Notably, Iraq
(No. 2) and Syria (No. 5) are the epicenter of
ISIS' so called "caliphate," while Afghanistan
(4), Pakistan (6), Iran (9) and Libya (10) all
have elements of Islamic extremism.
Curry said that while "Islamic extremism is
one of the driving forces" of Christian
persecution, "peace-loving Muslims can make an
impact on that part of their culture."
ISIS and other extremist groups are spreading,
the report highlights, not just in the Middle
East but around the world. Curry said he hoped
the list would bring attention to the plight
of Christians across the globe as they face a
"total lack of religious freedom," forced
migration and even genocide.
In fact, part of the reason for the annual
list, according to Curry, is to highlight for
U.S. policymakers the continued persecution of
Christians by our "geopolitical allies."
Countries such as Saudi Arabia and India are
key global partners for the United States, yet
Open Doors ranks both in its top 50 of
persecutors of Christians.
"We believe in religious freedom for all,"
Curry said, "and that does not happen in
countries that we do business with every day."
Open Doors also seeks to inspire and inform
Christians in America, using the annual watch
list "as a clarion call to pray, advocate and
remember their persecuted fellow Christians."
Number of Muslim-Americans born to Middle
Eastern migrants 'off the charts'
Leo Hohmann Published: 1/06/2016
So-called “home-grown” terrorists such as
Syed Farook, who slaughtered 14 people last
month in San Bernardino, or Muhammad
Abdulazeez, who gunned down five U.S.
servicemen in Chattanooga last summer, were
both second-generation Muslim-Americans whose
parents emigrated to the U.S.
Most of the terrorists who attacked Paris in
November, killing 130 people with guns and
bombs, were also described by the media as
“home grown jihadists” when in reality they
still represented a foreign culture, born of
Middle Eastern parents who migrated to Europe
and never fully assimilated. And now there is
fresh evidence that this segment of the U.S.
population is growing exponentially.
Buried in the Social Security data is a count
of babies born with the name Muhammad. While
offering a small sample, the Social Security
database is able to shed light on the growth
of second-generation Muslims in America. It is
highly reliable and accurate. It shows a huge
growth pattern.
“A boy named Mohammed born here is likely to
grow up in a Muslim environment and, at the
same time, be a U.S. citizen,” North writes.
“So we can get a rough proxy of the growth of
the population of second-generation Muslim
immigrants by noting how many of them carry
these names. (Third-generation babies are also
included.)”
The figures show the huge growth in this
population over the last 50 years, starting in
1964 when only 29 baby boys were named after
the Islamic prophet who lived in the seventh
century. By 2014 the number had soared to
2,931, a more than 100-to-one ratio.
Alabama 2nd state to sue feds over refugee
resettlement
Suit claims program too secretive
Leo Hohmann Published: 01/07/2016
Alabama has become the second state to
sue the federal government alleging that it
has failed to “consult” with state officials
while secretly placing foreign refugees into
communities. The suit claims the Obama
administration has violated the terms of the
Refugee Act of 1980, which says the federal
government “shall consult regularly”
with states before placing refugees.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Robert Bentley told the
Associated Press the lawsuit was filed
Thursday, following a similar suit by Texas a
month ago.
But an expert on the 1980 law governing
refugee resettlement told WND that neither
suit stands a chance of stopping the flow of
refugees into Texas or Alabama. Richard
Thompson, president and chief counsel of the
Thomas More Law Center, said his organization
is not involved in either the Texas or the
Alabama cases because he believes there is a
stronger case to be made on the grounds of the
10th Amendment.
“They filed a suit on the grounds that the
feds have failed to consult with the state on
the location of refugees in the state, and
failure to consult is a term that has no real
definition to it. Texas has filed a similar
suit that thus far has not gone anywhere,”
Thompson said. “Thomas More Law Center’s
position is that there is a constitutional
claim and that claim is based on the 10th
Amendment.”
Bentley is one of more than two-dozen
Republican governors who opposed the
settlement of Syrian refugees in their states
after the Nov. 13 jihadist attacks that killed
130 people in Paris.
About 80 GOP congressmen have also signed on
to co-sponsor a bill by Rep. Brian Babin,
R-Texas, which would halt all refugee
resettlement until the program can undergo a
full investigation into its costs and its
risks to national security.
But the U.S. State Department has continued
distributing Muslim refugees into more than
180 U.S. cities and towns. They come not only
from Syria and Iraq, but from Somalia,
Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Burma and other countries with active jihadist
movements.
A stronger response is ready and waiting for a
taker. The Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas
More Law Center has been working since June to
prepare a case that would challenge the
constitutionality of federal authority over
the refugee program. The program is
administered by the U.S. State Department
along with the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Expanding
special rights to the 2% who choose the LGBT
lifestyle in Jacksonville FL
with excerpts from Christopher Hong Jan 13, 2016 Jacksonville Florida Times-Union
"Jacksonville residents crowded Tuesday’s City
Council meeting to voice their stance on the
longstanding question of whether to expand
discrimination protections to the LGBT
community...
Tuesday’s meeting saw the formal introduction
of two bills on the issue. Councilman Tommy
Hazouri introduced a bill to expand the
discrimination protections, while Councilman
Bill Gulliford introduced a bill to let voters
decide.
Next month, the council will begin debating
those two bills.... the council defeated
similar legislation in 2012. Tuesday’s
discussion mostly remained civil, with council
members hearing many of the same arguments
voiced years ago and in a series of community
meetings that (Mayor) Curry hosted late last
year.
Supporters of expanding the law said the LGBT
community deserves the same rights and
protections afforded to other minority groups
and urged the council to vote on it.
Opponents, many citing their religious beliefs
that homosexuality is morally wrong, said
expanded protections amounted to a special
privilege that would interfere with small
business and could allow men into women’s
restrooms. Many urged council members to let
voters decide the issue.
The full council will debate Hazouri’s and
Gulliford’s bills during special meetings
scheduled for Feb. 4, Feb. 18 and March 3."
Has your voice been heard about this
expansion of Special Rights in Jacksonville
FL? Contact your Mayor and your
Council Representatives:
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 people.
Alabama chief justice tells judges to halt
same-sex 'marriages'
Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/06/2016
World Net Daily
Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme
Court on Wednesday ordered the state’s probate
judges, the only ones in the state who are
allowed to issue marriage licenses, to follow
the state’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and
its Marriage Protection Act until the full state
Supreme Court rules on the issue.
Please click here to read the article in its
entirety
January
7, 2016
Subject: URGENT: Stop the LGBT Law
Dear Jacksonville
Family,
This is URGENT. Please forward
this email to others.
Unless
we do something about it, just 10 City
Council members will force a LGBT
favoritism law upon Jacksonville, Duval
County, Florida – a law which
will restrict Free Speech and religious
liberties and which will allow men,
claiming to be women, to enter women’s and
children’s dormitories, and dressing,
locker and rest rooms – to view them in
all stages of undress.
And,
much more harm will occur. Get more
details at DefendJaxFamilies.
But, you can help
prevent this. How? LET THE
PEOPLE DECIDE this issue.
●Show your
support for the Public Referendum
proposed by Councilman Gulliford.
Complete and return the Petition found
here,
where there are instructions. The
Petition form can be filled out on your
computer and returned by email.
●Forward this
letter. Email it to as
many people as possible.
●Collect
Petition signatures.
Download the Petition
form, print copies and distribute them
at churches and other venues.
●Help fund the
campaign. And please
urge friends to donate
here . They will understand that
it takes funding to fight this battle.
●Attend key
City Council meetings.
The next City Council meeting is January 12,
2016 at 5:00 P.M. Followed by the Finance
Committee meeting on Jan 19 at 9:30 A.M. Click
here to view regularly scheduled City
Council meetings and plan accordingly.
Please act
quickly. Time
is short. Please act now to complete the
forms and return.
Thanks
for all your help, and for your support in
the past.
Non-Muslims encouraged to wear Islamic head
scarf at school
Click
here to read a thoughtful piece posted by
Leo Hohmann on WND 12/14/2015.This news
occurred courtesy of American educational
systems and Muslim Student Associations
(M.S.A.), a known front group for the Muslim
Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in
the largest terror-financing trial ever held on
U.S. soil.
(The above may more be correctly
filed under "How Political Correctness is
destroying our nation")
If your blood
pressure is not high enough yet, click
here to read about the Virginia high
school Geography class that passed around the
Koran and included a lesson practicing Arabic
calligraphy, or the California School with the
Muslim fight song. Wonder when is the last
time they sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers"
and passed around a Bible. (Thanks again
to wnd.com)
Facebook censors Michael Savage post of
Muslims protesting
Photos show demonstrators warning 'Behead
those who insult Islam'
Published: 12/10/2015 at 3:38 PM World Net Daily
When Muslims held a demonstration in London in
2006 in protest of cartoons depicting their
founder, Muhammad, many bore signs warning of
beheading and death for “those who insult
Islam.”
Talk-radio host Michael Savage thought that amid
a fierce national debate on whether or not to
allow Muslims to immigrate to the United States,
it would be worth considering what has been
happening in Europe.
So, he posted on his Facebook page photographs
of the Feb. 3, 2006, demonstration outside the
Embassy of Denmark in London. The focus of
protest was the publication of editorial
cartoons depicting Muhammad in the Danish
newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Snopes.com verified
that the photographs were taken at the London
demonstration, with the exception of one, which
was from a protest in the English city of Luton
(which is 33 miles away).
Wednesday night, Facebook removed Savage’s post,
explaining the social media site “determined
that it violated Facebook community standards.”
After Muslim Truckers
Refuse to Deliver Beer… Obama Does the
Unbelievable
From Top Right News on
October 27, 2015
by Bill Callen | Top
Right News
Barack Obama just sided with Muslims to
enforce Islamic Sharia Law on an American
business, leaving many outraged and two
FoxNews anchors absolutely stunned.
Two Muslim truck drivers — former Somali
“refugees” — refused to make deliveries
of beer to stores for their employer. So they
were understandably fired.
They claimed it was a violation of their
religious beliefs — even though Islam bars
only the consumption of alcohol. And, as
the employer pointed out, the workers
knew they would have to deliver alcohol
before they took the job.
So guess what Barack Obama did.
He SUED the employers it on behalf of the
pair, Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan
Bulshale, claiming religious discrimination.
Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) represented them in the
case, providing tens of thousands of
taxpayer dollars in legal support, judicial
filings and court appearances against the
employer who was hopelessly outgunned by the
Federal government.
And this week the Muslims were awarded a
stunning $240,000 by a jury, presided over by
an Obama appointee who stunned analysts by
allowing the case to go forward at all.
Hard to believe, isn't it? Why would someone
accept a job knowing he is unable to perform
the work?? This has been fact checked
at this link and it is, sadly, true.
from the Washington Post (which commentator
and author Mark Levin colorfully refers to
as the "Washington Compost":
San Bernardino suspects identified; probe
turns to motive, planning
What we know about
the shooting in San Bernardino
Police
in San Bernardino, Calif.,
said heavily armed gunmen killed 14 people
and injured 17 others during a holiday
party for county employees. Here's what we
know about the mass shooting. (The Washington
Post)
By
William Dauber, Sarah Kaplan and Brian
MurphyDecember
3 at 9:46 AM
SAN BERNARDINO,
Calif. — Investigators grappled
Thursday on two main fronts after the
deadliest U.S. mass shooting since the Sandy
Hook Elementary School bloodshed: Seeking
clues on the motives and apparent
commando-style planning by a couple who
turned an office holiday party into a
killing field with at least 14 dead.
“I don’t think they grabbed the guns and
tactical gear on a spur-of-the-moment
thing,” said San Bernardino Police Chief
Jarrod Burguan hours after Wednesday’s
rampage and a police shootout that left both
alleged shooters dead several miles from the
attack.
In addition, at least 17 people were
wounded, some critically.
Bit by bit, profiles emerged of the
suspects: Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, a former
county health worker who was born in the United
States,
and a woman described as his Pakistani-born
wife, Tashfeen Malik, 27.
As
many as three people opened fire at a
nonprofit facility in San Bernardino
where a holiday party for county employees
was underway, killing at least 14 people
and injuring 17 others.
Also being pieced together were the
hour-by-hour events before police say the
suspects stormed a conference center wearing
black masks and armed with assault rifles
and handguns.
Earlier in the day, the suspects dropped
off their 6-month-old daughter with Farook’s
mother, saying they had a doctor’s
appointment, said Hussam Ayloush, executive
director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations in Los Angeles.
Later, Farook attended the office party
hosted by the San Bernardino County
Department of Public Health, where he had
once worked as an inspector, earning more
than $71,000 in salary and benefits in 2013.
Farook then left the gathering “under
circumstances described as angry or
something of that nature,” said Burguan, the
police chief.
Police said Farook then returned with Malik
and the pair opened fire on the crowd before
fleeing in a black SUV, which was later
spotted about two miles from the shooting
site with the area under near-total
lockdown. Some unconfirmed reports quoted
police saying the attackers also were
outfitted with body cameras.
A shootout with police left both suspects
dead and the vehicle peppered with bullet
holes and with its windows shattered.
“They came prepared to do what they did, as
if they were on a mission,” Burguan said.
Muslim community leader Ayloush described
Malik as a Pakistani-born immigrant who
lived in Saudi Arabia
before marrying Farook. Two FBI officials
told The Washington Post that Farook was not
under FBI investigation. It’s not clear
whether he had links to any other people
under FBI investigation.
A third person seen fleeing the shootout
was also taken into custody, but it remained
unclear whether there was any link to the
suspect.
“Right now, as we continue to drill down
our information, it looks like we have two
shooters,” Burguan said. “We are comfortable
that the two shooters that went into the
building are the two shooters that are
deceased.”
But many other questions loomed.
Among them was whether the attack was
pre-planned and why the suspects amassed
assault-style gear and arms in a tidy
residential neighborhood about 50 miles east
of Los Angeles where the couple was often
seen relaxing in their back yard.
Burguan declined to comment on what may
have precipitated the attack. But, he said,
the couple seemed too well-prepared for the
shooting to be viewed as a spontaneous act.
He added: “We have not ruled out
terrorism.”
“I have no idea why he would do something
like this,” Farhan Khan, who is married to
Farook’s sister, said at a news conference.
“I cannot express how sad I am today.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives said it recovered two rifles
and two handguns and is conducting “urgent
traces” on their origins.
An ATF official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said two of the weapons were
purchased legally, and investigations
continued into the other two.
“Whatever the results of this investigation
... one thing is clear: Violence like this
has no place in this country,” said Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, speaking at a White
House event on incarceration and poverty.
Recent mass shootings in the United
States
have typically involved a lone gunman, often
someone mentally unstable or consumed with
rage. Multiple-shooter events are extremely
rare: According to a recent FBI report on
160 “active shooter incidents” between 2000
and 2013, all but two involved a single
shooter.
“One
of the big questions that will come up
repeatedly is: ‘Is this terrorism?’ ” said
David Bowdich, assistant director in charge
of the FBI’s Los Angeles
office, said at an earlier news conference.
“It is a possibility. We are making some
adjustments to our investigation. It is a
possibility. But we don’t know that yet. And
we are not willing to go down that road
yet.”
The two left behind little in the way of a
paper trail — no apparent criminal record,
no Facebook page or Twitter account.
An online dating profile for a
“farooksyed49” from Riverside, Calif.,
resembles the suspect described by law
enforcement. The profile, on the “Indian
matrimonial and dating service” iMilap.com,
describes a 22-year-old man from a
“religious but modern family.”
“I work for county as health, safety and
environmental inspector,” it reads. “Enjoy
working on vintage and modern cars, read
religious books, enjoy eating out sometimes
travel and just hang out in back yard doing
target practice with younger sister and
friends.”
The man in the profile picture is tall and
bearded, posed jauntily in front of a
nondescript building flanked by palm trees
and a smooth, green lawn. He writes that he
is interested in “matrimonial.”
Speaking to the Los Angeles Times,
co-workers who knew Farook described him as
a quiet and polite man who held no obvious
grudges against people in the office. They
said he recently traveled to Saudi
Arabia
and returned with a woman he met online.
The officer had recently held a shower for
the couple’s new baby, and the two seemed to
be “living the American dream,” said Patrick
Baccari, a fellow inspector who shared a
cubicle with Farook.
Griselda Reisinger, who worked with Farook
before leaving the agency in May, and other
colleagues told the Los Angeles Times that
Farook was a devout Muslim but not vocal
about his religion.
The site of the shooting, the InlandRegionalCenter,
is a three-building complex that houses a
conference center and serves more than
30,000 people with developmental
disabilities. Nearly 700 staff members work
there, according to the organization’s
Facebook page, promoting “independence,
inclusion, and empowerment.” The
organization says that it is committed to
eliminating barriers for individuals with
developmental disabilities so that they can
“live a typical lifestyle.”
The center held its own holiday party
Tuesday, and a brief video clip showed
staffers and clients in wheelchairs dancing
to the 1980 mega-hit “Celebration” by Kool
& the Gang.
On Wednesday, the city’s public health
department had rented out the conference
center’s first-floor banquet room for a
holiday party, complete with Christmas trees
and other decorations. The event was in full
swing when the first reports of gunfire
came, at 10:59 a.m.
Dauber is a freelance writer. Kaplan and
Murphy reported from Washington.
Freelance writer Martha Groves in San Bernardino
and staff writers Joel Achenbach, Mark
Berman, Adam Goldman, Lindsey Bever, Niraj
Chokshi, Ann Gerhart, Sari Horwitz, Elahe
Izadi, Wesley Lowery, Kevin Sullivan,
Julie Tate, Justin Wm. Moyer, Yanan Wang
and Alice Crites in Washington
contributed to this report.
Sarah Kaplan is a
reporter for Morning Mix.
Brian Murphy joined
the Post after more than 20 years as a
foreign correspondent and bureau chief for
the Associated Press in Europe and the Middle East. He
has reported from more than 50 countries
and has written three books.
November
19. 2015
FROM A
CONCERNED CITIZEN OF JACKSONVILLE
It's
baaack!It's
the so-called “Human Rights
Ordinance” (H.R.O.- not to be
confused with the Holy Roman Empire
which failed centuries ago), a
second attempt to introduce another
"SPECIAL" group with "SPECIAL"
rights un-accorded to you- the
average moral citizen of our city.
Evidently, it is notenough to have EQUAL
rights and EQUAL justice...
at least that is what the paid
lobbyists trolling around city hall
seem to indicate.
My
consternation is that as a
color-blind, sexual orientation-blind,
class-blind person, now the city wants
to FORCE me to look at the
private sexual inclinations
of others, whether I choose to or not,
and then may misinterpret my response,
putting me at risk of criminal actions
against me!
We
have inalienable God-given
rights- Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness to
mention a few. These are specifically
mentioned in the U.S. Constitution
which purpose was to limit the
power and control of
general government. As if that was not
enough to confirm the “fully-worthy”
status of all, there is also a Florida
Commission on Human Relations, and
Civil Rights. We need the city to
spend time and our money on this also?
The
Mayor of Jacksonville, Lenny Curry,
has mandated three fact finding
meetings, “Community Conversations”,
so that all sides of the
H.R.O. proposal can be heard.
The
first meeting has taken place.... the
topic was "Supporting the Needs
and Well-Being of Families"-not
ALL families, evidently- not military
families or racially mixed families or
families with one partner living out
of town, or single parent families.
Why a meeting about this little LGBT
segment of families?? Don't all
families have challenges? All
households? Is it the City’s balliwick
to give this SPECIAL
consideration, at the expense
of our public safety, roads, and
pensions for those who keep us safe?
The
first meeting was composed of a panel
of six, four of whom were “for” the
LGBT Special Privilege bill. The
meeting was attended by several
busloads of LGBT supporters who were
shipped in from outside of the city.
Arriving first, it was only they who
were allowed to comment during the
first-come-first served portion of the
meeting. Needless to say, the first
meeting did not prove to be a
successful format to hear “all sides”
of the proposal.
Religious
Freedoms, Thoughts & Beliefs,
Dec.3 at 6 p.m.
EdwardWatersCollege
Milne Auditorium at 1658
Kings Road, Jacksonville,
FL32209
and
Understanding
the
Law & its Effects on Business,
Dec. 15 at 6 p.m.
Jacksonville
University
Policy Institute at 2800
University Blvd. N.,
Jacksonville,
FL32211.
Jacksonville
is a city struggling to pay
the costs and pensions of our public
safety professionals at JFRD and JSO,
to maintain our infrastructure, and to
promote the general welfare and safety
of ALL of our citizens, yet our
elected leaders are spending our
resources discussing how you and I should
respond to the sexual
choices of others, allowing them
into public restrooms frequented by my
family and neighbors. If this should
pass, will the city also spend my
money to retrofit bathroom facilities
so my kids will be safe? Will the city
require private businesses to do
likewise?
So
give this some thought. It's your city
and your tax money.If
you say No No! NO! to this, please
contact your Mayor, Lenny Curry at
This is the time to make your voice
and your priorities for your city of Jacksonville,
heard.
WND EXCLUSIVE
Houston faith leaders
gear up for new transgender fight
'We will work with
Dallas pastors to determine how to
appropriately respond'
Bob Unruh 11/11/2015
The coalition of
pastors from Houston who defeated lesbian
Mayor Annise Parker’s transgender-rights
ordinance – a fight that included her
subpoenas of sermons – now are volunteering to
help pastors in Dallas oppose a similar
measure.
“We will work with Dallas pastors to determine
how to appropriately respond to the wholesale
catering by city council to the radical,
anti-faith, anti-family agenda of the LGBT
Human Rights Campaign,” said Rev. Dave Welch,
president of the Texas Pastor Council.
Welch said Dallas’ change to its existing
nondiscrimination ordinance “not only opens
but essentially removes the doors of women’s
restrooms, showers and locker rooms in Dallas,
as well as criminalizes businesses, employees
as well as eventually, churches who attempt to
keep men out.”
WND has reported extensively on the Houston
fight, which took nearly two years. It ended
last week when citizens, by order of the state
Supreme Court, were allowed to vote on the
measure and soundly rejected it, 62 percent to
38 percent.
The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance would have
banned discrimination against transgender
people, allowing, for example, men who
perceive themselves to be women to use women’s
restrooms, locker rooms and other
gender-specific facilities in the city. Anyone
opposing or obstructing them could have been
fined $5,000.
“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out
eight principles to help Americans with
conservative moral values counter attacks on
our freedoms of religion, speech and
conscience by homosexual activists
The Texas Pastor Council’s Welch condemned the
change in the Dallas ordinance as an attack on
society’s foundation.
“There are many issues that our city
governments should be focused on to improve
the city, and this ordinance patently rejects
cornerstones of our civilization that family
is built upon the covenant of marriage between
a man and a woman, that our sex is embedded in
our chromosomes, and this beautiful created
order is a gift from God.”
Welch added, “A bad tree cannot produce good
fruit and a law based on elevating gender
confusion to being a protected class equal
with race can only produce harm, not good.”
The Dallas law protecting “gender identity and
expression” says the places of public
accommodation that must grant a man who
defines his gender as female full access to
women’s facilities are any inn, hotel,
temporary lodging, restaurant, cafeteria,
lunchroom, soda facility, motion picture
house, theater, concert hall, and retail or
wholesale establishment selling goods or
services.
The measure, Welch said, is a “bottomless
Pandora’s Box.”
“Definition A plus Definition B equals
exposing girls and women to violation of their
privacy as well as their safety,” he said.
He said city officials in Dallas should have
paid attention to the Houston vote and learned
that pastors and citizens will react
negatively to such a social agenda.
“As our very ethnically diverse coalition of
pastors in Houston stated and showed for the
last eighteen months, every one of us are for
equal rights for all, however we cannot allow
special rights for a tiny fraction of society
to endanger the safety and freedom for the
rest,” he said.
Stephen Young at the Dallas Observer wrote
that Dallas didn’t pass an ordinance but
“adjusted the language of an ordinance that’s
existed since 2002 in a way that made very
little change to how anyone in the city is
treated.”
He said in Houston, voters denied “protection”
to their fellow residents.
Young said the Dallas ordinance “doesn’t even
have the word restroom in it, and the failed
Houston law only allowed opposite-gender
restroom use in a fantasy world in which trans
people don’t exist.”
At the Advocate, Dawn Ennis explained that
while “sexual orientation” has been a
protected class for years, “gender identity”
was a class left unprotected.
She noted there was no organized opposition to
the expansion of the sexual identity
protections, but critics say that was because
there was very little notice to the public of
the looming change.
Texas Values Action blasted the Dallas law and
its quick adoption.
“This Dallas bathroom ordinance will allow men
into women’s bathrooms and that’s why the
Dallas city council is deliberately trying to
avoid the people,” said a statement released
by the group’s president, Jonathan Saenz.
“Their fast track method of passing this
dangerous bill that threatens the safety of
women and children is the same strategy used
in Houston to disenfranchise voters with their
failed bathroom bill. Creating law behind
closed doors and forcing it onto the people
the next morning is a recipe for disaster.
These Obama and D.C. style tactics will not
work in Texas. Get ready for a Texas-sized
response.”
“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out
eight principles to help Americans with
conservative moral values counter attacks on
our freedoms of religion, speech and
conscience by homosexual activists
The strategy in Houston was to move the
ordinance through the city council quickly.
City officials then tried to invalidate a
petition demanding a public vote.
After a months-long court fight, the state
Supreme Court stepped in and ordered the city
to repeal the ordinance or put it on the
election ballot in compliance with the city
charter.
Some of the pastors who were targeted by the
mayor’s subpoena have filed a lawsuit charging
her with violating their rights.
It is hard to know where to catalogue the
following ... under Politics? Religious
Liberties? Islamic Threat? Christian or Cult?
Perhaps "Know They Enemy"? You be the judge.
40 Mind-Blowing Quotes
From Barack Hussein Obama On Islam And
Christianity
by Geoffrey Grider nowtheendbegins.com
Oct 2, 2013
When someone shows you
who they are, believe them
Since 2009, NOW THE END
BEGINS has brought you story after story in
detailed accounts of exactly how Obama feels
about Islam, and how he views Christianity and
the Bible. So today, in light of recent events
in Washington, we feel it important that you
know exactly where your president stands in
regards to his faith and his god. Below are 20
quotes he has made about Islam, and 20 quotes
he has made about Christianity. Nothing edited
or mashed up, just exactly in the context he
originally spoke them in with fully-sourced
links so you can see where they come from.
Police Confiscate Mohammed Cartoons At Dutch
Anti-Islam Rally
by Nick Hallett 9 Nov 2015
Police seized “offensive” Mohammed cartoons
during a demonstration by the Dutch branch of
the Patriotic European Against the Islamisation
of the West (PEGIDA) movement in the city of
Utrecht this weekend.
The rally, which attracted around 150
supporters, criticised the “Islamisation” of the
Netherlands, with demonstrators also expressing
their support for the Freedom Party of Geert
Wilders, a noted critic of Islamism.
DutchNews reports that police arrested 32 people
at the demonstration for a variety of offences
including failing to carry IDs, not following
police orders and displaying “insulting
banners”.
One such banner said the “Koran is poison”,
while another claimed “Islamisation is
EU-thanasia”.
Video footage emerged of police removing
Mohammed cartoons, although their ultimate fate
is unknown.
Utrecht City Council had banned the
demonstrators from marching through the city so
they gathered instead in a park on the outskirts
of the city.
The PEGIDA marches started in Dresden, Germany
last year as “evening strolls” through the
streets every Monday to protest against militant
and political Islam. The marches soon grew and
spread across the country, but died down again
at the start of this year to point where most
commentators assumed the movement had petered
out.
However, as the migrant crisis intensifies in
Europe, especially thanks to German Chancellor
Angela Merkel’s relaxed border policies, the
marches have started again and are growing.
Authorities have hit back, however, charging
founder Lutz Bachmann with hate speech for
comments he made in Facebook posts back in 2014.
State prosecutors in Saxony claim private posts
in which Mr Bachmann uses terms such as
“livestock” and “scum” to refer to migrants
risked causing disturbances.
This weekend in the German capital Berlin,
supporters of the anti-mass migration Alternativ
für Deutschland (AfD) party also held a rally
criticising Mrs Merkel’s immigration policy and
calling for her to resign.
The rally passed off largely peacefully,
although violent scuffles broke out between
police and pro-migrant counter-demonstrators.
Thousands Of
German People Chant ‘Merkel Must Go’ At
Anti-Mass Muslim Migration Rally
by Geoffrey Grider
November 7, 2015
The AFD has seen its popularity surge as Germany
struggles to deal with the huge influx of Muslim
migrants, and is currently campaigning in local
elections in the Saxony-Anhalt region that will
be seen as an indicator of public sentiment on
the issue.
The anti-mass Muslim migration Alternativ für
Deutschland (AfD) party held a rally in the
German capital Berlin this afternoon, demanding
the resignation of Chancellor Angela Merkel and
calling for the country to adopt a strong policy
on immigration.
German paper Handelsblatt estimates that 5,000
people joined the rally this afternoon, calling
for the immediate closure of Germany’s borders
and introduction of visa requirements from
migrants from the Balkan states, including
Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro.
Angry demonstrators chanted “Merkel must go” and
“traitor to the people” under the banner “Asylum
has its limits – red card for Merkel”.
Addressing the crowd, Beatrix von Storch, member
of the European Parliament, accused the German
chancellor of causing "asylum chaos” in Germany.
This was a rally in German from about two weeks
ago, as the German people are being forced to
rise up and do what their government refuses to
do.
Although the main protest was largely peaceful,
several counter-protests by pro-migrant
activists descended into violence, with around
40 arrests. Around 800 counter-demonstrators
showed up, far lower than organisers had hoped.
Yesterday, it was reported that the German
government had agreed the downgrade the status
of Syrian migrants, reducing the amount of time
they could stay in the country and banning them
from bringing their families. Today, however,
the government did a U-turn on the plans.
Court rules
against Little Sisters of the Poor in
Contraceptive Coverage Case
By Nigel Duara
L.A. Times
July 14, 2015
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that
there is a limit to how far the government
must bend to accommodate religious objections
to the federal healthcare exchange.
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that if the Colorado-based Little Sisters of
the Poor want to refuse contraceptive coverage
to their employees, they must sign a waiver to
be exempted, and that such a waiver is not a
substantial burden on the nuns' religious
freedom.
The 2-1 decision is one of the few victories
the U.S. government can claim in defense of
the healthcare law in the contraceptive
mandate debate.
Hobby Lobby, a business run by evangelical
Christians, successfully argued before the
U.S. Supreme Court last year that a mandate to
provide contraception to female employees
violated their belief that life begins at
conception.
The high court agreed that for-profit
organizations like Hobby Lobby required
protection, but did not say how far such
protections would go.
In response, on Aug. 27, 2014,
Affordable Care Act administrators created a
waiver for religious nonprofits that would
grant them an exemption from contraceptive
coverage.
But the Little Sisters of the Poor, who run
the Mullen Home for the Aged in Denver, argued
before a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit
that the waiver itself both crosses the nuns’
moral boundary by endorsing contraceptives and
gives control of their healthcare program to
the government.
“Most religious liberty claimants
allege that a generally applicable law or
policy without a religious exception burdens
religious exercise,” according to the
decision, noting that most cases begin with
prisoners demanding a religious right.
But in the Little Sisters of the Poor case
and accompanying suits by self-insured
religious objectors and religious
universities, the government made clear
attempts to offer a religious exemption, the
judges wrote.
“Although plaintiffs allege the
administrative tasks required to opt out of
the mandate make them complicit in the overall
delivery scheme, opting out instead relieves
them from complicity,” according to the
opinion.
The judges said the difference between Hobby
Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor is
that Hobby Lobby faced fines for every day of
noncompliance. Ihe Little Sisters of the Poor
faced no such burden, the judges ruled.
10th Circuit Judge Bobby R. Baldock, the lone
dissenter, agreed with the decision on the
Little Sisters of the Poor but said other
self-insured groups were indeed substantially
burdened when they faced fines for refusing to
provide contraceptives because of their
religious belief.
May 9, 2015
Dr. Gene A. Youngblood, Pastor
First Conservative Baptist Church
12021 Old St Augustine Rd
Jacksonville, Florida 32258
TO: All news media outlets
It has come to my attention
that there are some in our community, as
well as, a few media that have expressed
questions or concerns relating to our
Church-Ministry campus/outdoor marquee,
changeable copy sign and its current
message. This marquee generally has a
message change each week. Generally the
message relates in some fashion to those
things and events taking place in our city
or nation. As a pastor and ministry we feel
it needful to keep our citizens informed and
at the same time be relevant through the
Word of GOD.
FIRST:
Let me state my deep love and concern for
our great city, state, and nation. I
am a Bible believing patriot with a deep
concern over the moral declension. I am
deeply saddened to see the morals and family
values under attack on a national basis. I
have invested the past 50 years of my life
in the defense of the WORD of GOD through
religious-theological studies, pastoral,
pulpit, and classroom academic instructional
responsibilities.
SECOND: We are profoundly committed to the
preaching-teaching of God’s Word. God’s Word
commands that I “Preach the WORD” (11Tim
4:1-3) which in the text includes
confronting sin. I do not have the authority
OR permission to change any text of GOD’S
Word-THE BIBLE.
THIRD: Our ministry marquee has been used as
a tool to educate, inspire, and caution for
over 30 years. We have dealt with multiple
Biblical-Theological issues that caution and
confront sin of whatever kind. Our prayer is
that in our small way we may make a
difference in the lives of all those who
pass by. We do realize that any scriptural
absolute may cause conviction resulting in
the attack on the messenger as well as the
message.
FORMALLY: The present message (caution)
comes from the WORD of GOD, The BIBLE as
found in a multitude of Scripture
references:
• Romans 1:24-32, deals
with several kinds of Sin, with the focus on
those believing that they are wise and God
says that they are unwise. God then deals
with the specific sin of homosexuality and
firmly condemns it.
• I Corinthians 6:9-10,
warns that all (including homosexuals) that
commit sin and DO NOT REPENT will die and go
to HELL.
• OTHER text include and
is NOT limited to: Leviticus 20:13,
Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17-18,
Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8,
Revelation 22:15
Needless to say, the Scriptures are replete
with GOD’S warnings to all of us that SIN
must be confessed and repented of or HELL is
GOD’S judgment upon sin. The wonder of it
all is that God through Jesus Christ will
forgive “ANY” confessed sin that is repented
of.
BECAUSE we love people (yet, as directed in
Scripture to hate the sin), we therefore
want to warn them of the coming Judgment of
God on the sin of Homosexuality (and any
other sin that is NOT repented of). ALL SIN
that is not confessed and repented will
cause a person to GO TO HELL (God says it, I
did not originate the Word), God did. In
fact, according to several of the heretofore
mentioned Biblical text remind us of other
sin specifically mentioned in Scripture
including; “All Liars, Prostitutes, Sexually
Promiscuous, Idolaters, Adulterers,
Homosexuals, Revilers, Extortioners, WILL GO
TO HELL unless they repent and seek God’s
forgiveness.
It is my sincere prayer that perhaps “ONE”
practicing Homosexual will have read our
sign and will REPENT before it is too late
and they are cast into HELL. HELL is a real
place and anyone not believing in the
reality of HELL will not change the
temperature of the FLAMES a single degree.
I am eternally grateful to God for allowing
me to preach HIS WORD at a time when our
Religious FREEDOMS are being challenged and
FREEDOM of speech is being challenged, as
well as, our (all of us) Constitutional
Liberties are under ATTACK.
Notwithstanding all of the above, I do
understand and sympathize with SOME that are
not well instructed or versed in the BIBLE
and thus will consider our marquee’s message
to be incorrect or un-spiritual. PLEASE
allow me to state forthrightly; we stand on
SOLID Biblical TRUTH, therefore we pray for
each person that reads our message (changes
weekly), and prayerfully considers its TRUTH
and Caution.
FURTHERMORE, I pray that the media will NOT
attempt to thwart or interfere with our
FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS SPEECH. We also pray
that the media will be cautioned NOT to in
any way interfere with or disrupt ANY
worship or other programs or services
conducted in and through FIRST CONSERVATIVE
BAPTIST CHURCH.
May God bless and use all in the MEDIA as an
instrument to preserve society and help
protect AMERICA and our great document THE
CONSTITUTION.
Signed;
DR. GENE A. YOUNGBLOOD
Pastor
Obama blocks Iraqi nun from describing
Christian persecution
Posted By Leo Hohmann World Net Daily 05/01/2015 @ 11:52 am In Faith,Front Page,U.S.,World
Sister Diana Momeka is a Dominican
Catholic nun who fled her home in Iraq last
August along with 50,000 other Christians and
religious minorities escaping ISIS.
A leading conservative is asking why the Obama
State Department is barring a persecuted Iraqi
nun from entry into the United States to share
her message about the brutal treatment of
Christians in her country.
Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute’s Center for
Religious Freedom, writes in a National Review
op-ed that Sister Diana Momeka is “an
internationally respected and leading
representative of the Nineveh Christians who
have been killed and deported by ISIS.”
Yet this nun is being “barred from coming to
Washington to testify about this catastrophe?”
Sister Diana was the only Christian in the
delegation and the only member blocked from the
trip, the Washington Times reported, leading
some of her American supporters to question why
she was singled out.
Shea, in her op-ed titled “With Malice Toward
Nun,” exposed the real reason why Obama denied
the visa for Sister Diana.
“Sister Diana Momeka of the
Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine of Siena
was informed on Tuesday by the U.S. consulate in
Erbil that her non-immigrant-visa application
has been rejected.
“The reason given in the
denial letter, a copy of which I have obtained,
is:
‘You were not able to
demonstrate that your intended activities in the
United States would be consistent with the
classification of the visa.’”
Shea further explains:
“She told me in a phone
conversation that, to her face, consular officer
Christopher Patch told her she was denied
because she is an ‘IDP’ or Internally Displaced
Person. ‘That really hurt,’ she said.
Essentially, the State Department was calling
her a deceiver.”
Shea states that the State Department officials
made the determination that the Catholic nun
“could be falsely asserting that she intends to
visit Washington when secretly she could be
intending to stay. That would constitute illegal
immigration, and that, of course, is strictly
forbidden. Once here, she could also be at risk
for claiming political asylum, and the U.S.
seems determined to deny ISIS’s Christian
victims that status.”
Shea then outlined Sister Diana’s reasons for
her visit and the endorsements she received from
two politicians – one Republican and one
Democrat — among others:
“In reality, Sister Diana
wanted to visit for one week in mid-May. She has
meetings set up with the Senate and House
foreign-relations committees, the State
Department, USAID, and various NGOs. In support
of her application, Sister Diana had multiple
documents vouching for her and the temporary
nature of her visit. She submitted a letter from
her prioress, Sister Maria Hana. It attested
that the nun has been gainfully employed since
last February with the Babel College of
Philosophy and Theology in Erbil, Kurdistan, and
is contracted to teach there in the 2015–16
academic year.”
Sister Diana also submitted an invitation from
her sponsors, two respected Washington-area
think tanks, the Institute for Global Engagement
and former congressman Frank Wolf’s (R., Va.)
21st Century Wilberforce Initiative.
None of this was good enough for the Obama State
Department.
Yet, as Matthew Balan points out in an article
for News Busters, even as the administration
denies a visa to a persecuted Christian nun, it
has created a “special envoy for the human
rights of LGBT persons.”
“One wonders if any of the major news media
outlets will pick up the story of Sister Diana,”
Balan muses. Just over a month ago, on 60
Minutes, CBS’s Lara Logan refreshingly brought
new attention to ISIS’s genocidal campaign
against the ancient Christian communities in
Iraq. But since then, there has been scant
coverage of the Islamic extremist group’s
persecution of the religious minority. ”
Sister Diana, along with the town’s 50,000
other, mostly Christian, residents, were forced
out of their homes by ISIS in the second week of
August and fled for their lives to
Kurdish-controlled areas.
“Since then, the 30-something religious woman
has served as a spokesperson for this community,
as well as for the over 100,000 other Christians
driven into Kurdistan under the ISIS ‘convert or
die’ policy,” Shea writes.
“Mr. Wolf, who met her in Kurdistan a few months
ago, explained, ‘We had hoped to facilitate her
trip to the States so that she could speak with
great candor, as is her custom, to policymakers.
Perhaps just as significantly, we viewed her as
a critical voice to awaken the church in the
West to the suffering of Christians and other
religious minorities in Iraq.’”
Muslim
congressmen try to boot Islam critic Geert
Wilders
Posted By Art Moore On
04/30/2015 @ 7:38 pm In Front
Page,Politics,U.S.
Reps. Andre
Carson, D-Ind., Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., and
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., in Washington,
D.C., protesting Geert Wilders visit to
the U.S. (Twitter @RepAndreCarson)
As one of the world’s most prominent
critics of Islam, Dutch lawmaker Geert
Wilders doesn’t go anywhere without his
security detail of as many as six
plainclothes police officers, and he rarely
crosses international borders without
causing political uproar, having already
been banned in Britain at one time.
So it was of little surprise that three
U.S. congressmen urged Secretary of State
John Kerry and Secretary of Homeland
Security Jeh Johnson to deny him a visa
ahead of his planned visit to the U.S. this
week, due to his alleged ongoing
“participation in inciting anti-Muslim
aggression and violence.”
Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and André
Carson, D-Ind., who both are Muslim, along
with Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., wrote a
letter April 23 citing “the International
Religious Freedom Act which allows the
Department of State to deny entry to a
foreign leader who is responsible for severe
violations of religious freedom.”
Nevertheless, Wilders – who insists he
doesn’t hate Muslims but believes Western
civilization is threatened by adherents of
the Islamic supremacy taught in the Quran –
showed up on Capitol Hill Wednesday and
spoke at two events at the invitation of
Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and
Steve King, R-Iowa
King’s communications director, Sarah
Stevens, told WND the congressman invited
Wilders a month or so ago to speak at the
weekly Conservative Opportunity Society
breakfast he chairs. Wilders spoke Wednesday
on his latest book, “Marked for Death:
Islam’s War Against the West and Me,” and
also attended an evening reception with
Congress members and staff along with
representatives of foreign-policy groups on
Capitol Hill.
Ellison, Carson and Crowley showed up
Thursday at a news conference King and
Gohmert held for Wilders in front of the
U.S. Capitol and voiced their opposition to
the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf in a video
interview.
“Personally, I find it disturbing, but
mostly sad, because, you know, the people of
the Netherlands are a good people, and this
is absolutely true, with a great history of
tolerance, great history of giving art to
the world and great gifts,” Ellison said.
“And it’s unfortunate,” the Minnesota
congressman continued, “that someone such as
this would come over here and sort of
represent himself as a member of that
society.”
Wilders, for his part, would contend that
Ellison actually is drawing attention to the
central issue: It’s the intolerance of
Muslim immigrants and their refusal to
assimilate, Wilders argues, that threatens
the historic Judeo-Christian Dutch culture
that forms the basis of a tolerant,
pluralistic society capable of “giving art
to the world and great gifts.”
As for whether or not Wilders represents
his country, in 2009 he remarked: “Half of
Holland loves me and half of Holland hates
me. There is no in-between.”
King was unable to speak to WND due to
schedule constraints, but he was
interviewed by the De Telegraaf reporter in
front of the Capitol Thursday, who asked him
for his view of Wilders.
“I think he’s solid and courageous. I
introduced him yesterday as a man who will
stand up and speak the truth – even if he’s
under death threats, speak the truth,” King
said in the video interview.
“He’s done that consistently for a decade.”
Wilders is scheduled to be the keynote
speaker at an event Sunday in the Dallas
area called the “Muhammad Art Exhibit and
Contest.” Held at the venue where Muslims
hosted a “Stand with the Prophet in Honor
and Respect” conference one week after the
Paris Charlie Hebdo massacre in January, the
event’s organizers, the American Freedom
Defense Initiative, see Wilders as
representative of their aggressive defense
of freedom of speech.
ADI is run by author and Atlas Shrugs
blogger Pamela Geller, and author and Jihad
Watch Director Robert Spencer, who
themselves have been branded by Ellison,
Carson and their allies as “Islamophobes.”
Geller and Spencer argue their work amounts
to citing the justifications from the Quran
and other Islamic texts used by Muslims who
employ violent acts and other means to
assert Islamic supremacy.
Comparing cultures
Summarizing their complaint, the three
protesting congressmen told Kerry and
Johnson that Wilders’ “policy agenda is
centered on the principle that Christian
culture is superior to other cultures.”
“He justifies his desire to ban the Quran
and Islam from the Netherlands with depraved
comments like, ‘Islam is not a religion,
it’s an ideology, the ideology of a retarded
culture.’ We should not be importing hate
speech,” they write.
Wilders’ defenders point out that the Dutch
word he used to describe Islamic culture can
be translated as “backward” rather than
“retarded,” insisting that while Wilders
doesn’t mince words, he is no hater of
people.
“I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam,”
explains Wilders, the leader of the Party
for Freedom, the fourth-largest party in the
Dutch parliament.
That sentiment apparently is of little
consolation to many of the more than 1
billion people who identify as Muslim, but
Wilders contends the orthodox teaching of
Islam derived from Muhammad is an
existential threat to Western civilization.
While he puts the percentage of Islamic
extremists at about 5 to 15 percent of
Muslims, he contends “moderate Islam”
doesn’t exist and notes the Quran itself
states that Muslims who accept the Islam’s
holy book in part are “apostates.”
As evidence of the failure to assimilate,
in a speech to parliament last year he cited
a study showing that nearly three-quarters
of ethnic Turks and Moroccans in the
Netherlands regard those who leave the
European nation to join jihadists in Syria
as “heroes.” Wilders pointed out that the
same percentage of Dutch Muslims condoned
the 9/11 attacks.
Wilders has been under constant security
protection since November 2004, when two
North African Muslims were accused of
planning to murder him and another outspoken
critic of Islam in the parliament, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali. The attack at the Hague came
shortly after the murder of Dutch filmmaker
Theo van Gogh by a Moroccan national.
Wilders was banned from the U.K. as an
“undesirable person” under Prime Minister
Gordon Brown in February 2009, two days
before he was scheduled to show his short
film “Fitna” at the invitation of two
members of the House of Lords. Wilders
appealed the ban to Britain’s Asylum and
Immigration Tribunal, which overturned it in
October 2009.
Wilders writings and film “Fitna” warning
of the “Islamization” of the Netherlands and
Europe prompted Turkish, Moroccan and
Antillean organizations in the country to
bring charges against him of criminally
insulting religious and ethnic groups and
inciting hatred and discrimination.
In June 2011, he was acquitted of all
charges. Judge Marcel van Oosten called
Wilders’ statements about Islam “gross and
denigrating” but ruled they didn’t
constitute hatred against Muslims and,
therefore, were “acceptable within the
context of public debate.”
Limiting free speech
In their letter, Ellison, Carson and
Crowley assert Wilders’ right to speak
freely in the U.S. under the First Amendment
is limited because he allegedly incites
violence and “prejudicial action” against
protected groups.
They write:
In the U.S., freedom of speech is a
bedrock principle that distinguishes free
societies from ones living under
oppressive regimes. Freedom of speech,
however, is not absolute. It is limited by
the legal and moral understanding that
speech that causes the incitement of
violence or prejudicial action against
protected groups is wrong. As Mr. Wilders
continues his pursuit of political power,
granting him entry will embolden him to
engage in further incitement of violence
and discrimination against Muslims.
Legal analyst Eugene Volokh noted the
incitement exception to free speech,
according to Supreme Court precedent, is
“limited to speech intended to and likely to
produce imminent lawless conduct — conduct
in the coming hours or maybe few days.”
Wilders’ statements, Volokh wrote in a
Washington Post blogpost, appear to be
constitutionally protected, he said, because
they “don’t urge any imminent conduct (or
even any criminal conduct, as opposed to
long-term changes in the law). Such
statements’ are “incitement” in the
Congressmen’s opinion only because the
Congressmen apparently view constitutionally
unprotected “incitement” (or, as they term
it earlier, “hate speech”) much more
broadly."
It's hard to say if the following somewhat
abbreviated article should be filed under the
truthsthatfree.com category of
Freedom of Speech, Islamic Threat, Israel and
the Land, Religious Liberty or perhaps
Politics. So it is place in our monthly
archive.
‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters
will soon appear on NYC subways and buses
Washington Post
Michael Miller
April 22, 2015
‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon
appear on NYC subways and buses
New Yorkers are used to aggressive
advertising. Banners for breast implants.
Billboards for condoms. But a federal judge’s
ruling has opened the door for far more
controversial posters on buses and subways
across the city.
“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close
to Allah,” reads one such ad next to the image
of a young man in a checkered headscarf.
“That’s His Jihad. What’s yours?”
The poster is at the center of heated legal
debate over public safety and free speech. On
Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl ruled
that New York’s Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA) cannot stop the controversial
ad from running on scores of subway cars and
buses.
The MTA has argued that the ad could incite
violence against Jews, but Koeltl rejected
that idea.
MTA officials “underestimate the tolerant
quality of New Yorkers and overestimate the
potential impact of these fleeting
advertisements,” he ruled. “Moreover, there is
no evidence that seeing one of these
advertisements on the back of a bus would be
sufficient to trigger a violent reaction.
Therefore, these ads — offensive as they may
be — are still entitled to First Amendment
protection.”
Making the case all the stranger is that the
posters are not the work of an Islamist group,
but rather a pro-Israel organization.
“This is a triumph for liberty and free
speech,” tweeted Pamela Geller, the president
of the American Freedom Defense Initiative
(AFDI), the group that purchased the ads and
sued the MTA to run them.
New Yorkers are used to aggressive
advertising. Banners for breast implants.
Billboards for condoms. But a federal judge’s
ruling has opened the door for far more
controversial posters on buses and subways
across the city.
“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close
to Allah,” reads one such ad next to the image
of a young man in a checkered headscarf.
“That’s His Jihad. What’s yours?”
The poster is at the center of heated legal
debate over public safety and free speech. On
Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl ruled
that New York’s Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA) cannot stop the controversial
ad from running on scores of subway cars and
buses.
The MTA has argued that the ad could incite
violence against Jews, but Koeltl rejected
that idea.
MTA officials “underestimate the tolerant
quality of New Yorkers and overestimate the
potential impact of these fleeting
advertisements,” he ruled. “Moreover, there is
no evidence that seeing one of these
advertisements on the back of a bus would be
sufficient to trigger a violent reaction.
Therefore, these ads — offensive as they may
be — are still entitled to First Amendment
protection.”
Making the case all the stranger is that the
posters are not the work of an Islamist group,
but rather a pro-Israel organization.
“This is a triumph for liberty and free
speech,” tweeted Pamela Geller, the president
of the American Freedom Defense Initiative
(AFDI), the group that purchased the ads and
sued the MTA to run them.
AFDI is not your traditional free speech
organization, however. The “about” section on
its Web site starts out pretty
straightforward, then takes a very hard turn.
Whatever you make of the group, AFDI has been
remarkably successful in bringing its message
to America. AFDI has filed at least nine
lawsuits across the country, often against
cities or their contractors that refuse to
display their messages.
Those messages include a poster depicting
Adolf Hitler meeting with “the leader of the
Muslim world” and demanding that the United
States cut off all aid to Islamic countries.
“In any war between the civilized man and the
savage, support the civilized man,” reads
another AFDI poster. “Support Israel. Defeat
Jihad.”
AFDI’s ads have also drawn objections from
Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that
promotes the rights of Muslims and better
relations between Muslims and non-Muslims,
launched its own public relations campaign to
combat AFDI. In 2012 and 2013, CAIR ran
posters in several U.S. cities promoting
peaceful versions of Islam. “‘#MyJihad is to
build friendships across the aisle.’ What’s
yours?” But the ads never ran in New York due
to a disagreement between CAIR and MTA.
The poster attributes the “Killing Jews” quote
to “Hamas MTV,” apparently a reference to the
Palestinian group’s odd blend of violence and
music videos. The ad also has a disclaimer at
the bottom noting that it is “a paid
advertisement sponsored by” AFDI and “does not
imply MTA’s endorsement.”
But MTA Security Director Raymond Diaz worried
that the poster would nonetheless incite
violence, primarily against Jews. “What
matters is not AFDI’s intent, but how the ad
would be interpreted,” he wrote. The line
“What is yours?” could be considered a “call
to violence,” particularly because the CAIR
posters it was mocking never appeared in New
York. When AFDI pointed out that the exact
same poster had not caused any problems in
Chicago or San Francisco, Diaz argued that New
York was different because it is “the prime
terror target” and that the “terrorist
security threat” had grown worse since 2013.
On Tuesday, however, Judge Koeltl tossed out
those arguments and sided with AFDI. The ads
could not reasonably be considered an
incitement to violence, even if someone didn’t
understand them.
“The defendants admit that the actual
intention of the advertisement is not to
advocate the use of force, but to parody the
CAIR ‘My Jihad’ campaign and to criticize
Hamas and radical Islam. However, they argue
that a reasonable New Yorker would not read
the advertisement this way, but would instead
read it as advocating the killing of Jewish
people,” Koeltl wrote. “The defendants’ theory
is thoroughly unpersuasive.”
After AFDI’s victory, Geller posed for photos
outside the federal courthouse while holding
the “Killing Jews” advertisement.
“With our NY win, our ads will make their
debut on New York buses in the coming weeks,”
AFDI’s Web site promises above a “donate”
button. “We want to run 100. Help us make that
happen.”
But even if the ads don’t incite violence in
New York City, they could overseas. Earlier
this month, Egypt’s top religious authority
called AFDI’s posters “racist” and issued a
fatwa, or official edict, against them. “This
hazardous campaign will leave the gate of
confrontation and clashes wide open instead of
exerting efforts towards peaceful coexistence
and harmony,” according to the edict.
Hamas, the group cited on the ads, has not
said whether it approves of the message.
Navy
Official Bans Chaplain From Ministering To
Bereaved Families And Sailors
GOOSE CREEK, S.C.,
March 24, 2015
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today,
Liberty Institute announces that Chaplain
Modder's commanding officer, Captain Jon R.
Fahs, issued a "no contact" order to Chaplain
Wes Modder (the military version of a
restraining order), forbidding him from
counseling or ministering to members of his
unit. The order comes on the heels of a tragic
death in Modder's unit, banning him from
ministering to grieving sailors and the
deceased sailor's family members.
After a sailor in his unit unexpectedly
passed away, Chaplain Modder immediately
sprung into action to fulfill his usual
chaplain duties of providing comfort and
support to the deceased sailor's grieving
family. But just as Chaplain Modder was about
to perform those duties, the Navy informed him
of the "no contact" order, banning him from
having any contact with any personnel from his
unit, depriving him of the ability to comfort
them during a time of grief and mourning.
Captain Fahs also banished Chaplain Modder
from the Naval base where Modder is stationed
on the day of the memorial service for the
fallen sailor. The order also comes just days
after Captain Fahs denied Chaplain Modder's
request for a religious accommodation to
provide pastoral counseling in accordance with
his faith. (See Captain Fahs' denial letter at
https://www.libertyinstitute.org/ModderFacts)
"This Navy official is using the 'no contact'
order as a weapon to punish and humiliate a
decorated military chaplain," said Mike Berry,
Liberty Institute Senior Counsel and Director
of Military Affairs. "I am stunned that he
would deny Chaplain Modder the ability to
minister to a grieving family and other
sailors."
Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly
Shackelford said, "Of the most critical times
for chaplains, the death of a colleague is
near the top of the list. For this Navy
official to bar a chaplain from comforting and
ministering to sailors and families is a
reprehensible violation of religious freedom
and common human decency."
Case Background: Chaplain Wes Modder is a
Navy chaplain and former Marine who previously
served as the Force chaplain for Naval Special
Warfare Command. He has deployed overseas
multiple times during the War on Terror,
including in support of Navy SEAL Teams. In
October 2014, Chaplain Modder's commander
called him a "consummate professional leader,"
"the best of the best," and said he sets the
"clear benchmark" for chaplain
professionalism. Now, the Navy is threatening
Chaplain Modder with career-ending punishment
because, when asked, he expressed faith-based
views on marriage and human sexuality in
private counseling sessions. Liberty Institute
is defending Chaplain Modder and asserts that
censoring his religious expression is
unconstitutional religious discrimination. The
"no contact" order comes only days after the
Navy officially denied Chaplain Modder's
request for religious accommodation, in
violation of federal law and Department of
Defense (DoD) regulations. (Read more about
Modder's case at https://www.libertyinstitute.org/ModderFacts)
About Liberty Institute
Liberty Institute is the largest nonprofit
legal organization in the nation dedicated
solely to defending religious liberty in
America. Liberty Institute protects freedom of
religious expression in our military, schools,
churches, and throughout the public arena. For
more information, visit
www.LibertyInstitute.org.
March 12, 2015 In mid February of this year Navy
Chaplain Wesley Modder received a
"detachment for cause" letter after commanders
concluded he was "intolerant" and "unable to
function in the diverse and pluralistic
environment" of his current assignment. Lt Cmdr.
Modder has served more than 19 years with
commendations as "best of the best" and a
"talented and inspirational leader. Click
here to read the March 11 article in the
Military Times.
Muslim
Brotherhood princess' used Clinton email
server
03/11/2015 @ 9:10 pm WND.com In Front Page,Politics,U.S.
Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin
At least three of Hillary Clinton’s top aides –
including one with ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood – used emails hosted on Clinton’s
private server while she was secretary of state,
according to several reports.
At a news conference Tuesday at the U.N.,
Clinton directly addressed media about the
revelation that she conducted her business as
secretary of state using a private email account
instead of the secure and archived government
system.
She acknowledged she deleted thousands of
personal emails and said she turned over hard
copies of messages to the State Department that
she deemed to be work related.
But Clinton apparently wasn’t the only one at
the State Department using private email.
Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen Hayes told
Fox News, “Two of Hillary Clinton’s top aides
used personal email while they were employed at
the State Department.”
Hayes specifically named Clinton Chief of Staff
Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, who served as
Clinton’s longtime deputy chief of staff. Abedin
and Clinton worked closely together for nearly
20 years.
“The State Department has evidence of this,” he
said.
In another report, the gossip website Gawker
claimed both Abedin and Phillippe Reines,
Clinton’s communications strategist, used the
private email addresses.
The London Daily Mail confirmed one of Abedin’s
email addresses was listed as
Huma@clintonemail.com.
Abedin’s emails would be of particular interest
because she has known ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood – a group that’s bent on “destroying
Western civilization from within” – and other
Islamic supremacists.
Hayes said, “The question, I think becomes: Were
they emailing with Hillary Clinton from their
personal email addresses to her personal email
address about State Department business, about
Benghazi, including sensitive classified
information?
“Those are questions that I think (Rep.) Trey
Gowdy and the House Benghazi Committee is going
to want to look at very carefully.”
What do YOU think? Will Hillary’s email troubles
delete her run for president? Sound off in
today’s WND poll
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has filed a
lawsuit against the State Department seeking all
emails from 2009 to 2013 between Clinton, Abedin
and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of Muslim Brotherhood
leader Mohammed Morsi.
“Now we know why the State Department didn’t
want to respond to our specific request for
Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s
communications,” Judicial Watch President Tom
Fitton said in a statement. “The State
Department violated FOIA law rather than admit
that it couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret
accounts that the agency has known about for
years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama
administration cover-up isn’t just about
domestic politics but has significant foreign
policy implications.”
Get the details about what really happened in
one of America’s biggest foreign operations
failures, in “The REAL Benghazi Story.”
Transforming America
Abedin and Clinton worked closely together for
nearly 20 years. As WND has extensively
reported, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic
supremacist connections not only extend to
Abedin’s mother and father, who are both deeply
tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to Abedin herself.
Major news media profiles of Abedin report she
was born of Pakistani and Indian parents,
without delving much further into her family’s
history.
As WND reported, a manifesto commissioned by the
ruling Saudi Arabian monarchy places the work of
an institute that employed Abedin at the
forefront of a grand plan to mobilize U.S.
Muslim minorities to transform America into a
Saudi-style Islamic state, according to
Arabic-language researcher Walid Shoebat.
Abedin was an assistant editor for a dozen years
for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for
the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The
institute – founded by her late father and
currently directed by her mother – is backed by
the Muslim World League, an Islamic organization
in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was founded
by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
The 2002 Saudi manifesto shows that “Muslim
Minority Affairs” – the mobilizing of Muslim
communities in the U.S. to spread Islam instead
of assimilating into the population – is a key
strategy in an ongoing effort to establish
Islamic rule in America and a global Shariah, or
Islamic law, “in our modern times.”
WND reported Abedin also was a member of the
executive board of the Muslim Student
Association, which was identified as a Muslim
Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document
introduced into evidence during the
terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy
Land Foundation.
At her father’s Saudi-financed Islamic think
tank, WND reported, Abedin worked alongside
Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is accused of
financing al-Qaida fronts.
Naseef is deeply connected to the Abedin family.
WND was first to report Huma’s mother, Saleha
Abedin, was the official representative of
Naseef’s terror-stained Muslim World League in
the 1990s.
Shoebat previously reported that as one of 63
leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood, the de facto
female version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha
Abedin served alongside Nagla Ali Mahmoud, the
wife of Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohammed
Morsi, Egypt’s now ousted president.
Saleha Abedin and Morsi’s wife both were members
of the Sisterhood’s Guidance Bureau, Shoebat
found.
Huma worked with al-Qaida front man
Abdullah Omar Naseef is secretary-general of the
Muslim World League, an Islamic charity known to
have spawned terrorist groups, including one
declared by the U.S. government to be an
official al-Qaida front.
The institute founded by Huma Abedin’s father
reportedly was a quiet, but active, supporter of
Naseef.
The institute bills itself as “the only
scholarly institution dedicated to the
systematic study of Muslim communities in
non-Muslim societies around the world.”
Huma served on the Journal of Muslim Minority
Affairs’s editorial board from 2002 to 2008.
Documents obtained by Shoebat revealed that
Naseef served on the board with Huma from at
least December 2002 to December 2003.
Naseef’s sudden departure from the board in
December 2003 coincides with the time at which
various charities led by Naseef’s Muslim World
League were declared illegal terrorism fronts
worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N.
The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself
as one of the largest Islamic non-governmental
organizations.
But according to U.S. government documents and
testimony from the charity’s own officials, it
is heavily financed by the Saudi government.
The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as
have its various offshoots, including the
International Islamic Relief Organization, or
IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the
U.S. and U.N. as a terror financing front.
Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September
2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had
“direct links” with Osama bin Laden. The group
is now banned worldwide by U.N. Security Council
Committee resolution 1267.
There long have been accusations that the IIRO
and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.
In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate
that the MWL was one of his three most important
charity fronts.
An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL
accuses the group of promulgating a
“fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around
the world through a large network of charities
and affiliated organizations.”
“Its ideological backbone is based on an
extremist interpretation of Islam,” the profile
states, “and several of its affiliated groups
and individuals have been linked to
terror-related activity.”
In 2003, U.S. News and World Report documented
that accompanying the MWL’s donations,
invariably, are “a blizzard of Wahhabist
literature.”
“Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme
preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of
rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent
jihad –laid the groundwork for terrorist groups
around the world,” the report continued.
An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed
Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990 on
accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and
a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At the
time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he
also reportedly worked for the Pakistani branch
of the MWL.
The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic
Foundation, developing chapters in about 50
countries, including for a time in Oregon until
it was designated a terrorist organization.
In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that
the foundation was funding Islamist militants in
Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report
detailed its Bosnian militant ties.
The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain’s
offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of
terrorism for their role in planning and funding
the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in
East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also
designated because it “was used as a staging
area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators
of the 1998 bombings.”
The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al
Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian
terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was
responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that
killed 202 people. The Indonesia office was
later designated a terrorist entity by the
Treasury.
In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department
froze all Al Haramain’s financial assets pending
an investigation, leading the Saudi government
to disband the charity and fold it into another
group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief
and Charity Work Abroad.
In September 2004, the U.S. designated
Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.
In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied
the terrorist designation to the entire
Al-Haramain organization worldwide
Bin Laden’s brother-in-law
In August 2006, the Treasury Department also
designated the Philippine and Indonesian branch
offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist
entities “for facilitating fundraising for
al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups.”
The Treasury Department added: “Abd Al Hamid
Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official
[executive director of its Eastern Province
Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his position
to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast
Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of supporting
Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a
cell of regular financial donors in the Middle
East who support extremist causes.”
In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin
Laden’s brother-in-law, ran the Philippines
offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to
Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S.
airlines.
The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas,
Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases
and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa
al-Islamiyya.
The New York Post reported the families of the
9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO and
other Muslim organizations for having “played
key roles in laundering of funds to the
terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings”
and for having been involved in the “financing
and ‘aiding and abetting’ of terrorists in the
1993 World Trade Center bombing.”
‘Saudi government front’
In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the
Canadian director of both the IIRO and the MWL,
admitted the charities are near entities of the
Saudi government.
Stated El-Asahi: “The Muslim World League, which
is the mother of IIRO, is a fully
government-funded organization. In other words,
I work for the government of Saudi Arabia. I am
an employee of that government.
“Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that
organization, which means that we are controlled
in all our activities and plans by the
government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in mind,
please,” he said.
Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror
financing, the U.S. government never designated
the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity.
Many have speculated the U.S. has been trying to
not embarrass the Saudi government.
Huma’s mother represented Muslim World League
Saleha Abedin has been quoted in numerous press
accounts as both representing the MWL and
serving as a delegate for the charity.
In 1995, for example, the Washington Times
reported on a United Nations-arranged women’s
conference in Beijing that called on governments
throughout the world to give women statistical
equality with men in the workplace.
The report quoted Saleha Abedin, who attended
the conference as a delegate, as “also
representing the Muslim World League based in
Saudi Arabia and the Muslim NGO Caucus.”
The U.N.’s website references a report in the
run-up to the Beijing conference that also lists
Abedin as representing the MWL at the event.
The website posted an article from the now
defunct United States Information Agency quoting
Abedin and reporting she attended the Beijing
conference as “a delegate of the Muslim World
League and member of the Muslim Women’s NGO
caucus.”
In the article, Abedin was listed under a
shorter name, “Dr. Saleha Mahmoud, director of
the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.”
WND confirmed the individual listed is Huma
Abedin’s mother. The reports misspelled part of
Abedin’s name. Her full professional name is at
times listed as Saleha Mahmood Abedin S.
Hillary praise
Saleha Mahmood formerly directed the Institute
of Muslim Minority Affairs in the U.K. and
served as a delegate for the Muslim World
League, an Islamic fundamentalist group Osama
bin Laden reportedly told an associate was one
of his most important charity fronts.
In February 2010, Clinton spoke at Dar Al-Hekma
College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where Abedin
was an associate professor of sociology at the
time.
Clinton, after she was introduced by Abedin,
praised the work of the terror-tied professor.
“I have to say a special word about Dr. Saleha
Abedin,” Clinton said. “You heard her present
the very exciting partnerships that have been
pioneered between colleges and universities in
the United States and this college. And it is
pioneering work to create these kinds of
relationships.
“But I have to confess something that Dr. Abedin
did not,” Clinton continued, “and that is that I
have almost a familial bond with this college.
Dr. Abedin’s daughter, one of her three
daughters, is my deputy chief of staff, Huma
Abedin, who started to work for me when she was
a student at George Washington University in
Washington, D.C.”
The Clarion Project was founded
in 2006 by Raphael Shore. It is dedicated to
"exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism
while providing a platform for the voices of
moderation and promoting grassroots activism."
Shore produced the 2008 documentary The
Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For
America.. (View
at this link.)
The main web page of the Clarion Project is www.clarionproject.org.
They are currently sponsoring an email
campaign to your elected officials "No Nukes
For Iran".
As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated in his
speech to the U.S. Congress on March 3,
2015, "for over a year, we've been told
that no deal is better than a bad deal (with
Iran). Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very
bad deal. We're better off without
it." Visit this
link to quickly send an email to your
elected officials in Washington
www.acttoimpact.com. ~>~>~>~>~>~>~>~>
File Under the category of
"Unintended Consequences"
Side effects of a Nuclear Deal with
Iran: A Middle East Arms Race?:
According
to two FCC commissioners, those new
regulations are bad all around
By Brad
Matthews
Watchdog.org
March 4, 2015
The Obama administration and proponents
of the FCC’s version of net neutrality
may be ecstatic at the passing of
regulations that make the Internet a
public utility on Feb. 26th, but not all
FCC members are so sunny in their
outlook for the future.
TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb.
27th with two FCC commissioners, Ajit
Pai and Mike O’Rielly, and the two of
them concurred that the new regulations
are far-reaching, largely unchecked and
pose a threat to consumer bills and to
innovation in the industry.
Ajit Pai openly questioned what the
problem was, saying, “There’s never been
a systemic analysis of what the problem
with the Internet is. In this order, you
see scattered niche examples [Comcast
and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime,
others] all of which were resolved, mind
you, through private sector
initiatives.” He continued, saying that
the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory
regime is a solution that won’t work in
search of a problem that doesn’t
exist.” Essentially, this is,
contrary to the assertion of activists
and others, a vaguely justified power
grab by a government agency.
Mike O’Rielly added, in a bit of humor
that “there is a problem, and it’s the
document we adopted [Feb. 26].” Neither
of them were reticent in explaining
exactly how and why the document was the
problem. For one, the document was, as
Commissioner Pai pointed out, written to
solve a problem that wasn’t readily
apparent. O’Rielly said the document is
“guilt by imagination, trying to guess
what will go wrong in the future”;
instead of tackling a readily apparent
and current issue, the FCC proposal is
instead stumbling forward, trying to
find future, hypothetical transgressions
to retroactively justify its own
regulations.
This conspiratorial and wide-ranging
thinking on the part of FCC is not a
bug, but rather a feature. O’Rielly
openly said that “it’s intended to catch
everybody”. Pai noted that the FCC was
going to centralize powers over what
infrastructure was deployed and where
through the use of statutes and other
laws; O’Rielly mentioned specifically
that the FCC was going to “use Section
201 [of the Communications Act] to do
it’s dirty work.”
Pai continued, saying that the FCC was
largely focused on the ends of Internet
regulation rather than the means, and
that “a lot of these promises of
regulatory restraint are pretty
ephemeral.” O’Rielly mentioned that
mobile data policies were likely to be
subsumed by the new regulations into
policies on the wider Internet as a
whole. This one-size-fits-all approach
ignores the differences in how mobile
data is used versus the way the Internet
is used by a normal computer or other
devices. Many features of mobile
service, the two said, could be
construed as a company favoring one app
or one site over another in terms of
data, which would violate the FCC’s
standards.
The consumer will inherit many of these
new costs and burdens. O’Rielly outright
told the audience that “Rates are going
to go up because of this.” The new
regulations also fail to recognize the
burden of local telecommunications
taxes, especially in major cities where
tax rates on mobile service are often
incredibly high. The new regulations,
combined with the laws of local
governments, stand to impose even more
costs onto consumers.
The outlook the two gave was anything
but bright–the worries of small
government advocates seem justified. The
new FCC regulations will, in concert
with other laws and under the directive
of an organization looking for future
problems rather than current problems,
give more power to government, more
restrictions to innovators, and more
costs to the people.
Commissioner Pai summed it up best:
“This issue has been largely fact-free
for the better part of a decade, and I
think it’s frankly shocking that
decision-making on something as
important as this has been thrown by the
wayside in favor of what I consider to
be an ideological agenda.”
The net may be “neutral” but the FCC is
most certainly not.
Islamic
state: Fears Grow For Abducted Syrian
Christians United Kingdom BBC Wednesday 25 Feb 2015
There are fears that more members of an
Assyrian Christian community in north-eastern
Syria were abducted by Islamic State militants
than at first thought. Initial reports had put
the number of missing at 90, but one activist
said as many as 285 people had been seized on
Monday in Hassakeh province. Efforts to try to
negotiate their release are reported to be
under way.
Some 1,000 local Assyrian families are
believed to have fled their homes in the wake
of the abductions.
Kurdish and Christian militia are battling IS
in the area, amid reports of churches and
homes having been set ablaze.
Thousands of Christians in Syria have been
forced from their homes by the threat from IS
militants.
In areas under their control, Christians have
been ordered to convert to Islam, pay jizya (a
religious levy), or face death. IS militants
in Libya also recently beheaded 21 Egyptian
Coptic Christians.
The Assyrians were seized by the militants as
they swept into 12 villages along the southern
bank of the Khabur river near the town of Tal
Tamr before dawn on Monday.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a
UK-based activist group, said at least 90
people had been abducted, most of them women,
children and the elderly.
However, the Syriac National Council of Syria
put the figure as high as 150, while Afram
Yakoub of the Assyrian Federation of Sweden
said sources on the ground had told him that
up to 285 people were missing, including 156
from the village of Tal Shamran and 90 from
Tal al-Jazira.
"These were peaceful villages that had nothing
to do with the battles," Nasir Haj Mahmoud, a
Kurdish official in the YPG militia in
north-eastern Syria, told the Reuters news
agency.
There are conflicting reports as to where the
families have been taken.
Kino Gabriel, a spokesman for the Syriac
Military Council - a Christian militia
fighting alongside the Kurdish Popular
Protection Units (YPG) - told the BBC that it
believed the captives had been taken to Abdul
Aziz mountain.
Osama Edward of the Sweden-based Assyrian
Human Rights Network told the AFP news agency
that the captives had been taken to the IS
stronghold of Shaddadi, as did Syria's state
news agency, Sana.
Another report said they were in Raqqa, 145km
(90 miles) to the west, the de facto capital
of the "caliphate" declared by IS last June.
The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Beirut says the
motive for the seizure of so many Assyrians is
not yet clear. Our correspondent says it may
be that the captives are to be used as part of
a swap with the Kurdish forces.
Hundreds of Assyrians who were living in
villages on the north bank of the Khabur river
and elsewhere are reported to have fled
following the attack to the largely
Kurdish-controlled provincial capital of
Hassakeh, to the south-east, and Qamishli,
another city to the north-east.
Mr Edward said two historic churches had been
burned down in captured villages - one in Tal
Hurmiz and the other in Qaber Shamiya. The
Syrian Observatory also reported that a church
in Tal Shamran had also been damaged.
Mr Gabriel said IS had moved a big force into
the area and were trying to take control of
Tal Tamr.
The Syriac Military Council had about 400
fighters in the area and at least four had
been killed in clashes with the jihadists, he
added. The YPG has deployed between 1,000 and
1,500 fighters.
The YPG is also continuing a major offensive
launched on Sunday against IS some 100km (60
miles) to the east, near the border with Iraq
- an area of vital importance to the
jihadists.
ISIS
beheading of Coptic Christians on
Libyan beach brings Islamists to the
doorstep of Europe
United Kingdom The Independent, Thursday 19 Feb 2015
The beheading of 21 Coptic Christians on a beach
in Libya has brought ISIS to the doorstep of
Europe.
The mass murder, which provoked a volley of
Egyptian air strikes on the group’s Libyan
stronghold of Derna, realised long-held fears of
militants reaching the Mediterranean coast.
ISIS started in Iraq and now controls swathes of
adjoining Syria, including along the Turkish
border, as part of its so-called Islamic State.
Its ideology has spread much further, with
pledges of allegiance from terrorist groups in
Egypt, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia,
Tunisia, Yemen and now Libya.
Days before ISIS released its gory video
depicting the Egyptians’ beheadings, Libya’s
former Prime Minister warned that the group
would soon reach the Mediterranean and even
Europe if order was not restored in the country.
Ali Zeidan said Libya’s fractured government and
easy access to weapons seized during the fall of
Colonel Gaddafi made it more susceptible to the
activities of jihadists, according to The Times.
“(ISIS) are growing. They are everywhere,” he
added.
“In Libya, the situation is still under control.
If we leave it one month or two months more I
don’t think you can control it.
“It will be a big war in the country and it will
be here in Europe as well.”
Libya has seen fierce fighting between rival
militias since Gaddafi was overthrown during the
2011 Arab Spring.
Mr Zeidan, who fled to Europe after losing a
parliamentary vote of confidence, reported that
ISIS had a growing presence in some of the
bigger cities and was trying to recruit fighters
from rival Islamist groups.
Libya's former Prime Minister Ali Zeidan warned
that Isis would reach the Mediterranean Aref Ali
Nayed, Libya’s ambassador to the United Arab
Emirates, also said Isis’s presence in Libya was
increasing “exponentially”.
Its military gains last summer sparked a rush by
other Islamist groups in the Middle East and
North Africa to ally themselves with the group
by pledging allegiance and changing their names.
The jihadists behind the beheadings in Libya
call themselves the Tripoli Province of the
Islamic State.
As the turmoil in Libya continued last year,
they gained control of the port city of Derna
and nearby Sirte, where Isis seized the murdered
Coptic hostages in December and January.
The location of their murders could not be
confirmed but footage showed them dressed in
orange jumpsuits kneeling on a beach. Behind
each of them were masked militants who wielded
their knives to kill the bound hostages
simultaneously.
ISIS affiliates have also claimed responsibility
for attacks on the Egyptian military and police
in the Sinai Peninsula, further along the
Mediterranean coast between Egypt and Gaza.
England and Europe's greater concern than the
United States is evident in this article, due to
their proximity to the menacing Radical Islamic
peril. Learn more about this with accompanying
links at the UK's INDEPENDENT
website by clicking here.
ISIS burn 45
people to death in captured Iraqi town of
al-Baghdadi as Islamists attack the homes
of security forces' families
United Kingdom's Daily Mail
Dailymail.com
Karen Pickles for Mailonline
February 17, 2015
ISIS burn 45 people to death in captured
Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi as Islamists
attack the homes of security forces'
families
Western town
al-Baghdadi captured by ISIS fighters last
week
Victims thought to be
members of security forces and their
families
Follows barbaric video
of Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Muath
al-Kaseasbeh
Attack is only five
miles from air base with 320 US Marines
Militants from Islamic State have burned 45
people to death in the western Iraqi town of
al-Baghdadi, according to the local police
chief.
Col. Qasim al-Obeidi said the motive was unknown
but he believed some of the victims were members
of the security forces.
He has pleaded for help from the government and
international community and said the compound,
which houses the families of security personnel
and local officials, was now under attack.
It follows the capture of al-Baghdadi, near Ain
al-Asad air base, by ISIS fighters last week.
The unconfirmed reports have haunting
similarities to the video published earlier this
month, showing militants burning alive a
Jordanian air force pilot, whose plane crashed
in Syria in December.
Al-Baghdadi had been besieged for months by
Islamic State fighters before its fall. It had
been one of the few towns to still be controlled
by the Iraqi government in Anbar province, where
IS and allied Sunni Arab tribesmen launched an
offensive in January 2014.
On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm John
Kirby, played down its capture, telling
reporters it was the first time in the last
couple of months that the jihadist group had
taken new ground.
But with 320 US Marines stationed just five
miles away at the Ain al-Asad air base, training
members of the Iraqi army's 7th Division, it
will cause concern.
The base was attacked by several suicide
bombers, on Friday with the militant repelled by
Iraqi troops backed by US-led coalition
aircraft.
In a separate development on Tuesday, the
influential Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr announced
he was withdrawing his forces from an umbrella
group of Shia militia fighting IS alongside the
Iraqi army.
He cited what he called the bad behaviour of
other militia within the Popular Mobilisation
Forces, whom he accused of 'wreaking havoc
through murdering, kidnapping and violating
sanctuaries'.
Shia militia have been accused of kidnapping and
killing scores of Sunni civilians since Islamic
State launched an offensive in northern Iraq
last June that saw it seize large swathes of the
country.
Elsewhere, there are reports at least 35
more Egyptian Christians are feared to have been
kidnapped by jihadists in retaliation for air
strikes on targets in Libya.
Militants from the Islamic State and Ansar
Al-Sharia are understood to have rounded up
dozens of farm workers in the wake of bombings
by Cairo, it was reported by local media.
The move is believed to be a direct response to
strikes by Egyptian warplanes yesterday which
came after fanatics released a horrific video
showing the beheading of 21 Christians on a
beach.
Netanyahu: Israel is standing by
Europe, Europe must stand by Israel
January 8, 2015
The Jerusalem Post
By HERB KEINON
In meeting with Norwegian FM, Netanyahu says
radical Islam is a "threat to our common
civilization."
Israel is being attacked by the same forces
attacking Europe, and just as Israel stands
with Europe, so too Europe must stand with
Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said Thursday.
Netanyahu, speaking following a meeting with
visiting Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge
Brende, said that Wednesday’s terrorist
attack in Paris “clearly demonstrates the
disdain of radical Islam for the values we
hold dear. We cherish freedom and tolerance;
they worship tyranny and terror. And through
this terror they seek to impose a new dark
age on humanity.”
Netanyahu said the terrorists were “part of
a global movement and this necessitates a
global response. I believe that with the
strength of our resolve and the unity of our
action, we can defeat this threat to our
common civilization. And what the battle
against terror requires is courage, clarity
and consistency.”
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzahi Hanegbi said
in an Israel Radio interview that precisely
that type of determination has been missing
up until now in France and elsewhere in
Europe in the battle against terrorism.
Hanegbi said the French in the past tried to
delude themselves regarding the true nature
of threat, saying “maybe it was only
sporadic incidents, maybe it is only
anti-Semitism, maybe it is only against the
Jews.”
He said that the French at times tried to
understand the terrorists motivations, and
at other times tried to downplay their ties
to Islam. The sheer brutality of Wednesday
attack, especially the murder of the
policeman on the sidewalk, will compel the
French government to “look at the reality
square in the face” and realize there is a
serious danger at their gates, he said.
Hanegbi predicted that France will be
forced, like the US was after the September
11, 2001 attacks, to empower the security
establishment with tools to effectively deal
with the threats.
“France must deal with the threat coming
from within,” he said. Hanegbi added that
Israel, unfortunately, has quite a
deal of experience dealing with terrorism,
and that “anyone who cooperates with a
county as experienced [in dealing with
terrorism] as Israel, only benefits.”
He said that Israel has the capability to
help France a lot more than the French have
requested in the past. Now, he said, France
“ will have an interest in being helped by
anyone who can help them, including israel.”
Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman,
meanwhile, took the Paris attack and used it
to prove a point regarding domestic Israeli
policies.
If there was an important lesson to be
learned from the attack, he said, it is that
extremist movements must be dealt with
early, and that there are only small legal
and semantic differences separating those
organizations from terrorist groups.
Those who demonstrate tolerance toward those
organizations, he said, will ultimately pay
a high price in blood, as well as in threats
to their very democracies that allows those
organizations to work.
Israel's lesson, he said, must be not to
tarry and to stop the activities of Raed
Salah and the northern branch of the Islamic
Movement in Israel.
Liberman said Salah's organization was an
inseparable link in the chain of terrorist
organizations that includes Hamas, Islamic
Jihad, al-Qaida and the Islamic State. He
said the organization “shares exactly the
same values of the perpetrators of the
massacre in Paris and its intolerance of
criticism and of anything inconsistent with
its extreme world view.”
Liberman said the the northern branch is a
threat to Israeli democracy and the
country's citizens, and that it needed to be
outlawed.
Houston Subpoenas Pastors’ Sermons in Gay
Rights Ordinance Case
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey
Religion News Service
October 15, 2014
Evangelical
leaders are angry after city officials in
Houston subpoenaed sermons given by local
pastors who oppose an equal rights ordinance
that provides protections to the LGBT
community.
Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who drew
headlines for becoming the first openly
lesbian mayor of a major American city, led
support for the ordinance. The measure bans
anti-gay discrimination among businesses
that serve the public, private employers, in
housing and in city employment and city
contracting.
Under one of the hotly contested parts of
the ordinance, transgender people barred
access to a restroom would be able to file a
discrimination complaint.
The ordinance, which exempted religious
institutions, was passed in May, though its
implementation has been delayed due to legal
complaints.
Opponents were hoping to repeal the
ordinance through a ballot measure and
claimed the city’s attorney incorrectly
determined they had not gathered enough
signatures to qualify for a ballot.
Supporters of the repeal reportedly gathered
50,000 signatures, well over the 17,269
needed for inclusion on the November ballot.
Opponents of the repeal have questioned the
validity of the signatures.
A group of Christians sued the city. In
response, city attorneys issued subpoenas to
five local pastors during the case’s
discovery phase, though the five pastors
were not involved in the lawsuit.
The subpoenas sought “all speeches,
presentations, or sermons related to HERO,
the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker,
homosexuality, or gender identity prepared
by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by
you or in your possession,” according to the
Houston Chronicle.
“The subpoenas were issued to pastors who
have been involved in the political campaign
to organize a repeal of Houston’s new equal
rights ordinance,” said Janice Evans, chief
policy officer to the mayor, in a statement.
“It is part of the discovery process in a
lawsuit brought by opponents of the
ordinance, a group that is tied to the
pastors who have received the subpoenas.”
An Arizona-based religious liberty group,
Alliance Defending Freedom, has filed a
motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to
halt the subpoenas. The ministers call the
subpoenas “overbroad, unduly burdensome,
harassing, and vexatious.”
“The pastors made their sermons relevant to
the case by using the pulpit to do political
organizing,” Evans said in her statement.
“This included encouraging congregation
members to sign petitions and help gather
signatures for equal rights ordinance foes.
The issue is whether they were speaking from
the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If
so, it is not protected speech.”
The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in
January.
“It’s procedural — it’s common to ask for a
wide range of documents — but the mayor is
playing real hardball,” said David Skeel,
professor of law at the University of
Pennsylvania. “The fact that she’s
subpoenaing pastors seems quite unusual in a
case that’s mostly about politics, and the
fact that she’s going inside the church is
even more radical. It would be easy enough
to get sermons, of course, but asking for
them is clearly meant to send a signal.”
City Attorney David Feldman argues the
subpoenas are justified because the churches
are where opponents of the ordinance met to
organize.
“We’re certainly entitled to inquire about
the communications that took place in the
churches regarding the ordinance and the
petitions because that’s where they chose to
do it,” Feldman told KTRH News. “It’s
relevant to know what representations and
instructions were given regarding these
petitions.”
The issue has angered evangelicals
nationwide, prompting outcry from people
such as Russell Moore, president of the
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission.
“The separation of church and state means
that we will render unto Caesar that which
is Caesar’s, and we will,” Moore wrote. “But
the preaching of the church of God does not
belong to Caesar, and we will not hand it
over to him. Not now. Not ever.”
More than 1,800 pastors participated in
ADF’s seventh annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday
event on Oct. 5, daring the Internal Revenue
Service to prosecute them for endorsing
political candidates. Under IRS regulations,
tax-exempt churches are not allowed to
engage in partisan politics.
The Khaleej
Times - a daily U.S. language
newspaper published in United Arab
Emirates.It
is the second most popular English
language newspapers published in the UAE.
Armageddon Can
Wait
Mahir Ali
Kaleej Times
3 September
2014
Global
threat is used to deflect attention
from domestic woes
Barack Obama’s recent confession that his
country did not so far have a strategy as
far as the so-called ISIS
is concerned has been pilloried as a gaffe.
It could, however, also be seen as the plain
truth.
The United States did not really have a
strategy a decade or so ago either, when the
administration of George W. Bush decided to
invade Iraq, evidently expecting that the
various pieces would magically fall into
place once Saddam Hussein was toppled. The
tactic represented a disastrous combination
of hubris and ignorance.
The extent to which the subsequent
implosions and explosions in the region are
a direct consequence of that particular
debacle is arguable, but there can be little
doubt that the big picture would have been
decidedly different, and in all probability
considerably less unpleasant, in the absence
of that monumental neoconservative folly.
Of course, what’s done cannot be undone,
and the present crisis demands a resolute
response. It’s by no means undesirable,
however, for that response to take account
of all that has gone wrong in the recent
past.
Obama has come under attack, for instance,
for hesitating to strike Syria
in the early days of the revolt against the
Bashar Al Assad dictatorship, and thereby
purportedly facilitating the expansion of
Islamist outfits such as ISIS and Jabhat Al
Nusra. Too many of the critics are inclined,
however, to ignore in this context the
consequences of NATO’s role in Libya.
Washington
allowed itself to be catapulted into that
conflict, partly on the basis of Paris and London’s
aggressive
enthusiasm, and NATO’s mission was a success
in terms of achieving the overthrow of
Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. But Libya
today is being torn apart by rival militias,
many of them distinguishable not so much by
ideology as by tribal affiliations.
Under similar circumstances, would the
outcome the Syria
have been remarkably different? Who can
claim with any confidence that Assad’s early
overthrow would have prevented Islamist
forces from sooner or later gaining the
upper hand?
The US
has lately been thinking aloud about
launching airstrikes in Syria with
the ostensible aim of undermining ISIS
rather than Assad, based on the assumption
that Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi’s troops cannot be
quelled by focusing on Iraq
alone. That may be so, but there is the
wider question of whether they can
effectively be tackled at all mainly through
air assaults.
There have evidently been some tactical
successes in Iraq
in this respect, beginning with the besieged
Yazidis stranded on SinjarMountain
— most of whom appear to have made it to
relative safety in Iraqi Kurdistan, although
the reported numbers are open to question.
Then there was the recapture of Mosul Dam,
and most recently the apparent rescue of
Amerli.
In the latter instance, the US
airstrikes were effectively in aid of Shia
militias spearheading the assault against
ISIS — the same militias, with links to Iran, that
not many years ago were dedicated to
undermining the American occupation of Iraq.
“Should such military actions continue,” The
New York Times noted on Monday, “they could
signal a dramatic shift for the United States
and Iran,
which have long vied for control in Iraq.”
Naturally, neither Washington
nor Tehran
is keen to emphasise this aspect of the
emerging situation. Matters are further
complicated by the fact that some of the
militias betray a penchant for sectarian
brutality that, although no match for the
revolting atrocities that ISIS is so keen to
broadcast, nonetheless provides cause for
concern.
The United Nations this week decided to
investigate “acts of inhumanity on an
unimaginable scale” by ISIS,
as well as atrocities by Iraqi government
forces. Whether or not such an investigation
serves any practical purpose in the murkily
unfolding circumstances, the ostensible
even-handedness of the approach is
interesting.
Meanwhile, there has been considerable
concern across several nations in Europe as
well as in the US and Australia
over young Muslim citizens’ tendency towards
jihadist adventurism, with thousands — the
numbers are again uncertain — travelling to
Syria
or Iraq
as Islamist volunteers.
This is hardly a novel trend — it can be
traced back at least to Afghanistan
in the 1980s. The worries over it are
understandable, although there is thus far
no clear evidence of returnees planning
domestic acts of terrorism. It is at the
same time difficult to altogether dispense
with the notion that projecting ISIS as an
unprecedented global threat helps some
Western governments to deflect attention
from domestic woes.
The ISIS
threat should not be underestimated, but
exaggerations can have the perverse effect
of increasing its cachet both within and
outside the region. Nobody has a clear idea
of precisely how this story will unfold, let
alone end. But there’s not much value in
pretending it portends some kind of
Armageddon.
The Western insistence on “no boots on the
ground” is open to interpretation as
insufficient commitment or even cowardice.
But in fact it’s a welcome augury, not least
in the light of recent experience. When,
since the Second World War, have Western
boots on the ground produced positive
consequences in the Middle
East (or, for that matter,
anywhere else)?
The ideal response
to the regional dilemmas of the moment would
be an unprecedented level of cooperation,
coordination and collaboration between
Middle Eastern states, notwithstanding
longstanding rivalries in some cases. That,
unfortunately, cannot be described as an
imminent prospect, despite the tentative
emergence of intriguing alliances. But
there’s never been a better time for it.
by Martin Chulov
at theguardian.com
Thursday 7 August 2014
Thousands of Yazidi and Christian people flee to
Erbil after the latest wave of Isis advances.
Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Iraq's largest Christian city was all but
abandoned on Thursday as the jihadist advance
through minority communities in the country's
north-west rampaged towards the Kurdish
stronghold of Erbil.
UN officials said an estimated 200,000 new
refugees were seeking sanctuary in the Kurdish
north from Islamic extremists who had pursued
them since the weekend. The city of Qaraqosh,
south-east of Mosul, home to around 50,000
Christians was the latest to fall, with most
residents fleeing before dawn as convoys of
extremists drew near.
Other Christian towns near Mosul, including Tel
Askof, Tel Keif and Qaramless have also largely
been emptied. Those who remained behind have
reportedly been given the same stark choice
given to other minorities, including Yazidis:
flee, convert to Islam, or be killed.
Christians, Yazidis and Turkmen have been at the
frontlines of Iraq's war with the Islamic State
(Isis) ever since the jihadist group stormed
into Mosul and Tikrit and mid-June. The Iraqi
army capitulated within hours, with at least
60,000 officers and soldiers fleeing on the
first day of the assault alone.
Ever since, the jihadists have continued to make
advances, while Iraqi troops have concentrated
on defending Baghdad and the Shia south, leaving
the defence of minorities in the north to the
Kurdish peshmurga.
However, even the much vaunted Kurdish forces
were no match for the heavy weapons wielded by
the jihadists as they advanced in recent days.
Peshmurga officers ordered troops to withdraw to
areas administered by the Kurdish regional
government – a clear sign of priorities and of
where the battle lines are being drawn.
Without any protection, Yazidis, Christians and
Turkmen are being uprooted from communities they
have lived in for millennia and the geo-social
fabric of Iraq is being rapidly shredded.
While those who have managed to flee the
Christian areas have so far had a relatively
safe passage to Erbil, tens of thousands of
Yazidis remain besieged on a mountain top near
Sinjar, with little food or water.
The UN said on Thursday it was able to get some
supplies overland to the stranded hordes –
avoiding Isis fighters who have surrounded most
of Mount Sinjar. Turkish foreign minister Ahmet
Davutoglu announced that Turkish helicopters had
dropped food and water on the mountain top.
Iraqi helicopters have also made food drops, but
stranded Yazidis say they do not have enough to
survive.
The Chaldean
archbishop of Kirkuk, Joseph Thomas, described
the situation in northern Iraq as "catastrophic,
a crisis beyond imagination". He demanded urgent
intervention to save what remained of the area's
Christian heritage.
Kurdish officials on Thursday demanded more help
in catering for refugees. The Kurdish
administered areas have seen staggering numbers
cross their notional border since the original
Isis onslaught two months ago. In the first week
alone, some 500,000 people are thought to have
fled towards Erbil.
The capital of the Kurdish north is already home
to a new Chaldean Christian community, which
fled Baghdad in the wake of an Isis-led massacre
inside a cathedral in October 2010. Many fleeing
Christians have headed for the Ainkawa
neighbourhood, which is home to Baghdad's
Christian exiles.
The past 11 years of war and insurrection since
the US invasion have led to most of Iraq's
Christians fleeing. Numbers have plummeted
starkly from an estimated one million before
2003 to around 150,000 now. A large number of
those who remain are now displaced.
Miriam Dagher, 53, from Qaraqosh, said churches
in the city had already been torched and
religious insignia smashed. "We stayed as long
as we could," she said. "But nothing could save
us. This is the end of our community.
If the federal government were a person, if
Congress were subject to the laws they create,
they would face fines, prison or both for many
of their actions. The ENLIST Act, being touted
as a “pathway” to citizenship for illegal aliens
may be one of those actions. It could be argued
that the very act itself violates federal law.
Consider this:
Immigration law, 8 US Code 1324 states that it
is a crime to, either knowingly or recklessly,
“conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, or
attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from
detection… transport, or move or attempt to
transport or move” or to even “encourage or
induce” an illegal alien “to come to, enter, or
reside in the United States, knowingly or in
reckless disregard of the fact that such coming
to, entry, or residence is or will be in
violation of law.”
It is not only a crime to actually commit these
offenses, but it is a crime to even attempt to
do so. Anyone found guilty of violating 8 US
Code 1324 is subject to fines, prison or both.
However, if it can be proven that this person
has committed this act for personal gain, the
fines go up and the prison sentence can be as
much as ten years.
By David Boaz From The Cato Institute May 8, 2014 2:19PM
In the Washington Post, Paul Kane reports
that recent experiences with
ultra-conservative Senate candidates have
made Republican leaders fearful of
candidates like Rep. Paul Broun in Georgia.
There may be reasons for party leaders or
voters to have doubts about Broun, but I
hope they aren’t actually concerned about
the purported problem that Kane identifies:
Broun is prone to fiery speeches invoking
the Founding Fathers and applying those 1789
principles to issues 225 years later.
Seriously? He thinks the Constitution is
still the law of the land? And that the
framework it established for individual
rights and limited government is still
relevant today? Do Republican leaders
really think that’s a bad message? Or does
the Washington Post?
Thomas Jefferson and his followers hailed
“the principles of ‘76” or “the spirit of
‘76” in their battles with Federalists. As
historian Joseph Ellis put it, “Jefferson’s
core conviction was that what might be
called ‘the spirit of ‘76’ had repudiated
all energetic expressions of government
power, most especially power exercised from
faraway places, which included London,
Philadelphia or Washington.” Good thing
there isn’t an actual Jeffersonian running!
But the principles of 1789, or actually of
1787, also protect freedom from government
power and are just as essential today as
they were at the Founding. The Framers knew
their history. They knew that people with
power tend to abuse it and to restrict
freedom. In his last letter, 50 years after
the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson
wrote:
All eyes are opened, or
opening, to the rights of man. The general
spread of the light of science has already
laid open to every view the palpable truth,
that the mass of mankind has not been born
with saddles on their backs, nor a favored
few booted and spurred, ready to ride them
legitimately, by the grace of God.
Because they feared the exercise of power,
the Framers wrote a Constitution that
established a government of delegated,
enumerated, and thus limited powers. Then
the people insisted on a Bill of Rights to
further protect their rights even from the
very limited federal government established
in the Constitution. Then, after identifying
specific rights that individuals retained,
they also added, “for greater caution,” as
James Madison put it, the Ninth Amendment to
clarify that “The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.”
One would hope that all members of Congress
– and voters, and political reporters –
believe that those principles and those
constitutional rules should be applied to
issues of today. Surely the First Amendment
remains relevant. And the Fourth. And the
limits on unconstrained power in the basic
structure of the Constitution. The merits of
any particular candidate aside, support of
the Constitution and the principles it
embodies seems like a good, even minimal,
qualification for public office.
"Thus saith the
LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for
the old paths, where is the good way, and walk
therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16
Dr. Robert G Lee was the pastor of Bellevue
Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee for
thirty-two years. During his lifetime he was a
strong leader in the Southern Baptist
Convention, known as a preacher’s preacher, and
was highly respected among his peers. This
sermon has been accepted as a classic by all
that have heard and read it, and through its
message, the Lord still speaks to mankind.
Dr. Lee originally published the following
message in 1926. It is said that he developed it
following the suggestion of a deacon at a prayer
meeting in 1919 and that he preached it at least
once a year at his home church. All total, it is
related that he preached the messsage over 1,000
times. Like many Baptists, Lee was known more as
a preacher than a theologian but his doctrine
was sound to the core. Lee believed in and
preached a doctrine often overlooked in our day,
that of the necessity of regeneration.
Ala.
Supreme Court: 'Unborn Child Has
Inalienable Right to Life From its
Earliest Stages
By
Michael W Chapman
CNSNews.com
| Apr 23, 2014
In a case about a pregnant woman who used
cocaine and endangered her unborn child, the
Alabama Supreme Court affirmed (8-1) that
the word "child" includes "an unborn child,"
and that the law therefore "furthers the
State's interest in protecting the life of
children from the earliest stages of their
development."
In his concurring opinion, Alabama Chief
Justice Roy S. Moore wrote that "an unborn
child has an inalienable right to life from
its earliest stages of development," and
added, "I write separately to emphasize that
the inalienable right to life is a gift of
God that civil government must secure for
all persons - born and unborn."
The court decision on April 18 was in
reference to Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of
Alabama. Hicks had been charged in 2009 with
violating Alabama's chemical-endangerment
statute, which in part says that a "person
commits the crime of chemical endangerment"
by "knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally
causes or permits a child to be exposed to,
to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with
a controlled substance, chemical substance,
or drug paraphernalia," a felony.
In Hicks' case, she was charged with using
cocaine while pregnant. Her child, "J.D.,"
tested positive for cocaine "at the time of
his birth," reads the court document.
In January 2010, Hicks pleaded guilty to the
crime but also "reserved the right to appeal
the issues" she and her attorneys had
presented earlier in trying to get the
charges dismissed. Hicks got a three year
suspended prison sentence and was placed on
probation.
Hicks appealed to the Court of Criminal
Appeals in Alabama, arguing that because the
chemical-endangerment statute did not
specifically use the words "unborn children"
or "fetuses," the law was ambiguous and
could not have applied to her unborn child.
The Appeals Court ruled against Hicks,
stating that "the plain language of
26-15-3.2 [chemical-endangerment statute]
was clear and unambiguous and that the plain
meaning of the term 'child' in [the statute]
included an unborn child or viable fetus.'"
Hicks then petitioned the Alabama Supreme
Court in 2012 to review the Appeals Court
decision. Last Friday's ruling
affirmed the judgment of the Court of
Criminal Appeals.
In their conclusion, eight of the nine
Alabama Supreme Court justices said:
"Consistent with this Court's opinion in
Ankrom [a similar chemical-endangerment
case], by its plain meaning, the word
'child' in the chemical-endangerment statute
includes an unborn child, and, therefore,
the statute furthers the State's interest in
protecting the life of children from the
earliest stages of their development."
The law to protect the life of unborn
children "is consistent with many statutes
and decisions throughout our nation that
recognize unborn children as persons with
legally enforceable rights in many areas of
the law," said the justices.
In his own concurring opinion, Chief Justice
Moore argued that natural rights come from
God, not from the government. He cited the
Declaration of Independence that there is a
"self-evident" truth that "all Men are
created equal, [and] that they are endowed
by their creator with certain unalienable
rights," particularly "life."
The Declaration of Independence
"acknowledges as 'self-evident' the
truth that all human beings are endowed with
inherent dignity and the right to life as a
direct result of having been created by
God," said Chief Justice Moore.
He also cited Sir William Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England, which
says, "This law of nature, being co-eval
[beginning at the same time] with mankind
and dictated by God himself, is of course
superior in obligation to any other. It is
binding over all the globe, in all
countries, and at all times: no human laws
are of any validity, if contrary to this."
Chief Justice Moore went on to explain how
at the Nuremburg Trials at the end of World
War II, Nazi criminals could not argue that
they were only following orders or just
following the laws of the German government
because there is a higher law, the "very law
of nature."
"Although the Nuremberg defendants were
following orders and the laws of their own
officials and country, they were guilty of
violating a higher law to which all nations
are equally subject: the laws of nature and
of nature's God," wrote Justice Moore.
That law binds all nations, including the
State of Alabama, said Justice Moore. "In
2006, the AlabamaLegislature amended the
homicide statute to define 'person' to
include 'an unborn child in utero at any
stage of development, regardless of
viability," he wrote, "thus recognizing
under the statute that, when an 'unborn
child' is killed, a 'person' is killed."
In conclusion, he wrote, "The Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
provides that a state may not 'deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. Unborn children are
a class of persons entitled to equal
protection of the laws."
"States have an obligation to provide to
unborn children at any stage of their
development the same legal protection from
injury and death they provide to persons
already born," wrote Justice Moore. "Because
a human life with a full genetic endowment
comes into existence at the moment of
conception, the self-evident truth that 'all
men are created equal and are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable
rights' encompasses the moment of
conception."
"Legal recognition of the unborn as members
of the human family derives ultimately from
the laws of nature and of nature's God, Who
created human life in His image and
protected it with the commandment: 'Thou
shalt not kill,'" wrote Chief Justice
Moore. "Therefore, the interpretation
of the word 'child' in Alabama's
chemical-endangerment statute, § 26-15- 3.2,
Ala. Code 1975, to include all human beings
from the moment of conception is fully
consistent with these first principles
regarding life and law."
Former British Prime Minister
Tony Blair gave a landmark speech yesterday
calling on the world to unite against
Islamism.
Tony Blair, the Former British Prime Minister,
delivered a keynote speech at Bloomberg HQ in
London entitled 'Why the Middle East Still
Matters.' In it he described radical Islam as
the greatest threat facing the world today.He
argued "there are four reasons why the Middle
East remains of central importance and cannot
be relegated to the second order."
Blair rapidly moved on to the fourth and
most important reason: Islamic extremism also
known as Islamism.
He identifies the conflict in the Middle East
as one between an open and tolerant viewpoint
and a fundamentalist Islamist ideology. He
said "wherever you look – from Iraq to Libya
to Egypt to Yemen to Lebanon to Syria and then
further afield to Iran, Pakistan and
Afghanistan – this is the essential battle."
Addressing those who regard these conflicts as
distinct he said "there is something frankly
odd about the reluctance to accept what is so
utterly plain: that they have in common a
struggle around the issue of the rightful
place of religion, and in particular Islam, in
politics." It is this central point that he
hammered home again and again over the course
of his 40 minute speech.
He argued that this struggle does not end at
the borders of the region. Rather, "The reason
this matters so much is that this ideology is
exported around the world."
More
Attacks on the Freedom of
Speech, In the Form of Religious
Persecution
Of our Air Force Cadets
From The
Traditional Values Coalition:
Earlier
this month, an Air Force Academy cadet was
forced to remove a Bible verse on his
personal white board after the Military
Religious Freedom Foundation claimed
offense.
"I
have been crucified with Christ, and I no
longer live, but Christ lives in me. The
life I now live in the body, I live by faith
in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
himself for me." - Galatians 2:20
MRFF
President Michael "Mikey" Weinstein, self
proclaimed "undisputed leader of the
national movement to restore the obliterated
all separating church and state" in the
military, described the student's white
board quoting of scripture as pouring
"fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an
already raging out-of-control conflagration
of fundamentalist Christian tyranny,
exceptionalism, and supremacy."
The
Air Force Academy complied with Weinstein's
demands, having the scripture removed. But
that's not enough -- Weinstein is demanding
that not only should the cadet be punished,
but that their entire chain of command
should be as well.
At
least a dozen cadets responded in support of
religious freedom, posting Bible verses on
their personal white boards. Please join me
and thousands of others in standing with our
cadets for their right to express their
religious beliefs without fear of
persecution <http://capwiz.com/traditional/utr/1/KTQOTSLPVY/KFTWTSLUWE/10253908236>
.
No
one, especially those who volunteer to risk
their lives to defend our freedoms, should
be denied their constitutional rights and
religious freedoms. Groups like the Military
Religious Freedom Foundation are seeking to
silence those who profess their faith,
stripping them of their religious liberties
in the name of political correctness.
Our
Constitution protects the free exercise of
religion. Yet that doesn't seem to be enough
for some groups.
The
Clash of Law: Parsing the Modern War against
Catholics, Catholicism and the Church
FromCatholicCulture.org
ByDr.
Jeff Mirus
Date March
25, 2014
Opposition to Catholicism in the modern
West is brought to a head almost universally
through the pressure of today’s legal
systems. .... what bother us are the
increasing restrictions on the exercise of
our Christian duties by bureaucratic laws
and regulations, administered by people who
otherwise do not care much about our
religious identity one way or another.
This is the result of a utopian vision of
the future implemented at the highest levels
of the social order. It is not the
cruel and unthinking persecution of those
who have simply been raised, in their local
enclaves and neighborhoods, to hate
Catholics. It is rather a relatively high
brow and carefully orchestrated process of
civic improvement. As such, the
anti-Catholic prejudice today wears a mantle
of utter reasonableness and courtesy.
Whatever is done is portrayed as necessary
for the noblest of reasons, to serve an
exalted vision of human good. As we will see
shortly, this is a deception which even its
proponents probably do not understand.
Consider how varied are the pressure points
which have been attacked in exactly this
way. There is the progressive public
pressure for Catholic social service
agencies to conform to the values of our
secular elites. There is the growing
impossibility of running Catholic
organizations as a part of student life on
college campuses. There are the battles over
freedom of conscience in an ever-widening
array of professions, beginning with
doctors, nurses and pharmacists and
extending now to anyone who might provide
business services to same-sex couples. There
are escalating battles over religious
liberty. There is the HHS Mandate in the United
States
and similar rules in other Western nations
which force even private individuals to
actively participate in mandated actions
which they find deeply immoral.
Meanwhile, in another part of the world,
there is the unending pressure against
Catholic life imposed by the theocratic laws
of Islamic states, called Shari’a law. This
alternative form of coercion is in the
process of entering the West through Europe, where the
presence of high percentages of Islamic
immigrants raises the question of
alternative legal systems for different
communities and regions. Almost nowhere can
we any longer find a legal system which
is not essentially hostile to
Catholicism, with its own transcendent
source of moral knowledge.
A Striking Parallel
Interestingly, in his Regensburg Address in
2006, Pope Benedict XVI drew a close
parallel between the habits of thought which
underlie Islamic law and those that lie at
the basis of contemporary European (or
Western) law. Benedict saw that neither
Islam nor the contemporary West (any longer)
assigns to reason the role of identifying
natural moral principles which can allow
people of different beliefs and cultural
backgrounds to share a common good and a
common polity. Islam believes Shari’a Law
covers all of life and is rooted purely in
the will of God, completely unbound by any
rational characteristic of consistency or
fairness. Similarly, the old natural law
tradition of the West—in which rational
consistency and fairness were perhaps the
most easily-grasped components—has given way
to the sovereignty of the human will to
remake reality according to whatever happens
to be desired by those who have political,
social and cultural power.
One of the greatest Christian gifts to the
world has been the distinction between two
fonts of law which arise without any
possible contradiction from the same
profoundly rational Divine source. On the
one hand, there is the natural law, which is
accessible to human reason and which opens
to the human community a common ground of
morality as the basis for human flourishing
in the social order. On the other hand,
there is the law derived from Revelation,
equally rational but containing mysteries
which are accessible only by faith. While in
no way conflicting with the natural law—and
in fact presupposing it in the created
order—this Revelation enables the believer
to rise to greater perfection through grace,
in a direct relationship with God Himself,
expressed in voluntary service to others.
.......
Fortunately, reading through the material
has at least enabled me grasp the central
issue more clearly, and to stress three
important principles which might be used to
guide our thinking and our response to the
characteristic anti-Catholic pressures of
our time. First, the practical points of
serious clash and conflict are now primarily
creations of law. Second, when it comes to
law, the primary problem is not an attack on
Faith but an attack on reason—the
presumption that law derives its authority
from the specific will of those in power,
and is not limited by clear and consistent
natural or supernatural principles. Third,
and precisely because rational consistency
is lacking, it will take great
creativity to navigate this increasingly
repressive legal landscape.
In closing, I should emphasize one even
deeper truth: The will darkens the intellect
by ordering it to cease its independent
explorations in order to serve what the will
desires. This is not something that we can
expect to counteract naturally; it is in
fact the mechanism which human nature uses
to refuse cooperation with grace. Yet
paradoxically the pandemic loss of
the recognition of reason, and even of
nature itself, must be remedied by grace.
And so, in the midst of growing suffering
and sacrifice for Catholics, it is not only
arguments and creativity that we need, but
prayer.
From The Canada Free Press
By Jim Yardley
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Checking to make sure that there was an easily
understandable definition of the word, the
dictionary defines Constitution as “the
fundamental political principles on which a
nation-state is governed, especially when
considered as embodying the rights of the
subjects of that nation-state and the statute
embodying such principles.”
One would think that the President of the first
nation to create that very thing, a legal
statute that embodied the fundamental political
principles, and who also was a college level
lecturer on the topic of the Constitution, would
have absolutely no problem in dealing with the
concept.
Unfortunately for us, and for several other
nations, Mr. Obama seems to view constitution to
be infinitely malleable, and are subject to
change upon a change in his whims of the day.
As far back as 2001, Barack Obama said in a
radio interview with Public Radio station
WBEZ-FM that the U.S. Supreme Court (under Chief
Justice Earl Warren)
“…didn’t break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the
founding fathers in the Constitution, at least
as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court
interpreted in the same way, that generally the
Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what
the Federal government can’t do to you, but
doesn’t say what the Federal government or State
government must do on your behalf…”
So even at that time, the President announced
clearly that he disagreed with the judgments of
the Founding Fathers and two centuries of
successfully working within the framework of the
U.S. Constitution. He had a different view
of how the Constitution should have been
written, and that had he been alive in 1789, he
would have made sure it was different.
Of course he would have been limited to having
only a pen at that time, since his Blackberry
wasn’t even a science fiction fantasy at that
time.
Apparently Obama’s disdain for Constitutions is
not limited to only home grown ones, or limited
to only with regard to “negative
liberties.” Fast forward to June 2009 and
look at Honduras.
Manuel Zelaya, who was then in his second term
as president of Honduras, violated that
country’s Constitution (specifically Article
239) which bans presidents from holding office
if they even propose to alter the constitutional
term limits for presidents.
Apparently Mr. Zelaya really liked being
president of Honduras, and wanted to change his
country’s Constitution so that he could continue
in the job. Note again that any president
of Honduras loses the right to serve as
president if he even proposes a change like
that. The Honduran Supreme Court,
expressly had the right to remove the president
for seeking to alter the constitutional term
limit, under Article 272 of the Honduran
Constitution.
But apparently this made Obama upset, so he
declared the Constitutional crisis in Honduras
to have been a “coup”. It wasn’t, of
course. Sadly, for Obama, if he were to snivel
that he didn’t like that part of the Honduran
Constitution it probably would have been a
public relations nightmare for him.
One might infer that Obama personally wanted
that presidential term limit article to be
ignored by the citizens of Honduras because it
might set a bad precedent if he wanted to run
for a third term himself. Then Senator
(and now Secretary of State) John Kerry agreed
with Obama’s idea that the removal of a
president who had acted contrary to the clear
language of his nation’s Constitution must have
been a “coup.” This view was vocally
supported by the then Secretary of State,
Hillary Rodham Clinton who lusts after the idea
of being Obama’s replacement.
Mr. Obama’s disdain for the U.S. Constitution
has been demonstrated on a continuing basis over
the five years that he has been in office, with
“recess appointments” to the NLRB when the
Senate was not in recess, the innumerable
delays, waivers, interpretations and so on
related to the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, and so on.
Given Obama’s disdain for any constitutional
limits on doing whatever pops into his head at
any time, his reaction to the situation in
Ukraine becomes almost comical. Sadly, even the
always irreverent magazine The Onion couldn’t
have seen the idea that Obama would leap to the
defense of Ukraine by saying that the Crimean
referendum was illegitimate and (wait for it)
unconstitutional. Even Nancy Pelosi was
probably tempted to ask “Are you serious?”
The idea that Barack Obama would demand
deference to any nation’s constitution is on a
par with, well, nothing readily comes to mind.
Well perhaps it would be like seeing Dr. Jack
Kervorkian leading a Right-to-Life rally, or
perhaps seeing Willy Sutton doing an infomercial
telling people how safe banks are.
It’s possible I suppose that Obama’s defense of
Ukraine’s constitutional authority would be
equivalent to listening to Bill Clinton
lecturing on the benefits of sexual abstinence.
But given his history on the subject of
adherence to constitutional principles, is it
any wonder that no one, anywhere in the world,
believes one word of what the man is saying?
Click here to read the original article in its
entirety
Trust, but
Verify
March,
2014
They are still at it. I am thankful for the
newsletters of people like Dave Gaubatz who
report current affairs that are ignored or
overlooked by most news sources. It is hard to
imagine how people like Dave can be so
vilified for reporting well documented
FACTS. Although the truth may set one free it
can also become tiring to be a target and
cause grey hairs and ulcers. But enough about
the messenger.... on to the message.
There are many Muslim organizations in
America, raising money that sometimes end up
supporting known terrorist organizations (viz:
the well documented CAIR connections).
Recently a united alliance of these
organizations was formed, with the purpose of
becoming more influential. Our presidential
election of 2016 was the example cited, once a
consensus would be agreed upon by individual
members.
Dave's recent newsletter linked to the
report about this new alliance at
religiousnews.com. Click
here to read it.
While I wouldn't bet the farm on it, my
prayer is that the uniting voice of American
Muslims is the foremost recognition of
individual freedom and opportunity that has
drawn so many families to America. EACH
individual's freedom of beliefs, associations,
and speech (to mention a few of our
inalienable God-given freedoms) are worthy
principles that all Americans should
recognize, be thankful for, and do our level
best to protect and preserve. In the meantime
I will continue to "Trust, but verify."
To
find Mr Gaubatz blogspot, click here,
and you can send him an email to
subscribe to his newsletter.
The Brave German Woman
February 14, 2014
One
can recognize that sometimes well
meaning people and institutions can
err in the side of trying to "be
nice". However the mentality of
automatic acceptance and
accommodation, when institutionalized,
can, and has, placed free societies in
peril; it is the dangerous side of
"political correctness." Please
click here to view the video of
Heidi Mund, who has become known as
"The Brave German Woman" for speaking
the truth. If more people spoke
the "Truths that Free" we would go far
in ridding this old world from the
inroads of the evil tentacles of that
totalitarian philosophy that goes by
the name of Islam, which does not
condemn murder in the name of Allah.
Many of us are aware
of hostility toward Christians in
foreign countries.
But has there even been a more
Biblically-hostile administration in
Washington DC, towards its own citizens?
David Barton of WallBuilders doesn't
think so.
After reading his list (and
documentation) of the many dozens of
offensive hostile acts towards Bible
believers in America ask yourself- how
can this be? We are a God fearing
people living in a free country that was
founded on the recognition that our
life and liberty originates from God (NOT
at the whim of some officeholder or
bureaucrat!)
The encroachment by the current
administration does not resemble actions
of a government "of the People, by
the People, and for the People".
Offer a prayer for protection by our
Father above. Ask Him to throw light
upon the hearts and minds of those in
power and those who elect some of those
bureaucrats. Be vigilant and protect our
children and their future. Click
here to read David Barton's December
article and list.
Military Priests Face
Arrest For Defying Shutdown And Celebrating
Mass
Huffington
Post
Posted:
10/07/2013
Updated:
10/08/ 2013
Is
religious freedom the latest casualty of
the government shutdown?
Some priests are
being actively prevented from ministering
to service members and their families,
even on a volunteer basis, and they run
the risk of arrest if they disobey. As a
result, military families serving at home
and abroad who depend on the government
for their religious services, are now
actively being denied communion on bases
that are served by civilian priests.
Active-duty priests are still holding
services.
John Schlageter,
General Counsel for the Archdiocese for
the Military Services, wrote in an op-ed,
"With the government shutdown, many GS and
contract priests who minister to Catholics
on military bases worldwide are not
permitted to work – not even to volunteer.
During the shutdown, it is illegal for
them to minister on base and they risk
being arrested if they attempt to do so. "
He told The
Huffington Post that many civilian priests
had contacted him to say that Mass had
been cancelled on their local
installations, because non-active-duty
priests are deemed "non-essential
personnel" under the terms of the
shutdown. Schlageter wrote the op-ed in
order to encourage members of the faithful
to contact Congress and get their
attention about the issue, which he called
"a residual effect of the government
shutdown that no one contemplated."
His efforts have not
been in vain, as the House of
Representatives passed a resolution on
Saturday 400 to 1 which will allow GS and
contract priests to return to work once
passed by the Senate.
Schlageter went on to
explain in his op-ed that the First
Amendment guarantees the "free exercise"
of faith, and because military personnel
are considered a "captive audience," the
laws requires the government to provide
access to their faith. This particularly
applies to military families stationed
abroad who may not be able to attend
services regularly, depending on the
religious rules of their host country.
Those that have active-duty chaplains will
not be affected.
"Until the Federal
Government resumes normal operations, or
an exemption is granted to contract and GS
priests, Catholic services are
indefinitely suspended at many of those
worldwide installations served by contract
and GS priests," Schlageter wrote. He told
the Huffington Post that some priests that
contacted him had been informed that they
could be arrested if they returned to base
to administer services during the
shutdown.
The Antideficiency
Act prevents those on furlough from
volunteering their services, and violators
may be subject to disciplinary action,
suspension, fines, and imprisonment. It
was passed in 1870 in order to stop the
government from "incurring any monetary
obligation for which Congress has not
appropriated funds."
“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
people.”
NEW STATE
LAW BANS CALIFORNIA
FROM COOPERATING WITH FEDS ON INDEFINITE
DETENTION
Sweeping
measure also applies to other laws that
violate Constitution or state law
By
Miriam Raftery
October 7, 2013
(Sacramento)
– In a rare show of bipartisanship,
Governor Brown has signed into a law
that passed the Legislature almost
unanimously. The measure makes California
the third state to nullify provisions
of the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) allowing indefinite
detention of citizens.
However California’s
law goes farther, banning state
cooperation with federal authorities on
enforcement of any federal law that
violates the U.S. Constitution, the
California Constitution or California
law. The bill also prohibits use
of state funds for such purposes.
Egypt’s Muslim
Brotherhood to Coptic Christians: Convert to
Islam, or pay ‘jizya’ tax
By
Jessica Chasman
The
Washington
Times
September
10, 2013
The Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters
have began forcing the roughly 15,000
Christian Copts of Dalga village in Egypt
to pay a jizya tax as indicated in Koran
9:29, author and translator Raymond
Ibrahim reported on Sunday.
Jizya is the money, or tribute, “that
conquered non-Muslims historically had to
pay to their Islamic overlords ‘with
willing submission and while feeling
themselves subdued’ to safeguard their
existence,” Mr. Ibrahim explained.
According to Fr. Yunis Shawqi, who spoke
yesterday to Dostor reporters in Dalga,
all Copts in the village, “without
exception,” are being forced to pay the
tax.
“[The] value of the tribute and method of
payment differ from one place to another
in the village, so that, some are being
expected to pay 200 Egyptian pounds per
day, others 500 Egyptian pounds per day,”
Mr. Shawqi said, according to the
translator.
In some cases, families not able to pay
have been attacked. As many as 40
Christian families have now fled Dalga,
Mr. Ibrahim reported.
The taxes are not unique to Egypt
either.
Just over the weekend Syrian rebels went
into a Christian man’s “shop and gave him
three options: become Muslim; pay $70,000
as a tax levied on non-Muslims, known as
jizya; or be killed along with his
family,” Christian Science Monitor
reported.
Egypt's Christians
under attack since Morsi's ouster
Rights groups
say Egypt
not doing enough to stop the violence.
Sarah
Lynch, Special for USA
TODAY August
15, 2013
CAIRO
– Stained glass windows generated a luminous
glow inside a Coptic Christian church one
recent morning as prayers were chanted in
steady hums and incense wafted through the
nave, soothing worshipers.
But the serenity only masked the unease here.
Since the July 3 coup that ousted former
president Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim
Brotherhood, Christians have faced a spike in
violent attacks that Egyptian authorities have
not prevented, rights groups allege.
"I'm very afraid, and I'm afraid for my
daughter," said Mona Roshdy, 55, as she left
the church with her family.
She had reason to be. On Wednesday, as the
police in Cairo
assaulted two protest camps of the Muslim
Brotherhood's, Morsi supporters directed their
anger at Christians.
Churches, houses, monasteries, orphanages,
schools and businesses belonging to Copts were
attacked in nine provinces "causing panic,
losses and destruction for no reason and no
crimes they committed except being
Christians," the Maspero Youth Union, a Coptic
activist group, said Thursday.
As if sensing trouble, just two days before
Wednesday's violence, Egypt's
Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II called on all
Egyptians to prevent bloodshed.
"With all compassion I urge everyone to
conserve Egyptian blood and ask of every
Egyptian to commit to self-restraint and avoid
recklessness and assault on any person or
property," Tawadros wrote on his official
Twitter account Monday.
Youssef Sidhom, editor-in-chief of the
Christian weekly Watani, said the
recent attacks are painful and vicious but it
could be worse if they are allowed to divide
the two faiths.
"Christians shouldn't be moved by this,
shouldn't be dragged to fulfill the target
that lies behind this, which is segregating
the national solidarity between Christians and
Muslims in the very difficult time Egypt is
passing through," Sidhom said.
Christians make up about 8 million of Egypt's
population of 80 million and have been victims
of Muslim attacks for years. Some Christians
were worried when Islamists took over Egypt's
government
in 2012 and relieved when the military ousted
them from power last month.
But the ancient Coptic communities here that
predate Islam by centuries say they now see a
new wave of violence against them since the
ouster.
In Upper Egypt – a swath of arid land from
south of Cairo to Sudan that is home to many
hard-line Islamist Egyptians – four Christians
were killed when a mob of several hundred
people in the Luxor governorate attacked with
knives, tree limbs and hammers two days days
after the overthrow of Morsi, Amnesty
International said.
They also vandalized Christian homes and set
properties on fire, Amnesty said.
In a village in Upper Egypt's province
of Minya,
an argument erupted between Muslim and
Christians over a pro-military song playing in
a coffee shop last week. The next day
thousands of people ransacked Christian homes
and stores, the Associated Press reported.
And in the north Sinai
Peninsula, a hotbed for growing
militant activity, an orthodox priest was
murdered last month. There were attacks in Port Said
and Marsa Matrouh as well.
On Wednesday, Interior Minister Mohammed
Ibrahim said Morsi supporters damaged or
torched seven churches nationwide. They also
stormed 21 police stations, he said.
Many Christians participated in massive
protests against Morsi at the end of June, and
Tawadros sat with a row of officials behind
Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi when the army chief
gave his speech that overthrew Morsi.
In a 15-minute audio recording posted online
earlier this month, al-Qaeda chief Ayman
al-Zawahri accused Coptic Christians, the
military and secular-minded elites of
conspiring against Morsi because he is an
Islamist.
In Egypt,
human rights groups accused Egypt's
Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists of
inciting violence.
Ibrahim said incendiary speeches indicate
Islamist leaders think Copts were heavily
involved in anti-Morsi protests.
"I'm not scared, but I'm very sad about the
situation in the country – the relationship
between Muslims and Christians," said Margaret
Naby as she walked into church on Sunday.
"There is so much fanaticism."
Egypt
is home to wider sectarian unease that
authorities don't control. In June, four
Shiite Muslims were beaten to death by a mob
of Sunni Muslims, apparently for their
beliefs, in a village near the capital, in Giza.
"The Egyptian government should make ending
sectarian violence a priority, or risk letting
this deadly problem spiral out of control,"
Nadim Houry, acting Middle East director of
Human Rights Watch, said in a recent report
about attacks on Christians.
"Prosecutors should thoroughly investigate
and prosecute those responsible, including
security forces, if they want to show they are
capable of preventing future bloodshed," he
said.
Last week, 16 human rights groups condemned
rhetoric used by the Muslim Brotherhood and
its allies that the organizations said incited
violence and religious hatred for political
gain. They also denounced state agencies for
failing to protect Christians, confront
sectarian attacks and enforce the law by
holding responsible parties or individuals
accountable.
"This negligence reveals that the pattern of
impunity which spread during the Mubarak era
and remained in place throughout the rule of
the Muslim Brotherhood continues to this day,
even after both of these regimes were
overthrown," a statement by the groups said.
In
Coptic Cairo, which was a Christian stronghold
until the 7th-century rise of Islam, Zarour
Ayzut Dawoud propped her son on her hip as she
visited the place where Mary, Joseph and baby
Jesus are believed to have stayed when they
escaped King Herod's execution of young male
children in the vicinity of Bethlehem.
"I want to go to America,"
said
Dawoud. "The situation in Egypt
is no good."
Peter Fakhry, 22, said the feeling is shared
by non-Christian Egyptians.
"Many people want to leave – Christians and
Muslims, too, because of the situation and
lack of work," he said.
"Do you see this? There are no tourists," he
said about the Coptic site that is no longer
as much a residential space as it is a place
for visitors, who come to see relics of an
almost forgotten past in which Egypt
was dominated by Christians.
By Tenth
Amendment on August 5, 2013 in Featured, Founding
Principles
by Jacob Hornberger,
Future of Freedom Foundation
Keep in mind
that this amendment is directed to federal
officials, specifically those in the
executive and congressional branches. Our
American ancestors knew that the federal
government would inevitably attract the
types of people who would do the things
proscribed by the amendment. Thus, to deal
with that threat our ancestors made it clear
that whoever was elected or appointed to
federal office would be prohibited from
engaging in the type of conduct prohibited
by the amendment.
What does the
Fourth Amendment do? It prohibits federal
officials from searching people’s homes,
businesses, and personal effects
indiscriminately. If a crime has been
committed, the feds cannot simply go out and
search every house and business in the
neighborhood to seek out evidence of the
crime. And they cannot search everyone’s
things with the aim of preventing a crime.
Instead, the
Fourth Amendment requires that to conduct a
search of a person’s home or business, they
have to first go to a member of the third
branch of the government— the federal
judiciary — and seek out a search warrant from
a judge or magistrate. In order to get such a
warrant, law-enforcement officers have to
swear out an affidavit specifying the exact
nature of the evidence that is being searched
for. Moreover, they have to provide sworn
evidence that rises to the level of “probable
cause” for the judge to consider. If they fail
to do those two things, the judge’s
responsibility is to deny the application for
the search warrant.
Like it or not,
that’s the system that our American ancestors
put into place with the Fourth Amendment.
That’s obviously
not the system that we have been living under
for many years, given the massive secret
surveillance scheme that has now come to light
thanks to former NSA employee Edward Snowden.
We now know that the U.S.
national security state is doing — and has
been doing — precisely what the Fourth
Amendment was designed to prohibit. It has
been gathering and compiling massive amounts
of information about the private affairs of
hundreds of millions of people, most of whom,
needless to say, have never made the target of
a specific search warrant request.
U.S.
officials say that such a massive surveillance
scheme on everyone is necessary to keep
Americans “safe.”
Well, let’s see.
If we go back and read the Fourth Amendment,
we immediately notice one important thing: Our
American ancestors did not provide an
exception to the restrictions based on keeping
Americans “safe.”
That is, the
amendment doesn’t have the following sentence
at the end of it: “The provisions of this
amendment are null and void in cases where the
government is keeping people ‘safe.’”
If our ancestors
had added such a provision, then the NSA and
its supporters might have a point. But they
didn’t.
Is there
anything to prevent the advocates of the NSA’s
surveillance scheme from seeking a
constitutional amendment that modifies the
Fourth Amendment to include such a safety
exception?
No, there isn’t.
Then why shouldn’t the supporters of such a
scheme be required to go that route — the
route of seeking a “keep people safe”
amendment to the Fourth Amendment, rather than
the super-secret, illegitimate route that they
have taken?
Proponents also
say that the 9/11 terrorist attacks provided
the feds with the authority to avoid the
Fourth Amendment.
Well, let’s see.
If we go back and read the amendment, we
notice something else important: There is no
exception for terrorist attacks in the
amendment.
If the amendment
had provided such an exception, then the
proponents of the NSA’s massive secret
surveillance scheme might have a point. But
they didn’t. Our ancestors provided no
exceptions for terrorist cases or any other
crime. So, if proponents of such a scheme
don’t like what our ancestors did, why
shouldn’t they be required to seek a
constitutional amendment seeking the
modification of the Fourth Amendment?
Our American
ancestors knew exactly what they were doing.
When you see people like Barack Obama, Dianne
Feinstein, Peter King, Mike Rogers, and others
who are coming to the defense of the massive,
secret NSA surveillance scheme that is
searching, gathering, and compiling personal
information on millions of innocent Americans,
you are seeing precisely the types of people
that our ancestors knew would end up serving
in the federal government and doing the types
of things the Fourth Amendment expressly
prohibits. You are also seeing precisely why
our ancestors believed the Fourth Amendment
was absolutely necessary to our freedom,
privacy, and well-being.
Remember the
wise and immortal words of Justice Louis
Brandeis in his dissent in the case of Olmstead
v. United States:
Experience
should teach us to be most on our guard to
protect liberty when the government’s purposes
are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their
liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest
dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but
without understanding.
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.” AMENDMENT #2-“And
the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms!” Our Constitution: 56 men
who pledged their Lives, Fortunes,
and Sacred Honor.
Ladies
and gentlemen, our government,
under the leadership of Obama’s
socialist agenda that is determined to shred
our beloved Constitution, thus destroying
our freedoms and liberties.
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, out of the White House! ILLU:
National Scandals as IRS, NSA, Benghazi,
etc.
We now have
a nation
being directed
and dictated
to by about 200
un-elected czars that are proud
socialists and/or active
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.”
We have
seen the NSA, IRS,BATF,
HOMELAND SECURITY, FBI,
and other Federal
Agenciesstrangle
Americansand Demandus to Bow
in Fear!
WHAT
IS FREEDOM?Where
do we get our freedoms?
God has
given us our freedoms and we have codified
them in our Constitution, “...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...”
·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 freedom.What
is freedom?
·FREEDOM
IS:
FREEDOM
IS – A raw milk
farmer not fearful of the Gestapo
breaking into his home.
FREEDOM
IS – praying in Jesus’
name without fear or intimidation.
3.FREEDOM
IS – a child that can take a sack
lunch to school without fear
of it being taken.
FREEDOM
IS – being able to fly
the American flagwithout
breaking a law.
FREEDOM
IS – to be able to read
the Bible in a public classroom
without arrest.
6.FREEDOM
IS – being able to rejectShariah
Law as unconstitutional
without threatsfrom
C.A.I.R.
7.FREEDOM
IS--Being able to make
a phone call, without
the Government Listening.
8.FREEDOM
IS—Being FREE
to travel
without the Feds
Tracing Your Movements.
9.FREEDOM
IS – to be able to go to
bed at night without fear
of invasion
by U.S.
officials under the NDAA,
which will give the president sole authority without
Congress’ approval, if deemed a “national
emergency.”
10.FREEDOM
IS—NotBeing
Forced
to AcceptSodomiteMarriages!
11.FREEDOM
IS – to have openness in Washington
in our government, not “provda-style”
dictatorship.
12.FREEDOM
IS—Allowing the Voice
of the
Moral Majority to be
Heard!
13.FREEDOM
IS—Having aRight
to Confront
and Evil-IllegalPresidency!
14.FREEDOM
IS – to be able to decide our own
food
menu, our own diet and medical
care without
governmental intervention
or directive.
15.FREEDOM
IS – to allow every child conceived
to have “life”
protection
under our Constitution.
16.FREEDOM
IS—Not
having IRS
Enforcement AgentsStealing
our Hard-EarnedIncome
and Sending
it to Islamic
Nations!
17.FREEDOM
IS—Having
a President
that Honors God, and OurConstitutionalControls
on Government!
18.FREEDOM
IS—Having Pastors
with Backbone
to PubliclyStandon IssuesWithout
Fear of Government!
19.FREEDOM
IS—When Government
is Afraidof the People
–NotPeopleFearful
of Government.
20.FREEDOM
IS—Where
the Tea
Party, Patriots,
and Conservatives
Are NotTargeted
by our Government,Directed
by the President!
21.FREEDOM
IS – to live in a land where the governmentcannotintrude
into the church.
Separation
of church and state is Biblical.
(Not
found in our Constitution.)
King Uzziah
entered into the temple
to offer sacrifice (81 priests begged
him not to).It is the 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.
22.FREEDOM
IS – to be able to render
to Caesar what belongs
to Caesar, and render
unto God
what belongs to 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?
23.FREEDOM
IS – to have a government that is
restrained
by the U.S. Constitution: American
law and NO international,
foreign,
or Koranic-Shariah
law in our courts.SB-58
& H.B.
351 Defeated by Pressure
on FL.
Lawmakers by Islamic
Terrorists!
24.FREEDOM
IS – to have our educational
system returned
back to our state
and local leaders, NOTczars
in Washington.
25.FREEDOM
IS – to not
have 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 spiritualconvictions.
FREEDOM
IS – not to be forced
to provide murder
by abortion at taxpayer’s expense.
56
MillionMurdered
since 1973
–Roe
vs Wade!
27.FREEDOM
IS – is to have presidential
candidates provide a legitimate
birth certificate and proof of
citizenship before running for
office.
28.FREEDOM
IS—To be Able
to Go
to a Public Park, Beach,
or Public
Venue and ProclaimTruth,
IncludingPreaching
the Gospel.
29.FREEDOM
IS – knowing that we have the Constitutional
Second
Amendment right to keep
and bear arms, notJust
forHunting,
But
to Protect U.S. From
the Intrusions
and Tyrannies
of Government!
30.FREEDOM
IS – knowing that our children in
school are being taught TRUE
American History without
the distortions,
deletions
and promotion
of Islam in our textbooks.
31.FREEDOM
IS – knowing
that our fee
simple title deeds
to our properties are securewithout
fear of the EPA
Gestapo seizing
it to protect a snail
or rodent.
32.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 highest
mountain.
FREEDOM
IS – not
apologizing for breaking
things and killing
people in a just
war.
o
ILLU:
Daniel Chapter 3 tells us of three
young men that refused
to bow
to a law.They
were thrown
in the fiery
furnace, but because
of their faith
in God, they wouldNOTburn!
They Did NotBow
to the Godless
Law, When Threatened
They Did
Not Bend, and Throwninto
the FurnaceThey
Did NotBurn!!!
oDaniel was thrown
into the den
of lions for refusing to obey
a godless
law.The
lions became
his pillow—God
delivered him! (Daniel,
Chapter 6)
·Ladies and Gentlemen—may I read you some
quotes from our founding fathers:
·“Without
freedom of thought there can be no
such thing as libertywithoutfreedomofspeech.”
Benjamin Franklin
·“Those
who wouldgive upessentialliberties to purchasetemporary
safety deserveneither
liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
·“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
firstgrowing out of the last---a
sacredrespect for the Constitutional
law is the vitalprinciple,
the sustainingenergy 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, standfirmlikearock.”Thomas
Jefferson
·Ladies
and Gentlemen—let’s send a message
to Washington, LOUD
AND CLEAR—“We
the People.”
oWe will notsurrender
our Constitution
on the account
of convenience.
oWe will notsacrifice
our convictions
on the altar of coercion.
oWe will notsubmit
our church
rights to the rule
of unelectedczars
in Washington.
oWe will not
be silent
and allow socialism
to subvert
our Constitution.
oWe will bevigilant,
visible,
vocal,
and vote
in every election.
oWe will have “revolution”
at the “ballot”
box.
oThe Bible
is very clear (Acts 5:29) we ought
to obey Godrather
than man.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU AND
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA!
4 Ways the Fourth
Amendment's Already Being Pummeled in a Non-Top
Secret Way
The
government will always insist it's acting
within the law.
Ed
Krayewski
reason.com
June
11, 2013
Last week The
Guardian and The Washington Post
reported that the National Security Agency
collects information on the phone and Internet
habits of millions of Americans. Since then
we've seen President Barack Obama
argue against the strawman of combining
“100 percent privacy and 100 percent
security.” We've seen the Director of National
Intelligence and apologists point to
federal statutes that allegedly permit the
behavior. And, on the brighter side, we've
seen Sen. Rand Paul introduce the Fourth
Amendment Restoration Act.
Our View: Illinois, meet U.S.
Constitution
Journal Star article
Posted May 20, 2013
Last update May 21, 2013
So Chicago
doesn’t want concealed carry of handguns to be
the law in the Land of Lincoln.
Obviously.
Nonetheless, last time we checked, Chicago is
a city in the United States of America, which
has a Second Amendment that permits the
citizens of this country — even those living
in Chicago — the right to gun ownership. The
U.S. Supreme Court specifically told Chicago so in 2010 in
striking down its ban on guns (McDonald v.
City of Chicago).
Then late last year, the U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals informed the state of
Illinois, in which Chicago sits, that its
prohibition on guns carried outside the home
also was unconstitutional.
We have not always been thrilled by the
prospect of people packing heat everywhere you
go, either, but fundamentally, the federal
courts carry a bigger gavel than the city of Chicago and the state
of Illinois
here. The June 9 deadline established by the
court for state government to come into
compliance with the U.S. Constitution is a
solid one.
Yet that has not stopped Chicago-area
legislators from doing everything they can to
drag this thing out and neuter it as much as
possible. Case in point is state Sen. Kwame
Raoul, D-Chicago, sponsor of the concealed
carry measure (House Bill 183, which is
sponsored by Lou Lang, D-Skokie, in the
House).
Raoul initially wanted to give Chicago’s
police chief and county sheriffs the authority
to veto these gun permits, with applicants
having to show “proper reason” for carrying
and “good moral character” to get law
enforcement’s “endorsement.” He has since
dropped the latter, but the former remains. In
any case, who defines “proper reason” or
“moral character,” and how do you implement
that on a consistent basis? Those are so vague
as to be unworkable, if also ripe for abuse.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say that “the
right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed ... unless the police
chief or some other government official says
so.” It really is no wonder that the National
Rifle Association objected to that. Moreover,
it’s hardly in keeping with the spirit of the
federal appellate court’s ruling that “to
confine the right to be armed to the home is
to divorce the Second Amendment from the right
of self-defense.”
Meanwhile, Raoul also wants to give home-rule
communities — like Chicago and Peoria — the
ability to expand the state’s list of gun-free
zones, which critics have charged would create
a “patchwork” of regulations that virtually no
one can follow and that risks making criminals
of people who are not. We feel strongly that
any concealed carry law should be uniform
throughout the state.
(Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron said
the brutal killing of a soldier who was hacked
to death in London by
two men shouting Jihadist slogans was a
betrayal of Islam.
"We will never give in to terror or terrorism
in any of its forms," Cameron told reporters
outside his Downing
Street residence on Thursday.
"This was not just an attack on Britain
and on the British way of life, it was also a
betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim
communities who give so much to our country.
There is nothing in Islam that justifies this
truly dreadful act."
Comment:
Thatis
like calling the Fort Hood Texas incident
over three years ago, of
anIslamist
Major who yells 'AllahuAkbar’
fires,
and kills twelve soldiers and one civilian
“Workplace Violence”.
No
wonder modern Western “Civilizantion” is
in deep trouble.
Top Senate Democrat:
DOJ action against AP ‘inexcusable’
By Chris Moody, Yahoo
News, Tue, May 14, 2013
While the White
House remains quiet about whether the Justice
Department was right to seize the phone
records of Associated Press reporters, on
Capitol Hill the top Democrat in the Senate
was unequivocal about his opposition.
In his weekly
press briefing on Tuesday, Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blasted the DOJ for
its behavior, which included tracking
reporters' phone records within the House
press gallery over a leak related to an
attempted terror plot last year.
"I have trouble
defending what the Justice Department did in
looking at the AP," Reid said. "I really
believe in the First Amendment. I think it's
one of the great things we have as a country.
I don't know who did it or why it was done,
but it was inexcusable. There is no way to
justify this. In my career, I've stood
consistently for freedom of the press."
Reid added that
he would make a determination about whether
"legislative action" is needed in response.
Attorney General
Eric Holder on Tuesday defended the
department's tactics, saying that the AP's
reporting about a foiled airline bomb plot in
2012 "put the American people at risk." He
called the information the AP received from
undisclosed sources the “top two or three most
serious leaks I’ve ever seen.”
Pentagon:
Proselytizing Punishable by Court-Martial
CBNNews.com
Thursday, May 02, 2013
The Pentagon says soldiers
can be prosecuted for sharing their faith.
The Defense Department
released the statement to Fox news, which
reads, "Religious proselytization is not
permitted within the Department of
Defense" and punishments can include
court-martial.
This comes after Pentagon
officials met with Mikey Weinstein of the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation, who
said even the presence of a Bible on a desk
can amount to proselytizing.
He added that even a
Christian bumper sticker on an officer's car
or a Bible on a desk can amount to "pushing
this fundamentalist version of Christianity on
helpless subordinates."
Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry
Boykin told CBN News he believes there's an
agenda to get Christians out of the military.
"It's not just about
officers or commanders sharing their faith,
it's about every individual soldiers, sailor,
airmen or marine being able to exercise their
faith," Boykin said.
"The First Amendment talks about the 'free
exercise, thereof,' speaking of our faith.
This will destroy our military because mom and
dad in the central part of the U.S.
are not going to want Johnny and Janie to join
the military knowing that they would not be
able to exercise their faith at the same time
that they are protecting those constitutional
rights to do so," he warned.
Rhetoric heats up
in debate over proselytizing in the military
By Matthew Brown, Deseret News
Published: Wednesday, May 1
2013
A war over the religious freedom of military
chaplains and the troops they serve is being
waged in the Pentagon.
The latest salvo came this week when
conservative blogger Todd Starnes wrote on Fox
News and the Christian Post that the Pentagon
confirmed that "religious proselytization is
not permitted within the Department of
Defense."
The regulation is not new. In August, the Air
Force issued a policy telling its chaplains
that they must balance an airman's right to
religious exercise with a prohibition against
government establishment of religion. A
violation of the policy could result in a
court-martial.
What is new
is a recent demand to enforce the rule.
It came after a private meeting last week
between Pentagon officials and Larry
Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin
Powell, former Ambassador Joe Wilson and civil
rights attorney Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein.
Conservative Christians are particularly
upset that the Department of Defense is taking
advice from Weinstein, who heads the Military
Religious Freedom Foundation.
"God help us now when someone with such
visceral hatred of conservative Christians —
literally tens of millions of Americans — who
says sharing this gospel is 'spiritual rape'
is helping develop policies for how to deal
with Christians in the military," wrote Ken
Klukowski, director of the Center for
Religious Liberty at Family Research Council.
He draws his conclusions about Weinstein's
view of Christianity from a Huffington Post
blog in which Weinstein referred to so-called
fundamentalist Christians as monsters, bigots,
bandits and evil, among other things.
Weinstein told Washington Post columnist
Sally Quinn that “there is systematic
misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in
the military.” He called such a culture "a
national security threat. What is happening
(aside from sexual assault) is spiritual rape.
And what the Pentagon needs to understand is
that it is sedition and treason. It should be
punished.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family
Research Council, reacted by saying the
military meeting with Weinstein on religious
freedom is "like consulting with China
on how to improve human rights."
The FRC has launched a petition drive urging
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to "not to
proceed with the purge of religion within the
ranks called for by anti-Christian
activists." (Click
here to sign petition)
Ron Crews, the executive director of the
Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, told
the Christian Post that deciding "a service
member cannot speak of his faith is like
telling a service member he cannot talk about
his spouse or children.
"I do not think the Air Force wants to ban
personnel from protected religious speech, and
I certainly hope that it is willing to listen
to the numerous individuals and groups who
protect military religious liberty without
demonizing service members."
Two other stories this week signaled that
military chaplains are on edge over what they
can and cannot say to the troops they advise.
Barry Black, the U.S. Senate chaplain and a
former military chaplain, said military
chaplains could be accused of "hate speech"
for teaching what scripture says about
homosexuality, according the Christian Post.
"I can see many military chaplains having
some problems because, to teach the passages
of Paul with exegetical integrity would mean
being accused of engaging in hate speech,"
Black told a Heritage Foundation audience.
"So, this is a challenge that I think we're
going to have to deal with going forward."
Same-sex marriage may affect more than what a
chaplain preaches, says a candidate for the
chaplaincy, who wrote under a pseudonym in
American Thinker for fear of hurting his
chances to become a military chaplain.
"What will happen when a military chaplain
turns down gay soldiers who want the chaplain
to marry them?" he asked hypothetically. "The
military has already seen a major shift in
policy towards homosexuals as well as
significant rules towards political
correctness. If the Army decides that gay
marriage is more valuable than the religious
beliefs of their chaplains there will likely
be a significant change to the Chaplain
Corps."
The
United States Army has blocked the website
of the Southern Baptist Convention from some
of its computers — a move that family values
groups say is a disturbing continuation of
the Pentagon’s hostile attitude towards
religion.
The
Defense Department insists the blocking is a
“glitch’’ in the system which is being
corrected.
But the
American Family Network, which is affiliated
with the American Family Association, says
the issue comes just weeks after an Army
email called Christian ministries like the
Family Research Council and American Family
Association “domestic hate groups.’’
“This is
just another example of the Christian faith
coming under attack in the military,’’ Tim
Wildmon, president of American Family
Network,’’ told The Tennessean newspaper,
which broke the story.
Roger
Oldham, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist
Convention, said he has been assured the
problem is “a random event with no malicious
intent.’’
But he
added: "This is deeply disturbing . . . The
First Amendment exists to protect the church
from governmental censorship of or
infringement upon religious speech and the
free exercise of religion."
Lieutenant
Col. Damien Pickart, a department of defense
spokesman, told the newpaper the military is
working to resolve the problem and is “not
intentionally blocking access.’’
American Family
Association Notified: U.S.
Army Now Labels Southern Baptist Convention
‘Hostile’
By
Mel Fabrikant
Thursday,
April 25, 2013
The
Paramus Post (New Jersey)
Congressman Speaks out on Behalf of
Christians in Military
The United
States Army has blocked the website of the
Southern Baptist Convention from government
computers, saying the Christian site contains
“hostile content.”
An Army officer assigned to a U.S.
base said he tried to access SBC.net from his
government computer, but instead, he got a
message that said the site was being blocked
by “Team CONUS.” The message he received read:
The
site you have requested has been blocked by
Team CONUS (C-TNOSC/RECERT-CONUS) due to
hostile content.
Team Conus is the Department of Defense
management and computer network overseer of
the military’s Continental US Theater Network
Operations and Security Center (CTNOSC)
Regional Computer Emergency Response Team.
“So the Southern Baptist Convention is now
considered hostile to the U.S. Army…it just
corroborates the recent string of events
highlighted by AFA,” the officer wrote in an
email to American Family
Association.(www.afa.net)
According to Tim Wildmon, president of
American Family Network, “This is just another
example of the Christian faith coming under
attack in the military. Earlier this month, an
Army email labeled prominent Christian
ministries like the Family Research Council
and American Family Association as ‘domestic
hate groups.’ Their list continues to grow as
is evidenced by their new addition of the
Southern Baptist Convention as ‘hostile.’”
This prompted Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA)
to question Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
about religious liberty issues during a House
Armed Services Committee meeting just two
weeks ago.
For more information on American Family
Association, visit www.afa.net .
Kansas
set to enact life-starts-"at fertilization"
abortion law
By
Kevin Murphy
KANSAS CITY, Kansas
| Apr 6, 2013
(Reuters) - Kansas
is set to enact one of the most restrictive
abortion laws in the nation which defines life
as beginning "at fertilization" and imposes a
host of new regulations.
The Kansas House of Representatives passed
the bill 90-30 on Friday night, a few hours
after the Senate backed it on a 28-10 vote.
Strongly anti-abortion Republican Governor Sam
Brownback is expected to sign it into law.
Republicans hold strong majorities in both
houses.
In addition to the provision specifying when
life begins, the bill prevents employees of
abortion clinics from providing sex education
in schools, bans tax credits for abortion
services and requires clinics to give details
to women about fetal development and abortion
health risks. It also bans abortions based
solely on the gender of the fetus.
The Kansas
bill comes on the heels of anti-abortion
measures passing in states across the country,
including one in Arkansas
banning abortions in the 12th week of
pregnancy and a law in North Dakota
that sets the limit at six weeks.
The Kansas
language stating that life begins "at
fertilization" is modeled on a 1989 ruling of
the U.S. Supreme Court, said Kathy Ostrowski,
legislative director of Kansans for Life,
anti-abortion group.
Ostrowski said the language protects the
rights of the unborn in probate and other
legal matters.
If the bill is signed into law, Kansas
will become the eighth state declaring that
life begins at fertilization, said Elizabeth
Nash, state issues manager of the pro-choice
Guttmacher Institute, which researches
abortion-related laws nationwide.
While it would not supplant Kansas
law banning most abortions after the 22nd week
of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more
swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S.
Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making
abortion legal, Nash said.
"It's a statement of intent and it's a pretty
strong statement," Nash said. "Should the U.S.
Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade or should
the court come to some different conclusion,
the state legislature would be ready, willing
and able to ban abortions."
States that already have such language are Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, North Dakota and Ohio,
Nash said.
The Kansas
bill prohibits use of public funds, tax
preferences or tax credits for abortion
services. It prevents state-provided public
health-care services from being used in any
manner to carry out abortions, according to a
summary.
Taking away tax benefits would amount to 12
tax increases for abortion providers, women
and their families, said Elise Higgins, Kansas
coordinator for the National Organization for
Women. Even abortions to save a mother's life
would not be a deductible cost, she said.
The bill bars school districts from letting
abortion providers offer, sponsor or furnish
course materials or instruction on human
sexuality or on sexually transmitted diseases.
Higgins said that creates an unfair stigma for
employees of abortion providers.
(Reporting
by Kevin Murphy; Editing by Greg McCune, Doina
Chiacu and Gunna Dickson)
China:
House church accused of being religious cult
raided
By: Release International
1 April 2013
Christians in remote Xinjiang province have
been interrogated on suspicion of being a cult
after a violent armed raid on their house
church.
One Christian named as Sister Xu remains in
detention after being arrested during a raid
in which police armed with guns and electric
batons ransacked her home and seized property.
Another Christian, house church leader Brother
Shen, was summoned for interrogation
separately, which caused him to suffer an
'episode' relating to a heart condition, says
Release partner China Aid. A second leader
named as Sister Cao fled the area, fearing she
too would be detained.
All three are members of a house church in QimoCounty, Kurla
city, in north-west China.
On March 15, 21 Public Security Bureau
officials visited Sister Xu's home while she
was hosting a prayer meeting. The 14 assembled
Christians did not answer the door and
officials departed without forcing entry 90
minutes later.
However, that evening, armed police arrived.
As well as confiscating property, they took
fingerprints and blood samples from Xu, her
son and husband, and took all three to the
local police station for written statements.
It was there that Xu's husband saw information
on a computer alleging links between the house
church and a Chinese religious cult.
Xu's son and husband were both released the
following day, after the latter claimed he was
not a Christian. Brother Shen, who was
interrogated on March 18, was released within
three hours, after his health deteriorated.
'The police made his family guarantee that
there was nothing seriously wrong with his
health,' says China Aid.
JERUSALEM —
Israeli-Palestinian tensions rose sharply on
Wednesday, with a resumption of clashes at the
Gaza border as
Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails
declared a three-day hunger strike to protest
a fellow inmate’s death, saying Israel
was responsible.
In response to rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel,
apparently in support of the Palestinian
prisoners, the Israeli military said it
carried out an airstrike in Gaza
late Tuesday night, its first since a
cease-fire that ended eight days of fierce
cross-border fighting in November. Warplanes
struck two open areas in northern Gaza,
causing no damage or casualties, the military
said.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the
Islamic militant group that controls Gaza,
called the airstrikes a clear violation of the
cease-fire. “We call on international parties
to intervene immediately to end the Israeli
escalation and also the violations against the
prisoners,” he said in a statement.
The rocket fire from Gaza
was the third such violation of the cease-fire
brokered by Egypt
in November, evidence of its fragility. There
have also been several episodes of Israeli
gunfire directed at fishermen and farmers
approaching newly relaxed security perimeters,
sometimes with deadly consequences.
An Islamic extremist group in Gaza, the
Mujahedeen Shura Council — Environs of
Jerusalem, claimed responsibility for the
rocket fire, saying in a statement that it was
in support of the Palestinians held by Israel.
The group criticized other Palestinian
factions for their inaction on the prisoner
issue.
On Wednesday morning, Gaza
militants fired two more rockets into southern
Israel.
One landed at the entrance of the Israeli
border town of Sderot,
according to the police, and the other fell on
open ground. No one was hurt.
The death of the prisoner has also stirred
unrest in the West Bank.
On Wednesday night, a Palestinian youth was
fatally shot and three others were wounded in
a clash with Israeli soldiers near the West
Bank town of Tulkarem,
according to Palestinian news reports.
The Israeli military said that several
Palestinians had attacked a military post with
firebombs and that soldiers responded with
live fire. A spokeswoman said the episode was
being reviewed.
The United Nations special coordinator for
the Middle East
peace process, Robert H. Serry, called the
situation volatile and said it was “of
paramount importance to refrain from violence
in this tense atmosphere and for parties to
work constructively in addressing the
underlying issues.”
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon of Israel
said in a statement on Wednesday, “We will not
allow shooting of any sort, even sporadic,
toward our citizens and our forces.”
He added, “As soon as we identify the source
of the fire, we will take it down without
hesitation, as we did last night and in
previous cases.”
But analysts said that neither Israel
nor Hamas appeared eager to escalate the
situation and that both sides were acting to
restore the calm.
The highly charged issue of Palestinian
prisoners came to the fore again after the
Palestinian leadership accused Israel
of deliberately delaying the treatment of the
prisoner who died, Maysara Abu Hamdiya, 64. He
had received a diagnosis of throat cancer two
months ago and died in an Israeli hospital on
Tuesday.
Mr. Hamdiya, a resident of the West Bank city
of Hebron and
a retired general in the Palestinian Authority
security services, was detained by Israel in
2002, at the height of the second Palestinian
uprising, and was serving a life term for
attempted murder after sending a suicide
bomber to a cafe in Jerusalem,
Israeli officials said. The bomb failed to
detonate.
Mr. Hamdiya’s death came amid efforts by the
Western-backed Palestinian leadership to place
the prisoner issue high on the diplomatic
agenda, with Secretary of State John Kerry
expected in the region next week to press for
a renewal of peace talks. Emotions over the
prisoner issue have been running high among
Palestinians in recent months, leading to
protests in support of prisoners on hunger
strikes and over the death of a prisoner in
February under disputed circumstances.
Israel’s
Ministry
of Health said in a statement that an autopsy,
held on Wednesday in the presence of a
Palestinian expert of forensic medicine,
showed that Mr. Hamdiya had died from
complications of cancer and noted that he had
been a heavy smoker, a factor that it said
contributed to throat cancer.
The Palestinian Authority distributed a copy
of an affidavit that it said was signed by Mr.
Hamdiya’s lawyer, Rami Alami, who visited him
in jail on March 12. Mr. Alami said he found
Mr. Hamdiya to be tired and weak and unable to
walk without help.
New U.N. arms treaty
faces rough road in U.S.
Senate
By
Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON
| Wed Apr 3, 2013
(Reuters) - The new global arms trade treaty
was overwhelmingly approved by the United Nations,
with U.S.
backing, but it was clear on Wednesday it
faces a tough fight for ratification by U.S.
senators who contend it could affect
Americans' gun rights.
The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly approved
the pact by a vote of 154-3 on Tuesday, with
23 abstentions, many by major weapons
exporters.
Washington
was one of the 'yes' votes, but to go into
effect for the United States
it must win at least 67 votes - a two-thirds
majority - in the 100-member Senate. Last
month, the Senate supported a measure calling
for the treaty's rejection even before U.N.
negotiations on its text were completed.
The powerful National Rifle Association gun
industry lobby promised to fight against
ratification. Several senators, mostly
Republicans, quickly issued statements
opposing the pact.
The United States
is the world's largest gun exporter,
accounting for 30 percent of global volume. Russia,
No. 2, accounts for 26 percent. Moscow, which along
with China
abstained from the U.N. vote, said it would
take a hard look at the treaty before deciding
whether to sign it.
The treaty, the first of its kind, seeks to
regulate the $70 billion business in
conventional arms and keep weapons out of the
hands of human rights abusers.
A U.S.
commitment to the treaty is important to get China,
Russia
and other big arms producers on board,
diplomats and activists say.
The United
States is already in
compliance with the treaty's terms because of
its weapons export and import laws, they said,
but U.S.
approval could put pressure on other nations
to adopt similar limits.
The White House said on Wednesday it had not
yet decided whether President Barack Obama
would sign the pact, and gave no timeline for
doing so. Such a signing seems likely,
however, given White House support for the
pact at the United
Nations.
If Obama signs, government agencies would
review the treaty before the administration
decides whether to seek ratification by the
Senate.
"Timelines for the treaty review process vary
and given that we're just beginning the
review, I wouldn't want to speculate about
when we'll make a decision," said Caitlin
Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security
Council.
The Senate voted 53-46 on March 23 for a
nonbinding amendment to its budget resolution
calling for the treaty's rejection. Supporters
said they were worried it would infringe on U.S.
gun rights.
'DON'T EXPECT A CAKEWALK'
Winning 67 votes for ratification would
require the support of all Democrats,
including eight who voted for the amendment,
as well as at least 12 Republicans, or a
quarter of the entire Republican caucus, which
strongly opposes almost any limits on gun
sales.
"Don't expect a cakewalk," one Democratic
Senate aide said.
The U.S. Senate has often been skeptical of
international treaties, seeing them as
limiting U.S.
power. Among the unratified pacts signed by a
U.S.
president is the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, which bans all nuclear explosions.
As with some other unratified treaties,
however, Washington
has implemented that treaty's terms,
refraining from nuclear testing.
Several senators issued statements after the
U.N. vote reiterating their opposition.
"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty ... would require
the United States
to implement gun-control legislation as
required by the treaty, which could supersede
the laws our elected officials have already
put into place," said Senator James Inhofe,
the top Republican on the Senate Armed
Services Committee, who sponsored the budget
amendment.
He, fellow Republican Jerry Moran and
Democratic Senator Max Baucus issued a press
release objecting to the treaty after the U.N.
vote.
(Additional reporting by Lou Charbonneau at
the United Nations and Doug Palmer and Roberta
Rampton in Washington;
Editing by Warren Strobel and Mohammad
Zargham)
Islamist
terrorists and fanatics are methodically
exterminating the 2,000-year-old Christian
civilization of the Middle
East through oppression,
threats, appropriations and deadly violence.
Our media ignore
the intensifying savagery against Christians
in Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egypt.
Unconfirmed reports assert that, last month,
Muslim Brothers dragged Christian protesters
to a mosque and tortured them — but our
reporters won’t look into an Islamist Abu
Ghraib.
For a century
and a half, the varied strands of Middle East
Christianity have faced increasingly fierce
pogroms and, for the Armenians, outright
genocide. But with the rise of Wahhabi and
Salafist terror, the long, slow-motion
Holocaust accelerated.
Another attack on Egypt’s
10 million Coptic Christians: Firemen dousing
a blaze at a New Year’s car bombing outside a
Coptic church.
Western liberals
romanticize barbaric cultures but have no
interest in the destruction — before their
averted eyes — of a great and brilliant
religious civilization. It’s as if they accept
the Islamist creed that Christians don’t
belong in the realms of Islam.
But the Middle East was more
than just Christianity’s birthplace. The faith
we know matured in the Middle East and
North Africa, from Ephesus
and Antioch to
Alexandria
and beyond. St. Augustine,
the most influential church father after St. Paul,
was a North African.
Rome
was a latecomer to Christian authority.
Through the Middle Ages, substantially more
Christians lived east of Constantinople (now Istanbul) than in Europe, the faith’s
backwater, whose northern reaches had yet to
be evangelized.
Christianity’s
greatest thinkers, greatest monuments and
greatest triumphs for its first 1,000 years
rose in the Middle East.
Even the Muslim conquest and relative
servitude could not dislodge Christianity. In
the worst of times, Christianity turned the
other cheek and endured. Some Christians
flourished.
Today, the end
is in sight.
In Iraq, cities
such as Mosul and
Saddam’s hometown, Tikrit, were once vital
centers of Christianity. But the country’s
Christian population, estimated at up to 2
million a decade ago, has fallen by half —
perhaps by three-quarters.
Over 2 million
Christians in Syria
dread Islamist terror and religious cleansing
so much, they lean toward the vicious Assad
regime, which at least shielded minorities.
Those who can, flee the country.
Christians were
early supporters of Arab nationalism. One of
the fiercest Palestinian leaders, George
Habash, was a Christian, as was the wife of
Yasser Arafat. Their thanks? Two-thirds of the
West Bank’s and more of Gaza’s
Christians have been driven out. They’re now a
small minority even in Bethlehem.
Egypt
has the region’s largest remaining Christian
population, at least 10 million Copts. With
rare exceptions, they’ve long been confined to
squalid quarters and treated as third-class
citizens. Now the Salafist fanatics have been
unleashed. The nation’s Muslim Brotherhood
rulers could put a stop to anti-Christian
violence, but appear willing to let the
Salafists do the dirty work for them. They’re
playing bad cop, not-so-bad cop.
And we’ll send
the regime at least a billion dollars this
year — with no stipulations or conditions
except that military-related funds must
purchase US-made or US-licensed equipment.
With Egypt’s
economy in desperate straits and the
Brotherhood’s popularity fading, we’re
propping up religious-cleansing bigots.
Christians in Iran?
Gone. Turkey?
Almost gone. Saudi Arabia?
The once-thriving Christian and Jewish
populations of Mecca
and Medina
were finished off centuries ago.
And in Lebanon,
the only Middle East country that until
recently had a Christian majority, Christian
rights have been so threatened by Sunni
fanaticism that some Christians have reached
out to Shia Hezbollah in their desperate hunt
for allies.
Far to the east,
in Pakistan,
Christians face trumped-up charges of
insulting Islam or rape, beatings, murder and
church bombings. And we still pour
billions into Pakistan.
It’s the end of
a world as we know it.
If Islam is a
“religion of peace,” it’s time to show the
evidence to the endangered Christians of the Middle East.
Of course, not
all Christians are angels, nor are all Muslims
demons. Most humans of any faith just want to
get through the day. And some Christians have
collaborated with odious Baathist regimes
(usually, to ensure their community’s
survival). Nor are most Muslims active
supporters of the religious cleansing of
Christians from their shared homelands.
But
disappointingly few Muslims actively defend
religious minorities. It’s not unlike Nazi
Germany, where most Germans didn’t want to
murder Jews, but were complicit through their
silence.
If a Michigan mosque is
defaced with graffiti, it makes national
news and the Justice Department views it as
a hate crime. It’s time for our government
and media to apply the same standard abroad
on behalf of Christians.
When the government demands silence
-- the ugliness of the Patriot Act
By
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published
March 21, 2013
FoxNews.com
In 1798, when John Adams was president of the
United States,
the feds enacted four pieces of legislation
called the Alien and Sedition Acts. One of
these laws made it a federal crime to publish
any false, scandalous or malicious writing --
even if true -- about the president or the
federal government, notwithstanding the
guarantee of free speech in the First
Amendment.
The feds used these laws to torment their
adversaries in the press and even successfully
prosecuted a congressman who heavily
criticized the president. Then-Vice President
Thomas Jefferson vowed that if he became
president, these abominable laws would expire.
He did, and they did, but this became a lesson
for future generations: The guarantees of
personal freedom in the Constitution are only
as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to
the Constitution of those to whom we have
entrusted it for safekeeping.
We have entrusted the Constitution to all
three branches of the federal government for
safekeeping. But typically, they fail to do
so. Presidents have repeatedly assaulted the
freedom of speech many times throughout our
history, and Congresses have looked the other
way. Abraham Lincoln arrested Northerners who
challenged the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson
arrested Americans who challenged World War I. FDR arrested
Americans he thought might not support World
War II. LBJ and Richard Nixon used the FBI to
harass hundreds whose anti-Vietnam protests
frustrated them.
In our own post 9/11 era, the chief
instrument of repression of personal freedom
has been the government’s signature
anti-terror legislation: the Patriot Act. It
was born in secrecy, as members of the House
of Representatives were given 15 minutes to
read its 300 pages before voting on it in
October 2001, and it operates in silence, as
those who suffer under it cannot speak about
it.
The Patriot Act permits FBI agents to write
their own search warrants and gives those
warrants the patriotic and harmless-sounding
name of national security letters (NSLs). This
authorization is in direct violation of the
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
which says that the people shall be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects from
unreasonable searches and seizures, and that
that security can only be violated by a search
warrant issued by a neutral judge and based
upon probable cause of crime.
The “probable cause” requirement compels the
feds to acquire evidence of criminal behavior
about the person whose records they seek, so
as to prevent politically motivated invasions
of privacy and fishing expeditions like those
that were common in the colonial era. Judges
are free, of course, to sign the requested
warrant, to modify it and sign it, or to
reject it if it lacks the underlying probable
cause.
The very concept of a search warrant
authorized by law enforcement and not by the
courts is directly and profoundly antithetical
to the Constitution -- no matter what the
warrant is called. Yet, that’s what Congress
and President Bush made lawful when they gave
us the Patriot Act.
When FBI agents serve the warrants they’ve
written for themselves -- the NSLs as they
call them -- they tell the recipient of the
warrant that he or she will commit a felony if
he or she tells anyone -- a lawyer, a judge, a
spouse, a priest in confessional -- of the
receipt of the warrant. The NSLs are typically
not served on the person whose records the FBI
wants; rather, they are served on the
custodians of those records, such as computer
servers, the Post Office, hospitals, banks,
delivery services, telephone providers, etc.
Because of the Patriot Act’s mandated
silence, the person whose records the FBI
seeks often never knows his or her records
have been seized. Since October 2001, FBI
agents and other federal agents have served
more than 350,000 search warrants with which
they have authorized themselves to conduct a
search. Each time they have done so, they have
warned the recipient of the warrant to remain
silent or be prosecuted for telling the truth
about the government.
Occasionally, recipients have not remained
silent. They have understood their natural and
constitutionally protected right to the
freedom of speech and their moral and
fiduciary duty to their customer or client,
and they have moved in federal court either to
suppress the warrant or for the right to tell
the customer or client whose records are being
sought that the FBI has come calling. Isn’t
that odd in America
-- asking a judge for permission to tell the
truth about the government?
What’s even more odd is that the same section
of the Patriot Act that criminalizes speaking
freely about the receipt of an agent-written
search warrant also authorizes the FBI to give
the recipient of the warrant permission to
speak about it. How un-American is that --
asking the FBI for permission to tell the
truth about the government?
Last week in San Francisco, U.S. District
Court Judge Susan Illston held that the
section of the Patriot Act that prohibits
telling anyone about the receipt of an FBI
agent-written search warrant and the section
that requires asking and receiving the
permission of the FBI before talking about the
receipt of one profoundly and directly
infringe upon the freedom of speech guaranteed
by the First Amendment. And the government
knows that.
We all know that the whole purpose of the
First Amendment is to encourage open, wide,
robust debate about and transparency from the
government. Our right to exercise the freedom
of speech comes from our humanity, not from
the government. The Constitution recognizes
that we can only lose that right by consent or
after a jury trial that results in conviction
and incarceration.
But we can also lose it by the tyranny of the
majority, as Congress and the president in
1798 and 2001 have demonstrated.
Obama
urged: act tough on Israel
or risk collapse of two-state solution
By
Chris McGreal, US correspondent
The
Guardian,
19
March 2013
Barack
Obama begins his first official visit to Israel on
Wednesday amid growing warnings among some
of its leading supporters in the US that
the president needs to act more forcefully
to save Israel
from itself.
The White
House has played down expectations that
Obama will put any real effort into
pressing Israel
toward the creation of a Palestinian state
after he was burned by an attempt early in
his first term to pressure the prime
minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, into halting
Israeli settlement construction in the
occupied territories.
But there
is increasing concern among some of Israel's
backers in the US that
without White House intervention the much
promised two-state solution is doomed –
and that will endanger Israel.
Among
those sounding the warning is the US
secretary of state, John Kerry, who said
earlier this year that "the possibility of
a two-state solution could shut on
everybody and that would be disastrous, in
my judgment".
The
inclusion of hardline pro-settler
ministers in Netanyahu's new government,
who are expected to press for the
continued expansion of Israel's colonies
in the West Bank, has heightened concerns
in Washington that physical realities on
the ground are making the prospect of a
negotiated agreement ever more difficult.
Others
have pointed up a recent Hebrew University
demographic study, which showed that Jews
are now in a minority in the territory
covered by Israel, Gaza and the West Bank
– suggesting that Israel's democratic and
Jewish character are threatened by its
reluctance to give up territory to an
independent Palestine.
That led
David Aaron Miller – a negotiator in
efforts by the Clinton administration to
broker an Israeli-Palestinian agreement
and an adviser on Middle East policy to
six US secretaries of state – to advise
Obama to "take a quick tour around
Israel's demographic neighbourhood" in
order to understand the issue that might
be most persuasive in pressuring Israeli
leaders to take negotiations with the
Palestinians seriously.
"Demographic
trends mean that Israel
can't have it all. It can't be a Jewish
state, a democratic state*,
and a state in control of its whole
historical land. It can only have two of
its objectives at a time," he wrote
in Foreign Policy.
"The
demographic imperative probably appeals to
Obama, a rational thinker who understands
the importance of acting in the present to
avoid future catastrophes. He has at least
once referred to the demographic realities
in his speeches on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. But the president also knows
from his own political choices that
getting politicians to take risks now to
prevent disasters and gain rewards later
isn't so easy."
It is a
warning echoed earlier this month by S
Daniel Abraham, a US
billionaire, confidante of American and
Israeli leaders, and founder of the Center
for Middle East Peace in Washington, who
chided the president for not using his
visit to press Israel's
leaders
to confront the looming "tipping point".
"Obama
should realize that Israel's
continued presence in the West Bank is an
existential threat to its continuity as a
democratic, Jewish state — and time is not
on Israel's
side," he wrote in the Atlantic.
"Right
now – not in five or 10 years, but right
now – only 50% of the people living in the
Jewish state and in the areas under its
control are Jews. The dreaded tipping
point – which advocates of the
two-solution have been warning about for
years – has finally arrived."
That is a
warning reinforced by an Oscar-nominated
documentary, The Gatekeepers – in which
former heads of the Israel's internal
security organisation, the Shin Bet, warn
that the occupation is endangering Israel
– which has shaken up the assumptions
among some in the Jewish community and
among Israel's other supporters in the US.
Martin
Indyk, a former US
ambassador to Israel
and now vice-president of the Brookings
Institution, said it is clear there is a
growing sense of alarm among some
policymakers in the US.
But he said it may be misplaced.
"My sense
is that this is the view of Secretary
Kerry – that there's an urgency to try to
not just resume negotiations but to
resolve at least some of the critical
issues in the conflict because the
two-state solution is in danger of cardiac
arrest. I think there is an urgency, but I
don't actually think that if the window
closes it can't be prised open again," he
said.
"The
simple reason for that is there is no
alternative to the two-state solution –
except no solution. And no solution for
the time being may suit both sides… in
preference to the kind of compromises and
the hard decisions that have to be made in
order to achieve a solution. We are fond
of saying, and our leaders are fond of
saying, the status quo is not sustainable.
But if you go out there on both sides,
especially compared to what is going on
around them – in Syria to the north and
Egypt to the south – the status quo, it's
OK."
Indyk
said there will not be movement until
leaders on both sides are prepared to make
hard decisions, and that Obama is probably
unwilling to force that after his "searing
experience" of dealing with Netanyahu over
the Jewish settlements four years ago.
"I think
that there is something achievable, and I
actually think it's very important. And
that is that President Obama has the
opportunity to reintroduce himself to the
Israeli public. The first time he
introduced himself to them was in Cairo, wherein he
gave his speech in June 2009, which was,
of course, addressed to the Arab world and
not to Israel
… And (Israelis) got the impression that
he wants to distance the United
States from Israel
in order to curry favour with the Arab
world," he said.
"It is
hard to imagine that the president himself
is going to do much more than make this
visit. There are greener pastures that
beckon him in Asia, and you can see, from
a variety of other actions that he's taken
or hasn't taken in the Middle East, that
he would rather turn away from this
region. John Kerry has exactly the
opposite instinct. He wants to engage in
the Middle East
and, in particular, he wants to take on
the Israeli-Palestinian challenge, and
it's a high priority for him."
*Democratic"Straw
man" word and argument. Forget
Democracy. How about a Republic? where
people as diverse as the people spanning
the United States can live in relative
peace and freedom. Caveat: A Republic can
only work to the extent that The
People have the ability to think and
access information and knowledge, an
emphasis that is fading from the
government educational system.
Ian Black's analysis after the President’s
key speech of his trip
(March
21,
2013)
"It was a very
clever speech” says the Guardian’s Middle East editor
Ian Black.
First he
pressed all the buttons that matter to a
mainstream Israeli Jewish and Zionist
audience. He went to great lengths to
recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist
dream ...
He attacked
all of Israel’s
enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
He made a link, very interestingly, between
Iran’s
nuclear program and the holocaust something
that the Israeli prime minister Binyamin
Netanyahu often does.
But having
done all that, he then moved to the second
message of trying to achieve a just and
viable solution for the Palestinians. Israel
must recognize the right of Palestinian self
determination, he said. It should look at
the world through Palestinian eyes ... He
talked about settler violence that went
unpunished. All very very hot-button issues.
Again cleverly using a phrase that’s very
resonant for Israelis, he said Palestinians
have a right to be a free people in their
homeland. That’s a phrase that is taken
directly from the Israeli national anthem.
There was
nothing in this speech that gives us any
practical pointers as to how the
long-stalled peace process can be revived
... It gave positive messages to Israelis,
it made important points about the need to
resolve the conflict with the Palestinians,
it provided no obvious ways forward, but
will I am sure have created a positive mood
in Israel towards the message he was trying
to put across.
He set out
quite a compelling vision of a country that
needs to come to terms with an existential
problem for itself, and a matter of
fundamental justice for the people who are
suffering from it at the moment.
This “Truths That Free” section
of “Ethics”
has not been updated for quite some time...
that is not for want of material. Located in Jacksonville, Florida, in the United States,
one doesn’t have to look far to find
corruption, among elected or appointed
officials and/or leaders or local
organizations. That includes organizations
with the power to arrest, detain and generally
make your free life miserable.
Growing up with my parents
included the
“larning” that honesty
and abiding by the law were virtues to be
cultivated if at all possible. “if at all
possible” has caveats. Don't forget
or neglect the value and importance of
CIVIL disobedience or as Gandhi called it, “satyagraha”
nonviolent resistance, or obedience to
truth- THE
TRUTH AND RIGHT IS- independant,
inalienable, and proceeding before all
institutions of people- although no one said
that was always easy or convenient.
Why do citizens have an
expectation of good character and ethical
behavior from those we elect or appoint to
govern or
to head unions, or to populate our many civic
departments? Surely part of the reason is that
we are their bosses, we pay their salaries
(often higher than their counterparts in the
private sector) and they are accountable to
us.
If you
have not felt your blood pressure rise, or
your anger mount often enough today here are a
couple links
to a few articles about our finest in Jacksonville and the
state of Florida.
After reading these
articles consider shooting off (er... maybe
that is not a good metaphor anymore) sending
an email or making a phone call to one of your
representatives and let them know that you
back their honest effort (in a few rare cases)
or that you demand that they make an effort to
discourage graft, dishonesty, waste, and
corruption from among their own ranks.
Hearing on
Religious Freedom Next Week
By Peter Kirsanow
from The National
Review
March 13, 2013
The U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights will hold a public hearing next
week on recent developments involving the
intersection of religious freedom and
anti-discrimination laws. The hearing will
take place on Friday March 22, at 9:30 a.m. at the
Commission’s headquarters, located at 1331
Pennsylvania Avenue
in Washington,
DC.
Witnesses will address, among other things,
the HHS mandate, the implications of Christian
Legal Society v. Martinez and Hosanna-Tabor
v.EEOC, and
religious-liberty claims under First Amendment
provisions other than the religion clauses.
Interested members of the public are invited
to attend. Further, members of the public may
also submit comments until April 21 on any of
those topics by sending them to the above
address or emailing them to
publiccomments@usccr.gov.
This may be one of the few opportunities
members of the public will have to
address comments on the above topics to
an agency of the federal government. Note
that there’s no page limit on comments — they
may range from a short paragraph to a
treatise.
Debating the
'religious freedom' bill Rejection would be
serious blow
fromLouisville
Courier-Journal
MARTIN COTHRAN
Senior
Policy Analyst
March
13, 2013
In Kentucky,
the Religious Freedom Act (HB 279) has been
passed by both chambers of the state legislature
and is now on Gov. Steve Beshear’s desk awaiting
his signature. The bill would return
long-standing legal protections to people of
faith that the Kentucky Supreme Court took away
in a decision last October. But some groups are
urging Gov. Beshear to veto it.
The campaign against the bill being conducted
by the ACLU, the Fairness Alliance, and a
small minority of lawmakers has sadly turned
into an ugly and virulent campaign of hateful
rhetoric and misinformation.
If there had been no evidence before of the
anti-religious sentiment that now threatens
religious freedom in Kentucky,
these groups have provided it.
The Religious Freedom Act is a response to a
decision last year in which the state’s high
court ruled against several Amish men who were
being forced to put brightly colored orange
reflectors on their buggies in violation of
their religious strictures. The court ruled
against them. In doing so, the justices
announced that the former standard courts
applied to religious freedom cases, called
“strict scrutiny,” would now be replaced by a
lower standard.
They made it easier for the government to
violate someone’s First Amendment right to
free exercise of religion.
Previously, the government had been required
to show that it had a compelling interest in
overturning someone’s religious rights. It
also required the government to use the least
restrictive means to accomplish its purposes.
This bill would simply restore these
requirements.
The bill’s language is almost identical to
the language in the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, passed by the U.S. Congress
in 1993 after the U.S. Supreme Court lowered
the religious freedom standard in a 1990
decision.
RFRA, whose protections were later limited
only to the federal government, was passed
almost unanimously by the U.S. Congress,
signed by Bill Clinton, sponsored by Ted
Kennedy — and supported by the ACLU.
Given what this bill is really about, it is
sad and disappointing that the groups opposing
it have chosen to misrepresent the nature of
the bill to the public and to malign the many
good people involved in supporting the
legislation.
When HB 279 passed the State House in a
bipartisan 82-7 vote, Rep. Kelly Flood,
D-Lexington, took to the floor and attacked the
Catholic church, charging them with wanting to
protect abusive priests. And when the state
Senate passed the measure in a 29-6 vote, state
Sen. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, charged that the
bill would promote racism.
The ACLU and several gay rights groups also
argue that the bill would be used to gut civil
rights protections.
But if this is true, then why did none of
this ever happen before Oct. 25 of last year,
when the standard this bill reinstitutes was
in force? If there were any such cases, these
groups would have produced them, but they
haven’t — and they can’t.
Because they don’t exist.
The bill has absolutely nothing to do
with the sexual abuse of children and nothing
to do with federal civil rights protections.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has already
ruled that preventing racial discrimination is
a compelling state interest — the very
standard used in this bill.
No one supporting the bill has used one
hateful word in arguing for it. Not a single
person speaking for the bill has maligned the
character of those who oppose it. And not a
single supporter has misrepresented the nature
of the bill.
Ironically,
the group leading the charge against the
bill, the ACLU, was the very group who
represented the Amish in the case before the
Supreme Court four months ago. They
argued their case under the standard of strict
scrutiny, the same standard they are now
opposing.
If Gov. Beshear succumbs to pressure from the
ACLU and other groups and vetoes HB 279, it
will be a serious blow to religious freedom in
Kentucky.
Homeland Insecurity: The attorney
general says the threat from local jihadists
is now worse than terrorist plots hatched
overseas. He warned Americans not to grow
"complacent." Tell it to the media.
The major news gatekeepers have ignored the
jihadist element in no fewer than four recent
cases of sensational killings of non-Muslims
by mostly young Muslim men inside the U.S.,
including:
• Yusuf Ibrahim, a 27-year-old Egyptian
immigrant who on Feb. 5 allegedly beheaded two
Coptic Christians living in New Jersey.
• Ali Syed, a 20-year-old Muslim who
allegedly randomly killed three people in Southern California on
Feb. 18 before killing himself.
• Ammar Asim Faruq Harris, a 26-year-old
reported black Muslim convert who on Feb. 21
is said to have killed three people in Las Vegas.
• Ali Salim, a 44-year-old Pakistan-born
doctor who is accused of raping and killing a
pregnant woman and her 9-month-old fetus last
year in his Ohio office.
This rash of homicides by Muslims has
triggered a giant media yawn, despite telltale
signs of jihadist motive. Jihad? What jihad?
Reporters seemed to be collectively shrugging
in another fit of extreme PC.
Here's another key piece of information
denied the average American watching the
evening news: the majority of convicted
terrorists in the U.S.
are American citizens. A study found the
terrorist threat is increasingly in our
backyard.
Equally stunning, more than half of the 171
terror convicts analyzed by the London-based
Henry Jackson Society are college-educated.
Many are black converts. Nearly half were born
and raised here, according to the report
prefaced by former CIA director Mike Hayden.
Yet they want to kill fellow Americans simply
because they believe that's what their creed
tells them to do. But instead of confronting
this homegrown threat, our society is
fig-leafing it, even glorifying it.
Even in red-state Texas,
educators are indoctrinating kids into the
Islamic faith. At Lumberton High School, a
geography class was recently told to dress up
in Islamic garb — including burqas — and refer
to the 9/11 hijackers not as terrorists but as
"freedom fighters."
This isn't an isolated event. There's a
coordinated effort by leftist do-gooders and
multiculturalists to de-link Islam from
violence and terror and rewrite history.
When educators, journalists and politicians
hear no Islamic violence, see no Islamic
violence and report no Islamic violence,
beware, it's Sept. 10, 2001, again.
Email tells feds to
make sequester as painful as promised
by Stephen
Dinan March 5, 2013 The Washington
Times
The White House announced Tuesday that it is
canceling tours of the president’s home for
the foreseeable future as the sequester
spending cuts begin to bite and the
administration makes good on its warnings of
painful decisions.
Announcement of the decision — made n an email
from the White House Visitors Office — came
hours after The Washington Times reported on
another administration email that seemed to show
at least one agency has been instructed to make
sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama
promised they would be.
In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service official Charles Brown said
he asked if he could try to spread out the
sequester cuts in his region to minimize the
impact, and he said he was told not to do
anything that would lessen the dire impacts
Congress had been warned of.
“We have gone on record with a notification
to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would
eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states
in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture
industry, unless they provide funding to cover
the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however
you manage that reduction, you need to make
sure you are not contradicting what we said
the impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the
internal email, said his superiors told him
Neither Mr. Brown nor the main APHIS office
in Washington returned calls seeking comment,
but Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack,
who oversees the agency, told Congress he is
trying to give flexibility where he can.
“If we have flexibility, we’re going to try
to use it to make sure we use sequester in the
most equitable and least disruptive way,” the
secretary told Rep. Kristi L. Noem, a South
Dakota Republican who grilled Mr. Vilsack
about the email. “There are some
circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about
the meat inspection, where we do not have that
flexibility because there are so few
accounts.”
Ms. Noem told Mr. Vilsack that the email made
it sound like the administration was
sacrificing flexibility in order to justify
its earlier dire predictions.
“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been
put forward,” the congresswoman told Mr.
Vilsack.
Florida bill would
require anger management courses for bullet
buyers By
Joshua Rhett Miller Published
March 5,2013 Fox News
A Florida legislator wants anyone trying to
buy ammunition to complete an anger management
program first, in what critics say is the
latest example of local lawmakers reaching for
constitutionally-dubious solutions to the
problem of gun violence.
The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey
Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a
three-day waiting period for the sale of any
firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone
who has not completed anger management
courses. The proposal would require ammo
buyers to take the anger management courses
every 10 years.
“This is not about guns," Gibson said. "This
is about ammunition and not only for the
safety of the general community, but also for
the safety of law enforcement.”
Gibson said she’s concerned with citizens
stockpiling ammunition, potentially creating
dangerous situations should those individuals
ever come in contact with law enforcement
agencies or criminals.
“It’s about getting people to think, really,
about how much ammunition they need,” Gibson
said. “It’s a step, I think, in a safer
direction. It’s about getting people to think
before they buy.”
Benghazi
Documents Reveal White House 'Specifically
Warned of Imminent Attack
March 6, 2013 Jason
Howerton The Blaze
CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl
Attkisson on Tuesday night reported that the
Obama adminsitration has turned over documents
relating to the Benghazi terrorist attack to the
Senate Intelligence Committee. She made a number
of revelations that don't bode well for the
White house via her official Twitter account.
She also reported that an “official familiar
with the docs” said there were advanced
warnings in the days leading up to the attack,
including ones that “specifically warned of an
imminent attack on the U.S. compound
in Benghazi.”
The CBS
reporter also referenced another source
familiar with the Benghazi
documents that said nearly all communication
between Libya
and Washington,
D.C.,
since the attack began referenced al-Qaeda as
being the likely “instigators.” That portion
is significant because there are still
unanswered questions as to why the Obama
administration initially blamed the attack on
an anti-Muslim YouTube video.
“A source who
viewed the docs says the few that mentioned a
protest” on night of Benghazi
“were not first hand references,” Attkisson
reports.
Christian Science
Teacher Fired Over Creationism to Head to Ohio
Supreme Court
By Leonardo Blair ,
Christian Post Contributor
February 26, 2013|
A 20-year Ohio
middle school science teacher who was fired
in 2011 for teaching creationism in his
class will have his day in the Ohio
Supreme Court on Wednesday when his lawyers
will argue that his firing was a violation
of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights
to free speech and religion.
"In oral
arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court
tomorrow, February 27, The Rutherford
Institute will defend the right to academic
freedom of a science teacher fired for
encouraging students to think critically about
the school's science curriculum, particularly
as it relates to evolution theories," said the
Rutherford Institute in a statement released
in response to questions from The Christian
Post on Tuesday.
"In coming to
veteran science teacher John Freshwater's
defense, Institute attorneys argue that the Mount
VernonCitySchool District
violated John Freshwater's academic freedom
rights – and those of his students – by firing
him in January 2011," said the statement.
The Mount Vernon
School Board had spent almost $1 million
fighting John Freshwater's case when they
decided to end his contract, according to a
report in the Mount Vernon News. Board
president Margie Bennett told the Mount Vernon
News at the time that Freshwater's fired was a
difficult decision.
Freshwater,
however, appealed his termination in state
court arguing that the firing violated his
rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments and constituted hostility toward
religion. The Board's decision was upheld by a
Common Pleas judge as well as the Fifth
District Court of Appeals. But according to
the Rutherford Institute, these decisions were
made without an analysis of the constitutional
claims. The appeal was made to the Ohio
Supreme Court to examine theme. According to
the Institute, the Mount Vernon School Board
attempted to have the court strike the First
Amendment claim from the lawsuit but they were
unsuccessful.
"Academic
freedom was once the bedrock of American
education. That is no longer the state of
affairs, as this case makes clear," said John
W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford
Institute, in the release. "What we need today
are more teachers and school administrators
who understand that young people don't need to
be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be
taught how to think for themselves. By firing
John Freshwater for challenging his students
to think outside the box, school officials
violated a core First Amendment freedom – the
right to debate and express ideas contrary to
established views."
In June 2008,
the Mount Vernon City School District Board of
Education in Ohio
voted to suspend John Freshwater citing
concerns about his conduct and teaching
materials, particularly as they related to the
teaching of evolution. Freshwater, who had
served as the faculty appointed facilitator,
monitor, and supervisor of the Fellowship of
Christian Athletes student group for 16 of the
20 years that he taught at the school, was
ordered to remove "all religious items" from
his classroom. Freshwater agreed to remove the
items except for his Bible, which spurred a
sequence of events that led to his eventual
firing.
The
Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit civil
liberties organization that provides legal
assistance at no charge to individuals whose
constitutional rights have been threatened
or violated.
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.
Dr. West teaches courses in American
politics, focusing on the U.S. Constitution,
civil rights, foreign policy, and the
political thought of the American
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.
He received his BA from Cornell, and his PhD
from ClaremontGraduateUniversity.
Those 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 or domestic
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
government? (3) Domestic
policy? (4) Foreign policy?
(5) Consent of the governed? (6)
Government limited or unlimited?
Open Doors:
Violence Targeting Christians Increasing
in Syria
Contact: Jerry Dykstra, Open Doors USA,
616-915-4117, jerryd@odusa.org
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 and ChristianValley
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
and Hama,
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 of President's
Obama's father are cheering on the
Democrat, while Kenyan Mormons are excited
by challenger Mitt Romney’s run.
By
Fredrick Nzwili, Correspondent
November
1, 2012
Nairobi,
Kenya
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 African country.
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,”
said
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 stiff
challenge.
“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 Cultural Committee.
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. Ogombe.
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 "boss."
“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
RIGHT
SIDE NEWS.com
Thursday, 01 November 2012
Dr.
Andrew Bostom
After
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 in Dearborn,
Michigan,
and in a press release by the Islamic Circle
of North America.
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,
plainly,
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, “…that U.S.
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
consumption.
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, which proclaims:
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”.
Girl shot by Taliban
in Pakistan
remains in critical condition, and local
government posts reward for attackers' capture
The Guardian, Thursday 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 slightly overnight.
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
president,
prime minister and the heads of various
opposition parties joined the human rights
group Amnesty International and the United
Nations in condemning the attack.
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 Sentinel.
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 in Egypt
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, Hosni
Mubarak.
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 Jordan.
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
2012-2013.
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
of Jordan
from King Hussein.
Arafat's PLO
organization lost over 2,000 Muslim men in the
attempted Black September coup of their
Jordanian Muslim brothers and were violently
expelled from their native Jordan.
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
States,
King Abdullah II.
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
Understanding
the 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 Al-Zarqawi
says,
"We
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 the three.
"I
have been sent with the sword, between the
hands of the hour"; this is our political
agenda."
"It
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.
Al-Qaeda
and the Muslim Brotherhood consider the muslim
colonialist dictators as enemies of Shariah
compliant political Islam.
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 movie.
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 9/11/2012.
Conclusion
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.
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".
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: alan@theunitedwest.org
By Babette
Francis - posted Thursday, 4 October 2012
In Onlineopinion.com
Australia’s
ejournal ofsocial and political debate
Recent
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
States
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 US
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 .....
Rising
anti-Islamic 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 authors.
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,"
Johnson says.
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 community besieged.
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 Qurans.
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 Relations.
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 mentions Sharia:
"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... called Sharia."
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 Sharia law."
The amendment died after a federal court
ruled it discriminatory.
"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.
Two Tennessee
lawmakers attempted to pass a bill this year
that would have made it a felony to practice
Sharia, but it failed.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations
says the anti-Sharia bills are based on draft
legislation promoted by David Yerushalmi, an
anti-Islamic lawyer from New York.
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 since U.S.
courts ultimately are beholden to U.S.
law.
But it sends a strong message to the Muslim
community.
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
religious bigotry."
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 attacks.
Kaur blames tough economic times and an
amplification of hateful speech for incidents
like the temple shooting and the momentum
behind the anti-Sharia campaign.
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.
U.S.
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 activists.
Nashville
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 people.
Miller describes himself as a tolerant person
but not when it comes to people dictating how
others will live.
"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 Duke
chaplain.
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,
Antepli says.
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 experts."
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 foreign laws:
"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.
from 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. and Russia
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 United States
and other parts of the world where climate and
geographic conditions are right for it. In
rural areas of the United States
where 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, 2012
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.”
Obama
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 distinctly
downplayed."
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 continues:
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 (emphasis added).
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 here).
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
Christians).
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
obfuscate?
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 prosecution
July 30, 2012
By
Conn
Carroll
Senior
Editorial Writer
The Washington
Examiner
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 southwestern United 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 the feds.
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 the U.S.
from enacting laws on immigration, has
pre-empted the field.
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
Constitution.
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 immigration status.
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 please.
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
Times website, and see readers reactions.
Obama Overlooks
Christian Persecution
Thursday,
24 May 2012
By
James Walsh
Coptic
Christians 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 Muslim radicals.
The
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 in Egypt
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 Muslim world.
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,
Egypt,
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.
The “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 policy.
James 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 law ..."
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 suspicion.
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 Dec. 31.
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.
Jacksonville’s Moral Constitutional Patriots
Speak
A
Response By Dr. Gene A. Youngblood
Presentedat
City Council Meeting of 5/22/2012
WHEREASOur
City council has introduced ordinance
2012-296.This bill is cloaked under
the disguise of equal
opportunity and non-discrimination in
the marketplace.
WHEREAS
This 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 region.However,
the bill seems to focus only on a “special
class,” ignoring the U.S.
Constitution and religiousliberties.
WHEREAS
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
workplace.
WHEREAS
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.
WHEREAS
Lines 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?
WHEREAS
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.
WHEREASOrdinance
2012-296 will be costly and prohibitive
making the end result a net
loss of business or industry
coming to Jacksonville.This
is clear, based on requirements in the bill
as found on page 4, lines 6-8.
WHEREAS
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, ethical beliefs.
WHEREAS
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).
WHEREASSection
406.102 of ordinance 2012-296, “Declaration
of policy” is clearly overstepping
the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and the
Florida Constitution.Furthermore,
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
free speech.
WHEREAS
Page 10 lines 7-16 of ordinance 2012-296
will further increase the cost
of providing housing in our city.This
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:
1.
This bill would establish a “special
class” of citizens, contrary to our
Constitution.
2.
This bill would provide for broad
application and enforcement of a law that is
not in compliance with the U.S.
Constitution.This bill is unconstitutional!
3.
This bill would greatly infringe Constitutional
Rights in the free exercise of
one’s moral conscience.
4.
This bill would bring about a major
tax increase for Jacksonville
property owners.We
already have a $58 million
deficit.
5.
This 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.
1:24-28.
6.
This bill would marginalizeChristians
and “all” moral, ethical citizens
of DuvalCounty
and give special privilege to the “sodomites”.
7.
This bill would reduce, not
increase the desirability and social
climate for businesses to settle in
Jacksonville.
8.
This 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.
9.
This bill will createdivision,
discord, debate and declension
in our city that is not welcomed or
wanted.
10.
This 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
DISCRIMINATION
IN AMERICA
May
22, 2012
Introduction:
Bill
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.”
Do
we have discrimination in Jacksonville?
Do
we have discrimination in America?
Yes,
We do!
What
is discrimination?
1.
Discrimination is:
When
a Christian teacher in a government
controlled school is threatened with
dismissal just because as a
Christian, he had his personal Bible
on his desk.
2.
Discrimination is:
When
a teacher is forbidden to say, “God
bless you,” or “We are praying for
you,” to a student.
3.
Discrimination is:
When
a student is not allowed to wear a t-shirt
with a Christian symbol, yet immoral
or anti-God
slogans are accepted.
4.
Discrimination is:
When
a second grader is forbidden to thank
Jesus over her lunch because the
teacher said she was on government
property.
5.
Discrimination is:
When
moral ethical parents are not told
when the schools planned a recognition
day for sodomites in our schools April 21, 2012.This
is unconstitutional!
6.
Discrimination is:
When
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.
7.
Discrimination is:
When
we 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.
8.
Discrimination is:
When
small startup churches are not allowed
to meet in school buildings for services in
many states.
9.
Discrimination is:
When
YouTube pulls Christian videos, but allows
the ungodlygarbage over the
same internet system.
10.
Discrimination is:
When
a Christian school is persecuted by
city government in America,
and when the decision is questioned,
the Christian school is levied with
“retaliatory” taxes.
11.
Discrimination is:
When
Christian teachers in South Florida have
to meet in a supplycloset
to pray, or be fired!
12.
Discrimination is:
When
a Christian worker is forbidden
to put a verse of Scripture
on herprivate cubicle wall
or be fired.
13.
Discrimination is:
When
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.
14.
Discrimination is:
When
our city will not allow any religious
ads to be purchased on the side
of city buses, but will allow any
other ads.
15.
Discrimination is:
When
street preachers are arrested in some
cities for “disturbing the peace,”
when Islamics, homosexuals,
pedophiles and other deviantsare free to assemble.
16.
Discrimination is:
When
any city council or branch of governmentcodifies “any” law that is unconstitutional
just to appease the “sodomites” in
their chosen lifestyles.
THEREFORE:
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
ethical, moral,
taxpaying
patriot in Jacksonville
to stand
against the approval of bill 2012-296.
WND EXCLUSIVE
Holder 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 of Arkansas at Fort Smith
have given permission for a 38-year-old man to
use the women’s restrooms on campus.
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 buildings.
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 satisfactory.
The Campus Reform report said while anatomy
matters little to the DOJ, it still remains a
concern for other students.
“‘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 restroom.”
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
proceedings.”
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.”
HIGHLAND
PARK, N.J.
— 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
congregations.
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
in Scripture.”
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 arrival.
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
deported.
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 Christian
churches.
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 stay.
“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
deadline.
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.”
In
the years following the 1979 Islamic
Revolution, Iran’s
300,000
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
and elsewhere.
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 world’s
population.
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.
In China,
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 connections.
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 worthwhile endeavour.”
“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, the UnitedChurch
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 be
addressed.”
“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 attention.”
FormerUnitedChurch
moderator Very Rev. Lois Wilson says the
proposed Office of Religious Freedom “sounds
wonderful” — during her four years in Ottawa
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.”
Associated
Press
| Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012
The
U.S.
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 bin Laden.
U.S.
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 senior U.S.
officials said.
Prior
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.
"What
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 Arabian
Peninsula.
The
White 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.
The
new 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 Yemen
branch is seen as gaining ground against a
government that is allied with the Americans.
The
past 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 protect U.S.
interests and homeland."
The
expanded strikes would not be used in support
of the Yemeni government's fight against
internal opponents, the official added.
The
U.S.
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 tracks U.S.
counterterrorism and militant activity.
Copywrite 2012 AP
This article can be read in its entirety at
"The
war
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?
DFLers want U.S.
constitutional amendment declaring that
corporations aren't people, after all
By
Joe Kimball
MinnPost.com
04/23/12
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:
(1)
The rights protected by the Constitution of
the United States
are the rights of natural persons only.
(2)
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 law.
(3)
The privileges of artificial entities shall
be determined by the people, through
federal, state, or local law, and shall not
be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
(4)
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.
(5)
Federal, state, and local government shall
require that any permissible
contributions and expenditures be
publicly disclosed.
(6)
The judiciary shall not construe the
spending of money to influence elections to
be speech under the First Amendment.
(7)
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
By
LAURIE GOODSTEIN
In
New York Times
Published
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
freedom.
“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 freedom.
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 bishops reject.
“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 remains so.”
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.”
Pastor Youcef
Nadarkhani Spends 35th Birthday Behind Bars
AmericanCenter
for 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 his faith.
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
in
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
NEW YORK
DAILY NEWS
Thursday, April
5, 2012
By
Andrea Tantaros
After
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 Constitution?
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.
Pennsylvania
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 insurance.
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 design.
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 freedom.
What is freedom?
FREEDOM ISa
raw milk farmer not fearful of the Gestapo
breaking into his home.
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 C.A.I.R.
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 Constitution.
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 bear arms.
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 highest mountain.
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 Franklin
“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 Ballot Box.
The Bible is very clear
in Acts 5:29 that “we ought to obey God
rather than man.”
May God Bless You
and God Bless America.
Christian Missions Play Key Role Amid Rumors
of 'New Darfur'
Genocide
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 Blue
Nile.
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
threat.
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 recently.
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 leaders.
"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,"
she
said.
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 of Darfur
– 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 visit.
"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 religious differences.
Sudan
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 against Sudan's
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.
Chad
Groening and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow -
2/28/2012
Updated 2/29/2012
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 comments.
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.
court systems.
"This particular 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 him.
"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 court.
“To
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
not pass.’”
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
security.
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 things non-Islamic.
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
week.
“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 and instruction.”
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 Alberta,
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 diversity.”
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
specifics.
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 schools.”
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
showing.
Canada
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 says:
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 Wednesday
evening.
“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.…
“National
curriculum”? “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.”[2] 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
leftist.’”
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 your own.”[3]
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.[4]
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.[5]
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 has.
Religious
liberty is a frail thing, easily abused or
neglected
February
15, 2012
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 abortions.
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 controversy aflame.
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 that:
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
interference.
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
continuation 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 religious belief.
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
principle:
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."
President Obama
yesterday played a violent game of kickball
with the US Constitution, making a number of
high-level “recess” appointments — even though
the Senate isn’t actually in recess.
He named former
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head
the Consumer Financial Protection Board, a
nomination Republicans have been fighting.
And then he
named three new members of the pro-union
activist National Labor Relations Board.
Presidents have
the right to make temporary appointments when
Congress is away from Washington,
of course, and both parties have used that
power.
But Obama is the
first president to declare that he, and he
alone, can decide whether the Senate — which
must confirm his appointments — is actually
meeting.
In order to
block recess appointments, the Senate
intentionally has been holding pro forma
sessions every few days, each of which lasts
only a few seconds.
Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid — with then-Sen. Obama’s
support — did the same thing in 2007 to block
any recess appointments by President George W.
Bush.
But now Obama,
with Reid’s concurrence, contends that such
sessions are actually “gimmicks” — and that
the Senate actually is in recess.
So much for the
separation of powers and the carefully
calibrated system of checks and balances that
are hallmarks of the US
constitutional system.
Obama, of
course, plans to run for re-election against
Congress, painting it as Wall Street’s puppet.
But what he did
yesterday was no shot across the bow; it was,
rather, a direct hit — with the Constitution
taking the brunt of the blow.
Moreover, as the
Cato Institute’s Mark Calabria notes, the
Dodd-Frank bill, which calls for the creation
of the CFPB, explicitly requires
that its director be “confirmed by the
Senate.”
That means that
Obama’s nonrecess “recess” appointment may
well violate the law, in addition to coming as
part of a blatantly unconstitutional
overreach.
Then again, this
is not the first time Team Obama has
sidestepped Congress; just consider some of
its aggressive regulatory measures done with
no legislative authorization whatsoever.
Democrats like
to criticize anything that smacks of an
“imperial” presidency — but now it seems
they’ve got one.
Christian
Persecution Increased Most In Sudan, Nigeria,
Report Says
Written
by: Compass Direct News
January 4, 2012
By
Jeff M. Sellers
Sudan
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.
Sudan
– 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 13th place.
“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.
Both Sudan
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
northern Nigeria
by 9, from 44 to 55. The persecution index for
three other countries rose by at least 5
points – Egypt
from 47.5 to 53.5, Ethiopia 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.”
China
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.
Kazakhstan
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.
Colombia
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.
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
blasphemy
law.
SAUDI ARABIA - MODERATE
VOICE OR DRACONIAN MONARCHY?
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.
The SaudiKingdom 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, Iran,
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 public.
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 excessively.'"
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 ahead.
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 issues.
US Government
to apply peer pressure to your
Islamophobia
December 14,
2011
by J.E. Dyer
from
Hotair.com/greenroom/archives
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
the US
would take action against “religious
intolerance” in America.
It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on
that. Clinton
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 exercise thereof.
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 federally divided.
So when Hillary Clinton promises the
following, she is on wholly un-American,
anti-liberal ground (emphasis added):
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 last century.)
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 opinion.
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 political opinion.
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
measures.
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
own
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
around.
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 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
explained.
MORE BUREACRACY
"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 minorities."
Rogers
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.
"EXTREME RESTRICTION"
"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 religion," Rogers
said.
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 of Burma."
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.
propaganda."
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 West.
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 Florida.
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 effort.
Trento’s video report about Elahi's
activities at Occupy Orlando:
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 in America."
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 ignored."
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 the
West.
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 days later.
"Does this mean that the protesters are in
violation of city ordinances government the
use of city owned park facilities?"
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
explained.
MORE BUREACRACY
"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 minorities."
Rogers
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.
"EXTREME RESTRICTION"
"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 religion," Rogers
said.
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 of Burma."
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.
propaganda."
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'
Posted:
October 13, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
WND
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 with Moran.
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.
'Filthy' U.S.
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. history.
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
collateral damage.
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 the video.
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 Counsel
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 classmate.
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 any student.”
US Bishops Defend
the Freedom of Religion in the Face of Growing
Threats
U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops Office of Media
Relations
4 October 2011
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
new committee.
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
issues.
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 imagined."
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 said.
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
development programs.
-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
trumped-up charges
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
extortion."
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 precondition.
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 voting liability
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 re-elected.
"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.
Please read current events from a variety
of sources.
May
2018
As England Moves Submarines Armed With Cruise
Missiles Within Striking Range Of Syria Theresa May
Convenes ‘War Cabinet’
Geoffrey Grider Apr. 11, 2018 Nowthenedbegins.com
Theresa May was poised last night to defy calls
for a Commons vote on military action in Syria. The
Prime Minister summoned ministers back
to London to seek their support for joining an
American-led attack on the Assad regime within days.
EDITOR’S NOTE: British Prime
Minister Theresa May is prepared to act with or
without the consent of Parliament, sources are now
saying. UK submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise
missiles have already been positioned off the coast
of Syria to support the United States just as soon
as President Trump gives the go ahead to launch the
missile strike. Kinda funny to think that a
potential war of such Biblical proportions could be
waged largely on Twitter and social media, yet it
is. The end times clock is ticking, the only
question is will it blink or go boom?
Clearing the way for action, she
declared the use of chemical weapons could not go
unchallenged and said ‘all the indications’ suggested
that Bashar Assad’s forces were responsible for
Saturday’s atrocity near Damascus.
"Colonel Bohannon had the right to exercise his
sincerely held religious beliefs and did not unlawfully
discriminate." Please
click here to read the article in The Patriot Post
in its entirety.
Islamic intimidation of the secular British school
system
Click
here to read an interesting article from
the Gatestone Institute about intimidation of
the secular British school system.
Islamist threats that would be unacceptable coming
from other groups, are not prosecuted by law
enforcement policies in Britain. Policies do not
defend school administrators, or the general
public. But Brits do have a choice- they can be
engulfed by the misogenist totalitarian rule of
Sharia, or die.
What will be the tipping point in America?
The First Amendment Is In Far Greater Danger Than
The Second
Frank Cannon
Town Hall
March 1, 2018
Our
nation’s elites are waging war on the American
people, wielding the institutions they’ve spent
several decades capturing to punish those who
disagree with their preferred positions and to deny
them the ability to speak publicly, all in an effort
to stifle free and open debate. And no, this isn’t a
George Orwell novel — this is the United States of
America.
While
many still mistakenly view our political arena as a
skirmish between “liberals” and “conservatives”, it
would be more accurate to describe it as an all-out
war between “elitists” and “populists”. As my late
friend Jeff Bell argued in his 1992 book, “Populism
and Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality”,
elitists believe in a top-down approach where a
cadre of experts rule the country and determine what
is acceptable discourse and what is not, while
populists believe the people should ultimately
determine the course of our politics and culture.
Traditionally,
the “elitists” have always had the upper hand in
this battle by controlling many of our cultural
institutions, but the respect for the will of the
people — exercised by the ability to elect our
political leaders — remained in place. Over time,
however, that respect eroded, and today, it is
completely gone. Now the “elitists” find the
“populists” to be repugnant, backward, and bigoted,
and they believe the only way to defeat the people
is to use elite institutional power in academia,
corporate America, the administrative state, and the
mainstream media to stifle debate, force-feed elite
opinions masquerading as facts, and stamp out
dissent.
For
example, consider these three widely held views by
the American people:
Young children should
not be taught about transgenderism or changing
their gender.
Abortion is wrong,
especially after the first trimester.
The right to bear
arms shall not be infringed.
Despite
their relative popularity, these views are repulsive
to our elites, and in recent years, they have sought
to shut down debate on all three topics by calling
anti-gender ideology activists “transphobic”,
anti-abortion activists “anti-women”, and defenders
of the Constitution “gun nuts” who have “blood on
their hands”. On the gender ideology issue, elites
have been wildly successful in completely removing
debate over transgenderism from the public square
and even politics. On abortion, they have largely
failed as pro-life sentiment among the people has
proven too strong for elites to overcome. And on
guns, the jury is still out, but elites are engaging
in perhaps their most brazenly outrageous effort to
silence opposing views to date.
It’s About Tactics, Not Issues
The
battle between elite opinion and popular opinion is
as old as time, but the recent tactical change among
elites seeking to stifle dissenting speech is a new,
and frightening, development. In a departure from
the normal give-and-take of American democracy, the
elites have begun using their clout within every
major institution of civil society to demonize and
punish their opposition — through public shaming in
the media, economic extortion and retaliation by big
businesses, and even criminalization of certain
protest activities. And given their entrenchment
within these institutions, the elites face little or
no consequences for their blatant illiberality.
A
case in point of this change has been the aftermath
of the Parkland school shooting. Despite the
complexity of the issues involved and the diversity
of views held by Americans as to the proper
response, the elites have pursued a scorched earth
campaign against those who do not hold their
black-and-white views on guns. In the news media, a
narrative emphasizing the immediate necessity of
national gun control legislation has become a
24-hour rallying cry, with victims of the tragedy
exploited to advance this narrative and brand those
who disagree as somehow complicit in the violence.
Meanwhile, corporations have begun to sever ties
with the NRA, sending a message that only one side
of the debate is socially acceptable while the other
is deserving of punishment.
A
similar strategy has been playing out with the
movement to normalize the Left’s gender ideology.
Despite a lack of scientific evidence — and
widespread parental skepticism — regarding the
soundness of treating young, gender dysphoric
children with highly experimental puberty blockers
and hormonal treatments, elites have slowly co-opted
influential medical associations in order to ensure
that these treatments are not only widely adopted
but also that alternative approaches to gender
dysphoria are marginalized and even criminalized.
Moreover, opponents of this takeover, no matter how
well-grounded their opposition, are branded by the
media and its self-appointed experts as
“transphobes” and “bigots” while being denied any
opportunity to make their arguments in a respected
forum.
Most Americans Already Understand
What’s Happening
Make
no mistake: an America with total elite control over
the population and where dissent from their views is
vilified is not an America at all. The gun debate is
simply another battle in the all-out war elites are
waging on the American people’s right to even have
an opinion, let alone speak out about it and not be
punished for it.
Fortunately,
the American people are fully cognizant of what is
taking place, which is why they voted for Donald
Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump and
Clinton through the two lenses voters typically use,
moral character and issue positions, voters applied
a third lens: would their views be allowed to be
articulated at all without dire consequences under a
Clinton administration?
We
cannot keep pretending, like so many Never Trumpers
do, that we are operating in an environment of
normal political give-and-take on issues. That time
has passed. We are instead operating in a country
now where elites demonize the populist position with
such ferocity that many are afraid to voice their
opinion at all, which is, of course, the entire
point of their strategy. Our fight is no longer just
over political issues — it is a battle against the
very tactics being used by elites to stifle debate
and destroy the essence of what makes America
great.
Frank Cannon is the president at
American Principles Project.
Islamists seem to be influencing the
British school system with ease: there is simply
no solid opposition to them. The government even
stays silent about the harassment and
intimidation.
Islamists in Britain seem to be
intent on establishing regressive requirements,
such as the hijab for young girls, wife beating,
making homosexuality illegal, death for apostates,
halala rituals in divorce, and exploitation
of women and children through Sharia courts as
part and parcel of British culture.
That St. Stephen's School allowed
itself to be blackmailed in this way bodes ill for
both Britain and its education system.
St. Stephen's School in East London recently imposed
a ban on hijabs (Islamic headscarves), but reversed
its decision after administrators received hundreds
of threats from enraged Muslims.
"This
is an important step in promoting religious
extremism, mob rule and refusing to give #Muslim
young girls equal gender equality rights.... So much
for choice and individual liberty. Terribly sad day
for a secular democracy."
While
secular British values need to be upheld to provide
equal opportunities to everyone, regardless of
caste, creed, gender or color, Islamists seem to be
influencing the British school system with ease:
there is simply no solid opposition to them. The
government even stays silent about the harassment
and intimidation.
Was
St. Stephen's forced to succumb to the pressure of
ignorant zealots, who either do not know or choose
to ignore that under Islamic law (Sharia), girls are
not required to cover their heads until they reach
puberty? Ignorance also seems not to have prevented
them from accusing anyone who says or acts otherwise
of "Islamophobia." It is a form of political
blackmail used by Muslim extremists against the
Western institutions, the values of which they
abhor.
Parliamentary
Under
Secretary of State for the School System, Lord Agnew
of Oulton, pledged to support the schools that are
trying to ban hijabs as well as obligatory fasting:
in Islam, young children are not subject to either.
Lord
Agnew said that the government should support head
teachers in making difficult and "sensitive"
decisions in the face of vitriolic opposition. We
have yet to see the effects of his statement.
Supporting head teachers is one thing, but there is
also a dire need to confront these extremists on all
levels, including law enforcement, if they try to
harass or intimidate anyone.
Someone
please
needs to back up Lord Agnew: there are only a few
such policy-makers left willing to offer rational
help during such crises.
Islamists
in
Britain seem to be intent on establishing regressive
requirements, such as the hijab for young girls,
wife-beating, halala rituals in divorce,
making homosexuality illegal, death for apostates, and the exploitation
of women and children through Sharia courts
as part and parcel with British culture.
Instead
of making statements, the British government needs
to take concrete steps to stop the further
infiltration of these practices into Britain's
social fabric, the warping of children's minds, and
the harassment of whoever disagrees with those
plans.
That
St. Stephen's allowed itself to be blackmailed in
this way bodes ill for both Britain and its
education system.
Khadija Khan is a Pakistani
journalist and commentator, currently based in
Germany.
Under Islamic repression, 'Christianity has ignited
like a flame'
By Bob Unrah 19 February 2018 World Net Daily
Hopeful news out of Iran....
Has Iran taken on a fight that it can never win?
Evidence suggests that might be the case, as the
internationally renowned American Center for Law and
Justice points out that the Islamic regime now is
becoming desperate to extinguish a surging population
of Christians inside its borders.
Iran, after all, is a nation that has exported
terrorism for decades. It has the free world worried
about its nuclear-weapons program. It routinely
threatens to destroy Israel. It interferes with Middle
East conflicts and engages in cyberwar against the
West.
But the American Center for Law and Justice reports
Christianity “has ignited like a flame across the
country of Iran, making the Iranian government so
nervous they’re desperate to extinguish it quickly.”
Iranians are converting to Christianity at a
record-setting pace, with an estimated 360,000 to
800,000 Christians in the country.
There were fewer than 500 back in the 1980s.
“It’s difficult to take an accurate census because
fears of retribution, arrest, and violence keep many
Christian converts from self-identifying. Iranian
authorities have been raiding the homes of suspected
Christians, confiscating their books, computers, and
other media and arresting the men,” ACLJ said.
The government has spent millions of dollars to fight
the growing interest in Christianity, the mission
group Elam Ministries told Mohabat News, a website
that reports on Christians in Iran.
The money has gone toward Islamic propaganda, jailing
church members, confiscation of Christian materials
and more, the report said.
Ayatollah Alavi Boroujerdi, an official at an Islamic
seminary, has confirmed that “youth are becoming
Christians in Qom and attending house churches.”
Christians are being forced to hide their faith to
protect themselves and their families, because
worshipping Jesus “will get you arrested, and very
possibly get you killed,” a critic reported.
“This is something we at the ACLJ have witnessed first
hand, advocating for a number of imprisoned Christians
pastors in Iran – including Youcef Nadarkhani, who we
successfully fought to free from multiple false
imprisonments for his faith. In each of these cases,
Iran has targeted pastors in an attempt to squelch the
Christian church. It has failed each and every time.
In fact, the attempts to silence the church has only
made it louder as Christianity grows in Iran,” ACLJ
said.
What
'peace' means to Muslims; just ask Jefferson By Bill Federer
16 February 2018
World Net Daily
Bill Federer recounts brief history of American
conflicts with brutality of Islam
“The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco,”
stated President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009.
Morocco began recognizing American colonists in 1625.
Governor William Bradford described the incident in the
History of the Plymouth Settlement. In 1625, the
Pilgrims sent two ships back to England carrying dried
fish and 800 lbs of beaver skins to trade for much
needed supplies.
What happened next?
Bradford related the fate of one ship: “They … were well
within the England channel, almost in sight of Plymouth.
But … there she was unhapply taken by a Turkish
man-of-war and carried off to Morocco where the captain
and crew were made slaves. … Now by the ship taken by
the Turks … all trade was dead.”
...
When America became independent, it was no longer
covered by the British extortion tribute payment to the
Muslim pirates. Morocco “recognized” the United States
in 1785 by capturing two American ships and holding the
sailors for ransom. Thomas Jefferson worked to free
them, writing to John Jay, 1787: “There is an order of
priests called the Mathurins, the object of whose
institution is to beg alms for the redemption of
captives. They keep members always in Barbary, searching
out the captives of their country, and redeem, I
believe, on better terms than any other body, public or
private. It occurred to me, that their agency might be
obtained for the redemption of our prisoners at
Algiers.”
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Carmichael
regarding Tripoli’s demand for extortion tribute
payment, 1786: “Mr. Adams and I had conferences with a
Tripoline ambassador, named Abdrahaman. He asked us
thirty thousand guineas for a peace with his court.”
When Jefferson asked the Muslim Ambassador what the new
country of America had done to offend them, he reported
to John Jay, March 28, 1786: “The ambassador answered us
that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, it was
written in their Qur’an, that all nations which had not
acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the
right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave;
and that every mussulman (Muslim) who was slain in this
warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that
the man who was the first to board a vessel had one
slave over and above his share, and that when they
sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held
a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which
usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried
out for quarter at once.”
Jefferson read the Qur’an, not out of admiration but to
understand why Muslims were attacking Americans
unprovoked.
Crisis Magazine
William Kilpatrick
January 2, 2018
Secularists like to advise Christians
that, for the sake of social harmony, they ought to
keep their religion to themselves. Religion, they
argue, is a private affair between an individual and
his designated deity, and ought not to be dragged into
the public square. Moreover, they helpfully add, it’s
an imposition on others to confront them with beliefs
that they may find offensive.
As for themselves, secularists have no
qualms about imposing their own values on everyone
within reach. They are convinced of the rightness of
their beliefs, and consequently they don’t think twice
about forcing Christian bakers, florists, and
photographers to endorse gay weddings. They are also
convinced that they know what’s best for your
children. And what’s best for them, they are quite
certain, is that they learn all the latest fashions in
gender identity and marriage equality. In his groundbreaking 1984 book, The
Naked Public Square, Richard John Neuhaus argued that
the public square can never be naked for long. In
other words, it cannot be neutral about values: “If it
is not clothed with the ‘meanings’ borne by religion,
new ‘meanings’ will be imposed by virtue of the
ambitions of the modern state.” In short, the committed secularist won’t
be satisfied with the removal of the crèche from the
town square. He’ll insist that it be replaced with
something that more accurately reflects American
diversity—say, a monument to Margaret Sanger or a
statue of James Obergefell. Of course, secular
society’s reach extends well beyond the town green.
The religion of secularism is constantly being
advanced in a variety of venues—in courtrooms, school
rooms, and in the newly remodeled bathrooms that
accommodate the newly invented genders. Fr. Neuhaus was right in predicting that
“a perverse notion of the disestablishment of religion
leads to the establishment of the state as Church.”
The secular state quickly moves to enshrine whatever
values it currently smiles upon. And it defends them
as though they were divinely revealed dogma. But,
despite his prescience, Neuhaus did fail to anticipate
another development—namely, that the Judeo-Christian
tradition might be displaced from the public square
not only by the state, but also by another religion.
The possibility that Islam would one day
be a contender for control of the public square
probably didn’t enter his mind. That’s no surprise.
Except for the blip caused by the Iranian Revolution,
Islam wasn’t on anyone’s radar in the early eighties.
Yet Islam is now well on its way to controlling the
public square in parts of Europe. And, were it not for
the election of Donald Trump and the defeat of the
Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Clinton machine, the U.S.
would now be playing catch-up. As has often been observed, Islam is a
political religion. Some, like Dutch MP Geert Wilders,
contend that it is almost totally political with only
a thin and deceptive veneer of religiosity. Whatever
the exact proportion of politics to religion, it’s
hard to deny that the political dimension looms large
in Islam. Muhammad, after all, was a warlord. He
conquered all of Arabia, and within a relatively short
time after his death, his followers conquered an area
larger than the Roman Empire. Sayyid Abul A’la
Maududi, one of the most important twentieth-century
Islamic theorists, wrote that “Islam requires the
earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet.”
Islamic
State Fighter Calls on Muslims to Exploit 2nd
Amendment for Terror Attacks
by Dan Riehl
28 December 2017
Breitbart News
An alleged ISIS fighter with an American accent and
one leg, identified as Abu Salih al-Amriki, used
a web video to call on Muslims to “take
advantage of the gun laws” in America to carry out
terror attacks.
The man also denounced President Donald Trump,
according to reports.
The fighter appeared in a
propaganda video released on Wednesday saying Trump’s
war on Islam was making the US more vulnerable to
terror attacks and would help fuel support globally.
Using the name Abu Salih al-Amriki,
the fighter wore khaki fatigues and had a gun strapped
to him as he condemned President Trump for playing up
a clash of civilizations.
....
According to a report in the Washington Post, the SITE
intelligence group published the video:
...
Last week, the outgoing director of
the National Counterterrorism Center, Nicholas
Rasmussen, told reporters that U.S. gun laws are
undermining efforts to protect the country from
mass-casualty attacks.
“We find ourselves in a more
dangerous situation because our population of violent
extremists has no difficulty gaining access to weapons
that are quite lethal,” Rasmussen said. “I wish that
weren’t so.”
The Post also could be said to have reported the news
with something of an anti-Second Amendment bent as
evidenced by the quotes above.
France allows Muslim street prayers
but bans Christmas movie because it was “too
Christian”
By Voice of Europe
26 December 2017
France is a secular Republic, because it separates
religion and state and it mostly sees religion as a
private matter; restricted to the home and places of
worship.
But for years, France has allowed Muslim street prayers
and to heavily criticise them was simply not done.
Sometimes even roads were blocked and cars were being
redirected to make room for Muslim street prayers. It
looks like when Islam is involved, France’s secular
principles have suddenly disappeared.
For Christianity in France it’s a totally different
story. According to the European Post, a Christmas movie
in the French city of Langon was banned, because it was
“too Christian”, or “not secular enough”. The European
Post writes:
A Christmas movie was judged by teachers as “not secular
enough” and was therefore banned from schools in the
French city of Langon in the department of Gironde on 13
December.
83 students of a French school started to watch the
movie “The Star“, a computer animated adventure comedy
based on the history of Jesus, a movie produced by
Columbia Pictures.
But when the teachers realised the subject of the movie
was the nativity of Jesus Christ, they immediately
cancelled it because it was “not secular enough”. All
students were obliged to go back to school without
watching the end of the movie.
There are more examples. Please
click here to read the article in its entirety.
The
Muslim Brotherhood is launching today a solidarity
call with all Palestinian factions and Islamic
movements to ignite an uprising throughout the Islamic
world against the Zionist occupation and the American
administration in support of the occupation and
against the rights and freedoms of the peoples.
The
last “uprising” some 15 years ago resulted in the
deaths of hundreds of civilians – Christians, Jews and
Muslims.
While
the Brotherhood issued the
statement in the wake of President
Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s
capital a week ago, the organization has been
fomenting anti-American, pro-sharia sentiment for some
time.
Clarion
Project is closely following
Muslim Brotherhood activities on Capitol Hill, across
the United States and beyond.
There
are growing concerns about the strong ties between the
Brotherhood, ISIS and al-Qaeda.
British Intelligence Reportedly Foils Plot To Kill
Prime Minister
Scott Neuman
December 6, 2017
NPR
Britain's domestic intelligence agency MI5 has foiled
a terrorist plot to assassinate Prime Minister Theresa
May, U.K. media report.
Two men have been charged with terrorism-related
offenses in connection with the plot, which reportedly
involved using improvised explosives to blow up the
gate at No. 10 Downing St., the prime minister's
residence, and to kill May in the ensuing chaos,
various media say.
The men, who Sky News said were arrested last week,
were scheduled to appear on Wednesday in Westminster
Magistrates' Court, according to The Telegraph, which
said the information was provided on Tuesday in a
briefing by Andrew Parker, the head of MI5.
However, the prime minister's spokesman declined to
discuss details of the plot.
Sky quoted unnamed sources as describing the planned
attack as "an extreme Islamist suicide plot."
Reuters reports that police have confirmed that the
two suspects are Naa'imur Zakariyah Rahman, 20, of
north London, and Mohammed Aqib Imran, 21, of
southeast Birmingham.
The SuperPAC Attacking Roy Moore
Won’t Disclose Its Donors Before the Vote
Highway 31 has spent millions to
defeat the GOP candidate. And it won’t reveal who
finances it till after the election. The kicker:
It’s all legal.
Lachlan Markay 12.01.17 8:52 AM ET The Daily Beast
The biggest independent spender in the contentious
Alabama Senate race is a super PAC backing Democrat Doug
Jones. But voters will have no idea who is funding its
seven-figure ad blitz until the election is over.
Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but
the group Highway 31 has structured its spending in a
way that campaign-finance experts say is almost
unprecedented. While legal, it will have the effect of
obscuring the group’s benefactors, who will have
financed a series of ads over the last two months of the
campaign propping up Jones and hammering his Republican
opponent, former State Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore.
Highway 31 has reported nearly $2 million worth of ads
in the race, according to filings with the Federal
Election Commission, making it the single largest
independent spender of the general-election contest. The
group filed what was expected to be its first itemized
disclosure of donors and expenditures Thursday. But in
the filing, Highway 31 said it had received and spent no
money whatsoever.
....
Assuming, as Fischer predicted, that the vendors do not
end up having provided their services pro-bono, he said,
“this looks like a shady scheme to deprive voters of
information about who is trying to influence them.”
U.S. Muslim stokes violence against Coptic
Christians
Posted By Leo Hohmann
11/09/2017
World Net Daily
“As for Muslims, they are the food
of the nations. This is a period when the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told us
that the Caliphate will come again.”
– Ayat Oraby, Egyptian
Muslim activist who migrated to U.S. in 1993
Some of the most vicious incitement against Christians
in Egypt originates from a petite Egyptian woman sitting
at a computer in her home in a quiet suburb of New
Jersey.
It is not as though Egypt’s Muslim community needs any
encouragement to go after Coptic Christians, but Arat
Oraby does her part, calling the Copts a “gang” that
needs to be boycotted and subjugated.
“The
racist president who is a supremacist — white, who
does not like Blacks, does not like the Chinese, he
does not like the Muslims, he doesn’t like the
Hispanics,” Vicente Adolfo Solano declared in Spanish,
standing in front an ISIS flag. “In the name of Allah
and our leader, Abu, we are going to defeat you.”
Solano, a 53-year-old Honduran living in Miami,
seemed like an unlikely candidate to join ISIS.
“I am going to plant a
bomb like in Boston, in the name of Allah”
But there he is on video lashing out at President
Trump. Solano was resentful over his “temporary
immigration status”. Hondurans living in the United
States had been automatically converted to “refugees”
after Hurricane Mitch in 1999. Temporary Protected
Status for the eighteen year hurricane refugees
expires in Jan 2018. And President Trump appears
unwilling to extend it any further.
Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC
by Donna Brazile Politico November 2, 2017
"When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the
Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled on to a shocking
truth about the Clinton campaign." Click
here to read more from this American author and
political analyst. Ms Brazile is a member of the
Democratic Party, serving as the interim chairperson fo
rthe Democratic National Committee in spring 2011, and
assumed that role again in July 2016, until February
2017.
FLASHBACK:
Author sees Islam's 20-year plan for U.S.
Arab-American author outlined secret, in 2003
World Net Daily Joseph Farah August 4, 2003
(reposted November 2, 2017 for your consideration)
"You've Come A Long Way Baby"
These just a few of the TWENTY action points for Islam
to conquer the United States:
* Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it
with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.
*Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to
bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and
support potential sympathizers by block voting.
*Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV,
radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related
corporations or a controlling stock.
*Yell "foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation,
hate crime, Zionist, un-American, inaccurate
interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized
or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.
*Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House,
specifically with Islamists who can articulate a
marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam.
What about that Justice
Gorsuch upholding the Constitution that our leaders
and defenders pledge to protect and defend?
The liberal NPR (National Propaganda Reporting) and
other traditional unschooled libs, chide a Supreme Court
justice for basing his judgements upon the U.S.
Constitution. Hail to that unprecedented document
that recognized some self-evident unchangeable values of
individual liberty, and the importance to rein in a
national government that (like gravity) tends to
encroach individual freedoms.
Chuck Todd: Roy Moore Doesn't 'Believe in the
Constitution' Because He Thinks Rights Come From God
BY:
Alex Griswold
Washington Free Beacon
September 27, 2017 6:33 pm
MSNBC host Chuck Todd said Wednesday that Republican
Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore doesn't believe
in the U.S. Constitution because he believes in
God-given rights.
Todd, introducing his discussion of the former Alabama
chief justice, said that "the phrase ‘Christian
conservative' doesn't even begin to describe him."
"First off, he doesn't appear to believe in the
Constitution as it's written," Todd said.
He then played a clip of Moore saying, "Our rights
don't come from government, they don't come from the
Bill of Rights, they come from Almighty God."
"Those are just a taste of what are very
fundamentalist views that have gotten him removed from
office twice as Alabama's chief justice," Todd said.
Moore's views are actually well in line with the
philosophy of many of the Founders. As they saw it,
the Constitution and the government only protected
inalienable rights that were endowed by God or some
other divine provenance.
Please click here to read more of the article
From Transgender to Transformed
by Brian Hobbs The Baptist Messenger posted Tuesday, August 08, 2017
BARTLESVILLE, Okla. -- Francine Perry and her daughter
Laura recently sat down to look at family photos. As
they reflected on the good times, they also could see
how God was at work, especially through the difficult
times -- and there were many of those.
On the heels of rebellious teenage years, Laura
lived as a transgender man for nearly a decade of her
adult life. Other than her family and select friends,
though, most people just knew Laura as "Jake."
...It would be a long road leading home, but God began
to awaken faith and belief in Laura.
"I always knew about Jesus and believed. But I never
knew Jesus personally or made Him Lord of my life,"
Laura said.
Francine and Paul (Laura's parents) kept the lines
of communication open, and met with Laura from time to
time.
Francine said, "It was as if God said to me, 'If you
keep trying to fix Laura yourself, I will not. If you
just sit down and leave Laura to me, I will work.'"
That began the change, not only in Francine's life and
heart but Laura's.
"I didn't know what came next," Laura said. "But I was
clinging to God's promise that He would take care of me.
I experienced such love and acceptance from my mother's
Bible study group. It was hard, but I had never
experienced such peace and love as when I came back to
the church."
...Last August, Laura made her decision to follow Christ
public in front of the church and was baptized the
following month.
The journey home, which took place a year ago, has led
to both restoration and reconciliation. Francine and
Paul believe God answered their prayers, and they
believe that parents should never stop praying for their
"prodigal" child or children.
They give all glory to God. "Only God could have done
this," Francine said.
Pastor James also sees God's grace demonstrated in the
Perry family.
Brian Hobbs is editor of The Baptist Messenger (www.baptistmessenger.com),
newsjournal of the Baptist General Convention of
Oklahoma, and communications director of the BGCO.
An NSC Staffer Is Forced Out Over a Controversial
Memo
The document charges that globalists, Islamists, and
other forces within and outside the government are
subverting President Trump’s agenda.
Rosie Gray
August 2, 2017
TheAtlantic.com
A top official of the National Security Council was
fired last month after arguing in a memo that President
Trump is under sustained attack from subversive forces
both within and outside the government who are deploying
Maoist tactics to defeat President Trump’s nationalist
agenda.
His dismissal marks the latest victory by National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in the ongoing war within
Trump’s White House between those who believe that the
president is under threat from dark forces plotting to
undermine him, and those like McMaster who dismiss this
as conspiratorial thinking.
Rich Higgins, a former Pentagon official who served in
the NSC’s strategic-planning office as a director for
strategic planning, was let go on July 21. Higgins’s
memo describes supposed domestic and international
threats to Trump’s presidency, including globalists,
bankers, the “deep state,” and Islamists. The memo
characterizes the Russia story as a plot to sabotage
Trump’s nationalist agenda. It asserts that globalists
and Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo
also includes a set of recommendations, arguing that the
problem constitutes a national-security priority.
(Why does it seem to me that McM is the one with the
blindspot? Is he so young that he doesn't recognize a
threat when it is more subtle than a North Korean
missile? My WWII era military Dad recognized and
taught threats to America, but that was from a time
when global security threats like Communism and
totalitarianism were recognized and taught in our
schools as well as to our fighting forces. Just
saying...)
Former U.N. Amb. Power Unmasked ‘Hundreds’ In Final
Year Of Obama Admin
Congress moves closer to detailing potentially
illicit national security leaks
by Adam Kredo
of the Free Beacon
August 2, 2017
Former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power is
believed to have made "hundreds" of unmasking requests
to identify individuals named in classified intelligence
community reports related to Trump and his presidential
transition team, according to multiple sources who said
the behavior is unprecedented for an official in her
position.
Will There Be Justice For Family Whose Home Was
Raided Because Cops Couldn't Tell Tea From Pot?
August 1, 2017 Forbes.com George Leef, contributor
A case just decided by the Tenth Circuit shows how
utterly absurd the “war on drugs” has become, how petty
and power-mad the police can be, and how blindly
deferential some of our federal judges are.
The case, Harte v. Johnson County Board of
Commissioners, arose out of an idiotic, military-style
raid by Kansas police on the home of Robert and Adlynn
Harte in 2012. They were not in any way involved with
drugs (particularly marijuana), but a few officers came
to the conclusion that they might be.
Ohio Muslim plotted U.S. attack after
training in Syria
Lied to FBI about
international terrorist activities
World Net Daily
Art Moore
July 5, 2017
An Ohio Muslim who pleaded guilty to
plotting a “big” terrorist attack in the United
States after receiving training from jihadists in
Syria was found to have lied to the FBI.
The public release of the plea deal came
Thursday as President Trump’s executive order
temporarily banning travelers from Syria and five
other terror hot spots went into effect.
A federal grand jury charged Abdirahman
Sheik Mohamud with providing material support to
terrorists, providing support to a designated
terrorist organization and lying to the FBI about
international terrorism.
His lack of cooperation with the FBI is a
salient point, says Jihad Watch Director Robert
Spencer, because the leading Islamic civil rights
organization, the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, or CAIR, urges Muslims in the U.S. not to
answer the bureau’s questions if interviewed
regarding terrorist activity.
Government: Can't share 'teachings that
denigrate or vilify someone's sexual orientation'
World Net Daily
July 5, 2017
A Christian school in Alberta, Canada, is
learning the perils of depending on public funding
for its operation.
Cornerstone Christian Academy and Battle
River School Division have enjoyed a nine-year
cooperative arrangement where the Christian school
is operated as an alternative public school,
providing nondenominational Christian instruction.
BRSD leased facilities to the school and provided
instructional resources available to other public
schools. Thanks to the partnership, student tuition
was lower than private Christian schooling, with
fees going primarily to cover facility costs and bus
transportation.
But that has come to an end in a dispute
over the school’s use of two biblical passages that
BRSD board members contend “denigrate” and “vilify”
LGBT individuals.
Cornerstone Chairwoman Deanna Margel said
school staff were told by email the passages from
the letters of St. Paul “should not be read or
studied.” She called the directive “shocking,”
reported the London Express.
“We’re talking about freedom of religion,
but we’re also talking about freedom of expression.
We need every single word there [from the Bible] to
challenge us, to call us to greater understanding.
It’s just so important.”
A spokesman with the Justice Center for
Constitutional Freedom, a legal group representing
Cornerstone, said BRSD’s funding-body members “have
no right to impose their own ideology on schools
they disagree with.”
written by Ron Bischof July 6, 2017 The Signal of Santa Clarita Valley
Our republic is again embroiled in a contentious debate
over the federal government’s role in “health care.” I
use “scare quotes” here because the issue currently
under debate is fundamentally about funding of medical
services and who pays for them.
My fellow columnists have written thoughtful and
concerning columns that have addressed their challenges
with PPACA (Obamacare), health insurance carriers and
prospective legislative solutions to address the defects
in our health-care delivery and financing system.
Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police
Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”
Jihad Watch June 25, 2017 By Nicolai Sennels
Sweden is being torn to pieces by Muslim immigrants
and refugees. Law enforcement is crying out for help,
and it is only a question of time before the country
will need military intervention from abroad in order
to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.
A leaked report concludes that the number of lawless
areas (commonly referred to as “no-go zones”) in
Sweden now totals 61. That is up from 55 in just one
year’s time. This increase includes not only the total
number, but also the geographical size of these areas.
Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson,
spoke on national television and pleaded for
assistance: “Help us, help us!,” he said, while
warning that Swedish police forces no longer can
uphold the law and therefore must ask all good powers
in the country to support them.
Moms declare holy war after school teaches
Islam 'true faith'
Women pilloried as 'KKK' for going public with
lesson concerns
Updated: 04/01/2017 at 6:15 PM Author: Leo Hohmann World Net Daily
A middle school in Chatham, New Jersey, is using a
cartoon video to teach the Five Pillars of Islam to
seventh-grade students, and now two parents have
obtained legal services to fight the school district
which has ignored their concerns.
Seventh graders in this school are taught: “May God
help us all find the true faith, Islam.”
Also taught in the video is the Shahada, which is the
Muslim prayer of conversion “There is no god but Allah
and Muhammad is his messenger.”
The parents say no other religion is taught nearly to
this level of detail in the “world cultures and
geography” class.
The parents wanted to know who picked the curriculum,
who picked the video and the accompanying PowerPoint.
None of their concerns have been addressed by the
school board or the superintendent.
So, the two mothers have retained legal help from the
Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center.
For speaking out, the moms have been attacked by
members of their community. Their crime: appearing on
Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to voice concerns
about Islamic indoctrination of Chatham Middle School
seventh graders.
Trump Wins Saudi Praise for ‘Turning Point’ After
Meeting Prince
by Nafeesa Syeed and Glen Carey March 15, 2017, 11:08 AM EDT
Saudi Arabia, seeking to breathe life into its
decades-old alliance with the U.S., claimed “a
historic turning point” in bilateral relations after
President Donald Trump welcomed Deputy Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman to the White House.
“Relations had undergone a
period of difference of opinion,” a senior adviser to
the crown prince said in a statement after Tuesday’s
meeting. “However, today’s meeting has put things on
the right track, and marked a significant shift in
relations, across all political, military, security
and economic fields.”
Sunni Arab leaders are embracing Trump with praise
the president isn’t finding from other U.S. allies in
the world, reflecting an eagerness to reset ties after
feeling shunned by President Barack Obama, who crafted
the 2015 nuclear deal with their Shiite rival Iran.
The Saudi statement said Trump had a “great
understanding” of the bilateral relationship. The
president and the prince “share the same views on the
gravity of the Iranian expansionist moves in the
region,” the adviser said.
In a statement Wednesday, the White House said that
Trump and the prince “directed their teams to explore
additional steps across a broad range of political,
military, security, economic, cultural, and social
dimensions to further strengthen and elevate the
United States-Saudi strategic relationship” and to
confront “Iran’s destabilizing regional activities.”
But while Trump has signaled his plans for a more
aggressive policy against the Islamic Republic,
political analysts say it’s unlikely he’d seek an open
confrontation with Iran or deepen the U.S. role in
Iraq, Syria and Yemen, which are serving as proxy
battlegrounds between the regional rivals.
“The administration will give the Saudis the rhetoric
they want on Iran -- more confrontational, emphasize
the threat,” said Gregory Gause, a professor of
international affairs at Texas A&M University and
a Saudi specialist. “But in terms of specifics, I do
not think that the Trump administration wants to get
more deeply involved in Iraq, Syria or other places
where the Saudis would want help in turning back
Iranian influence.”
Saudi Arabia and its closest regional ally, the
United Arab Emirates, are bogged down in a two-year
war in Yemen against Shiite rebels they say are armed
by Iran. Its leaders have openly complained about the
rising Iranian influence in Iraq. In Syria, the Sunni
rebels they have backed are losing ground against
President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah, the
Iranian-backed Shiite militant group.
Germany: Muslim migrant killed “infidel” landlady,
scrawled Qur’an verses on wall
Jihadwatch.org
January 26, 2017 2:09 pm
By Robert Spencer
Remember: if you think this is reprehensible, you’re a
racist, bigoted “Islamophobe.”
“Asylum seeker in court for killing ‘infidel’ landlady,”
Express, January 26, 2017:
An asylum seeker has appeared in
court accused of having killed his landlady because she
was an infidel.
The man named only as Abubaker C.
appeared for the first time in the courthouse of
Heilbronn, a city in the south-western German state of
Baden-Wuerttemberg, on murder charges.
Prosecutors say the asylum seeker
killed his landlady Maria M., 70, in the nearby town of
Bad Friedrichshall because she was an infidel.
Although the man’s full surname has
been withheld under Germany’s privacy laws, his real
name is unclear because he has given various names and
ages when questioned about himself, telling detectives
on one occasion: “I am known by many names.”
The asylum seeker is estimated to be
27 years old and thought to have been born in Pakistan,
although he says his family moved to Saudi Arabia with
him later on in life.
In court he had a Punjabi translator,
a language spoken in Pakistan.
The prosecution alleges that the
defendant strangled his victim with a telephone cable.
Afterwards, he is said to have
smashed his victim’s face with an iron rod and fled the
house with cash and jewellery.
When the police arrived, the walls
were full of Arabic writing, including verses of the
Quran, and also the English phrase: “It’s payback time.”
A lawyer for the prosecution said:
“The accused wanted to kill a person who disbelieved in
his view.”
This ^ ten minute youtube video is an aid in your
understanding, as a westerner and American, of ISIL,
radical Islam, an enemy of freedom, through the words of
a British Islamist, Anjem Choudary. His view of Islam
upholds the totalitarian notion that those non-Muslims
and apostates who do not agree with, and bow to the
tenets of his religion should be killed, and the entire
world should be under the rule of sharia (Muslim) law.
He repeatedly proclaims that the killing of non-Muslims,
is legitimate.
On 6 September 2016, Choudary was sentenced to five
years and six months in prison for his support for a
proscribed organization ISIS.
Several quotes from that trial:
The judge: “The jury were sure that you knowingly
crossed the line between the legitimate expression of
your own views and the criminal act of inviting support
for an organisation which was at the time engaged in
appalling acts of terrorism.”
The judge said both men (he and his acolyte Mohammed
Rahman, 33) justified Isis’s most appalling acts and
expressed contempt for democracy. They had “encouraged
your audience ... to believe that no one who failed to
support the caliphate established by Isis could be a
true Muslim,” the judge said.
Pam Geller does a fine job (when she has a chance to
speak) of defending the Western notion that the Lord God
created people as free beings rather than robots, an
inconvenient truth for tyrants and despots.
To allude to a comic strip, Pogo, from the 1950s to
1970s, We have met the enemy and this time it isn't us.
House Dems demand 'full, categorical pardon' for
illegals
Say Obama misunderstands extent of
own powers
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Time Wednesday, December 7, 2016
House Democrats renewed their call for President Obama
to issue a “full, categorical pardon” for illegal
immigrants, saying Wednesday that he is misunderstanding
the extent of his powers and he can, in fact, help out
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant Dreamers.
Young adults who came to the U.S. as children, the more
than 740,000 Dreamers who gained tentative legal status
under Mr. Obama’s 2012 deportation amnesty, are the most
sympathetic figures in the debate.
Democrats demand ‘full, categorical pardon’ for illegal
immigrants, say Obama ignoring own powers
Democrats said they trusted Mr. Obama’s promises and
came forward, announcing themselves as illegal
immigrants, and now a Trump administration would have a
road map for how to deport them, unless the president
finds a way to shield them.
“You’re the president of the United States, you asked
them to join this program, you use the power of your
pardon,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois
Democrat who led a letter signed by more than 60 House
Democrats in asking for the relief.
The White House’s top domestic policy adviser shot down
the idea of a pardon, saying that they had concluded
that the president’s powers apply to criminal offenses,
while immigration status is a civil offense. Cecilia
Munoz, the adviser, also said a pardon couldn’t grant
legal status, so the Dreamers would still not be on firm
footing even if they could be pardoned for their
immigration offenses.
A Toronto conference last week asked: Why is the world
silent about Christian genocide?
“If Christianity [in the Middle East] survives, it will
not be because of any interest taken by Christians in
our part of the world, but rather because the State of
Israel, the people of Israel, and conscientious Jews
everywhere are dedicated to saving it,” said Dr. Paul
Merkley, Professor of History at Carleton University,
last week in a panel discussion at Toronto’s Beth Radom
synagogue.
The academic conference, titled “Christian Genocide in
the Middle East: Why is the World Silent?” was
co-sponsored by the International Christian Embassy
Jerusalem and the Canadian Institute for Jewish
Research.
“In 1910, it’s estimated that Christians were 14% of the
Middle Eastern population” said Dr. Frederick Krantz,
Director of CIJR. “Today, they are under 4% and rapidly
declining.”
Other figures were highlighted throughout the
conference, such as how in Iraq alone, there were 1.5
million Christians until 2003. Today, that number is
estimated at 275,000 with the strong likelihood that
there won’t be any more of a community left within five
years.
Much of the present-day persecution was tied to the
Islamic State. National Executive Director of ICEJ
Canada, Donna Holbrook, showed graphic images of the
genocide of Christians currently taking place in Iraq.
“This mother was killed, but not before the terrorists
made her watch them kill her baby,” said Holbrook,
showing a horrific image of an Iraqi Christian woman
murdered by ISIS terrorists. Please
click here to read the complete article on the
American Spectator.
AMERICA TO TRUMP: YOU'RE HIRED!
November 9, 2016
The Following Article is
preprinted from the Family Research Council's
website of November 9, 2016 with their permission.
Read on or click here to go directly to their
website:
"Weeping
may endure for the night," the Psalmist David wrote,
"but joy comes in the morning." In the case of most
Americans, those nights stretched into very long
years -- a nightmare from which the nation finally
awoke last night with the astonishing news that
voters rejected the continuation of the anti-faith,
anti-family policies of Barack Obama. Instead, a
nation, spurned by almost a decade of a radical
liberalism, turned out with a vengeance -- electing
Donald Trump in perhaps the most stunning political
upset of the modern age. In a year of surprises, the
ultimate outsider delivered the biggest, tapping
into the frustration that pollsters didn't detect
and liberal elites never took seriously.
"The
forgotten men and women of our country will be
forgotten no longer," vowed the president-elect, who
not only overcame the opposition of the Democratic
Party, but his own -- soaring to victory in spite of
a biased media, his own personal baggage, lopsided
polls, and a bevy of Hollywood stars. In disbelief,
pundits watched the electoral map turn into a sea of
red, colored by eight years of disillusionment with
the president's extremist agenda. Fueled by massive
turnout, the highest in history, voters delivered a
stinging repudiation -- not just of Hillary
Clinton's ultra-liberal agenda, but of the entire
Obama era. Tired of the Left's contempt and
unwilling to answer to pollsters, a silent
majority, propelled the GOP to a victory no
one saw coming.
But the
night wasn't just a vindication of Donald Trump. It
was also a validation of the evangelical movement,
which once again overcame the media's narrative of
division to deliver one of the most significant
political messages this country has ever seen. In
nearly every election cycle for the last 40 years,
liberals have tried to bury a movement they wish had
never been born. And last night, they learned just
how impossible that prospect will be. Evangelicals,
many of whom (myself included) backed other
candidates during the primary, quietly assessed the
perilous state of the nation and unified behind
Trump in greater numbers than they had behind the
last three GOP nominees. To the astonishment of
everyone, Trump outperformed John McCain, Mitt
Romney, and even George W. Bush-winning an
overwhelming 81% of the evangelical vote . FRC
was proud to play a crucial role in that surge,
calling or knocking on the doors of more than
264,000 in North Carolina alone. We rolled
through 20 states on our Values Bus with the message
of what was at stake in this election, making more
than 140 stops, and moving the needle on a vital
bloc of voters who undoubtedly helped deliver
Trump's win.
If the
media had questions about the influence of the
religious right, they were answered early Wednesday
morning by the greatest coalescence around a
Republican nominee in two decades. Turns out, the
press had about as much success writing the obituary
of the evangelical movement as it had predicting
this election. (And that isn't much!) Anyone who
traveled the country these last few months saw how
values voters connected with Donald Trump, not
because of shared values, but because of shared
concerns over the damage a Clinton Supreme Court
would do to our freedom. Combine that with targeted
videos like ours , and it's no wonder the
number of voters who ranked the Supreme Court as
their most important issue soared to 21 percent by
Election Day (and even higher among evangelicals!).
Making
the night even worse for Democrats, the GOP held on
to its majorities in Congress, giving Donald Trump
the keys to a unified Republican government -- and
ousting a handful of gutless moderates in the
process. Of the Senate's True Bluers (members who
voted with FRC Action 100 percent of the time), 14
out of 14 won -- a feat replicated in the House,
where 139 of 158 also held on to their seats. With
their hands on the levers of power, Republicans
finally have the mandate they need to roll back the
oppression of the Obama era, defund Planned
Parenthood (both of which Congress has done before),
defend the ban on taxpayer-funded abortion, repeal
Obamacare, restore pulpit freedom, appoint pro-life
judges, tear up the Iranian nuclear deal, invalidate
Obama's executive orders, beef up our military,
protect the privacy of women and children in
bathrooms, and so much more. Truly, this is an
unprecedented opportunity to turn back the clock on
a radical administration that was on the cusp of
driving America into the ground. Instead, it seems
Barack Obama decimated his own party, putting
Democrats in a significantly weakened position.
In
states, where conservatives have made the most
strides under Obama, the GOP continued its
state-level dominance. The historic gains that
started under this president continued, resulting in
another major increase of Republican governors. By
week's end, the GOP will hold at least 33
gubernatorial seats -- up from 22 in 2008 .
Winners included Missouri's former Navy SEAL Eric
Greitens, Vermont's Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott,
Indiana's Lieutenant Governor Eric Holcomb, Utah's
incumbent Gary Herbert, and North Dakota's Doug
Burgum (with Montana still too close to call). The
celebration continued in the Kentucky legislature,
which flipped to Republican control for the first
time in 100 years. Iowa's Senate was next,
leading the New York Times to mourn that, "At least
20 chambers were seen as highly competitive in the
election, and a majority of those are now controlled
by Republicans."
One of
the biggest prizes of the night, however, was North
Carolina -- which not only helped push Trump over
the top but also beat back the narrative on H.B. 2,
the state's Public Facilities Privacy & Security
Act. While liberals continue to pump out phony
argument that gender-specific bathrooms will cost
Republicans their majority, nothing could be farther
from the truth! If protecting women and children
were as unpopular as the Left claims it is, why did
the GOP add to their veto-proof majority in both
chambers and reelect Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest
(R), who was the driving force behind the law? While
Governor Pat McCrory's (R) race is too close to
call, there's plenty of evidence that his opponent's
surge had nothing to do with outrage over H.B. 2 and
everything to do with the shady decision of a Durham
County judge to leave the polls open when it was
clear that Roy Cooper (D) was significantly behind.
In the
end, what we witnessed wasn't just the revenge of
the deplorables, but the collapse of the Obama
legacy. After the spectacular failures of Obamacare,
the demoralization of our military, the explosion of
lawlessness, tolerance of corruption, and obsession
with social engineering, Americans finally have the
opportunity to rebuild the country they once knew.
But the election is just the starting gun. Donald
Trump may open the door to America's solutions, but
he was never meant to be the solution. The
true transformation of a society starts in the
hearts and minds of men. And under an administration
with no interest in continuing the eight-year war on
the First Amendment, we may finally see what the
Church is capable of. In the meantime, one thing
about this historic uprising is clear: Americans are
looking for leaders of conviction. And as last
night's results show, they will accept no
substitutes.
Tony
Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid
of FRC Action senior writers.
November 3, 2016
US taxpayers (by way of deficit spending to be
inherited by our children) are footing the bill for
the U.S. State Department's refurbishment of mosques
and setting up of internet service in Muslim countries
of the Middle East.
Those Muslim nations (rightly) views us as
weak, appeasing fools, worthy of contempt.
As a US citizen and taxpayer, I regard the
U.S. federal government as a poor steward of my hard
earned money and US State Department expenditures as
treasonous to my children and our way of life. Check
out this short video and see what you think.
In Colo.,
a look at life after marijuana legalization
Boston Globe
Joshua
Miller
Feb 22, 2016
DENVER —
Nestled between a 7-Eleven and a store selling
Broncos jerseys, the door to the generic-looking
retail establishment is easy to miss. But once
inside, the smell is unmistakable.
At Euflora, tables are filled
with glass containers of marijuana next to
interactive tablets describing each strain (“sweet
floral aroma,” “intoxicatingly potent”). An array
of marijuana-infused products beckon behind locked
cases: from energy shots to sour gummies, brownies
to bacon brittle. And if you’re 21 or older, it’s
all legal to buy.
This is Colorado,
where a billion-dollar-a-year legal marijuana
industry has emerged since January 2014. It offers
an early look at what Massachusetts
could face should voters greenlight an expected
ballot question and legalize the drug this fall.
So has legalization been a plus
or a minus?
“Yes,” Colorado Senate
President Bill Cadman replied with a laugh.
The consensus among several top
state officials — who emphasize that their job is
to carry out the will of the voters rather than
mull whether their constituents made the right
choice — is that there have been no widely felt
negative effects on the state since marijuana
became legal, and a crop of retail stores,
cultivation facilities, and manufacturers sprung
up from Aurora to Telluride.
Legalization has ushered in
thousands of new jobs in the burgeoning industry,
brought $135 million into state coffers last year,
and ended the prohibition of a widely used
substance.
But police say they struggle to
enforce a patchwork of laws covering marijuana,
including drugged driving. Officials fret about
the industry becoming like big tobacco, dodging
regulation and luring users with slick
advertising. And this state, long a leader in
cannabis use, has the highest
youth rate of marijuana use in the nation,
according to the most recent data available from a
federal drug-use survey.
Colorado
voters approved a constitutional amendment in
November 2012 legalizing the sale of recreational
marijuana, which began in 2014.
The drug is heavily regulated.
Each plant for sale must be tagged with a radio
frequency identification chip, from an early stage
of its life to sale, to help the state track it.
Marijuana, both in plant form and infused in
products, is required to be tested for potency and
contaminants, and sold in child-resistant
containers.
Tourists and locals alike can
buy recreational marijuana as long as they are at
least 21 and can possess up to 1 ounce. Only those
with a medical marijuana “red card,” issued by the
state on the recommendation of a physician, can
possess more at one time.
While the popular image of
marijuana use remains joints and vaporizers, a
significant percentage of marijuana sales in
Colorado — nearly half according to some estimates
— take the form of infused products, such as
edible treats, pills, drops, bath soak, and even
“sensual enhancement oil.”
More than two years into the
still-rapidly growing industry, how do top
officials and their constituents see legalization?
“There are a certain number of
folks, like myself, who were pretty reticent about
it to begin with,” said House Speaker Dickey Lee
Hullinghorst, a Democrat. But “the sky didn’t
fall. Everything seems to be working pretty well.”
That’s in line with the view of
Colorado
voters, according to a November 2015 survey. The
poll found 53 percent believe legalizing marijuana
has been good for the state, while 39 percent
believe it has been bad.
And Dr. Larry Wolk, the top
medical official in Colorado’s
public health department, said that since
legalization no large troubling public health
trends have cropped up yet. But he noted
sporadic reports of impaired driving and people
getting violently ill from ingesting too much
marijuana in edibles, such as candy bars.
He said this month new data
indicate that the biggest
increases in marijuana hospitalizations have
been seen among out-of-staters, who might be
naive about the drug’s effects.
All marijuana, including
medical, is subject to standard state and local
sales tax in Colorado.
But recreational marijuana is also subject to an
additional 10 percent special state tax, along
with additional local marijuana taxes. And there’s
also a 15 percent excise tax on wholesale
transfers of recreational marijuana, that ends up
raising retail prices.
For producers, the tax picture
is among the many complexities of running a
marijuana business.
Sally Vander Veer, president of
one of the state’s largest dispensaries and
cultivation operations, which has 70 employees and
a payroll of about $3.8 million a year, is bullish
on her rapidly expanding business. Medicine Man
has a 40 percent profit margin, she said. But her
company struggles with what she estimates to be an
effective tax rate of nearly 50 percent, as well
as having to deal almost exclusively in cash.
Because marijuana remains illegal under federal
law, access to banking services is severely
restricted.
The state saw $135 million in
tax and fee revenue last year from the
recreational and medical marijuana industry, money
that has gone to, among other efforts, education
for youth and law enforcement on the drug.
State Representative Jonathan
Singer, a leader on marijuana issues in the House,
said what legalization has done is “allowed
marijuana to pay its own way,” with the cost of
regulation paid for by dispensaries and consumers.
Yet law
enforcement officials offer a more negative,
chaotic view. They paint a picture of a quickly
evolving array of laws, regulations, and
ordinances that outpace their enforcement tools
for related issues, such as drugged driving.
For one, they say, there’s no
quick, reliable check to see whether drivers are
too high to operate a vehicle safely, as
there is for blood-alcohol level. And there’s no
easy way to determine whether food products in a
vehicle are infused with pot.
“You have no ability to test
the gummy bear laying there on the dashboard,”
said Chief John Jackson of the Greenwood Village,
Colo., Police Department said.
“Edibles pose a problem because
there is no way to tell the potency of it, there
is no way to test it in the field. And no law
enforcement officer is going to lick it and say,
‘Well, there’s marijuana, THC in that.’ ” (THC is
the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana.)
Jackson, former president of
the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, and
other police officials said legalization simply
moved much faster than law enforcement officers’
ability to keep up with it.
Jackson, who sounded
beleaguered in an interview, said a fallacy of
legalization is that it would give law enforcement
time back to focus on more serious, complicated
criminal issues and bigger drug problems.
Two years and two months into
full legalization, he said, “we’re not seeing
that.”
Another problem with edible
marijuana products, said Dr. Michael DiStefano,
who directs emergency medicine clinical operations
at Colorado’s
only top-level pediatric trauma center: the
inability of kids to distinguish between normal
products and those infused with THC.
When marijuana is “handled
responsibly, it’s not an issue for children’s
health. The problem is a lot of these edibles,” he
said. “They look like regular candy. . . . There’s
no way to discern what is an edible gummy bear
that has THC in it, versus a regular gummy bear.
In fact, you cannot distinguish them unless
they’re in the package.”
He said he’s seen an uptick in
kids admitted to the ER at Children’s Hospital Colorado
— to about 15 last year — ill from accidentally
ingesting edible marijuana-infused foods since the
drug became legal for recreational use in January
2014.
Indeed, the most grinding
concerns and the biggest question marks focus on
kids and young adults. But the effects of
legalization on children remain effectively
unknown with about two years of experience and
lagging statistics.
Opponents of legalization point
to a federal drug survey that estimates Colorado
had the highest level of any state of 12- to
17-year-olds reporting marijuana use in the last
30 days for 2013-2014. But the change in
Colorado’s youth use rate from 2012-2013 — before
full legalization— to 2013-2014 — partly after —
was not statistically significant. And federal
statisticians say the findings are not sufficient
to draw conclusions about changes in youth
marijuana use patterns as a result of
legalization.
Wolk, the top doctor at the
state’s public health department, said Colorado
marijuana use has always been high compared with
the rest of the country.
“No pun intended,” he said, “we
started high and stayed high — use hasn’t
increased in a statistically significant way since
legalization. Those that were using before are
still using now, among youths and adults.”
For some opponents, a big
concern isn’t just what has happened so far, but
what’s yet to come. They worry that the burgeoning
marijuana industry, like alcohol and tobacco
before it, could eventually use its profits to
gain clout and subvert attempts at regulation.
Jeffrey Zinsmeister, executive
vice president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a
national nonprofit group cofounded by former US
representative Patrick Kennedy that opposes
legalization and commercialization of marijuana,
said there have been several red flags.
“You’re seeing this headlong
rush into another addictive industry without
knowing what widespread marijuana use is going to
do to society,” he warned. “And the signs from Colorado
are not good.”
Officials say their primary
concerns include: adults being
able to legally consume the drug normalizes it
for kids; Joe
Camel-like ads that make pot smoking seem
appealing to kids; and legalization
increasing availability, thus making the barrier
to getting marijuana lower.
“I worry about normalization, I
worry about commercialization, and I worry about
availability,” said Andrew Freedman, who directs
Governor John Hickenlooper’s Office of Marijuana
Coordination.
“What happens to people over
the long term, especially kids over the long term,
as they see marijuana normalized, as they see
people advertising for marijuana, and as
accessibility becomes greater and greater?” he
asked. “Kids who are, right now, saying, ‘No
thanks,’ will that change over time?”
Freedman and other people
deeply involved in the day-to-day oversight of the
new market say it functions pretty smoothly. But they
emphasize the broader question of whether or not
legalization ends up a success will probably
take five or 10 years to answer fully.
Joshua Miller
can be reached at joshua.miller@globe.com.
Follow him on Twitter @jm_bos. Click here to
subscribe to his weekday e-mail update on
politics.
File this Under U S Constitution or Religious
Freedom??
September 22, 2016
A 300 page report
issued by the United States Council on Civil Rights
(USCCR) on 7 September of 2016, has caused a righteous
outcry from many religious and other liberty loving
institutions. You may rightly question the authority
of a commission that blindly ignores the
fundamental liberty of individuals alluded to in the
first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S.
Constitution. The commission, headed by chairman
Martin R Castro, appointed by President Obama in 2011,
suffers a serious blind spot of vision.
The USCCR recommends particular protections for people
who fall within a variety of groups designated by
particular labels adopted over the years, offering these
groups special privileges beyond that of
"regular" Americans, those generic citizens, whose basic
liberties were noted and codified in the founding
documents of our country to be protected from the
encroachment of the rules and restrictions and
regulations of an ever-growing totalitarian government which
has usurped some non-existent power to brand my conscience
and beliefs as "intolerant" or
discriminatory.
There is a blind spot on the part of the commission that
does not recognize the freedom of faith-abiding people
of conscience to live by the tenets of their respective
religions, that do not infringe upon health and welfare
of others.
There are a number of links to explore- first of all a
link to the report itself, followed by reactions and
comments of a variety of faith-based organizations, as
well as the watchdog groups that recognize the freedoms
that our Constitution attempted to protect.
U.S. Slams Israel for New West Bank Settlement
Expansion
Marcy Oster
September 1, 2016
(JTA) — The U.S. State Department condemned the
announcement that an Israeli planning committee
approved the construction of hundreds of housing units
in four West Bank settlements.
“We’re deeply concerned by the government’s
announcement to advance plans for these settlement
units in the West Bank,” State Department Spokesman
John Kirby said Wednesday, in answer to a reporter’s
question during a briefing, hours after reports of the
approval. “Since the Quartet report came out, we have
seen a very significant acceleration of Israeli
settlement activity that runs directly counter to the
conclusions of the report. So far this year, Israel
has promoted plans for over 2,500 units, including
over 700 units retroactively approved in the West
Bank.”
Kirby said that the State Department is “particularly
troubled by the policy of retroactively approving
unauthorized settlement units and outposts that are
themselves illegal under Israeli law. These policies
have effectively given the Israeli Government a green
light for the pervasive advancement of settlement
activity in a new and potentially unlimited way. This
significant expansion of the settlement enterprise
poses a very serious and growing threat to the
viability of the two-state solution.”
“Potentially unlimited” is a recent term used by the
State Department, and seems to indicate that State
believes Israel wants to annex the West Bank.
The Civil Administration’s High Planning Committee on
Wednesday approved construction of 234 living units in
Elkana in the northern West Bank, designated to be a
nursing home; 30 homes in Beit Arye in the northern
West Bank; and 20 homes in the Jerusalem ring
neighborhood of Givat Zeev.
The committee also retroactively legalized 179 housing
units built in the 1980s in Ofarim, part of the Beit
Arye municipality.
The approval comes less than a week after Nickolay
Mladenov, the U.N. special coordinator for the Middle
East peace process, criticized Israel for continuing
to build in West Bank settlements and neighborhoods in
eastern Jerusalem, going against the recommendations
issued in June by the Mideast Quartet. The Quartet,
made up of the United States, Russia, the European
Union and the U.N., called on Israel in June to stop
building in the settlements and on the Palestinians to
halt incitement.
In Saudi Arabia, signs of an effort to break the
Israel taboo
By Michael Wilner, Herb Keinon 08/30/2016 21:30
Saudi state-run media appears to be softening its
reporting on Israel, running unprecedented columns
floating the prospect of direct relations, quoting
Israeli officials and filling its news holes with fewer
negative stories on Israel’s relationship with the
Palestinians.
The public shift – from outlets such as al-Arabiya and
Riyadh newspaper, among other local or state-owned
outlets – reflects secret, under-the-table contact
between the Arab kingdom and the Jewish state that has
been a work in progress for years.
But media movement marks a new phase in that diplomatic
process, according to some experts on the kingdom, who
see signs of a monarchy effort to prepare Saudi society
for debate that had previously been off limits.
“The key here is that everybody understands this is not
going to turn around overnight, and its probably not
going to convince a lot of people. But that’s not really
the point,” said David Pollock, an expert on the region
at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The
point is to establish this as a debatable proposition,
and to break the taboo of even debating about it – about
the prospect of normalizing relations.”
“Once you’ve done that, you’ve made it legitimate,”
Pollock added. “There are suddenly two sides.”
One column called for Saudis to “leave behind” their
“hatred of Jews,” and another said that talks between
the two nations should be direct, without
intermediaries, based on Saudi national interests.
Those national interests appear to align with Israel’s,
primarily on the issue of Iran, which has dominated the
Saudi news cycle in recent months– from Islamic Republic
activities in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
Saudi conservative Islamists view Iran, the Shi’ite and
Hezbollah as “much worse than the Jews,” Pollock
commented. “So that kind of takes the edge off – and
actually pushes them in the same direction.”
An official in the Foreign Ministry said there have been
some positive signals from Riyadh – such as an interview
that ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer gave recently
to the Saudi media, and one that Foreign Ministry
Director-General Dore Gold had last year with a Saudi
website – but that there is no sense this is part of an
organized campaign to prepare the ground for better
ties.
“These are positive signs, but I would not say they are
game changers,” the official said. “Good things are
happening.
But rather than seeing this as trying to prepare the
ground for something, I’d say it is a sign that there is
less enmity.”
A source in the Prime Minister’s Office concurred. He
acknowledged a few articles of late from “some pretty
big journalists” against hating Jews, but said that he
knows nothing about it coming from the top as part of an
organized campaign.
Quiet talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia began
leaking into public view in June, when a handshake
between Gold and former Saudi government adviser Anwar
Eshki raised eyebrows. Putting to rest any doubt that
the handshake was an isolated affair, Eshki led a Saudi
delegation to Jerusalem the following month that was
publicly acknowledged.
Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud also shared a
stage with Israel’s former military intelligence chief,
Amos Yadlin, in 2014.
A similar effort is under way in Egypt, Pollock said.
“I gather from talking to some of the people who are
directly involved with it that there are different camps
– different schools of thought in these countries,” said
Pollock. “There is definitely internal opposition, and
it’s very delicate, and fragile. But in both countries,
the government and the establishment media – and their
spin-offs and allies – are pursuing a deliberate
strategy to do this.”
International org calls for federalization of U.S.
law enforcement to be 'beefed up,' cover all of
America
by Robert Romano | Updated 04 Aug 2016 at 10:04 AM
“The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice
has provided oversight and recommendations for
improvement of police services in a number of cities
with consent decrees. This is one of the most effective
ways to reduce discrimination in law enforcement and it
needs to be beefed up and increased to cover as many of
the 18,000-plus local law enforcement jurisdictions.”
That was United Nations Rapporteur Maina Kai on July 27,
a representative of the U.N. Human Rights Council, who
on the tail-end of touring the U.S., endorsed a
little-known and yet highly controversial practice by
the Justice Department to effect a federal takeover of
local police and corrections departments.
The Obama administration has been
pursuing the federal takeover of local police right
under Congress' nose — and Republicans in Congress were
apparently unaware it was happening.
The consent decrees are already being implemented in
Newark, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; Los Angeles,
California; Ferguson, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; and
other municipalities.
Here's how it works: the Civil Rights Division at the
Department of Justice files a lawsuit in federal court
against a city, county, or state, alleging
constitutional and civil rights violations by the police
or at a corrections facility. It is done under 42 U.S.C.
§ 14141, a section of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act, granting the attorney general the
power to prosecute law enforcement misconduct. The
municipality then simply agrees to the judicial finding
— without contest — and the result is a wide-reaching
federal court order that imposes onerous regulations on
local police.
The federal court orders are designed to undo Rudy
Giuliani-style policing tactics that were effective at
reducing crime in big cities in the 1990s and 2000s.
In short, the much-feared nationalization of local
police departments is already being initiated by the
Obama administration's Justice Department. And somehow
nobody noticed.
Federal requirements include how searches are conducted,
what constitutes legitimate use of force, the mandatory
use of on-body cameras by the police, and so forth. The
agreements impose years-long compliance review regimes,
implementation deadlines, and regular reviews by federal
bureaucrats. This makes local police directly answerable
to the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ.
One example includes a 77-page March 30 consent decree
between the department and the City of Newark, New
Jersey, that resulted from a 2011 investigation, a 2014
series of findings by the Civil Rights Division, and
then finally a federal lawsuit alleging police
misconduct in the U.S. District Court in the District of
New Jersey.
The original complaint alleged that the Newark Police
Department (NPD) "has engaged in a pattern or practice
of constitutional violations in its stop and arrest
practices, responses to individuals' exercise of their
rights under the First Amendment, uses of force, and
theft by officers. The investigation also revealed that
the pattern or practice of constitutional violations
stems in part from deficiencies in NPD's systems that
are designed to prevent and detect misconduct, including
its systems for reviewing force and investigating
complaints regarding officer conduct."
The city of Newark, via the consent decree, agreed to
the allegations and to implement a "comprehensive and
agency-wide policies and procedures that are consistent
with and incorporate all substantive requirements of
this agreement," including rules on stops, searches, use
of force, etc. The city has two years to implement, with
the full agreement lasting five years. Meaning — even if
the political parties change power in the city of
Newark, the new mayor and city council would still be
required to implement the court order.
U.S. Cities with Active DOJ Consent Decrees
City State Police
Force
Chicago IL 11944
Los Angeles CA 10000
Miami FL 1259
Ferguson MO 54
Source: Americans for Limited Government
These consent decrees are in essence regulations. That,
is, without the niceties of administrative procedures
requirements, public comments, or even any congressional
oversight.
Remarkably, congressional offices contacted by this
author were generally unaware of the regulation of local
policing via DOJ consent decrees with cities — even
though the agreements have been implemented for years.
Not a single hearing or word of protest has occurred on
this topic.
The lack of oversight is pathetic enough — but to make
matters even worse, this could actually be the first
step in a new wide-ranging body of federal rules on
local police.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulation "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing"
(AFFH) actually originated as a consent decree in 2009
against Westchester County, New York, requiring
affordable housing units to be built in the county.
Afterward, Republican Robert Astorino was elected county
executive and yet was still required to implement the
court order.
Westchester became the basis for AFFH, where every city
and county in the country that accepts any part of $3
billion of annual community development block grants to
1,200 recipient cities and counties now has to comply
with HUD's dictates on zoning along racial and income
guidelines.
DOJ may very well end up doing the same thing with the
local police — that is, if Congress does not wise up to
what's really happening and defund implementation of 42
U.S.C. § 14141. This is dangerous. What is most chilling
is how far along the Obama Justice Department is in this
process. The breadth of regulation here shatters any
notion of local governance or federalism. The Obama
administration has been pursuing the federal takeover of
local police right under Congress' nose — and
Republicans in Congress were apparently unaware it
was happening.
No doubt the practice would continue under a Hillary
Clinton administration too. Do you want a Clinton
Justice Department running your local police force? That
is how important the election in November suddenly
becomes — with law and order already hanging in the
balance and police being targeted by domestic terrorists
in the slayings in Dallas and Baton Rouge.
As Americans for Limited Government President Rick
Manning noted in a statement calling attention to the
U.N.'s interest in the DOJ program and urging Congress
to act, "The fact that the U.N. Human Rights Council —
which includes some of the worst abusers of human rights
in the world that hate the U.S. — is cheering for this
DOJ national takeover of the police should tell members
everything they need to know. It's time to support local
police, not render them impotent via federal
restrictions against maintaining law and order. No less
than the very existence of local government is at
stake."
Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for
Limited Government.
Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm
Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration
by Matthew Boyle Breitbart August 2, 2016
Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that
Democrats and their allies media wide have been using
to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump,
has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.
This development is significant, as his website
proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that
he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play
Muslim migration into America.
A snapshot of his now deleted
website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which
takes snapshots archiving various websites on the
Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in
procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other
“Related Immigration Services.”
The website is completely removed
from the Internet, and instead directs visitors to the
URL at which it once was to a page parking the URL run
by GoDaddy.
The EB5 program, which helps
wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East
essentially buy their way into America, is fraught
with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has detailed such
corruption over the past several months, and in
February issued a blistering statement about it.
Islamic State Answers Pope Francis: Ours Is a
Religious War, and We Hate You
breitbart.com Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. 2 Aug 2016
The Islamic State terror group
has come out publicly to reject Pope Francis’ claims
that the war being waged by Islamic terrorists is not
religious in nature, assuring the pontiff that their
sole motivation is religious and sanctioned by Allah
in the Qur’an.
In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda
magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope
Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction
that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror
are economically motivated.
“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim
nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state
in an article titled “By the Sword.”
The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming
that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the
Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying
that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a
deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual
intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”
Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his
efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the
article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to
take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of
a true Muslim.
Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks,
the article states, “many people in Crusader countries
express shock and even disgust that Islamic State
leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”
“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by
the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the
word of our Lord,” it reads.
“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by
default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as
Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find
them.’”
The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s
description of recent acts of Islamic terror as
“senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing
senseless about it.
“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme
to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,”
they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian
West is absolute and implacable.
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us,
imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping
our lands, we would continue to hate you because our
primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist
until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah
[tax for infidels] and live under the authority of Islam
in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.
In a recent press conference, Pope Francis told
journalists that the world is at war. “But it’s a
real war, not a religious war,” he said.
“It’s a war of interests, a war for money. A war for
natural resources and for the dominion of the peoples.”
PM draws parallel to attacks
in Israel and across Middle East, says Islamic
terror driven by ‘fanatical hatred’
from Times of Israel by Raoul Wootliff June 16, 2016,
12:29 am
In an English language video
posted to Facebook on Wednesday, Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu said the casualties in Sunday’s
deadly nightclub shooting in Orlando were victims of
homophobia and intolerance and called on people not to
give in to “hate and fear.”
~>~>~>~>>~>~>~>~>
Here is the complete text of his statement:
"In Orlando, a terrorist walks
into a nightclub and murders nearly 50 human beings.
Sons and daughters, brothers and sisters cut down in
cold blood.
They did nothing wrong. They
were dancing with friends, they were enjoying music
with loved ones.
Why did the terrorist murder
them?
Because he was driven by a fanatical hatred.
He targeted the LGBT community
because he believed they were evil.
Now, the murderer wasn't
alone.
Regimes and terrorist
organizations around the world ruthlessly persecute
the LGBT community.
In Syria, ISIS throws gays off
rooftops.
In Iran, the regime hangs gays from cranes.
Too many people have remained
silent in the face of this awful persecution.
This week's shooting wasn't
merely an attack on the LGBT community. It was an
attack on all of us, on our common values of freedom
and diversity and choice.
Radical Islamist terror makes
no distinction between shades of infidel.
This week it was gays in
Orlando. A few days before that it was Jews in Tel
Aviv. Before that it was music fans in Paris;
Travelers in Brussels; Yazidis in Iraq; Community
workers in San Bernardino; Christians and
journalists in Syria.
All of us are targets.
We believe that all people are
created in the image of God.
ISIS, by contrast, believes
that all people who aren't just like them deserve to
die.
We will not be terrified into
submission. We will fight back. And we will triumph.
Today I ask you to reach out
to friends in the LGBT community. Comfort them. Tell
them you stand together, we stand together as one.
And that you will always remember the victims. Tell
them they will never be alone, that we are all one
family deserving of dignity, deserving of life.
I have no doubt that those who
seek to spread hate and fear will be defeated.
Working together we will
defeat them even faster.
We need to stand united,
resolute in the belief that all people regardless of
their sexual orientation, regardless of their race,
regardless of their ethnicity, all people deserve
respect, deserve dignity."
Continental
Chutzpah: EU Building on Israeli Land, Warning
Against Demolitions
the JewishPress.com by David Israel Published June 1, 2016
The European Union over the past few years has been
erecting illegal structures in Area C, which according
to the Oslo agreement is under Israeli control. After
several rightwing NGOs have complained, the IDF set out
to demolish some of those structures. By rights, they
should have taken all of them down, what with their
being built without a permit. Israeli media publicized
the demolition of those structures, some of which
actually flew the EU flag — like those mythical cat
burglars who leave their personal business card in the
open safe. But last week the EU chutzpah has reached
unprecedented highs when Lars Faaborg-Andersen, the
Danish diplomat who since 2013 has been the ambassador
of the European Union to Jerusalem, met with Coordinator
of Government Activities in the Territories Gen. Yoav
Mordechai, to warn him that if Israel keeps demolishing
those “Palestinian homes” it would damage relations with
Brussels.
According to a senior Israeli official who spoke to
Ha’aretz, the meeting was tense and loaded. The
ambassador accused Israel of hurting the “weakest
Palestinian populations.” What the senior official did
not share was that those structures are a means by which
the EU has been challenging Israel’s claim to
sovereignty in Area C (the PA is currently in charge in
Areas A and B). It has to do with the diametrically
opposed views of Israel and the EU of what constitutes
the “two-state solution.”
Essentially, the Israeli politicians who are now in
government, as well as more than a few in the
opposition, envision a future peace deal that turns
Areas A and B into an independent Palestinian entity,
either as a state or an autonomy. The same Israeli
leaders envision some permanent legal solution for the
upwards of 400 thousand Jews living in Judea and
Samaria, all of them in Area C, most likely with Israel
annexing the large settlement clusters and giving away
the rest of the land.
Virtually no one outside Israel supports this idea at
the moment. Even Israel’s best friends in the world
envision the ousting of the Jews from Area C, possibly
while allowing Israel to retain eastern Jerusalem. How
would that actually be done—no one cares to say, nor
where would Israel gather the tens of billions of
dollars required for such a move, never mind whether the
settler population would acquiesce or opt instead for
resistance that would make the traumatic evacuation of
8,000 Jews from Gaza’s Gush Katif look like a picnic.
Meanwhile, while Area C in Israel’s view is eventually
going to be annexed as part of a peace deal — to the
Europeans Area C is Palestinian land ready to be
redeemed.
Which is why the EU has been relentless at challenging
Israel’s claim to Area C. And it’s why they’ve come up
with the delusional notion that taking down 531 illegal
Arab structures in 2015, 75 of which had been built by
the EU, was damaging the two-state solution. Because the
two-state solution the Europeans envision is without any
Jews in Area C.
For the same reason, Ambassador Faaborg-Andersen was
complaining that Israel is quick to condemn and demolish
those illegal structures, but at the same time refuses
to give Arabs permits to build legally in Area C.
Because while the Arabs view Area C as soon to be part
of free Palestine, Israelis plan to keep most of it,
thank you very much.
There’s going to be another meeting with the EU envoy,
on June 15, this time at the Israeli foreign ministry.
The Europeans are going to demand a freeze on
demolishing Arab structures in Area C, while at the same
time also demanding a freeze on Jewish construction in
the same Area C. And at some point something will have
to give.
About the Author: David writes news at
JewishPress.com.
ISIS Kills Scores of Christians in Retaken Syrian
Town: Report
By Conor Gaffey Newsweek.com 4/11/16
The Islamic State militant group (ISIS) killed scores of
Christians when they captured a Syrian town recently
liberated by the government, a Syrian Christian leader
has said.
ISIS swept into the town of Al-Qaryatain in August 2015,
kidnapping at least 230 civilians including dozens of
Christians in the central Syrian town, which lies 104
kilometers (65 miles) southwest of Palmyra. The town had
a population of some 2,000 Syriac Catholics and Orthodox
Christians prior to the outbreak of civil war in Syria
in 2011, but this had dropped to just 300 before ISIS
took control.
Al-Qaryatain was retaken by Syrian government forces
with the backing of Russian airstrikes earlier in April
and reports are just beginning to emerge of life under
the extremist group for civilians in the town. Patriarch
Ignatius Aphrem II, the head of the Syrian Orthodox
Church, told the BBC on Sunday that 21 Christians were
murdered when ISIS first captured the city.
Some died trying to escape while others were killed for
violating the terms of contracts they had signed
requiring them to submit to the extremists’
interpretation of Islamic law. Hundreds of Christians in
Al-Qaryatain were reportedly forced to sign so-called
dhimmi contracts, which enabled them to live under ISIS
rule in the town. The patriarch added that five other
Christians are missing and presumed dead, while ransoms
had been paid to ISIS to secure the release of the rest
of the Christians.
The civil war in Syria has had a devastating impact on
the country’s Christian contingent, which made up
approximately 10 percent of Syria’s population before
the outbreak of the conflict. The European Parliament
stated in October 2015 that about 40 percent of Syria’s
Christian population—or 700,000 people—had fled the
country.
NOTE: Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem, was dead
for three days, and rose from the dead, and walked among
us for forty days until his Ascension. After the
Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came to the Apostles,
they spread out to different areas of the land to spread
the good news, of our salvation. One of the first places
they went to was what is now Syria, which was the home
of Simon Peter. Not only does ISIS eradicate people who
do not bow down to their cult they attempt to erase the
ancient traces of preceding times like in Palmyra which
was a Roman outpost in Syria, from the first or second
century after the year of our Lord. Click
here to view more about that.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia
Feb. 18, 2016
It is hard to imagine a greater
loss to Liberty in America than has occurred in the
passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. His understanding
of the Constitution as a pact between free people
and government, and our protection from oppressive
government, was unparalleled.
The fact that 30% of Americans do not know who he
was, speaks volumes about the state of our Union and
our education system.
My words and thoughts are totally inadequate but you
can easily find more about the great man's life and
legacy. Click
here for a link to wikipedia. Or click
here to read the thoughts of the other
Justices on the Supreme Court about him.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia.
Shariah Law at work in the Obama Administration
Obama DHS scrubs records of hundreds of Muslim
terrorists
Published: 7 Feb 2016 World Net Daily Pamela Geller
Not only did the Obama
administration scrub counter-terror programs of jihad
and Islam, now we find out that his administration
scrubbed the records of Muslim terrorists. If the
enemedia were not aligned with the jihad force, this
would be front-page news across the nation.
An agent of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS,
for 15 years, Philip Haney, reported Friday that after
the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, tried to blow up a crowded passenger jet
over Detroit, “President Obama threw the intelligence
community under the bus for its failure to ‘connect the
dots.’ He said, ‘This was not a failure to collect
intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and
understand the intelligence that we already had.'”
Haney revealed: “Most Americans were unaware of the
enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland
Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His
words infuriated many of us because we knew his
administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort
to destroy the raw material – the actual intelligence we
had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots
constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans
safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be
wiped away.”
What Haney discloses is truly shocking: “Just before
that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was
ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland
Security to delete or modify several hundred records of
individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups
like Hamas from the important federal database, the
Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These
types of records are the basis for any ability to
‘connect dots.’ Every day, DHS Customs and Border
Protection officers watch entering and exiting many
individuals associated with known terrorist
affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a
political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly
affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going
forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from
entering pertinent information into the database.”
Who gave the order to scrub the records of Muslims with
ties to terror groups?
These new shocking revelations come fresh on the heels
of whistleblower testimony in the wake of the San
Bernardino jihad slaughter, revealing that the Obama
administration shut down investigations into jihadists
in America (and quite possible the San Bernardino
shooters) at the request of the Department of State and
the DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division.
Haney noted: “They claimed that since the Islamist
groups in question were not Specially Designated
Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals
related to these groups was a violation of the
travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost
exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted
the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?”
How is this not impeachable? When did foreign terrorists
get civil rights?
Haney described how he began investigating scores of
individuals with links to the traditionalist Islamic
Indo-Pakistani Deobandi movement, and its related
offshoots, prominently, Tablighi Jamaat.
I have reported on this infiltration for years. I
reported on it extensively in my book, “Stop the
Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the
Resistance.” Obama has partnered with terror-tied groups
such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the
Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American
Society and others. The stealth jihad in the information
battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement of
blasphemy laws under the Shariah, as Obama ordered that
counter-terror training materials must avoid all
reference to Islam and jihad. Under Islamic law, it is
prohibited to criticize Islam.
The Obama administration is Shariah-compliant at all
costs. Its number one priority is to protect Islam, even
when it puts American lives at risk. The cold-blooded
slaughter of Americans in the homeland by Muslims has
not tempered Obama’s Shariah enthusiasm. On the
contrary, Garland, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UCMED, San
Bernardino, etc., have accelerated it.
My civil liberties and your civil liberties are being
abridged in accordance with the blasphemy laws under
Shariah. My organization is engaged in 15 different
free-speech lawsuits against various cities. Our
free-speech lawsuit against Boston is heading to the
Supreme Court, because even though truthful, our ads
violate the laws of Shariah (“do not criticize Islam”).
We are being forced to adhere to Shariah mores, but
jihad murderers are given sanctuary and protection – to
slaughter Americans.
The moral, or in this case the immoral, of the story is
this: Jihad terror works.
Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and
the author of the WND Books title "Stop the
Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the
Resistance."
Wisconsin firm fires Muslims in prayer dispute
Religious breaks disrupted production at lawn mower,
snowblower manufacturer
Published: 02/04/2016 (ABC News) A civil liberties group said
Wednesday that it plans to file federal discrimination
and harassment complaints after a Wisconsin manufacturer
fired seven Muslim employees for violating a company
break policy that doesn’t provide extra time for prayer.
Ariens Co. terminated the workers in a dispute that
began last month when it moved to enforce an existing
rule of two 10-minute breaks per work shift and dozens
of Muslim staffers of Somali descent walked off the job
in protest.
Of the 53 employees involved, 32 have abided with the
policy, 14 resigned and seven were terminated Tuesday,
according to Ariens spokeswoman Ann Stilp. The news of
the terminations was first reported by WLUK-TV in Green
Bay.
If shouting 'No!' doesn't work, then swat attacker
with purse
World Net Daily Published: 02/03/2016 by Leo Hohmann
A public-service advertisement running on Finland TV
instructs women in the Scandinavian country on how to
fend off a rapist.
But rather than pull out a handgun or even pepper
spray, the women of Finland are taught to confront
their attackers with bare hands and a purse.
Rape epidemics have engulfed Finland, Sweden and
Germany in a sea of fear since the mass influx of
migrants from the Middle East and North Africa began
two years ago.
Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president and
founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said he
found the video laughable.
Anti-Shariah activist and author Pamela Geller posted
the video on her website earlier this week under the
title "It just gets more absurd."
Netanyahu: Islamic terrorism is flooding the
world from Jakarta to California
The prime minister says the struggle against
terrorism will take time but that Israel is fighting
hard.
Jerusalem Post by JPOST.COM STAFF BEN HARTMAN 02/04/2016
Islamic terrorism is flooding the world and inciting
millions from Jakarta to Africa and all the way to
California, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
during a trip on Thursday to the Jerusalem hospital
treating a Border Police officer who was injured in
yesterday's attack at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's
Old City.
Netanyahu praised the courage of the security forces
and the courage and strength the Border Police officer
shown during Wednesday's attack. He also expressed his
condolences to the family of Border Police officer
Hadar Cohen who was killed in the combined shooting
and stabbing attack.
Three Arab terrorists wielding machine guns, pipe
bombs and knives carried out the attack on Wednesday
killing Cohen, 19, who died of her wounds shortly
after being rushed to the capital's Hadassa University
Medical Center at Mt. Scopus. Her partner, Ravit, was
seriously wounded and underwent emergency surgery at
the hospital. As of Thursday morning she was
considered to be in moderate condition.
"We are all saddened by the death of Hadar Cohen, a
real hero. We all embrace the family," Netanyahu said.
The prime minister emphasized that a great effort is
being put into the fight against terrorism, during the
lengthy effort to defeat it.
"It will take time, it is a long struggle," Netanyahu
said. "We are in this fight, it is not passing us by,
but we are fighting it with great force and will
continue to do so."
"Kabatiya has been closed off while the IDF and the
Shin bet make widespread arrests of wanted suspects,
we have cancelled many work permits and the
attorney-general informed me yesterday that he has
added a number of houses belonging to terrorists to be
slated for demolition," Netanyahu said of the West
Bank village, from where Wednesday's terrorists
hailed.
Police Commissioner Inspector General Roni Alsheich
paid a visit to the wounded Border Police officer on
Wednesday night.
During his visit, Alsheich praised the two teenager
Border Police officers who had recently drafted into
the force for preventing a major terror attack.
Alsheich said “I have no doubt that a terror cell that
comes with an arsenal like this has every intention of
carrying out a massive attack.”
Ravit and Cohen were part of a three-man patrol along
with their commander. They had only been drafted a
couple months before and their deployment at Damascus
Gate in East Jerusalem was part of their training.
Since the attack yesterday, police and the Border
Police have drawn criticism for the fact that the two
women were posted at one of the most dangerous
flashpoints in the country so soon after they were
drafted.
The three terrorists were responsible for the attack
were identified as Ahmed Rajeh Zakarneh, Muhammad
Ahmed Kmail, and Ahmed Najeh Abu al-Rub. All three
were shot dead at the scene. Their explosives did not
detonate and were later neutralized by a police bomb
disposal team.
No holds barred: Torrent of anti-Israel advice found
in Hillary’s emails
Jerusalem Post - Opinion By Shmuley Boteach 02/01/2016
Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent protests
in an attempt to try and force Israel to go against its
best interests? Advice like this was par for the course
with Clinton’s advisers.
It’s already been established that one of Hillary
Clinton’s most trusted advisers, Sid
Blumenthal, sent her anti-Israel articles, ideas
and advice during her time as secretary of state. But
the stream of anti-Israel advice received by Clinton was
much more comprehensive.
In the entire forced dump of Clinton’s emails, you will
be hard pressed to find a single one sympathetic toward
the Jewish state from any of the people she relied on.
The negative, poisonous approach to Israel throughout
this email expose shows the atmosphere that she had
established around herself. These emails seem to
demonstrate that a huge segment of her close advisers
and confidantes were attacking Israel, condemning Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and strategizing how to
force Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria at all
costs.
This was occurring against the backdrop of Israel’s
recent Gaza withdrawal, which led to the takeover of
Gaza by Hamas. There is almost zero mention of the huge
risks to Israel’s security in withdrawing as Clinton and
the Obama administration did everything they could to
pressure Israel to capitulate to their demands.
Take a look at a sampling of the advice being sent to
Clinton from her many advisers that we have now become
privy to.
Sandy
Berger was Clinton’s foreign policy adviser during
her 2008 presidential campaign. In September of 2010 he
sent her ideas on how to pressure Israel to make
concessions for peace. Berger acknowledged “how fragile
is Abbas’s political position,” and how “Palestinians
are in disarray,” and that “failure is a real
possibility.” Berger was well aware of, and informed
Hillary of, the very real possibility that Israel would
be placing its national security at grave risk in a deal
that would very likely fail and lead to a Hamas
takeover.
But Berger felt the risks to Israeli lives were worth
it.
He advised the need to make Netanyahu feel “uneasy about
incurring our displeasure....”
Berger emphasizes the need “to convince the prime
minister – through various forms of overt persuasion and
implicit pressure – to make the necessary compromises”
and talks of the “possibility – to turn his position
against him.”
Astoundingly, Berger seems to accuse the Jews in America
of racism toward Obama. He writes, “At a political
level, the past year has clearly demonstrated the degree
to which the U.S. has been hamstrung by its low ratings
in Israel and among important segments of the domestic
Jewish constituency....” He then adds, “Domestically, he
faces a reservoir of skepticism on this issue which
reflects many factors, including inexcusable prejudice.”
Anne Marie Slaughter was Clinton’s director of policy
planning from 2009-2011. She wrote to Clinton in
September of 2010 and devised a scheme to encourage
wealthy philanthropists to pledge millions to the
Palestinians (which no doubt would have been embezzled
by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his
cronies as were other funds).
She wrote: “This may be a crazy idea.... Suppose we
launched a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign... Such a
campaign among billionaires/multi-millionaires around
the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in
the building of a Palestinian state....”
She adds: “There would also be a certain shaming effect
re Israelis who, would be building settlements in the
face of a pledge for peace.”
Clinton’s response to this email: “I am very interested-
pls flesh out. Thx.”
Robert
Russo, one of Clinton’s aides and currently her
campaign’s “director of correspondence and briefings”
sent an email in April of 2012 informing her of
Netanyahu’s father’s death and advising her to give him
a condolence call. Included with Russo’s
email is an extremely biased article attacking both
Netanyahu and his father, describing them as virulently
racist warmongers and calling the elder Netanyahu “a
behindthe- scenes adviser to his son, the most powerful
person in Israel.”
The article noted that “Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu repeatedly denied that his father was a
one-dimensional ideologue. He further emphasized that he
himself was a different person from his father.”
But then it goes on to say, without providing any proof
whatsoever, “Israelis seemed in the dark about the
extent of paternal influence on their leader,” and “To
understand Bibi, you have to understand the father.”
One might be forgiven for questioning Clinton’s sympathy
and sincerity when she later placed the call and gave
Netanyahu her condolences.
Thomas
Pickering, former US ambassador to Israel, wrote
to Clinton on December 18, 2011, and suggested a secret
plan to stir up major Palestinian protests in an attempt
to force the Israeli government into peace negotiations.
He stated that the protests “must be all and only women.
Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use
force.”
Pickering’s goal was to ignite protests that would
engulf the West Bank, “just like Tahrir square.” He adds
that the Palestinian “leadership has shied away from
this idea because they can’t control it,” and they are
“afraid of being replaced.”
This idiotic reasoning that somehow only women would
participate and things would stay peaceful is obviously
absurd. As Pickering himself notes, “Palestinian men
will not for long patiently demonstrate – they will be
inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated
and use force. Their male culture comes close to
requiring it.”
Regardless, Pickering writes that the protests could be
used against Israel “to influence the political
leadership.”
The idea was as dangerous for the Palestinians as it was
for Israel. As Pickering himself admits, widespread
protests could overthrow Abbas’ government, and if
Palestinian men joined in, widespread violence would
inevitably break out. It would obviously be impossible
to prevent men from participating in these
demonstrations.
Yet Pickering felt this extreme risk was worth taking,
even if it meant the replacement of Abbas with another
Hamas-led government. And even if meant violence
breaking out across the West Bank leading to a third
intifada and the murder of countless Jews. He also
emphasizes the need to hide all US involvement in this
plot. Clinton forwarded this email to Monica Hanley and
asked her to “pls print.”
Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent protests
in an attempt to try and force Israel to go against its
best interests? Advice like this was par for the course
when it came to Clinton’s advisers.
In a follow-up column we’ll illuminate even more
anti-Israel advice that was given the then-secretary of
state. Sadly, there was just so much of it.
The author, “America’s Rabbi,” is the international
bestselling author of 30 books including his upcoming
The Israel Warrior’s Handbook. Follow him on Twitter @
RabbiShmuley.
Senate resolution calls for a US constitutional
convention
Posted: February 3, 2016 at 10:37 am
KFQD Radio Anchorage, Alaska
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) – An Alaska Senate committee is
set to consider a resolution calling for a convention
of the states to propose a countermand, or veto,
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The measure calls on legislators in the other 49
states to apply for a convention as well.
In his sponsor statement, Chugiak Republican Senator
Bill Stoltze says the resolution is meant to restore
the balance of power between the states and the
federal government.
The resolution calls for a convention of states to
amend the U.S. Constitution and provide states with
the power to vote on nullifying federal laws.
Click here to realize that Alaska is not the
only state that has called for a Constitutional
Convention.
Turkish Court Rules Government Failed to Protect
Christians Killed in Malatya
Civil suit results in order to pay damages to
relatives of victims.
January 27, 2016
By Our Middle East Correspondent
Morning Star News
ISTANBUL, Turkey (Morning Star News) – A Turkish court
ruled on Tuesday (Jan. 26) that the government was
negligent in its duty to protect three Christians who
were tortured and killed in 2007 and ordered it
to pay damages to the victims’ families.
The Malatya Administrative Court ruled that, nearly nine
years ago, the Interior Ministry and the Malatya
Governor’s Office ignored reliable intelligence that
Turkish nationalists were targeting the three Christians
days prior to the April 2007 killings.
At the present rate, it is doubtful what year money
might actually change hands
Man with Quran, guns arrested near Disneyland Paris
Manhunt underway for female companion
CNN by Laura Akhoun and Jason Hanna Published: 01/28/2016
(CNN) French police are looking for a woman who was with
the Paris man who was arrested with guns Thursday at a
Disney hotel near Disneyland Paris, police official
Michael Le Provost told CNN.
When security guards discovered the firearms, they
noticed the woman was with him, but she eluded arrest,
Le Provost said.
Bomb disposal experts are inspecting the man’s car, Le
Provost said.
Posted By David Barton On 01/27/2016 @ 10:32 pm In Education,Faith,Front
Page,Politics,U.S.,World World Net Daily
Democrats have long heralded Thomas Jefferson (along
with Andrew Jackson) as the founder of their Party.
They traditionally hold annual Jefferson-Jackson Day
fundraising dinners, and President Obama is one of
their most sought after speakers. But this past year,
Democrats began to remove any mention of Jefferson’s
name from their functions. They claim that this
is because Jefferson was a bigoted racist, iii but
this excuse is historically inaccurate, based on an
errant modern portrayal.
If you doubt this, ask yourself why black civil rights
leaders over the past two centuries (such as Frederick
Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Benjamin
Banneker, Francis Grimke, Henry Highland Garnett, and
so many others) openly praised Jefferson as a racial
civil rights pioneer and champion, as did
abolitionists such as John Quincy Adams, Abraham
Lincoln, and others They recognized that Jefferson led
a vocal lifelong campaign to emancipate all slaves in
the United States, but that the laws of Virginia
prevented him from freeing his own slaves. (All of
this is covered in my new book, “The Jefferson
Lies.”)
The real reason that Democrats should discard
Jefferson is that he held nearly no policy position
similar to those Democrats hold today. Consider
fifteen major categories where the policies of
Presidents Jefferson and Obama are opposite.
Posted By Jeff Knox On 01/27/2016 @ 7:42 pm
In Commentary,Opinion
World Net Daily
The occupation of a remote wildlife refuge
turned violent yesterday when federal agents stopped
two vehicles carrying protesters to a town hall
meeting in John Day, Oregon. Victoria Sharp, a
passenger in one of those vehicles, has reported that
federal agents opened fire on the group without
provocation after conflicting and confusing demands
for the protesters to surrender. Sharp reported that
shots were first fired at Ryan Payne as he complied
with orders to show his hands out of the window of the
vehicle in which she was riding, but that the shots
missed. Payne was calling for police to not shoot, as
there were women in the vehicle, and exited the
vehicle, asking that the women be allowed out.
At this point, LaVoy Finicum, one of the spokesmen for
the occupiers, who was driving the vehicle in which
Ms. Sharp was riding, yelled out the window that they
were going to go talk to the sheriff (at the meeting
in John Day), or that agents could just shoot him. He
told the passengers to get down, and drove forward,
precipitating heavy gunfire from the agents, and
crashing the vehicle into a snowbank.
Sharp said that Finicum then exited the vehicle, hands
in the air, yelling, “Just shoot me then!” A volley of
shots rang out, and Finicum fell to his back, hands
still over his head, and was shot several more times
on the ground, Sharp said.
According to Sharp, agents continued shooting at the
car, striking Ryan Bundy in the shoulder as he
shielded her on the floorboard, and deploying tear gas
before finally taking the rest of the group into
custody. She also claims that none of the protesters
fired a shot or even touched a gun during the
encounter.
The full audio of Victoria Sharp’s account is posted
on YouTube, and comes across as very credible.
Listen to Victoria Sharp’s testimony:
Another report suggested that Finicum "charged" at
police after exiting the vehicle but does not dispute
the claim that his hands were in the air. Cliven
Bundy, father of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, leaders of the
occupation who were both taken into custody during the
incident, has further charged that, not only were
Finicum's hands in the air, but he was not armed at
the time.
In interviews during the occupation protest, Finicum,
a soft-spoken rancher and father of 11 from Arizona,
had insisted that he would rather be killed than "put
in a cement box" prison. He said that some things were
more important than life, and that freedom was one of
those things.
The occupation was initiated in protest of the
re-incarceration of a pair of Oregon ranchers who had
been convicted of terrorism for starting two
controlled burns on their graze lands back in 2001 and
2005. The ranchers, father and son Dwight and Steven
Hammond, were initially sentenced to, and served short
sentences and fined $400,000 for their actions, but a
federal appeals court later concluded that the judge
in the case had improperly waived a five-year minimum
sentence for the charges, and the two were resentenced
to that minimum and ordered to return to prison.
I reported on the Hammond case and the resulting
protests a few weeks ago in this column, pointing out
that the stated objective of the protest was being
lost in the news coverage of the protest itself. Ammon
Bundy and his compatriots appeared to be more
interested in generating a confrontation with federal
authorities than in drawing attention to the Hammonds
and the abusive practices of federal agencies that led
to their plight.
The death of LaVoy Finicum is a needless tragedy.
Federal authorities had wisely been taking a hands-off
approach to the occupation, denying Bundy and his
friends the opportunity for the tense stand-off they
seemed to be seeking. Unfortunately, politicians like
Oregon's Democrat Gov. Kate Brown, took the occupation
as a personal affront and were calling for law
enforcement to take more aggressive action to put a
stop to the flagrant defiance of federal authority.
The result is a martyr for the fringe and escalation
of the situation from a nuisance to a volatile and
dangerous level. The strategy was clearly to "remove
the head of the snake" by capturing the leaders of the
occupation, but what if those leaders were the cooler
heads that were keeping the protest calm and peaceful?
With the death of Finicum, in circumstances that some
are calling murder, a fuse has been lit, and unless
authorities can and do quickly produce evidence that
their actions were clearly justified, this could blow
up in a very ugly way. And it all could have been
easily avoided.
Realistically, what harm were the protesters doing?
They were occupying buildings of a remote wildlife
refuge in a sparsely populated area of the country in
the dead of winter. They were making no threats,
harming no one, and getting less and less attention
from an unsympathetic media. They were not supported
by any national or state militia organizations, and
their whole agenda had pretty well fizzled.
I wish Ammon Bundy had taken my advice, negotiated a
peaceful end to the situation and sent his supporters
home to their families weeks ago. That didn't happen,
and what happens next is anyone's guess. The remaining
occupiers must be concerned about what might happen to
them if they try to leave, especially in light of the
death of Finicum, and by setting up roadblocks and
checkpoints, authorities have now committed manpower
and resources to potentially long, cold, uncomfortable
duty that can't help but engender deeper frustration
and resentment between police and occupiers. Any trust
that might have developed is completely out the
window. Worse, the bloodshed may provoke other groups
to step in and escalate the mess even further.
Perhaps this week's arrests will bring this whole
thing to a close, but I fear that it is more likely
signaling the beginning of something much worse than
protesters occupying a wilderness outpost.
Christian persecution reached record high in 2015,
report says
By William J. Cadigan, CNN Sun January 17, 2016
Christians flee persecution in the middle east
(CNN)Last year was the most violent for Christians in
modern history, rising to "a level akin to ethnic
cleansing," according to a new report by Open Doors
USA, a watchdog group that advocates for Christians.
In total, the survey found that more than 7,100
Christians were killed in 2015 for "faith-related
reasons," up 3,000 from the previous year, according
to the group's analysis of media reports and other
public information as well as external experts. Open
Door's report is independently audited by the
International Institute of Religious Freedom. Open
Doors USA is an organization that works with
Christians worldwide to "equip and encourage" those
living under persecution while also helping churches
in America advocate for the persecuted around the
world.
The group's report defines Christian persecution "as
any hostility experienced as a result of one's
identification with Christ." Open Doors found this
persecution ranged from imprisonment, torture,
beheadings and rape to the loss of home and assets,
the loss of a job, or even rejection from a community.
Speaking at the National Press Club on Wednesday,
David Curry, president and CEO of Open Doors,
introduced the annual ranking of countries based on
their severity of Christian persecution, evaluating
levels of violence worldwide to formulate the global
top 50. The list, now in its 25th year, is topped by
North Korea for the 14th consecutive time. Curry says
that "pariah states" like North Korea are especially
hostile toward Christians.
According to the report, however, much of the
persecution faced by Christians occurs in
predominantly Muslim nations, many of which are
"failed states" that fail to protect any of their
citizens' religious liberty.
The presence of Islamic extremist factions across the
world in 2015 brought religious persecution for not
only Christians, but also Muslims, Yazidis and other
religious minorities, the report found. Notably, Iraq
(No. 2) and Syria (No. 5) are the epicenter of ISIS'
so called "caliphate," while Afghanistan (4), Pakistan
(6), Iran (9) and Libya (10) all have elements of
Islamic extremism.
Curry said that while "Islamic extremism is one of the
driving forces" of Christian persecution,
"peace-loving Muslims can make an impact on that part
of their culture."
ISIS and other extremist groups are spreading, the
report highlights, not just in the Middle East but
around the world. Curry said he hoped the list would
bring attention to the plight of Christians across the
globe as they face a "total lack of religious
freedom," forced migration and even genocide.
In fact, part of the reason for the annual list,
according to Curry, is to highlight for U.S.
policymakers the continued persecution of Christians
by our "geopolitical allies." Countries such as Saudi
Arabia and India are key global partners for the
United States, yet Open Doors ranks both in its top 50
of persecutors of Christians.
"We believe in religious freedom for all," Curry said,
"and that does not happen in countries that we do
business with every day."
Open Doors also seeks to inspire and inform Christians
in America, using the annual watch list "as a clarion
call to pray, advocate and remember their persecuted
fellow Christians."
Ethics Complaint Says Big Clinton Donors Got
State Dept Access
The Daily Caller Richard Pollock, Reporter 01/10/2016
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton violated
federal ethics statutes by giving “preferential
treatment” to wealthy political campaign donors and
financial supporters of the Clinton Foundation,
according to a formal complaint filed Friday by the
Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.
The non-profit government watchdog group filed the
complaint with the Office of Government Ethics, asking
it to conduct a “full investigation” into Clinton’s
“apparent breach of ethics rules.” A copy of the
complaint was exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller
News Foundation.
The organization charged Clinton gave “preferential
treatment to individuals with which she had financial
ties” and “regularly granted access” to rich donors,
celebrities, and even powerful foreign nationals.
The FACT complaint follows the State Department’s latest
release of thousands of Clinton emails that she turned
over to the government more than two years after leaving
the office in 2013. She used a private email address and
a home-brew server in her private New York residence to
conduct official government business throughout her
tenure.
Number of Muslim-Americans born to Middle Eastern
migrants 'off the charts'
Leo Hohmann Published: 1/06/2016
So-called “home-grown” terrorists such as Syed
Farook, who slaughtered 14 people last month in San
Bernardino, or Muhammad Abdulazeez, who gunned down
five U.S. servicemen in Chattanooga last summer, were
both second-generation Muslim-Americans whose parents
emigrated to the U.S.
Most of the terrorists who attacked Paris in November,
killing 130 people with guns and bombs, were also
described by the media as “home grown jihadists” when
in reality they still represented a foreign culture,
born of Middle Eastern parents who migrated to Europe
and never fully assimilated. And now there is fresh
evidence that this segment of the U.S. population is
growing exponentially.
Buried in the Social Security data is a count of
babies born with the name Muhammad. While offering a
small sample, the Social Security database is able to
shed light on the growth of second-generation Muslims
in America. It is highly reliable and accurate. It
shows a huge growth pattern.
“A boy named Mohammed born here is likely to grow up
in a Muslim environment and, at the same time, be a
U.S. citizen,” North writes. “So we can get a rough
proxy of the growth of the population of
second-generation Muslim immigrants by noting how many
of them carry these names. (Third-generation babies
are also included.)”
The figures show the huge growth in this population
over the last 50 years, starting in 1964 when only 29
baby boys were named after the Islamic prophet who
lived in the seventh century. By 2014 the number had
soared to 2,931, a more than 100-to-one ratio.
Alabama 2nd state to sue feds over refugee
resettlement
Suit claims program too secretive
Leo Hohmann Published: 01/07/2016
Alabama has become the second state to sue the
federal government alleging that it has failed to
“consult” with state officials while secretly placing
foreign refugees into communities. The suit claims the
Obama administration has violated the terms of the
Refugee Act of 1980, which says the federal government
“shall consult regularly” with states before
placing refugees.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Robert Bentley told the
Associated Press the lawsuit was filed Thursday,
following a similar suit by Texas a month ago.
But an expert on the 1980 law governing refugee
resettlement told WND that neither suit stands a
chance of stopping the flow of refugees into Texas or
Alabama. Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel
of the Thomas More Law Center, said his organization
is not involved in either the Texas or the Alabama
cases because he believes there is a stronger case to
be made on the grounds of the 10th Amendment.
“They filed a suit on the grounds that the feds have
failed to consult with the state on the location of
refugees in the state, and failure to consult is a
term that has no real definition to it. Texas has
filed a similar suit that thus far has not gone
anywhere,” Thompson said. “Thomas More Law Center’s
position is that there is a constitutional claim and
that claim is based on the 10th Amendment.”
Bentley is one of more than two-dozen Republican
governors who opposed the settlement of Syrian
refugees in their states after the Nov. 13 jihadist
attacks that killed 130 people in Paris.
About 80 GOP congressmen have also signed on to
co-sponsor a bill by Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, which
would halt all refugee resettlement until the program
can undergo a full investigation into its costs and
its risks to national security.
But the U.S. State Department has continued
distributing Muslim refugees into more than 180 U.S.
cities and towns. They come not only from Syria and
Iraq, but from Somalia, Afghanistan, the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Burma and other countries with
active jihadist movements.
A stronger response is ready and waiting for a taker.
The Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center
has been working since June to prepare a case that
would challenge the constitutionality of federal
authority over the refugee program. The program is
administered by the U.S. State Department along with
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Expanding special rights
to the 2% who choose the LGBT lifestyle in
Jacksonville FL
with excerpts from Christopher Hong Jan 13, 2016 Jacksonville Florida Times-Union
"Jacksonville residents crowded Tuesday’s City Council
meeting to voice their stance on the longstanding
question of whether to expand discrimination
protections to the LGBT community...
Tuesday’s meeting saw the formal introduction of two
bills on the issue. Councilman Tommy Hazouri
introduced a bill to expand the discrimination
protections, while Councilman Bill Gulliford
introduced a bill to let voters decide.
Next month, the council will begin debating those two
bills.... the council defeated similar legislation in
2012. Tuesday’s discussion mostly remained civil, with
council members hearing many of the same arguments
voiced years ago and in a series of community meetings
that (Mayor) Curry hosted late last year.
Supporters of expanding the law said the LGBT
community deserves the same rights and protections
afforded to other minority groups and urged the
council to vote on it.
Opponents, many citing their religious beliefs that
homosexuality is morally wrong, said expanded
protections amounted to a special privilege that would
interfere with small business and could allow men into
women’s restrooms. Many urged council members to let
voters decide the issue.
The full council will debate Hazouri’s and Gulliford’s
bills during special meetings scheduled for Feb. 4,
Feb. 18 and March 3."
Has your voice been heard about this expansion of
Special Rights in Jacksonville FL? Contact
your Mayor and your Council Representatives:
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 people.
Alabama chief justice tells judges to halt same-sex
'marriages'
Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/06/2016
World Net Daily
Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court on
Wednesday ordered the state’s probate judges, the only
ones in the state who are allowed to issue marriage
licenses, to follow the state’s Sanctity of Marriage
Amendment and its Marriage Protection Act until the full
state Supreme Court rules on the issue.
Please click here to read the article in its entirety
January 7, 2016
Subject: URGENT: Stop the LGBT Law
Dear
Jacksonville
Family,
This is URGENT. Please forward this
email to others.
Unless we do something
about it, just 10
City Council members will force a LGBT
favoritism law upon Jacksonville, Duval County,
Florida – a law which will restrict Free
Speech and religious liberties and which will
allow men, claiming to be women, to enter women’s
and children’s dormitories, and dressing, locker
and rest rooms – to view them in all stages of
undress.
And, much more harm will
occur. Get more details at DefendJaxFamilies.
But, you
can help prevent this. How? LET THE PEOPLE
DECIDE this issue.
●Show your support for
the Public Referendum proposed by
Councilman Gulliford. Complete and return the Petition
found here,
where there are instructions. The Petition
form can be filled out on your computer and returned
by email.
●Forward this letter.
Email it to as many people as possible.
●Collect Petition
signatures. Download the Petition
form, print copies and distribute them at
churches and other venues.
●Help fund the campaign.
And please urge friends to donate
here . They will understand that it
takes funding to fight this battle.
●Attend key City
Council meetings. The next City
Council meeting is January 12, 2016 at 5:00 P.M.
Followed by the Finance Committee meeting on Jan 19
at 9:30 A.M. Click
here to view regularly scheduled City Council
meetings and plan accordingly.
Please act quickly.
Time is short. Please act now to complete the forms
and return.
Thanks for all your help,
and for your support in the past.
Non-Muslims encouraged to wear Islamic head scarf at
school
Click
here to read a thoughtful piece posted by Leo
Hohmann on WND 12/14/2015.This news occurred
courtesy of American educational systems and Muslim
Student Associations (M.S.A.), a known front group for
the Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator
in the largest terror-financing trial ever held on U.S.
soil.
(The above may more be correctly filed under
"How Political Correctness is destroying our nation")
If your blood
pressure is not high enough yet, click
here to read about the Virginia high school
Geography class that passed around the Koran and
included a lesson practicing Arabic calligraphy, or
the California School with the Muslim fight song.
Wonder when is the last time they sang "Onward,
Christian Soldiers" and passed around a Bible.
(Thanks again to wnd.com)
Facebook censors Michael Savage post of Muslims
protesting
Photos show demonstrators warning 'Behead those who
insult Islam'
Published: 12/10/2015 at 3:38 PM World Net Daily
When Muslims held a demonstration in London in 2006 in
protest of cartoons depicting their founder, Muhammad,
many bore signs warning of beheading and death for
“those who insult Islam.”
Talk-radio host Michael Savage thought that amid a
fierce national debate on whether or not to allow
Muslims to immigrate to the United States, it would be
worth considering what has been happening in Europe.
So, he posted on his Facebook page photographs of the
Feb. 3, 2006, demonstration outside the Embassy of
Denmark in London. The focus of protest was the
publication of editorial cartoons depicting Muhammad in
the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Snopes.com
verified that the photographs were taken at the London
demonstration, with the exception of one, which was from
a protest in the English city of Luton (which is 33
miles away).
Wednesday night, Facebook removed Savage’s post,
explaining the social media site “determined that it
violated Facebook community standards.”
After Muslim Truckers Refuse
to Deliver Beer… Obama Does the Unbelievable
From Top Right News on October
27, 2015
by Bill Callen | Top Right News
Barack Obama just sided with Muslims to enforce
Islamic Sharia Law on an American business, leaving
many outraged and two FoxNews anchors absolutely
stunned.
Two Muslim truck drivers — former Somali “refugees”
— refused to make deliveries of beer to stores
for their employer. So they were understandably fired.
They claimed it was a violation of their religious
beliefs — even though Islam bars only the consumption
of alcohol. And, as the employer pointed out, the
workers knew they would have to deliver
alcohol before they took the job.
So guess what Barack Obama did.
He SUED the employers it on behalf of the pair,
Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale,
claiming religious discrimination.
Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
represented them in the case, providing tens of
thousands of taxpayer dollars in legal support,
judicial filings and court appearances against the
employer who was hopelessly outgunned by the Federal
government.
And this week the Muslims were awarded a stunning
$240,000 by a jury, presided over by an Obama
appointee who stunned analysts by allowing the case to
go forward at all.
Hard to believe, isn't it? Why would someone accept a
job knowing he is unable to perform the work?? This
has been fact checked
at this link and it is, sadly, true.
from the Washington Post (which commentator and
author Mark Levin colorfully refers to as the
"Washington Compost":
San Bernardino suspects identified; probe turns to
motive, planning
What we know about the
shooting in San Bernardino
Police
in San
Bernardino, Calif.,
said heavily armed gunmen killed 14 people and
injured 17 others during a holiday party for
county employees. Here's what we know about the
mass shooting. (The Washington
Post)
By
William Dauber, Sarah Kaplan and Brian MurphyDecember 3 at 9:46 AM
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. —
Investigators grappled Thursday on two main fronts
after the deadliest U.S. mass shooting since the
Sandy Hook Elementary School bloodshed: Seeking
clues on the motives and apparent commando-style
planning by a couple who turned an office holiday
party into a killing field with at least 14 dead.
“I don’t think they grabbed the guns and tactical
gear on a spur-of-the-moment thing,” said San
Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan hours after
Wednesday’s rampage and a police shootout that left
both alleged shooters dead several miles from the
attack.
In addition, at least 17 people were wounded, some
critically.
Bit by bit, profiles emerged of the suspects: Syed
Rizwan Farook, 28, a former county health worker who
was born in the United States,
and a woman described as his Pakistani-born wife,
Tashfeen Malik, 27.
As many as
three people opened fire at a nonprofit facility
in San
Bernardino where a
holiday party for county employees was underway,
killing at least 14 people and injuring 17 others.
Also being pieced together were the hour-by-hour
events before police say the suspects stormed a
conference center wearing black masks and armed with
assault rifles and handguns.
Earlier in the day, the suspects dropped off their
6-month-old daughter with Farook’s mother, saying
they had a doctor’s appointment, said Hussam
Ayloush, executive director of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles.
Later, Farook attended the office party hosted by
the San Bernardino County Department of Public
Health, where he had once worked as an inspector,
earning more than $71,000 in salary and benefits in
2013. Farook then left the gathering “under
circumstances described as angry or something of
that nature,” said Burguan, the police chief.
Police said Farook then returned with Malik and the
pair opened fire on the crowd before fleeing in a
black SUV, which was later spotted about two miles
from the shooting site with the area under
near-total lockdown. Some unconfirmed reports quoted
police saying the attackers also were outfitted with
body cameras.
A shootout with police left both suspects dead and
the vehicle peppered with bullet holes and with its
windows shattered.
“They came prepared to do what they did, as if they
were on a mission,” Burguan said.
Muslim community leader Ayloush described Malik as
a Pakistani-born immigrant who lived in Saudi Arabia
before marrying Farook. Two FBI officials told The
Washington Post that Farook was not under FBI
investigation. It’s not clear whether he had links
to any other people under FBI investigation.
A third person seen fleeing the shootout was also
taken into custody, but it remained unclear whether
there was any link to the suspect.
“Right now, as we continue to drill down our
information, it looks like we have two shooters,”
Burguan said. “We are comfortable that the two
shooters that went into the building are the two
shooters that are deceased.”
But many other questions loomed.
Among them was whether the attack was pre-planned
and why the suspects amassed assault-style gear and
arms in a tidy residential neighborhood about 50
miles east of Los Angeles where the couple was often
seen relaxing in their back yard.
Burguan declined to comment on what may have
precipitated the attack. But, he said, the couple
seemed too well-prepared for the shooting to be
viewed as a spontaneous act.
He added: “We have not ruled out terrorism.”
“I have no idea why he would do something like
this,” Farhan Khan, who is married to Farook’s
sister, said at a news conference. “I cannot express
how sad I am today.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives said it recovered two rifles and two
handguns and is conducting “urgent traces” on their
origins.
An ATF official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said two of the weapons were purchased
legally, and investigations continued into the other
two.
“Whatever the results of this investigation ... one
thing is clear: Violence like this has no place in
this country,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
speaking at a White House event on incarceration and
poverty.
Recent mass shootings in the United States
have typically involved a lone gunman, often someone
mentally unstable or consumed with rage.
Multiple-shooter events are extremely rare:
According to a recent FBI report on 160 “active
shooter incidents” between 2000 and 2013, all but
two involved a single shooter.
“One of
the big questions that will come up repeatedly is:
‘Is this terrorism?’ ” said David Bowdich, assistant
director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles
office, said at an earlier news conference. “It is a
possibility. We are making some adjustments to our
investigation. It is a possibility. But we don’t
know that yet. And we are not willing to go down
that road yet.”
The two left behind little in the way of a paper
trail — no apparent criminal record, no Facebook
page or Twitter account.
An online dating profile for a “farooksyed49” from
Riverside,
Calif.,
resembles the suspect described by law enforcement.
The profile, on the “Indian matrimonial and dating
service” iMilap.com, describes a 22-year-old man
from a “religious but modern family.”
“I work for county as health, safety and
environmental inspector,” it reads. “Enjoy working
on vintage and modern cars, read religious books,
enjoy eating out sometimes travel and just hang out
in back yard doing target practice with younger
sister and friends.”
The man in the profile picture is tall and bearded,
posed jauntily in front of a nondescript building
flanked by palm trees and a smooth, green lawn. He
writes that he is interested in “matrimonial.”
Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, co-workers who
knew Farook described him as a quiet and polite man
who held no obvious grudges against people in the
office. They said he recently traveled to Saudi Arabia
and returned with a woman he met online.
The officer had recently held a shower for the
couple’s new baby, and the two seemed to be “living
the American dream,” said Patrick Baccari, a fellow
inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook.
Griselda Reisinger, who worked with Farook before
leaving the agency in May, and other colleagues told
the Los Angeles Times that Farook was a devout
Muslim but not vocal about his religion.
The site of the shooting, the InlandRegionalCenter, is
a three-building complex that houses a conference
center and serves more than 30,000 people with
developmental disabilities. Nearly 700 staff members
work there, according to the organization’s Facebook
page, promoting “independence, inclusion, and
empowerment.” The organization says that it is
committed to eliminating barriers for individuals
with developmental disabilities so that they can
“live a typical lifestyle.”
The center held its own holiday party Tuesday, and
a brief video clip showed staffers and clients in
wheelchairs dancing to the 1980 mega-hit
“Celebration” by Kool & the Gang.
On Wednesday, the city’s public health department
had rented out the conference center’s first-floor
banquet room for a holiday party, complete with
Christmas trees and other decorations. The event was
in full swing when the first reports of gunfire
came, at 10:59 a.m.
Dauber is a freelance writer. Kaplan and Murphy
reported from Washington.
Freelance writer Martha Groves in San Bernardino and
staff writers Joel Achenbach, Mark Berman, Adam
Goldman, Lindsey Bever, Niraj Chokshi, Ann
Gerhart, Sari Horwitz, Elahe Izadi, Wesley Lowery,
Kevin Sullivan, Julie Tate, Justin Wm. Moyer,
Yanan Wang and Alice Crites in Washington
contributed to this report.
Sarah Kaplan is a reporter for
Morning Mix.
Brian Murphy joined the Post
after more than 20 years as a foreign
correspondent and bureau chief for the Associated
Press in Europe and the Middle
East. He has reported from more
than 50 countries and has written three books.
November
19. 2015
FROM A CONCERNED
CITIZEN OF JACKSONVILLE
It's
baaack!It's
the so-called “Human Rights Ordinance”
(H.R.O.- not to be confused with the Holy
Roman Empire which failed centuries ago), a
second attempt to introduce another
"SPECIAL" group with "SPECIAL" rights
un-accorded to you- the average moral
citizen of our city.
Evidently,
it is notenough to have EQUAL
rights and EQUAL justice... at least
that is what the paid lobbyists trolling
around city hall seem to indicate.
My
consternation is that as a color-blind, sexual
orientation-blind, class-blind person, now the
city wants to FORCE me to look at the
private sexual inclinations
of others, whether I choose to or not, and
then may misinterpret my response, putting me
at risk of criminal actions against me!
We have inalienable
God-given rights- Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness to mention a few.
These are specifically mentioned in the U.S.
Constitution which purpose was to limit
the power and control of general
government. As if that was not enough to
confirm the “fully-worthy” status of all,
there is also a Florida Commission on Human
Relations, and Civil Rights. We need the city
to spend time and our money on this also?
The Mayor
of Jacksonville, Lenny Curry, has mandated
three fact finding meetings, “Community
Conversations”, so that all sides of
the H.R.O. proposal can be heard.
The first
meeting has taken place.... the topic was "Supporting
the Needs and Well-Being of Families"-not
ALL families, evidently- not military families
or racially mixed families or families with
one partner living out of town, or single
parent families. Why a meeting about this
little LGBT segment of families?? Don't all
families have challenges? All households? Is
it the City’s balliwick to give this SPECIAL
consideration, at the expense of our
public safety, roads, and pensions for those
who keep us safe?
The first
meeting was composed of a panel of six, four
of whom were “for” the LGBT Special Privilege
bill. The meeting was attended by several
busloads of LGBT supporters who were shipped
in from outside of the city. Arriving first,
it was only they who were allowed to comment
during the first-come-first served portion of
the meeting. Needless to say, the first
meeting did not prove to be a successful
format to hear “all sides” of the proposal.
Religious
Freedoms, Thoughts & Beliefs, Dec.3 at
6 p.m.
EdwardWatersCollege Milne
Auditorium at 1658 Kings Road, Jacksonville, FL32209
and
Understanding
the
Law & its Effects on Business, Dec. 15
at 6 p.m.
Jacksonville
University
Policy Institute at 2800 University Blvd. N.,
Jacksonville,
FL32211.
Jacksonville
is a city struggling to pay the costs
and pensions of our public safety
professionals at JFRD and JSO, to maintain our
infrastructure, and to promote the general
welfare and safety of ALL of our citizens, yet
our elected leaders are spending our resources
discussing how you and I should respond
to the sexual choices of others,
allowing them into public restrooms frequented
by my family and neighbors. If this should
pass, will the city also spend my money to
retrofit bathroom facilities so my kids will
be safe? Will the city require private
businesses to do likewise?
So give
this some thought. It's your city and your tax
money.If
you say No No! NO! to this, please contact
your Mayor, Lenny Curry at
This is the time to make your voice and
your priorities for your city of Jacksonville,
heard.
WND EXCLUSIVE
Houston faith leaders gear up
for new transgender fight
'We will work with Dallas
pastors to determine how to appropriately respond'
Bob Unruh 11/11/2015
The coalition of pastors
from Houston who defeated lesbian Mayor Annise
Parker’s transgender-rights ordinance – a fight that
included her subpoenas of sermons – now are
volunteering to help pastors in Dallas oppose a
similar measure.
“We will work with Dallas pastors to determine how to
appropriately respond to the wholesale catering by
city council to the radical, anti-faith, anti-family
agenda of the LGBT Human Rights Campaign,” said Rev.
Dave Welch, president of the Texas Pastor Council.
Welch said Dallas’ change to its existing
nondiscrimination ordinance “not only opens but
essentially removes the doors of women’s restrooms,
showers and locker rooms in Dallas, as well as
criminalizes businesses, employees as well as
eventually, churches who attempt to keep men out.”
WND has reported extensively on the Houston fight,
which took nearly two years. It ended last week when
citizens, by order of the state Supreme Court, were
allowed to vote on the measure and soundly rejected
it, 62 percent to 38 percent.
The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance would have banned
discrimination against transgender people, allowing,
for example, men who perceive themselves to be women
to use women’s restrooms, locker rooms and other
gender-specific facilities in the city. Anyone
opposing or obstructing them could have been fined
$5,000.
“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out eight
principles to help Americans with conservative moral
values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion,
speech and conscience by homosexual activists
The Texas Pastor Council’s Welch condemned the change
in the Dallas ordinance as an attack on society’s
foundation.
“There are many issues that our city governments
should be focused on to improve the city, and this
ordinance patently rejects cornerstones of our
civilization that family is built upon the covenant of
marriage between a man and a woman, that our sex is
embedded in our chromosomes, and this beautiful
created order is a gift from God.”
Welch added, “A bad tree cannot produce good fruit and
a law based on elevating gender confusion to being a
protected class equal with race can only produce harm,
not good.”
The Dallas law protecting “gender identity and
expression” says the places of public accommodation
that must grant a man who defines his gender as female
full access to women’s facilities are any inn, hotel,
temporary lodging, restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom,
soda facility, motion picture house, theater, concert
hall, and retail or wholesale establishment selling
goods or services.
The measure, Welch said, is a “bottomless Pandora’s
Box.”
“Definition A plus Definition B equals exposing girls
and women to violation of their privacy as well as
their safety,” he said.
He said city officials in Dallas should have paid
attention to the Houston vote and learned that pastors
and citizens will react negatively to such a social
agenda.
“As our very ethnically diverse coalition of pastors
in Houston stated and showed for the last eighteen
months, every one of us are for equal rights for all,
however we cannot allow special rights for a tiny
fraction of society to endanger the safety and freedom
for the rest,” he said.
Stephen Young at the Dallas Observer wrote that Dallas
didn’t pass an ordinance but “adjusted the language of
an ordinance that’s existed since 2002 in a way that
made very little change to how anyone in the city is
treated.”
He said in Houston, voters denied “protection” to
their fellow residents.
Young said the Dallas ordinance “doesn’t even have the
word restroom in it, and the failed Houston law only
allowed opposite-gender restroom use in a fantasy
world in which trans people don’t exist.”
At the Advocate, Dawn Ennis explained that while
“sexual orientation” has been a protected class for
years, “gender identity” was a class left unprotected.
She noted there was no organized opposition to the
expansion of the sexual identity protections, but
critics say that was because there was very little
notice to the public of the looming change.
Texas Values Action blasted the Dallas law and its
quick adoption.
“This Dallas bathroom ordinance will allow men into
women’s bathrooms and that’s why the Dallas city
council is deliberately trying to avoid the people,”
said a statement released by the group’s president,
Jonathan Saenz.
“Their fast track method of passing this dangerous
bill that threatens the safety of women and children
is the same strategy used in Houston to disenfranchise
voters with their failed bathroom bill. Creating law
behind closed doors and forcing it onto the people the
next morning is a recipe for disaster. These Obama and
D.C. style tactics will not work in Texas. Get ready
for a Texas-sized response.”
“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out eight
principles to help Americans with conservative moral
values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion,
speech and conscience by homosexual activists
The strategy in Houston was to move the ordinance
through the city council quickly. City officials then
tried to invalidate a petition demanding a public
vote.
After a months-long court fight, the state Supreme
Court stepped in and ordered the city to repeal the
ordinance or put it on the election ballot in
compliance with the city charter.
Some of the pastors who were targeted by the mayor’s
subpoena have filed a lawsuit charging her with
violating their rights.
It is hard to know where to catalogue the following
... under Politics? Religious Liberties? Islamic
Threat? Christian or Cult? Perhaps "Know They Enemy"?
You be the judge.
40 Mind-Blowing Quotes From
Barack Hussein Obama On Islam And Christianity
by Geoffrey Grider nowtheendbegins.com
Oct 2, 2013
When someone shows you who
they are, believe them
Since 2009, NOW THE END BEGINS has
brought you story after story in detailed accounts of
exactly how Obama feels about Islam, and how he views
Christianity and the Bible. So today, in light of
recent events in Washington, we feel it important that
you know exactly where your president stands in
regards to his faith and his god. Below are 20 quotes
he has made about Islam, and 20 quotes he has made
about Christianity. Nothing edited or mashed up, just
exactly in the context he originally spoke them in
with fully-sourced links so you can see where they
come from.
Police Confiscate Mohammed Cartoons At Dutch
Anti-Islam Rally
by Nick Hallett 9 Nov 2015
Police seized “offensive” Mohammed cartoons during a
demonstration by the Dutch branch of the Patriotic
European Against the Islamisation of the West (PEGIDA)
movement in the city of Utrecht this weekend.
The rally, which attracted around 150 supporters,
criticised the “Islamisation” of the Netherlands, with
demonstrators also expressing their support for the
Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, a noted critic of
Islamism.
DutchNews reports that police arrested 32 people at the
demonstration for a variety of offences including
failing to carry IDs, not following police orders and
displaying “insulting banners”.
One such banner said the “Koran is poison”, while
another claimed “Islamisation is EU-thanasia”.
Video footage emerged of police removing Mohammed
cartoons, although their ultimate fate is unknown.
Utrecht City Council had banned the demonstrators from
marching through the city so they gathered instead in a
park on the outskirts of the city.
The PEGIDA marches started in Dresden, Germany last year
as “evening strolls” through the streets every Monday to
protest against militant and political Islam. The
marches soon grew and spread across the country, but
died down again at the start of this year to point where
most commentators assumed the movement had petered out.
However, as the migrant crisis intensifies in Europe,
especially thanks to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s
relaxed border policies, the marches have started again
and are growing.
Authorities have hit back, however, charging founder
Lutz Bachmann with hate speech for comments he made in
Facebook posts back in 2014. State prosecutors in Saxony
claim private posts in which Mr Bachmann uses terms such
as “livestock” and “scum” to refer to migrants risked
causing disturbances.
This weekend in the German capital Berlin, supporters of
the anti-mass migration Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD)
party also held a rally criticising Mrs Merkel’s
immigration policy and calling for her to resign.
The rally passed off largely peacefully, although
violent scuffles broke out between police and
pro-migrant counter-demonstrators.
Thousands Of German
People Chant ‘Merkel Must Go’ At Anti-Mass Muslim
Migration Rally
by Geoffrey Grider
November 7, 2015
The AFD has seen its popularity surge as Germany
struggles to deal with the huge influx of Muslim
migrants, and is currently campaigning in local
elections in the Saxony-Anhalt region that will be seen
as an indicator of public sentiment on the issue.
The anti-mass Muslim migration Alternativ für
Deutschland (AfD) party held a rally in the German
capital Berlin this afternoon, demanding the resignation
of Chancellor Angela Merkel and calling for the country
to adopt a strong policy on immigration.
German paper Handelsblatt estimates that 5,000 people
joined the rally this afternoon, calling for the
immediate closure of Germany’s borders and introduction
of visa requirements from migrants from the Balkan
states, including Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Montenegro.
Angry demonstrators chanted “Merkel must go” and
“traitor to the people” under the banner “Asylum has its
limits – red card for Merkel”.
Addressing the crowd, Beatrix von Storch, member of the
European Parliament, accused the German chancellor of
causing "asylum chaos” in Germany.
This was a rally in German from about two weeks ago, as
the German people are being forced to rise up and do
what their government refuses to do.
Although the main protest was largely peaceful, several
counter-protests by pro-migrant activists descended into
violence, with around 40 arrests. Around 800
counter-demonstrators showed up, far lower than
organisers had hoped.
Yesterday, it was reported that the German government
had agreed the downgrade the status of Syrian migrants,
reducing the amount of time they could stay in the
country and banning them from bringing their families.
Today, however, the government did a U-turn on the
plans.
Court rules against
Little Sisters of the Poor in Contraceptive Coverage
Case
By Nigel Duara
L.A. Times
July 14, 2015
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that there is a
limit to how far the government must bend to
accommodate religious objections to the federal
healthcare exchange.
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if
the Colorado-based Little Sisters of the Poor want to
refuse contraceptive coverage to their employees, they
must sign a waiver to be exempted, and that such a
waiver is not a substantial burden on the nuns'
religious freedom.
The 2-1 decision is one of the few victories the U.S.
government can claim in defense of the healthcare law
in the contraceptive mandate debate.
Hobby Lobby, a business run by evangelical
Christians, successfully argued before the U.S.
Supreme Court last year that a mandate to provide
contraception to female employees violated their
belief that life begins at conception.
The high court agreed that for-profit organizations
like Hobby Lobby required protection, but did not say
how far such protections would go.
In response, on Aug. 27, 2014, Affordable Care
Act administrators created a waiver for religious
nonprofits that would grant them an exemption from
contraceptive coverage.
But the Little Sisters of the Poor, who run the
Mullen Home for the Aged in Denver, argued before a
three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit that the waiver
itself both crosses the nuns’ moral boundary by
endorsing contraceptives and gives control of their
healthcare program to the government.
“Most religious liberty claimants allege that a
generally applicable law or policy without a religious
exception burdens religious exercise,” according to
the decision, noting that most cases begin with
prisoners demanding a religious right.
But in the Little Sisters of the Poor case and
accompanying suits by self-insured religious objectors
and religious universities, the government made clear
attempts to offer a religious exemption, the judges
wrote.
“Although plaintiffs allege the administrative tasks
required to opt out of the mandate make them complicit
in the overall delivery scheme, opting out instead
relieves them from complicity,” according to the
opinion.
The judges said the difference between Hobby Lobby
and the Little Sisters of the Poor is that Hobby Lobby
faced fines for every day of noncompliance. Ihe Little
Sisters of the Poor faced no such burden, the judges
ruled.
10th Circuit Judge Bobby R. Baldock, the lone
dissenter, agreed with the decision on the Little
Sisters of the Poor but said other self-insured groups
were indeed substantially burdened when they faced
fines for refusing to provide contraceptives because
of their religious belief.
May 9, 2015
Dr. Gene A. Youngblood, Pastor
First Conservative Baptist Church
12021 Old St Augustine Rd
Jacksonville, Florida 32258
TO: All news media outlets
It has come to my attention that there are
some in our community, as well as, a few media that
have expressed questions or concerns relating to our
Church-Ministry campus/outdoor marquee, changeable
copy sign and its current message. This marquee
generally has a message change each week. Generally
the message relates in some fashion to those things
and events taking place in our city or nation. As a
pastor and ministry we feel it needful to keep our
citizens informed and at the same time be relevant
through the Word of GOD.
FIRST: Let me state
my deep love and concern for our great city, state,
and nation. I am a Bible believing patriot
with a deep concern over the moral declension. I am
deeply saddened to see the morals and family values
under attack on a national basis. I have invested
the past 50 years of my life in the defense of the
WORD of GOD through religious-theological studies,
pastoral, pulpit, and classroom academic
instructional responsibilities.
SECOND: We are profoundly committed to the
preaching-teaching of God’s Word. God’s Word
commands that I “Preach the WORD” (11Tim 4:1-3)
which in the text includes confronting sin. I do not
have the authority OR permission to change any text
of GOD’S Word-THE BIBLE.
THIRD: Our ministry marquee has been used as a tool
to educate, inspire, and caution for over 30 years.
We have dealt with multiple Biblical-Theological
issues that caution and confront sin of whatever
kind. Our prayer is that in our small way we may
make a difference in the lives of all those who pass
by. We do realize that any scriptural absolute may
cause conviction resulting in the attack on the
messenger as well as the message.
FORMALLY: The present message (caution) comes from
the WORD of GOD, The BIBLE as found in a multitude
of Scripture references:
• Romans 1:24-32, deals with
several kinds of Sin, with the focus on those
believing that they are wise and God says that they
are unwise. God then deals with the specific sin of
homosexuality and firmly condemns it.
• I Corinthians 6:9-10, warns that
all (including homosexuals) that commit sin and DO
NOT REPENT will die and go to HELL.
• OTHER text include and is NOT
limited to: Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22,
Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation
21:8, Revelation 22:15
Needless to say, the Scriptures are replete with
GOD’S warnings to all of us that SIN must be
confessed and repented of or HELL is GOD’S judgment
upon sin. The wonder of it all is that God through
Jesus Christ will forgive “ANY” confessed sin that
is repented of.
BECAUSE we love people (yet, as directed in
Scripture to hate the sin), we therefore want to
warn them of the coming Judgment of God on the sin
of Homosexuality (and any other sin that is NOT
repented of). ALL SIN that is not confessed and
repented will cause a person to GO TO HELL (God says
it, I did not originate the Word), God did. In fact,
according to several of the heretofore mentioned
Biblical text remind us of other sin specifically
mentioned in Scripture including; “All Liars,
Prostitutes, Sexually Promiscuous, Idolaters,
Adulterers, Homosexuals, Revilers, Extortioners,
WILL GO TO HELL unless they repent and seek God’s
forgiveness.
It is my sincere prayer that perhaps “ONE”
practicing Homosexual will have read our sign and
will REPENT before it is too late and they are cast
into HELL. HELL is a real place and anyone not
believing in the reality of HELL will not change the
temperature of the FLAMES a single degree.
I am eternally grateful to God for allowing me to
preach HIS WORD at a time when our Religious
FREEDOMS are being challenged and FREEDOM of speech
is being challenged, as well as, our (all of us)
Constitutional Liberties are under ATTACK.
Notwithstanding all of the above, I do understand
and sympathize with SOME that are not well
instructed or versed in the BIBLE and thus will
consider our marquee’s message to be incorrect or
un-spiritual. PLEASE allow me to state forthrightly;
we stand on SOLID Biblical TRUTH, therefore we pray
for each person that reads our message (changes
weekly), and prayerfully considers its TRUTH and
Caution.
FURTHERMORE, I pray that the media will NOT attempt
to thwart or interfere with our FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS
SPEECH. We also pray that the media will be
cautioned NOT to in any way interfere with or
disrupt ANY worship or other programs or services
conducted in and through FIRST CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST
CHURCH.
May God bless and use all in the MEDIA as an
instrument to preserve society and help protect
AMERICA and our great document THE CONSTITUTION.
Signed;
DR. GENE A. YOUNGBLOOD
Pastor
Obama blocks Iraqi nun from describing Christian
persecution
Posted By Leo Hohmann World Net Daily 05/01/2015 @ 11:52 am In Faith,Front Page,U.S.,World
Sister Diana Momeka is a Dominican Catholic nun
who fled her home in Iraq last August along with 50,000
other Christians and religious minorities escaping ISIS.
A leading conservative is asking why the Obama State
Department is barring a persecuted Iraqi nun from entry
into the United States to share her message about the
brutal treatment of Christians in her country.
Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious
Freedom, writes in a National Review op-ed that Sister
Diana Momeka is “an internationally respected and
leading representative of the Nineveh Christians who
have been killed and deported by ISIS.”
Yet this nun is being “barred from coming to Washington
to testify about this catastrophe?”
Sister Diana was the only Christian in the delegation
and the only member blocked from the trip, the
Washington Times reported, leading some of her American
supporters to question why she was singled out.
Shea, in her op-ed titled “With Malice Toward Nun,”
exposed the real reason why Obama denied the visa for
Sister Diana.
“Sister Diana Momeka of the Dominican
Sisters of Saint Catherine of Siena was informed on
Tuesday by the U.S. consulate in Erbil that her
non-immigrant-visa application has been rejected.
“The reason given in the denial
letter, a copy of which I have obtained, is:
‘You were not able to demonstrate
that your intended activities in the United States would
be consistent with the classification of the visa.’”
Shea further explains:
“She told me in a phone conversation
that, to her face, consular officer Christopher Patch
told her she was denied because she is an ‘IDP’ or
Internally Displaced Person. ‘That really hurt,’ she
said. Essentially, the State Department was calling her
a deceiver.”
Shea states that the State Department officials made the
determination that the Catholic nun “could be falsely
asserting that she intends to visit Washington when
secretly she could be intending to stay. That would
constitute illegal immigration, and that, of course, is
strictly forbidden. Once here, she could also be at risk
for claiming political asylum, and the U.S. seems
determined to deny ISIS’s Christian victims that
status.”
Shea then outlined Sister Diana’s reasons for her visit
and the endorsements she received from two politicians –
one Republican and one Democrat — among others:
“In reality, Sister Diana wanted to
visit for one week in mid-May. She has meetings set up
with the Senate and House foreign-relations committees,
the State Department, USAID, and various NGOs. In
support of her application, Sister Diana had multiple
documents vouching for her and the temporary nature of
her visit. She submitted a letter from her prioress,
Sister Maria Hana. It attested that the nun has been
gainfully employed since last February with the Babel
College of Philosophy and Theology in Erbil, Kurdistan,
and is contracted to teach there in the 2015–16 academic
year.”
Sister Diana also submitted an invitation from her
sponsors, two respected Washington-area think tanks, the
Institute for Global Engagement and former congressman
Frank Wolf’s (R., Va.) 21st Century Wilberforce
Initiative.
None of this was good enough for the Obama State
Department.
Yet, as Matthew Balan points out in an article for News
Busters, even as the administration denies a visa to a
persecuted Christian nun, it has created a “special
envoy for the human rights of LGBT persons.”
“One wonders if any of the major news media outlets will
pick up the story of Sister Diana,” Balan muses. Just
over a month ago, on 60 Minutes, CBS’s Lara Logan
refreshingly brought new attention to ISIS’s genocidal
campaign against the ancient Christian communities in
Iraq. But since then, there has been scant coverage of
the Islamic extremist group’s persecution of the
religious minority. ”
Sister Diana, along with the town’s 50,000 other, mostly
Christian, residents, were forced out of their homes by
ISIS in the second week of August and fled for their
lives to Kurdish-controlled areas.
“Since then, the 30-something religious woman has served
as a spokesperson for this community, as well as for the
over 100,000 other Christians driven into Kurdistan
under the ISIS ‘convert or die’ policy,” Shea writes.
“Mr. Wolf, who met her in Kurdistan a few months ago,
explained, ‘We had hoped to facilitate her trip to the
States so that she could speak with great candor, as is
her custom, to policymakers. Perhaps just as
significantly, we viewed her as a critical voice to
awaken the church in the West to the suffering of
Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq.’”
Muslim
congressmen try to boot Islam critic Geert Wilders
Posted By Art Moore On
04/30/2015 @ 7:38 pm In Front Page,Politics,U.S.
Reps. Andre Carson,
D-Ind., Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., and Keith Ellison,
D-Minn., in Washington, D.C., protesting Geert
Wilders visit to the U.S. (Twitter
@RepAndreCarson)
As one of the world’s most prominent critics of
Islam, Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders doesn’t go
anywhere without his security detail of as many as
six plainclothes police officers, and he rarely
crosses international borders without causing
political uproar, having already been banned in
Britain at one time.
So it was of little surprise that three U.S.
congressmen urged Secretary of State John Kerry and
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson to deny
him a visa ahead of his planned visit to the U.S.
this week, due to his alleged ongoing “participation
in inciting anti-Muslim aggression and violence.”
Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and André Carson,
D-Ind., who both are Muslim, along with Rep. Joe
Crowley, D-N.Y., wrote a letter April 23 citing “the
International Religious Freedom Act which allows the
Department of State to deny entry to a foreign
leader who is responsible for severe violations of
religious freedom.”
Nevertheless, Wilders – who insists he doesn’t hate
Muslims but believes Western civilization is
threatened by adherents of the Islamic supremacy
taught in the Quran – showed up on Capitol Hill
Wednesday and spoke at two events at the invitation
of Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Steve
King, R-Iowa
King’s communications director, Sarah Stevens, told
WND the congressman invited Wilders a month or so
ago to speak at the weekly Conservative Opportunity
Society breakfast he chairs. Wilders spoke Wednesday
on his latest book, “Marked for Death: Islam’s War
Against the West and Me,” and also attended an
evening reception with Congress members and staff
along with representatives of foreign-policy groups
on Capitol Hill.
Ellison, Carson and Crowley showed up Thursday at a
news conference King and Gohmert held for Wilders in
front of the U.S. Capitol and voiced their
opposition to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf in a
video interview.
“Personally, I find it disturbing, but mostly sad,
because, you know, the people of the Netherlands are
a good people, and this is absolutely true, with a
great history of tolerance, great history of giving
art to the world and great gifts,” Ellison said.
“And it’s unfortunate,” the Minnesota congressman
continued, “that someone such as this would come
over here and sort of represent himself as a member
of that society.”
Wilders, for his part, would contend that Ellison
actually is drawing attention to the central issue:
It’s the intolerance of Muslim immigrants and their
refusal to assimilate, Wilders argues, that
threatens the historic Judeo-Christian Dutch culture
that forms the basis of a tolerant, pluralistic
society capable of “giving art to the world and
great gifts.”
As for whether or not Wilders represents his
country, in 2009 he remarked: “Half of Holland loves
me and half of Holland hates me. There is no
in-between.”
King was unable to speak to WND due to schedule
constraints, but he was interviewed by the De
Telegraaf reporter in front of the Capitol Thursday,
who asked him for his view of Wilders.
“I think he’s solid and courageous. I introduced
him yesterday as a man who will stand up and speak
the truth – even if he’s under death threats, speak
the truth,” King said in the video interview.
“He’s done that consistently for a decade.”
Wilders is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at
an event Sunday in the Dallas area called the
“Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest.” Held at the
venue where Muslims hosted a “Stand with the Prophet
in Honor and Respect” conference one week after the
Paris Charlie Hebdo massacre in January, the event’s
organizers, the American Freedom Defense Initiative,
see Wilders as representative of their aggressive
defense of freedom of speech.
ADI is run by author and Atlas Shrugs blogger
Pamela Geller, and author and Jihad Watch Director
Robert Spencer, who themselves have been branded by
Ellison, Carson and their allies as “Islamophobes.”
Geller and Spencer argue their work amounts to
citing the justifications from the Quran and other
Islamic texts used by Muslims who employ violent
acts and other means to assert Islamic supremacy.
Comparing cultures
Summarizing their complaint, the three protesting
congressmen told Kerry and Johnson that Wilders’
“policy agenda is centered on the principle that
Christian culture is superior to other cultures.”
“He justifies his desire to ban the Quran and Islam
from the Netherlands with depraved comments like,
‘Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology, the
ideology of a retarded culture.’ We should not be
importing hate speech,” they write.
Wilders’ defenders point out that the Dutch word he
used to describe Islamic culture can be translated
as “backward” rather than “retarded,” insisting that
while Wilders doesn’t mince words, he is no hater of
people.
“I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam,” explains
Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom, the
fourth-largest party in the Dutch parliament.
That sentiment apparently is of little consolation
to many of the more than 1 billion people who
identify as Muslim, but Wilders contends the
orthodox teaching of Islam derived from Muhammad is
an existential threat to Western civilization.
While he puts the percentage of Islamic extremists
at about 5 to 15 percent of Muslims, he contends
“moderate Islam” doesn’t exist and notes the Quran
itself states that Muslims who accept the Islam’s
holy book in part are “apostates.”
As evidence of the failure to assimilate, in a
speech to parliament last year he cited a study
showing that nearly three-quarters of ethnic Turks
and Moroccans in the Netherlands regard those who
leave the European nation to join jihadists in Syria
as “heroes.” Wilders pointed out that the same
percentage of Dutch Muslims condoned the 9/11
attacks.
Wilders has been under constant security protection
since November 2004, when two North African Muslims
were accused of planning to murder him and another
outspoken critic of Islam in the parliament, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali. The attack at the Hague came shortly
after the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by
a Moroccan national.
Wilders was banned from the U.K. as an “undesirable
person” under Prime Minister Gordon Brown in
February 2009, two days before he was scheduled to
show his short film “Fitna” at the invitation of two
members of the House of Lords. Wilders appealed the
ban to Britain’s Asylum and Immigration Tribunal,
which overturned it in October 2009.
Wilders writings and film “Fitna” warning of the
“Islamization” of the Netherlands and Europe
prompted Turkish, Moroccan and Antillean
organizations in the country to bring charges
against him of criminally insulting religious and
ethnic groups and inciting hatred and
discrimination.
In June 2011, he was acquitted of all charges.
Judge Marcel van Oosten called Wilders’ statements
about Islam “gross and denigrating” but ruled they
didn’t constitute hatred against Muslims and,
therefore, were “acceptable within the context of
public debate.”
Limiting free speech
In their letter, Ellison, Carson and Crowley assert
Wilders’ right to speak freely in the U.S. under the
First Amendment is limited because he allegedly
incites violence and “prejudicial action” against
protected groups.
They write:
In the U.S., freedom of speech is a bedrock
principle that distinguishes free societies from
ones living under oppressive regimes. Freedom of
speech, however, is not absolute. It is limited by
the legal and moral understanding that speech that
causes the incitement of violence or prejudicial
action against protected groups is wrong. As Mr.
Wilders continues his pursuit of political power,
granting him entry will embolden him to engage in
further incitement of violence and discrimination
against Muslims.
Legal analyst Eugene Volokh noted the incitement
exception to free speech, according to Supreme Court
precedent, is “limited to speech intended to and
likely to produce imminent lawless conduct — conduct
in the coming hours or maybe few days.”
Wilders’ statements, Volokh wrote in a Washington
Post blogpost, appear to be constitutionally
protected, he said, because they “don’t urge any
imminent conduct (or even any criminal conduct, as
opposed to long-term changes in the law). Such
statements’ are “incitement” in the Congressmen’s
opinion only because the Congressmen apparently view
constitutionally unprotected “incitement” (or, as
they term it earlier, “hate speech”) much more
broadly."
It's hard to say if the following somewhat
abbreviated article should be filed under the truthsthatfree.com
category of Freedom of Speech, Islamic Threat, Israel
and the Land, Religious Liberty or perhaps Politics.
So it is place in our monthly archive.
‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon
appear on NYC subways and buses
Washington Post
Michael Miller
April 22, 2015
‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon appear on
NYC subways and buses
New Yorkers are used to aggressive advertising.
Banners for breast implants. Billboards for condoms.
But a federal judge’s ruling has opened the door for
far more controversial posters on buses and subways
across the city.
“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to
Allah,” reads one such ad next to the image of a young
man in a checkered headscarf. “That’s His Jihad.
What’s yours?”
The poster is at the center of heated legal debate
over public safety and free speech. On Tuesday, U.S.
District Judge John Koeltl ruled that New York’s
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) cannot
stop the controversial ad from running on scores of
subway cars and buses.
The MTA has argued that the ad could incite violence
against Jews, but Koeltl rejected that idea.
MTA officials “underestimate the tolerant quality of
New Yorkers and overestimate the potential impact of
these fleeting advertisements,” he ruled. “Moreover,
there is no evidence that seeing one of these
advertisements on the back of a bus would be
sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore,
these ads — offensive as they may be — are still
entitled to First Amendment protection.”
Making the case all the stranger is that the posters
are not the work of an Islamist group, but rather a
pro-Israel organization.
“This is a triumph for liberty and free speech,”
tweeted Pamela Geller, the president of the American
Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), the group that
purchased the ads and sued the MTA to run them.
New Yorkers are used to aggressive advertising.
Banners for breast implants. Billboards for condoms.
But a federal judge’s ruling has opened the door for
far more controversial posters on buses and subways
across the city.
“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to
Allah,” reads one such ad next to the image of a young
man in a checkered headscarf. “That’s His Jihad.
What’s yours?”
The poster is at the center of heated legal debate
over public safety and free speech. On Tuesday, U.S.
District Judge John Koeltl ruled that New York’s
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) cannot
stop the controversial ad from running on scores of
subway cars and buses.
The MTA has argued that the ad could incite violence
against Jews, but Koeltl rejected that idea.
MTA officials “underestimate the tolerant quality of
New Yorkers and overestimate the potential impact of
these fleeting advertisements,” he ruled. “Moreover,
there is no evidence that seeing one of these
advertisements on the back of a bus would be
sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore,
these ads — offensive as they may be — are still
entitled to First Amendment protection.”
Making the case all the stranger is that the posters
are not the work of an Islamist group, but rather a
pro-Israel organization.
“This is a triumph for liberty and free speech,”
tweeted Pamela Geller, the president of the American
Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), the group that
purchased the ads and sued the MTA to run them.
AFDI is not your traditional free speech organization,
however. The “about” section on its Web site starts
out pretty straightforward, then takes a very hard
turn.
Whatever you make of the group, AFDI has been
remarkably successful in bringing its message to
America. AFDI has filed at least nine lawsuits across
the country, often against cities or their contractors
that refuse to display their messages.
Those messages include a poster depicting Adolf Hitler
meeting with “the leader of the Muslim world” and
demanding that the United States cut off all aid to
Islamic countries. “In any war between the civilized
man and the savage, support the civilized man,” reads
another AFDI poster. “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
AFDI’s ads have also drawn objections from Muslims.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a
civil liberties group that promotes the rights of
Muslims and better relations between Muslims and
non-Muslims, launched its own public relations
campaign to combat AFDI. In 2012 and 2013, CAIR ran
posters in several U.S. cities promoting peaceful
versions of Islam. “‘#MyJihad is to build friendships
across the aisle.’ What’s yours?” But the ads never
ran in New York due to a disagreement between CAIR and
MTA.
The poster attributes the “Killing Jews” quote to
“Hamas MTV,” apparently a reference to the Palestinian
group’s odd blend of violence and music videos. The ad
also has a disclaimer at the bottom noting that it is
“a paid advertisement sponsored by” AFDI and “does not
imply MTA’s endorsement.”
But MTA Security Director Raymond Diaz worried that
the poster would nonetheless incite violence,
primarily against Jews. “What matters is not AFDI’s
intent, but how the ad would be interpreted,” he
wrote. The line “What is yours?” could be considered a
“call to violence,” particularly because the CAIR
posters it was mocking never appeared in New York.
When AFDI pointed out that the exact same poster had
not caused any problems in Chicago or San Francisco,
Diaz argued that New York was different because it is
“the prime terror target” and that the “terrorist
security threat” had grown worse since 2013.
On Tuesday, however, Judge Koeltl tossed out those
arguments and sided with AFDI. The ads could not
reasonably be considered an incitement to violence,
even if someone didn’t understand them.
“The defendants admit that the actual intention of the
advertisement is not to advocate the use of force, but
to parody the CAIR ‘My Jihad’ campaign and to
criticize Hamas and radical Islam. However, they argue
that a reasonable New Yorker would not read the
advertisement this way, but would instead read it as
advocating the killing of Jewish people,” Koeltl
wrote. “The defendants’ theory is thoroughly
unpersuasive.”
After AFDI’s victory, Geller posed for photos outside
the federal courthouse while holding the “Killing
Jews” advertisement.
“With our NY win, our ads will make their debut on New
York buses in the coming weeks,” AFDI’s Web site
promises above a “donate” button. “We want to run 100.
Help us make that happen.”
But even if the ads don’t incite violence in New York
City, they could overseas. Earlier this month, Egypt’s
top religious authority called AFDI’s posters “racist”
and issued a fatwa, or official edict, against them.
“This hazardous campaign will leave the gate of
confrontation and clashes wide open instead of
exerting efforts towards peaceful coexistence and
harmony,” according to the edict.
Hamas, the group cited on the ads, has not said
whether it approves of the message.
Navy
Official Bans Chaplain From Ministering To
Bereaved Families And Sailors
GOOSE CREEK, S.C.,
March 24, 2015
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Liberty
Institute announces that Chaplain Modder's commanding
officer, Captain Jon R. Fahs, issued a "no contact"
order to Chaplain Wes Modder (the military version of
a restraining order), forbidding him from counseling
or ministering to members of his unit. The order comes
on the heels of a tragic death in Modder's unit,
banning him from ministering to grieving sailors and
the deceased sailor's family members.
After a sailor in his unit unexpectedly passed away,
Chaplain Modder immediately sprung into action to
fulfill his usual chaplain duties of providing comfort
and support to the deceased sailor's grieving family.
But just as Chaplain Modder was about to perform those
duties, the Navy informed him of the "no contact"
order, banning him from having any contact with any
personnel from his unit, depriving him of the ability
to comfort them during a time of grief and mourning.
Captain Fahs also banished Chaplain Modder from the
Naval base where Modder is stationed on the day of the
memorial service for the fallen sailor. The order also
comes just days after Captain Fahs denied Chaplain
Modder's request for a religious accommodation to
provide pastoral counseling in accordance with his
faith. (See Captain Fahs' denial letter at
https://www.libertyinstitute.org/ModderFacts)
"This Navy official is using the 'no contact' order
as a weapon to punish and humiliate a decorated
military chaplain," said Mike Berry, Liberty Institute
Senior Counsel and Director of Military Affairs. "I am
stunned that he would deny Chaplain Modder the ability
to minister to a grieving family and other sailors."
Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford
said, "Of the most critical times for chaplains, the
death of a colleague is near the top of the list. For
this Navy official to bar a chaplain from comforting
and ministering to sailors and families is a
reprehensible violation of religious freedom and
common human decency."
Case Background: Chaplain Wes Modder is a Navy
chaplain and former Marine who previously served as
the Force chaplain for Naval Special Warfare Command.
He has deployed overseas multiple times during the War
on Terror, including in support of Navy SEAL Teams. In
October 2014, Chaplain Modder's commander called him a
"consummate professional leader," "the best of the
best," and said he sets the "clear benchmark" for
chaplain professionalism. Now, the Navy is threatening
Chaplain Modder with career-ending punishment because,
when asked, he expressed faith-based views on marriage
and human sexuality in private counseling sessions.
Liberty Institute is defending Chaplain Modder and
asserts that censoring his religious expression is
unconstitutional religious discrimination. The "no
contact" order comes only days after the Navy
officially denied Chaplain Modder's request for
religious accommodation, in violation of federal law
and Department of Defense (DoD) regulations. (Read
more about Modder's case at https://www.libertyinstitute.org/ModderFacts)
About Liberty Institute
Liberty Institute is the largest nonprofit legal
organization in the nation dedicated solely to
defending religious liberty in America. Liberty
Institute protects freedom of religious expression in
our military, schools, churches, and throughout the
public arena. For more information, visit
www.LibertyInstitute.org.
March 12, 2015 In mid February of this year Navy Chaplain
Wesley Modder received a "detachment for
cause" letter after commanders concluded he was
"intolerant" and "unable to function in the diverse and
pluralistic environment" of his current assignment. Lt
Cmdr. Modder has served more than 19 years with
commendations as "best of the best" and a "talented and
inspirational leader. Click
here to read the March 11 article in the Military
Times.
Muslim Brotherhood
princess' used Clinton email server
03/11/2015 @ 9:10 pm WND.com In Front Page,Politics,U.S.
Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin
At least three of Hillary Clinton’s top aides –
including one with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – used
emails hosted on Clinton’s private server while she was
secretary of state, according to several reports.
At a news conference Tuesday at the U.N., Clinton
directly addressed media about the revelation that she
conducted her business as secretary of state using a
private email account instead of the secure and archived
government system.
She acknowledged she deleted thousands of personal
emails and said she turned over hard copies of messages
to the State Department that she deemed to be work
related.
But Clinton apparently wasn’t the only one at the State
Department using private email.
Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen Hayes told Fox
News, “Two of Hillary Clinton’s top aides used personal
email while they were employed at the State Department.”
Hayes specifically named Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl
Mills and Huma Abedin, who served as Clinton’s longtime
deputy chief of staff. Abedin and Clinton worked closely
together for nearly 20 years.
“The State Department has evidence of this,” he said.
In another report, the gossip website Gawker claimed
both Abedin and Phillippe Reines, Clinton’s
communications strategist, used the private email
addresses.
The London Daily Mail confirmed one of Abedin’s email
addresses was listed as Huma@clintonemail.com.
Abedin’s emails would be of particular interest because
she has known ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – a group
that’s bent on “destroying Western civilization from
within” – and other Islamic supremacists.
Hayes said, “The question, I think becomes: Were they
emailing with Hillary Clinton from their personal email
addresses to her personal email address about State
Department business, about Benghazi, including sensitive
classified information?
“Those are questions that I think (Rep.) Trey Gowdy and
the House Benghazi Committee is going to want to look at
very carefully.”
What do YOU think? Will Hillary’s email troubles delete
her run for president? Sound off in today’s WND poll
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit
against the State Department seeking all emails from
2009 to 2013 between Clinton, Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud,
wife of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi.
“Now we know why the State Department didn’t want to
respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton’s
and Huma Abedin’s communications,” Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The State
Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it
couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret accounts that
the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows
how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn’t just
about domestic politics but has significant foreign
policy implications.”
Get the details about what really happened in one of
America’s biggest foreign operations failures, in “The
REAL Benghazi Story.”
Transforming America
Abedin and Clinton worked closely together for nearly 20
years. As WND has extensively reported, the Muslim
Brotherhood and Islamic supremacist connections not only
extend to Abedin’s mother and father, who are both
deeply tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to Abedin herself.
Major news media profiles of Abedin report she was born
of Pakistani and Indian parents, without delving much
further into her family’s history.
As WND reported, a manifesto commissioned by the ruling
Saudi Arabian monarchy places the work of an institute
that employed Abedin at the forefront of a grand plan to
mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities to transform America
into a Saudi-style Islamic state, according to
Arabic-language researcher Walid Shoebat.
Abedin was an assistant editor for a dozen years for the
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the Institute for
Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute – founded by her
late father and currently directed by her mother – is
backed by the Muslim World League, an Islamic
organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was
founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
The 2002 Saudi manifesto shows that “Muslim Minority
Affairs” – the mobilizing of Muslim communities in the
U.S. to spread Islam instead of assimilating into the
population – is a key strategy in an ongoing effort to
establish Islamic rule in America and a global Shariah,
or Islamic law, “in our modern times.”
WND reported Abedin also was a member of the executive
board of the Muslim Student Association, which was
identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991
document introduced into evidence during the
terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land
Foundation.
At her father’s Saudi-financed Islamic think tank, WND
reported, Abedin worked alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef,
who is accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.
Naseef is deeply connected to the Abedin family.
WND was first to report Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin,
was the official representative of Naseef’s
terror-stained Muslim World League in the 1990s.
Shoebat previously reported that as one of 63 leaders of
the Muslim Sisterhood, the de facto female version of
the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha Abedin served alongside
Nagla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Muslim Brotherhood figure
Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s now ousted president.
Saleha Abedin and Morsi’s wife both were members of the
Sisterhood’s Guidance Bureau, Shoebat found.
Huma worked with al-Qaida front man
Abdullah Omar Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim
World League, an Islamic charity known to have spawned
terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S.
government to be an official al-Qaida front.
The institute founded by Huma Abedin’s father reportedly
was a quiet, but active, supporter of Naseef.
The institute bills itself as “the only scholarly
institution dedicated to the systematic study of Muslim
communities in non-Muslim societies around the world.”
Huma served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’s
editorial board from 2002 to 2008.
Documents obtained by Shoebat revealed that Naseef
served on the board with Huma from at least December
2002 to December 2003.
Naseef’s sudden departure from the board in December
2003 coincides with the time at which various charities
led by Naseef’s Muslim World League were declared
illegal terrorism fronts worldwide, including by the
U.S. and U.N.
The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself as one
of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations.
But according to U.S. government documents and testimony
from the charity’s own officials, it is heavily financed
by the Saudi government.
The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as have its
various offshoots, including the International Islamic
Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was
declared by the U.S. and U.N. as a terror financing
front.
Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004
press release, alleged Al Haramain had “direct links”
with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide
by U.N. Security Council Committee resolution 1267.
There long have been accusations that the IIRO and MWL
also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.
In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the
MWL was one of his three most important charity fronts.
An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL accuses the
group of promulgating a “fundamentalist interpretation
of Islam around the world through a large network of
charities and affiliated organizations.”
“Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist
interpretation of Islam,” the profile states, “and
several of its affiliated groups and individuals have
been linked to terror-related activity.”
In 2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that
accompanying the MWL’s donations, invariably, are “a
blizzard of Wahhabist literature.”
“Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme preachings
– mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as
apostates and emphasis on violent jihad –laid the
groundwork for terrorist groups around the world,” the
report continued.
An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali
Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990 on accusations
he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal
pilot to bin Laden. At the time he was accused of
serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the
Pakistani branch of the MWL.
The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic
Foundation, developing chapters in about 50 countries,
including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a
terrorist organization.
In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the
foundation was funding Islamist militants in Somalia and
Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian
militant ties.
The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain’s offices in
Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of terrorism for their
role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two
American embassies in East Africa. The Comoros Islands
office was also designated because it “was used as a
staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators
of the 1998 bombings.”
The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had
provided funds to the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah
Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali
bombings that killed 202 people. The Indonesia office
was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.
In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all
Al Haramain’s financial assets pending an investigation,
leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and
fold it into another group, the Saudi National
Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.
In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a
terrorist organization.
In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the
terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain
organization worldwide
Bin Laden’s brother-in-law
In August 2006, the Treasury Department also designated
the Philippine and Indonesian branch offices of the
MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities “for facilitating
fundraising for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist
groups.”
The Treasury Department added: “Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman
Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official [executive
director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi
Arabia, has used his position to bankroll the al-Qaida
network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of
supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has
maintained a cell of regular financial donors in the
Middle East who support extremist causes.”
In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s
brother-in-law, ran the Philippines offices of the IIRO.
Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target
the pope and U.S. airlines.
The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas,
Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases and the
Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya.
The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11
victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO and other Muslim
organizations for having “played key roles in laundering
of funds to the terrorists in the 1998 African embassy
bombings” and for having been involved in the “financing
and ‘aiding and abetting’ of terrorists in the 1993
World Trade Center bombing.”
‘Saudi government front’
In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian
director of both the IIRO and the MWL, admitted the
charities are near entities of the Saudi government.
Stated El-Asahi: “The Muslim World League, which is the
mother of IIRO, is a fully government-funded
organization. In other words, I work for the government
of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government.
“Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that
organization, which means that we are controlled in all
our activities and plans by the government of Saudi
Arabia. Keep that in mind, please,” he said.
Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror
financing, the U.S. government never designated the MWL
itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have
speculated the U.S. has been trying to not embarrass the
Saudi government.
Huma’s mother represented Muslim World League
Saleha Abedin has been quoted in numerous press accounts
as both representing the MWL and serving as a delegate
for the charity.
In 1995, for example, the Washington Times reported on a
United Nations-arranged women’s conference in Beijing
that called on governments throughout the world to give
women statistical equality with men in the workplace.
The report quoted Saleha Abedin, who attended the
conference as a delegate, as “also representing the
Muslim World League based in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim
NGO Caucus.”
The U.N.’s website references a report in the run-up to
the Beijing conference that also lists Abedin as
representing the MWL at the event.
The website posted an article from the now defunct
United States Information Agency quoting Abedin and
reporting she attended the Beijing conference as “a
delegate of the Muslim World League and member of the
Muslim Women’s NGO caucus.”
In the article, Abedin was listed under a shorter name,
“Dr. Saleha Mahmoud, director of the Institute of Muslim
Minority Affairs.”
WND confirmed the individual listed is Huma Abedin’s
mother. The reports misspelled part of Abedin’s name.
Her full professional name is at times listed as Saleha
Mahmood Abedin S.
Hillary praise
Saleha Mahmood formerly directed the Institute of Muslim
Minority Affairs in the U.K. and served as a delegate
for the Muslim World League, an Islamic fundamentalist
group Osama bin Laden reportedly told an associate was
one of his most important charity fronts.
In February 2010, Clinton spoke at Dar Al-Hekma College
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where Abedin was an associate
professor of sociology at the time.
Clinton, after she was introduced by Abedin, praised the
work of the terror-tied professor.
“I have to say a special word about Dr. Saleha Abedin,”
Clinton said. “You heard her present the very exciting
partnerships that have been pioneered between colleges
and universities in the United States and this college.
And it is pioneering work to create these kinds of
relationships.
“But I have to confess something that Dr. Abedin did
not,” Clinton continued, “and that is that I have almost
a familial bond with this college. Dr. Abedin’s
daughter, one of her three daughters, is my deputy chief
of staff, Huma Abedin, who started to work for me when
she was a student at George Washington University in
Washington, D.C.”
The Clarion Project was founded in 2006
by Raphael Shore. It is dedicated to "exposing the
dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a
platform for the voices of moderation and promoting
grassroots activism." Shore produced the 2008
documentary The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's
Vision For America.. (View
at this link.)
The main web page of the Clarion Project is www.clarionproject.org.
They are currently sponsoring an email campaign to
your elected officials "No Nukes For Iran".
As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated in his speech to
the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, "for over a
year, we've been told that no deal is better than a
bad deal (with Iran). Well, this is a bad deal. It's a
very bad deal. We're better off without
it." Visit this link to
quickly send an email to your elected
officials in Washington www.acttoimpact.com. ~>~>~>~>~>~>~>~>
File Under the category of
"Unintended Consequences"
Side effects of a Nuclear Deal with Iran: A Middle East Arms Race?:
According to two FCC commissioners, those new
regulations are bad all around
By Brad Matthews
Watchdog.org
March 4, 2015
The Obama administration and proponents of the
FCC’s version of net neutrality may be ecstatic
at the passing of regulations that make the
Internet a public utility on Feb. 26th, but not
all FCC members are so sunny in their outlook
for the future.
TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb. 27th
with two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike
O’Rielly, and the two of them concurred that the
new regulations are far-reaching, largely
unchecked and pose a threat to consumer bills
and to innovation in the industry.
Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was,
saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis
of what the problem with the Internet is. In
this order, you see scattered niche examples
[Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime,
others] all of which were resolved, mind you,
through private sector initiatives.” He
continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality
regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work
in search of a problem that doesn’t
exist.” Essentially, this is, contrary to
the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely
justified power grab by a government agency.
Mike O’Rielly added, in a bit of humor that
“there is a problem, and it’s the document we
adopted [Feb. 26].” Neither of them were
reticent in explaining exactly how and why the
document was the problem. For one, the document
was, as Commissioner Pai pointed out, written to
solve a problem that wasn’t readily apparent.
O’Rielly said the document is “guilt by
imagination, trying to guess what will go wrong
in the future”; instead of tackling a readily
apparent and current issue, the FCC proposal is
instead stumbling forward, trying to find
future, hypothetical transgressions to
retroactively justify its own regulations.
This conspiratorial and wide-ranging thinking on
the part of FCC is not a bug, but rather a
feature. O’Rielly openly said that “it’s
intended to catch everybody”. Pai noted that the
FCC was going to centralize powers over what
infrastructure was deployed and where through
the use of statutes and other laws; O’Rielly
mentioned specifically that the FCC was going to
“use Section 201 [of the Communications Act] to
do it’s dirty work.”
Pai continued, saying that the FCC was largely
focused on the ends of Internet regulation
rather than the means, and that “a lot of these
promises of regulatory restraint are pretty
ephemeral.” O’Rielly mentioned that mobile data
policies were likely to be subsumed by the new
regulations into policies on the wider Internet
as a whole. This one-size-fits-all approach
ignores the differences in how mobile data is
used versus the way the Internet is used by a
normal computer or other devices. Many features
of mobile service, the two said, could be
construed as a company favoring one app or one
site over another in terms of data, which would
violate the FCC’s standards.
The consumer will inherit many of these new
costs and burdens. O’Rielly outright told the
audience that “Rates are going to go up because
of this.” The new regulations also fail to
recognize the burden of local telecommunications
taxes, especially in major cities where tax
rates on mobile service are often incredibly
high. The new regulations, combined with the
laws of local governments, stand to impose even
more costs onto consumers.
The outlook the two gave was anything but
bright–the worries of small government advocates
seem justified. The new FCC regulations will, in
concert with other laws and under the directive
of an organization looking for future problems
rather than current problems, give more power to
government, more restrictions to innovators, and
more costs to the people.
Commissioner Pai summed it up best: “This issue
has been largely fact-free for the better part
of a decade, and I think it’s frankly shocking
that decision-making on something as important
as this has been thrown by the wayside in favor
of what I consider to be an ideological agenda.”
The net may be “neutral” but the FCC is most
certainly not.
Islamic
state: Fears Grow For Abducted Syrian
Christians United Kingdom BBC Wednesday 25 Feb 2015
There are fears that more members of an Assyrian
Christian community in north-eastern Syria were
abducted by Islamic State militants than at first
thought. Initial reports had put the number of missing
at 90, but one activist said as many as 285 people had
been seized on Monday in Hassakeh province. Efforts to
try to negotiate their release are reported to be
under way.
Some 1,000 local Assyrian families are believed to
have fled their homes in the wake of the abductions.
Kurdish and Christian militia are battling IS in the
area, amid reports of churches and homes having been
set ablaze.
Thousands of Christians in Syria have been forced from
their homes by the threat from IS militants.
In areas under their control, Christians have been
ordered to convert to Islam, pay jizya (a religious
levy), or face death. IS militants in Libya also
recently beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians.
The Assyrians were seized by the militants as they
swept into 12 villages along the southern bank of the
Khabur river near the town of Tal Tamr before dawn on
Monday.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based
activist group, said at least 90 people had been
abducted, most of them women, children and the
elderly.
However, the Syriac National Council of Syria put the
figure as high as 150, while Afram Yakoub of the
Assyrian Federation of Sweden said sources on the
ground had told him that up to 285 people were
missing, including 156 from the village of Tal Shamran
and 90 from Tal al-Jazira.
"These were peaceful villages that had nothing to do
with the battles," Nasir Haj Mahmoud, a Kurdish
official in the YPG militia in north-eastern Syria,
told the Reuters news agency.
There are conflicting reports as to where the families
have been taken.
Kino Gabriel, a spokesman for the Syriac Military
Council - a Christian militia fighting alongside the
Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG) - told the BBC
that it believed the captives had been taken to Abdul
Aziz mountain.
Osama Edward of the Sweden-based Assyrian Human Rights
Network told the AFP news agency that the captives had
been taken to the IS stronghold of Shaddadi, as did
Syria's state news agency, Sana.
Another report said they were in Raqqa, 145km (90
miles) to the west, the de facto capital of the
"caliphate" declared by IS last June.
The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Beirut says the motive for
the seizure of so many Assyrians is not yet clear. Our
correspondent says it may be that the captives are to
be used as part of a swap with the Kurdish forces.
Hundreds of Assyrians who were living in villages on
the north bank of the Khabur river and elsewhere are
reported to have fled following the attack to the
largely Kurdish-controlled provincial capital of
Hassakeh, to the south-east, and Qamishli, another
city to the north-east.
Mr Edward said two historic churches had been burned
down in captured villages - one in Tal Hurmiz and the
other in Qaber Shamiya. The Syrian Observatory also
reported that a church in Tal Shamran had also been
damaged.
Mr Gabriel said IS had moved a big force into the area
and were trying to take control of Tal Tamr.
The Syriac Military Council had about 400 fighters in
the area and at least four had been killed in clashes
with the jihadists, he added. The YPG has deployed
between 1,000 and 1,500 fighters.
The YPG is also continuing a major offensive launched
on Sunday against IS some 100km (60 miles) to the
east, near the border with Iraq - an area of vital
importance to the jihadists.
ISIS
beheading of Coptic Christians on Libyan beach
brings Islamists to the doorstep of Europe
United Kingdom The Independent, Thursday 19 Feb 2015
The beheading of 21 Coptic Christians on a beach in
Libya has brought ISIS to the doorstep of Europe.
The mass murder, which provoked a volley of Egyptian air
strikes on the group’s Libyan stronghold of Derna,
realised long-held fears of militants reaching the
Mediterranean coast.
ISIS started in Iraq and now controls swathes of
adjoining Syria, including along the Turkish border, as
part of its so-called Islamic State.
Its ideology has spread much further, with pledges of
allegiance from terrorist groups in Egypt, Gaza, Jordan,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen and now Libya.
Days before ISIS released its gory video depicting the
Egyptians’ beheadings, Libya’s former Prime Minister
warned that the group would soon reach the Mediterranean
and even Europe if order was not restored in the
country.
Ali Zeidan said Libya’s fractured government and easy
access to weapons seized during the fall of Colonel
Gaddafi made it more susceptible to the activities of
jihadists, according to The Times.
“(ISIS) are growing. They are everywhere,” he added.
“In Libya, the situation is still under control. If we
leave it one month or two months more I don’t think you
can control it.
“It will be a big war in the country and it will be here
in Europe as well.”
Libya has seen fierce fighting between rival militias
since Gaddafi was overthrown during the 2011 Arab
Spring.
Mr Zeidan, who fled to Europe after losing a
parliamentary vote of confidence, reported that ISIS had
a growing presence in some of the bigger cities and was
trying to recruit fighters from rival Islamist groups.
Libya's former Prime Minister Ali Zeidan warned that
Isis would reach the Mediterranean Aref Ali Nayed,
Libya’s ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, also
said Isis’s presence in Libya was increasing
“exponentially”.
Its military gains last summer sparked a rush by other
Islamist groups in the Middle East and North Africa to
ally themselves with the group by pledging allegiance
and changing their names.
The jihadists behind the beheadings in Libya call
themselves the Tripoli Province of the Islamic State.
As the turmoil in Libya continued last year, they gained
control of the port city of Derna and nearby Sirte,
where Isis seized the murdered Coptic hostages in
December and January.
The location of their murders could not be confirmed but
footage showed them dressed in orange jumpsuits kneeling
on a beach. Behind each of them were masked militants
who wielded their knives to kill the bound hostages
simultaneously.
ISIS affiliates have also claimed responsibility for
attacks on the Egyptian military and police in the Sinai
Peninsula, further along the Mediterranean coast between
Egypt and Gaza.
England and Europe's greater concern than the United
States is evident in this article, due to their
proximity to the menacing Radical Islamic peril. Learn
more about this with accompanying links at the UK's INDEPENDENT
website by clicking here.
ISIS burn 45 people to
death in captured Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi as
Islamists attack the homes of security forces'
families
United Kingdom's Daily Mail
Dailymail.com
Karen Pickles for Mailonline
February 17, 2015
ISIS burn 45 people to death in captured Iraqi
town of al-Baghdadi as Islamists attack the homes
of security forces' families
Western town al-Baghdadi
captured by ISIS fighters last week
Victims thought to be members
of security forces and their families
Follows barbaric video of
Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Muath al-Kaseasbeh
Attack is only five miles from
air base with 320 US Marines
Militants from Islamic State have burned 45 people to
death in the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi,
according to the local police chief.
Col. Qasim al-Obeidi said the motive was unknown but he
believed some of the victims were members of the
security forces.
He has pleaded for help from the government and
international community and said the compound, which
houses the families of security personnel and local
officials, was now under attack.
It follows the capture of al-Baghdadi, near Ain al-Asad
air base, by ISIS fighters last week.
The unconfirmed reports have haunting similarities to
the video published earlier this month, showing
militants burning alive a Jordanian air force pilot,
whose plane crashed in Syria in December.
Al-Baghdadi had been besieged for months by Islamic
State fighters before its fall. It had been one of the
few towns to still be controlled by the Iraqi government
in Anbar province, where IS and allied Sunni Arab
tribesmen launched an offensive in January 2014.
On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm John Kirby,
played down its capture, telling reporters it was the
first time in the last couple of months that the
jihadist group had taken new ground.
But with 320 US Marines stationed just five miles away
at the Ain al-Asad air base, training members of the
Iraqi army's 7th Division, it will cause concern.
The base was attacked by several suicide bombers, on
Friday with the militant repelled by Iraqi troops backed
by US-led coalition aircraft.
In a separate development on Tuesday, the influential
Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr announced he was withdrawing
his forces from an umbrella group of Shia militia
fighting IS alongside the Iraqi army.
He cited what he called the bad behaviour of other
militia within the Popular Mobilisation Forces, whom he
accused of 'wreaking havoc through murdering, kidnapping
and violating sanctuaries'.
Shia militia have been accused of kidnapping and killing
scores of Sunni civilians since Islamic State launched
an offensive in northern Iraq last June that saw it
seize large swathes of the country.
Elsewhere, there are reports at least 35 more
Egyptian Christians are feared to have been kidnapped by
jihadists in retaliation for air strikes on targets in
Libya.
Militants from the Islamic State and Ansar Al-Sharia are
understood to have rounded up dozens of farm workers in
the wake of bombings by Cairo, it was reported by local
media.
The move is believed to be a direct response to strikes
by Egyptian warplanes yesterday which came after
fanatics released a horrific video showing the beheading
of 21 Christians on a beach.
Netanyahu: Israel is standing by Europe,
Europe must stand by Israel
January 8, 2015
The Jerusalem Post
By HERB KEINON
In meeting with Norwegian FM, Netanyahu says radical
Islam is a "threat to our common
civilization."
Israel is being attacked by the same forces
attacking Europe, and just as Israel stands with
Europe, so too Europe must stand with Israel, Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday.
Netanyahu, speaking following a meeting with
visiting Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende,
said that Wednesday’s terrorist attack in Paris
“clearly demonstrates the disdain of radical Islam
for the values we hold dear. We cherish freedom and
tolerance; they worship tyranny and terror. And
through this terror they seek to impose a new dark
age on humanity.”
Netanyahu said the terrorists were “part of a global
movement and this necessitates a global response. I
believe that with the strength of our resolve and
the unity of our action, we can defeat this threat
to our common civilization. And what the battle
against terror requires is courage, clarity and
consistency.”
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzahi Hanegbi said in an
Israel Radio interview that precisely that type of
determination has been missing up until now in
France and elsewhere in Europe in the battle against
terrorism.
Hanegbi said the French in the past tried to delude
themselves regarding the true nature of threat,
saying “maybe it was only sporadic incidents, maybe
it is only anti-Semitism, maybe it is only against
the Jews.”
He said that the French at times tried to understand
the terrorists motivations, and at other times tried
to downplay their ties to Islam. The sheer brutality
of Wednesday attack, especially the murder of the
policeman on the sidewalk, will compel the French
government to “look at the reality square in the
face” and realize there is a serious danger at their
gates, he said.
Hanegbi predicted that France will be forced, like
the US was after the September 11, 2001 attacks, to
empower the security establishment with tools to
effectively deal with the threats.
“France must deal with the threat coming from
within,” he said. Hanegbi added that Israel,
unfortunately, has quite a deal of experience
dealing with terrorism, and that “anyone who
cooperates with a county as experienced [in dealing
with terrorism] as Israel, only benefits.”
He said that Israel has the capability to help
France a lot more than the French have requested in
the past. Now, he said, France “ will have an
interest in being helped by anyone who can help
them, including israel.”
Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, meanwhile, took
the Paris attack and used it to prove a point
regarding domestic Israeli policies.
If there was an important lesson to be learned from
the attack, he said, it is that extremist movements
must be dealt with early, and that there are only
small legal and semantic differences separating
those organizations from terrorist groups.
Those who demonstrate tolerance toward those
organizations, he said, will ultimately pay a high
price in blood, as well as in threats to their very
democracies that allows those organizations to work.
Israel's lesson, he said, must be not to tarry and
to stop the activities of Raed Salah and the
northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel.
Liberman said Salah's organization was an
inseparable link in the chain of terrorist
organizations that includes Hamas, Islamic Jihad,
al-Qaida and the Islamic State. He said the
organization “shares exactly the same values of the
perpetrators of the massacre in Paris and its
intolerance of criticism and of anything
inconsistent with its extreme world view.”
Liberman said the the northern branch is a threat to
Israeli democracy and the country's citizens, and
that it needed to be outlawed.
Houston Subpoenas Pastors’ Sermons in Gay Rights
Ordinance Case
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey
Religion News Service
October 15, 2014
Evangelical leaders are
angry after city officials in Houston subpoenaed
sermons given by local pastors who oppose an equal
rights ordinance that provides protections to the
LGBT community.
Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who drew headlines for
becoming the first openly lesbian mayor of a major
American city, led support for the ordinance. The
measure bans anti-gay discrimination among
businesses that serve the public, private employers,
in housing and in city employment and city
contracting.
Under one of the hotly contested parts of the
ordinance, transgender people barred access to a
restroom would be able to file a discrimination
complaint.
The ordinance, which exempted religious
institutions, was passed in May, though its
implementation has been delayed due to legal
complaints.
Opponents were hoping to repeal the ordinance
through a ballot measure and claimed the city’s
attorney incorrectly determined they had not
gathered enough signatures to qualify for a ballot.
Supporters of the repeal reportedly gathered 50,000
signatures, well over the 17,269 needed for
inclusion on the November ballot. Opponents of the
repeal have questioned the validity of the
signatures.
A group of Christians sued the city. In response,
city attorneys issued subpoenas to five local
pastors during the case’s discovery phase, though
the five pastors were not involved in the lawsuit.
The subpoenas sought “all speeches, presentations,
or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor
Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity
prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved
by you or in your possession,” according to the
Houston Chronicle.
“The subpoenas were issued to pastors who have been
involved in the political campaign to organize a
repeal of Houston’s new equal rights ordinance,”
said Janice Evans, chief policy officer to the
mayor, in a statement. “It is part of the discovery
process in a lawsuit brought by opponents of the
ordinance, a group that is tied to the pastors who
have received the subpoenas.”
An Arizona-based religious liberty group, Alliance
Defending Freedom, has filed a motion on behalf of
the pastors seeking to halt the subpoenas. The
ministers call the subpoenas “overbroad, unduly
burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.”
“The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case
by using the pulpit to do political organizing,”
Evans said in her statement. “This included
encouraging congregation members to sign petitions
and help gather signatures for equal rights
ordinance foes. The issue is whether they were
speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of
politics. If so, it is not protected speech.”
The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in January.
“It’s procedural — it’s common to ask for a wide
range of documents — but the mayor is playing real
hardball,” said David Skeel, professor of law at the
University of Pennsylvania. “The fact that she’s
subpoenaing pastors seems quite unusual in a case
that’s mostly about politics, and the fact that
she’s going inside the church is even more radical.
It would be easy enough to get sermons, of course,
but asking for them is clearly meant to send a
signal.”
City Attorney David Feldman argues the subpoenas are
justified because the churches are where opponents
of the ordinance met to organize.
“We’re certainly entitled to inquire about the
communications that took place in the churches
regarding the ordinance and the petitions because
that’s where they chose to do it,” Feldman told KTRH
News. “It’s relevant to know what representations
and instructions were given regarding these
petitions.”
The issue has angered evangelicals nationwide,
prompting outcry from people such as Russell Moore,
president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission.
“The separation of church and state means that we
will render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and
we will,” Moore wrote. “But the preaching of the
church of God does not belong to Caesar, and we will
not hand it over to him. Not now. Not ever.”
More than 1,800 pastors participated in ADF’s
seventh annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday event on Oct.
5, daring the Internal Revenue Service to prosecute
them for endorsing political candidates. Under IRS
regulations, tax-exempt churches are not allowed to
engage in partisan politics.
The Khaleej Times
- a daily U.S. language newspaper published in United Arab Emirates.It is the
second most popular English language newspapers
published in the UAE.
Armageddon
Can Wait
Mahir Ali
Kaleej Times
3 September 2014
Global
threat is used to deflect attention from
domestic woes
Barack Obama’s recent confession that his country
did not so far have a strategy as far as the
so-called ISIS is
concerned has been pilloried as a gaffe. It could,
however, also be seen as the plain truth.
The United States did not really have a strategy a
decade or so ago either, when the administration of
George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, evidently
expecting that the various pieces would magically
fall into place once Saddam Hussein was toppled. The
tactic represented a disastrous combination of
hubris and ignorance.
The extent to which the subsequent implosions and
explosions in the region are a direct consequence of
that particular debacle is arguable, but there can
be little doubt that the big picture would have been
decidedly different, and in all probability
considerably less unpleasant, in the absence of that
monumental neoconservative folly.
Of course, what’s done cannot be undone, and the
present crisis demands a resolute response. It’s by
no means undesirable, however, for that response to
take account of all that has gone wrong in the
recent past.
Obama has come under attack, for instance, for
hesitating to strike Syria
in the early days of the revolt against the Bashar
Al Assad dictatorship, and thereby purportedly
facilitating the expansion of Islamist outfits such
as ISIS and Jabhat Al Nusra. Too many of the critics
are inclined, however, to ignore in this context the
consequences of NATO’s role in Libya.
Washington allowed
itself to be catapulted into that conflict, partly
on the basis of Paris
and London’s
aggressive
enthusiasm, and NATO’s mission was a success in
terms of achieving the overthrow of Muammar
Gaddafi’s regime. But Libya
today is being torn apart by rival militias, many of
them distinguishable not so much by ideology as by
tribal affiliations.
Under similar circumstances, would the outcome the
Syria
have been remarkably different? Who can claim with
any confidence that Assad’s early overthrow would
have prevented Islamist forces from sooner or later
gaining the upper hand?
The US
has lately been thinking aloud about launching
airstrikes in Syria
with the ostensible aim of undermining ISIS rather
than Assad, based on the assumption that Abu Bakr Al
Baghdadi’s troops cannot be quelled by focusing on Iraq
alone. That may be so, but there is the wider
question of whether they can effectively be tackled
at all mainly through air assaults.
There have evidently been some tactical successes
in Iraq
in this respect, beginning with the besieged Yazidis
stranded on SinjarMountain —
most of whom appear to have made it to relative
safety in Iraqi Kurdistan, although the reported
numbers are open to question. Then there was the
recapture of Mosul Dam, and most recently the
apparent rescue of Amerli.
In the latter instance, the US airstrikes were
effectively in aid of Shia militias spearheading the
assault against ISIS — the same militias, with links
to Iran,
that not many years ago were dedicated to
undermining the American occupation of Iraq.
“Should such military actions continue,” The New
York Times noted on Monday, “they could signal a
dramatic shift for the United States and Iran, which have
long vied for control in Iraq.”
Naturally, neither Washington
nor Tehran
is keen to emphasise this aspect of the emerging
situation. Matters are further complicated by the
fact that some of the militias betray a penchant for
sectarian brutality that, although no match for the
revolting atrocities that ISIS
is so keen to broadcast, nonetheless provides cause
for concern.
The United Nations this week decided to investigate
“acts of inhumanity on an unimaginable scale” by ISIS, as well as atrocities
by Iraqi government forces. Whether or not such an
investigation serves any practical purpose in the
murkily unfolding circumstances, the ostensible
even-handedness of the approach is interesting.
Meanwhile, there has been considerable concern
across several nations in Europe as well as in the US and Australia over
young Muslim citizens’ tendency towards jihadist
adventurism, with thousands — the numbers are again
uncertain — travelling to Syria or Iraq
as Islamist volunteers.
This is hardly a novel trend — it can be traced
back at least to Afghanistan
in the 1980s. The worries over it are
understandable, although there is thus far no clear
evidence of returnees planning domestic acts of
terrorism. It is at the same time difficult to
altogether dispense with the notion that projecting
ISIS as an
unprecedented global threat helps some Western
governments to deflect attention from domestic woes.
The ISIS threat
should not be underestimated, but exaggerations can
have the perverse effect of increasing its cachet
both within and outside the region. Nobody has a
clear idea of precisely how this story will unfold,
let alone end. But there’s not much value in
pretending it portends some kind of Armageddon.
The Western insistence on “no boots on the ground”
is open to interpretation as insufficient commitment
or even cowardice. But in fact it’s a welcome
augury, not least in the light of recent experience.
When, since the Second World War, have Western boots
on the ground produced positive consequences in the
Middle East (or,
for that matter, anywhere else)?
The ideal response to the
regional dilemmas of the moment would be an
unprecedented level of cooperation, coordination and
collaboration between Middle Eastern states,
notwithstanding longstanding rivalries in some
cases. That, unfortunately, cannot be described as
an imminent prospect, despite the tentative
emergence of intriguing alliances. But there’s never
been a better time for it.
by Martin Chulov
at theguardian.com
Thursday 7 August 2014
Thousands of Yazidi and Christian people flee to Erbil
after the latest wave of Isis advances. Photograph:
Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Iraq's largest Christian city was all but abandoned on
Thursday as the jihadist advance through minority
communities in the country's north-west rampaged towards
the Kurdish stronghold of Erbil.
UN officials said an estimated 200,000 new refugees were
seeking sanctuary in the Kurdish north from Islamic
extremists who had pursued them since the weekend. The
city of Qaraqosh, south-east of Mosul, home to around
50,000 Christians was the latest to fall, with most
residents fleeing before dawn as convoys of extremists
drew near.
Other Christian towns near Mosul, including Tel Askof,
Tel Keif and Qaramless have also largely been emptied.
Those who remained behind have reportedly been given the
same stark choice given to other minorities, including
Yazidis: flee, convert to Islam, or be killed.
Christians, Yazidis and Turkmen have been at the
frontlines of Iraq's war with the Islamic State (Isis)
ever since the jihadist group stormed into Mosul and
Tikrit and mid-June. The Iraqi army capitulated within
hours, with at least 60,000 officers and soldiers
fleeing on the first day of the assault alone.
Ever since, the jihadists have continued to make
advances, while Iraqi troops have concentrated on
defending Baghdad and the Shia south, leaving the
defence of minorities in the north to the Kurdish
peshmurga.
However, even the much vaunted Kurdish forces were no
match for the heavy weapons wielded by the jihadists as
they advanced in recent days. Peshmurga officers ordered
troops to withdraw to areas administered by the Kurdish
regional government – a clear sign of priorities and of
where the battle lines are being drawn.
Without any protection, Yazidis, Christians and Turkmen
are being uprooted from communities they have lived in
for millennia and the geo-social fabric of Iraq is being
rapidly shredded.
While those who have managed to flee the Christian areas
have so far had a relatively safe passage to Erbil, tens
of thousands of Yazidis remain besieged on a mountain
top near Sinjar, with little food or water.
The UN said on Thursday it was able to get some supplies
overland to the stranded hordes – avoiding Isis fighters
who have surrounded most of Mount Sinjar. Turkish
foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced that Turkish
helicopters had dropped food and water on the mountain
top. Iraqi helicopters have also made food drops, but
stranded Yazidis say they do not have enough to survive.
The Chaldean archbishop of
Kirkuk, Joseph Thomas, described the situation in
northern Iraq as "catastrophic, a crisis beyond
imagination". He demanded urgent intervention to save
what remained of the area's Christian heritage.
Kurdish officials on Thursday demanded more help in
catering for refugees. The Kurdish administered areas
have seen staggering numbers cross their notional border
since the original Isis onslaught two months ago. In the
first week alone, some 500,000 people are thought to
have fled towards Erbil.
The capital of the Kurdish north is already home to a
new Chaldean Christian community, which fled Baghdad in
the wake of an Isis-led massacre inside a cathedral in
October 2010. Many fleeing Christians have headed for
the Ainkawa neighbourhood, which is home to Baghdad's
Christian exiles.
The past 11 years of war and insurrection since the US
invasion have led to most of Iraq's Christians fleeing.
Numbers have plummeted starkly from an estimated one
million before 2003 to around 150,000 now. A large
number of those who remain are now displaced.
Miriam Dagher, 53, from Qaraqosh, said churches in the
city had already been torched and religious insignia
smashed. "We stayed as long as we could," she said. "But
nothing could save us. This is the end of our community.
If the federal government were a person, if Congress
were subject to the laws they create, they would face
fines, prison or both for many of their actions. The
ENLIST Act, being touted as a “pathway” to citizenship
for illegal aliens may be one of those actions. It could
be argued that the very act itself violates federal law.
Consider this:
Immigration law, 8 US Code 1324 states that it is a
crime to, either knowingly or recklessly, “conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection, or attempt to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection… transport, or move or
attempt to transport or move” or to even “encourage or
induce” an illegal alien “to come to, enter, or reside
in the United States, knowingly or in reckless disregard
of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is
or will be in violation of law.”
It is not only a crime to actually commit these
offenses, but it is a crime to even attempt to do so.
Anyone found guilty of violating 8 US Code 1324 is
subject to fines, prison or both. However, if it can be
proven that this person has committed this act for
personal gain, the fines go up and the prison sentence
can be as much as ten years.
By David Boaz From The Cato Institute May 8, 2014 2:19PM
In the Washington Post, Paul Kane reports that
recent experiences with ultra-conservative Senate
candidates have made Republican leaders fearful of
candidates like Rep. Paul Broun in Georgia. There
may be reasons for party leaders or voters to have
doubts about Broun, but I hope they aren’t actually
concerned about the purported problem that Kane
identifies:
Broun is prone to fiery speeches invoking the
Founding Fathers and applying those 1789 principles
to issues 225 years later.
Seriously? He thinks the Constitution is still the
law of the land? And that the framework it
established for individual rights and limited
government is still relevant today? Do
Republican leaders really think that’s a bad
message? Or does the Washington Post?
Thomas Jefferson and his followers hailed “the
principles of ‘76” or “the spirit of ‘76” in their
battles with Federalists. As historian Joseph Ellis
put it, “Jefferson’s core conviction was that what
might be called ‘the spirit of ‘76’ had repudiated
all energetic expressions of government power, most
especially power exercised from faraway places,
which included London, Philadelphia or Washington.”
Good thing there isn’t an actual Jeffersonian
running!
But the principles of 1789, or actually of 1787,
also protect freedom from government power and are
just as essential today as they were at the
Founding. The Framers knew their history. They knew
that people with power tend to abuse it and to
restrict freedom. In his last letter, 50 years after
the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:
All eyes are opened, or opening,
to the rights of man. The general spread of the
light of science has already laid open to every view
the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not
been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored
few booted and spurred, ready to ride them
legitimately, by the grace of God.
Because they feared the exercise of power, the
Framers wrote a Constitution that established a
government of delegated, enumerated, and thus
limited powers. Then the people insisted on a Bill
of Rights to further protect their rights even from
the very limited federal government established in
the Constitution. Then, after identifying specific
rights that individuals retained, they also added,
“for greater caution,” as James Madison put it, the
Ninth Amendment to clarify that “The enumeration in
the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people.”
One would hope that all members of Congress – and
voters, and political reporters – believe that those
principles and those constitutional rules should be
applied to issues of today. Surely the First
Amendment remains relevant. And the Fourth. And the
limits on unconstrained power in the basic structure
of the Constitution. The merits of any particular
candidate aside, support of the Constitution and the
principles it embodies seems like a good, even
minimal, qualification for public office.
"Thus saith the LORD,
Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old
paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye
shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16
Dr. Robert G Lee was the pastor of Bellevue Baptist
Church in Memphis, Tennessee for thirty-two years.
During his lifetime he was a strong leader in the
Southern Baptist Convention, known as a preacher’s
preacher, and was highly respected among his peers. This
sermon has been accepted as a classic by all that have
heard and read it, and through its message, the Lord
still speaks to mankind.
Dr. Lee originally published the following message in
1926. It is said that he developed it following the
suggestion of a deacon at a prayer meeting in 1919 and
that he preached it at least once a year at his home
church. All total, it is related that he preached the
messsage over 1,000 times. Like many Baptists, Lee was
known more as a preacher than a theologian but his
doctrine was sound to the core. Lee believed in and
preached a doctrine often overlooked in our day, that of
the necessity of regeneration.
Ala. Supreme Court:
'Unborn Child Has Inalienable Right to Life From
its Earliest Stages
By Michael
W Chapman
CNSNews.com
| Apr 23, 2014
In a case
about a pregnant woman who used cocaine and
endangered her unborn child, the Alabama Supreme
Court affirmed (8-1) that the word "child" includes
"an unborn child," and that the law therefore
"furthers the State's interest in protecting the
life of children from the earliest stages of their
development."
In his concurring opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Roy
S. Moore wrote that "an unborn child has an
inalienable right to life from its earliest stages
of development," and added, "I write separately to
emphasize that the inalienable right to life is a
gift of God that civil government must secure for
all persons - born and unborn."
The court decision on April 18 was in reference to
Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of Alabama. Hicks had
been charged in 2009 with violating Alabama's
chemical-endangerment statute, which in part says
that a "person commits the crime of chemical
endangerment" by "knowingly, recklessly, or
intentionally causes or permits a child to be
exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact
with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or
drug paraphernalia," a felony.
In Hicks' case, she was charged with using cocaine
while pregnant. Her child, "J.D.," tested positive
for cocaine "at the time of his birth," reads the
court document.
In January 2010, Hicks pleaded guilty to the crime
but also "reserved the right to appeal the issues"
she and her attorneys had presented earlier in
trying to get the charges dismissed. Hicks got a
three year suspended prison sentence and was placed
on probation.
Hicks appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals in
Alabama, arguing that because the
chemical-endangerment statute did not specifically
use the words "unborn children" or "fetuses," the
law was ambiguous and could not have applied to her
unborn child.
The Appeals Court ruled against Hicks, stating that
"the plain language of 26-15-3.2
[chemical-endangerment statute] was clear and
unambiguous and that the plain meaning of the term
'child' in [the statute] included an unborn child or
viable fetus.'"
Hicks then petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court in
2012 to review the Appeals Court decision.
Last Friday's ruling affirmed the judgment of the
Court of Criminal Appeals.
In their conclusion, eight of the nine Alabama
Supreme Court justices said: "Consistent with this
Court's opinion in Ankrom [a similar
chemical-endangerment case], by its plain meaning,
the word 'child' in the chemical-endangerment
statute includes an unborn child, and, therefore,
the statute furthers the State's interest in
protecting the life of children from the earliest
stages of their development."
The law to protect the life of unborn children "is
consistent with many statutes and decisions
throughout our nation that recognize unborn children
as persons with legally enforceable rights in many
areas of the law," said the justices.
In his own concurring opinion, Chief Justice Moore
argued that natural rights come from God, not from
the government. He cited the Declaration of
Independence that there is a "self-evident" truth
that "all Men are created equal, [and] that they are
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights," particularly "life."
The Declaration of Independence "acknowledges
as 'self-evident' the truth that all human
beings are endowed with inherent dignity and the
right to life as a direct result of having been
created by God," said Chief Justice Moore.
He also cited Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries
on the Laws of England, which says, "This law of
nature, being co-eval [beginning at the same time]
with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of
course superior in obligation to any other. It is
binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at
all times: no human laws are of any validity, if
contrary to this."
Chief Justice Moore went on to explain how at the
Nuremburg Trials at the end of World War II, Nazi
criminals could not argue that they were only
following orders or just following the laws of the
German government because there is a higher law, the
"very law of nature."
"Although the Nuremberg defendants were following
orders and the laws of their own officials and
country, they were guilty of violating a higher law
to which all nations are equally subject: the laws
of nature and of nature's God," wrote Justice Moore.
That law binds all nations, including the State of
Alabama, said Justice Moore. "In 2006, the
AlabamaLegislature amended the homicide statute to
define 'person' to include 'an unborn child in utero
at any stage of development, regardless of
viability," he wrote, "thus recognizing under the
statute that, when an 'unborn child' is killed, a
'person' is killed."
In conclusion, he wrote, "The Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state
may not 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws. Unborn children
are a class of persons entitled to equal protection
of the laws."
"States have an obligation to provide to unborn
children at any stage of their development the same
legal protection from injury and death they provide
to persons already born," wrote Justice Moore.
"Because a human life with a full genetic endowment
comes into existence at the moment of conception,
the self-evident truth that 'all men are created
equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights' encompasses the moment of
conception."
"Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the
human family derives ultimately from the laws of
nature and of nature's God, Who created human life
in His image and protected it with the commandment:
'Thou shalt not kill,'" wrote Chief Justice
Moore. "Therefore, the interpretation of the
word 'child' in Alabama's chemical-endangerment
statute, § 26-15- 3.2, Ala. Code 1975, to include
all human beings from the moment of conception is
fully consistent with these first principles
regarding life and law."
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
gave a landmark speech yesterday calling on the world
to unite against Islamism.
Tony Blair, the Former British Prime Minister,
delivered a keynote speech at Bloomberg HQ in London
entitled 'Why the Middle East Still Matters.' In it he
described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing
the world today.He argued "there are four reasons why
the Middle East remains of central importance and
cannot be relegated to the second order."
Blair rapidly moved on to the fourth and most
important reason: Islamic extremism also known as
Islamism.
He identifies the conflict in the Middle East as one
between an open and tolerant viewpoint and a
fundamentalist Islamist ideology. He said "wherever
you look – from Iraq to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to
Lebanon to Syria and then further afield to Iran,
Pakistan and Afghanistan – this is the essential
battle."
Addressing those who regard these conflicts as
distinct he said "there is something frankly odd about
the reluctance to accept what is so utterly plain:
that they have in common a struggle around the issue
of the rightful place of religion, and in particular
Islam, in politics." It is this central point that he
hammered home again and again over the course of his
40 minute speech.
He argued that this struggle does not end at the
borders of the region. Rather, "The reason this
matters so much is that this ideology is exported
around the world."
More
Attacks on the Freedom of Speech, In the Form of Religious
Persecution
Of our Air Force Cadets
From The Traditional
Values Coalition:
Earlier
this month, an Air Force Academy cadet was forced to
remove a Bible verse on his personal white board
after the Military Religious Freedom Foundation
claimed offense.
"I
have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer
live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in
the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who
loved me and gave himself for me." - Galatians 2:20
MRFF
President Michael "Mikey" Weinstein, self proclaimed
"undisputed leader of the national movement to
restore the obliterated all separating church and
state" in the military, described the student's
white board quoting of scripture as pouring
"fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already
raging out-of-control conflagration of
fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism,
and supremacy."
The
Air Force Academy complied with Weinstein's demands,
having the scripture removed. But that's not enough
-- Weinstein is demanding that not only should the
cadet be punished, but that their entire chain of
command should be as well.
At
least a dozen cadets responded in support of
religious freedom, posting Bible verses on their
personal white boards. Please join me and thousands
of others in standing with our cadets for their
right to express their religious beliefs without
fear of persecution <http://capwiz.com/traditional/utr/1/KTQOTSLPVY/KFTWTSLUWE/10253908236>
.
No
one, especially those who volunteer to risk their
lives to defend our freedoms, should be denied their
constitutional rights and religious freedoms. Groups
like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are
seeking to silence those who profess their faith,
stripping them of their religious liberties in the
name of political correctness.
Our
Constitution protects the free exercise of religion.
Yet that doesn't seem to be enough for some groups.
The Clash of
Law: Parsing the Modern War against Catholics,
Catholicism and the Church
FromCatholicCulture.org
ByDr. Jeff Mirus
Date March 25,
2014
Opposition to Catholicism in the modern West is
brought to a head almost universally through the
pressure of today’s legal systems. .... what bother
us are the increasing restrictions on the exercise
of our Christian duties by bureaucratic laws and
regulations, administered by people who otherwise do
not care much about our religious identity one way
or another.
This is the result of a utopian vision of the
future implemented at the highest levels of the
social order. It is not the cruel and
unthinking persecution of those who have simply been
raised, in their local enclaves and neighborhoods,
to hate Catholics. It is rather a relatively high
brow and carefully orchestrated process of civic
improvement. As such, the anti-Catholic prejudice
today wears a mantle of utter reasonableness and
courtesy. Whatever is done is portrayed as necessary
for the noblest of reasons, to serve an exalted
vision of human good. As we will see shortly, this
is a deception which even its proponents probably do
not understand.
Consider how varied are the pressure points which
have been attacked in exactly this way. There is the
progressive public pressure for Catholic social
service agencies to conform to the values of our
secular elites. There is the growing impossibility
of running Catholic organizations as a part of
student life on college campuses. There are the
battles over freedom of conscience in an
ever-widening array of professions, beginning with
doctors, nurses and pharmacists and extending now to
anyone who might provide business services to
same-sex couples. There are escalating battles over
religious liberty. There is the HHS Mandate in the United States
and similar rules in other Western nations which
force even private individuals to actively
participate in mandated actions which they find
deeply immoral.
Meanwhile, in another part of the world, there is
the unending pressure against Catholic life imposed
by the theocratic laws of Islamic states, called
Shari’a law. This alternative form of coercion is in
the process of entering the West through Europe, where the presence
of high percentages of Islamic immigrants raises the
question of alternative legal systems for different
communities and regions. Almost nowhere can we any
longer find a legal system which is not
essentially hostile to Catholicism, with its own
transcendent source of moral knowledge.
A Striking Parallel
Interestingly, in his Regensburg Address in 2006,
Pope Benedict XVI drew a close parallel between the
habits of thought which underlie Islamic law and
those that lie at the basis of contemporary European
(or Western) law. Benedict saw that neither
Islam nor the contemporary West (any longer) assigns
to reason the role of identifying natural moral
principles which can allow people of different
beliefs and cultural backgrounds to share a common
good and a common polity. Islam believes Shari’a Law
covers all of life and is rooted purely in the will
of God, completely unbound by any rational
characteristic of consistency or fairness.
Similarly, the old natural law tradition of the
West—in which rational consistency and fairness were
perhaps the most easily-grasped components—has given
way to the sovereignty of the human will to remake
reality according to whatever happens to be desired
by those who have political, social and cultural
power.
One of the greatest Christian gifts to the world
has been the distinction between two fonts of
law which arise without any possible contradiction
from the same profoundly rational Divine source. On
the one hand, there is the natural law, which is
accessible to human reason and which opens to the
human community a common ground of morality as the
basis for human flourishing in the social order. On
the other hand, there is the law derived from
Revelation, equally rational but containing
mysteries which are accessible only by faith. While
in no way conflicting with the natural law—and in
fact presupposing it in the created order—this
Revelation enables the believer to rise to greater
perfection through grace, in a direct relationship
with God Himself, expressed in voluntary service to
others.
.......
Fortunately, reading through the material has at
least enabled me grasp the central issue more
clearly, and to stress three important principles
which might be used to guide our thinking and our
response to the characteristic anti-Catholic
pressures of our time. First, the practical points
of serious clash and conflict are now primarily
creations of law. Second, when it comes to law, the
primary problem is not an attack on Faith but an
attack on reason—the presumption that law derives
its authority from the specific will of those in
power, and is not limited by clear and consistent
natural or supernatural principles. Third, and
precisely because rational consistency is
lacking, it will take great creativity to
navigate this increasingly repressive legal
landscape.
In closing, I should emphasize one even deeper
truth: The will darkens the intellect by ordering it
to cease its independent explorations in order to
serve what the will desires. This is not something
that we can expect to counteract naturally; it is in
fact the mechanism which human nature uses to refuse
cooperation with grace. Yet paradoxically the
pandemic loss of the recognition of reason, and
even of nature itself, must be remedied by grace.
And so, in the midst of growing suffering and
sacrifice for Catholics, it is not only arguments
and creativity that we need, but prayer.
From The Canada Free Press
By Jim Yardley
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Checking to make sure that there was an easily
understandable definition of the word, the dictionary
defines Constitution as “the fundamental political
principles on which a nation-state is governed,
especially when considered as embodying the rights of
the subjects of that nation-state and the statute
embodying such principles.”
One would think that the President of the first nation
to create that very thing, a legal statute that embodied
the fundamental political principles, and who also was a
college level lecturer on the topic of the Constitution,
would have absolutely no problem in dealing with the
concept.
Unfortunately for us, and for several other nations, Mr.
Obama seems to view constitution to be infinitely
malleable, and are subject to change upon a change in
his whims of the day.
As far back as 2001, Barack Obama said in a radio
interview with Public Radio station WBEZ-FM that the
U.S. Supreme Court (under Chief Justice Earl Warren)
“…didn’t break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the founding
fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been
interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same
way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of
negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to
you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,
but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State
government must do on your behalf…”
So even at that time, the President announced clearly
that he disagreed with the judgments of the Founding
Fathers and two centuries of successfully working within
the framework of the U.S. Constitution. He had a
different view of how the Constitution should have been
written, and that had he been alive in 1789, he would
have made sure it was different.
Of course he would have been limited to having only a
pen at that time, since his Blackberry wasn’t even a
science fiction fantasy at that time.
Apparently Obama’s disdain for Constitutions is not
limited to only home grown ones, or limited to only with
regard to “negative liberties.” Fast forward to
June 2009 and look at Honduras.
Manuel Zelaya, who was then in his second term as
president of Honduras, violated that country’s
Constitution (specifically Article 239) which bans
presidents from holding office if they even propose to
alter the constitutional term limits for presidents.
Apparently Mr. Zelaya really liked being president of
Honduras, and wanted to change his country’s
Constitution so that he could continue in the job.
Note again that any president of Honduras loses the
right to serve as president if he even proposes a change
like that. The Honduran Supreme Court, expressly
had the right to remove the president for seeking to
alter the constitutional term limit, under Article 272
of the Honduran Constitution.
But apparently this made Obama upset, so he declared the
Constitutional crisis in Honduras to have been a
“coup”. It wasn’t, of course. Sadly, for Obama, if
he were to snivel that he didn’t like that part of the
Honduran Constitution it probably would have been a
public relations nightmare for him.
One might infer that Obama personally wanted that
presidential term limit article to be ignored by the
citizens of Honduras because it might set a bad
precedent if he wanted to run for a third term
himself. Then Senator (and now Secretary of State)
John Kerry agreed with Obama’s idea that the removal of
a president who had acted contrary to the clear language
of his nation’s Constitution must have been a
“coup.” This view was vocally supported by the
then Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton who
lusts after the idea of being Obama’s replacement.
Mr. Obama’s disdain for the U.S. Constitution has been
demonstrated on a continuing basis over the five years
that he has been in office, with “recess appointments”
to the NLRB when the Senate was not in recess, the
innumerable delays, waivers, interpretations and so on
related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act, and so on.
Given Obama’s disdain for any constitutional limits on
doing whatever pops into his head at any time, his
reaction to the situation in Ukraine becomes almost
comical. Sadly, even the always irreverent magazine The
Onion couldn’t have seen the idea that Obama would leap
to the defense of Ukraine by saying that the Crimean
referendum was illegitimate and (wait for it)
unconstitutional. Even Nancy Pelosi was probably
tempted to ask “Are you serious?”
The idea that Barack Obama would demand deference to any
nation’s constitution is on a par with, well, nothing
readily comes to mind.
Well perhaps it would be like seeing Dr. Jack Kervorkian
leading a Right-to-Life rally, or perhaps seeing Willy
Sutton doing an infomercial telling people how safe
banks are.
It’s possible I suppose that Obama’s defense of
Ukraine’s constitutional authority would be equivalent
to listening to Bill Clinton lecturing on the benefits
of sexual abstinence.
But given his history on the subject of adherence to
constitutional principles, is it any wonder that no one,
anywhere in the world, believes one word of what the man
is saying?
Click here to read the original article in its
entirety
Trust, but Verify
March, 2014
They are still at it. I am thankful for the
newsletters of people like Dave Gaubatz who report
current affairs that are ignored or overlooked by most
news sources. It is hard to imagine how people like
Dave can be so vilified for reporting well
documented FACTS. Although the truth may set one free
it can also become tiring to be a target and cause
grey hairs and ulcers. But enough about the
messenger.... on to the message.
There are many Muslim organizations in America,
raising money that sometimes end up supporting known
terrorist organizations (viz: the well documented CAIR
connections). Recently a united alliance of these
organizations was formed, with the purpose of becoming
more influential. Our presidential election of 2016
was the example cited, once a consensus would be
agreed upon by individual members.
Dave's recent newsletter linked to the report about
this new alliance at religiousnews.com. Click
here to read it.
While I wouldn't bet the farm on it, my prayer is
that the uniting voice of American Muslims is the
foremost recognition of individual freedom and
opportunity that has drawn so many families to
America. EACH individual's freedom of beliefs,
associations, and speech (to mention a few of our
inalienable God-given freedoms) are worthy principles
that all Americans should recognize, be thankful for,
and do our level best to protect and preserve. In the
meantime I will continue to "Trust, but verify."
To find Mr
Gaubatz blogspot, click
here,
and you can send him an email to
subscribe to his newsletter.
The Brave German Woman
February 14, 2014
One
can recognize that sometimes well meaning
people and institutions can err in the side of
trying to "be nice". However the mentality of
automatic acceptance and accommodation, when
institutionalized, can, and has, placed free
societies in peril; it is the dangerous side
of "political correctness." Please
click here to view the video of Heidi
Mund, who has become known as "The Brave
German Woman" for speaking the truth. If
more people spoke the "Truths that Free" we
would go far in ridding this old world from
the inroads of the evil tentacles of that
totalitarian philosophy that goes by the name
of Islam, which does not condemn murder in the
name of Allah.
Many of us are aware of
hostility toward Christians in foreign
countries.
But has there even been a more
Biblically-hostile administration in Washington
DC, towards its own citizens? David Barton of
WallBuilders doesn't think so.
After reading his list (and documentation) of
the many dozens of offensive hostile acts
towards Bible believers in America ask yourself-
how can this be? We are a God fearing
people living in a free country that was founded
on the recognition that our life and liberty
originates from God (NOT at the whim of
some officeholder or bureaucrat!)
The encroachment by the current
administration does not resemble actions of a
government "of the People, by the People,
and for the People". Offer a prayer for
protection by our Father above. Ask Him to throw
light upon the hearts and minds of those in
power and those who elect some of those
bureaucrats. Be vigilant and protect our
children and their future. Click
here to read David Barton's December article
and list.
Military Priests Face Arrest
For Defying Shutdown And Celebrating Mass
Huffington
Post
Posted:
10/07/2013
Updated:
10/08/
2013
Is
religious freedom the latest casualty of the
government shutdown?
Some priests are being
actively prevented from ministering to service
members and their families, even on a volunteer
basis, and they run the risk of arrest if they
disobey. As a result, military families serving at
home and abroad who depend on the government for
their religious services, are now actively being
denied communion on bases that are served by
civilian priests. Active-duty priests are still
holding services.
John Schlageter, General
Counsel for the Archdiocese for the Military
Services, wrote in an op-ed, "With the government
shutdown, many GS and contract priests who
minister to Catholics on military bases worldwide
are not permitted to work – not even to volunteer.
During the shutdown, it is illegal for them to
minister on base and they risk being arrested if
they attempt to do so. "
He told The Huffington Post
that many civilian priests had contacted him to
say that Mass had been cancelled on their local
installations, because non-active-duty priests are
deemed "non-essential personnel" under the terms
of the shutdown. Schlageter wrote the op-ed in
order to encourage members of the faithful to
contact Congress and get their attention about the
issue, which he called "a residual effect of the
government shutdown that no one contemplated."
His efforts have not been in
vain, as the House of Representatives passed a
resolution on Saturday 400 to 1 which will allow
GS and contract priests to return to work once passed
by the Senate.
Schlageter went on to explain
in his op-ed that the First Amendment guarantees
the "free exercise" of faith, and because military
personnel are considered a "captive audience," the
laws requires the government to provide access to
their faith. This particularly applies to military
families stationed abroad who may not be able to
attend services regularly, depending on the
religious rules of their host country. Those that
have active-duty chaplains will not be affected.
"Until the Federal Government
resumes normal operations, or an exemption is
granted to contract and GS priests, Catholic
services are indefinitely suspended at many of
those worldwide installations served by contract
and GS priests," Schlageter wrote. He told the
Huffington Post that some priests that contacted
him had been informed that they could be arrested
if they returned to base to administer services
during the shutdown.
The Antideficiency Act
prevents those on furlough from volunteering their
services, and violators may be subject to
disciplinary action, suspension, fines, and
imprisonment. It was passed in 1870 in order to
stop the government from "incurring any monetary
obligation for which Congress has not appropriated
funds."
“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 people.”
NEW STATE LAW
BANS CALIFORNIA
FROM COOPERATING WITH FEDS ON INDEFINITE
DETENTION
Sweeping measure
also applies to other laws that violate
Constitution or state law
By Miriam
Raftery
October 7, 2013
(Sacramento)
– In a rare show of bipartisanship, Governor
Brown has signed into a law that passed the
Legislature almost unanimously. The
measure makes California
the third state to nullify provisions of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
allowing indefinite detention of citizens.
However California’s
law goes farther, banning state cooperation with
federal authorities on enforcement of any
federal law that violates the U.S. Constitution,
the California Constitution or California
law. The bill also prohibits use of state
funds for such purposes.
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood
to Coptic Christians: Convert to Islam, or pay
‘jizya’ tax
By
Jessica Chasman
The Washington
Times
September
10, 2013
The Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters have
began forcing the roughly 15,000 Christian Copts
of Dalga village in Egypt
to pay a jizya tax as indicated in Koran 9:29,
author and translator Raymond Ibrahim reported on
Sunday.
Jizya is the money, or tribute, “that conquered
non-Muslims historically had to pay to their
Islamic overlords ‘with willing submission and
while feeling themselves subdued’ to safeguard
their existence,” Mr. Ibrahim explained.
According to Fr. Yunis Shawqi, who spoke
yesterday to Dostor reporters in Dalga, all Copts
in the village, “without exception,” are being
forced to pay the tax.
“[The] value of the tribute and method of payment
differ from one place to another in the village,
so that, some are being expected to pay 200
Egyptian pounds per day, others 500 Egyptian
pounds per day,” Mr. Shawqi said, according to the
translator.
In some cases, families not able to pay have been
attacked. As many as 40 Christian families have
now fled Dalga, Mr. Ibrahim reported.
The taxes are not unique to Egypt
either.
Just over the weekend Syrian rebels went into a
Christian man’s “shop and gave him three options:
become Muslim; pay $70,000 as a tax levied on
non-Muslims, known as jizya; or be killed along
with his family,” Christian Science Monitor
reported.
Egypt's Christians under attack
since Morsi's ouster
Rights groups say Egypt
not doing enough to stop the violence.
Sarah Lynch,
Special for USA
TODAY August 15,
2013
CAIRO
– Stained glass windows generated a luminous glow
inside a Coptic Christian church one recent morning as
prayers were chanted in steady hums and incense wafted
through the nave, soothing worshipers.
But the serenity only masked the unease here. Since
the July 3 coup that ousted former president Mohammed
Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, Christians have faced
a spike in violent attacks that Egyptian authorities
have not prevented, rights groups allege.
"I'm very afraid, and I'm afraid for my daughter,"
said Mona Roshdy, 55, as she left the church with her
family.
She had reason to be. On Wednesday, as the police in
Cairo
assaulted two protest camps of the Muslim
Brotherhood's, Morsi supporters directed their anger
at Christians.
Churches, houses, monasteries, orphanages, schools
and businesses belonging to Copts were attacked in
nine provinces "causing panic, losses and destruction
for no reason and no crimes they committed except
being Christians," the Maspero Youth Union, a Coptic
activist group, said Thursday.
As if sensing trouble, just two days before
Wednesday's violence, Egypt's
Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II called on all
Egyptians to prevent bloodshed.
"With all compassion I urge everyone to conserve
Egyptian blood and ask of every Egyptian to commit to
self-restraint and avoid recklessness and assault on
any person or property," Tawadros wrote on his
official Twitter account Monday.
Youssef Sidhom, editor-in-chief of the Christian
weekly Watani, said the recent attacks are
painful and vicious but it could be worse if they are
allowed to divide the two faiths.
"Christians shouldn't be moved by this, shouldn't be
dragged to fulfill the target that lies behind this,
which is segregating the national solidarity between
Christians and Muslims in the very difficult time
Egypt is passing through," Sidhom said.
Christians make up about 8 million of Egypt's
population of 80 million and have been victims of
Muslim attacks for years. Some Christians were worried
when Islamists took over Egypt's
government
in 2012 and relieved when the military ousted them
from power last month.
But the ancient Coptic communities here that predate
Islam by centuries say they now see a new wave of
violence against them since the ouster.
In Upper Egypt – a swath of arid land from south of
Cairo to Sudan that is home to many hard-line Islamist
Egyptians – four Christians were killed when a mob of
several hundred people in the Luxor governorate
attacked with knives, tree limbs and hammers two days
days after the overthrow of Morsi, Amnesty
International said.
They also vandalized Christian homes and set
properties on fire, Amnesty said.
In a village in Upper Egypt's province of Minya, an
argument erupted between Muslim and Christians over a
pro-military song playing in a coffee shop last week.
The next day thousands of people ransacked Christian
homes and stores, the Associated Press reported.
And in the north Sinai
Peninsula, a hotbed for growing militant
activity, an orthodox priest was murdered last month.
There were attacks in Port Said and
Marsa Matrouh as well.
On Wednesday, Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim said
Morsi supporters damaged or torched seven churches
nationwide. They also stormed 21 police stations, he
said.
Many Christians participated in massive protests
against Morsi at the end of June, and Tawadros sat
with a row of officials behind Gen. Abdel Fattah
Al-Sisi when the army chief gave his speech that
overthrew Morsi.
In a 15-minute audio recording posted online earlier
this month, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri accused
Coptic Christians, the military and secular-minded
elites of conspiring against Morsi because he is an
Islamist.
In Egypt,
human rights groups accused Egypt's
Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists of inciting
violence.
Ibrahim said incendiary speeches indicate Islamist
leaders think Copts were heavily involved in
anti-Morsi protests.
"I'm not scared, but I'm very sad about the situation
in the country – the relationship between Muslims and
Christians," said Margaret Naby as she walked into
church on Sunday. "There is so much fanaticism."
Egypt
is home to wider sectarian unease that authorities
don't control. In June, four Shiite Muslims were
beaten to death by a mob of Sunni Muslims, apparently
for their beliefs, in a village near the capital, in Giza.
"The Egyptian government should make ending sectarian
violence a priority, or risk letting this deadly
problem spiral out of control," Nadim Houry, acting
Middle East director of Human Rights Watch, said in a
recent report about attacks on Christians.
"Prosecutors should thoroughly investigate and
prosecute those responsible, including security
forces, if they want to show they are capable of
preventing future bloodshed," he said.
Last week, 16 human rights groups condemned rhetoric
used by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies that the
organizations said incited violence and religious
hatred for political gain. They also denounced state
agencies for failing to protect Christians, confront
sectarian attacks and enforce the law by holding
responsible parties or individuals accountable.
"This negligence reveals that the pattern of impunity
which spread during the Mubarak era and remained in
place throughout the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood
continues to this day, even after both of these
regimes were overthrown," a statement by the groups
said.
In Coptic
Cairo, which was a Christian stronghold until the
7th-century rise of Islam, Zarour Ayzut Dawoud propped
her son on her hip as she visited the place where
Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus are believed to have
stayed when they escaped King Herod's execution of
young male children in the vicinity of Bethlehem.
"I want to go to America,"
said
Dawoud. "The situation in Egypt
is no good."
Peter Fakhry, 22, said the feeling is shared by
non-Christian Egyptians.
"Many people want to leave – Christians and Muslims,
too, because of the situation and lack of work," he
said.
"Do you see this? There are no tourists," he said
about the Coptic site that is no longer as much a
residential space as it is a place for visitors, who
come to see relics of an almost forgotten past in
which Egypt
was dominated by Christians.
By Tenth
Amendment on August 5, 2013 in Featured, Founding Principles
by Jacob Hornberger, Future of
Freedom Foundation
Keep in mind that this amendment is
directed to federal officials, specifically those in
the executive and congressional branches. Our
American ancestors knew that the federal government
would inevitably attract the types of people who
would do the things proscribed by the amendment.
Thus, to deal with that threat our ancestors made it
clear that whoever was elected or appointed to
federal office would be prohibited from engaging in
the type of conduct prohibited by the amendment.
What does the Fourth
Amendment do? It prohibits federal officials from
searching people’s homes, businesses, and personal
effects indiscriminately. If a crime has been
committed, the feds cannot simply go out and search
every house and business in the neighborhood to seek
out evidence of the crime. And they cannot search
everyone’s things with the aim of preventing a crime.
Instead, the Fourth
Amendment requires that to conduct a search of a
person’s home or business, they have to first go to a
member of the third branch of the government— the
federal judiciary — and seek out a search warrant from
a judge or magistrate. In order to get such a warrant,
law-enforcement officers have to swear out an
affidavit specifying the exact nature of the evidence
that is being searched for. Moreover, they have to
provide sworn evidence that rises to the level of
“probable cause” for the judge to consider. If they
fail to do those two things, the judge’s
responsibility is to deny the application for the
search warrant.
Like it or not, that’s
the system that our American ancestors put into place
with the Fourth Amendment.
That’s obviously not the
system that we have been living under for many years,
given the massive secret surveillance scheme that has
now come to light thanks to former NSA employee Edward
Snowden. We now know that the U.S.
national security state is doing — and has been doing
— precisely what the Fourth Amendment was designed to
prohibit. It has been gathering and compiling massive
amounts of information about the private affairs of
hundreds of millions of people, most of whom, needless
to say, have never made the target of a specific
search warrant request.
U.S.
officials say that such a massive surveillance scheme
on everyone is necessary to keep Americans “safe.”
Well, let’s see. If we
go back and read the Fourth Amendment, we immediately
notice one important thing: Our American ancestors did
not provide an exception to the restrictions based on
keeping Americans “safe.”
That is, the amendment
doesn’t have the following sentence at the end of it:
“The provisions of this amendment are null and void in
cases where the government is keeping people ‘safe.’”
If our ancestors had
added such a provision, then the NSA and its
supporters might have a point. But they didn’t.
Is there anything to
prevent the advocates of the NSA’s surveillance scheme
from seeking a constitutional amendment that modifies
the Fourth Amendment to include such a safety
exception?
No, there isn’t. Then
why shouldn’t the supporters of such a scheme be
required to go that route — the route of seeking a
“keep people safe” amendment to the Fourth Amendment,
rather than the super-secret, illegitimate route that
they have taken?
Proponents also say that
the 9/11 terrorist attacks provided the feds with the
authority to avoid the Fourth Amendment.
Well, let’s see. If we
go back and read the amendment, we notice something
else important: There is no exception for terrorist
attacks in the amendment.
If the amendment had
provided such an exception, then the proponents of the
NSA’s massive secret surveillance scheme might have a
point. But they didn’t. Our ancestors provided no
exceptions for terrorist cases or any other crime. So,
if proponents of such a scheme don’t like what our
ancestors did, why shouldn’t they be required to seek
a constitutional amendment seeking the modification of
the Fourth Amendment?
Our American ancestors
knew exactly what they were doing. When you see people
like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Peter King, Mike
Rogers, and others who are coming to the defense of
the massive, secret NSA surveillance scheme that is
searching, gathering, and compiling personal
information on millions of innocent Americans, you are
seeing precisely the types of people that our
ancestors knew would end up serving in the federal
government and doing the types of things the Fourth
Amendment expressly prohibits. You are also seeing
precisely why our ancestors believed the Fourth
Amendment was absolutely necessary to our freedom,
privacy, and well-being.
Remember the wise and
immortal words of Justice Louis Brandeis in his
dissent in the case of Olmstead v. United States:
Experience should teach
us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the
government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to
freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their
liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to
liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal,
well-meaning but without understanding.
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.” AMENDMENT #2-“And the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms!”
Our Constitution: 56 men who pledged
their Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor.
Ladies and
gentlemen, our government, under the
leadership of Obama’s
socialist agenda that is determined to shred our
beloved Constitution, thus destroying our freedoms
and liberties.
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, out of the White House! ILLU:
National Scandals as IRS, NSA, Benghazi, etc.
We now have
a nation
being directed
and dictated
to by about 200
un-elected czars that are proud
socialists and/or active
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.”
We have seen the
NSA,
IRS,BATF, HOMELAND SECURITY,
FBI, and other Federal
Agenciesstrangle
Americansand Demandus to Bow
in Fear!
WHAT IS
FREEDOM?Where do we get our freedoms?
God has given us
our freedoms and we have codified them in our
Constitution, “...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...”
·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
freedom.What is
freedom?
·FREEDOM IS:
FREEDOM IS
– A raw milk
farmer not fearful of the Gestapo
breaking into his home.
FREEDOM IS
– praying in Jesus’
name without fear or intimidation.
3.FREEDOM IS
– a child that can take a sack lunch
to school without fear
of it being taken.
FREEDOM IS
– being able to fly the
American flagwithout
breaking a law.
FREEDOM IS
– to be able to read the
Bible in a public classroom without
arrest.
6.FREEDOM IS
– being able to rejectShariah
Law as unconstitutional
without threatsfrom
C.A.I.R.
7.FREEDOM IS--Being
able to make
a phone call, without the
Government
Listening.
8.FREEDOM IS—Being
FREE
to travel
without the Feds Tracing
Your Movements.
9.FREEDOM IS
– to be able to go to bed at
night without fear
of invasion
by U.S.
officials under the NDAA,
which will give the president sole authority without
Congress’ approval, if deemed a “national
emergency.”
10.FREEDOM IS—NotBeing
Forced
to AcceptSodomiteMarriages!
11.FREEDOM IS
– to have openness in Washington in
our government, not “provda-style”
dictatorship.
12.FREEDOM IS—Allowing the
Voice
of the
Moral Majority to be Heard!
13.FREEDOM IS—Having aRight to
Confront and
Evil-IllegalPresidency!
14.FREEDOM IS
– to be able to decide our own food menu,
our own diet and medical
care without
governmental intervention
or directive.
15.FREEDOM IS
– to allow every child conceived
to have “life”
protection
under our Constitution.
16.FREEDOM IS—Not
having
IRS
Enforcement AgentsStealing our
Hard-EarnedIncome and
Sending
it to Islamic
Nations!
17.FREEDOM IS—Having
a
President
that Honors God, and OurConstitutionalControls
on Government!
18.FREEDOM IS—Having
Pastors
with Backbone
to PubliclyStandon IssuesWithout Fear
of Government!
19.FREEDOM IS—When
Government
is Afraidof the People
–NotPeopleFearful of
Government.
20.FREEDOM IS—Where
the
Tea Party,
Patriots,
and Conservatives
Are NotTargeted
by our Government,Directed
by the President!
21.FREEDOM IS
– to live in a land where the governmentcannotintrude
into the church.
Separation
of church and state is Biblical.
(Not
found in our Constitution.)
King Uzziah
entered into the temple
to offer sacrifice (81 priests begged
him not to).It is the 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.
22.FREEDOM IS
– to be able to render to
Caesar what belongs to
Caesar, and render
unto God
what belongs to 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?
23.FREEDOM IS
– to have a government that is restrained
by the U.S. Constitution: American law
and NO international,
foreign,
or Koranic-Shariah
law in our courts.SB-58
& H.B.
351 Defeated by Pressure
on FL.
Lawmakers by Islamic
Terrorists!
24.FREEDOM IS
– to have our educational
system returned
back to our state
and local leaders, NOTczars in Washington.
25.FREEDOM IS
– to not
have 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 spiritualconvictions.
FREEDOM IS
– not to be forced
to provide murder
by abortion at taxpayer’s expense.
56 MillionMurdered since
1973
–Roe vs Wade!
27.FREEDOM IS
– is to have presidential candidates provide a legitimate
birth certificate and proof of citizenship
before
running for office.
28.FREEDOM IS—To
be Able
to Go to a
Public Park, Beach,
or Public
Venue and ProclaimTruth,
IncludingPreaching
the Gospel.
29.FREEDOM IS
– knowing that we have the Constitutional
Second
Amendment right to keep and bear
arms, notJust
forHunting,
But to
Protect
U.S. From
the Intrusions
and Tyrannies
of Government!
30.FREEDOM IS
– knowing that our children in school are being taught
TRUE
American History without
the distortions,
deletions
and promotion
of Islam in our textbooks.
31.FREEDOM IS
– knowing
that our fee
simple title deeds
to our properties are securewithout
fear of the EPA
Gestapo seizing
it to protect a snail
or rodent.
32.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 highest
mountain.
FREEDOM IS
– not
apologizing for breaking
things and killing
people in a just
war.
o
ILLU:
Daniel Chapter 3 tells us of three young
men that refused
to bow
to a law.They
were thrown
in the fiery
furnace, but because
of their faith
in God, they wouldNOTburn!
They Did NotBow to
the Godless
Law, When Threatened
They Did Not
Bend, and Throwninto
the FurnaceThey Did
NotBurn!!!
oDaniel was thrown
into the den
of lions for refusing to obey
a godless
law.The lions became
his pillow—God
delivered him! (Daniel,
Chapter 6)
·Ladies and Gentlemen—may I read you some quotes from
our founding fathers:
·“Without freedom of thought there
can be no such thing as libertywithoutfreedomofspeech.”
Benjamin Franklin
·“Those who wouldgive upessentialliberties to purchasetemporary
safety deserveneither liberty nor
safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
·“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 firstgrowing out of the last---a sacredrespect for the Constitutional law
is the vitalprinciple, the sustainingenergy 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, standfirmlikearock.”Thomas
Jefferson
·Ladies and
Gentlemen—let’s send a message to
Washington, LOUD
AND CLEAR—“We the People.”
oWe will notsurrender
our Constitution
on the account
of convenience.
oWe will notsacrifice
our convictions
on the altar of coercion.
oWe will notsubmit
our church
rights to the rule
of unelectedczars in Washington.
oWe will not
be silent
and allow socialism
to subvert
our Constitution.
oWe will bevigilant,
visible,
vocal,
and vote in
every election.
oWe will have “revolution”
at the “ballot”
box.
oThe Bible
is very clear (Acts 5:29) we ought
to obey Godrather
than man.
MAY
GOD BLESS YOU AND MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA!
4 Ways the Fourth Amendment's
Already Being Pummeled in a Non-Top Secret Way
The government will
always insist it's acting within the law.
Ed Krayewski
reason.com
June 11, 2013
Last week The
Guardian and The Washington Post
reported that the National Security Agency collects
information on the phone and Internet habits of
millions of Americans. Since then we've seen President
Barack Obama argue against the strawman of
combining “100 percent privacy and 100 percent
security.” We've seen the Director of National
Intelligence and apologists point to federal
statutes that allegedly permit the behavior. And, on
the brighter side, we've seen Sen. Rand Paul
introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act.
Our View: Illinois, meet U.S.
Constitution
Journal Star article
Posted May 20, 2013
Last update May 21, 2013
So Chicago doesn’t
want concealed carry of handguns to be the law in the
Land
of Lincoln.
Obviously.
Nonetheless, last time we checked, Chicago is a city
in the United States of America, which has a Second
Amendment that permits the citizens of this country —
even those living in Chicago — the right to gun
ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically told Chicago so in 2010 in striking
down its ban on guns (McDonald v. City of Chicago).
Then late last year, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals informed the state of Illinois, in which
Chicago sits, that its prohibition on guns carried
outside the home also was unconstitutional.
We have not always been thrilled by the prospect of
people packing heat everywhere you go, either, but
fundamentally, the federal courts carry a bigger gavel
than the city of Chicago
and the state of Illinois here.
The June 9 deadline established by the court for state
government to come into compliance with the U.S.
Constitution is a solid one.
Yet that has not stopped Chicago-area legislators
from doing everything they can to drag this thing out
and neuter it as much as possible. Case in point is
state Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, sponsor of the
concealed carry measure (House Bill 183, which is
sponsored by Lou Lang, D-Skokie, in the House).
Raoul initially wanted to give Chicago’s police chief
and county sheriffs the authority to veto these gun
permits, with applicants having to show “proper
reason” for carrying and “good moral character” to get
law enforcement’s “endorsement.” He has since dropped
the latter, but the former remains. In any case, who
defines “proper reason” or “moral character,” and
how do you implement that on a consistent basis? Those
are so vague as to be unworkable, if also ripe for
abuse. The Second Amendment doesn’t say that “the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed ... unless the police chief or some other
government official says so.” It really is no wonder
that the National Rifle Association objected to that.
Moreover, it’s hardly in keeping with the spirit of
the federal appellate court’s ruling that “to confine
the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the
Second Amendment from the right of self-defense.”
Meanwhile, Raoul also wants to give home-rule
communities — like Chicago and Peoria — the ability to
expand the state’s list of gun-free zones, which
critics have charged would create a “patchwork” of
regulations that virtually no one can follow and that
risks making criminals of people who are not. We feel
strongly that any concealed carry law should be
uniform throughout the state.
(Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron said the
brutal killing of a soldier who was hacked to death in
London
by two men shouting Jihadist slogans was a betrayal of
Islam.
"We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any
of its forms," Cameron told reporters outside his Downing Street residence on
Thursday.
"This was not just an attack on Britain
and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal
of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so
much to our country. There is nothing in Islam that
justifies this truly dreadful act."
Comment:
Thatis like
calling the Fort Hood Texas incident over three
years ago, of
anIslamist
Major who yells 'AllahuAkbar’ fires, and
kills twelve soldiers and one civilian “Workplace
Violence”.
No wonder
modern Western “Civilizantion” is in deep
trouble.
Top Senate Democrat: DOJ
action against AP ‘inexcusable’
By Chris Moody, Yahoo News,
Tue, May 14, 2013
While the White House
remains quiet about whether the Justice Department was
right to seize the phone records of Associated Press
reporters, on Capitol Hill the top Democrat in the
Senate was unequivocal about his opposition.
In his weekly press
briefing on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev., blasted the DOJ for its behavior, which
included tracking reporters' phone records within the
House press gallery over a leak related to an
attempted terror plot last year.
"I have trouble
defending what the Justice Department did in looking
at the AP," Reid said. "I really believe in the First
Amendment. I think it's one of the great things we
have as a country. I don't know who did it or why it
was done, but it was inexcusable. There is no way to
justify this. In my career, I've stood consistently
for freedom of the press."
Reid added that he would
make a determination about whether "legislative
action" is needed in response.
Attorney General Eric
Holder on Tuesday defended the department's tactics,
saying that the AP's reporting about a foiled airline
bomb plot in 2012 "put the American people at risk."
He called the information the AP received from
undisclosed sources the “top two or three most serious
leaks I’ve ever seen.”
Pentagon: Proselytizing
Punishable by Court-Martial
CBNNews.com
Thursday, May 02, 2013
The Pentagon says soldiers can be
prosecuted for sharing their faith.
The Defense Department released the
statement to Fox news, which reads, "Religious
proselytization is not permitted within the Department
of Defense" and punishments can include
court-martial.
This comes after Pentagon officials
met with Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious
Freedom Foundation, who said even the presence of a
Bible on a desk can amount to proselytizing.
He added that even a Christian
bumper sticker on an officer's car or a Bible on a
desk can amount to "pushing this fundamentalist
version of Christianity on helpless subordinates."
Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin told
CBN News he believes there's an agenda to get
Christians out of the military.
"It's not just about officers or
commanders sharing their faith, it's about every
individual soldiers, sailor, airmen or marine being
able to exercise their faith," Boykin said.
"The First Amendment talks about the 'free exercise,
thereof,' speaking of our faith. This will destroy our
military because mom and dad in the central part of
the U.S.
are not going to want Johnny and Janie to join the
military knowing that they would not be able to
exercise their faith at the same time that they are
protecting those constitutional rights to do so," he
warned.
Rhetoric heats up in
debate over proselytizing in the military
By Matthew Brown, Deseret News
Published: Wednesday, May 1 2013
A war over the religious freedom of military
chaplains and the troops they serve is being waged in
the Pentagon.
The latest salvo came this week when conservative
blogger Todd Starnes wrote on Fox News and the
Christian Post that the Pentagon confirmed that
"religious proselytization is not permitted within the
Department of Defense."
The regulation is not new. In August, the Air Force
issued a policy telling its chaplains that they must
balance an airman's right to religious exercise with a
prohibition against government establishment of
religion. A violation of the policy could result in a
court-martial.
What is new is a
recent demand to enforce the rule. It came
after a private meeting last week between Pentagon
officials and Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff
to Colin Powell, former Ambassador Joe Wilson and
civil rights attorney Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein.
Conservative Christians are particularly upset that
the Department of Defense is taking advice from
Weinstein, who heads the Military Religious Freedom
Foundation.
"God help us now when someone with such visceral
hatred of conservative Christians — literally tens of
millions of Americans — who says sharing this gospel
is 'spiritual rape' is helping develop policies for
how to deal with Christians in the military," wrote
Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious
Liberty at Family Research Council.
He draws his conclusions about Weinstein's view of
Christianity from a Huffington Post blog in which
Weinstein referred to so-called fundamentalist
Christians as monsters, bigots, bandits and evil,
among other things.
Weinstein told Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn
that “there is systematic misogyny, anti-Semitism and
Islamophobia in the military.” He called such a
culture "a national security threat. What is happening
(aside from sexual assault) is spiritual rape. And
what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is
sedition and treason. It should be punished.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research
Council, reacted by saying the military meeting with
Weinstein on religious freedom is "like consulting
with China
on how to improve human rights."
The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel to "not to proceed with the
purge of religion within the ranks called for by
anti-Christian activists." (Click
here to sign petition)
Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain
Alliance for Religious Liberty, told the Christian
Post that deciding "a service member cannot speak of
his faith is like telling a service member he cannot
talk about his spouse or children.
"I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel
from protected religious speech, and I certainly hope
that it is willing to listen to the numerous
individuals and groups who protect military religious
liberty without demonizing service members."
Two other stories this week signaled that military
chaplains are on edge over what they can and cannot
say to the troops they advise. Barry Black, the U.S.
Senate chaplain and a former military chaplain, said
military chaplains could be accused of "hate speech"
for teaching what scripture says about homosexuality,
according the Christian Post.
"I can see many military chaplains having some
problems because, to teach the passages of Paul with
exegetical integrity would mean being accused of
engaging in hate speech," Black told a Heritage
Foundation audience. "So, this is a challenge that I
think we're going to have to deal with going forward."
Same-sex marriage may affect more than what a
chaplain preaches, says a candidate for the
chaplaincy, who wrote under a pseudonym in American
Thinker for fear of hurting his chances to become a
military chaplain.
"What will happen when a military chaplain turns down
gay soldiers who want the chaplain to marry them?" he
asked hypothetically. "The military has already seen a
major shift in policy towards homosexuals as well as
significant rules towards political correctness. If
the Army decides that gay marriage is more valuable
than the religious beliefs of their chaplains there
will likely be a significant change to the Chaplain
Corps."
The United States Army
has blocked the website of the Southern Baptist
Convention from some of its computers — a move that
family values groups say is a disturbing
continuation of the Pentagon’s hostile attitude
towards religion.
The Defense
Department insists the blocking is a “glitch’’ in
the system which is being corrected.
But the American
Family Network, which is affiliated with the
American Family Association, says the issue comes
just weeks after an Army email called Christian
ministries like the Family Research Council and
American Family Association “domestic hate groups.’’
“This is just
another example of the Christian faith coming under
attack in the military,’’ Tim Wildmon, president of
American Family Network,’’ told The Tennessean
newspaper, which broke the story.
Roger Oldham, a
spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, said
he has been assured the problem is “a random event
with no malicious intent.’’
But he added:
"This is deeply disturbing . . . The First Amendment
exists to protect the church from governmental
censorship of or infringement upon religious speech
and the free exercise of religion."
Lieutenant Col.
Damien Pickart, a department of defense spokesman,
told the newpaper the military is working to resolve
the problem and is “not intentionally blocking
access.’’
American Family
Association Notified: U.S.
Army Now Labels Southern Baptist Convention ‘Hostile’
By Mel
Fabrikant
Thursday,
April 25, 2013
The Paramus
Post (New
Jersey)
Congressman Speaks out on Behalf of Christians
in Military
The United States Army
has blocked the website of the Southern Baptist
Convention from government computers, saying the
Christian site contains “hostile content.”
An Army officer assigned to a U.S.
base said he tried to access SBC.net from his
government computer, but instead, he got a message
that said the site was being blocked by “Team CONUS.”
The message he received read:
The
site you have requested has been blocked by Team CONUS
(C-TNOSC/RECERT-CONUS) due to hostile content.
Team Conus is the Department of Defense management and
computer network overseer of the military’s
Continental US Theater Network Operations and Security
Center (CTNOSC) Regional Computer Emergency Response
Team.
“So the Southern Baptist Convention is now considered
hostile to the U.S. Army…it just corroborates the
recent string of events highlighted by AFA,” the
officer wrote in an email to American Family
Association.(www.afa.net)
According to Tim Wildmon, president of American Family
Network, “This is just another example of the
Christian faith coming under attack in the military.
Earlier this month, an Army email labeled prominent
Christian ministries like the Family Research Council
and American Family Association as ‘domestic hate
groups.’ Their list continues to grow as is evidenced
by their new addition of the Southern Baptist
Convention as ‘hostile.’”
This prompted Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA) to
question Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel about religious
liberty issues during a House Armed Services Committee
meeting just two weeks ago.
For more information on American Family Association,
visit www.afa.net .
Kansas
set to enact life-starts-"at fertilization" abortion
law
By Kevin
Murphy
KANSAS
CITY, Kansas
| Apr 6, 2013
(Reuters) - Kansas is set to
enact one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the
nation which defines life as beginning "at
fertilization" and imposes a host of new regulations.
The Kansas House of Representatives passed the bill
90-30 on Friday night, a few hours after the Senate
backed it on a 28-10 vote. Strongly anti-abortion
Republican Governor Sam Brownback is expected to sign
it into law. Republicans hold strong majorities in
both houses.
In addition to the provision specifying when life
begins, the bill prevents employees of abortion
clinics from providing sex education in schools, bans
tax credits for abortion services and requires clinics
to give details to women about fetal development and
abortion health risks. It also bans abortions based
solely on the gender of the fetus.
The Kansas bill
comes on the heels of anti-abortion measures passing
in states across the country, including one in Arkansas banning abortions in
the 12th week of pregnancy and a law in North Dakota
that sets the limit at six weeks.
The Kansas
language stating that life begins "at fertilization"
is modeled on a 1989 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court,
said Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director of Kansans
for Life, anti-abortion group.
Ostrowski said the language protects the rights of
the unborn in probate and other legal matters.
If the bill is signed into law, Kansas will
become the eighth state declaring that life begins at
fertilization, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues
manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which
researches abortion-related laws nationwide.
While it would not supplant Kansas law
banning most abortions after the 22nd week of
pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly
outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court
revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash
said.
"It's a statement of intent and it's a pretty strong
statement," Nash said. "Should the U.S. Supreme Court
overturn Roe v. Wade or should the court come to some
different conclusion, the state legislature would be
ready, willing and able to ban abortions."
States that already have such language are Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, North Dakota and Ohio,
Nash said.
The Kansas
bill prohibits use of public funds, tax preferences or
tax credits for abortion services. It prevents
state-provided public health-care services from being
used in any manner to carry out abortions, according
to a summary.
Taking away tax benefits would amount to 12 tax
increases for abortion providers, women and their
families, said Elise Higgins, Kansas
coordinator for the National Organization for Women.
Even abortions to save a mother's life would not be a
deductible cost, she said.
The bill bars school districts from letting abortion
providers offer, sponsor or furnish course materials
or instruction on human sexuality or on sexually
transmitted diseases. Higgins said that creates an
unfair stigma for employees of abortion providers.
(Reporting
by Kevin Murphy; Editing by Greg McCune, Doina Chiacu
and Gunna Dickson)
China:
House church accused of being religious cult raided
By: Release International
1 April 2013
Christians in remote Xinjiang province have been
interrogated on suspicion of being a cult after a
violent armed raid on their house church.
One Christian named as Sister Xu remains in detention
after being arrested during a raid in which police
armed with guns and electric batons ransacked her home
and seized property.
Another Christian, house church leader Brother Shen,
was summoned for interrogation separately, which
caused him to suffer an 'episode' relating to a heart
condition, says Release partner China Aid. A second
leader named as Sister Cao fled the area, fearing she
too would be detained.
All three are members of a house church in QimoCounty, Kurla city, in
north-west China.
On March 15, 21 Public Security Bureau officials
visited Sister Xu's home while she was hosting a
prayer meeting. The 14 assembled Christians did not
answer the door and officials departed without forcing
entry 90 minutes later.
However, that evening, armed police arrived. As well
as confiscating property, they took fingerprints and
blood samples from Xu, her son and husband, and took
all three to the local police station for written
statements. It was there that Xu's husband saw
information on a computer alleging links between the
house church and a Chinese religious cult.
Xu's son and husband were both released the following
day, after the latter claimed he was not a Christian.
Brother Shen, who was interrogated on March 18, was
released within three hours, after his health
deteriorated. 'The police made his family guarantee
that there was nothing seriously wrong with his
health,' says China Aid.
JERUSALEM —
Israeli-Palestinian tensions rose sharply on
Wednesday, with a resumption of clashes at the Gaza border as Palestinian
prisoners in Israeli jails declared a three-day hunger
strike to protest a fellow inmate’s death, saying Israel
was responsible.
In response to rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel, apparently in
support of the Palestinian prisoners, the Israeli
military said it carried out an airstrike in Gaza
late Tuesday night, its first since a cease-fire that
ended eight days of fierce cross-border fighting in
November. Warplanes struck two open areas in northern
Gaza,
causing no damage or casualties, the military said.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the Islamic
militant group that controls Gaza, called the
airstrikes a clear violation of the cease-fire. “We
call on international parties to intervene immediately
to end the Israeli escalation and also the violations
against the prisoners,” he said in a statement.
The rocket fire from Gaza
was the third such violation of the cease-fire
brokered by Egypt
in November, evidence of its fragility. There have
also been several episodes of Israeli gunfire directed
at fishermen and farmers approaching newly relaxed
security perimeters, sometimes with deadly
consequences.
An Islamic extremist group in Gaza, the Mujahedeen
Shura Council — Environs of Jerusalem, claimed
responsibility for the rocket fire, saying in a
statement that it was in support of the Palestinians
held by Israel. The group criticized other Palestinian
factions for their inaction on the prisoner issue.
On Wednesday morning, Gaza
militants fired two more rockets into southern Israel.
One landed at the entrance of the Israeli border town
of Sderot,
according to the police, and the other fell on open
ground. No one was hurt.
The death of the prisoner has also stirred unrest in
the West Bank. On
Wednesday night, a Palestinian youth was fatally shot
and three others were wounded in a clash with Israeli
soldiers near the West Bank town of Tulkarem,
according to Palestinian news reports.
The Israeli military said that several Palestinians
had attacked a military post with firebombs and that
soldiers responded with live fire. A spokeswoman said
the episode was being reviewed.
The United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process,
Robert H. Serry, called the situation volatile and
said it was “of paramount importance to refrain from
violence in this tense atmosphere and for parties to
work constructively in addressing the underlying
issues.”
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon of Israel
said in a statement on Wednesday, “We will not allow
shooting of any sort, even sporadic, toward our
citizens and our forces.”
He added, “As soon as we identify the source of the
fire, we will take it down without hesitation, as we
did last night and in previous cases.”
But analysts said that neither Israel
nor Hamas appeared eager to escalate the situation and
that both sides were acting to restore the calm.
The highly charged issue of Palestinian prisoners
came to the fore again after the Palestinian
leadership accused Israel
of deliberately delaying the treatment of the prisoner
who died, Maysara Abu Hamdiya, 64. He had received a
diagnosis of throat cancer two months ago and died in
an Israeli hospital on Tuesday.
Mr. Hamdiya, a resident of the West Bank city of Hebron and a retired general in
the Palestinian Authority security services, was
detained by Israel
in 2002, at the height of the second Palestinian
uprising, and was serving a life term for attempted
murder after sending a suicide bomber to a cafe in Jerusalem,
Israeli officials said. The bomb failed to detonate.
Mr. Hamdiya’s death came amid efforts by the
Western-backed Palestinian leadership to place the
prisoner issue high on the diplomatic agenda, with
Secretary of State John Kerry expected in the region
next week to press for a renewal of peace talks.
Emotions over the prisoner issue have been running
high among Palestinians in recent months, leading to
protests in support of prisoners on hunger strikes and
over the death of a prisoner in February under
disputed circumstances.
Israel’s
Ministry
of Health said in a statement that an autopsy, held on
Wednesday in the presence of a Palestinian expert of
forensic medicine, showed that Mr. Hamdiya had died
from complications of cancer and noted that he had
been a heavy smoker, a factor that it said contributed
to throat cancer.
The Palestinian Authority distributed a copy of an
affidavit that it said was signed by Mr. Hamdiya’s
lawyer, Rami Alami, who visited him in jail on March
12. Mr. Alami said he found Mr. Hamdiya to be tired
and weak and unable to walk without help.
New U.N. arms treaty faces
rough road in U.S.
Senate
By Patricia
Zengerle
WASHINGTON
| Wed Apr 3, 2013
(Reuters) - The new global arms trade treaty was
overwhelmingly approved by the United Nations, with
U.S.
backing, but it was clear on Wednesday it faces a
tough fight for ratification by U.S.
senators who contend it could affect Americans' gun
rights.
The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly approved the
pact by a vote of 154-3 on Tuesday, with 23
abstentions, many by major weapons exporters.
Washington was one
of the 'yes' votes, but to go into effect for the United States
it must win at least 67 votes - a two-thirds majority
- in the 100-member Senate. Last month, the Senate
supported a measure calling for the treaty's rejection
even before U.N. negotiations on its text were
completed.
The powerful National Rifle Association gun industry
lobby promised to fight against ratification. Several
senators, mostly Republicans, quickly issued
statements opposing the pact.
The United States
is the world's largest gun exporter, accounting for 30
percent of global volume. Russia,
No. 2, accounts for 26 percent. Moscow,
which along with China
abstained from the U.N. vote, said it would take a
hard look at the treaty before deciding whether to
sign it.
The treaty, the first of its kind, seeks to regulate
the $70 billion business
in conventional arms and keep weapons out of the hands
of human rights abusers.
A U.S.
commitment to the treaty is important to get China,
Russia
and other big arms producers on board, diplomats and
activists say.
The United States
is already in compliance with the treaty's terms
because of its weapons export and import laws, they
said, but U.S.
approval could put pressure on other nations to adopt
similar limits.
The White House said on Wednesday it had not yet
decided whether President Barack Obama would sign the
pact, and gave no timeline for doing so. Such a
signing seems likely, however, given White House
support for the pact at the United Nations.
If Obama signs, government agencies would review the
treaty before the administration decides whether to
seek ratification by the Senate.
"Timelines for the treaty review process vary and
given that we're just beginning the review, I wouldn't
want to speculate about when we'll make a decision,"
said Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National
Security Council.
The Senate voted 53-46 on March 23 for a nonbinding
amendment to its budget resolution calling for the
treaty's rejection. Supporters said they were worried
it would infringe on U.S.
gun rights.
'DON'T EXPECT A CAKEWALK'
Winning 67 votes for ratification would require the
support of all Democrats, including eight who voted
for the amendment, as well as at least 12 Republicans,
or a quarter of the entire Republican caucus, which
strongly opposes almost any limits on gun sales.
"Don't expect a cakewalk," one Democratic Senate aide
said.
The U.S. Senate has often been skeptical of
international treaties, seeing them as limiting U.S.
power. Among the unratified pacts signed by a U.S.
president is the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
which bans all nuclear explosions.
As with some other unratified treaties, however, Washington
has implemented that treaty's terms, refraining from
nuclear testing.
Several senators issued statements after the U.N.
vote reiterating their opposition.
"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty ... would require the United States
to implement gun-control legislation as required by
the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected
officials have already put into place," said Senator
James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed
Services Committee, who sponsored the budget
amendment.
He, fellow Republican Jerry Moran and Democratic
Senator Max Baucus issued a press release objecting to
the treaty after the U.N. vote.
(Additional reporting by Lou Charbonneau at the
United Nations and Doug Palmer and Roberta Rampton in
Washington;
Editing by Warren Strobel and Mohammad Zargham)
Islamist terrorists and
fanatics are methodically exterminating the
2,000-year-old Christian civilization of the Middle East through
oppression, threats, appropriations and deadly
violence.
Our media ignore the
intensifying savagery against Christians in Muslim
Brotherhood-controlled Egypt.
Unconfirmed reports assert that, last month, Muslim
Brothers dragged Christian protesters to a mosque and
tortured them — but our reporters won’t look into an
Islamist Abu Ghraib.
For a century and a
half, the varied strands of Middle East Christianity
have faced increasingly fierce pogroms and, for the
Armenians, outright genocide. But with the rise of
Wahhabi and Salafist terror, the long, slow-motion
Holocaust accelerated.
Another
attack on Egypt’s
10 million Coptic Christians: Firemen dousing a blaze
at a New Year’s car bombing outside a Coptic church.
Western liberals
romanticize barbaric cultures but have no interest in
the destruction — before their averted eyes — of a
great and brilliant religious civilization. It’s as if
they accept the Islamist creed that Christians don’t
belong in the realms of Islam.
But the Middle East was more than just
Christianity’s birthplace. The faith we know matured
in the Middle East and North Africa, from Ephesus and Antioch to Alexandria and
beyond. St. Augustine,
the most influential church father after St. Paul,
was a North African.
Rome was a
latecomer to Christian authority. Through the Middle
Ages, substantially more Christians lived east of
Constantinople (now Istanbul)
than in Europe, the
faith’s backwater, whose northern reaches had yet to
be evangelized.
Christianity’s greatest
thinkers, greatest monuments and greatest triumphs for
its first 1,000 years rose in the Middle East. Even the Muslim
conquest and relative servitude could not dislodge
Christianity. In the worst of times, Christianity
turned the other cheek and endured. Some Christians
flourished.
Today, the end is in
sight.
In Iraq, cities such as
Mosul
and Saddam’s hometown, Tikrit, were once vital centers
of Christianity. But the country’s Christian
population, estimated at up to 2 million a decade ago,
has fallen by half — perhaps by three-quarters.
Over 2 million
Christians in Syria
dread Islamist terror and religious cleansing so much,
they lean toward the vicious Assad regime, which at
least shielded minorities. Those who can, flee the
country.
Christians were early
supporters of Arab nationalism. One of the fiercest
Palestinian leaders, George Habash, was a Christian,
as was the wife of Yasser Arafat. Their thanks?
Two-thirds of the West Bank’s and more of Gaza’s
Christians have been driven out. They’re now a small
minority even in Bethlehem.
Egypt
has the region’s largest remaining Christian
population, at least 10 million Copts. With rare
exceptions, they’ve long been confined to squalid
quarters and treated as third-class citizens. Now the
Salafist fanatics have been unleashed. The nation’s
Muslim Brotherhood rulers could put a stop to
anti-Christian violence, but appear willing to let the
Salafists do the dirty work for them. They’re playing
bad cop, not-so-bad cop.
And we’ll send the
regime at least a billion dollars this year — with no
stipulations or conditions except that
military-related funds must purchase US-made or
US-licensed equipment. With Egypt’s
economy in desperate straits and the Brotherhood’s
popularity fading, we’re propping up
religious-cleansing bigots.
Christians in Iran?
Gone. Turkey?
Almost gone. Saudi Arabia?
The once-thriving Christian and Jewish populations of
Mecca and Medina
were finished off centuries ago.
And in Lebanon, the only
Middle East country that until recently had a
Christian majority, Christian rights have been so
threatened by Sunni fanaticism that some Christians
have reached out to Shia Hezbollah in their desperate
hunt for allies.
Far to the east, in Pakistan,
Christians face trumped-up charges of insulting Islam
or rape, beatings, murder and church bombings. And we
still pour billions into Pakistan.
It’s the end of a world
as we know it.
If Islam is a “religion
of peace,” it’s time to show the evidence to the
endangered Christians of the Middle
East.
Of course, not all
Christians are angels, nor are all Muslims demons.
Most humans of any faith just want to get through the
day. And some Christians have collaborated with odious
Baathist regimes (usually, to ensure their community’s
survival). Nor are most Muslims active supporters of
the religious cleansing of Christians from their
shared homelands.
But disappointingly few
Muslims actively defend religious minorities. It’s not
unlike Nazi Germany, where most Germans didn’t want to
murder Jews, but were complicit through their silence.
If a Michigan mosque is defaced with
graffiti, it makes national news and the Justice
Department views it as a hate crime. It’s time for
our government and media to apply the same standard
abroad on behalf of Christians.
When the government demands silence -- the
ugliness of the Patriot Act
By Judge
Andrew P. Napolitano
Published
March 21, 2013
FoxNews.com
In 1798, when John Adams was president of the United States,
the feds enacted four pieces of legislation called the
Alien and Sedition Acts. One of these laws made it a
federal crime to publish any false, scandalous or
malicious writing -- even if true -- about the
president or the federal government, notwithstanding
the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment.
The feds used these laws to torment their adversaries
in the press and even successfully prosecuted a
congressman who heavily criticized the president.
Then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson vowed that if he
became president, these abominable laws would expire.
He did, and they did, but this became a lesson for
future generations: The guarantees of personal freedom
in the Constitution are only as valuable and reliable
as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those to
whom we have entrusted it for safekeeping.
We have entrusted the Constitution to all three
branches of the federal government for safekeeping.
But typically, they fail to do so. Presidents have
repeatedly assaulted the freedom of speech many times
throughout our history, and Congresses have looked the
other way. Abraham Lincoln arrested Northerners who
challenged the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson arrested
Americans who challenged World War I. FDR arrested Americans he
thought might not support World War II. LBJ and
Richard Nixon used the FBI to harass hundreds whose
anti-Vietnam protests frustrated them.
In our own post 9/11 era, the chief instrument of
repression of personal freedom has been the
government’s signature anti-terror legislation: the
Patriot Act. It was born in secrecy, as members of the
House of Representatives were given 15 minutes to read
its 300 pages before voting on it in October 2001, and
it operates in silence, as those who suffer under it
cannot speak about it.
The Patriot Act permits FBI agents to write their own
search warrants and gives those warrants the patriotic
and harmless-sounding name of national security
letters (NSLs). This authorization is in direct
violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which says that the people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that that
security can only be violated by a search warrant
issued by a neutral judge and based upon probable
cause of crime.
The “probable cause” requirement compels the feds to
acquire evidence of criminal behavior about the person
whose records they seek, so as to prevent politically
motivated invasions of privacy and fishing expeditions
like those that were common in the colonial era.
Judges are free, of course, to sign the requested
warrant, to modify it and sign it, or to reject it if
it lacks the underlying probable cause.
The very concept of a search warrant authorized by
law enforcement and not by the courts is directly and
profoundly antithetical to the Constitution -- no
matter what the warrant is called. Yet, that’s what
Congress and President Bush made lawful when they gave
us the Patriot Act.
When FBI agents serve the warrants they’ve written
for themselves -- the NSLs as they call them -- they
tell the recipient of the warrant that he or she will
commit a felony if he or she tells anyone -- a lawyer,
a judge, a spouse, a priest in confessional -- of the
receipt of the warrant. The NSLs are typically not
served on the person whose records the FBI wants;
rather, they are served on the custodians of those
records, such as computer servers, the Post Office,
hospitals, banks, delivery services, telephone
providers, etc.
Because of the Patriot Act’s mandated silence, the
person whose records the FBI seeks often never knows
his or her records have been seized. Since October
2001, FBI agents and other federal agents have served
more than 350,000 search warrants with which they have
authorized themselves to conduct a search. Each time
they have done so, they have warned the recipient of
the warrant to remain silent or be prosecuted for
telling the truth about the government.
Occasionally, recipients have not remained silent.
They have understood their natural and
constitutionally protected right to the freedom of
speech and their moral and fiduciary duty to their
customer or client, and they have moved in federal
court either to suppress the warrant or for the right
to tell the customer or client whose records are being
sought that the FBI has come calling. Isn’t that odd
in America
-- asking a judge for permission to tell the truth
about the government?
What’s even more odd is that the same section of the
Patriot Act that criminalizes speaking freely about
the receipt of an agent-written search warrant also
authorizes the FBI to give the recipient of the
warrant permission to speak about it. How un-American
is that -- asking the FBI for permission to tell the
truth about the government?
Last week in San Francisco, U.S. District Court Judge
Susan Illston held that the section of the Patriot Act
that prohibits telling anyone about the receipt of an
FBI agent-written search warrant and the section that
requires asking and receiving the permission of the
FBI before talking about the receipt of one profoundly
and directly infringe upon the freedom of speech
guaranteed by the First Amendment. And the government
knows that.
We all know that the whole purpose of the First
Amendment is to encourage open, wide, robust debate
about and transparency from the government. Our right
to exercise the freedom of speech comes from our
humanity, not from the government. The Constitution
recognizes that we can only lose that right by consent
or after a jury trial that results in conviction and
incarceration.
But we can also lose it by the tyranny of the
majority, as Congress and the president in 1798 and
2001 have demonstrated.
Obama urged: act
tough on Israel
or risk collapse of two-state solution
By Chris
McGreal, US correspondent
The
Guardian,
19 March
2013
Barack Obama begins his first
official visit to Israel
on Wednesday amid growing warnings among some of
its leading supporters in the US that the
president needs to act more forcefully to save Israel
from itself.
The White House has played
down expectations that Obama will put any real
effort into pressing Israel
toward the creation of a Palestinian state after
he was burned by an attempt early in his first
term to pressure the prime minister, Binyamin
Netanyahu, into halting Israeli settlement
construction in the occupied territories.
But there is increasing
concern among some of Israel's backers
in the US
that without White House intervention the much
promised two-state solution is doomed – and that
will endanger Israel.
Among those sounding the
warning is the US
secretary of state, John Kerry, who said earlier
this year that "the possibility of a two-state
solution could shut on everybody and that would be
disastrous, in my judgment".
The inclusion of hardline
pro-settler ministers in Netanyahu's new
government, who are expected to press for the
continued expansion of Israel's colonies in the
West Bank, has heightened concerns in Washington
that physical realities on the ground are making
the prospect of a negotiated agreement ever more
difficult.
Others have pointed up a
recent Hebrew University demographic study, which
showed that Jews are now in a minority in the
territory covered by Israel, Gaza and the West
Bank – suggesting that Israel's democratic and
Jewish character are threatened by its reluctance
to give up territory to an independent Palestine.
That led David Aaron Miller –
a negotiator in efforts by the Clinton
administration to broker an Israeli-Palestinian
agreement and an adviser on Middle East policy to
six US secretaries of state – to advise Obama to
"take a quick tour around Israel's demographic
neighbourhood" in order to understand the issue
that might be most persuasive in pressuring
Israeli leaders to take negotiations with the
Palestinians seriously.
"Demographic trends mean that
Israel
can't have it all. It can't be a Jewish state, a
democratic state*, and a state in control
of its whole historical land. It can only have two
of its objectives at a time," he wrote
in Foreign Policy.
"The demographic imperative
probably appeals to Obama, a rational thinker who
understands the importance of acting in the
present to avoid future catastrophes. He has at
least once referred to the demographic realities
in his speeches on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. But the president also knows from his
own political choices that getting politicians to
take risks now to prevent disasters and gain
rewards later isn't so easy."
It is a warning echoed earlier
this month by S Daniel Abraham, a US billionaire,
confidante of American and Israeli leaders, and
founder of the Center for Middle East Peace in
Washington, who chided the president for not using
his visit to press Israel's
leaders
to confront the looming "tipping point".
"Obama should realize that Israel's
continued presence in the West Bank is an
existential threat to its continuity as a
democratic, Jewish state — and time is not on Israel's side,"
he wrote in the Atlantic.
"Right now – not in five or 10
years, but right now – only 50% of the people
living in the Jewish state and in the areas under
its control are Jews. The dreaded tipping point –
which advocates of the two-solution have been
warning about for years – has finally arrived."
That is a warning reinforced
by an Oscar-nominated documentary, The Gatekeepers
– in which former heads of the Israel's internal
security organisation, the Shin Bet, warn that the
occupation is endangering Israel – which has
shaken up the assumptions among some in the Jewish
community and among Israel's other supporters in
the US.
Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to
Israel
and now vice-president of the Brookings
Institution, said it is clear there is a growing
sense of alarm among some policymakers in the US.
But he said it may be misplaced.
"My sense is that this is the
view of Secretary Kerry – that there's an urgency
to try to not just resume negotiations but to
resolve at least some of the critical issues in
the conflict because the two-state solution is in
danger of cardiac arrest. I think there is an
urgency, but I don't actually think that if the
window closes it can't be prised open again," he
said.
"The simple reason for that is
there is no alternative to the two-state solution
– except no solution. And no solution for the time
being may suit both sides… in preference to the
kind of compromises and the hard decisions that
have to be made in order to achieve a solution. We
are fond of saying, and our leaders are fond of
saying, the status quo is not sustainable. But if
you go out there on both sides, especially
compared to what is going on around them – in
Syria to the north and Egypt to the south – the
status quo, it's OK."
Indyk said there will not be
movement until leaders on both sides are prepared
to make hard decisions, and that Obama is probably
unwilling to force that after his "searing
experience" of dealing with Netanyahu over the
Jewish settlements four years ago.
"I think that there is
something achievable, and I actually think it's
very important. And that is that President Obama
has the opportunity to reintroduce himself to the
Israeli public. The first time he introduced
himself to them was in Cairo,
wherein he gave his speech in June 2009, which
was, of course, addressed to the Arab world and
not to Israel
… And (Israelis) got the impression that he wants
to distance the United
States from Israel
in order to curry favour with the Arab world," he
said.
"It is hard to imagine that
the president himself is going to do much more
than make this visit. There are greener pastures
that beckon him in Asia, and you can see, from a
variety of other actions that he's taken or hasn't
taken in the Middle East,
that he would rather turn away from this region.
John Kerry has exactly the opposite instinct. He
wants to engage in the Middle
East and, in particular, he wants to
take on the Israeli-Palestinian challenge, and
it's a high priority for him."
*Democratic"Straw man"
word and argument. Forget Democracy. How about a
Republic? where people as diverse as the people
spanning the United States can live in relative
peace and freedom. Caveat: A Republic can only
work to the extent that The People have the
ability to think and access information and
knowledge, an emphasis that is fading from the
government educational system.
Ian Black's analysis after the President’s key
speech of his trip
(March
21,
2013)
"It was a very clever
speech” says the Guardian’s Middle
East editor Ian Black.
First he pressed all
the buttons that matter to a mainstream Israeli
Jewish and Zionist audience. He went to great
lengths to recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist
dream ...
He attacked all of Israel’s enemies:
Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
He made a link, very interestingly, between Iran’s
nuclear program and the holocaust something that the
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu often
does.
But having done all
that, he then moved to the second message of trying
to achieve a just and viable solution for the
Palestinians. Israel
must recognize the right of Palestinian self
determination, he said. It should look at the world
through Palestinian eyes ... He talked about settler
violence that went unpunished. All very very
hot-button issues. Again cleverly using a phrase
that’s very resonant for Israelis, he said
Palestinians have a right to be a free people in
their homeland. That’s a phrase that is taken
directly from the Israeli national anthem.
There was nothing in
this speech that gives us any practical pointers as
to how the long-stalled peace process can be revived
... It gave positive messages to Israelis, it made
important points about the need to resolve the
conflict with the Palestinians, it provided no
obvious ways forward, but will I am sure have
created a positive mood in Israel towards the
message he was trying to put across.
He set out quite a
compelling vision of a country that needs to come to
terms with an existential problem for itself, and a
matter of fundamental justice for the people who are
suffering from it at the moment.
This “Truths That Free” section of “Ethics” has not
been updated for quite some time... that is not for
want of material. Located in Jacksonville,
Florida, in the United States,
one doesn’t have to look far to find corruption, among
elected or appointed officials and/or leaders or local
organizations. That includes organizations with the
power to arrest, detain and generally make your free
life miserable.
Growing up with my parents included
the
“larning” that honesty
and abiding by the law were virtues to be cultivated
if at all possible. “if at all possible” has caveats.
Don't forget
or neglect the value and importance of CIVIL
disobedience or as Gandhi called it, “satyagraha” nonviolent
resistance, or obedience to truth- THE TRUTH AND RIGHT IS-
independant, inalienable, and proceeding before all
institutions of people- although no one said that was
always easy or convenient.
Why do citizens have an expectation
of good character and ethical behavior from those we
elect or appoint to govern or to head
unions, or to populate our many civic departments?
Surely part of the reason is that we are their bosses,
we pay their salaries (often higher than their
counterparts in the private sector) and they are
accountable to us.
If
you have not felt your blood pressure rise, or your
anger mount often enough today here are a couple links to a few
articles about our finest in Jacksonville
and the state of Florida.
After reading these articles
consider shooting off (er... maybe that is not a good
metaphor anymore) sending
an email or making a phone call to one of your
representatives and let them know that you back their
honest effort (in a few rare cases) or that you demand
that they make an effort to discourage graft,
dishonesty, waste, and corruption from among their own
ranks.
Hearing on Religious
Freedom Next Week
By Peter Kirsanow
from The National Review
March 13, 2013
The U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights will hold a public hearing next week on recent
developments involving the intersection of religious
freedom and anti-discrimination laws. The hearing will
take place on Friday March 22, at 9:30 a.m. at the
Commission’s headquarters, located at 1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue in Washington,
DC.
Witnesses will address, among other things, the HHS
mandate, the implications of Christian Legal
Society v. Martinez and Hosanna-Tabor v.EEOC, and religious-liberty claims under
First Amendment provisions other than the religion
clauses.
Interested members of the public are invited to
attend. Further, members of the public may also submit
comments until April 21 on any of those topics by
sending them to the above address or emailing them to
publiccomments@usccr.gov.
This may be one of the few opportunities members of
the public will have to address comments on the
above topics to an agency of the federal
government. Note that there’s no page limit on
comments — they may range from a short paragraph to a
treatise.
Debating the 'religious
freedom' bill Rejection would be serious blow
fromLouisville
Courier-Journal
MARTIN
COTHRAN
Senior Policy
Analyst
March 13,
2013
In Kentucky,
the Religious Freedom Act (HB 279) has been passed by
both chambers of the state legislature and is now on
Gov. Steve Beshear’s desk awaiting his signature. The
bill would return long-standing legal protections to
people of faith that the Kentucky Supreme Court took
away in a decision last October. But some groups are
urging Gov. Beshear to veto it.
The campaign against the bill being conducted by the
ACLU, the Fairness Alliance, and a small minority of
lawmakers has sadly turned into an ugly and virulent
campaign of hateful rhetoric and misinformation.
If there had been no evidence before of the
anti-religious sentiment that now threatens religious
freedom in Kentucky,
these groups have provided it.
The Religious Freedom Act is a response to a decision
last year in which the state’s high court ruled
against several Amish men who were being forced to put
brightly colored orange reflectors on their buggies in
violation of their religious strictures. The court
ruled against them. In doing so, the justices
announced that the former standard courts applied to
religious freedom cases, called “strict scrutiny,”
would now be replaced by a lower standard.
They made it easier for the government to violate
someone’s First Amendment right to free exercise of
religion.
Previously, the government had been required to show
that it had a compelling interest in overturning
someone’s religious rights. It also required the
government to use the least restrictive means to
accomplish its purposes. This bill would simply
restore these requirements.
The bill’s language is almost identical to the
language in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
passed by the U.S. Congress in 1993 after the U.S.
Supreme Court lowered the religious freedom standard
in a 1990 decision.
RFRA, whose protections were later limited only to
the federal government, was passed almost unanimously
by the U.S. Congress, signed by Bill Clinton,
sponsored by Ted Kennedy — and supported by the ACLU.
Given what this bill is really about, it is sad and
disappointing that the groups opposing it have chosen
to misrepresent the nature of the bill to the public
and to malign the many good people involved in
supporting the legislation.
When HB 279 passed the State House in a bipartisan 82-7
vote, Rep. Kelly Flood, D-Lexington, took to the floor
and attacked the Catholic church, charging them with
wanting to protect abusive priests. And when the state
Senate passed the measure in a 29-6 vote, state Sen.
Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, charged that the bill would
promote racism.
The ACLU and several gay rights groups also argue
that the bill would be used to gut civil rights
protections.
But if this is true, then why did none of this ever
happen before Oct. 25 of last year, when the standard
this bill reinstitutes was in force? If there were any
such cases, these groups would have produced them, but
they haven’t — and they can’t.
Because they don’t exist.
The bill has absolutely nothing to do with
the sexual abuse of children and nothing to do with
federal civil rights protections. In fact, the U.S.
Supreme Court has already ruled that preventing racial
discrimination is a compelling state interest — the
very standard used in this bill.
No one supporting the bill has used one hateful word
in arguing for it. Not a single person speaking for
the bill has maligned the character of those who
oppose it. And not a single supporter has
misrepresented the nature of the bill.
Ironically,
the group leading the charge against the bill, the
ACLU, was the very group who represented the Amish
in the case before the Supreme Court four months
ago. They argued their case under the standard
of strict scrutiny, the same standard they are now
opposing.
If Gov. Beshear succumbs to pressure from the ACLU
and other groups and vetoes HB 279, it will be a
serious blow to religious freedom in Kentucky.
Homeland Insecurity: The attorney general
says the threat from local jihadists is now worse than
terrorist plots hatched overseas. He warned Americans
not to grow "complacent." Tell it to the media.
The major news gatekeepers have ignored the jihadist
element in no fewer than four recent cases of
sensational killings of non-Muslims by mostly young
Muslim men inside the U.S.,
including:
• Yusuf Ibrahim, a 27-year-old Egyptian immigrant who
on Feb. 5 allegedly beheaded two Coptic Christians
living in New
Jersey.
• Ali Syed, a 20-year-old Muslim who allegedly
randomly killed three people in Southern
California on Feb. 18 before killing
himself.
• Ammar Asim Faruq Harris, a 26-year-old reported
black Muslim convert who on Feb. 21 is said to have
killed three people in Las Vegas.
• Ali Salim, a 44-year-old Pakistan-born doctor who
is accused of raping and killing a pregnant woman and
her 9-month-old fetus last year in his Ohio office.
This rash of homicides by Muslims has triggered a
giant media yawn, despite telltale signs of jihadist
motive. Jihad? What jihad? Reporters seemed to be
collectively shrugging in another fit of extreme PC.
Here's another key piece of information denied the
average American watching the evening news: the
majority of convicted terrorists in the U.S.
are American citizens. A study found the terrorist
threat is increasingly in our backyard.
Equally stunning, more than half of the 171 terror
convicts analyzed by the London-based Henry Jackson
Society are college-educated. Many are black converts.
Nearly half were born and raised here, according to
the report prefaced by former CIA director Mike
Hayden.
Yet they want to kill fellow Americans simply because
they believe that's what their creed tells them to do.
But instead of confronting this homegrown threat, our
society is fig-leafing it, even glorifying it.
Even in red-state Texas, educators
are indoctrinating kids into the Islamic faith. At
Lumberton High School, a geography class was recently
told to dress up in Islamic garb — including burqas —
and refer to the 9/11 hijackers not as terrorists but
as "freedom fighters."
This isn't an isolated event. There's a coordinated
effort by leftist do-gooders and multiculturalists to
de-link Islam from violence and terror and rewrite
history.
When educators, journalists and politicians hear no
Islamic violence, see no Islamic violence and report
no Islamic violence, beware, it's Sept. 10, 2001,
again.
Email
tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised
by Stephen Dinan March 5, 2013 The Washington Times
The White House announced Tuesday that it is
canceling tours of the president’s home for the
foreseeable future as the sequester spending cuts
begin to bite and the administration makes good on its
warnings of painful decisions.
Announcement of the decision — made n an email from the
White House Visitors Office — came hours after The
Washington Times reported on another administration
email that seemed to show at least one agency has been
instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as
President Obama promised they would be.
In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked
if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his
region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told
not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts
Congress had been warned of.
“We have gone on record with a notification to
Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate
assistance to producers in 24 states in managing
wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless
they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our
opinion that however you manage that reduction, you
need to make sure you are not contradicting what we
said the impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the internal
email, said his superiors told him
Neither Mr. Brown nor the main APHIS office in
Washington returned calls seeking comment, but
Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, who oversees
the agency, told Congress he is trying to give
flexibility where he can.
“If we have flexibility, we’re going to try to use it
to make sure we use sequester in the most equitable
and least disruptive way,” the secretary told Rep.
Kristi L. Noem, a South Dakota Republican who grilled
Mr. Vilsack about the email. “There are some
circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about the meat
inspection, where we do not have that flexibility
because there are so few accounts.”
Ms. Noem told Mr. Vilsack that the email made it
sound like the administration was sacrificing
flexibility in order to justify its earlier dire
predictions.
“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put
forward,” the congresswoman told Mr. Vilsack.
Florida
bill would require anger management courses for
bullet buyers By Joshua
Rhett Miller Published March 5,2013 Fox News
A Florida legislator wants anyone trying to buy
ammunition to complete an anger management program
first, in what critics say is the latest example of
local lawmakers reaching for constitutionally-dubious
solutions to the problem of gun violence.
The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey Gibson,
D-Jacksonville, would require a three-day waiting
period for the sale of any firearm and the sale of
ammunition to anyone who has not completed anger
management courses. The proposal would require ammo
buyers to take the anger management courses every 10
years.
“This is not about guns," Gibson said. "This is about
ammunition and not only for the safety of the general
community, but also for the safety of law
enforcement.”
Gibson said she’s concerned with citizens stockpiling
ammunition, potentially creating dangerous situations
should those individuals ever come in contact with law
enforcement agencies or criminals.
“It’s about getting people to think, really, about
how much ammunition they need,” Gibson said. “It’s a
step, I think, in a safer direction. It’s about
getting people to think before they buy.”
Benghazi Documents Reveal
White House 'Specifically Warned of Imminent
Attack
March 6, 2013 Jason Howerton The Blaze
CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl
Attkisson on Tuesday night reported that the Obama
adminsitration has turned over documents relating to the
Benghazi terrorist attack to the Senate Intelligence
Committee. She made a number of revelations that don't
bode well for the White house via her official Twitter
account.
She also reported that an “official familiar with the
docs” said there were advanced warnings in the days
leading up to the attack, including ones that
“specifically warned of an imminent attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.”
The CBS reporter also
referenced another source familiar with the Benghazi documents that said
nearly all communication between Libya and Washington,
D.C.,
since the attack began referenced al-Qaeda as being
the likely “instigators.” That portion is significant
because there are still unanswered questions as to why
the Obama administration initially blamed the attack
on an anti-Muslim YouTube video.
“A source who viewed
the docs says the few that mentioned a protest” on
night of Benghazi
“were not first hand references,” Attkisson reports.
Christian Science Teacher
Fired Over Creationism to Head to Ohio
Supreme Court
By Leonardo Blair , Christian Post
Contributor
February 26, 2013|
A 20-year Ohio
middle school science teacher who was fired in 2011
for teaching creationism in his class will have his
day in the Ohio Supreme
Court on Wednesday when his lawyers will argue that
his firing was a violation of his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and
religion.
"In oral arguments
before the Ohio Supreme Court tomorrow, February 27,
The Rutherford Institute will defend the right to
academic freedom of a science teacher fired for
encouraging students to think critically about the
school's science curriculum, particularly as it
relates to evolution theories," said the Rutherford
Institute in a statement released in response to
questions from The Christian Post on Tuesday.
"In coming to veteran
science teacher John Freshwater's defense, Institute
attorneys argue that the Mount VernonCitySchool District
violated John Freshwater's academic freedom rights –
and those of his students – by firing him in January
2011," said the statement.
The Mount Vernon School
Board had spent almost $1 million fighting John
Freshwater's case when they decided to end his
contract, according to a report in the Mount Vernon
News. Board president Margie Bennett told the Mount
Vernon News at the time that Freshwater's fired was a
difficult decision.
Freshwater, however,
appealed his termination in state court arguing that
the firing violated his rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments and constituted hostility toward
religion. The Board's decision was upheld by a Common
Pleas judge as well as the Fifth District Court of
Appeals. But according to the Rutherford Institute,
these decisions were made without an analysis of the
constitutional claims. The appeal was made to the Ohio
Supreme Court to examine theme. According to the
Institute, the Mount Vernon School Board attempted to
have the court strike the First Amendment claim from
the lawsuit but they were unsuccessful.
"Academic freedom was
once the bedrock of American education. That is no
longer the state of affairs, as this case makes
clear," said John W. Whitehead, president of The
Rutherford Institute, in the release. "What we need
today are more teachers and school administrators who
understand that young people don't need to be
indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to
think for themselves. By firing John Freshwater for
challenging his students to think outside the box,
school officials violated a core First Amendment
freedom – the right to debate and express ideas
contrary to established views."
In June 2008, the Mount
Vernon City School District Board of Education in Ohio
voted to suspend John Freshwater citing concerns about
his conduct and teaching materials, particularly as
they related to the teaching of evolution. Freshwater,
who had served as the faculty appointed facilitator,
monitor, and supervisor of the Fellowship of Christian
Athletes student group for 16 of the 20 years that he
taught at the school, was ordered to remove "all
religious items" from his classroom. Freshwater agreed
to remove the items except for his Bible, which
spurred a sequence of events that led to his eventual
firing.
The Rutherford
Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties
organization that provides legal assistance at no
charge to individuals whose constitutional rights
have been threatened or violated.
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.
Dr. West teaches courses in American politics,
focusing on the U.S. Constitution, civil rights,
foreign policy, and the political thought of the
American 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.
He received his BA from Cornell, and his PhD from ClaremontGraduateUniversity.
Those 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
or domestic 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
government? (3) Domestic policy?
(4) Foreign policy? (5) Consent of
the governed? (6) Government limited or
unlimited?
Open Doors: Violence
Targeting Christians Increasing in Syria
Contact: Jerry Dykstra, Open Doors USA, 616-915-4117,
jerryd@odusa.org
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
and ChristianValley
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
and Hama,
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
of President's
Obama's father are cheering on the Democrat, while
Kenyan Mormons are excited by challenger Mitt
Romney’s run.
By Fredrick
Nzwili, Correspondent
November 1,
2012
Nairobi, Kenya
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
African country.
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,”
said
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
stiff challenge.
“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
Cultural Committee.
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.
Ogombe.
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
"boss."
“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
RIGHT SIDE
NEWS.com
Thursday, 01 November 2012
Dr. Andrew
Bostom
After
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
in Dearborn,
Michigan,
and in a press release by the Islamic Circle of North
America.
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,
plainly,
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,
“…that U.S.
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
consumption.
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,
which proclaims:
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”.
Girl
shot by Taliban in Pakistan
remains in critical condition, and local government
posts reward for attackers' capture
The
Guardian, Thursday
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
slightly overnight.
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
president,
prime minister and the heads of various opposition
parties joined the human rights group Amnesty
International and the United Nations in condemning the
attack.
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
Sentinel.
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
in Egypt
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,
Hosni Mubarak.
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
Jordan.
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
2012-2013.
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
of Jordan
from King Hussein.
Arafat's PLO
organization lost over 2,000 Muslim men in the
attempted Black September coup of their Jordanian
Muslim brothers and were violently expelled from their
native Jordan.
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
States, King
Abdullah II.
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
Understanding the
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
Al-Zarqawi says,
"We
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
the three.
"I
have been sent with the sword, between the hands
of the hour"; this is our political agenda."
"It
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.
Al-Qaeda
and the Muslim Brotherhood consider the muslim
colonialist dictators as enemies of Shariah compliant
political Islam.
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
movie.
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
9/11/2012.
Conclusion
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.
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".
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: alan@theunitedwest.org
By Babette Francis
- posted Thursday, 4
October 2012
In Onlineopinion.com
Australia’s
ejournal ofsocial
and political debate
Recent
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
States
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
US
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
.....
Rising anti-Islamic
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
authors.
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,"
Johnson says.
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
community besieged.
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
Qurans.
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
Relations.
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
mentions Sharia:
"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...
called Sharia."
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
Sharia law."
The amendment died after a federal court ruled it
discriminatory.
"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.
Two Tennessee
lawmakers attempted to pass a bill this year that
would have made it a felony to practice Sharia, but it
failed.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations says the
anti-Sharia bills are based on draft legislation
promoted by David Yerushalmi, an anti-Islamic lawyer
from New
York.
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
since U.S.
courts ultimately are beholden to U.S.
law.
But it sends a strong message to the Muslim
community.
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
religious bigotry."
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
attacks.
Kaur blames tough economic times and an amplification
of hateful speech for incidents like the temple
shooting and the momentum behind the anti-Sharia
campaign.
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.
U.S.
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
activists.
Nashville
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
people.
Miller describes himself as a tolerant person but not
when it comes to people dictating how others will
live.
"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
Duke chaplain.
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,
Antepli says.
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
experts."
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
foreign laws:
"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.
from
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.
and Russia
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
United
States and other
parts of the world where climate and geographic
conditions are right for it. In rural areas of the United
States where
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,
2012
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.”
Obama
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
distinctly downplayed."
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
continues:
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
(emphasis added).
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
here).
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
Christians).
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
obfuscate?
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
prosecution
July 30, 2012
By Conn
Carroll
Senior
Editorial Writer
The
Washington
Examiner
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
southwestern United
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
the feds.
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
the U.S.
from enacting laws on immigration, has pre-empted the
field.
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
Constitution.
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
immigration status.
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
please.
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
Times website,
and see readers reactions.
Obama
Overlooks Christian Persecution
Thursday,
24 May 2012
By
James Walsh
Coptic Christians
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
Muslim radicals.
The
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
in Egypt
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
Muslim world.
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,
Egypt,
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.
The
“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
policy.
James
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
law ..."
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
suspicion.
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
Dec. 31.
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.
Jacksonville’s
Moral Constitutional Patriots Speak
A
Response By Dr. Gene A. Youngblood
Presentedat City
Council Meeting of 5/22/2012
WHEREASOur City
council has introduced ordinance 2012-296.This bill
is cloaked under the disguise of equal
opportunity and non-discrimination in the
marketplace.
WHEREAS This
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 region.However,
the bill seems to focus only on a “special class,”
ignoring the U.S.
Constitution and religiousliberties.
WHEREAS
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
workplace.
WHEREAS
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.
WHEREAS Lines
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?
WHEREAS
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.
WHEREASOrdinance
2012-296 will be costly and prohibitive
making the end result a net
loss of business or industry coming to
Jacksonville.This is
clear, based on requirements in the bill as
found on page 4, lines 6-8.
WHEREAS
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,
ethical beliefs.
WHEREAS
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).
WHEREASSection
406.102 of ordinance 2012-296, “Declaration of
policy” is clearly overstepping the
bounds of the U.S. Constitution and the Florida
Constitution.Furthermore,
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
free speech.
WHEREAS Page 10
lines 7-16 of ordinance 2012-296 will further increase
the cost of providing housing in our
city.This
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:
1. This
bill would establish a “special class”
of citizens, contrary to our Constitution.
2. This
bill would provide for broad application and
enforcement of a law that is not in compliance
with the U.S. Constitution.This bill
is unconstitutional!
3. This
bill would greatly infringe Constitutional
Rights in the free exercise of one’s moral
conscience.
4. This
bill would bring about a major tax
increase for Jacksonville
property owners.We already have a $58 million
deficit.
5. This
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.
1:24-28.
6. This
bill would marginalizeChristians
and “all” moral, ethical citizens of
DuvalCounty
and give special privilege to the “sodomites”.
7. This
bill would reduce, not increase the
desirability and social climate for businesses
to settle in Jacksonville.
8. This
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.
9. This
bill will createdivision, discord,
debate and declension in our city
that is not welcomed or wanted.
10. This
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
DISCRIMINATION
IN AMERICA
May 22,
2012
Introduction:
Bill
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.”
Do we
have discrimination in Jacksonville?
Do we
have discrimination in America?
Yes, We
do!
What is
discrimination?
1.
Discrimination is:
When a
Christian teacher in a government controlled school
is threatened with dismissal just
because as a Christian, he had his personal
Bible on his desk.
2.
Discrimination is:
When a
teacher is forbidden to say, “God bless
you,” or “We are praying for you,” to a
student.
3.
Discrimination is:
When a
student is not allowed to wear a t-shirt
with a Christian symbol, yet immoral or anti-God
slogans are accepted.
4.
Discrimination is:
When a second
grader is forbidden to thank Jesus
over her lunch because the teacher said she was on government
property.
5.
Discrimination is:
When
moral ethical parents are not told when the
schools planned a recognition day for
sodomites in our schools April 21, 2012.This is
unconstitutional!
6.
Discrimination is:
When
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.
7.
Discrimination is:
When we
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.
8.
Discrimination is:
When
small startup churches are not allowed to
meet in school buildings for services in many
states.
9.
Discrimination is:
When
YouTube pulls Christian videos, but allows
the ungodlygarbage over the same
internet system.
10.
Discrimination is:
When a Christian
school is persecuted by city government
in America,
and when the decision is questioned,
the Christian school is levied with “retaliatory”
taxes.
11.
Discrimination is:
When Christian
teachers in South
Florida have to meet in a supplycloset to pray, or be fired!
12.
Discrimination is:
When a
Christian worker is forbidden to put
a verse of Scripture on herprivate cubicle wall or be fired.
13.
Discrimination is:
When
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.
14.
Discrimination is:
When our
city will not allow any religious ads to be
purchased on the side of city buses,
but will allow any other ads.
15.
Discrimination is:
When street
preachers are arrested in some cities for “disturbing
the peace,” when Islamics, homosexuals,
pedophiles and other deviantsare
free to assemble.
16.
Discrimination is:
When any
city council or branch of governmentcodifies “any” law that is unconstitutional
just to appease the “sodomites” in their
chosen lifestyles.
THEREFORE:
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
ethical, moral,
taxpaying
patriot in Jacksonville
to stand
against the approval of bill 2012-296.
WND EXCLUSIVE
Holder
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
of Arkansas
at Fort
Smith have given permission
for a 38-year-old man to use the women’s restrooms on
campus.
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
buildings.
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
satisfactory.
The Campus Reform report said while anatomy matters
little to the DOJ, it still remains a concern for
other students.
“‘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
restroom.”
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
proceedings.”
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.”
HIGHLAND
PARK, N.J.
— 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
congregations.
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
in Scripture.”
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
arrival.
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
deported.
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
Christian churches.
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
stay.
“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
deadline.
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.”
In the
years following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s
300,000
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
and elsewhere.
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
world’s population.
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.
In China,
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
connections.
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
worthwhile endeavour.”
“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,
the UnitedChurch
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
be addressed.”
“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
attention.”
FormerUnitedChurch moderator Very Rev.
Lois Wilson says the proposed Office of Religious
Freedom “sounds wonderful” — during her four years in
Ottawa
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.”
Associated
Press
| Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012
The U.S.
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
bin Laden.
U.S.
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
senior U.S.
officials said.
Prior
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.
"What
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
Arabian Peninsula.
The White
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.
The new
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
Yemen
branch is seen as gaining ground against a government
that is allied with the Americans.
The past
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
protect U.S.
interests and homeland."
The
expanded strikes would not be used in support of the
Yemeni government's fight against internal opponents,
the official added.
The U.S.
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
tracks U.S.
counterterrorism and militant activity.
Copywrite 2012 AP
This article can be read in its entirety at
"The
war
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?
DFLers
want U.S.
constitutional amendment declaring that corporations
aren't people, after all
By Joe
Kimball
MinnPost.com
04/23/12
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:
(1) The
rights protected by the Constitution of the United States
are the rights of natural persons only.
(2)
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
law.
(3) The
privileges of artificial entities shall be
determined by the people, through federal, state, or
local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent
or inalienable.
(4)
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.
(5)
Federal, state, and local government shall require
that any permissible contributions and
expenditures be publicly disclosed.
(6) The
judiciary shall not construe the spending of money
to influence elections to be speech under the
First Amendment.
(7)
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
By
LAURIE GOODSTEIN
In New
York Times
Published
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
freedom.
“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
freedom.
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
bishops reject.
“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
remains so.”
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.”
Pastor
Youcef Nadarkhani Spends 35th Birthday Behind Bars
AmericanCenter for
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
his faith.
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
in
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
NEW YORK
DAILY NEWS
Thursday,
April 5, 2012
By Andrea
Tantaros
After
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
Constitution?
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.
Pennsylvania
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
insurance.
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
design.
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
freedom.
What is freedom?
FREEDOM ISa raw milk
farmer not fearful of the Gestapo breaking into his
home.
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
C.A.I.R.
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
Constitution.
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
bear arms.
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
highest mountain.
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
Franklin
“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
Ballot Box.
The Bible is very clear in Acts
5:29 that “we ought to obey God rather than man.”
May God Bless You and God
Bless America.
Christian Missions Play Key Role Amid Rumors of 'New
Darfur' Genocide
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
Blue Nile.
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
threat.
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
recently.
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
leaders.
"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,"
she
said.
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
of Darfur
– 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
visit.
"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
religious differences.
Sudan
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
against Sudan's
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.
Chad
Groening and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 2/28/2012
Updated 2/29/2012
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
comments.
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.
court systems.
"This particular
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
him.
"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
court.
“To
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
not pass.’”
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
security.
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
things non-Islamic.
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
week.
“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
and instruction.”
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
Alberta,
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
diversity.”
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
specifics.
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
schools.”
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
showing.
Canada
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
says:
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
Wednesday evening.
“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.…
“National curriculum”?
“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.”[2] 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
leftist.’”
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
your own.”[3]
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.[4]
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.[5]
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
has.
Religious liberty is
a frail thing, easily abused or neglected
February 15,
2012
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
abortions.
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
controversy aflame.
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
that:
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
interference.
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
continuation
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
religious belief.
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
principle:
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."
President Obama
yesterday played a violent game of kickball with the
US Constitution, making a number of high-level
“recess” appointments — even though the Senate isn’t
actually in recess.
He named former Ohio
Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer
Financial Protection Board, a nomination Republicans
have been fighting.
And then he named three
new members of the pro-union activist National Labor
Relations Board.
Presidents have the
right to make temporary appointments when Congress is
away from Washington,
of course, and both parties have used that power.
But Obama is the first
president to declare that he, and he alone, can decide
whether the Senate — which must confirm his
appointments — is actually meeting.
In order to block recess
appointments, the Senate intentionally has been
holding pro forma sessions every few days, each of
which lasts only a few seconds.
Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid — with then-Sen. Obama’s support — did the
same thing in 2007 to block any recess appointments by
President George W. Bush.
But now Obama, with
Reid’s concurrence, contends that such sessions are
actually “gimmicks” — and that the Senate actually is
in recess.
So much for the
separation of powers and the carefully calibrated
system of checks and balances that are hallmarks of
the US
constitutional system.
Obama, of course, plans
to run for re-election against Congress, painting it
as Wall Street’s puppet.
But what he did
yesterday was no shot across the bow; it was, rather,
a direct hit — with the Constitution taking the brunt
of the blow.
Moreover, as the Cato
Institute’s Mark Calabria notes, the Dodd-Frank bill,
which calls for the creation of the CFPB, explicitly requires
that its director be “confirmed by the Senate.”
That means that Obama’s
nonrecess “recess” appointment may well violate the
law, in addition to coming as part of a blatantly
unconstitutional overreach.
Then again, this is not
the first time Team Obama has sidestepped Congress;
just consider some of its aggressive regulatory
measures done with no legislative authorization
whatsoever.
Democrats like to
criticize anything that smacks of an “imperial”
presidency — but now it seems they’ve got one.
Christian
Persecution Increased Most In Sudan, Nigeria,
Report Says
Written
by: Compass Direct News
January 4, 2012
By Jeff M.
Sellers
Sudan
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.
Sudan
– 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
13th place.
“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.
Both Sudan
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
northern Nigeria
by 9, from 44 to 55. The persecution index for three
other countries rose by at least 5 points – Egypt from 47.5 to
53.5, Ethiopia
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.”
China
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.
Kazakhstan
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.
Colombia
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.
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
blasphemy
law.
SAUDI ARABIA - MODERATE VOICE OR
DRACONIAN MONARCHY?
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.
The SaudiKingdom
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,
Iran,
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
public.
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
excessively.'"
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
ahead.
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
issues.
US Government to apply
peer pressure to your Islamophobia
December 14, 2011
by J.E. Dyer
from
Hotair.com/greenroom/archives
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
the US
would take action against “religious intolerance” in America.
It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on that.
Clinton
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
exercise thereof.
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
federally divided.
So when Hillary Clinton promises the following,
she is on wholly un-American, anti-liberal ground
(emphasis added):
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
last century.)
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
opinion.
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
political opinion.
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
measures.
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
own
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
around.
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
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
explained.
MORE BUREACRACY
"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
minorities."
Rogers
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.
"EXTREME RESTRICTION"
"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
religion," Rogers
said.
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
of Burma."
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.
propaganda."
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
West.
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
Florida.
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
effort.
Trento’s video report about Elahi's activities at
Occupy Orlando:
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
in America."
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
ignored."
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
the West.
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
days later.
"Does this mean that the protesters are in violation
of city ordinances government the use of city owned
park facilities?"
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
explained.
MORE BUREACRACY
"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
minorities."
Rogers
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.
"EXTREME RESTRICTION"
"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
religion," Rogers
said.
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
of Burma."
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.
propaganda."
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'
Posted:
October
13, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
WND
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
with Moran.
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.
'Filthy' U.S.
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.
history.
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
collateral damage.
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
the video.
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
Counsel
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
classmate.
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
any student.”
US Bishops Defend the
Freedom of Religion in the Face of Growing Threats
U.S.
Conference
of Catholic Bishops Office of Media Relations
4
October 2011
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
new committee.
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
issues.
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
imagined."
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
said.
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
development programs.
-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
trumped-up charges
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
extortion."
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
precondition.
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
voting liability
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
re-elected.
"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.