Sep, 2011

---

See what Obama promises Arabs after 2012 election

Democrats fear treatment of Israel is voting liability

Posted: September 28, 2011
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND

The Obama administration told the Palestinian Authority it cannot significantly help advance a Palestinian state until after the 2012 presidential elections, a top PA official told WND.

The official, however, said the U.S. will press for a Palestinian state quickly if President Obama is re-elected.

"The main message we received from the U.S. is that nothing will happen in a serious

The PA official said Obama "will not accept the Palestinian request of a state at the (U.N.) Security Council and cannot help on the ground for now."

"We were told to wait for Obama's reelection, and that before then nothing serious will happen for a state," the official continued. "But after the reelection, the U.S. said the schedule will be short to reach a Palestinian state."

Obama's policies toward Israel have been highlighted in local and national campaigns, with many Democrats fearing voters will oppose them due to the perception the president is anti-Israel.

Obama's treatment of Israel was a significant issue in the recent election of Republican Bob Turner to former Rep. Anthony Weiner's seat in a district that had not elected a GOP candidate since 1923.

Also, presidential contenders such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., have been strongly criticizing Obama on Israel.

This article can be read in its entirety at:
See what Obama promises Arabs after 2012 election http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=349705#ixzz1ZMSYgbmM

---

End Pro-Abortion Judicial Tyranny
Through the Sanctity of Life Act

Ending Pro-Abortion Judicial Tyranny  

from the National Prolife Alliance

   There is no question that the largest obstacle in the fight to enact pro-life legislation to protect the unborn is the federal court system. Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, the courts have repeatedly thwarted efforts to enact even the most modest pro-life reforms.

    With such a hostile court system resigned to blocking all meaningful progress, pro-lifers are now turning to the Constitution to end this pro-abortion judicial tyranny.

   National Pro-Life Alliance members are not waiting around for a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court to demand an end to abortion-on-demand.

    In addition to leading the fight to protect the Constitutional right to life of unborn babies from conception by passing a Life at Conception Act, National Pro-Life Alliance members are mobilizing grass-roots support for an additional measure to remove jurisdiction over abortion from the federal courts.

    Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to limit jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

    And this new legislation in Congress would do just that.

    By removing all authority from the courts to rule on cases involving abortion, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 [H.R. 1096] would restore the authority of popularly elected officials to pass laws to limit or ban abortion without interference from unelected, activist pro-abortion judges.

    Sadly, this judicial tyranny has caused many pro-life organizations to limit themselves to pressing for limited laws to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases, hoping not to offend the courts.

    But by passing the Sanctity of Life Act, Congress can finally put an end to this judicial tyranny once and for all.

U.S. Constitution Explicitly Grants Congress the Authority to Strip Courts of Jurisdiction

    Specifically, Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

    By creating such an exception for the issue of abortion, Congress can finally end judicial tyranny and abortion-on-demand. And simply by building grass-roots support to limit judicial overreaching, the Sanctity of Life Act will pressure activist judges to watch their step.

   Pro-lifers are urged to call   their Congressman cosponsor Representative Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 [H.R. 1096] today.

Click here to read this article in its entirety

Click here to read update to this bill

---

WND Exclusive

Verdict! Christians convict pastor for 'giving out Bibles'
$300 fine, 1 year probation, ordered to stay 1,000 feet away from scene of his 'offense'

Posted: September 01, 2011
By Bob Unruh

The pastor of a Wichita, Kan., church who has spoken on public streets against homosexuality, the influence of abortion interests in his state and other biblical issues says he has been convicted on charges related to his decision to hand out Bibles at a Muslim mosque – in a courtroom staffed and filled with Christians.

The counts against Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One Christian Center, known as the church "without walls," technically were two counts of loitering and one count of disrupting a business.

Click here to read more:

He was convicted by a six-member jury in Wichita District Court and today was sentenced to a $300 fine, a year of probation and ordered not to be within 1,000 feet of the Islamic center where last fall he handed out pamphlets containing portions of the Bible.

What is startling, he told the judge and courtroom during a 15-minute statement in court, is that the conviction came about through Christians.

He told the court and judge:

Wichita, you are confused, I am not your enemy, Islam is.

'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'

Islamists believe that it is okay to lie if it is to help in the cause of Allah.

My own government called a foreign Islamist to testify for them against me, a born American, Christian peacefully handing out free Bibles.

How sad, how incredibly sad.

WND previously reported on the dispute that brought Holick into court again. At the time of his arrest, he warned that Islamic law, Shariah, is creeping into American through preferential treatment provided by law enforcement and the courts.

Today, he told WND that he was handing out a book containing English and Arabic versions of the biblical books of John and Romans, as well as a DVD containing testimony from former Muslims.

He said he was able to make the accusation against the court and jurors because of information he's gotten from those who know the arresting officer and the judge and the prosecutor's statement about attending church. Holick said he has dealt with the city attorney in previous cases, and during jury selection four of the six jurors affirmed that they attend a regular Christian service.

He said his attorney talked with jurors after the conviction and found out they were swayed by the police statements that Holick didn't move, or didn't move fast enough, when police instructed him.

Holick had been handing out the Bible portions on a sidewalk adjacent to the Wichita mosque. He also went into the driveway where it crossed the sidewalk to do the same. It apparently was that action that the police cited for their counts of loitering and obstructing a business. Holick noted, however, there was no testimony that he had obstructed anyone.

According to the report in the Wichita Eagle, Sedgwick County District Judge Phil Journey handed down the sentence to Holick.

"The only reason you were the one arrested is because you were the only one who disobeyed the police orders," the newspaper reported the judge said.

The report also said Journey discussed how the First Amendment assured Holick's right to express his religious beliefs but also allowed laws that would regulate how he practices his faith.

A WND message requesting comment from the court left after hours was not returned.

Holick told WND he was a little surprised that the judge let him make a 15-minute statement but noted that the judge later stated his disagreement with the pastor's testimony.

He had said, "This is about an idolatrous government that has rejected the Lord God Jesus. This is about a government that has turned from the Lord God to the many gods of pluralism.

"Listen to the 911 call by the mosque. Not one reference to any traffic problems, no[t] one indication of cars being blocked. No, it is clear that the reason they called was because – we were there peacefully offering free Bibles," he said. "To which the police, city attorney, and courts were all too willing to act with expediency and malice to silence the Gospel of our Lord Jesus."

He continued, "Rest assured, your actions will have a great chilling effect on the Gospel of our Lord, but I suspect you know that and are glad. Rest assured that this conviction is already running through the Wichita Islamic social network like an August Texas grass fire. Because I use the public sidewalk to offer Bibles to those driving out, I stand here before this magistrate today."

He cited a consent decree reached with the city earlier when he previously was arrested for speaking of Christianity in a "traditional public forum."

The city paid $11,700 in damages and promised "to permit Mark Holick to engage in his First Amendment rights in the future on the same terms and conditions as all other citizens."

"Honorable men keep their word," Holick said.

In that earlier case Holick was arrested by police sharing his religious beliefs on a public sidewalk outside a homosexual festival in the city. He was arrested but, the charges eventually were dropped, and he later brought a civil case.

It was settled, and U.S. District Judge Thomas Martin described the arrest:

Plaintiff was preparing to share his religious beliefs with others on the public sidewalk near the entrance of Heritage Park in Wichita, Kansas, where a Gay Pride event was about to take place … within 5 minutes of arriving at that location, plaintiff was threatened with arrest if he did not leave, and then immediately arrested when he refused to leave, handcuffed, placed in a squad car in front of members from his church, including adults, youth, and children, processed at the police station by having his mug shot taken, fingers printed, and placed in a cell with others.

The judge noted that all charges against Holick later were dismissed, and the civil rights complaint was filed for the wrongful arrest.

"The defendants do not contest that they violated plaintiff's constitutional rights," the judge wrote.

“Christians shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," said Joel Oster, a senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented Holick, at the time of the settlement. "We are pleased city of Wichita officials will now ensure that Pastor Holick is free to exercise his First Amendment rights in public without fear of arrest."

Click here to read the entire article at World Net Daily.

1ST AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE

City to allow "annoying" Speech

Thanks to constitutional challenge

Posted: September 01, 2011
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Officials in Winchester, Va., will alter their noise ordinance and adjust its enforcement following a First Amendment lawsuit against city procedures that censored speech that might annoy some people, according to a legal team fighting the battle.

The city agreed to revise the challenged provisions, halt enforcement until the changes are made and pay undisclosed monetary damages and attorney's fees, according to today's announcement from the Rutherford Institute.

"We're pleased that the city of Winchester has finally agreed to recognize that the right to speak freely cannot to be conditioned upon how others feel about the message," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. "As former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black recognized, 'The very reason for the First Amendment is to make the people of this country free to think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the government commands.'"

The issue arose over a city crackdown on a street preacher's activities. The speaker contended the policy should be abandoned because it's not constitutional to base an individual's First Amendment speech rights on someone else's "comfort." Police had shut down the preacher when a passerby allegedly complained he was "uncomfortable."

"The city of Winchester's noise ordinance goes far beyond the scope of permissible regulation for a traditional public forum," said a brief in support of a request for summary judgment in the case between Winchester, Va., and Michael Marcavage of the Repent America Christian ministry.

Marcavage regularly preaches the message of the Bible at street festivals and other occasions across the country.

Last year, he was at the Apple Blossom Festival in Winchester. After checking with the police department ahead of time, he used a public address system to carry his message to listeners.

However, he was ordered to shut it down, resulting in a legal challenge to the ordinance.

"The ordinance constitutes an outright prohibition of certain verbal expression without any reference to objective characteristics of that expression, such as volume, and it does so through the use of vague terms and unascertainable standards," said the Rutherford Institute brief, compiled by Rita M. Dunaway.

Specifically, it pointed out the conversation in which Lt. John Danielson of the Winchester Police Department ordered Marcavage to stop using his equipment, which he earlier had been told was permitted.

"This complaint [from a passerby], according to the officer, rendered Marcavage's expression a violation of the city's noise ordinance, which prohibits sounds that 'annoy' or 'disturb' others. Marcavage immediately phoned the Winchester police chief, who had informed him prior to the Festival that street preaching with a handheld microphone would not violate any local laws. However, upon receiving Marcavage's call on the day of the Festival, the police chief insisted that the officers would enforce the ordinance against the preachers if any citizens complained about the noise," the institute reported.

"It was later revealed that law enforcement officials were ordered to go undercover for the purpose of monitoring the street preachers. According to one police officer's statement, he used a recording device to film the preachers as they expressed their sincerely-held religious beliefs during the 2010 Apple Blossom Festival," the group said.

Article may be read in its entirety at:

  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=339869

---

White House Issues Guides on Sept. 11 Observances

The Obama administration issued talking points for commemorations of the 9/11 attacks at home and around the world.

By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: August 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House has issued detailed guidelines to government officials on how to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, with instructions to honor the memory of those who died on American soil but also to recall that Al Qaeda and other extremist groups have since carried out attacks elsewhere in the world, from Mumbai to Manila.

The White House in recent days has quietly disseminated two sets of documents. One is framed for overseas allies and their citizens and was sent to American embassies and consulates around the globe. The other includes themes for Americans here and underscores the importance of national service and what the government has done to prevent another major attack in the United States. That single-page document was issued to all federal agencies, officials said.

After weeks of internal debate, White House officials adopted the communications documents to shape public events and official statements, and they sought to strike a delicate balance between messages designed for these two very important but very different audiences on a day when the world’s attention will be focused on President Obama, his leadership team and his nation.

The guidelines list what themes to underscore — and, just as important, what tone to set. Officials are instructed to memorialize those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and thank those in the military, law enforcement, intelligence or homeland security for their contributions since.

“A chief goal of our communications is to present a positive, forward-looking narrative,” the foreign guidelines state.

Copies of the internal documents were provided to The New York Times by officials in several agencies involved in planning the anniversary commemorations. “The important theme is to show the world how much we realize that 9/11 — the attacks themselves and violent extremism writ large — is not ‘just about us,’ ” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal White House planning.

Some senior Obama administration leaders had advocated a lengthy program of speeches and events to mark the anniversary, but the final decision was for lower-key appearances by Mr. Obama and other senior leaders only on the days leading up to the anniversary and on Sept. 11 itself.

Mr. Obama in his weekly address on Saturday said that this year’s anniversary will be one of “service and remembrance.”

“We need to make sure we’re speaking to a very broad set of audiences who will be affected by the anniversary,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said in a telephone interview on Friday.

That may be, but some American counterterrorism and intelligence officials are complaining that the White House missed out on tying together the 10th anniversary with recently announced strategies to combat terrorism and violent extremism into a more coherent, longer-term plan. “They don’t do that kind of long-term planning,” said a senior counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid disciplinary measures from the White House. Mr. Rhodes rejected that criticism, saying these themes have threaded through many of Mr. Obama’s speeches in recent months.

As the White House sharpens its messages for the commemorations, officials say they have also stepped up efforts to spot signs of foreign or domestic terrorist plots timed around the anniversary. So far, they said, they had not detected any specific plots or an increase in threats.

Officials interviewed at several federal departments said they would consult the White House guidelines, but had been given broad leeway to hold commemorative events at their agencies.

One significant new theme is in both sets of documents: Government officials are to warn that Americans must be prepared for another attack — and must, in response, be resilient in recovering from the loss.

“Resilience takes many forms, including the dedication and courage to move forward,” according to the guidelines for foreign audiences. “While we must never forget those who we lost, we must do more than simply remember them —we must sustain our resilience and remain united to prevent new attacks and new victims.”

At the same time, Obama administration officials caution that public commemorations here should not cast the United States as the sole victim of terrorism, an argument underscored by killings and maimings from extremist attacks overseas.

Some senior administration officials involved in the discussions noted that the tone set on this Sept. 11 should be shaped by a recognition that the outpouring of worldwide support for the United States in the weeks after the attacks turned to anger at some American policies adopted in the name of fighting terror — on detention, on interrogation, and the decision to invade Iraq.

So the guidelines aimed at foreign audiences also call on American officials to praise overseas partners and their citizens, who have joined the worldwide effort to combat violent extremism.

“As we commemorate the citizens of over 90 countries who perished in the 9/11 attacks, we honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation around the world,” the overseas guidelines state. “We honor and celebrate the resilience of individuals, families, and communities on every continent, whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.”

The death of Osama bin Laden was viewed as reason for officials to “minimize references to Al Qaeda.” While terrorists affiliated with Bin Laden’s network “still have the ability to inflict harm,” the guidelines say, officials are to make the point that “Al Qaeda and its adherents have become increasingly irrelevant.”

The guidelines say the absence of Al Qaeda playing any significant role in the “Arab Spring” uprisings against longtime autocrats in the Middle East and North Africa should be cited as evidence that Bin Laden’s organization “represents the past,” while peaceful street protesters in Egypt and Tunisia “represent the future.” Left unsaid was that many of the deposed leaders were close American allies and partners in counterterrorism operations.

Resilience is a repeated theme of the communications. “We celebrate the resilience of communities across the globe,” the foreign guidelines state.

Or, as Mr. Rhodes put it in the interview: “It’s a statement of strength that the United States can outlast our adversaries. We’re stronger than the terrorists’ ability to frighten us.”

The domestic guidelines, entitled “9/11 Anniversary Planning,” are shorter and less prescriptive than the talking points created for overseas audiences. For example, they note that the ceremonies will honor Americans killed in the Sept. 11 attacks but also “all victims of terrorism, including those who had been targeted by Al Qaeda and other groups around the globe.”

But these guidelines also acknowledge that Americans will expect government leaders to explain what steps have been taken to prevent another 9/11-style attack and to encourage Americans to volunteer in their communities this Sept. 11.

The domestic guidelines also ask something of Americans that has been lacking in Washington: “We will also draw on the spirit of unity that prevailed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.”

This article was found at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/us/politics/30terror.html

---

Iowa 2012 GOP Presidential Power Rankings:

Could the newcomer’s shake-up be shook-up?

 From The Iowa Independent

By Staff report   August 29, 2011

  If there has been a single thread that has connected the previous 11 editions of The Iowa Independent’s Power Rankings, it has been an overall feeling of discontent among Republicans as activists in the state search for someone who represents their views and that they believe also stands a good chance of unseating Democratic incumbent Barack Obama.

With the Ames Straw Poll a memory and, thanks in part to a timed entry by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, showing very little bounce for the top two finishers, our panelists seem more intent on the political end game and which candidate has the mixture of organization, charisma and “that special something” to take the race all the way to the finish line.

If the caucuses were held tonight, here’s how our panel believes they would end:

1.      Rick Perry — Despite the fact that the governor of Texas hasn’t yet proven himself from an organizational standpoint in the Hawkeye State — and won’t likely have to in advance of the caucuses due to his later entry — our panelists cannot deny that Perry has brought something to the race that has been missing.

“Many activists have said to me, ‘I’ve been holding out for a winner!’ Republican activists may agree with the agenda of a [Michele] Bachmann or a [Rick] Santorum, but they aren’t convinced those candidates can beat Obama. There’s a buzz around Perry that says he can,” notes one of our panelists.

Others on our panel, however, are curious if Perry’s lead is more of a honeymoon period — something that will wane as the newness of his candidacy wears off.

“His current buzz does make him the flavor of the month — just like [Mike] Huckabee and [Donald] Trump before him — but there is more to him than just that,” notes another panelist. “He appeals to all segments of the party, [at least] to varying degrees. That huge undecided number that keeps showing up in Iowa polls may have found their hairstyle of choice.”

Candidates may rise on appeal, but they must have substance to win the first-in-the-nation caucuses. What the panel wants to see from Perry going forward are signals that his campaign is organizing at the grassroots level in Iowa, working the ground and drawing increased support.

“If the caucuses were held today Perry would instantly coalesce a group of former Tim Pawlenty supporters and soft supporters of others to finish very strong, but at this point in time he doesn’t have the organization on the ground to marshal enough of them to pull it out.

“Still, there is little denying the initial roll-out of his candidacy has been impressive and, if things keep trending the way they currently are, he’s the one to beat.”

Perry’s performance in upcoming debates and his interactions on the campaign trail in Iowa and other early states could still sway his candidacy further up or down. And, while it is unlikely that more fiscally-minded Republicans would be swayed by the entry of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the race, it is likely that some more socially-minded Iowa conservatives could. That could spell trouble for Perry’s honeymoon, at least in Iowa.

“While it is true that there are some who simply won’t support a woman, there are some who will — even if that woman is Palin, who comes with history. She still appeals to a segment of the GOP that feels America hasn’t been promoted in that Ronald Reagan style it should be, and there is no one, perhaps other than Reagan himself, who makes Republicans feel better about themselves than Palin. That’s her advantage over other conservatives already in the race including Bachmann, although Bachmann has been pulling such references into her own speeches. Such ‘lifting up’ by Palin will be hard for Iowans to resist.”

2.      Michele Bachmann — For the first time since late June, the Minnesota Congresswoman doesn’t lead our Hawkeye State Power Rankings and, perhaps more importantly, she came dangerously close to being knocked out of the top two.

Since late March, when Bachmann began to seriously hint that she would pursue a White House bid, she has remained a favorite of our panelists. They viewed her as someone who could appeal to the state’s influential social conservative base as well as a candidate that could count on support from the tea party movement — both being influential for the upcoming caucuses. The straw poll should have been a proving grounds for her Iowa organizational skills (and to a certain extent it was) but, under the shadow of a Perry announcement, it simply didn’t provide a large boost.

“Winning the straw poll still has its privileges. One of those privileges is a vastly superior organization compared to a guy who’s been in the race for only two weeks, and has just made a handful of stops in Iowa while facing no real scrutiny from voters or his fellow competitors yet. That said, Bachmann is not trending in the right direction at the moment, and she needs to recapture the momentum she had heading into Ames. Perhaps letting voters see the woman of depth I have seen privately, and not the woman of talking points I often see publicly, is a good place to start.”

Another panelist notes that “Bachmann still has two big things going for her in Iowa: She’s from a neighboring state, which can only benefit her when it comes to ground organization, and she’s a known quantity.

“Let’s face the fact that despite some of rifts here in our state, many of which have been promulgated by supporters of other candidates, Bachmann is someone that activists here know and know well. There is very little shock value left when says things that maybe don’t completely add up, or when she ruffles feathers in local circles. It’s expected, and just like all other expectations in Iowa, when she exceeds them — when says things that really resonate and does well with retail politics — she really, really shines. If she comes into the state and works even the smallest bit to dispel some of the more negative press, it will do her campaign a world of good and she will win on caucus night.”

Criticisms leveled by Pawlenty that Bachmann was prone to misstatements may not have ultimately benefited his campaign, but our panelists believe they likely injured Bachmann’s, at least to some extent.

“One can dismiss occasional things like mixing up whether John Wayne was born in Winterset or Waterloo and maybe even whether August 16 was Elvis’s birthday or the day he died, but at some point one will start to wonder whether it’s just an occasional flub or a pattern that is worrisome. Recently Bachmann claimed that if she becomes president gas prices would go down to $2 a gallon. That’s not a factual mistake, but it certainly caused a lot of people, including a lot on the right, to roll their eyes. Bachmann fought hard to make herself be perceived as a serious, top-tier candidate. She needs to stop the mistakes if she expects to maintain that standing.”

3.      Ron Paul — The biggest news to come out of Texas congressman’s presidential bid in the wake of the straw poll were news reports that he was being ignored in the wake of his strong second-place finish. Our panelists took note of the strong finish, and they continue to believe that overall Paul’s fiscal message is resonating better with state activists than it did in 2007. But when it comes to the game of expectations, they feel Paul just managed to meet them in Ames and, thus, didn’t do anything overly extraordinary to warrant higher placement.

“Paul’s supporters certainly don’t want to hear it, but he probably peaked at the straw poll,” notes one panelist. “There were plenty of stories during the last two weeks about how the media were ignoring Paul’s very close second place finish straw poll. I suspect that it was less a matter of purposefully ignoring Paul as opposed to choosing to focus their resources on candidates who were perceived as more likely to be able to capture the nomination.

“Paul received over three times as many votes at the Straw Poll as he did in 2007. That speaks to both an improved organization and more focus on his economic message. Even so, when Paul starts to speak on other issues his libertarian roots show themselves. Many Republicans are not happy with the wars we are fighting, but they usually don’t think that we should just pull back to our borders. Some Republicans are in favor of legalizing marijuana, but that position isn’t one widely held. In other words, despite his obvious success at the Straw Poll, Paul will have a difficult time appealing to a broader Republican base.”

Another panelist has already moved on to wonder where the libertarians and similar factions of the party will go when “they finally figure out that their guy is not moving forward in this process.”

“Look, there’s a lot to be said for loyalty, and there is no doubt that Ron Paul’s supporters are loyal — but I have to wonder if they’ve ever heard the phrase about being ‘loyal to a fault.’ At this point, I don’t think they are doing their candidate any favors by ramping up his expectations to levels that he doesn’t actually have the base support to meet.”

Another panelist believes Paul could have won the straw poll — and beat expectations — if it wasn’t for his debate performance two nights before.

“His organization flexed its muscle at the straw poll, and that strong second place finish came after his brutal debate performance just 48 hours prior. That tells me two things: Paul’s support isn’t going anywhere, and Paul can’t grow beyond that base of support. I believe Paul would’ve won the Straw Poll if not for his queasy answer on Iran and nuclear weapons. That moment in that debate illustrated the dynamic Paul finds himself in. The current economic climate in the country has made his base coalition more loyal than ever because he’s been proven right all these years. On the other hand, his foreign policy positions are still too far out there to grow that coalition to a winning coalition.”

4.      Mitt Romney — There are more questions than answers surrounding the former governor of Massachusett’s campaign. That is, his Iowa strategy or, more aptly, his lack of an Iowa strategy seemed pretty well mapped out in advance of Perry’s entry. Our panelists now wonder if ignoring the Hawkeye State, or keeping Iowa activists at arms length, is going to be enough to put him in the state’s top three — something he critically needs to do, even if he is banking on a New Hampshire victory.

As one panelist notes, “Mitt still has the 23 percent he’s had since he started his presidential campaign (back in junior high school).”

But there’s more than just low poll numbers at stake. Romney was hoping residual 2008 supporters and here-and-there visits to Iowa would be enough to keep him “playable” in the first-in-the-nation caucuses. He had, for all practical purposes, conceded the state to a more social conservative candidate of the same ilk as a Huckabee — someone that the other early states wouldn’t find as appealing as his more moderate, if not sometimes conflicted, stances. But if Iowa and another of the leading four states go to the same candidate, Romney’s weak performances could be enough to shut him down before the contest moves on to states that are decided more by ad buys than retail politics (where he doesn’t necessarily excel).

“If a four candidate field emerges from the starting four states, that bodes well for Romney, who is extremely well financed and can move into a Super Tuesday situation with multiple ad buys and other voter outreach. But if Perry is able to land claim to both Iowa and South Carolina, Romney will need to provide more than just a New Hampshire victory. He will need to take Nevada, which might be possible because there is strong Mormon representation there. So far, however, I’ve not seen Romney doing retail in anywhere other than New Hampshire, and not a actively there as he did in Iowa in 2007.

“Either Romney will need to start paying more attention to Iowa, which isn’t likely given the past history, or he is going to have to start concentrating more heavily on South Carolina, which also isn’t likely given that state also has a social conservative bent, or in Nevada. He simply cannot allow any one candidate to pull more of a boost than he does from these early contests.”

5.      Rick Santorum — Most of our panelists agree that Santorum has a loyal following in Iowa based predominantly on his rigid social conservative stances. Most also agree that his base support has not yet grown to a point of making him a real contender in the upcoming caucuses, and that they aren’t sure where he will be able to garner more supporters in this current field of candidates.

“If this was 2007, Santorum would probably be faring better than he is now,” a panelist laments. “The fact of the matter is that you can’t build a campaign on issues — fiscal or conservatives — that are also held by your opponents. He doesn’t have anything, at least not yet, that makes him stand apart from the field. He doesn’t have executive experience. He lost his last election. He doesn’t have a compelling story to tell and, as a result, he seems to be a candidate that many activists like personally but are not supporting for the nomination.”

While a handful of our panelists still envision a scenario where Santorum could play spoiler (a la Huckabee 2008), even most of those believe his fortunes, good or bad, may actually rest with the undecided candidacy of Palin.

“Obviously, if Palin enters the race, there will be automatic buzz within social conservative circles — the same circles where Santorum has made the most headway. That could spell trouble for his campaign both from a standpoint of an established base, and from the standpoint of her much greater name recognition — which might be more appealing for any undecideds on caucus night.

“On the other side of that coin, if Palin decides not to run, there could be some social conservatives that have been holding their support that will move toward Santorum, giving him a greater edge on caucus night when Iowans speak on behalf of their chosen candidates before the GOP balloting. Such conservatives can give very impassioned speeches that can really help their chosen candidate.”

Unlike Democratic caucuses where second choices can play a distinct and defining role, GOP caucuses are a single secret ballot affair devoid of realignment and viability thresholds. So, just because Santorum appears to be a second-choice candidate for many, the situation doesn’t serve him as well as it would on the other side of the political aisle.

“There is a solid base of former Huckabee supporters I know that just will never buy into Bachmann’s presidential candidacy until they have to because they’re either uncomfortable with a woman for president, and/or she has not proven to them she’s ready for the job. On the other hand, Huckabee himself has done little to hide his skepticism of Perry, who chose to endorse Rudy Giuliani over Huckabee four years ago. So who’s the alternative? Clearly not Ron Paul, who some Huckabee supporters are as leery of as they are Mitt Romney — albeit for different reasons. That leaves Santorum, who more and more has been speaking their language the past few weeks.”

            Click here to read this article in its entirety at the Iowa Independent

---

IRAN’S CONCERN ABOUT IMPORTING BIBLES

 6,500 Bibles Confiscated in NW Iran

 8/14/2011 Iran (Mohabat News) – According to the Iranian Christian News Agency “Mohabat News” Doctor Majid Abhari, advisor to the social issues committee of the parliament in Iran, has announced the seizure of six thousand five hundred copies of the holy bible in the way between the city of Zanjan and abhar in north-west of Iran.

 He also said that “these missionaries with reliance on huge money and propaganda are trying to deviate our youth.” In an interview with a government news agency *(Mehr) he added: “with regard to the activities of these Christian missionaries to deceive people specially youngsters, they have begun a huge campaign by spending huge sums and false propaganda for deviating the public.

 He did not present any more details about the seizure of 6500 gospels and said, “these books were made with the best paper in the world in pocket size. He added, “The important point in this issue that should be considered by intelligence, judicial and religious agencies is that all religions are strengthening their power to confront Islam, otherwise what does this huge number of bibles mean?

 Prior to this, in November of 2010, police officers and revolutionary guards seized 300 bibles from a bus after its inspection and in a shameful action burned them all in the village of “darishk”.

Insulting the Christian bible is in the continuation of an organized campaign by agencies that view anti-Christian propaganda on the top of their agenda. There  have always been major concerns among Islamic republic officials about conversions to Christianity among people. This is after three decades of expensive Islamic propaganda and a generation that has been grown up in Islamic teaching and is facing this change in thought.
Islamic republic considers itself the responsible guide for people's thoughts. So what is their fear of the importation and distribution of non-Islamic religious books?

This article was found at mohatat news

---

 

Terrorist proclaimed himself 'Darwinian,' not 'Christian'

His manifesto shows Breivik not religious

Posted: July 24, 2011
© 2011 WND

 WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.

Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas.

"I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed," he writes. "We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities."

While Breivik says he considers himself "100-percent Christian," he also expresses pride in his genealogical roots.

"I am very proud of my Viking heritage," he writes. "My name, Breivik, is a location name from northern Norway, and can be dated back to even before the Viking era. Behring is a pre-Christian Germanic name, which is derived from Behr, the Germanic word for Bear (or 'those who are protected by the bear')."

And while characterizing himself as "Christian" and "Protestant," Breivik says he supports "a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism." [sic]

Likewise, media reports frequently characterized McVeigh as a "Christian," though he adamantly denied any religious beliefs or convictions – placing his faith in science.

Breivik adds, "I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious."

Religious worship and study is never noted in the manifesto as part of Breivik's routine in preparing for his mission of mass murder.

Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith

"My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage," he explains. "My choice was based purely pragmatism. All Europeans are in this boat together, so we must choose a more moderate platform that can appeal to a great number of Europeans – preferably up to 50 percent (realistically up to 35 percent)."

Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons, which many Christians consider to be a cultic organization. More specifically, he calls himself a Justiciar Knight.

Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not motivated by Christian faith.

"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie," he says. … Religion is a crutch for many weak people, and many embrace religion for self-serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state [for] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet."

Article can be read in its entirety: Terrorist proclaimed himself 'Darwinian,' not 'Christian' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=325765#ixzz1TDs4Vp9Q

---

New weapon could sink NY same-sex marriage

Alleges 'corrupt legislative

Posted: July 25, 2011
By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WND

A pro-family lobbying organization in New York is challenging the state's new law legalizing same-sex marriage, claiming improper procedure and back-room payoffs should render the law "null and void."

In a lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, officers of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms argue that the state's Marriage Equality Act was passed only with the help of suspended voting rules, shady campaign contributions and a violation of the New York State Open Meeting Laws.

"In what many are heralding as a big step forward for gay rights," the lawsuit charges, "others are questioning whether the corrupt legislative process by which the Act passed renders the entire Act a nullity."

Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for Governor Andrew Cuomo, blasted the suit as "without merit," but Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, disagrees.

"Back room tactics were rampant in the passage of this law," Staver wrote in a statement announcing Liberty Counsel's assistance in the filing of the suit. "New York law requires that the government be open and transparent to keep political officials responsible. When government operates in secret and freezes out the very people it is supposed to represent, the entire system fails. … The law should be set aside and the process should begin again to allow the people a voice in the process."

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Act became law through:

• Meetings that violated the state's open meeting laws, including a closed-door gathering reported by the New York Times in which billionaire and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg lobbied with Republicans to vote for the Act;

 

• The suspension of normal Senate voting procedures to prevent senators who opposed the bill from speaking;

 

• Failure to follow Senate procedures that require a bill must be sent to appropriate committees prior to being placed before the full Senate for a vote;

 

• Governor Cuomo's violation of a constitutionally mandated three-day review period before the Legislature votes on a bill by issuing a "message of necessity";

 

• A private dinner with Republican senators at the governor's mansion, with the public and press excluded, in which Governor Cuomo attempted to persuade passage of the Act;

 

• Fulfilled promises by elected officials and Wall Street financiers to make large campaign contributions to Republican senators who switched their vote from opposing to supporting the Act.

The New York Daily News reported that Bloomberg, indeed, contributed over $10,000 apiece to the campaigns of four Republican senators who voted in favor of same-sex marriage.

Βloomberg aide Micah Leaher told the paper, "The mayor said he would support Senate Republicans who stood up – and he did."

"It is unfortunate that state senators chose to protect their personal interests, rather than the people they were elected to represent," said Rev. Jason J. McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, in a statement. "Some of the players may have changed, but it looks like same old Albany game. It is time the curtain be pulled back and the disinfecting light of good government shine upon the Cuomo administration and our state Legislature."

Read more: New weapon could sink N.Y. same-sex marriage http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=326037#ixzz1TDoWXiwN

---

Jewish World Review
July 5, 2011

Gross Media Ignorance

By Walter Williams

There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution. If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.

Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College."

My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.

The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.

The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections

Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.

Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document.

Walter  Williams is a wise and thoughtful economist and editorialist who has had a lot to say about America and the Constitution over the years. This article can be found in its entirety at

http://Jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams070511.php3

or visit the archives of Walter Williams at

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp

More Obama 'defiance' of Constitution

'Why elections if the executive branch rules by decree?'

Posted: June 30, 2011
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

An organization that represents the 75 percent of American citizens who want more control over illegal immigration is calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama over his involvement in the transfer of weapons to Mexican drug lords and his efforts to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.

"President Obama is no longer the legitimate president of the United States," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, in calling for the action today.

"By arming drug and human smugglers with assault weapons that have been used to kill American and Mexican citizens and police forces, and by ordering amnesty for illegal aliens which has been rejected by both the Congress and the American public more than eight times, Obama has committed a form of treason against the United States and must be removed from office by Congress," he said.

His call joins a chorus of other voices who already have expressed the idea. Those comments have come from a number of columnists and commentators, one member of Congress, a former member of Congress and retired military leaders. Even Vice President Joe Biden, then a senator, at one point said he would support impeachment of a president who misuses the executive power to take the nation into a war.

Gheen cited the developing "Operation Gunrunner" scandal in which federal agents had gun shops sell weapons to customers suspected of links to Mexican drug gangs. He also pointed ot Obama's "recent edict instructing federal employees to establish a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in defiance of the Congress, existing federal laws, and the U.S. Constitution."

Gheen noted Obama's ICE director, John Morton, issued a memo June 17 to all ICE field office directors, special agents-in-charge and chief counsel, authorizing them to decline to remove illegal aliens who meet the qualifications for amnesty under the DREAM Act amnesty – which has failed repeatedly in Congress.

He also said congressional investigations have "determined that Obama's ATF and Justice Department have been supplying assault weapons to the drug cartels that import most of America's cocaine, methamphetamine, and illegal immigrants."

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is a national organization with more than 40,000 supporters who represent the majority of Americans who want America's existing immigration laws enforced, Gheen said.

He said the issue is that the president "made it clear to the American public that he does not care what they think, what the current federal laws are, what the U.S. Constitution says, or what Congress has ratified."

"Congress must take immediate action to stop Obama or the American Republic will fall. What use are elections, candidates, or the Congress, if the executive branch rules by decree?" he said.

"Never before in the history of the United States has an occupant of the White House displayed less concern for the Constitution and the rule of law than Barack Obama. It's about time somebody said it: It's time to impeach Obama," Farah wrote.

Attorney Larry Klayman, a former Justice Department prosecutor, founder of Judicial Watch and now of Freedom Watch, agreed.

Klayman cited Obama's decision to refuse to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, his pursuit of Arizona in court over its decision to defend its citizens from illegal aliens invading the state, his "visceral hatred and subversion of the state of Israel" and others.

The first statement from a member of Congress on the issue came from U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who responded to this question from Think Progress: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course [regarding trials for terror suspects] here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?"

Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."

WND also reported that former congressman and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath to defend the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to file impeachment charges against Obama.

Tancredo wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Times that Obama's "refusal to live up to his own oath of office – which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion – requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama."

Above are just several examples of a long string of  voices decrying executive neglect of upholding the oath to defend,  and as well as abuses of power that point to the impeachment remedy. To read this article in its entirety visit World Net Daily at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=316881

---

HOMELAND INSECURITY


Congressman asks IRS to probe 'Muslim Mafia'

Cites letter indicating CAIR sought funding from Libya's Gadhafi

Posted: June 28, 2011

© 2011 WND World Net Daily

Responding to the IRS removal of tax-exempt status for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Virginia congressman has asked the federal agency to investigate whether the D.C.-based Muslim lobby group has "illegally received or solicited funds from foreign governments or agents."

Republican Rep. Frank Wolf said in a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman that he wants to resolve the question of whether foreign and potentially hostile governments have funded CAIR, which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history.

Wolf brought to the IRS's attention a copy of a recently disclosed letter from CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad to Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi in which Awad appears to solicit money for a CAIR project.

"I am concerned that Awad and CAIR may be soliciting – and receiving – funds from other unsavory foreign governments and organizations, including some that may be sponsors of terror," Wolf wrote.

The lawmaker also cited reports that indicate Awad and other CAIR representatives may have traveled to Sudan to solicit funds from Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir, whose hard-line Islamic regime has been held responsible for more than 2 million deaths in a jihad against Christians and animists in the country's south.

IRS earlier this month purged CAIR from its list of tax-exempt organizations. Donations to the group are no longer tax-deductible, even though CAIR continues to claim on its website that contributions are deductible.

The gross delinquency raises new suspicions that CAIR – identified in a recent terror-finance case as a front group for Hamas – is concealing from the American public details about its already shadowy financial activities.

CAIR is a regular staple of the cable news programs where it claims to be a "Muslim-American civil rights group."

The Washington-based group receives millions of dollars in donations, pledges and other support from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other terror-tied Arab states, as revealed in the bestseller "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America."

As WND has reported, CAIR has filed a lawsuit against "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz and his son, Chris, who collected thousands of pages of CAIR documents destined for a shredder while working as an intern.

CAIR's complaint asks a federal judge to expunge all copies of "Muslim Mafia". A lawyer defending the Gaubatzes says CAIR is attempting to eliminate evidence that could lead to criminal prosecution.

"Muslim Mafia" presents evidence that CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has misled Washington reporters about the source of most of CAIR's financial support.

Although Hooper has repeatedly denied that CAIR receives foreign support, smoking-gun video footage obtained during the Gaubatzes' six-month covert investigation of CAIR indicates otherwise.

A State Department cable citing Hooper by name, moreover, directly contradicts Hooper's denials about foreign support, according to "Muslim Mafia," which exposes the secret inner workings of CAIR, among other radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America.

CAIR in January 2007 prepared a secret "strategy" memo launching what the "Muslim Mafia" authors call a hostile influence operation against Congress to undermine homeland security and anti-terror efforts.

The memo states that CAIR would try to "influence" the intelligence committees, along with committees dealing with homeland security and justice, while placing interns in "congressional offices."

CAIR has been successful in both endeavors, using Mideast funds free of taxation in the process.

Read article in its entirety at World Net Daily at

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=316297

---

CLINGING TO THEIR CONSTITUTION?

Justices' free speech decision claim praised, faulted

By Bill Vidonic
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The solicitor for Pittsburgh Public Schools says a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a former eastern Pennsylvania police chief couldn't claim free speech in a private employment matter was a sound one.

"I think it represents a common-sense distinction between getting up at a public meeting and saying, 'I'm an employee, I live here, and taxes are too high,' which are matters of general concern, and work-related speech," Ira Weiss said of the decision Monday.

But Pittsburgh labor attorney Joshua Bloom said the ruling is another example of citizens' rights in the courts being chipped away.

"The courts have ruled that people can petition and file grievances, but now they're saying it's OK (for governments) to destroy their lives if they do it. It makes no sense," Bloom said, adding, "The Supreme Court seems to be endorsing a culture of tyranny, secrecy and coercion in the public workplace."

The case originates in the Luzerne County borough of Duryea, which fired police Chief Charles Guarnieri in 2003. He filed a union grievance, and after an arbitrator returned him to the job, council drew up 11 directives for his return, including that he had to have council permission for overtime. The directives were thrown out after Guarnieri filed a second union grievance, and then he sued in civil court, saying the directives were in retaliation for the first grievance.

Guarnieri said the retaliation violated the petition clause of the First Amendment, which allows citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances.

In an 8-1 ruling, U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred and that Guarnieri should have had to show he spoke as a citizen on an issue of public concern, which is what the First Amendment's speech clause requires.

"The right of a public employee under the Petition Clause is a right to participate as a citizen, through petitioning activity, in the democratic process," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "It is not a right to transform everyday employment disputes into matters for Constitutional litigation in the federal courts."

He added, "It is precisely to avoid this intrusion into internal governmental affairs that this Court has held that, while the First Amendment invests public employees with certain rights, it does not empower them to 'Constitutionalize' the employee grievance."

Guarnieri's case has been sent back to the lower court for reconsideration.

The ruling hurts not only public employees, Bloom said, but also private citizens who depend on government workers to keep an eye on government.

"Public employees are in the best position to speak out about corruption, illegalities, incompetence, oppression and waste," he said.

"The Supreme Court recognizes that just because someone is a public employee, it doesn't give them the right to sue for matters that are purely employment-related for First Amendment issues," Weiss said. "If it's a complaint about their employment status, it's not a whistleblower case."

This article can be found in its entirety at

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_743131.html

---

.

Students Don't Know Much About US History

June 14, 2011
by Christine Armario

Just 13 percent of high school seniors who took the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress, called the Nation's Report Card, showed a solid grasp of American history. Results released Tuesday showed the two other grades didn't perform much better, with just 22 percent of fourth-grade students and 18 percent of eighth-graders demonstrating proficiency.

The test quizzed students on topics including colonization, the American Revolution and the Civil War, and the contemporary United States. For example, one question asked fourth-graders to name an important result of the U.S. building canals in the 1800s. Only 44 percent knew that it was increased trade among states.

"The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement. "These results tell us that, as a country, we are failing to provide children with a high-quality, well-rounded education."

Education experts say a heavy focus on reading and math under the federal No Child Left Behind law in the last decade has led to lagging performance in other subjects such as history and science.

"We need to make sure other subjects like history, science and the arts are not forgotten in our pursuit of the basic skills," said Diane Ravitch, a research professor at New York University and former U.S. assistant education secretary.

Of the seven subjects on the national test, students performed the worst in U.S. history. Officials with the National Assessment Governing board, which oversees the tests, say the results aren't comparable to the other tests because different students take each exam in different years.

The scores on the history test did not vary remarkably from years past; in 1994, for example, 19 percent of fourth-grade students scored proficient or better in U.S. history.

More than 7,000 fourth-grade students, 11,000 eighth graders and 12,000 high school seniors from a nationally representative sample took the test last year.

To be considered proficient, they had to get certain scores out of 500. For fourth-graders, the score was 243. Eighth-graders needed 294, and 12th graders had to get a 325.

Judy Brodigan, who was head of the elementary social studies curriculum for the Lewisville, Texas, school district for a decade, said history and social studies classes aren't as much of a priority for school districts as math and reading. She noted that many states only test history and social studies starting in middle school, which means elementary school students don't get the background they need in the subject.

"When the foundation isn't built in elementary school, these students are coming to middle school lacking crucial skills," Brodigan said. "What it means is that in what is becoming a more and more global society, American students are more and more at a disadvantage."

Educators said history is critical to students learning how to become better citizens and understanding how the country's political and cultural systems work. Students need to not only recognize leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, but also understand why they were important to the development of the country.

"Overall the quality and success of our lives can only be enhanced by a study of our roots," said Steven Paine, former state schools superintendent for West Virginia. "If you don't know your past, you will not have a future."

For more information on this topic

---

Judges seem receptive to health care challenge

See lack of precedent for individual mandate

June 8, 2011
by Stephen Dinan

President Obama’s health care law received a chilly reception Wednesday from a federal appeals court that seemed wary of approving a major expansion of government coercion over the economic activity of millions of Americans.

Acknowledging they are breaking new ground in considering this case, the three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in Atlanta questioned whether there is any precedent in more than two centuries in which the Supreme Court has upheld a law that forces individuals to buy a private good or service - in this instance, the individual mandate that every American obtain health insurance.

“If we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congress‘ power left?” said Chief Judge Joel Dubina, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, who seemed most hostile to the Obama administration’s defense.

The other two judges, both appointed by President Clinton, peppered each side with questions, but signaled their own concerns about the lack of specific precedent for upholding this type of mandate.

“I want to know, going back to the first principles, is there anything out there that actually suggests that Congress can compel a private party to buy a private product on the open market if they’re not disposed to do so,” Judge Stanley Marcus said.

Wednesday’s nearly 2 1/2-hour hearing is the third time an appeals court has heard a case on the issue, which all sides believe will eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court.

To read more of this Washington Times article…

---

Our views: It's your democracy

Hold Florida lawmakers accountable for fair state districts

June 8, 2011

Now is the time for Florida voters to hold the Legislature accountable to obey the state Constitution on the critical issue of redistricting.

Enshrined in the document since the 2010 elections are two Fair Districts amendments that require lawmakers, using 2010 Census data, to redraw legislative and U.S. congressional districts in a nonpartisan way before the 2012 elections.

And end a long, sordid record of politicians drawing maps to favor whatever party holds the reins of power, protect incumbents against competition and give voters little choice at the ballot box.

Democrats wrongly did it in the 1990s, when they controlled Tallahassee, and Republicans wrongly do it now.

Just take a look at Florida House District 29 for evidence of the bizarrely shaped districts that have resulted from the gerrymandering. It trails south in a thin strip from North Brevard to rural Indian River County to maximize the number of Republican votes.

The seat was won by Rep. Tom Goodson in the GOP primary in August last year. Predictably, the Cocoa Republican faced no Democratic opposition.

Other districts in the state snake across as many as eight counties, linking far-flung cities or illogically divide communities.

Bipartisan support

Outrage at the practice led Florida voters to pass the Fair Districts amendments by 63 percent last year, a margin mirrored in Brevard County. That showed broad support across party lines for a less partisan approach to redistricting.

In a victory for democracy last week, the U.S. Department of Justice — which must review election law changes because of previous racial discrimination in voting in some Florida counties — reaffirmed the wisdom of Fair Districts, giving the amendments the go-ahead.

The ruling counters false claims by lawmakers, trying to preserve their hold on power, that Fair Districts would hinder minorities’ voting rights.

It also sends a loud message that tactics to obstruct the reforms must end, including from Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon.

The Winter Park Republican joined the House to a misguided lawsuit to kill the congressional Fair Districts rules coming from U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville and Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Miami. The suit should be dropped immediately.

That lawsuit is only the latest recent attempt by lawmakers to preserve their power and block the voters’ will. Here is the shabby history:

-- In 2010, then Senate President-designate Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and other mostly GOP state lawmakers tried to sabotage the effect of Fair Districts, voting to put on fall ballots a tricky counter amendment that would have nullified the reform mandate.

In September, the state Supreme Court rightly yanked the proposed amendment as misleading.

-- Three days after taking office this year, Gov. Rick Scott secretly halted the routine clearance process for the redistricting amendments, refusing to send them promptly for review by the Justice Department, as required by law.

The Justice Department’s approval of the Fair Districts standards is big step forward, but no time for advocates to rest on their laurels.

Legislative committees are charged with coming up with new district boundaries by June 2012.

You can bet there’ll be more attempts to undermine the wholly sensible requirements that districts be contiguous, compact geographically, and not drawn to favor or disfavor any party or incumbent.

Citizen pressure is needed You can get more informed by visiting www.floridaredistricting.org, a website created by the Legislature to encourage citizen input.
Read this article in its entirety at
http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/A9/20110609/OPINION/110608017/

---

Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques

Posted by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi

Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2011, pp. 59-72

How great is the danger of extremist violence in the name of Islam in the United States? Recent congressional hearings into this question by Rep. Peter King (Republican of New York), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, have generated a firestorm of controversy among his colleagues, the press, and the general public. Though similar hearings have taken place at least fourteen times since 2001, King was labeled a latter-day Joe McCarthy and the hearings called an assault on civil liberties and a contemporary witch-hunt. Yet the larger dilemmas outlined by both the congressman and some of his witnesses remain: To what extent are American Muslims, native-born as well as naturalized, being radicalized by Islamists? And what steps can those who are sworn to the protection of American citizenry take that will uncover and disrupt the plots of those willing to take up arms against others for the sake of jihad?

Root Causes and Enabling Mechanisms

While scholarly inquiry into the root causes and factors supportive of terrorism has accelerated since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, there are few empirical studies that attempt to measure the relationship between specific variables and support for terrorism. To date, almost all of the professional and academic work in this field has been anecdotal surveys or case studies tracing backward through the personal profiles of terrorists and the socioeconomic and political environments from which they came.

An  item that may help to understand the growth of modern jihadism appears in Marc Sageman's 2004 study, which found that 97 percent of jihadists studied had become increasingly devoted to forms of Salafist Islam highly adherent to Shari'a (Islamic law) while on their path to radicalization, despite many coming from less rigorous devotional levels during their youths. This increase in devotion to Salafist Islam was measured by outwardly observable behaviors such as wearing traditional Arabic, Pakistani, or Afghan clothing or growing a beard.

When viewed together, a picture emerges that may give researchers, as well as law enforcement officials, a way to monitor or potentially to predict where violent jihad may take root. Potential recruits who are swept up in this movement may find their inspiration and encouragement in a place with ready access to classic and modern literature that is positive toward jihad and violence, where highly Shari'a-adherent behavior is practiced, and where a society exists that in some form promotes a culture of martyrdom or at least engages in activities that are supportive of violent jihad. The mosque can be such a place.

That the mosque is a societal apparatus that might serve as a support mechanism for violent jihad may seem self-evident, but for it to be a useful means for measuring radicalization requires empirical evidence. A 2007 study by the New York city police department noted that, in the context of the mosque, high levels of Shari'a adherence, termed "Salafi ideology" by the authors of the report, may relate to support for violent jihad. Specifically, it found that highly Shari'a-adherent mosques have played a prominent role in radicalization..

There is a need for the study and corroboration of a relationship between high levels of Shari'a adherence as a form of religious devotion and coalitional commitment, Islamic literature that shows violence in a positive light, and institutional support for violent jihad. By way of filling this lacuna, the authors of this article undertook a survey specifically designed to determine empirically whether a correlation exists between observable measures of religious devotion linked to Shari'a adherence in American mosques and the presence of violence-positive materials at those mosques. The survey also sought to ascertain whether a correlation exists between the presence of violence-positive materials at a mosque and the promotion of jihadism by the mosque's leadership through recommending the study of these materials or other manifest behaviors.

Identifying Shari'a-Adherent Behaviors

Shari'a is the Islamic system of law based primarily on two sources held by Muslims to be respectively direct revelation from God and divinely inspired: the Qur'an and the Sunna (sayings, actions, and traditions of Muhammad). There are other jurisprudential sources for Shari'a derived from the legal rulings of Islamic scholars. These scholars, in turn, may be adherents of differing schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Notwithstanding those differences, the divergence at the level of actual law is, given the fullness of the corpus juris, confined to relatively few marginal issues. Thus, there is general unity and agreement across the Sunni-Shiite divide and across the various Sunni madh'habs (jurisprudential schools) on core normative behaviors.

Surveyors were asked to observe and record selected behaviors deemed to be Shari'a-adherent. These behaviors were selected precisely because they constitute observable and measurable practices of an orthodox form of Islam as opposed to internalized, non-observable articles of faith. Such visible modes of conduct are considered by traditionalists to have been either exhibited or commanded by Muhammad as recorded in the Sunna and later discussed and preserved in canonical Shari'a literature. The selected behaviors are among the most broadly accepted by legal practitioners of Islam and are not those practiced only by a rigid subgroup within Islam—Salafists, for example.

Among the behaviors observed at the mosques and scored as Shari'a-adherent were: (a) women wearing the hijab (head covering) or niqab (full-length shift covering the entire female form except for the eyes); (b) gender segregation during mosque prayers; and (c) enforcement of straight prayer lines. Behaviors that were not scored as Shari'a-adherent included: (a) women wearing just a modern hijab, a scarf-like covering that does not cover all of the hair, or no covering; (b) men and women praying together in the same room; and (c) no enforcement by the imam, lay leader, or worshipers of straight prayer lines.

Sanctioned Violence

The mosques surveyed contained a variety of texts, ranging from contemporary printed pamphlets and handouts to classic texts of the Islamic canon. From the perspective of promoting violent jihad, the literature types were ranked in the survey from severe to moderate to nonexistent. The texts selected were all written to serve as normative and instructive tracts and are not scriptural. This is important because a believer is free to understand scripture literally, figuratively, or merely poetically when it does not have a normative or legal gloss provided by Islamic jurisprudence.

The moderate-rated literature was authored by respected Shari'a religious and/or legal authorities; while expressing positive attitudes toward violence, it was predominantly concerned with the more mundane aspects of religious worship and ritual. The severe material, by contrast, largely consists of relatively recent texts written by ideologues, rather than Shari'a scholars, such as Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. These, as well as materials published and disseminated by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, are primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at using Islam to advance a violent political agenda.

Mawdudi (1903-79), for one, believed that it was legitimate to wage violent jihad against "infidel colonizers" in order to gain independence and spread Islam. His Jihad in Islam, found in many of the mosques surveyed, instructed followers to employ force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:

Similarly, Qutb's Milestones serves as the political and ideological backbone of the current global jihad movement. Qutb, for example, sanctions violence against those who stand in the way of Islam's expansion:

These materials differ from other severe- and moderate-rated materials because they are not Islamic legal texts per se but rather are polemical works seeking to advance a politicized Islam through violence, if necessary. Nor are these authors recognized Shari'a scholars.

The same cannot be said for some classical works that are also supportive of violence in the name of Islam. Works by several respected jurists and scholars from the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, dating from the eighth to fourteenth centuries, are all in agreement that violent jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation.

The caliph … makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax.

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim … because they are not a people with a book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax.

The Fiqh as-Sunna and Tafsir Ibn Kathir are examples of works that were rated "moderate" for purposes of this survey. The former, which focuses primarily on the internal Muslim community, the family, and the individual believer and not on violent jihad, was especially moderate in its endorsement of violence. Relatively speaking, the Fiqh as-Sunna expresses a more restrained view of violent jihad, in that it does not explicitly call for a holy war against the West even though it understands the Western influence on Islamic governments as a force that is destructive to Islam itself.

Nonetheless, such texts do express positive views toward the use of violence against "the other," as expressed in the following:

Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, "The ties of Islam and the principles of the religion are three, and whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever, and his blood becomes lawful: testifying that there is no god except God, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan." … Another narration states, "If anyone leaves one of [the three principles], by God he becomes an unbeliever, and no voluntary deeds or recompense will be accepted from him, and his blood and wealth become lawful." This is a clear indication that such a person is to be killed.

Similarly in Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

Perform jihad against the disbelievers with the sword, and be harsh with the hypocrites with words, and this is the jihad performed against them

The survey's findings, explored in depth below, were that 51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari'a-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no violent texts at all.

This article has been abbreviated, it includes specific writings and survey results that you will find of interest. The article in its entirety can be found at:

  http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques

Middle East Quarterly

Summer 2011

For more information on this topic, click here

---

DOCTOR'S ORDERS

Obama wants more 'death panel' power

'Strip Congress of legislative role in favor of unaccountable experts?'

Posted: April 25, 2011
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Most of the legal challenges to Obamacare, the president's signature legislation that allows the federal government to take over health-care decision-making, focus on the "unconstitutional individual mandate" that defines sitting in one's living room as "interstate commerce" and demands the purchase of government-approved health insurance.

However, there's a new round of alarms developing over what critics have described as the ultimate "death panel," concerns that have been raised because Barack Obama himself suggested giving an already-unaccountable board more authority.

It's the idea of Obama's Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is one of 150 board and commissions established by Obamacare but is the most notorious because it would be made up of 15 Obama-appointed individuals and would dictate Medicare policy affecting millions of seniors and disabled Americans with essentially no congressional or judicial oversight.

It was during Obama's recent speech in which he condemned a plan to cut the deficit by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., he referenced Obamacare and its critics.

"What they'll say is, well, you know what, that will never work because it's government imposed and it's bureaucracy and it's government takeover and there are death panels," the president said. "I still don't entirely understand the whole 'death panel' concept. But I guess what they're saying is somehow some remote bureaucrat will be deciding your health care for you."

Obama then specifically said his panel's authority should kick in at an earlier time than it already is scheduled to become the law.

U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, who has authored "Doctor in the House" on the issue of the nationalization of health care, said the IPAB was a bad idea when ex-Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., proposed it before voters removed him from office, and it hasn't gotten better.

"Now for the first time ever the primary party for health care for seniors, Medicare, is going to be able to tell you what kind of care you can get, where and when you can get it and worst of all, when you've had enough," he told WND today.

"If all you're looking to do is be able to figure how to take care of old people cheaply, this is the way to go," he said. "If what you want to provide is meaningful medical care, why would you set up or embellish a system that leads to waiting lists and rationing?"

He cited Obama's recent comments, and said the board will become "the central command and control system" and the "primary tool" to limit, ration, reduce or restrict treatments.

Among other reactions was Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online, who followed Obama's vague references with an explanation.

"They're back. Rationing, death panels, socialism, all those nasty old words that helped bring Republicans victory in 2010 … They're back because of IPAB. Remember that acronym. It stands for The Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is the real death panel, the true seat of rationing, and the royal road to health-care socialism.

"Policy wonks and political junkies may know a bit about this health-care rationing panel, but most Americans have barely heard of it. That has got to change," he wrote.

Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, initially referred to "death panels" in Obamacare referencing the end-of-life instructions that originally were included.

"But IPAB is the real death panel (as Palin herself later noted), a body of unelected bureaucrats with the power to cut off care through arbitrary rules based on one-size-fits-all cost calculations," Kurtz wrote.

It was in Obama's speech decrying Ryan's money-saving plan that he suggested expanding the authority of the individuals he would expect to pick.

"We will change the way we pay for health care – not by the procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need," he said.

There were a multitude of similar alarms being raised after that speech, but those actually taking action on the issue are those at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix.

Its attorneys have filed a lawsuit over the provision, arguing that nowhere in the Constitution is the concept of an all-powerful and non-reviewable panel.

"No possible reading of the Constitution supports the idea of an unelected, stand-alone federal board that's untouchable by both Congress and the courts," said Clint Bolick, litigation director for Goldwater.

The organization describes the authority Obama endorses for IPAB: It wouldn't have to follow the basic steps for adopting and enforcing administrative rules. Its payment schedules and policies couldn't be examined by courts and automatically would become law unless amended by Congress through a difficult and complex procedure. And even if Congress would repeal the board in 2017, Obama's strategy automatically delays the effectiveness of that repeal until 2020.

The Institute's lawsuit in federal court opposes IPAB as simply unconstitutional – and it apparently is the only lawsuit challenging Obamacare on this crucial argument.

'Protecting any new federal agency from being repealed by Congress appears to be unprecedented in the history of the United States," said Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute's lead attorney in this case.

The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents a number of clients in this lawsuit including U.S. Reps Jeff Flake, Trent Franks and John Shadegg of Arizona. The congressmen have supported repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Other reactions to Obama's plans include:

• The Wall Street Journal said, "Mr. Obama … is relying on the so far unidentified technocratic reforms of 15 so far unidentified geniuses who are supposed to give up medical practice or academic research for the privilege of a government salary. Since the board is not allowed by law to restrict treatments, ask seniors to pay more, or raise taxes or the retirement age, it can mean only one thing: arbitrarily paying less for the services seniors receive, via fiat pricing.
  
  "Now Mr. Obama wants to give the board the additional power of automatic sequester to enforce its dictates, meaning that it would have the legal authority to prevent Congress from appropriating tax dollars. In other words, Congress would be stripped of any real legislative role in favor of an unaccountable body of experts."
• The New York Times noted that both Democrats and Republicans "fear" and oppose the board.
  
  "Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board's cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics. Lawmakers do not agree."
  
  It cited statements from Ryan, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa.
• Dick Morris wrote, "The IPAB will be, essentially, the rationing board that will decide who gets what care. Its decisions will be guided by a particularly vicious concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years … If you have enough QUALYS ahead of you, you'll be approved for a hip replacement or a heart transplant. If not, you're out of luck.
• From Kurtz, "Obama promised tax hikes for 'the rich,' and vaguely alluded to plans to expand IPAB's powers as deficits mount. Of course, even as he laid the groundwork for strengthening IPAB, Obama gave no real hint of the massive health-care rationing that would imply.

Meanwhile, Obama officials have granted 1,040 waivers to the new law already, because many groups, especially unions who supported Obama, and companies, contend they simply cannot meet its requirements, so shouldn't have to.

The total prompted a video commentary on Obama administration actions:

The site is sponsored by Let Freedom Ring, Americans for Tax Reform, CWA, 60 Plus, Independent Women's Voice and the College Republican National Committee. It allows visitors to e-mail the Obama administration asking for their own waivers. Visitors can select whether they want to ask for exemptions from the law's $500 billion in tax increases, taxpayer funding of abortion or the individual health insurance mandate, among others.

In the federal courts, Obamacare already has been declared unconstitutuional by at least two federal judges and it appears en route to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, numerous state legislatures are considering state legislation that simply would exempt their state's citizens from its requirements. One state had a proposal to make it a crime to try to enforce Obamacare provisions.

To read more about this subject, click here

---

 FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Look who refuses to stop 'imminent' threat against Jews

Officials in Jerusalem warning 'planned attack is already in motion'

Posted: April 25, 2011
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – The new Egyptian government has refused to share important intelligence information with Israel, including details of a terrorist plot against Israelis thought to be imminent, WND has learned.

Last week, officials in Jerusalem warned of the possibility of Hezbollah terrorist attacks against Israeli targets overseas, saying "a planned attack is already in motion," Israel's Channel 2 reported.

Security officials here believe Hezbollah is not planning an attack so large that it would lead to another war with Israel, but they said the Iranian-backed group would attempt a hard hit on overseas Israeli targets in the immediate future.

In light of the immediate threat, Israel requested an exchange of information on Hezbollah with Egypt's intelligence apparatus, but Cairo refused to cooperate, according to security officials here who spoke to WND.

The officials said such information sharing was routine under the previous regime of President Hosni Mubarak.

The officials said Egypt is thought to have an important bank of information on Hezbollah cells, particularly in the Sinai desert following the arrests and interrogations several months ago of a major Hezbollah cell accused of plotting against Mubarak.

WND reported the vast majority of that cell escaped from Egyptian prison in February amid the chaos then engulfing Mubarak's regime.

Members of the cell were arrested in June 2009. At the time, Egypt's public prosecutor, Abdel-Magid Mohammed, announced the country had arrested 13 alleged Hezbollah agents on suspicion of planning attacks inside Egypt.

In 2009, WND was first to report Iranian soldiers aiding the Hezbollah members were nabbed in Egypt.

A senior Egyptian security official, speaking from Cairo, told WND in 2009 his country had information Hezbollah cells – working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – had been coordinating terrorist activities inside Egypt with al-Qaida elements known to be present in the Sinai.

The accusation that Iranian-backed agents were working with al-Qaida could not be verified by Israeli security officials. If accurate, it would mark a major turning point for Hezbollah, which has openly clashed with al-Qaida over ideology. Hezbollah espouses a strict Shiite Islamic belief system, while al-Qaida adheres to fundamentalist Sunni Muslim beliefs.

Al-Qaida has been blamed for a string of major, deadly suicide bombings inside Egypt the past few years mostly targeting hotels and other tourist sites. The Egyptian government previously has admitted it was likely al-Qaida was still operating in the Sinai.

The Egyptian security official speaking to WND said the Hezbollah-Iranian agents in Egypt were working with al-Qaida to plot attacks against tourist sites, particularly those known to be popular with Israelis.

According to separate informed security officials with direct knowledge of the situation, Hezbollah, working directly with Iran, began setting up cells inside Egypt at least two years ago. The cells consisted of well over 80 agents, said the sources.

The goals of the cells operating in the country include plotting to destabilize the Egyptian regime to advance Iranian interests, planning attacks against Israelis at tourist sites, aiding Hamas in Gaza and establishing a base of Iranian operations along the strategic Suez Canal.

The pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat reported Egypt arrested the chief of the Hezbollah cell, identified as Sami Shehab. The newspaper claimed Shehab confessed his cell monitored tourist sites in the Egyptian resort cities of Taba, Dahab and Sharm el-Sheikh, and tracked Israeli ships passing through the Suez Canal.

Latest signs of Egyptian militancy

The purported refusal of Egypt to share intelligence information with Israel comes amid fears in the country of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood seeks to restore the Islamic caliphate, a political empire that once ruled the Middle East. Both Hamas and al-Qaida are Brotherhood offshoots.

Earlier this month, former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who had previously announced his intentions to run for the presidency of Egypt, said "if Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime."

The same day, Egypt's foreign minister said Cairo was ready to re-establish diplomatic ties with Tehran after a break of more than 30 years, signaling a clear shift in Iran policy since the fall of Mubarak.

"The Egyptian and Iranian people deserve to have mutual relations reflecting their history and civilization," said Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby after meeting with Iranian official Mugtabi Amani.

Days after Mubarak stepped aside, Egypt allowed the passage of two Iranian warships through the strategic Suez Canal for the first time since 1979.

Also WND reported last month the Egyptian military command met with Hamas to discuss ways to build a better relationship with the Islamist organization.

For more information on this topic, click here

 

---

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Israeli minister: Annex Jewish communities

Warns Israel can take unilateral actions of its own if U.N. declares Palestinian state

Posted: April 25, 2011

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

If the United Nations unilaterally declares a Palestinian state, Israel should respond by immediately annexing the Jewish communities in the strategic West Bank, declared a Knesset member from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud party.

Danny Danon, the deputy speaker of Israel's parliament, pointed out the 1993 Oslo Accords restrict both Israel and the Palestinian Authority from taking unilateral action outside of negotiations.

However, he contended that if the PA follows through with seeking a U.N. declaration of a Palestinian state, and the international body approved the motion, the Jewish state should take unilateral measures of its own.

"We should (then) announce that we are annexing the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, immediately. The same way (Prime Minister) Menachem Begin did it with the Golan Heights and we did it in Jerusalem, we should do the same with the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria."

Danon was speaking in a radio interview with Aaron Klein, WND's Jerusalem bureau chief who hosts an investigative program on New York's WABC 770 AM Radio.

The Likud Knesset member was referring to the Israeli annexation of the eastern sections of Jerusalem, which contain the Temple Mount, after it recaptured the territory in the 1967 Six Day War.

Also, Israel in 1981 annexed the Golan Heights, which looks down on Israeli population centers, after neighboring Syria twice used the plateau to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

Danon told Klein that any U.N.-created Palestinian state would be "like a state on Facebook."

"They will get a lot of 'likes,'" he said. "People will support them. Countries will support them. But on the ground we will have to make sure that we control the borders. We control the security issues."

He warned a Palestinian country would be a "state of terrorism" that would be controlled by Iran.

Judea and Samaria, commonly referrer to as the West Bank, contains large Palestinian cities as well as Israeli communities, some in biblical cities, such as Beit El and Hebron.

The Palestinians seek a state in the pre-1967 borders, meaning the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem.

The PA been saying for at least two years they may seek a vote at the United Nations Security Council for the declaration of a Palestinian state.

Previously, PA officials stated the Obama administration would not veto a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a Palestinian state.

In 2009, Ahmed Qurei, former PA prime minister and member of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee, told WND in an interview that the PA "reached an understanding with important elements within the administration" to possibly bring to the U.N. Security Council a resolution to unilaterally create a Palestinian state.

Asked to which "elements" he was referring, Qurei would only say they were from the Obama administration.

In a clear attempt to pave the way for a U.N. vote on the matter, the international body announced last week the PA possesses the capacity to function as a state.

"In six areas where the U.N. is most engaged, government functions are now sufficient for a functioning government of a state," stated a U.N. report released last Tuesday.

The six areas were "governance, rule of law and human rights; livelihoods; education and culture; health; social protection; and infrastructure and water."

Still, the report cautioned, "The key constraints to the existence and successful functioning of the institutions of a potential state of Palestine arise primarily from the persistence of occupation and the unresolved issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

The reference to "occupation" is controversial, since the territories were never part of any previous Palestinian state, and Israel is historically tied to the West Bank.

For more information on this topic, click here

---

U.S. government has no strategy to deal with Muslim Brotherhood

By Eli Lake  Wed., April 13, 2011
The Washington Times

---

Mrs. Myrick was particularly concerned about the role the Muslim Brotherhood plays in the United States.

The federal government has no strategy to counter the Muslim Brotherhood at home or abroad, according to the chairwoman of the House panel that oversees counterintelligence and terrorism.

“The federal government does not have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated groups in America,” Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick said during a hearing Wednesday. “Nor does it have a strategy for dealing with the Brotherhood in Egypt or the greater Middle East.”

The North Carolina Republican is chairwoman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism, human intelligence, analysis and counterintelligence. Mrs. Myrick said at the hearing that she planned on scheduling closed classified hearings on the Muslim Brotherhood this session with government officials.

Established in 1928 in Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood is widely considered the first organization to push for political Islam or Islamism, a movement that seeks to replace civil law with Islamic or Shariah law.

Islamists were repressed for decades by the governments in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. But with the wave of uprisings that have toppled those governments, political parties and social movements inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood may be poised to try to assume political power in those countries for the first time.

At the hearing, during which nongovernment experts gave testimony, opinions on this point differed.

To read more of this article, visit:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/13/us-government-has-no-strategy-to-deal-with-muslim-/

---

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE   STATES OF REBELLION

How legislators and governors nationwide are challenging a rogue president

Posted: April 05, 2011

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

While millions of outraged Americans protest what they see as a lawless and power-mad Obama administration, many wonder how much clout individuals can really have in reining in a wildly out-of-control government.

But suppose, in addition to citizens with little power beyond their vote, those standing up to the federal government were named Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Montana, Maine, South Dakota – and many more?

Incredibly, though under-reported by the establishment press, that's exactly what is happening right now, as the April issue of Whistleblower documents in-depth, in "STATES OF REBELLION: How legislators and governors nationwide are openly challenging a rogue president."

A wide-ranging rebellion is indeed under way – by a large majority of states – against what they claim are intolerable and blatantly unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. And they are seriously intent on declaring such unconstitutional laws null and void in their state.

Here's how Thomas E. Woods Jr., author of the bestselling book, "Nullification: How to resist federal tyranny in the 21st century," succinctly lays out the issue in the April Whistleblower:

Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.

Take Obamacare: Most people know the GOP-led House of Representatives repealed it (though the Democrat-controlled Senate almost certainly will not, nor will Obama ever sign it). And many also know 27 states are challenging Obamacare in court. But what few understand is that at least 11 states are attempting to legislatively nullify Obamacare within their borders. So far, an act to nullify the entire federal health-care law has become state law in Montana and Idaho, has been approved by one house in North Dakota, and introduced in eight other states – New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota and Oklahoma.

What about the federal government's labyrinthine gun laws? Eight states have already passed laws – signed by their governors – telling Washington its firearms regulations are not valid in those states for weapons manufactured and purchased in-state. Many other states are on the same legislative track.

There's much more: Utah last month became the first state to make gold and silver legal tender in that state. Twenty-four states are defying Obama by copying Arizona's immigration law – the one the Obama Justice Department sued Arizona over. Lawmakers in 40 states are working to halt the epidemic of "anchor babies" establishing "birthright citizenship." And 13 states are considering laws that would require every presidential candidate – including Barack Obama – to prove he is a natural-born citizen before his name can be placed on that state's ballot in presidential elections.

Read more: STATES OF REBELLION http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=283237#ixzz1JJx80vpj

---

LAW OF THE LAND
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Supremes asked to restore fallen troopers' crosses
'One atheist group's agenda shouldn't diminish the sacrifice of officers'

Posted: April 21, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to bring a decision from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver into alignment with its precedents in a dispute over cross memorials to fallen Utah state highway patrol troopers.

Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund today said they have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court that asks the court to affirm the constitutionality of roadside memorial crosses honoring the fallen officers.

The high court last year concluded in another case that a cross erected by a private group on public property in honor of fallen members of the military was constitutional.

ADF argues that the precedent also should apply to the Utah dispute.

"One atheist group's agenda shouldn't diminish the sacrifice made by Utah highway patrol officers and their families. We are asking the Supreme Court to allow the families of the fallen to honor their loved ones through these constitutionally permissible memorials," said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione.

"The Supreme Court recently signaled that individualized memorial crosses honoring fallen troopers simply do not amount to a government establishment of religion. That guidance applies directly to this case," he said.

A district court judge affirmed the constitutionality of the memorials, but when the dispute was elevated to the Denver court, the judges condemned the crosses on the narrowest of margins, 5-4.

The four judges who dissented raised strong objections to the censorship that the decision appeared to impose.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," the Supreme Court wrote in its 2010 decision regarding a cross memorial in the Mojave Desert. "A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society."

Argued the ADF brief, "The 10th Circuit's decision conflicts with this court's Establishment Clause precedent. The 10th Circuit invalidated the challenged roadside memorials by (1) fixating on their cross shape, (2) ignoring most of their features, history, and context, and (3) opining that the Establishment Clause forbids such displays unless the overall setting nullifies any religious significance."

However, "This court … has denounced each of these analytical missteps. In short, the 10th Circuit's approach, if allowed to stand, will prohibit the government from accommodating public displays of religious symbols, forbid a widely embraced means of commemorating fallen heroes on public property, and manifest an unconstitutional hostility toward religion."

ADF warned that if the Utah crosses are disallowed, the result "could jeopardize similar memorials honoring other fallen heroes across the nation, including 14 crosses on Colorado's Storm King Mountain where firefighters lost their lives in a 1994 wildfire."

The case originated with complaints from American Atheists who sued the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah Transportation Department, alleging the memorials are a government establishment of religion.

That claim was pursued even though the memorials are funded and maintained by a private group, the Utah Highway Patrol Association, which supports patrol officers and their families.

WND columnist David Limbaugh, when the earlier ruling banishing the crosses was released, blasted the judiciary for its "allergy" to Christianity.

"Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon off the chief allergen: Christianity," he wrote at the time.

"The egregious constitutional infraction here is not that the government put up the signs, which it didn't, but that the memorials were placed along public roads. Thus, 'reasonable' passing motorists – as opposed, I guess, to those afflicted with anti-Christian road rage – might well assume that the government is endorsing the Christian religion. Horror of horrors. My gosh, what would the largely Christian founders think?"

He continued. "I don't think it's a reasonable inference at all that the government is making a religious statement by permitting the placement of these memorials along the public highway. On the other hand, I think the government would be (and is) making a statement against Christianity by denying this group access because of its paranoia about going into Christian-spawned anaphylactic shock."

The memorials have remained in place during the court process, but their future depends entirely on the high court accepting the case and reversing the lower court's decision.

Click here to read more about this subject

---

VOICE OF AMERICA

China Breaks Up Christian Worship Services

Peter Simpson | Beijing  April 10, 2011

---

Plainclothes security personnel film as they gather to load detained worshippers onto a waiting bus near a building that leaders of the unregistered Shouwang house church had told parishioners to gather in Beijing, China, April 10, 2011

Police in China detained  hundreds of Christian worshippers as they gathered for an outdoor service in Beijing. The detentions are the latest in a crackdown on individuals and groups deemed by the government to pose a threat to social stability.

The worshipers were from the unregistered, Christian, Shouwang House Church in Beijing.  Their church leaders asked them to gather at an open-air venue for Sunday services, after they were evicted from their usual place of worship last week.

Hundreds of uniformed and plain clothes police officers were deployed to stop the outdoor service.

Around 200 Christian worshippers were  rounded up and detained in a nearby school and others were forced onto buses by police and driven away to an unknown location.  Several foreign journalists were detained for short periods and some were physically intimidated by plain clothes police.

Shouwang Church Pastor Yuan Ling told reporters Sunday he was unable to go to the venue because police had put him under house arrest Saturday night.

The director of the Britain-based China Aid Association, Bob Fu, says the worshipers feel  this is the price they will pay gladly for what he describes as their faith and their freedom.

"We have seen the government use very harsh tactics against believers, including extra-legal procedures, like forced disappearance, kidnapping some of the most prominent Christian human-rights activists," said Bob Fu.

The round up of Christian worshipers is the latest in a far-reaching crackdown on individuals and groups the government says may pose a threat to social stability.  The communist government has been worried about uprisings similar to those in the Arab world taking hold in China, following anonymous online calls for demonstrations.

Prominent activist, lawyers, writers and artists - including internationally renowned artist Ai Weiwei - have recently been detained and charged with a variety of crimes including subversion and tax evasion.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/religion/China-Breaks-up-Christian-Worship-Services-119562524.html

---

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
District taking money, but censoring Christians?
Lawsuit challenges decision to edit messages on project bricks

---

Posted: January 25, 2011
By Bob Unruh

---

WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit has been filed accusing Palm Desert High School in Palm Desert, Calif., of taking money from Christians who bought paving stones as part of a fund-raiser, but then refusing to include them in the final project because of the Christian "verbiage" the stones contained.

A spokeswoman for the school in the Desert Sands Unified School District told WND that it was an outside organization, the parent teacher organization, that was running the fundraiser and the school did not have a responsibility.

"We were surprised because the ADF had brought the issue forward to us [and we] were reviewing it to see what we could do. We're very sensititve to the First Amendments rights to speech and religion," said Cindy McDaniel

But the accusations were spelled out in a complaint filed just days ago in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Eastern Division-Riverside by the the Alliance Defense Fund.

It explains that small paving stones were sold for $100 and large ones for $250 in the school fund-raiser, and purchasers were allowed to include messages such as:

• Be the change that you want to see in the world. Gandhi
  
  
• God bless you babe
  
  
• Dream big
  
  
• Make it happen
  
  
• "Showtime"
  
  
• Carpe Diem
  
  
• Believe

But two Christians who bought stones, one was the purchase of five small stones for $500 and the other was the purchase of one large stone for $250, were refused permission to have their stones displayed along with the others.

According to the lawsuit, Lou Ann Hart bought five small pavers and had inscribed Bible verses including:

• Tell everyone about God's power, Psalm 68:34
  
  
• No one can serve two masters, Luke 17:13
  
  
• If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31
  
  
• …the old life is gone. A new one has begun, 2CO. 5:17
  
  
• …be kind to each other ... forgive one another. Eph. 5:32

The lawsuit explains the women were told that there was a complaint from within the school about the "religious verbiage" on their pavers, so they would not be included in the project. Nor was their money refunded.

"The government cannot single out Christians because their religious viewpoint does not coincide with campus orthodoxy," said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. "Christians have the same First Amendment-protected rights as everyone else does on public school campuses, and their messages are no less worthy of exposure than other individuals'."

The project was launched in February 2010 by the Palm Desert parent teacher organization. It was approved by the principal, board and superintendent.

"No limitations were given as to the content of the messages on the pavers – other than the length – and the fundraiser policy stated that the messages could be used to pay tribute, create a legacy, commemorate a special event, or give recognition to various entities," the ADF explained.

Hart and Sheryl Caronno shortly later made their purchases, "for which they later paid."

Then in August the bricks were made, but the two purchasers "were notified that their pavers' inclusion on the walkway was denied because they quoted Bible verses," ADF said.

District officials cited their perception of the "separation of church and state" as a reason, presuming "erroneously" that the Bible verses would establish an unconstitutional establishment of religion, the ADF said.

The ADF said the district did, however, accept other religious messages, such as a Hindu quote from Mahatma Gandhi and even a Bible quote, "Yes, it is possible," in Spanish.

It was a memo from Karen Rohrbaugh of the parent teacher organization that raised concerns about the "religious verbiage."

The principal, Patrick Walsh, agreed. "We need to respectfully decline the donation of bricks quoting scripture from the bible," he wrote. "I'm sure most parents will understand the constitutional protections regarding the separation of church and state."

The paving stones then were handed over to the purchasers, the case explains.

World Net Daily
March, 2011
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

Ground Zero imam: 'True' Muslims implement Shariah
Tells faithful they must pay 'ultimate price' to see paradise

---

by Aaron Klein
posted January 30, 2011

"True" Muslims who enter the highest levels of Muslim paradise are those who pay the ultimate price of sacrifice for the goal of implementing Shariah Islamic law, declared the imam who has become the new face of the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero in New York City.

In a recent mosque sermon obtained by WND, Imam Abdallah Adhami opens with an Islamic prayer declaring the supremacy of Allah over the universe.

Adhami stated the message of the Quranic figure Muhammad "is the continuity and the culmination of all the messages of all the prophets before him, from Adam to Noah to Abraham and Moses and Jesus and everyone in between."

"And that message is the supremacy and the total dominion of the lord [Allah] of the world," he stated.

In his sermon, Adhami discussed Islamic oral tradition regarding "true" Muslims worthy of entering "Jannah," or the Islamic paradise.

Stated Adhami: "You have to pass all your tests, and the only time that you know you are truthful in implementing the change that Shariah sought for you to implement is when you have paid the ultimate price of sacrifice."

Later in the lecture, Adhami states Muslims have more of a right than do Jews to the biblical prophet Moses.

"We love Moses more than them. We are more worthy of loyalty to Moses, more than they are. We love him more than they do," he stated.

This seems to be a theme for Adhami.

Two week ago, WND broke the story that Adhami declared in a separate lecture that Muslims have "more of a right" than Jews to the biblical prophet Moses.

In the same lecture, Adhami urged Muslims to "compete" with other religions.

Meanwhile, others have been scrutinizing Adhami's background.

Writing at the NewsReal blog writer Joseph Klein revealed Adhami was a guest speaker at the annual convention of the Islamic Association for Palestine in 200o. T he theme of the convention was "All Palestine is Sacred!"

Adhami was reportedly joined at the speakers' rostrum by Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to contribute services to or for the benefit of the Palestine Islamic Jihad.

IAP went defunct in 2005. It was established in 1981 by Hamas political operative Mousa Abu Marzook.

Like the ISNA, the IAP was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document — titled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" – as one of the Brotherhood's 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends."

Also, the Atlas Shrugs website, run by blogger and activist Pamela Geller, found Adhami has expressed appreciation for Islamic cleric Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Adhami has called Wahhaj "Our Beloved Imam" and the "voice of the spirit of Islam in America and its pride."

Also, Adhami's website, Sakeenah, hailed Wahhaj for his "devoted leadership to the community" and his role "as a pioneer in the American Muslim experience."

"Since the 1970s, Imam Siraj has tirelessly laid the foundations for many scholars and leaders that would follow him," the website stated. "From activism to challenges, to the Nation of Islam to revolutions, follow Imam Siraj as he retraces the footsteps of his life."

World Net Daily

March, 2011
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

Courts have ‘special animosity’ for Christians

        Couple accused of 'infecting' children

March 16th, 2011

By Bob Unruh

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

An attorney for a Christian couple who faced religious discrimination in their request to provide foster care says there’s no point in appealing a stunning decision that accused them of “infecting” children with their beliefs, because the nation’s legal system is skewed against Christianity.

But Paul Diamond, who served as barrister to the Johns family in the dispute in the United Kingdom over the nation’s mandatory promotion of homosexuality to foster children, said there is a solution: The people need to reverse the nation’s surge toward treating homosexuals as a privileged class.

WND reported on the court ruling that Christians who want to provide foster care for needy children must promote homosexuality to them, and that there is only a “qualified” right to exercise their Christian beliefs.

The judgment came in a claim by Eunice and Owen Johns that their biblical beliefs in opposition to homosexual behavior were being used by the government to discriminate against them regarding their application to be foster parents.

The couple previously provided foster care and had applied to resume their work but suddenly were rejected because they expressed their Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality.

“Back Fired,” by William J. Federer, shows how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!

According to the Christian Legal Centre, which also posted online the decision in the landmark High Court case, the judges refused to say the Johns should be allowed to provide foster care.

“There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practice of homosexuality to small children,” the organization said.

World Net Daily
March, 2011
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

BORN IN THE USA?

Memo to Congress: It's called freedom of speech

Defense counsel takes on case of woman arrested for gallery comment

---

Posted: January 20, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

World Net Daily
March, 2011
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Suspect detained over 'extremist' bumper sticker
'Don't Tread on Me' puts driver in 'watch' category in DHS report

---

A Louisiana driver was stopped and detained for having a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the "subversive" message it sent, according to the driver's relative.

The situation developed in the small town of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the "suspect" was investigated for "extremist" activities, the relative said.

It followed by only a few weeks the release of a Department of Homeland Security report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The report, which cites individuals who sport certain bumper stickers on their vehicles as suspect, was delivered to tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation.

WND is withholding the driver's name and the relative's name at their request.

However, the situation was described on the American Vision blog.

According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through the town, which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him "he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car."

Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!

"They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes," she told WND.

Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.

The company that sells the bumper sticker is The Patriot Depot, where Chief Operating Officer Jay Taylor told WND the woman had told his staff about the situation while ordering more bumper stickers.

"It's rather shocking," he said. "We supposedly have freedom of speech in our country.

Get your own Gadsden Flag here!

"We joke around every now and then how our spouses will come to visit us in jail," he continued, citing his products that say, "The Audacity of Nope," "Taxed Enough Already," "Born Free, Taxed to Death," "Bring Home Our Troops: Send the Democrats" and "I'll Keep my Guns and Money, You Keep the 'Change'."

"We hope people realize this is serious," he said.

American Vision noted the "background check" that was done on the driver.

"Why? [He] had purchased and displayed a conservative 'Don't Tread on Me' bumper sticker.""

The commentator wrote, "The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan 'Don't Tread on Me!' underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans' reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans' rights, and resistance to tyranny's threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans' rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law."

American Vision continued: "The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as 'militia'-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as 'extremists.'"

"'Liberals' and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty 'extremists' since at least the 1964 election," the Vision America statement said. "Small town police misled by phony left wing 'reports' are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse."

WND reported earlier on the DHS report, which advised about the "extremism" that could be expected from returning veterans, those who support homeschooling and oppose abortion, post certain bumper stickers on their vehicles and other factors.

The DHS not only issued that report, but also an earlier memo defining dozens of groups, members of animal rights organizations, black separatists, tax protesters and others as "threats."

That item, the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" reportedly was rescinded almost immediately, but Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.

It defines the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified."

It states that tax protesters "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."

Apparently, the DHS analyzes the "threat" level of Internet news websites like WorldNetDaily, for the lexicon defines "alternative media" as "a term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets."

World Net Daily
May, 2009
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

---

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Private terror probe: 50 mosques in 50 days
Former special agent visiting each U.S. state to assess threat

---

A Middle East expert and former Air Force special agent is set to launch a "counter-terrorism tour" across America in which he plans to visit a mosque in each state in 50 days to assess their threat to the nation's security.

Dave Gaubatz told WND the ultimate aim of his project, which begins April 16, is to shut down Islamic centers "that advocate violence against America" and to prosecute the Islamic leaders "for sedition or treason if they are encouraging their worshippers to attack America from the 'inside.'"

"This objective will only be met if American citizens become involved in their communities and say 'no more,'" Gaubatz said.

He said he receives contact almost daily from citizens who complain that law enforcement officials are not listening to their concerns.

In fact, he said, intelligence on the Islamic centers he plans to visit has been provided by concerned Christian, Jewish and Muslim citizens.

Gaubatz said many law enforcement officers that understand the Islamic threat are hindered by political red tape that prevents them from conducting timely investigations.

"Most counter-terrorism intelligence collected is filed away and never shared with the public," Gaubatz said. "An objective of this project will be to bring counter-terrorism issues to the attention of the public; and they, in turn, should demand their respective law enforcement departments and elected officials focus on protecting their families and our country."

His assessment of each mosque will be based on available written materials, study material provided for children, discussions with Islamic leaders and observations based on his 25 years of professional training.

Gaubatz, a U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and counter-terrorism specialist, has more than two decades of experience in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq. He was deployed to Nasiriyah, Iraq, in 2003, where he collected intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and espionage.

Gaubatz said he will declare his intentions at each of the pre-selected mosques in a professional manner, hand the leaders his card and confront them on any violent material he observes or on any information they distribute that advocates an Islamic state in the U.S.

"It is important to understand not all mosques and Islamic leaders advocate violence against the U.S., but initial research and intelligence obtained from sources indicate many do," he said.

As WND reported, Gaubatz was engaged in a similar endeavor, though on a much larger scale, in a project called Mapping Shariah in America: Knowing the Enemy

The objective of the mapping project, which stopped due to lack of funding, was to systematically classify every known mosque in the U.S. in a rigorous, scientific fashion, based on the premise that the more a mosque or community of Muslims adheres to Shariah, or Islamic law, the greater its threat to U.S. national security.

During his upcoming 50-day journey, Gaubatz plans to make any relevant information his finds available to law enforcement, and he will keep the public abreast of his travels with photos, video and audio uploaded on his website.

"The public needs this information right now," he said. "With or without public funding, I will conduct the assessment."

His previous charting of about 100 mosques showed "the more adherent the mosque is to Shariah, the more likely you are going to find the material to back that up."

Gaubatz found, for example, at the Islamic Center of South Jersey in Palmyra – where three Muslims charged with terrorism regularly worshipped – a strict, Shariah-adherent leadership that eagerly distributed jihadist materials supportive of seminal Shariah proponents such as Sayid Abul Maududi, the founder of the radical Pakistani party Jamaat-e-Islami, and Syed Qutb, whose ideas shaped al-Qaida

Gaubatz discovered that the mosque tied to the Muslim who went on a shooting rampage at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square mall in 2007 ranked high in Shariah adherence. In Blacksburg, Va., he met the imam who was asked to pray at the nationally televised service for slain students at Virginia Tech and discovered he leads a Shariah-compliant mosque that backs the genocidal Islamist regime in Sudan.

Gaubatz contends many Islamic groups and organizations take on a legal and peaceful veneer in English-speaking settings but often preach quietly in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu "a very violent and anti-American jihad."

Virtually all Islamic leaders in the U.S. have been particularly careful since the 9/11 attacks about what they say publicly, Gaubatz said. But many Shariah-compliant mosques and schools distribute materials supporting or calling for violent jihad.

Gaubatz has spent a considerable amount of his time investigating the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has enjoyed access to the White House, the State Department, Homeland Security and other branches of government despite evidence of its ties to Hamas and other radical groups.

Gaubatz noted CAIR has a campaign to put Shariah-promoting materials into American libraries.

"I've gone to several hundred public libraries and this material is in there," he said. "People don't realize what it is until you start looking at the author, and it came from Saudi Arabia, sent to CAIR. And CAIR is putting it into our public libraries."

As WND reported, Gaubatz publicly served CAIR leaders last November with legal notice of a lawsuit on behalf of Muslims who claim the group victimized them in a fraud scheme involving a lawyer who is unqualified to practice.

Gaubatz said his group has been told by many sympathetic Muslims that to minimize the threat of another attack, authorities should ask foreigners seeking entry into the U.S. if they agree with Shariah.

"If they agree, according to the Muslims who have told us this, then they should probably not even be given entry here," he said.

"It's so easy. You can't agree with Shariah law and say that you are peaceful," Gaubatz continued. "You can't do it. Now there are Muslims in the United States who do. They say, we don't agree with Shariah law, we don't want Shariah law. But then, to the pure Muslim, they are not Muslim."

Some Muslims want to reform Islam, he said, and retain only peaceful elements.

"That's fine, but then you are not pure Muslim," Gaubatz said.

World Net Daily
April, 2009
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

dge: Children need more 'focus' despite testing above grade levels

---

A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be "challenged."

The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years.

The decision is raising eyebrows among homeschooling families, and one friend of the mother has launched a website to publicize the issue.

The ruling was made by Judge Ned Mangum of Wake County, who was handling a divorce proceeding for Thomas and Venessa Mills.

A statement released by a publicist working for the mother, whose children now are 10, 11 and 12, said Mangum stripped her of her right to decide what is best for her children's education.

The judge, when contacted by WND, explained his goal in ordering the children to register and attend a public school was to make sure they have a "more well-rounded education."

"I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]," he said. "It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement."

The judge said the husband has not been supportive of his wife's homeschooling, and "it accomplished its purposes. It now was appropriate to have them back in public school."

Mangum said he made the determination on his guiding principle, "What's in the best interest of the minor children," and conceded it was putting his judgment in place of the mother's.

And he said that while he expressed his opinion from the bench in the court hearing, the final written order had not yet been signed.

However, the practice of a judge replacing a parent's judgment with his own regarding homeschooling was argued recently when a court panel in California ruled that a family would no longer be allowed to homeschool their own children.

WND reported extensively when the ruling was released in February 2008, alarming homeschool advocates nationwide because of its potential ramifications.

Ultimately, the 2nd Appellate District Court in Los Angeles reversed its own order, affirming the rights of California parents to homeschool their children if they choose.

The court, which earlier had opined that only credentialed teachers could properly educate children, was faced with a flood of friend-of-the-court briefs representing individuals and groups, including Congress members.

The conclusion ultimately was that parents, not the state, would decide where children are educated.

The California opinion said state law permits homeschooling "as a species of private school education" but that statutory permission for parents to teach their own children could be "overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent."

In the North Carolina case, Adam Cothes, a spokesman for the mother, said the children routinely had been testing at up to two years above their grade level, were involved in swim team and other activities and events outside their home and had taken leadership roles in history club events.

On her website, family friend Robyn Williams said Mangum stated his decision was not ideologically or religiously motivated but that ordering the children into public schools would "challenge the ideas you've taught them."

Williams, a homeschool mother of four herself, said, "I have never seen such injustice and such a direct attack against homeschool."

"This judge clearly took personal issue with Venessa's stance on education and faith, even though her children are doing great. If her right to homeschool can be taken away so easily, what will this mean for homeschoolers state wide, or even nationally?" Williams asked.

Williams said she's trying to rally homeschoolers across the nation to defend their rights as Americans and parents to educate their own children.

Williams told WND the public school order was the worst possible outcome for Ms. Mills, who had made it clear she felt it was important to her children that she continue homeschooling.

According to Williams' website, the judge also ordered a mental health evaluation for the mother – but not the father – as part of the divorce proceedings, in what Williams described as an attack on the "mother's conservative Christian beliefs."

According to a proposed but as-yet unsigned order submitted by the father's lawyer to Mangum, "The children have thrived in homeschool for the past four years, but need the broader focus and socialization available to them in public school. The Court finds that it is in the children's best interest to continue their homeschooling through the end of the current school year, but to begin attending public school at the beginning of the 2009-2010 instructional year."

The order proposed by the father's lawyer also conceded the reason for the divorce was the father's "adultery," but it specifically said the father would not pay for homeschooling expenses for his children.

The order also stated, "Defendant believes that plaintiff is a nurturing mother who loves the children. Defendant believes that plaintiff has done a good job with the homeschooling of the children, although he does not believe that continued homeschooling is in the best interest of the children."

The website said the judge also said public school would "prepare these kids for the real world and college" and allow them "socialization."

Williams said the mother originally moved into a homeschool schedule because the children were not doing as well as she hoped at the local public schools.

In last year's dispute in California, the ruling that eventually was released was praised by pro-family organizations.

"We're pleased the appeals court recognized the rights of parents to provide education for their children," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. "This decision reaffirms the constitutional right that's afforded to parents in directing the education of their children. It's an important victory for families who cherish the freedom to ensure that their children receive a high quality education that is inherent in homeschooling."

"Parents have a constitutional right to make educational choices for their children," said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "Thousands of California families have educated their children successfully through homeschooling. We're pleased with the court's decision, which protects the rights of families and protects an avenue of education that has proven to benefit children time and time again.

The North Carolina ruling also resembles a number of rulings handed down against homeschool parents in Germany, where such instruction has been banned since the years of Adolf Hitler's rule.

As WND reported, Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has commented previously on the issue, contending the government "has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion."

"The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling," said a government letter in response. "... You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. ... In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement."

WND also reported recently when a German appeals court tossed out three-month jail terms issued to a mother and father who homeschool their children. But the court also ordered new trials that could leave the parents with similar penalties, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The case involves Juergen and Rosemarie Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, who last summer received formal notices of their three-month sentences.

The 90-day sentences came about when Hesse State Prosecutor Herwig Muller appealed a lower court's determination of fines for the family. The ruling had imposed fines of about 900 euros, or $1,200, for not sending their children to school

Muller, however, told the parents they shouldn't worry about any fines, since he would "send them to jail," the HSLDA reported.

HSLDA spokesman Michael Donnelly warned the homeschooling battle is far from over in Germany.

"There continue to be signs that the German government is cracking down on homeschooling families," he reported. "A recent letter from one family in southern Germany contained threats from local school authorities that unless the family enrolled their children in school, they would seek fines in excess of 50,000 euros (nearly $70,000), jail time and the removal of custody of the children."

HSLDA officials estimate there are some 400 homeschool families in Germany, virtually all of them either forced into hiding or facing court actions.

World Net Daily
March, 2009
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

World Net Daily
March, 2009
For more information on this topic, Click Here

LAW OF THE LAND
Supremes: Cities can refuse religious monuments
Ruling allows governments to decide which markers to display in public parks

---

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that governments in the U.S. are not required to post or display every statement offered by private organizations.

The ruling came in a case stemming from a dispute in Utah in which a religious organization called Summum demanded the city of Pleasant Grove display a monument containing its seven "aphorisms." Summum argued the city already had accepted a donated monument displaying the Ten Commandments in a city park.

Lawyers with the American Center for Law and Justice, who defended the city, said a requirement that governments display any message offered was "scary" and would lead to absurd scenarios.

"The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a Hitler memorial?" said the ACLJ's Frank Manion in a previous interview with WND.

The non-profit legal group also had suggested that according to Summum's logic, the nation could be required to allow a "Statue of Tyranny" in New York Harbor to accompany the Statue of Liberty.

The Supreme Court's ruling concluded those fears are "well founded."

At the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, judges had ruled that Summum was entitled to have its monument displayed by the city.

The ACLJ contended Ten Commandments monuments nationwide were the real targets of the legal action, because in many circumstances, cities or other governments likely would order such monuments removed rather than order acceptance of others.

Today's decision, ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told WND, is a "huge victory."

"This decision allows government to convey messages about its own history of its community, and includes religious monuments," he said. "Religious monuments are not treated differently than others. Most significantly, the government get to make the selections."

The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, explained the Constitution "does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government's own vision" for the parks.

A monument is not the same as a message delivered in a public forum, either, the opinion said.

"Speakers, no matter how long-winded, eventually come to the end of their remarks; persons distributing leaflets and carrying signs at some point tire and go home; monuments, however, endure. They monopolize the use of the land on which they stand and interfere permanently with other uses of public space. A public park, over the years, can provide a soapbox for a very large number of orators – often, for all who want to speak – but it is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression," said the court.

"There may be situations in which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is providing a forum for private speech, but this case does not present such a situation. Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech," the opinion said.

"Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land … We think it is fair to say that throughout our Nation's history, the general government practice with respect to donated monuments has been one of selective receptivity."

The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. David Souter filed an opinion concurring in judgment.

In his arguments to the high court, Sekulow said another ruling in the case would "create havoc in America over how local, state and federal governments choose to memorialize significant events."

He suggested the basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property. The answer is 'Yes,'" he said. "The fact is that government speech means the government can control its message. For example, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."

"Summum's assertion of a right to force its monument upon the city has no legitimate basis in Supreme Court case law," Sekulow said.

Summum, founded in Salt Lake City in 1975, calls itself a church. The group sued Pleasant Grove in federal court, alleging that because the city had a donated Ten Commandments monument in a city park, the First Amendment required the city to accept and display a monument to Summum's seven aphorisms.

The aphorisms, according to the group's website, predate the Ten Commandments and include: The principles of psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender.

The "church" claims the aphorisms were written on the original stone tablets given by God to Moses, which he broke when he saw the Israelites had manufactured a golden calf idol during his absence. The organization says the tablets were broken because Moses realized people couldn't understand the aphorisms, so he came down a second time with the Ten Commandments.

World Net Daily
February, 2009
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Senator questions Obama eligibility
Shelby: 'They said he was born in Hawaii,
but I haven't seen any birth certificate'

---

WASHINGTON – A U.S. senator has weighed in on the continuing controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility for office by saying he has never seen proof the new president was actually born in Hawaii.

"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told constituents in Cullman County. "You have to be born in America to be president."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
  
• Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
  
• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
  
• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
  
• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
  
• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  
  
• In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
  
  
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state's procedures allowed at the time?

World Net Daily
February, 2009
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

Reporters arrested for 'offending Islam'
Article says Muhammad killed Jews, had sexual relations with 9-year-old

---

JERUSALEM – Two newspaper executives were arrested yesterday on charges of "intent to outrage" the "religious feelings" of Muslims.

Their alleged crime? Republishing an article that refers to Islam as "oppressive" and states the religion's prophet, Muhammad, had sex with a 9-year-old girl and ordered the murder of Jews.

The incident unfolded in India, where Ravindra Kumar, an editor, and Anand Sinha, publisher of the country's Statesman newspaper, turned themselves into police following complaints from local Muslims. The complaints cited a law that makes illegal the "malicious intent" to "outrage religious feelings." The two were released on bail today.

The Statesman had republished an article Feb. 5 originally printed in Britain's Independent newspaper titled, "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" The author, columnist Johann Hari, was lamenting what he said was the erosion of rights to criticize religion.

"I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a 9-year old girl and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him," Hari wrote.

Although the piece prompted little outcry in Britain, angry Muslims reportedly have been demonstrating in front of the Statesman's offices. Baton-wielding police broke up several protests the past two weeks.

Kumar already issued a public apology for reprinting the article.

"The essential ingredient of the law under which we are charged is malicious intent," Kumar told reporters today.

"But how could we anticipate the protest when the article generated no controversy in Britain, which has substantial Muslim population, after it was carried originally by the Independent?" he said.

India, the world's second most populous country, is mostly Hindu. About 13 percent of the population is Muslim.

As WND reported, a Saudi cleric, pointing to Muhammad as a model for marriage, has declared age is no hindrance to marriage under Islam, and sex at age 9 is fine.

"There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7, or 8. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife," said Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, an officiant for marriages.

World Net Daily
February, 2009
For more information on this topic, Click Here

---

---

---