Please read current events
from a variety of sources.
Non-Muslims encouraged to wear Islamic head scarf at
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.
(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
Photos show demonstrators warning 'Behead those who
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
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
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
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
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
San Bernardino suspects identified; probe turns to
What we know about the
shooting in San Bernardino
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
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
In addition, at least 17 people were wounded, some
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
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
A shootout with police left both suspects dead and
the vehicle peppered with bullet holes and with its
“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
An ATF official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said two of the weapons were purchased
legally, and investigations continued into the other
“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
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.
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
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
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.
FROM A CONCERNED
CITIZEN OF JACKSONVILLE
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Freedoms, Thoughts & Beliefs, Dec.3 at
Auditorium at 1658 Kings Road, Jacksonville, FL32209
Law & its Effects on Business, Dec. 15
at 6 p.m.
Policy Institute at 2800 University Blvd. N.,
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?
this some thought. It's your city and your tax
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,
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
“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
“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
“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,
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
“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
“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
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
“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,
“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
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
Police Confiscate Mohammed Cartoons At Dutch
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
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
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
Thousands Of German
People Chant ‘Merkel Must Go’ At Anti-Mass Muslim
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
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
Court rules against
Little Sisters of the Poor in Contraceptive Coverage
By Nigel Duara
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
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'
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
DR. GENE A. YOUNGBLOOD
Obama blocks Iraqi nun from describing Christian
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 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
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
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
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
None of this was good enough for the Obama State
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.’”
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
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
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’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
“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
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
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.
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
“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.
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
“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
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
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
After AFDI’s victory, Geller posed for photos outside
the federal courthouse while holding the “Killing
“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.
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
“Those are questions that I think (Rep.) Trey Gowdy and
the House Benghazi Committee is going to want to look at
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
Get the details about what really happened in one of
America’s biggest foreign operations failures, in “The
REAL Benghazi Story.”
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
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
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
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
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
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
In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the
terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain
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
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
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
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
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.
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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'
United Kingdom's Daily Mail
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Under one of the hotly contested parts of the
ordinance, transgender people barred access to a
restroom would be able to file a discrimination
The ordinance, which exempted religious
institutions, was passed in May, though its
implementation has been delayed due to legal
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
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
“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
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
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.
3 September 2014
threat is used to deflect attention from
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
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.
itself to be catapulted into that conflict, partly
on the basis of Paris
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
Under similar circumstances, would the outcome the
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?
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
| 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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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."
Attacks on the Freedom of Speech, In the Form of Religious
Of our Air Force Cadets
From The Traditional
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
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
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,
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.
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.
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
ByDr. Jeff Mirus
Date March 25,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
and you can send him an email to
subscribe to his newsletter.
The Brave German Woman
February 14, 2014
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
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
Military Priests Face Arrest
For Defying Shutdown And Celebrating Mass
religious freedom the latest casualty of the
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
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
not delegated to the United
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
NEW STATE LAW
FROM COOPERATING WITH FEDS ON INDEFINITE
also applies to other laws that violate
Constitution or state law
October 7, 2013
– 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.
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
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
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
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
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
Egypt's Christians under attack
since Morsi's ouster
Rights groups say Egypt
not doing enough to stop the violence.
Special for USA
TODAY August 15,
– 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
She had reason to be. On Wednesday, as the police in
assaulted two protest camps of the Muslim
Brotherhood's, Morsi supporters directed their anger
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
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
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
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
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
human rights groups accused Egypt's
Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists of inciting
Ibrahim said incendiary speeches indicate Islamist
leaders think Copts were heavily involved in
"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."
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
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,"
Dawoud. "The situation in Egypt
is no good."
Peter Fakhry, 22, said the feeling is shared by
"Many people want to leave – Christians and Muslims,
too, because of the situation and lack of work," he
"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
was dominated by Christians.
Amendment on August 5, 2013 in Featured, Founding Principles
by Jacob Hornberger, Future of
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
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.
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
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.
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.
gentlemen, our government, under the
leadership of Obama’s
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
We are watching
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
to by about 200
un-elected czars that are proud
socialists and/or active
help us to stand
up, speak up,
and act as the ethical,
nation we once were.Believers are to be “salt”
We have seen the
IRS,BATF, HOMELAND SECURITY,
FBI, and other Federal
Americansand Demandus to Bow
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...”
gentlemen, God has provided us with the greatest
nation and Constitution on the face of the
has charged us with the responsibility of vigilance,
commitment and involvement in the protection of our
– A raw milk
farmer not fearful of the Gestapo
breaking into his home.
– praying in Jesus’
name without fear or intimidation.
– a child that can take a sack lunch
to school without fear
of it being taken.
– being able to fly the
breaking a law.
– to be able to read the
Bible in a public classroom without
– being able to rejectShariah
Law as unconstitutional
able to make
a phone call, without the
without the Feds Tracing
– to be able to go to bed at
night without fear
officials under the NDAA,
which will give the president sole authority without
Congress’ approval, if deemed a “national
– to have openness in Washington in
our government, not “provda-style”
12.FREEDOM IS—Allowing the
Moral Majority to be Heard!
13.FREEDOM IS—Having aRight to
– to be able to decide our own food menu,
our own diet and medical
– to allow every child conceived
to have “life”
under our Constitution.
Enforcement AgentsStealing our
it to Islamic
that Honors God, and OurConstitutionalControls
to PubliclyStandon IssuesWithout Fear
is Afraidof the People
by our Government,Directed
by the President!
– to live in a land where the governmentcannotintrude
into the church.
of church and state is Biblical.
found in our Constitution.)
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
off God’s church, stop the
marginalization of believers.
– to be able to render to
Caesar what belongs to
Caesar, and render
what belongs to God, without the government—(city, state or
national)using back door fees
to rob God’s
be today without our churches?
– to have a government that is restrained
by the U.S. Constitution: American law
and NO international,
law in our courts.SB-58
351 Defeated by Pressure
Lawmakers by Islamic
– to have our educational
back to our state
and local leaders, NOTczars in Washington.
– to not
have the government mandate faith/religious,
people to have to choose between conscience,
by government.Our churches, church schools and universities
to provide abortion
against our Biblical,
– not to be forced
to provide murder
by abortion at taxpayer’s expense.
56 MillionMurdered since
–Roe vs Wade!
– is to have presidential candidates provide a legitimate
birth certificate and proof of citizenship
running for office.
to Go to a
Public Park, Beach,
Venue and ProclaimTruth,
– knowing that we have the Constitutional
Amendment right to keep and bear
– knowing that our children in school are being taught
American History without
of Islam in our textbooks.
that our fee
simple title deeds
to our properties are securewithout
fear of the EPA
it to protect a snail
– in the final analysis knowing God, through His son,
Jesus Christ, and NOT being fearful
to call the
name of Jesus from the highest
apologizing for breaking
things and killing
people in a just
Daniel Chapter 3 tells us of three young
men that refused
to a law.They
in the fiery
furnace, but because
of their faith
in God, they wouldNOTburn!
They Did NotBow to
Law, When Threatened
They Did Not
Bend, and Throwninto
the FurnaceThey Did
oDaniel was thrown
into the den
of lions for refusing to obey
law.The lions became
delivered him! (Daniel,
·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.”
·“Those who wouldgive upessentialliberties to purchasetemporary
safety deserveneither liberty nor
·“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.”
·“When the people fear their government
there is tyranny; when government
fears the people, there is “liberty.””
·“The price of freedom
is eternal vigilance.”
·“In matters of style, swim
with the current.In matters
of principle, standfirmlikearock.”Thomas
Gentlemen—let’s send a message to
AND CLEAR—“We the People.”
oWe will notsurrender
on the account
oWe will notsacrifice
on the altar of coercion.
oWe will notsubmit
rights to the rule
of unelectedczars in Washington.
oWe will not
and allow socialism
oWe will bevigilant,
and vote in
oWe will have “revolution”
at the “ballot”
is very clear (Acts 5:29) we ought
to obey Godrather
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.
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.
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
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
by two men shouting Jihadist slogans was a betrayal of
"We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any
of its forms," Cameron told reporters outside his Downing Street residence on
"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."
calling the Fort Hood Texas incident over three
years ago, of
Major who yells 'AllahuAkbar’ fires, and
kills twelve soldiers and one civilian “Workplace
modern Western “Civilizantion” is in deep
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.”
Punishable by Court-Martial
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
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
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
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 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
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
"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
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
"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
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
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."
Damien Pickart, a department of defense spokesman,
told the newpaper the military is working to resolve
the problem and is “not intentionally blocking
Association Notified: U.S.
Army Now Labels Southern Baptist Convention ‘Hostile’
April 25, 2013
Congressman Speaks out on Behalf of Christians
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:
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
“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
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 .
set to enact life-starts-"at fertilization" abortion
| 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
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.
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
"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,
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.
by Kevin Murphy; Editing by Greg McCune, Doina Chiacu
and Gunna Dickson)
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
| Wed Apr 3, 2013
(Reuters) - The new global arms trade treaty was
overwhelmingly approved by the United Nations, with
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
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
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
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.
commitment to the treaty is important to get China,
and other big arms producers on board, diplomats and
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
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
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.
'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
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
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
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
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
Our media ignore the
intensifying savagery against Christians in Muslim
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
attack on Egypt’s
10 million Coptic Christians: Firemen dousing a blaze
at a New Year’s car bombing outside a Coptic church.
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
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
Today, the end is in
In Iraq, cities such as
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
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.
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
Christians in Iran?
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
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
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
Andrew P. Napolitano
March 21, 2013
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
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
-- 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
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
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
McGreal, US correspondent
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
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
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
"Demographic trends mean that
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
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
Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to
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
"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
"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."
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
"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
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
But having done all
that, he then moved to the second message of trying
to achieve a just and viable solution for the
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
Growing up with my parents included
“larning” that honesty
and abiding by the law were virtues to be cultivated
if at all possible. “if at all possible” has caveats.
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
Debating the 'religious
freedom' bill Rejection would be serious blow
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
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
The ACLU and several gay rights groups also argue
that the bill would be used to gut civil rights
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.
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
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.,
• Yusuf Ibrahim, a 27-year-old Egyptian immigrant who
on Feb. 5 allegedly beheaded two Coptic Christians
living in New
• Ali Syed, a 20-year-old Muslim who allegedly
randomly killed three people in Southern
California on Feb. 18 before killing
• 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
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
When educators, journalists and politicians hear no
Islamic violence, see no Islamic violence and report
no Islamic violence, beware, it's Sept. 10, 2001,
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
“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put
forward,” the congresswoman told Mr. Vilsack.
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
“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
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
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
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,
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
By Leonardo Blair , Christian Post
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
"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
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
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
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
Open Doors: Violence
Targeting Christians Increasing in Syria
Contact: Jerry Dykstra, Open Doors USA, 616-915-4117,
SANTA ANA, Calif., Nov. 1,
2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- The targeting of
Christians in war-torn Syria
is increasing, according to Open Doors sources.
"The car bomb in Jaramana was targeting the Christian
and Druze community as a group, since the area has no
political ties or buildings," a local Christian source
explained about the large bomb blast in the Damascus
suburb on Monday.
According to contacts in the neighborhood, 11
Christians where killed and one Muslim killed in the
explosion. The blast left 69 people, all Christians,
wounded. Twenty are in critical condition.
Open Doors' country coordinator for Syria
says: "The attack took place during the final day of
Eid al-Adha (Muslim holiday). Observers hoped the
four-day holiday would mark a temporary ceasefire, but
that hope proved to be false. I see this as another
example that Christians are increasingly targeted."
A believer from Damascus reports
that last Sunday a car bomb was found in a Christian
neighborhood in the old part of the city. The car was
parked next to two churches, a Maronite and Latin
church. The two churches were warned and church
officials instructed all their parishioners to go home
in case the bomb exploded. Authorities were successful
in disabling the bomb.
Situation in Aleppo, Homs
An Open Doors contact in Aleppo reports
that, "the situation is not getting any better, but we
are hoping the situation will cool down."
Last week Open Doors received a report from a
believer in Aleppo,
the largest city in Syria,
that about 100 insurgents infiltrated a main street in
a Christian area of the city. Aleppo is one of
the hot spots in the 21-month civil war between rebels
and the Syrian government. According to the report,
the Syrian army quickly surrounded the insurgents and
drove them out.
Another believer reports that in some of the
predominantly Christian villages in the Homs
area there is not a threat against the entire
Christian community, however, individual Christians
are being targeted.
In a village in the ChristianValley, a
region west of Homs
three Christian men were kidnapped and one killed.
"One of my contacts is stuck there, waiting to find a
way back to Damascus.
The roads are the worst now," the believer shares.
The Open Doors country coordinator for Syria
adds: "The violent situation deeply hurts the entire
Syrian population, the Christian community as well as
other people groups. But about two or three weeks ago
we observed an increase of violence that specifically
is targeting Christians or Christian neighborhoods.
Bombs now are placed in Christian areas where there is
no strategic or military target at all. We are deeply
concerned about our brothers and sisters and call all
churches and all Christians to continue praying for
this dangerous situation for Christians."
Jerry Dykstra, media relations director for Open
Doors, says the request for prayer from Syrian
Christians comes as the International Day of Prayer
for the Persecuted Church (IDOP) will be observed in
the United States
on Sunday, Nov. 11.
All politics is local, even the US
election as seen by Kenyans
Villagers in the home village
Obama's father are cheering on the Democrat, while
Kenyan Mormons are excited by challenger Mitt
Kenyans are closely watching the US
presidential election, with two groups in particular
rooting for each of the candidates.
US President Barack Obama’s reelection bid is
preoccupying the people in Nyang’oma Kogelo, his
Kenyan father’s home village, as challenger Mitt
Romney’s run is invigorating Mormons in the East
Mr. Romney’s candidacy has thrust the Christian group
into the spotlight here, with its leaders on
Monday unveiling a website called Kenya Mormon
Newsroom to help answer questions ignited by the
American political process. Leaders say the church
maintains a firm political neutrality.
“In the most recent past, questions have been asked
about who we are. The reasons is we have a member of
the church running as president of the UnitedState of America,”
Elder Hesbon Usi, an official here with the Mormons'
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints. “Since people do not have the right
source of information and truth they are looking for,
a lot tend to go to other websites that are
misleading. They get information that is not correct.”
Elder Thomas Hatch, a former Utah state
senator who now serves as the church’s deputy director
of public affairs for the region, said questions the
church has encountered have prompted leaders to share
more through a network of websites.
Hatch says Mormons would relish the idea of a Romney
presidency, hoping it would bring the church out of
obscurity. However, he cautioned that there could be
many downsides as well as upsides, since presidents
have to make tough decisions.
“If Mr. Romney is seen as a Mormon president,
there could be retaliation by other countries against
our church and missions,” he says.
Meanwhile, in Nyang’oma Kogelo, the western Kenyan
village that is home to the president's
step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, the community is
organizing daily prayers for Obama, with special
prayers reported in churches and mosques. Often
gathering in small groups to listen to news and
discussions on FM radios from mobile phones, the
residents say they have learned Obama was facing a
“We would like to organize bigger meetings to show
support, but we fear the security is not good.
Terrorists may attack us because of our Obama links.
The threats and attacks in Kenya
make use very cautious,” says Vitalis Ogombe, the
chairman of a community group called the Obama Kogelo
For them, the interest in the American election is
driven by pride more than economic or material gains,
since Obama is viewed as a grandson there.
“We are proud because we have seen he can make a good
global leader. People now know us globally because of
him. We are praying that he continues,” says Mr.
But since Obama’s election in 2008, Kogelo can also
count material gains. Electricity has been installed
in the area and infrastructure improved. Micro-finance
organizations and nongovernmental organizations have
also moved here to help improve the community’s living
standards. The local people say they are better since
he became president.
For Jesse Mugambi of the University of Nairobi,
America foreign policy on Africa
remains the same, irrespective of whoever is the
“The voters out there will decide what is good for
them, and Kenyans will put up with whoever wins. That
is what democracy demands,” he says.
Some analysts have also considered an Obama loss.
Charles Onyango-Obbo, in an opinion in the Daily
Nation today, analyzed why an Obama loss would be good
for him and the world.
“Obama has the energy and smarts to be an influential
international citizen and non-state actor to join
Clinton and Gates as the non-white face at the top of
international NGO priesthood. To do that, he has first
to lose the election,” wrote Mr. Onyango-Obbo.
Sixty Percent of US Muslims
Reject Freedom of Expression
Thursday, 01 November 2012
violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish “Innocence
of Muslims” video, which simply depicted a few of the
less salutary aspects of Muhammad’s biography,
international and domestic Islamic agendas have openly
converged with vehement calls for universal
application of Islamic blasphemy law. This demand to
abrogate Western freedom of expression was reiterated
in a parade of speeches by Muslim leaders at the UN
General Assembly. The US Muslim community echoed such
admonitions, for example during a large demonstration
and in a press release by the Islamic Circle of North
Now the results of polling data collected by Wenzel
Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US
Muslims, indicate widespread support among rank and
file American votaries of Islam for this fundamental
rejection of freedom expression, as guaranteed under
the US Constitution. The first amendment states,
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press;
When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam
or Muhammad should be permitted under the
Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied
“no,” while only 42% affirmed
this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech,
i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma.
Indeed, oblivious to US
constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a
largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that
those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S.
should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and
17% were “unsure”. Moreover, fully 12% of this
Muslim sample even admitted they believed in
application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment
for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US
code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who
criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”
Also, consistent with such findings 43% of these US
Muslims rejected the right of members of other faiths
to proselytize to adherents of Islam, disagreeing,
citizens have a right to evangelize Muslims to
consider other faiths.” Additional confirmatory data
revealed that nearly two-fifths (39%) agreed “…that
Shariah law should be considered when adjudicating
cases that involve Muslims,” while nearly
one-third (32%) of this American Muslim sample
believed “…Shariah law should be the supreme law of
the land in the US.”
These alarming data remind us that despite
intentionally obfuscating apologetics, Sharia, Islamic
law, is not merely holistic, in the general sense of
all-encompassing, but totalitarian, regulating
everything from the ritual aspects of religion, to
personal hygiene, to the governance of a Muslim
minority community, Islamic state, bloc of states, or
global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political
aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient
antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian
systems. Specifically, Sharia’s liberty-crushing and
dehumanizing political aspects feature: open-ended
jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian
Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western
liberties—including freedom of conscience and
speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death;
discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast,
vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to
subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which
violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft,
stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol
And the US Muslim data mirror global Islamic trends.
Previously, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic
Conference (subsequently renamed the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation [OIC])—the largest voting bloc in
the UN, which represents all the major Muslim
countries, and the Palestinian Authority—had sponsored
and actually navigated to passage a compromise U.N.
resolution insisting countries criminalize what it
calls “defamation of religion.” Though the language of
the OIC “defamation of religion” resolution has been
altered at times, the OIC’s goal has remained the
same—to impose at the international level a
Sharia-compliant conception of freedom of speech and
expression that would severely limit anything it
arbitrarily deemed critical of, or offensive to, Islam
or Muslims. This is readily apparent by reading the
OIC’s supervening “alternative” to both the US Bill of
Rights and the UN’s own 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, i.e., the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration
repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic
supremacism (Koran 3:110, “You are the best
nation ever brought forth to men . . . you
believe in Allah”); and its last articles,
24 and 25, maintain [article 24], “All the rights and
freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to
the Islamic Sharia”; and [article 25] “The Islamic
Sharia is the only source of reference for
the explanation or clarification to any of the
articles of this Declaration.” The gravely negative
implications of the OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo
Declaration are most apparent in its transparent
rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10,
Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is
prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man
or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to
convert him to another religion, or to atheism.
Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle
stated elsewhere throughout the document, which
clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called
apostates from Islam, as well as “blasphemers”:
There shall be no crime or punishment except as
provided for in the Sharia. Everyone shall have the
right to express his opinion freely in such manner
as would not be contrary to the
principles of the Sharia. Everyone shall have the
right to advocate what is right, and propagate what
is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil
according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.
Information is a vital necessity to society. It
may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may
violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets,
undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate,
corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
Institutional Islam in North
America—epitomized by the Assembly of
Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)—also endorses and
promotes this Sharia supremacism. AMJA’s mission
statement maintains that the organization was,
“founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. . . . AMJA is a
religious organization that does not exploit religion
to achieve any political ends, but instead provides
practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and
the nation’s laws to the various challenges
experienced by Muslim communities. ” It is accepted by
the mainstream American Muslim community, and
regularly trains imams from throughout North America. Notwithstanding
this mainstream acceptance, AMJA has issued rulings
which sanction the killing of apostates,
“blasphemers,” (including non-Muslims guilty of this
“crime”), and adulterers (by stoning to death);
condoned female genital mutilation, marital rape, and
polygamy; and even endorsed the possibility for
offensive jihad against the U.S.,
as soon as Muslims are strong enough to wage it.
Finally, it should be noted, 81% of this sample of
Muslim Americans were either “definitely for Obama,”
or “leaning Obama”.
shot by Taliban in Pakistan
remains in critical condition, and local government
posts reward for attackers' capture
11 October 2012
A Pakistani schoolgirl fighting for her life after
being shot by Taliban gunmen has been transferred to a
specialist hospital in the army garrison town of Rawalpindi.
Malala Yousafzai, 14, was unconscious and in a
critical condition after being shot in the head and
neck as she left school in the Swat region on Tuesday,
but doctors said she had moved her arms and legs
On Wednesday surgeons at an army hospital in the
regional capital, Peshawar, removed
a bullet from Malala's head. She has been taken to the
Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi
for further treatment."Pray for her," her distraught
uncle, Faiz Mohammad, said before the ambulance left Peshawar.
Two British doctors who were attending a seminar in Pakistan
at the time of the attack joined local surgeons in
treating Malala on Thursday. One of the two other
girls shot with Malala is out of danger, the other
remains in a critical condition.
A Taliban spokesman said Malala had been targeted for
trying to spread western culture, and that they would
try to kill her again if she survived. Malala's
father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, who runs a girls' school,
said his daughter had defied threats for years,
believing the good work she was doing for her
community was her best protection.
The regional governor, Masood Kausar, said officials
had identified the attackers. The local government has
posted a 10m rupee reward for their capture. "The
security agencies are closely working with each other
and they have a lot of information about the
perpetrators. We hope they will soon capture them and
bring to justice," Kausar said.
The attack outraged many in Pakistan,
and there were small, impromptu rallies in many
cities. Schools closed across Swat in protest over the
shooting, and a small demonstration was held in her
home town, Mingora. Pakistan's
prime minister and the heads of various opposition
parties joined the human rights group Amnesty
International and the United Nations in condemning the
Malala had spent the last three years campaigning for
girls' education after the Taliban shut down girls'
schools. She received Pakistan's
highest civilian award but also a number of death
threats. In 2009 the army pushed the Taliban out of
Mingora, but the attack showed the militia's ability
to strike even inside heavily patrolled towns.
A dark feeling of
betrayal and stunned disbelief washed over me as I
read the newspaper headline, "Jordanians press for
democratic reforms" in the October 6, 2012 Orlando
The Myth of Islamic Democratic Reforms
The mainstream media,
U.S. State Department, and President Obama fed us a
steady stream of news in 2011 that Egyptian youth were
protesting in the streets for an Arab Spring of
democratic reforms in Egypt.
Fast forward to 2012 and we learned The Muslim
Brotherhood orchestrated the propaganda of democracy
to get support from the Obama Administration in the
ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
While the press was
printing gallons of ink reporting the Muslim
Brotherhood would pursue democratic reforms in Egypt,
Mohammad Morsi was consolidating his political base
with the Salafi Islamist fundamentalist, whose
objective was to institute a Sunni led Shariah
compliant Islamic State in Egypt by overthrowing the
colonialist dictator and friend of the United States,
The utopian mantra from
the liberal left of democratic reforms blooming in Egypt
on a warm and sunny Arab Spring day were proven
wrong. Now these same journalists and
politicians are falling for the same lie again out of
When will our mainstream
press learn that Shariah compliant political Islam and
our Jeffersonian democracy are not compatible?
Understanding the PLO's failed coup of Jordan in the 1970's
will help you to see what Jordan
can expect from the Muslim Brotherhood in
Black September in Jordan
In September of 1970,
the Nobel Peace Prize recipient Yasser Arafat, nephew
of Nazi collaborator Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini,
tried unsuccessfully to violently overthrow the Kingdom
from King Hussein.
organization lost over 2,000 Muslim men in the
attempted Black September coup of their Jordanian
Muslim brothers and were violently expelled from their
History seems to be
repeating itself again, except now The Muslim
Brotherhood is making a play to wrestle control of Jordan from the
colonialist dictator and friend of the United
If King Abdullah II
tries to appease The Muslim Brotherhood he will find
himself either dead or in exile wondering how he lost
his throne. King Abdullah II need look no
further than Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Assad to see his
future, if he continues on his current path.
Understanding The Islamic Threat Doctrine
Islamic Threat Doctrine is essential in predicting
events as they unfold on the ground and anticipating
what to expect will happen in the future.
Fortunately for the American people, our Islamist
adversaries are more than happy to tell us exactly
what their doctrine and objectives are.
We will now learn the
Islamic Threat Doctrine from a well respected Islamic
Jihadist who was tops in his class amongst his Jihadi
peers. Today's teacher of the doctrine is Sheikh
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi or by his title, "Emir of Al
Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers." On June 7,
2006 Mr. Zarqawi was killed when a USAF F-16 dropped
two 500 pound guided bombs on his safe house in Baqubah, Iraq
prematurely ending his career of violence and butchery
to achieve his political objectives.
Shortly before his
death, Mr. Zarqawi conducted an in depth interview
with the Al-Furican Foundation for Media Production,
an entertainment arm of Al-Qaeda. Hidden deep in
the interview Mr. Zarqawi explains clearly what the
Islamic Threat Doctrine is and it's objectives.
These two paragraphs
below should change your life forever and how you view
the world around you. Al-Qaeda terrorist Musab
fight in the way of Allah, until the law of Allah
is implemented, and the first step is to expel the
enemy, then establish the Islamic state, then we
set forth to conquer the lands of Muslims to
return them back to us, then after that, we fight
the kuffar (disbelievers) until they accept one of
have been sent with the sword, between the hands
of the hour"; this is our political agenda."
is necessary to accept the fact that it is an
obligation for every Muslim to rush to help each
other and it is also very necessary to agree that
the houses of Muslims are just one house. The
enemies (the disbelieving nations) have imposed
boundaries and divided the lands of Muslims to
tiny nations however we do not believe in them and
the boundaries of Sax Bacon do not restrict us.
We, the Muslims are one nation and the lands of
Islam are one land, we fight for the sake of
"there is no god but Allah".
The Muslim Brotherhood
in the Middle East and Northern Africa are "expelling
the enemy" and establishing an Islamic State as they
did in Egypt.
and the Muslim Brotherhood consider the muslim
colonialist dictators as enemies of Shariah compliant
The Islamic Threat
Doctrine Mr. Zarqawi articulated above is being
implemented in coordinated steps to achieve their
short term objective of unifying, "Muslims to rush
to help each other...and Muslims are of one house."
The coordinated attacks on 9/11/12 on U.S. interests
in the Middle East and Northern Africa was the real
warning to America, not the red herring of an internet
When the Islamist
enemies of the United States
tell you exactly what they want to do and why -
believe them. When the soldiers of Allah
conducted 20+ coordinated attacks on U.S. interests in the
Middle East and Northern Africa
on 9/11/2012, they were telegraphing they can
recreate these coordinated attacks at any time of
their choosing -- in law enforcement circles they call
that a clue, as John Guandolo likes to say.
What Our Islamist Enemies Fear Most
The one thing our
Islamist adversaries fear most is an American public
that understands the basics of The Islamic Threat
Doctrine. Thomas Jefferson read the Qur'an to
fight and defeat the Muslim Barabary Pirates in Tripoli
back in 1801. Now you must learn The Islamic
Threat Doctrine to understand the Islamists who
attacked our embassy in Tripoli on
The future of America rests on how many
Americans learn The Islamic Threat Doctrine as
articulated by Mr. Zarqawi. Then you must
teach your friends, family, and community what Mr.
Zarqawi and his Islamist ideological brothers
consider their definition of Victory.
the Muslims are one nation and the lands of Islam
are one land, we fight for the sake of "there is
no god but Allah".
What we believe as
Americans and our man made laws is of small concern to
our Islamist enemies. The followers of Islam
believe "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his
messenger" and that was the message on the black flags
that flew above our overrun embassies and consulates
when they were attacked on 9/11/2012.
God Bless America
and God Bless Our Troops.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan
Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United
West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty.
His email is: email@example.com
By Babette Francis
- posted Thursday, 4
and political debate
polls on the US
presidential elections show that Obama is leading
Romney by a few percentage points, and crucially is
leading in the "swing" states, notably Ohio, which Romney needs to
win to have any hope of becoming President of the US.
Obama gets 95% or more of the African-American vote,
which is understandable given the US
history of slavery and discrimination against
African-Americans. However what is not so
understandable is why Obama in recent polls appears to
be leading among Catholic voters, despite the US
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) having lobbied
strenuously against Obama's Health Care mandate
pointing out its moral flaws and attack on religious
freedom and conscience rights.
Perhaps the USCCB needs to take some responsibility
for the confusion among Catholic voters, so many of
whom seem to be willing to vote for the most
pro-abortion President in US history - and the first
to support same-sex "marriage" - because the message
from the bishops has been somewhat mixed.
In April before Congressman Paul Ryan (Republican,
Wisconsin's lst District) was chosen by Mitt Romney to
be his Vice-Presidential candidate in the US November
elections, Ryan proposed a budget plan which was
adopted by the Republican-majority House of
Representatives Budget Committee, 21-9. However, the
US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was been
critical of Ryan's budget implying that it 'failed a
basic moral test':
....The Catholic bishops of the United
recognize the serious deficits our country faces,
and acknowledge that Congress must make difficult
decisions about allocating burdens and sacrifices
and balancing resources and needs. However, deficit
reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must
protect and not undermine the needs of poor and
vulnerable people. The proposed cuts in the budget
fail this basic moral test.
The USCCB was specifically concerned about
alterations to the Child Tax Credit to exclude
immigrant families (it is not clear whether this cut
is targeted primarily at illegal immigrants), cuts in
the food stamps and the Social Services Block Grant.
While the USCCB mentions serious deficits, I wonder
if they can get their heads around the 16 TRILLIONS of
debt, and that some economists estimate that by 2020
the US may
be unable to pay the interest on this debt. I have
difficulty in imagining a trillion but then I am just
a housewife who knows one cannot "spend one's way out
of debt" - a strategy which appears to be President
Obama's rescue plan.
Not all bishops agree with the USCCB statement.
Bishop Boyea, Lansing, said
“There have been some concerns raised by Catholic
economists about what was perceived as a partisan
action against Congressman Ryan’s proposed budget ....
Statements that endorsed specific economic policies
revealed a lack of humility. We need to learn far more
than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen
more than we need to speak...."
Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Kansas City,
agreed the USCCB committee neglected the principle of
subsidiarity which calls for solutions to be provided
close to people in need. He suggested drafters of the
statement needed to rethink a tendency to advocate for
government assistance, and USCCB proposals should not
ignore the ballooning national deficit. “Sometimes
we’re perceived as just encouraging government to
spend more money, with no realistic way of how we’re
going to afford this”.
Archbishop Allen Vigneron, Detroit, echoed
Archbishop Naumann’s suggestion that the proposed
document focus more on the family as the central
social institution and spoke of how the
“disintegration of the family” had fueled the demand
for government assistance.
Warm support for Paul Ryan came from Cardinal Dolan
of New York who described Ryan as a "great public
servant" and praised his “call for financial
accountability, restraint and a balanced budget” as
well as his “obvious solicitude for the poor.” He
emphasized there are differences in “prudential
judgment” over how to assist the poor.
Ryan's diocesan Bishop Morlino, Madison, wrote:
... I am proud of Paul Ryan's accomplishments as
a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my
prayers go with him and his family as they endure
the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign
sentiment in America troubles Muslims
By Moni Basu, CNN
Sept. 5, 2012 (CNN) – When the nation pauses
to remember 9/11 next week, a group of Tennesseans
will gather at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Franklin
for a commemoration. But it will be more than that.
On the program, called "The Threat in Our Backyard,"
is a lecture on Islam in public schools and a short
film on Sharia finance.
It's a program organized by people who feel the
American way of life is threatened by Islam - in
particular, Sharia, or Islamic law.
Sharia would bring ruin to America, says Greg
Johnson, vice president of the 9/12 Project Tennessee,
a sponsor of the event that advocates for shifting
government back to the intent of the Constitution's
He says he has nothing against Muslims, but he takes
issue with the tenets of Islam.
Sharia, he believes, would mean that practicing
homosexuals would be put to death, women would not be
educated and would be married off to men chosen by
their fathers, and non-Muslims would become kafirs -
nonbelievers - relegated to second-class citizenship.
"And I don't want that coming to America,"
He's not alone in his fears.
A tide of anti-Islam sentiment has been swelling
across America in recent months, strong enough to
prompt one imam to wish for the days immediately after
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when
President George W. Bush declared that Muslims were
not our enemies; that the war on terror was against a
select few who acted upon their hate for America.
"In the 11 years since, we have retreated," says
Abdullah Antepli, the Muslim chaplain at DukeUniversity
who likes to call himself the Blue Devil Imam.
Muslims make up less than 1% of the U.S.
population. Yet, say Muslim advocates, they are a
Hate crimes against Muslims spiked 50% in 2010, the
last year for which FBI statistics are available. That
was in a year marked by Muslim-bashing speech over the
Islamic center near ground zero in Manhattan
and Florida Pastor Terry Jones' threats to burn
Antepli likens the current climate to McCarthyism.
Left unchecked, he says, anti-Muslim fervor, like
racism and anti-Semitism, has the potential to evolve
into something dangerous.
This year's holy month of Ramadan, which ended August
19, was marred by a spate of violence at U.S.
Islamic centers that included a fire, a homemade bomb
and pig parts. The incidents were unprecedented in
scale and scope, says the Council on American-Islamic
At least seven mosques and one cemetery were attacked
in the United States
during Ramadan, according to the council and other
groups that track such incidents.
Particularly visible on the anti-Muslim radar has
been the state of Tennessee, where
a mosque opened during Ramadan after two years of
controversy. The new Islamic center in Murfreesboro
opened a few weeks ago after delays caused by legal
wrangling, community protests and vandalism.
Also in Tennessee,
incumbent congresswoman Diane Black found herself
publicly opposing Sharia after her opponent Lou Ann
Zelenik made it a campaign issue.
State senatorial candidate Woody Degan's website also
"VOTE CONSERVATIVE! VOTE Anti-Sharia, VOTE Against
Internet Taxes, Vote FOR Gun Carry Rights! VOTE for
your PERSONAL RIGHTS!"
And Gov. Bill Haslam recently came under fire for
hiring lawyer Samar Ali, a Muslim woman from Tennessee,
to work in the international division of the state's
economic development department.
Ali's critics called her Sharia-compliant and a
website called Bill H(Islam) attacked the governor for
pursuing "a policy that promotes the interest of
Islamist (sic) and their radical ideology."
The website links to another that discusses, among
other things, Islamic infiltration of public schools.
"I cannot stress enough the seriousness of their push
to spread their religion to all non-Muslims throughout
our country," says website author Cathy Hinners,
another speaker at next Tuesday's 9/11 event in Franklin.
"Why? Why are Muslims so adamant that we accept their
religion? The answer is simple. The answer is in black
and white. The answer is in the Muslim brotherhoods
"Strategic Goal for North
America." It's called a global
caliphate. One religion, one government, one law...
In November 2010, more than 70% of voters in Oklahoma
approved a ballot initiative to amend the state's
constitution that banned courts from looking at "legal
precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically,
the courts shall not consider international law or
The amendment died after a federal court ruled it
"That was very explicitly anti-Islamic," says Glenn
Hendrix, an Atlanta
lawyer who specializes in international law. "It
specifically referenced Sharia."
This year, 33 anti-Sharia or international law bills
were introduced in 20 states, making it a key issue.
Six states - Louisiana,
South Dakota, Kansas, Arizona,
Louisiana and Tennessee
- adopted such laws prior to 2012.
lawmakers attempted to pass a bill this year that
would have made it a felony to practice Sharia, but it
The Council on American-Islamic Relations says the
anti-Sharia bills are based on draft legislation
promoted by David Yerushalmi, an anti-Islamic lawyer
Yerushalmi founded the Society of Americans for
National Existence, an organization devoted to
promoting his theory that Islam is inherently
seditious and Sharia is a "criminal conspiracy to
overthrow the U.S. government," according to the
Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.
"Ideally," says the center, "he would outlaw Islam
and deport its adherents altogether."
Hendrix says anti-Sharia legislation is not necessary
courts ultimately are beholden to U.S.
But it sends a strong message to the Muslim
The American Bar Association, which opposes federal
or state laws that impose blanket prohibitions on
foreign laws, says such legislative initiatives
stigmatize an entire religious community and "are
inconsistent with some of the core principles and
ideals of American jurisprudence."
Valarie Kaur, a legal advocate and hate crimes
specialist, says proponents of anti-Sharia bills are
battling an imaginary threat.
"There is no push to install Sharia law in the U.S.,"
she says. "Anti-Sharia bills target the religious
principles of Muslim Americans and fuel anti-Muslim
rhetoric and bias. As a Sikh American whose community
has too often become the target of hate, I believe
it's time to stand against all forms of racism and
An attack at a Wisconsin Sikh temple last month
killed six people. Many believe the shooter mistook
Sikhs for Muslims. A Sikh gas station attendant in Arizona
was the first victim of reprisal after the 9/11
Kaur blames tough economic times and an amplification
of hateful speech for incidents like the temple
shooting and the momentum behind the anti-Sharia
For Muslims, Sharia - which means "path to the
watering hole" in Arabic - is the divine law revealed
centuries ago in the Quran that governs all aspects of
life. More often than not, it's the most sensational
parts of Sharia - like cutting off a thief's hand -
that garner the most publicity.
courts bump up against it in cases of divorces,
inheritance, child custody, enforcement of money
judgments and commercial disputes or tort actions.
A trial court in New Jersey, for
instance, ruled that a husband, who was Muslim, lacked
the criminal intent to commit sexual assault on his
wife because Sharia permits a man to have sex with his
wife whenever he wants.
That's the kind of ruling that fuels anti-Sharia
health-care investor Andrew Miller says there's no
room for democracy within Islamic ideology. All you
have to do is look to any Islamic state, he says.
"If you wanted to pray to a large rock and that was
your God, I could care less," he says. "But the minute
you want to put a gun to my head and say you will pray
to this large rock and your family will or you will
pay the price, that's when I see a bully. I see an
overbearing ideology that wants to force and coerce
Miller describes himself as a tolerant person but not
when it comes to people dictating how others will
"That's antithetical to the freedoms that we value,
the liberty we value," he says.
The message that Islam is evil has been repeated so
many times - sometimes directly, sometimes in a more
subtle fashion - that it has sunk in as reality in the
hearts and minds of many Americans, says Antepli, the
Part of it is fear of the unknown, he says.
"I, too, would have a monstrous image of Islam if I
did not know any better."
But another part of it is orchestrated, he says,
referring to "well-organized and polished" anti-Islam
websites that have sprouted in recent years. Marry
that with ignorance and the end result is lethal,
The Center for American Progress, a liberal research
and advocacy organization, published a report last
year that attributed the rise of Islamophobia to a
"small, tightly-networked group of misinformation
The report called "Fear, Inc." lists seven
foundations that gave $42.6 million to think tanks to
promote anti-Islamic thought.
It describes "deeply intertwined individuals and
organizations" that "manufacture and exaggerate
threats of 'creeping Sharia,' Islamic domination of
the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence
against all non-Muslims by the Quran."
The issue of Sharia, say some Muslims, has become a
political hot potato in an election year.
GOP candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann
mentioned Sharia in their campaign speeches. This
year's Republican Party platform makes mention of
"Subjecting American citizens to foreign laws is
inimical to the spirit of the Constitution. It is one
reason we oppose U.S.
participation in the International Criminal Court.
There must be no use of foreign law by U.S.
courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor
should foreign sources of law be used in State courts'
adjudication of criminal or civil matters."
That's the message Miller hopes people will take away
from next week's 9/11 meeting; that the tenets of
Islam go against the constitution of the United States.
It's diametrically opposed to what people like
Antepli and Kaur will be saying as America
remembers the horror of terrorism. Hateful sentiment,
they say, is not the answer.
The Strategy Page
September 4, 2012: Despite all the publicity about
increased defense spending, there is much less talk on
how to solve the growing problem with Islamic
terrorism. This is a war going on inside Russia
and it has been getting worse in the last decade.
There are over eight million Moslems in Russia, most of them
outside the Caucasus
(where most of the Islamic terrorist activity is
taking place). But Islamic conservatism and radicalism
is becoming more popular with Russian Moslems, and
this is the usual precursor for the formation of
Islamic terror groups. There are also a growing number
of Moslem migrants from Central Asian countries that
were part of the old Soviet Union but are now
independent and less well off than Russia.
These illegal economic migrants are not welcome and
have become fertile recruiting grounds for Islamic
terror groups. Russians tend to be hostile to Islam,
mainly because of centuries of conflict between
Christian Russia and various Moslem states. This has
created a culture of resentment among Russian Moslems,
which is made worse by the pervasive corruption.
August 29, 2012: In the Caucasus (Dagestan) a female suicide
bomber killed Sheikh Said Afandi, a prominent Moslem
leader who opposed Islamic terrorism. Six others died
in the explosion.
August 28, 2012: In the Caucasus (Ingushetia) several
police raids left three Islamic terrorist dead,
several more arrested, and large quantities of weapons
and ammunition seized.
Also in the Caucasus, a group of Islamic terrorists
crossed the border from Dagestan into Georgia
and kidnapped ten villagers. Georgian police responded
and in a gun battle killed 11 of the invaders, with
the loss of three policemen. The captives were freed.
It's unclear why the Islamic terrorists crossed the
border and sought to kidnap people from a foreign
country. For many years Georgia
tolerated Chechen rebels hiding out in northern Georgia, just across
the border from Chechnya.
But a decade ago the U.S.
persuaded the Georgians to expel the Islamic
terrorists and other foreign gunmen. For the last nine
years the foreigners have been absent, or very covert
if they were there. Now there is this incident, which
has so far been unexplained.
August 27, 2012: A Russian shipyard launched the
first of six Kilo class submarines Vietnam
ordered three years ago.
August 26, 2012: In a rural part of southern Siberia several people were
infected with Anthrax, and one of them died. Anthrax
is found naturally in this area and several infected
animals (who pick up the disease while grazing in
areas where the Anthrax spores are active) were
destroyed. Anthrax is also found in some parts of the
States and other
parts of the world where climate and geographic
conditions are right for it. In rural areas of the United
Anthrax is found, people liable to be exposed are
usually vaccinated against the deadly disease. Animals
are also vaccinated, as it is the cattle and sheep
that usually spread Anthrax to humans. Vaccination is
much less common in Russia
but over a hundred people and all animals in the area
were vaccinated in order to contain this outbreak.
August 22, 2012: In the United States there was
an unsubstantiated news story about a Russian Akula
class nuclear submarine cruising through the Gulf of Mexico undetected for
several weeks in July. The United States
does not monitor submerged submarine activity in that
area and the American Department of Defense responded
that it had no record of any Akulas in the area. The
Russian Navy refused to comment.
August 21, 2012: In the Caucasus (Kabardino-Balkaria)
an Islamic terrorist died in a gun battle with police.
In nearby Dagestan,
two policemen were killed by Islamic terrorists.
Religious Freedom Means
“Sticking up for All Believers”
Ken McIntyreAug. 21,
The crowd erupted into disarmed laughter when Kevin
J. “Seamus” Hasson got to the point. “I have to say
when it comes to religious freedom and the other great
constitutional questions at the moment that are at
stake: However bad you think things are, however bleak
it looks, however dire it may seem—it’s almost
certainly worse than you think.”
That’s as good a reason as any to be better equipped
for the debates ahead. Hasson, founder and president
emeritus of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty,
made those remarks nearly four months ago upon
receiving The Heritage Foundation’s Salvatori Prize
for American Citizenship.
His acclaimed 2005 book, The Right to Be Wrong:
Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America,
is just out in a timely paperback reprint from Image
(with a new afterword).
Examples of government’s intolerance toward personal
faith in the public square have multiplied since
Hasson’s “it’s almost certainly worse” crack—from
Obamacare’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate
that employers get over their faith and provide
employees with “free” abortion-inducing drugs, to
elected officials who threaten to make an
entrepreneur’s religion a reason to deny a building
permit in their cities.
Hasson’s The Right to Be Wrong, overflowing
with real-life cases and reflecting the life’s mission
of this Notre Dame-trained lawyer and theologian, is
about why we need to protect religious freedom from
tyranny in all shapes and sizes.
“We are manning the believer’s side of the barricades
against the forces who believe in nothingness,” the
essayist and scholar said in accepting the Salvatori
Prize during an April 26 luncheon in Colorado Springs
opening Heritage’s 35th annual Resource Bank
gathering. He added:
“Therefore, we need to
defend the rights of other people who believe in
something—even if we think they believe the wrong
thing. In so doing, we are sticking up for all
believers against the nihilists. We are standing
tall for those who are convinced there is a truth,
against those who are opposed to the very idea of
anybody making truth claims in public. That is the
fight that we are in the middle of—repelling an
assault by people who believe in nothing against the
very idea of believing in anything.”
Administration's War On Persecuted Christians
Friday, 03 August 2012 Right Side News
The Investigative Project on Terrorism
The Obama administration's support for its Islamist
allies means a lack of U.S. support for their enemies
or, more properly, victims—the Christian and
other non-Muslim minorities of the Muslim world.
Consider the many recent proofs:
According to Pete Winn of CNS:
The U.S. State Department removed the sections
covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on
Human Rights that it released on May 24, three
months past the statutory deadline Congress set for
the release of these reports. The new human
rights reports—purged of the sections that discuss
the status of religious freedom in each of the
countries covered—are also the human rights
reports that include the period that covered the Arab
Spring and its aftermath.
Thus, the reports do not
provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to
Christians and other religious minorities in
predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise
of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist
forces played an instrumental role. For the first
time ever, the State Department simply eliminated
the section of religious freedom in its reports
covering 2011… (emphasis added).
The CNS report goes on to
quote several U.S.
officials questioning the motives of the Obama
administration. Former U.S.
diplomat Thomas Farr said that he has "observed during
the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration
that the issue of religious freedom has been
In "Obama Overlooks
Christian Persecution," James Walsh gives more
examples of State Department indifference "regarding
the New Years' murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt
and the ravaging of a cathedral," including how the
State Department "refused to list Egypt as 'a country
of particular concern,' even as Christians and others
were being murdered, churches destroyed, and girls
kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. "
And the evidence keeps
mounting. Legislation to create a special envoy for
religious minorities in the Near East and South
Central Asia—legislation that, in the words of the Washington
Post, "passed the House by a huge margin," has
been stalled by Sen. James Webb, D-Va.:
In a letter sent to Webb Wednesday night, Rep. Frank
Wolf [R-Va, who introduced the envoy bill] said he
"cannot understand why" the hold had been placed on a
bill that might help Coptic Christians and other
groups "who face daily persecution, hardship,
violence, instability and even death."
Yet the ultimate source of
opposition is the State Department. The Post
Webb spokesman Will
Jenkins explained the hold by saying that "after
considering the legislation, Senator Webb asked the
State Department for its analysis." In a position
paper issued in response, State Department officials
said "we oppose the bill as it infringes on the
Secretary's [Hillary Clinton's] flexibility to make
appropriate staffing decisions," and suggested
the duties of Wolf's proposed envoy would overlap with
several existing positions. "The new special envoy
position is unnecessary, duplicative, and likely
counterproductive," the State Department said
But as Wolf explained in
his letter: "If I believed that religious minorities,
especially in these strategic regions, were getting
the attention warranted at the State Department, I
would cease in pressing for passage of this
legislation. Sadly, that is far from being the case.
We must act now…. Time is running out."
There was little doubt
among the speakers that, while Webb is the front
man, Hillary Clinton—who was named often—is ultimately
behind the opposition to the bill. (Videos of all
speakers can be accessed here; for information on the
envoy bill and how to contact Webb's office, click
Even those invited to
speak about matters outside of Egypt,
such as Nigerian lawyer and activist Emmanuel Ogebe,
wondered at Obama's position that the ongoing
massacres of Christians have nothing to do with
religion. After describing the sheer carnage of
thousands of Christians at the hands of Muslim
militants, lamented that Obama's response was to
pressure the Nigerian president to make more
concessions, including by creating more mosques (the
very places that "radicalize" Muslims against infidel
In light of all this,
naturally the Obama administration, in the guise of
the State Department, would oppose a bill to create an
envoy who will only expose more religious persecution
that the administration will have to suppress or
Bottom line: In its
attempts to empower its Islamist allies, the current U.S.
administration has taken up their cause by waging a
war of silence on their despised enemies—the
Christians and other minorities of the Islamic world.
Federal Court finds Obama
appointees interfered with New Black Panther
July 30, 2012
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last
week that political appointees appointed by President
Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s
prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the
conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, who
had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents
pertaining to the New Black Panthers case. Judicial
Watch had secured many previously unavailable
documents through their suit against DOJ and were now
suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not
entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records
produced in this litigation evidenced any political
interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the
New Black Panther Party case. But United States
District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a
“series of emails” between Obama political appointees
and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within
DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of
the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding
the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which
would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General
Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not
involved in that decision. Surely the public has an
interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy
of government officials’ representations regarding the
possible politicization of agency decision-making.
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee
entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to
Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both
eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court
must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial
Watch’s requested award.
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day
2008 incident where two members of the New Black
Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place
intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a
billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated
the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed
to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia
entered a “default” against all the Panthers
defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice
Department reversed course, dismissed charges against
three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a
narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence
showing the Obama Justice Department is run by
individuals who have a problem telling the truth,”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The
decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice
Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting
and election laws.”
High court allows
president discretion in upholding law or not
The Washington Times
By Andrew P Napolitano
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
When the Obama
administration decided it had no interest in
preventing the movement of undocumented aliens from Mexico into the
States, Arizona decided
to take matters into its own hands. Based on a novel
theory of constitutional law - namely, that if a state
is unhappy with the manner in which federal law is
being enforced or not being enforced, it can step into
the shoes of the feds and enforce federal law as it
wishes the feds would - Arizona enacted
legislation to accomplish that.
The legislation created two
conflicts that rose to the national stage. The first
is whether any government may morally and legally
interfere with freedom of association based on the
birthplace of the person with whom one chooses to
associate. The second is whether the states can
enforce federal law in a manner different from that of
Regrettably, in addressing
all of this earlier in the week, the Supreme Court
overlooked the natural and fundamental freedom to
associate. It is a natural right because it stems from
the better nature of our humanity, and it is a
fundamental right because it is protected from
governmental interference by the Constitution. Freedom
of association means that without force or fraud, you
may freely choose to be in the presence of whomever
you please, and the government cannot force you to
associate with someone with whom you have chosen not
to associate, nor can the government bar anyone with
whom you wish to associate from associating with you.
Without even addressing the
now-taken-for-granted federal curtailment of the right
to associate with someone born in a foreign country
and whose presence is inconsistent with arbitrary
federal document requirements and quotas, the Supreme
Court earlier this week struck down three of the four
challenged parts of the Arizona statute, which
attempted to supplant the federal regulation of
freedom of association with its own version. It did so
because the Constitution specifically gives to
Congress the authority to regulate immigration, and
Congress, by excluding all other law-writing bodies in
from enacting laws on immigration, has pre-empted the
The court specifically
invalidated the heart and soul of this misguided Arizona
law by ruling definitively that in the area of
immigration, the states cannot stand in the shoes of
the feds just because they disapprove of the manner in
which the feds are or are not enforcing federal law.
The remedy for one’s disapproval of the manner of
federal law enforcement is to elect a different
president or Congress; it is not to tinker with the
Federal law cannot have a
different meaning in different states, the court held.
And just as the feds must respect state sovereignty in
matters retained by the states under the Constitution
(though they rarely do), so too, the states must
respect federal sovereignty in matters that the
Constitution has unambiguously delegated to the feds.
The court neither upheld
nor invalidated Section 2B of the Arizona statute -
which permits police inquiry of the immigration status
of those arrested for non-immigration offenses -
because the court found that, just as when the police
stop a person for a violation of state or local law
they may check their computers for outstanding
warrants for the person they have stopped, so, too,
they may check their computers for the person’s
Shortly after the opinion
came down, the Obama administration announced that it
will cease providing Arizona police with the
immigration status of persons in that state, and it
will not detain anyone arrested by Arizona police for
immigration violations unless those violations rise to
the level of a felony, which undocumented presence in
the United States is not. Thus, this constitutional
rebuke to Arizona
has become a personal license for the president. He
has demonstrated that he will not faithfully enforce
federal law as the Constitution requires. He will only
enforce the laws with which he agrees.
So, because the Arizona police cannot arrest
and incarcerate anyone for undocumented presence and
because they cannot deliver anyone so arrested to the
feds, what legitimate governmental purpose will be
served by what remains of Arizona’s law?
None. But the police still will harass any
dark-skinned person in Arizona as they
Have we lost sight of the
perpetual tension between human freedom and human law?
Either freedom is integral to our nature, as Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, or
it comes from the government, as the president and the
Supreme Court demonstrated they think this week. If it
is integral to our nature, no government can tell us
with whom we may freely associate. If it comes from
the government, we should abandon all hope, as the
government will permit the exercise of only those
freedoms that are not an obstacle to the contemporary
exercise of its powers.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a
former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is
the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He
is the author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When
the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal
Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).
What do you think
about this article? Does the Judge glide over the
governments enumerated responsiblity to "protect and
defend" at the expense of individual sovereignty?
See the article at the Washington
and see readers reactions.
Overlooks Christian Persecution
24 May 2012
have resided in Egypt since the 1st century A.D.,
some 600 years before Muhammad began preaching and
630 years before he solidified Islam in the Arabian Peninsula.
Muslims entered Egypt in the year 639 and by the
13th century, Islam had taken over. By the 20th
century, Christians, who formed only 10 percent of
the Egyptian population, were finding themselves
victims of on-again-off-again pogroms conducted by
current turmoil in Egypt
is increasing the number of Egyptian Christians
seeking asylum in the West and especially in America.
Most of these asylees are educated men and women
who are professionals and entrepreneurs. Banking
historically has been in the hands of Christians.
Even so, under Sharia (Islamic law), non-Muslim
“infidels” have to pay a tax called the Jizya for
living in a Muslim country, even those whose
families predated the Muslims.
Egyptian Christians and U.S. citizens of Egyptian
ancestry feel abandoned by the United States,
which currently refuses to acknowledge persecution
of Christians by Muslims, lest it offend the
President Barack Obama banks on Egyptian
Christians being too genteel to take to the
streets in protest as the radical leftists do.
On June 4, 2009, when President Obama delivered
his “New Beginnings” speech in Cairo,
he addressed the Islamic world. As with his other
speeches, this one had an air of campaign rhetoric
well-delivered with apology, empathy, and
accolades for Islam.
“We love you” chants for Obama in Cairo,
however, cannot erase the terrorist acts committed
against Christian “infidels.” These terrorist acts, which began
in earnest in the 1970s, escalated to a crescendo
during the Arab Spring of 2011-2012 in Egypt
and other Muslim countries. The chant in Egyptian
streets is now “Allah Akbar” (God is great) and
“We love death,” as radical Islamists take center
stage. In February 2011, then Presidential
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs pulled an Obama
two-step by deflecting to the U.S. State
Department questions regarding the New Years’
murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the
ravaging of a cathedral. The State Department’s answer was
silence. Human Rights Watch, however, did note
growing religious intolerance and violence against
Christians in Egypt
— after additional murders of Christians and
burning of churches. The 2011 State Department Annual
Report on International Religious Freedom refused
to list Egypt
as “a country of particular concern,” even as
Christians and others were being murdered,
churches destroyed, and girls kidnapped and forced
to convert to Islam. The Obama administration
played politics by failing to acknowledge this
terrorist behavior. In May 2012, Christians fear that
Islamists will be the finalists in the field of 13
presidential candidates for the June presidential
run-off election. The candidates who happen to be
Islamists are supported by the Muslim Brotherhood
and the Salafists. The Salafists and the MB seek
Islamic law as the basis for a new Egyptian
constitution, which will consider all non-Muslims
as infidels subject to persecution as third-class
citizens. During the Obama presidency, 31
major Islamist attacks have occurred worldwide,
not counting those in Israel, India, and Russia.
Yet the Obama administration and the Democrat
Party continue to mislead U.S.
citizens, claiming the need for empathy to assuage
Muslim sensibilities. It is time for a new foreign
H. Walsh was
associate general counsel with the U.S.
Department of Justice Immigration and
Naturalization Service from 1983 to 1994.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were admirably
clear, or so they and we thought, when they wrote in
the Fifth Amendment that no person shall "be deprived
of life, liberty or property, without due process of
Note that the framers didn't specify that the person
had to be a U.S.
citizen. And by "due process" they meant the right to
be formally charged, to challenge those charges before
a judge and to have defense counsel present.
So important was this right to due process that the
14th Amendment reiterated that its protections also
applied to the states.
Clear enough? Perhaps not.
The U.S. House recently affirmed the government's
power to detain indefinitely in military custody
suspected terrorists, even if they are U.S. citizens on U.S.
soil, without charge or trial. All that is required is
This provision does away with the presumption of
innocence. If the detainee is deemed an "illegal
combatant," the prisoner is 90 percent of the way
toward being declared guilty without the technicality
of a trial.
A coalition of Democrats and tea party-movement
Republicans, skeptical about the ever-increasing power
of a central government, failed to roll back that
power, their amendment losing by the dismaying margin
of 238 to 182.
Basically, the House reaffirmed a provision in a
defense bill that President Barack Obama signed on
In a statement accompanying the bill, Obama wrote,
"My administration will not authorize indefinite
military detention without trial of American citizens.
Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our
most important traditions and values as a nation."
That's a commendable notion. But a right is not truly
a right when someone else gets to decide whether and
when that right should apply.
The Associated Press noted, "In a face-saving move,
the House voted 243-173 Friday for an amendment that
reaffirms Americans' constitutional rights."
It says something about our current crop of lawmakers
that 173 of them would vote "no" on the Bill of
Rights. Maybe for the past 220 or so years, the
Constitution wasn't as clear as we thought.
Dale McFeatters’ column is distributed by the
Scripps Howard News Service.
Moral Constitutional Patriots Speak
Response By Dr. Gene A. Youngblood
Council Meeting of 5/22/2012
council has introduced ordinance 2012-296.This bill
is cloaked under the disguise of equal
opportunity and non-discrimination in the
bill states that the city of Jacksonville
seeks to build a reputation as a welcoming
community for bright and talented
members of the workforce, and seeks to be
competitive in attracting new industries to
the bill seems to focus only on a “special class,”
ignoring the U.S.
Constitution and religiousliberties.
Jacksonville, Florida as well as other cities and
states across America already have multiple
layers of federal, state and local laws,
boards, and commissions that prohibit
discrimination based on race, religion, sex,
or national origin.This bill would add any “perceived sex”
(perceived sex, gender identity, or expression as
found on pages 3 (lines 7 and 20) and page 4 (lines
1-2)) and would abridge free speech.
WHEREAS The U.S.
Constitution, Florida Constitution, the EEOC, and
several other civil rights laws, all provide more
than adequate oversight and protection
against discrimination in every area in the
Ordinance 2012-296 provides and would codify
rules and regulations that would surpass
and/or circumvent our U.S. Constitution,
Florida Constitution, and present laws-thus, the
bill is unconstitutional.
22-24 on page 3 would bring about chaos,
major additional workplace expenses,
and confusion.This provision would force every business
to provide unisex restrooms.States
such as California
among others, that
have instituted such practices are
now watching industry, trade and new
businessesleave their state,
thus causing an extra burden on homeowners
being required to pay higher property taxes.Is this
what we want in Jacksonville?
Ordinance 2012-296 clearly recognizes that
the requirements of this bill go beyond
the U.S Constitution as revealed in lines
1-5 of page 3, wherein the reference to the bill’sconstitutionality has been stricken.
WHEREAS Page 4,
lines 1-3, provides for a person’s actual or perceived
sexuality, it would be impossible to
legislate or police.This will cause a major increase in tax
money to investigate and/or enforce.This means
that a man may “only” perceive he
is a woman and can enter a woman’s
restroom or demand special exceptions.This would
also allow pedophiles and multitudes of
other perverts to file discrimination
charges against businesses.
2012-296 will be costly and prohibitive
making the end result a net
loss of business or industry coming to
clear, based on requirements in the bill as
found on page 4, lines 6-8.
Ordinance 2012-296 would be overreaching and
overly encompassing by forcing a business
owner to go against his moral
conscience, to comply with the essence
of law that would be contrary to his moral,
Ordinance 2012-296 will create a special “super
class” of protected people that the
U.S. Constitution, Florida Constitution, and state
laws do not recognize as having “special
privileges.”Remember: “Thou shalt
not lie with a man, as with a woman; it is an
abomination.” (Lev. 18-22).
406.102 of ordinance 2012-296, “Declaration of
policy” is clearly overstepping the
bounds of the U.S. Constitution and the Florida
the major cost for the city to be in
compliance will further increase our $58
million budget deficit.The moral,
ethical property owners will be charged
increased fees and taxes to pay
for this immoral law that would circumvent
WHEREAS Page 10
lines 7-16 of ordinance 2012-296 will further increase
the cost of providing housing in our
section will also cause very serious escalation
of tax dollars for the city to be in compliance
of this bill.
WHEREAS Page 2,
lines 1-6 make it clear that 2012-296 is designed
for more than just an equal rights
bill for labor.This bill would “in fact” make it illegal
for anyone speaking out about any
religion in any “antagonism.”This bill
would impose regulations on free speech
in the public arena.This bill is unconstitutional!
WHEREAS It is
the position of the undersigned patriots, clergy
and moral leaders that this bill should not
be approved in any form or part
thereof, based on the following summary:
bill would establish a “special class”
of citizens, contrary to our Constitution.
bill would provide for broad application and
enforcement of a law that is not in compliance
with the U.S. Constitution.This bill
bill would greatly infringe Constitutional
Rights in the free exercise of one’s moral
bill would bring about a major tax
increase for Jacksonville
property owners.We already have a $58 million
bill would criminalize free speech as
relates to various religions or homosexuality
as prescribed in God’s Word, the Bible.The
Bible declares “sodomy,
and those who practice this vile,
evil, lifestyle; God hasgiven
them over to a reprobatelife.”Rom.
bill would marginalizeChristians
and “all” moral, ethical citizens of
and give special privilege to the “sodomites”.
bill would reduce, not increase the
desirability and social climate for businesses
to settle in Jacksonville.
bill uses a “straw man,” false premise
that businesses have in history past refused
to come to Jacksonvillebecause this bill does not exist.Produce
one suchrejection of Jacksonville.
bill will createdivision, discord,
debate and declension in our city
that is not welcomed or wanted.
bill is in conflict with and contradicts
everything moral, ethical, and Biblical.We do not
want Jacksonville, Florida to be another San
Francisco.Remember, a human law,
regardless of good intentions, cannotcircumvent
or nullifyGod’s law.God’s Word
both in Old and New Testament is replete
with God’s condemnation of sodomy!Remember: “Righteousness
exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach (shame,
insult) to any people!” Prov. 14:34
2012-296 is introduced as a works bill, but
it is, in fact, a far-reaching,overreaching,
unconstitutional effort to develop and codify
a “special class” of citizens under
the cloak of “anti-discrimination.”
have discrimination in Jacksonville?
have discrimination in America?
Christian teacher in a government controlled school
is threatened with dismissal just
because as a Christian, he had his personal
Bible on his desk.
teacher is forbidden to say, “God bless
you,” or “We are praying for you,” to a
student is not allowed to wear a t-shirt
with a Christian symbol, yet immoral or anti-God
slogans are accepted.
When a second
grader is forbidden to thank Jesus
over her lunch because the teacher said she was on government
moral ethical parents are not told when the
schools planned a recognition day for
sodomites in our schools April 21, 2012.This is
Christians are not allowed to have Christian
clubs (after school) in most public schools,
yet all other non-Biblical, ungodly clubs are
allowed to meet.
are told that we cannot pray in Jesus’ name,
yet, Islamic-jihadists are free to worship
and pray to Allah in public schools in America
which provide special “halal” meals.
small startup churches are not allowed to
meet in school buildings for services in many
YouTube pulls Christian videos, but allows
the ungodlygarbage over the same
When a Christian
school is persecuted by city government
and when the decision is questioned,
the Christian school is levied with “retaliatory”
teachers in South
Florida have to meet in a supplycloset to pray, or be fired!
Christian worker is forbidden to put
a verse of Scripture on herprivate cubicle wall or be fired.
Christians are required to pay taxes
which are then used to support a “special class”
of individuals who have chosen to
live ungodly, dissipatedlifestyles
and demand acceptance.
city will not allow any religious ads to be
purchased on the side of city buses,
but will allow any other ads.
preachers are arrested in some cities for “disturbing
the peace,” when Islamics, homosexuals,
pedophiles and other deviantsare
free to assemble.
city council or branch of governmentcodifies “any” law that is unconstitutional
just to appease the “sodomites” in their
We publicly reject
this entire bill and go on record
that we will vote against any council
person running for re-election
or any public office in Jacksonville
or the state of Florida.We will
endeavor to call, email, notify and engage every
patriot in Jacksonville
against the approval of bill 2012-296.
orders women's restrooms open to male
University caves in
after warning from Obama DOJ
May 24, 2012
On orders from Barack Obama’s Department of Justice,
officials with the University
Smith have given permission
for a 38-year-old man to use the women’s restrooms on
The report comes from Campus Reform.org, which
explained that the individual also is seeking to have
someone pay for a sex reassignment surgery to change
from male to female.
Already living as a female, the individual,
identified in the report as Jennifer Braly, started
using women’s restrooms on campus, but quickly was the
subject of complaints from women who saw him there.
The university had tried to make accommodations,
designating gender-neutral restrooms in some
Not good enough, however.
Braly filed a complaint with the Civil Rights
Division in the Department of Justice under Attorney
General Eric Holder, school officials reported. The
DOJ contacted the school.
“[T]he office of civil rights basically made its
expectations through the attorney and the decision was
made to respond to that direction,” said Mark Horn,
the vice president of university relations. “[T]he DOJ
complaint caused revisiting of our thinking.
“In the eyes of the law this individual [Braly] is
entitled to use the bathroom that she identifies
with,” Horn said.
The DOJ complaint was filed by Braly after the
university told him to use any of the gender-neutral
restrooms on campus.
“One problem to this is there are not unisex
bathrooms in every building,” Braly wrote in an online
essay about how other people should contribute to his
surgery costs. “Especially the two main buildings
where most of my classes are, so I have to go to a
completely different building to use the restroom.”
While the university offered to convert other
restrooms to gender-neutral, Braly said that wasn’t
The Campus Reform report said while anatomy matters
little to the DOJ, it still remains a concern for
“‘I disagree with allowing a male to use the female
restrooms,” Amanda Shook, a senior at UA, told Campus
Reform. “Even if they are a transgendered person, they
are still a man, and should have to use the men’s
The DOJ and school both have declined to release the
letter giving the school directions on the dispute,
Campus Reform reported.
The DOJ told Campus Reform that the records “pertain
to a currently active Civil Rights Division
enforcement and access to the records should therefore
be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) since
disclosure thereof could reasonably be expected to
interfere with Civil Rights Division enforcement
While Braly did not respond to Campus Reform requests
for comment, there is an extensive monologue by Braly
on the fundraising website WePay.
That reflects that $75 has been contributed to the
estimated $18,500 costs of the surgery.
Braly writes that his finances are depleted because
when a second marriage ended, a custody battle
“drained all my funds.”
“I am now a full-time student at the University
of Arkansas Fort Smith.
Most of my life is pretty normal as fitting into
female society. I am passsable (sic) and have a
part-time job. At the university I am running into
problems all over the place.”
Braly explains that the choice to use women’s
restrooms was unnoticed for a time.
“Then I took General Psychology and had asked the
professor if I could give a lecture on Gender Identity
Disorders for some extra credit. She not only allowed
me to speak to my class but her other 2 classes as
well. She also referred me to another professor and I
spoke in his class too.
“I was excited I was educating people about being a
transsexual and the other types of Gender Identity
Disorders. Those lectures would be the beginning of
all my problems. As I did get many great responses
from students how my lectures greatly changed their
perspective of what transsexuals are, some students
were not so accepting.
“Some saw me using the womens public restrooms and
complained to the university that they didn’t think I
should be using the restroom with them.”
The report also complains that Braly didn’t get
special accommodations in living arrangements.
“There came a problem that they would not let me room
with males, and I could not room with females either
unless I became friends with them and disclosed all my
medical information to them…” the report continues.
“I tried to be creative and work with them on this,
but to no prevail (sic),” the report said.
“Regardless of where I am at in my transtion (sic) I
should have the same rights as every other female.”
Part of the reason for requesting donations for the
surgery is because Braly’s income goes partly toward
the monthly costs of hormone treatments as well as
“required psychotherapy for transsexuals.”
— The Reformed Church in this prosperous suburb has
for years packed a lot inside its walls, including
addiction counseling, a housing program, dance groups,
gatherings for developmentally disabled people, a
restaurant, a thrift shop and space to worship for
hundreds of people from half a dozen religious
Some of the Indonesian Christians
seeking to avoid deportation wear ankle monitors to
ensure compliance with court orders.
Many Indonesians came to New Jersey
on tourist visas.
Now, the church is taking on another role: sanctuary
for five Indonesian Christians facing deportation and
fearful of religious persecution in their homeland.
“When I got here, I felt safety,” said Arthur Jemmy,
36, an Indonesian who had been scheduled to be
deported on April 30. “I feel really terrified to go
back to Indonesia.”
The situation has challenged the church’s co-pastor,
the Rev. Seth Kaper-Dale, to weigh the law against his
moral and religious beliefs.
“You can read all sorts of stuff about the trouble
you can get in if you prevent the government from
doing its job on immigration,” Mr. Kaper-Dale, 36,
said. “We have to stand with the oppressed even if the
law of the land sometimes doesn’t exactly coincide
with the teachings of peace and justice and love found
Indonesian Christians in central New Jersey
began seeking Mr. Kaper-Dale’s help a decade ago. Most
had left Indonesia on tourist visas in the late 1990s
and early 2000s and then stayed in the United States
after their visas expired, finding jobs in the
region’s warehouses and factories. They feared
returning to Indonesia
because of religious persecution by that country’s
Muslim majority, they said. All filed asylum
applications, but they were rejected by the American
government because they had filed too long after their
In 2009, Mr. Kaper-Dale, who has been the church’s
co-pastor, with his wife, Stephanie, since 2001,
brokered an unusual agreement with immigration
authorities: The Indonesians, then numbering 72, would
be allowed to stay temporarily and work, but the
permission could be rescinded at any moment.
With the extra time, Mr. Kaper-Dale hoped, the
Indonesians would be able to secure permanent legal
status, either through the courts or changes in
immigration laws in Washington.
In any case, he said, the Indonesians should be
eligible for long-term relief under the Obama
administration’s policy of focusing its deportation
efforts on serious criminals and immigrants who pose a
threat to public safety.
But late last year, the Department of Homeland
Security began ordering the Indonesians to appear at
its Newark office,
prepared to return to Indonesia.
Despite aggressive lobbying by Mr. Kaper-Dale and
other advocates for immigrants, the deportations
began. On Jan. 3, a member of the group, Freddy
Pangau, was sent back to Indonesia.
In the weeks that followed, another five were
On March 1, the day Saul Timisela was scheduled to be
deported, Mr. Kaper-Dale opened the doors of the
church to him. Mr. Timisela was wearing an electronic
monitor that immigration officials had attached to his
ankle weeks earlier to ensure compliance with court
dates and the deportation order.
“Today, we will cry out to God, and cry out to the
president, asking that he stop deporting Indonesian
Christian refugees who are neither criminals nor
egregious immigration offenders,” Mr. Kaper-Dale wrote
in an e-mail to reporters.
In interviews, the Indonesians said they were eager
to find a path to legal status in the United States and
continued to fear religious persecution in Indonesia.
In a recent report, Human Rights Watch said that the
Indonesian authorities had “failed to adequately
address increasing incidents of mob violence” directed
at religious minorities, including Christians, and
that local governments had closed hundreds of
Mr. Timisela, 45, said that in 1998, several months
before he left Indonesia,
anti-Christian rioters decapitated his cousin’s
husband, a pastor, and burned down his church. When
Mr. Timisela arrived in the United States
to attend a youth conference, his family urged him to
“I hope they understand what we’re doing here,” he
said of the American government. “We’re looking for a
better life, freedom of worship.”
Immigration officials said they were reviewing
appeals for prosecutorial discretion on a
“case-by-case basis,” suspending the deportation of
some of the Indonesians who posed no threat to public
safety and had strong familial and community ties in
the United States.
Ross Feinstein, a spokesman for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, an arm of the Homeland Security
Department, said the agency had extended stays of
removal for 25 of the Indonesian Christians in central
New Jersey since last fall “due to the specific
circumstances” of their cases.
Mr. Kaper-Dale is banking on the passage of a bill in
the House of Representatives that would allow certain
Indonesians who fled persecution in their homeland
from 1997 to 2002 to resubmit asylum claims that had
been denied because they missed the one-year filing
On the bulletin board in his office, the pastor has
posted a large spread sheet. It lists all the
Indonesian Christians who have sought his help and the
status of their cases, from their immigration
registration numbers to the citizenship of their
children, the status of their spouses and the date of
their scheduled deportations.
“I used to have to keep very careful track, but now I
have it in my head,” Mr. Kaper-Dale said. “I know
their lives — inside and out.”
years following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s
Baha’is faced escalating persecution. Hundreds were
executed or “disappeared,” and thousands were
imprisoned or denied employment. Their crime: living
in a rigidly theocratic state but believing in the
ultimate unification of all religions.
At the United Nations last fall, Canada’s Foreign
Affairs Minister John Baird cited the plight of Iran’s
Baha’is, women, Christians and dissident Muslims while
announcing plans for a Canadian Office of Religious
Freedom. Six months later, it’s still not entirely
clear how the office will operate or what it will do
beyond a vague mandate to address religious
persecution around the world. Baird continues to hold
consultations with religious leaders in Canada
Many of them have high hopes that the new office will
fulfil Baird’s pledge at the UN “to defend the
vulnerable, to challenge the aggressor, to protect and
promote human rights and human dignity, at home and
abroad.” Amid the hopeful voices, though, are
accusations that consultations haven’t been broad or
transparent enough, and fears that the office may
simply be a ploy to lure religious voters.
Few dispute that religious persecution is a problem.
According to the U.S.-based Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life, restrictions on and hostilities over
religion affect 2.2 billion people, a third of the
Religious persecution ranges from hostility between
faiths — such as attacks by radical Islamists on
Coptic Christians in Egypt — to state-sanctioned
suppression of all religions (as in North Korea),
minority religions (Christians in Saudi Arabia) or any
believers seen as enemies of the state (Jehovah’s
Witnesses and some evangelical Christians in Eritrea).
Official restrictions on religion range from France’s ban on
wearing face-covering veils, such as the Islamic
niqab, to death sentences in Iran
for abandoning the Muslim faith. Almost a third of the
world’s nations have laws against apostasy, blasphemy
and defamation of their dominant religion. A handful
enforce them vigorously.
where all religions are subject to state scrutiny and
control, the banned Falun Gong alleges that
practitioners of the movement have been used as live
organ donors and then executed. China
has consistently denied the charges.
In 2010, Christians were estimated to comprise 33
percent of the world’s population. The Pew Forum study
found that Christians were harassed in more countries
— 130 — than any other faith group. Muslims, harassed
in 117 countries, were second. And although Jews make
up only about one percent of the world’s population,
they are fourth on the list, harassed in 75 countries.
Don Hutchinson, vice-president of the Evangelical
Fellowship of Canada (EFC), was a panelist at the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade’s initial consultation on the proposed Office of
Religious Freedom in Ottawa last fall.
Subsequent media coverage implied that evangelical
Christians were guiding the office’s design.
The notion that Stephen Harper’s Conservative
government has teamed up with Christian conservatives
is not new. In her 2010 book, The Armageddon
Factor, author Marci McDonald outlines how
Harper — who grew up in the UnitedChurch but
now attends an evangelical Christian and Missionary
Alliance church — has carefully nurtured those
Hutchinson, a lawyer with a long record of
pro-Christian human rights work, brushes off those
concerns and denies reports that the consultation was
closed or secretive. He also says it’s natural that as
a Christian and the chair of a group of evangelicals
working on the issue of persecution (the Religious
Liberty Commission), he is mainly concerned about
Christians. “So, we’re out engaging on the persecution
of Christians,” says Hutchinson, “but
I can tell you that the Baha’i community is engaging
for the Baha’is and . . . that the different Muslim
communities are engaging on behalf of their
communities. And we can go down the list.”
Len Rudner, director of community relations and
outreach for the newly created Centre for Israel
and Jewish Affairs, calls the proposed new office “a
“This is certainly more than simply speaking out
because we believe our community has something to
gain,” he says. “It’s not just about us.”
If Baird’s office is attempting to push only the
concerns of certain groups, it’s covering its tracks
exceptionally well. In his speech to the UN, after
promising to stand up for persecuted minority
Buddhists and Muslims in Burma, Baird
mentioned concerns about “gays and lesbians threatened
with criminalization of their sexuality in Uganda.”
That’s not a statement all evangelical churches would
encourage. As well, Canadian representatives of Falun
Gong have been welcomed at consultations, something
that is sure to annoy Baird’s counterparts in Beijing
when he travels there to promote trade.
Joining Christian, Jewish and Baha’i groups at last
fall’s consultation were Shia, Sunni and Ahmadiyya
Muslims, plus Hindus and Buddhists. Due in part to
travel budget cutbacks, the Canadian Council of
Churches monitored the event by Internet. The UnitedChurch
sent Ottawa Presbytery staffer Rev. Lillian Roberts.
If the creation of the office had any hidden agenda,
she says, it wasn’t apparent at the consultation.
Still, says Imam Abdul Hai Patel, past co-ordinator of
the Canadian Council of Imams, mainstream Muslim
groups like his were not invited to the Ottawa
meeting. He attended a later Toronto-area consultation
along with Roman Catholic Cardinal Thomas Collins.
In the government’s defence, Muslim groups are
numerous and varied. Reaching all of them is not easy.
The Muslim Canadian Congress, which did attend the
consultation, claims to represent the majority of
Canadian Muslims — who, according to the group’s
founder, Toronto-based author and radio host Tarek
Fatah, defy stereotypes by rarely attending mosques,
by opposing Shariah law and by not wearing the hijab.
Fatah, who bills himself as an enemy of militant
Islam, says the proposed Office of Religious Freedom
is “quite timely.” And he’s blunt about why. “The main
issue here is we’re not talking about the mistreatment
of, say, Muslim immigrants in Greece,
but the abysmal condition of Christians in Muslim
lands,” says Fatah. He chides liberal Christian groups
for their reluctance to speak out against the
persecution of other Christians.
Announcing the beginning of World Interfaith Harmony
Week earlier this year, United Church Moderator Mardi
Tindal quoted the United Nations’ acknowledgment that
“Our world is rife with religious tension and, sadly,
mistrust, dislike and hatred.” Yet, as Fatah suggests,
is one of those groups that rarely speak out against
specific instances of persecution of fellow
Christians. Gail Allan, in charge of the
denomination’s interchurch and interfaith work, says
the church is committed “to be attending to
persecution of all communities of faith, wherever that
might take place,” and works through the World Council
of Churches and its own global partners wherever
religious persecution is seen as a problem.
As Allan also points out, UnitedChurch
analysis often sees non-religious forces behind what
seems to be religious persecution. Early in 2011, for
example, the church wrote Coptic Christian church
leaders to express concerns over the bombing of a
Coptic church in Alexandria, Egypt.
The letter noted that church bombings in Egypt and Iraq
had been “condemned by Muslims and Christians alike
and are not at their root expressions of religious
hatred or intolerance.” Allan says the ongoing tension
between Copts and majority Muslims in the Middle East is “part of a
political, economic and social conflict that needs to
“I have been challenged by the Jewish community . . .
over the years for a general Christian inattention to
the persecution of Christians around the world,” says
Canadian Council of Churches general secretary Rev.
Karen Hamilton. “That’s not to say there are any easy
answers, but maybe we need to pay a little more
FormerUnitedChurch moderator Very Rev.
Lois Wilson says the proposed Office of Religious
Freedom “sounds wonderful” — during her four years in
as a senator, she tried unsuccessfully to persuade the
foreign affairs department to establish an advisory
group on religion. She also learned a thing or two
about how Ottawa
works. “I can’t help but feel that this was put in
place to get votes,” says Wilson. “That’s
the only reason they do anything, including the
Liberals and the NDP.”
| Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2012
is widening the war on al-Qaida in Yemen,
expanding drone strikes against the terror network a
year after the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama
counterterrorist forces will now be allowed to target
individuals found to be plotting attacks on U.S.
territory, even if U.S.
intelligence cannot identify the person by name, two
practice required militants to be identified as part
of a lengthy legal vetting process. Now, tracking an
individual in the act of commanding al-Qaida fighters
or planning an attack on U.S.
territory or American individuals can land the person
on the shoot-to-kill list, officials said.
this means in practice is there are times when
counterterrorism professionals can assess with high
confidence someone is an AQAP leader, even if they
can't tell us by name who that individual is," one of
the officials said, referring to al-Qaida in the
House did not approve wider targeting of groups of
al-Qaida foot soldiers, a practice sometimes employed
by the CIA in Pakistan,
and strikes will only be carried out with Yemeni
government approval, officials said.
policy will widen the war against AQAP, Yemen's
al-Qaida branch, which has gained territory in
fighting against the Yemeni government… as al-Qaida's
branch is seen as gaining ground against a government
that is allied with the Americans.
year of political turmoil in Yemen, since the start of
revolts linked to last year's Arab Spring, is "making
it harder for them (the Yemeni government) to take a
focused effort against al-Qaida" one of the officials
said. "So these are counterterrorism tools designed to
interests and homeland."
expanded strikes would not be used in support of the
Yemeni government's fight against internal opponents,
the official added.
has carried out 23 airstrikes in Yemen
since last May, with twelve of those strikes in 2012,
according to The Long War Journal, a website that
counterterrorism and militant activity.
Copywrite 2012 AP
This article can be read in its entirety at
on terror is over," or so claims an unnamed senior
State Department official, as reported by National
Journal's Michael Hirsh in his recent article "The
Post al-Qaida Era."
Really? Well, if the war is over, I must have missed
the peace treaty signing ceremony. I also haven't
noticed a decline in incendiary rhetoric, or the
disarmament -- or at least laying down of arms -- that
usually accompanies the end of war. Does this mean we
can do away with full-body scanners and TSA pat-downs?
constitutional amendment declaring that corporations
aren't people, after all
It's not only Republicans looking for constitutional
amendments these days.
DFLers (Democratic Farmer Labor Party members) in the
Minnesota House and Senate have introduced bills
asking Congress to call a constitutional convention to
propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that
would clarify that corporations are not people.
There's been much consternation on this point,
particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a
corporate political spending case that corporations
have a First Amendment right to free speech.
The bill introduced by DFLers wants the
constitutional amendment to say:
rights protected by the Constitution of the United States
are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited
liability companies, and others established by the
laws of any state, the United States,
or any foreign state shall have no rights under
this Constitution and are subject to regulation by
the people, through federal, state, or local
privileges of artificial entities shall be
determined by the people, through federal, state, or
local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent
Federal, state, and local government shall regulate,
limit or prohibit contributions
and expenditures, including a candidate's own
contributions and expenditures, for the purpose
of influencing in any way the election of any
candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, state, and local government shall require
that any permissible contributions and
expenditures be publicly disclosed.
judiciary shall not construe the spending of money
to influence elections to be speech under the
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be
construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
In the state House, the bill was introduced and
referred to committee.
Catholic Bishops Urge
‘Campaign’ for Religious Freedom
April 12, 2012
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops issued a
proclamation on Thursday calling for every priest,
parish and layperson to participate in “great national
campaign” to defend religious liberty, which they said
is “under attack, both at home and abroad.”
In particular they urged every diocese to hold a
“Fortnight for Freedom” during the two weeks leading
up to the Fourth of July, for parishioners to study,
pray and take public action to fight what they see as
the government’s attempts to curtail religious
“To be Catholic and American should mean not having
to choose one over the other,” said the statement,
issued by the bishops ad hoc committee on religious
For more than half a year, the bishops have put the
religious liberty issue front and center, but it has
not yet galvanized the Catholic laity and has even
further polarized the church’s liberal and
conservative flanks. In an election year, liberal
Catholics have accused the bishops of making the
church an arm of the Republican Party in the drive to
defeat President Obama — an accusation that the
“This ought not to be a partisan issue,” the bishops
say in their statement in a section addressed to
political leaders. “The Constitution is not for
Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for
all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be
led by our elected representatives to ensure that it
In the document, the bishops seek to explain that
their alarm is not only about the mandate in the
health reform act that requires even Catholic colleges
and hospitals to have insurance plans that cover birth
control. They cite seven examples of what they say are
violations of religious freedom, including immigration
laws in several states that they say make it illegal
to minister to illegal immigrants.
They also assert that the government has violated the
religious freedom of Catholics by cutting off
contracts to Catholic agencies. Several states have
denied financing to Catholic agencies that refused to
place foster children with gay parents. And the
federal government refused to reauthorize a grant to a
Catholic immigration organization that served victims
of sex trafficking because as a Catholic group, it
would not provide or refer women to services for
abortion and birth control.
Quoting from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s
“Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” the bishops say that
unjust laws should be either changed or resisted. “In
the face of an unjust law,” the bishops wrote, “an
accommodation is not to be sought. If we face today
the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America,
in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the
courage not to obey them.”
Youcef Nadarkhani Spends 35th Birthday Behind Bars
Law and Justice
By Tiffany Barrans
April 11, 2012
Today, is Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s birthday, and
our sources in Iran
confirm that he is still alive. Thirty-five years ago,
on the 23rd of the Farvardin month of the Persian
Calendar, Youcef was born in Iran.
This is the third birthday that Pastor Youcef has
been forced to celebrate behind bars, condemned to
death in Iran
for apostasy – becoming a Christian in a regime
governed by Shariah (Islamic) law.
Tomorrow, marks exactly two and a half years of
imprisonment – 913 days illegally held in prison for
Both the Iranian Constitution and the International
Declaration of Human Rights, of which Iran
is a signatory, not only forbid executing someone for
their faith but expressly protect religious freedom.
Despite these assurances of religious freedom, Iran
continues to imprison Pastor Youcef indefinitely for
charges related solely to the exercise of his faith.
Today, Christians and supporters of Pastor Youcef all
around the world are holding a fasting and prayer
vigil for the persecuted pastor to bring attention to
his plight. Just last week, hundreds of Christians and
supporters of religious liberty attended a vigil and
march for Pastor Youcef’s release in Hamburg, Germany.
These are just a few examples of the increasing
international pressure being placed on Iran
to release Pastor Youcef. Nations like the United Kingdom, Brazil, and many
others are directly demanding that Iran
immediately and unconditionally release Pastor Youcef.
The ACLJ’s Tweet for Youcef campaign is now reaching
nearly 1.5 million Twitter accounts around the world
each day with updates about Pastor Youcef. His story
has reached over 91 percent of the United Nations
member states, including Iran.
The Tweet for Youcef Brazil campaign
Portuguese also continues to see tremendous growth.
Even with this increasing international pressure on Iran
for Pastor Youcef’s release, it is critically
important to remember that Pastor Youcef is still in
an Iranian prison under a death sentence that could be
carried out at any time. The only reason that he is
still alive today is because of the international
outcry against this abhorrent situation. It is not
enough that Iran
remove his death sentence, rather we must demand his
ultimate and unconditional freedom.
Please continue to pray for Pastor Youcef. As a
Birthday present for Pastor Youcef and symbol of
solidarity for those persecuted for their faith,
please let the world know that you support Pastor
Youcef by signing up to Tweet for Youcef today.
His accusations of
judicial activism are off the mark
April 5, 2012
years of barely mentioning Obamacare due to its
unpopularity in the polls, it is now seemingly all
President Obama and his aides find themselves talking
about. But instead of defending the mandate’s
constitutionality — the main issue in question for the
Supreme Court — the President unwisely decided to
launch an attack on the court itself.
At a press conference on Monday, Obama expressed the
belief that the Court would not take an
“unprecedented, extraordinary step” by overturning the
law. He then went on to caution the “unelected” court
against reaching any other conclusion, and spoke of
concerns about judicial activism.
In fact, overturning unconstitutional laws is exactly
the job of the Supreme Court.
But the real story is how he went after the justices.
This is rare behavior for a President, but it’s not
the first time Obama has ventured into this taboo
territory. In January 2010, the President complained
in his State of the Union Address about the court’s
decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election
Commission, holding that the government may not keep
corporations or unions from spending money to support
or oppose candidates in elections.
Judicial activism is seeing things in the
Constitution that aren’t there just to get a specific
result. The Commerce Clause is in the Constitution,
but so is the 10th Amendment, meaning that whatever
isn’t written down here is left to the states. While
Obama might think he has no option but to demagogue
the Supreme Court should his law get struck down, he
has no business in meddling in its affairs, playing
politics with matters of pure law.
The Constitution is designed to limit the vast growth
of government. The Founders put many checks and
balances in place to protect liberty and impede the
progressive agenda of expanded government. The real
activism is on the part of liberals who want to
subvert the original meaning of the Constitution.
The judicial system, it should be noted, isn’t taking
the President’s comments lightly. Following the
President’s controversial comments, a three-judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit, ordered the Justice Department to answer by
Thursday whether the Obama administration believes
that the courts have the right to strike down a
federal law (Marbury v. Madison). The
whole purpose of the Court, since Marbury v. Madison,
is to make sure that laws enacted by Congress do not
conflict with the Constitution. As Justice John
Marshall said of Marbury in 1803, if the Constitution
is not superior to an ordinary law, why have a
It makes for a real conundrum for the President in a
tough election year, but it’s one of his own making.
Obama is asking the court to radically rethink the
Constitution and read the Commerce Clause as giving
him unprecedented power. He is turning the 10th
Amendment into a guideline. And he is now putting the
court in a position where it is reviewing two
centuries of established precedent, all while he
criticizes that same court.
If this mandate is struck down, he will have to
defend more than his words. He’ll have to defend how
he spent the last four years wasting his time, and
ours, with a law that was never really constitutional.
Is the Health Care Law
Constitutional? No, Strike It Down
DAVID J. PORTER, VISION FOR CENTER & VALUES
Editor’s note: A version of this article
first appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. Neither Porter nor his firm are
involved in the ACA litigation.
This summer, the Supreme Court will decide whether
Congress violated the Constitution when it enacted the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which
contains an “individual mandate” requiring virtually
every American to purchase health insurance. Based on
the Constitution’s text and structure, and judicial
interpretations of the relevant provisions, the
mandate should be struck down.
is one of 26 states to have attacked the ACA’s
constitutionality. They seek to uphold the
Constitution’s basic division of power between the
national government and state governments.
The framers and those who ratified the Constitution
withheld from Congress a plenary police power to enact
any law that it deems desirable. Instead, the powers
granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution
are limited and enumerated. The 10th Amendment
emphasizes this structure by affirming that all powers
not given to Congress “are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
Given that background, the states’ argument against
ACA is simple: Even under the broadest interpretation,
Congress’ enumerated powers do not authorize a federal
law that forces individuals to purchase health
ACA’s defenders argue that Congress’ authority to
impose the mandate is granted by any of three
constitutional provisions: the Commerce Clause, the
Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Taxing Clause.
However, under the original understanding of those
provisions and the more expansive interpretation given
to them by the Supreme Court in recent decades, the
mandate is an unprecedented assertion of federal
control that violates the framers’ constitutional
As Congress itself said in the ACA, the mandate
purports to regulate each individual’s “economic and
financial decision” whether to purchase health
insurance. But if that is a valid exercise of Commerce
Clause power, then there is literally no end to
Congress’ power over individuals.
Finally, ACA’s defenders argue that even if the
individual mandate is not supported by the Commerce
Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is
nevertheless constitutional because it is a tax. For
example, the penalty for noncompliance is calculated
as a percentage of household income for income tax
purposes, and it is self-declared on the taxpayer’s
income tax return.
Congress foreclosed this argument by separating the
individual mandate from the penalty. The mandate
itself offends the constitutional separation of
powers; it cannot be saved by pointing to a penalty
for noncompliance. In any event, the monetary fine was
deliberately structured as a “penalty” and not as a
“tax.” Congress could have provided health insurance
for all Americans by invoking its Article I power
“[t]o lay and collect Taxes,” but following President
Barack Obama’s lead, it refused to do so for political
reasons.The federal government's Taxing clause
argument has been rejected by every court that has
reviewed the ACA, and the Supreme court is not likely
to adopt it, either. Nor should it.
The Moral Liberal Guest
Contributor, David J. Porter, J.D., is an
attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, a
trustee of Grove CityCollege, and
a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values.
The opinions expressed by the author are his own.
Our Constitution (Amendment I)
says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
Ladies and gentlemen, our
government, under the leadership of a socialist
agenda that is determined to shred our beloved
Constitution, thus destroying our freedoms.
We live in a very dark era, our
national media have determined not to present real
truth in news, or they report with such bias as to
nullify the facts. We are watching a complicit
Senate give right-of-way to the Executive Branch of
Government to control our nation.
We now have a nation being
directed and dictated to by about 200 un-elected
czars that are proud socialists and/or sodomites.
God help us to stand up, speak up, and act as the
ethical, moral nation we once were. Believers are to
be salt and light.
What is Freedom? Where do we get
our freedoms? God has given us our freedoms and we
have codified them, “…All men are created equal and
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness…”
Senator Rand Paul said, “Without
the right to life, there can be no liberty or
pursuit of happiness.”
Ladies and gentlemen, God has
provided us with the greatest nation and
Constitution on the face of the earth. He has
charged us with the responsibility of vigilance,
commitment and involvement in the protection of our
What is freedom?
FREEDOM ISa raw milk
farmer not fearful of the Gestapo breaking into his
FREEDOM ISpraying in
Jesus’name without fear or intimidation.
FREEDOM ISa child
who can take a sack lunch to school without fear of
it being taken.
FREEDOM IS being able to fly the
American flag without breaking a law.
FREEDOM IS to be able to read the
Bible in a public classroom without arrest.
FREEDOM IS being able to reject
Shariah Law as unconstitutional without threats from
FREEDOM IS going to be at night
without fear of invasion by U.S.
officials under the NDAA, which will give the
President the sole authority without Congressional
approval, if deemed “a national emergency”.
FREEDOM IS openness of our
government in Washington,
rather than Pravda style dictatorship.
FREEDOM IS deciding our own food
menu, diet and medical care without governmental
intervention or directive.
FREEDOM IS allowing every child
conceived to have “life” protection under our
FREEDOM IS living in a land where
the government cannot intrude into the church.
Separation of church and state is
Biblically God-based rather than mandated by a law
of rulers. King Uzziah entered into the temple to
offer sacrificethough eighty one priests begged him not to,
as is the fitting duty and responsibility of the
church. Uzziah did it anyway, and God killed him,
therefore we must say, “Government! Hands off God’s
church! Stop the marginalization of believers!”
FREEDOM IS the ability to render
to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God,
without the government (city, state or national)
using back door fees to rob God’s offering plate.
Where would America
be today without our churches?
FREEDOM IS having a government
that is restrained by the U.S. Constitution:
American law and NO international, foreign, or
Koranic-Shariah law in our courts.
FREEDOM IS having our educational
system returned to our state and local leaders from
the czars in Washington.
FREEDOM IS not having the
government mandate faith/religious, Christian people
to have to choose between conscience, constitution
or confiscation by government. Our churches, church
schools and universities should not be forced to
provide abortion or contraception against our
Biblical, theological or spiritual convictions.
FREEDOM IS not being forced to
provide murder by abortion at taxpayers’ expense.
FREEDOM IS having Presidential
candidates provide a legitimate birth certificate
and proof of citizenship before running for office.
FREEDOM IS knowing that we have
Constitutional Second Amendment right to keep and
FREEDOM IS knowing that our
children in school are being taught TRUE American
history without the distortions, deletions, and the
promotions of Islam in our textbooks.
FREEDOM IS knowing that our fee
simple title dees to our properties are secure
without fear of the EPA Gestapo seizing it to
protect a snail or rodent.
FREEDOM IS in the final analysis
knowing God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, and NOT
being fearful to call the name of Jesus from the
FREEDOM IS not apologizing for
breaking things and killing people in a just war.
The book of Daniel, Chapter Three
tells us of three young men who refused to bow to a
law. They were thrown in the fiery furnace, but
because of their faith in God, they did NOT burn!
Daniel was thrown into the den of lions for refusing
to obey a godless law. The lions became his pillow-
God delivered him!
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I read
you some quotes from our founding fathers-
“Without freedom of thought there
can be no such thing as liberty without freedom of
speech.” –Benjamin Franklin
“Those who would give up
essential liberties to purchase temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin
“If it be asked, What is the most
sacred duty and the greatest source of our security
in a republic? The answer would be an inviolable
respect for the Constitution and laws- the first
growing out of the last- a sacred respect for the
Constitutional law is the vital principle, th
sustaining energy of a free government.”
- Alexander Hamilton
“When the people fear their
government there is tyranny; when government fears
the people, there is liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
“The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance” – Thomas Jefferson
“In matters of style, swim with
the current. In matters of principle, stand firm
like a rock. – Thomas Jefferson
Ladies and Gentlemen- Let’s send
a message to Washington,
Loud and Clear- “We the People”:
WE WILL not surrender our
Constitution on the account of convenience.
WE WILL not sacrifice our
convictions on the altar of coercion.
WE WILL not submit our church
rights to the rule of unelected czars in Washington.
WE WILL not be silent and allow
socialism to subvert our Constitution.
WE WILL be vigilant, visible,
vocal and vote in every election.
WE WILL have “Revolution” at the
The Bible is very clear in Acts
5:29 that “we ought to obey God rather than man.”
May God Bless You and God
Christian Missions Play Key Role Amid Rumors of 'New
From The Christian Post
By Luiza Oleszczuk, Christian Post Reporter
March 13, 2012
As reports coming from Sudan paint an increasingly
gruesome picture of the Khartoum government allegedly
planning to wipe out the country's ethnic populations
and non-Muslims in the southern region of the Nuba
Mountains, local Christian missions are playing an
important role, as even the United Nations has no
access to the country's embattled southern regions.
Experts have been warning that Sudan's Islamist
government might be planning a genocide comparable to
the one conducted in the country's western region of Darfur between 2003 and 2004,
when the Arab government targeted black tribes. It is
estimated that 300,000 people died at the time. The
government is reported to be conducting systematical
killings of the people (including allegedly using air
bombings) of the NubaMountains, a
region in the south of the country that is
approximately 30 percent Christian. Targeted are also
the inhabitants of another southern region called the
The south of overwhelmingly Muslim Sudan used to be
traditionally Christian and ethnically tribal African,
as opposed to the mostly Arab north. Most of the south
seceded in 2011 and formed South
Sudan. But many Christians and African
tribes, which are being targeted, still remain north
of the border, where they reportedly face a constant
While the Islamist government forces were ravaging
the south, including burning churches and killing
pastors, foreign missionaries started entering the
region. One of them was Samaritan's Purse, one of the
most prominent missionary ministries in the world,
administered by the Rev. Franklin Graham, his
daughter, Cissie Graham Lynch told The Christian Post
This mission, related to Billy Graham's Evangelistic
Association (BGEA), opened a Bible school in the NubaMountains region in SouthKordofanState in
2007, after many local pastors were killed, with the
purpose of educating a new generation of Christian
"They built Bible college there because during the
war the northern part of Sudan
came down and burnt hundreds of churches," Graham
Lynch told CP. She and her father attended the first
graduation of the students there. "Samaritan's Purse
built many of the churches back, but realized that
many of the pastors were killed, so they built a Bible
college there to be able to train pastors."
The Bible school was bombed on Feb. 1 this year by
the Sudanese air force, the ministry claims. The
mission also has a camp in South
Sudan, which has been experiencing
occasional bombings from the north through the past
year. A Samaritan's Purse refugee camp there was
bombed in November.
Many people of the NubaMountains
region have been fleeing Sudan to South Sudan, and Samaritan's
Purse has been the first foreign organization to
establish camps able to accommodate the refugees, a
source told CP recently.
"It's horrific what these Christians in southern Sudan
went through," Graham Lynch told CP.
"We need to be praying for these people because this
is a serious issue that cannot be ignored," she added.
Samaritan's Purse offices are in a constant state of
prayer for the missionaries who risk their lives on
the ground in Sudan
and South Sudan, as
well as other missions, Graham Lynch said. Those
people are there "by God's will," she added.
"That is the major part of our ministry – praying for
our staff members. Praying for the situation and
praying for the people of Sudan,"
Another U.S.-based Christian mission with a prominent
presence in Sudan
is Persecution Projects Foundation.
With missions in several locations across the country,
Persecution Projects Foundation has been bringing
relief, the Gospel and advocacy services to the
persecuted people, its president told CP recently.
The presence of foreign missionaries seems
particularly important given that the Khartoum
government is reportedly not allowing
official relief organizations, including the United
Nations, into the region. The U.N., the U.S.
and other world bodies and groups have condemned the
attacks that are taking place against civilians.
"I recently returned from several days in South Sudan
– specifically Yida refugee camp, where I
encountered bone-chilling stories of the nightmare
unfolding in the Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
states just north of the border in Sudan," Rep. Frank
R. Wolf (R –Va.) who visited a refugee camp in
southern Sudan (featuring 25,000 people at the time) wrote in a blog last week. "In
speaking with the refugees in the camp, I heard echoes
– accounts of ethnic cleansing, mass murder and
rape of innocent civilians in the region."
Wolf recounted stories the local Nuba people told
him, including those of rape and murder, as well as
soldiers saying: "We don't want anyone who says they
are a Christian in this village."
A former top U.N. humanitarian official in Sudan,
Mukesh Kapila, warned last week that Khartoum's
military is carrying out crimes against humanity in
the region that remind him of Darfur. Kapila
reportedly recalled seeing military planes striking
villagers, the destruction of food stocks and
"literally a scorched-earth policy," upon his recent
"Darfur was the
first genocide of the 21st century," he told The
Associated Press. "And the second genocide of the 21st
century may very well be taking place now, in the NubaMountains."
The former U.N. official also said the NubaMountains
region is facing an oncoming hunger crisis because the
region's residents were not working the fields for
fear of airstrikes.
Recently U.N. has called upon the governments of Sudan and South Sudan to pick up
non-violent efforts to settle the status of an
oil-rich border region called Abyei, which is a
subject of dispute between the two countries, on the
economic and political fronts.
But the NubaMountains
violence seems to be inspired chiefly by ethnic and
is ethnically 70 percent Arab, with the rest of the
population being indigenous African peoples like the
Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Beja, Nuba, and Dinka Ngok.
The country had been in the state of civil war for the
past two decades largely on ethnic and religious
grounds, until 2005, when the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) was signed, overseen by the United States.
In July 2011, the southern, mostly Christian territory
seceded, establishing South
Sudan. That summer, the government of Sudan,
which is a country that is 70 percent Muslim, broke
the peace agreement and began targeting the ethnic
Nuba people in the south, as well as Christians and
any apostates from Islam, according to reports. The
Nuba population numbers about 500,000, of which about
30 percent are Christians of various denominations.
In 2008, the prosecution of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) filed 10 charges of war crimes
incumbent President Omar al-Bashir, three counts of
genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of
murder. Al-Bashir was accused of masterminding and
implementing "a plan to destroy in substantial part"
three tribal groups in Darfur
because of their ethnicity. Warrants for the arrest
were issued by in 2009 and 2010. Nevertheless,
al-Bashir remains the current president of Sudan.
Groening and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 2/28/2012
A legal expert, a former Navy chaplain, and a
pro-family leader agree that a Pennsylvania
judge should be removed from the bench for throwing
out an assault case lodged against a Muslim who
attacked an atheist dressed as a zombie
Muhammad at a Halloween parade last year.
Judge Mark Martin is an Iraq war veteran and
a convert to Islam, according to GeorgeWashingtonUniversity
law professor Jonathon Turley. The incident, recorded
on video, occurred on October 11, 2011 at the
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Halloween parade. Ernie
Perce, an atheist, was attacked by Talaag Elbayomy, a
Muslim, because of the former's costume.
Judge Martin threw out video evidence of the assault,
dismissed the testimony of an eyewitness officer, and
then lectured the atheist victim about the
sensitivities of the Muslim culture. He stated in
court that Elbayomy was obligated to attack the victim
because of his culture and religion.
"They are so immersed in it," Martin says in a
recording made available to the media. "And what
you've done is you've completely trashed their
essence, their being. They find it very, very, very
offensive. I'm a Muslim. I find it
offensive." [Editor's note: Judge Martin has told
Associated Press that he has received hundreds of
calls, many under the mistaken impression he is a
Muslim. He says he is, in fact, a Lutheran.]
Gordon Klingenschmitt is a former Navy
chaplain who was forced out of the service for
publicly praying in Jesus' name while in uniform. He
now runs "The Pray In Jesus Name Project" and says the
judge is basically conveying the message that if you
mock Muhammad, you deserve to get beaten.
"He freed the Muslim attacker and said basically it's
okay to choke atheists if they insult Islam," he
Klingenschmitt also finds it outrageous that Judge
Martin told Perce that mocking Muhammad in Muslim
countries is punishable by death.
"This is a different country. We live in America
where we have a free society," the former Navy
chaplain points out. "And Christians have historically
protected the rights of minorities to express their
religious or anti-religious views."
So he believes Martin should be removed from the
bench, and Mat Staver of Liberty
Counsel agrees. The latter tells OneNewsNow Judge
Martin's decision an indication of what may be coming
if sharia is used in the U.S.
judge actually had the audacity to rule in favor of
the attacker, saying that the attacker was compelled
to attack this individual because it was an insult to
Islam and the Prophet Muhammad," Staver reports.
And Diane Gramley, head of the American Family
Association (AFA) of Pennsylvania,
suggests that the judge's religion "tainted" how he
looks at the law.
"That definitely changes everything, because if he's a
Muslim convert, then that definitely has tainted his
view of the law, and he is looking at sharia law and
making his decision," she offers. "You cannot look at
a situation where a Muslim has physically harassed,
physically attacked an atheist -- granted the guy's an
atheist who's in a parade; he's dressed as a Muslim --
but that's not against the law."
Staver finds the ruling to be almost unbelievable.
"This situation is one involving a judge that needs to
be removed from the bench," the attorney suggests. "He
is clearly instituting sharia from the bench, using
sharia law as a basis to ultimately acquit a person
who actually committed an assault and a battery
against an individual."
Professor Turley also notes that another atheist,
dressed as a zombie Pope, was marching beside the
zombie Muhammad, but no outraged Catholics attacked
"If a Christian had been doing the harassing, I don't
believe the judge would have dismissed those charges,"
Gramley contends. "I think in this case, Judge Martin
is showing preference to the Muslim."
Staver concludes that this is the type of case that
has prompted several states, including Oklahoma,
to work on legislation to prohibit courts from using
sharia or foreign laws and court rulings as a basis
for decisions in American courts. In Oklahoma's
case, however, the measure was overturned in federal
sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will
make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile,
hoping he will eat you last — but eat you he will.”
— Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan was the consummate collector of great
quotations. The one about the crocodile was borrowed
and adapted from Winston Churchill. “Winston Churchill
took a dim view of neutrals. For him there were only
two options in the face of Hitler: fight or surrender.
Each neutral, Churchill said on 20 January 1940,
‘hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the
crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the
storm will pass before their turn comes to be
devoured. But I fear — I fear greatly — the storm will
What was true of Hitler and Nazism is equally true of
radical Islam. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
brought the crocodile story up to date when he spoke
before the 66th session of the General Assembly at the
United Nations on September 23, 2011, following
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ speech:
And these critics continue to press Israel to make
far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s
They praise those who unwittingly feed the
insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as
bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of
us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy
barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very
least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.
Appeasers to the Islamic worldview keep telling us
that only a small percentage of Muslims are radicals.
Some say it’s about ten percent. I’m not great at
math, but I do know that ten percent of one billion is
100 million. That’s a lot of radical Muslims who want
to see every aspect of Western culture destroyed.
What has President Obama’s apology for burning
already Muslim-desecrated Qurans done for America?
“Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the
wound of us — the Muslims — caused by the Burning of
Quran in the US,”
the commander of Iran’s
Basij force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqd said.
He then added: “Their apology can be accepted only by
hanging their commanders; hanging their commanders
means an apology.”
The Islam world always saw President Obama as a dupe,
a useful idiot, who would believe that appeasement
toward a sworn enemy of the United States
would bring about peace. In reality, the plan of the
Islamic world has always been the destruction of all
President Obama’s June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt,
was the start of the appeasement process. The Muslims
smelled fear and inevitable capitulation.
All of this reminds me of the long out-of-print book
by John Ames Mitchell (1848–1918) — The Last
American (1889) — that I have in my library.
There is a sobering message on the dedication page and
the book’s closing words:
“To those thoughtful Persians who can read a warning
in the sudden rise and swift extinction of a foolish
people [the Americans] this volume is dedicated. . . .
Again upon the sea. This time for Persia, bearing our
wounded and the ashes of the dead [the last American];
those of the natives are reposing beneath the GreatTemple
[U.S. Capitol]. The skull of the last Mehrikan
[American] I shall present to the museum at Teheran.”
There are several ink etchings in The Last
American. One shows “The Ruins of the GreatTemple,”
a devastated United States Capitol. Pray and act that
it will not be so.
Homeschooling families will soon be forbidden from
teaching that homosexual sex is sinful as part of
their schooling program, according to the government
of Alberta, Canada.
Under the province’s Education Act, homeschoolers and
religious schools will be banned from “disrespecting”
people’s differences, Alberta Education Minister
Thomas Lukaszuk’s office told LifeSiteNews just last
“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool,
private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate
disrespect for differences,” said Donna McColl,
Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications. “You
can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life,
you just can’t do it as part of your educational study
Paul Faris, president of the Home School Legal
Defence Association of Canada, told the news website
the Ministry of Education is “clearly signaling that
they are in fact planning to violate the private
conversations families have in their own homes. A
government that seeks that sort of control over our
personal lives should be feared and opposed.”
According to the report, a government spokesman said,
“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family
life. You just can’t do it as part of your educational
study and instruction.”
HSLDA and other homeschool organizations have
expressed concerns that the new Alberta Education Act
would to force “diversity” education on all
schools – including private and home schools.
The legislation, known as Bill 2 in the Legislative
Assembly of Alberta, requires that all schools
“reflect the diverse nature and heritage of society in
promote understanding and respect for others and
honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.”
LifeSiteNews reports that the Human Rights Act has
been used to target Christians and conservatives
across the country, especially those who hold
traditional beliefs about homosexuality.
McColl added that Christian homeschooling families
can teach biblical lessons on homosexuality in their
homes, “as long as it’s not part of their academic
program of studies and instructional materials.”
“What they want to do about their ideology elsewhere,
that’s their family business,” she said. “But a
fundamental nature of our society is to respect
According to the report, when McColl was asked by
LifeSiteNews to explain the distinction between
homeschoolers’ education and their family life, she
replied that the question involved “real nuances” and
said she would need to get back to reporter with
In a second interview, McColl explained that the
government “won’t speculate” about specific examples
and said she hadn’t been given a “straight answer” on
what precisely constitutes “disrespect” – adding that
families “can’t be hatemongering, if you will.”
The news site reports several Canadian provinces –
including Quebec, Ontario, British
Columbia and now Alberta – have
seen major battles in the last two years over
“increasing normalization of homosexuality in the
Patty Marler, government liaison for the Alberta Home
Education Association, told the website she was
astonished at the Ministry’s candor. She wondered how
the government would stipulate the difference between
homeschoolers’ school and family time.
“We educate our children all the time, and that’s
just the way we live. It’s a lifestyle,” she said.
“Making that distinction between the times when we’re
homeschooling and when we’re just living is really
hard to do.”
She added, “Throw in the fact that I do use the Bible
as part of my curriculum, and now I’m very blatantly
going to be teaching stuff that will be against [the
Alberta Human Rights Act].”
In 2009, the Alberta Human Rights Act was amended to
classify marriage as an institution between two
“persons,” rather than a man and a woman.
“When I read Genesis and it talks about marriage
being one man in union with one woman, I am very, very
clearly opposing the human rights act that says it’s
one person marrying another person,” Marler said.
Faris noted that the most troubling issue is how
government is attempting to control homeschoolers and
how they teach their own children in their own homes.
He added that many homeschoolers have been receiving
misleading information when they call the Minister’s
office, which has been saying, “‘Look, there are no
changes here. We’re not going to do anything
differently,’ and other things like that.”
“The long arm of the government wants to reach into
family’s homes and control what they teach to their
own children in their own homes about religion,
sexuality and morality,” Faris said. “These are not
the words of a government that is friendly to
homeschooling or to parental freedom.”
LifeSiteNews noted that the Progressive Conservative
government has 67 of the 83 seats in the Alberta
Legislature, so the bill is almost certain to pass.
However, with an election coming up, the new
right-wing Wildrose Alliance Party may have a strong
law would forbid homeschoolers to teach the Bible
by Joel McDurmon on Feb 28, 2012
For those who would like a snapshot of where
liberalism and Statism lead, they need only look to
our northern neighbor Canada. LifeSiteNews.com reports
on Alberta’s new proposed law forbidding even
homeschoolers from teaching what the Bible plainly
Under Alberta’s new
Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools
will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts
are sinful as part of their academic program, says the
spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.
“Whatever the nature of
schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic
school – we do not tolerate disrespect for
differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant
director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on
“You can affirm the
family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t
do it as part of your educational study and
instruction,” she added.
Reacting to the remarks,
Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defence
Association said the Ministry of Education is
“clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to
violate the private conversations families have in
their own homes.”
“A government that seeks
that sort of control over our personal lives should be
feared and opposed,” he added.
I mildly disagree: such a government is indeed a
tyranny, but it should not be “feared.” It should be
opposed with legitimate organization, without
fear, and resisted. We must stand for freedom
and live without fear.
By the way, we have such liberals already stateside
as well. I wrote about this very agenda—leftists
wanting to pass legislation to control the curricula
of homeschoolers—already a few years ago. Here’s a
section from the longer article:
In fact, some recent
leftists have come out openly in favor of controlling
even homeschooling. I spoke at American Vision’s
Worldview Superconference in 2007 on the
topic “There’s an Atheist After Your Child!” I quoted
from recent outspoken atheist Daniel C. Dennett:
We should have a national
curriculum on world religions that is compulsory for
all school children, from grade school through high
school, for the public schools, for the private
schools, for the home-schooling.…
“Compulsory”? Well, of course, we already have that in
regard to some things: math, science, reading, etc.
But Dennett wants in your house, and wants to control
the content of the religious education of your
children as well. He continues, “because if we taught
the young people of a country this, then you could
teach them whatever else you wanted and I wouldn’t
worry about religions.”
The atheist wants to
insulate your children against whatever you may add in
catechizing them. Of course, this assumes that you
catechize your children. These atheists hate the idea
of religious catechism. Atheist Richard Dawkins, in a
tirade against baptism, refers to the participation of
“a superstitious and catechistically brainwashed
babysitter.” In these guys’ minds, religious
catechism is “brainwashing,” but of course, it’s OK
for them to call for a compulsory national curriculum
of religion as they see it.
Dennett goes on: “I think
any religion that can flourish under those conditions
would be a benign, a valuable, a wonderful religion.”
I guess, for him maybe.
Of course, he just assumes that he by default knows
truly what is valuable. Truth is, he’s got no real
standard by which to judge that which is benign, or
valuable, or wonderful. “Valuable”? Valuable for whom?
Who decides what is valuable and what is not valuable
in education or in general? If you believe like
Dennett that there is no transcendent Creator God,
then aren’t words like “valuable” and “wonderful” left
up to each individual to determine? In that case,
“valuable” and “wonderful” will be determined
politically and culturally by either a dictator (like
Franco or Stalin), or a group of dictators (think
Roe-v-Wade, 5–4 decision). You might just as well hear
Franco say, “Any leftist who can flourish under my
conditions would be ‘a benign, a valuable, a wonderful
So, I’m sorry, but I’m
not going to let the atheists or leftists define for
me what kind of religious instruction is benign, or
valuable, or even acceptable. But Dennett wants this,
and he continues to say,