Obama Threatens to Veto the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act

Like many Americans and Israelis I watched expectantly President Obama’s State of the Union Address (SOTUS)  before a joint session of Congress crammed into the House Chamber. I was looking for a reaction from the Congressional audience on the issue of the P5+1 agreement implemented on January 20th. Iran’s President Rouhani had basically told  the P5+1  in a CNN  interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that the Islamic regime was not going to dismantle their nuclear program. Instead they were going to plough ahead with research and development on advanced centrifuges and would not swap the Arak heavy water plant that would produce plutonium for a bomb.

In  light of these jarring comments made in Davos, Switzerland  by President Rouhani  at the World Economic  Forum, you would have prudently thought that the President would have changed his mind about  vetoing  the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act (NWFIA), S. 1881. Obama made it clear that he was proceeding with the P5+1 deal as a diplomatic way of  avoiding  military action to disable the Islamic Regime’s  nuclear weapons capability.  A capability that according to Israeli PM Netanyahu  speaking at the Annual Conference of the Institute for National Security studies at Tel Aviv University  (INSS) was  “six weeks away from achievement when the P5+1 deal was signed” on November 24, 2013 in Geneva.

President Obama fired a bow shot directed at NWFIA sponsors Sens. Kirk and Menendez, and 57 other co-sponsors of S. 1881, as well as the Resolution introduced in by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor  (R-VA)  and Minority Leader Steny  Hoyer (D-Md.) supporting its passage.

Obama said:

Let me be clear if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it.

For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

If Iran’s leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.  But if Iran’s leaders do seize the chance, then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war.

It is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program – and rolled parts of that program back – for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium. It is not installing advanced centrifuges. Unprecedented inspections help the world verify, every day, that Iran is not building a bomb.

If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

Watch this C-SPAN video clip of the nuclear Iran segment of his SOTUS:

The immediate reaction was clearly stony silence from the Republican members of both chambers in the audience.

According to a  Jerusalem Postarticle on the President’s veto threat, NWFIA co-sponsor Sen. Kirk said:

“The American people – Democrats and Republicans alike – overwhelmingly want Iran held accountable during any negotiations. While the president promises to veto any new Iran sanctions legislation, the Iranians have already vetoed any dismantlement of their nuclear infrastructure,” Kirk added, calling his bill an “insurance policy” for Congress.

The Hill  Global Affairs blog reported the dissembling  the morning after  the President’s SOTUS remarks on a nuclear Iran by some Democratic co-sponsors of NWFIA in the wake of the President’s public veto threat.  Note these Senators’ comments:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said on MSNBC Tuesday night that he didn’t endorse the bill so that it could be voted on during negotiations with Iran. “Give peace a chance,” he said.

“I did not sign it with the intention that it would ever be voted upon or used upon while we were negotiating,” Manchin said. “I signed it because I wanted to make sure the president had a hammer, if he needed it and showed them how determined we were to do it and use it, if we had to.”

[…]

“Now is not the time for a vote on the Iran sanctions bill,” Coons said Wednesday at a Politico event, according to The Huffington Post.

The senator clarified that he still supports the bill but warned advancing it now could damage ongoing negotiations toward a final agreement with Iran.

[…]

“I’m not frustrated,” Menendez told The Huffington Post on Tuesday after Obama’s address. “The president has every right to do what he wants.”

The Hill Global Affairs blog noted the Senate reaction  to NWFIA :

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-highest ranking Democrat, Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the fourth-highest ranking Democrat, and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have said they are against the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has also suggested he’s leaning toward not allowing a vote on it.

On Wednesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said the Senate should move the sanctions bill forward to the floor, predicting it would have a veto-proof majority.

Meanwhile, Reuters reported on Monday that lawmakers in both the House and Senate are considering a nonbinding resolution that expresses concern about Iran’s nuclear program.

Backing what Sen. Kirk said in his response to the President was further evidence from former  UN nuclear weapons inspector David Albright at the Washington, DC Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).  Both he and the sanctions analysis team from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies held a well attended briefing for Capitol Hill Staffers on Monday, January 27th.  Albright was quoted in the Los Angeles Times citing an ISIS  report on the technical aspects of the accord implemented on January 20th that allows Iran to continue research over the next six months on several types of advanced centrifuges already at Natanz:

[The accord]  is not expected to seriously affect Iran’s centrifuge research and development program. Albright said he hopes to persuade the six powers to push for much stricter limits on centrifuge research and development when they negotiate the final agreement. The issue has to be addressed much more aggressively.

Cliff May of FDD, co-sponsor of the Capitol Hill event with Albright  of  ISIS,  observed in an NRO Corner article:

If Iran’s rulers faithfully comply with every commitment they have so far made, at the end of this six-month period, they will be about three months — instead of two months — away from breakout capacity.

Yesterday, at the annual conference of the  Institute for National Security studies (INSS)  at Tel Aviv University, there was a dialog between former CIA Director Gen. David Petreaus and Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin,  former  IDF military intelligence chief.  The contrast between their positions on the Iran nuclear threat was most telling:

General (ret.) David Petraeus: The United States is war weary and suffers from a “Vietnam syndrome.” However, it still has major strategic capabilities, and President Obama will not hesitate to use force against Iran, if necessary.

Major General (ret.) Amos Yadlin: What keeps me awake at night is the Iranian issue. The Iranian nuclear program aspires to attain a nuclear capability. The only viable leverage – sanctions and a credible military threat – are weakening, and this is most worrisome. Also troubling: the status quo on the Palestinian issue is not favorable, and the relations with the United States are not on the same level as before – these must be restored.

If you are a gambler, which of the two former military leaders, would you bet on to make a decision in the sovereign national interests of Israel regarding a nuclear Iran?  I know who I would.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Salon.com gets it wrong on Thomas Jefferson’s Quran and Islam

Denise Speelberg in her column “Our Founding Fathers included Islam” states, “Thomas Jefferson didn’t just own a Quran — he engaged with Islam and fought to ensure the rights of Muslims.” The basis of Speelberg’s column is Thomas Jefferson quoting “A Letter Concerning Toleration” by John Locke who in 1689 wrote, “Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.”

Note that Locke groups “Pagan and Mahometan” together. Locke is speaking about civil (legal) rights in England and the Commonwealth.

In Locke’s letter Mahometan is mentioned only once. Jew or Jewish are mentioned fifteen times. Locke was more concerned about tolerance toward the Jews. Locke begins his letter with, “Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church.” What is the true Church to which Locke refers? The Church of England.

To whom is the letter written? Answer: The members of the English Parliament in 1689.

Parliament of England.

Locke’s letter was directed at the 1689 Convention Parliament, an irregular assembly of the Parliament of England. It was the Convention Parliament, which in 1689, issued a Bill of Rights; established a constitutional monarchy in Britain; bared Roman Catholics from the throne; codified William III and Mary II becoming joint monarchs of England and Scotland (to1694), passed the Toleration Act granting freedom of worship to dissenters in England; and created the Grand Alliance of the League of Augsburg, England, and the Netherlands.

The Toleration Act of 1689 allowed freedom of worship to Nonconformists who had pledged to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and rejected transubstantiation, i.e., Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists but not to Catholics. Nonconformists were allowed their own places of worship and their own teachers, if they accepted certain oaths of allegiance. It purposely did not apply to Catholics, nontrinitarians and atheists. The Act continued the existing social and political disabilities for Dissenters, including their exclusion from political office and also from universities.

Our forefathers were “the dissenters” excluded from public office and universities. They came to America seeking political and religious freedom. All were Christians.

Speelberg writes, “At a time when most Americans were uninformed, misinformed, or simply afraid of Islam, Thomas Jefferson imagined Muslims as future citizens of his new nation. His engagement with the faith began with the purchase of a Qur’an eleven years before he wrote the Declaration of Independence.” The problem is Speelberg’s statement is simply not true. Jefferson engaged the Mahometans alright but not in the way presented by Speelberg. While true Jefferson owned a Qu’ran, it was to fight against the Barbary pirates and Islam, not embrace them.

Gerard W. Gawalt in “America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe” writes:

Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins [Order of Trinitarians] had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.

Regarding Thomas Jefferson’s opinion of these Mahometans Gawalt found:

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully “endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation.” Jefferson argued that “The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace.” Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. “Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association,” Jefferson remembered, but there were “apprehensions” that England and France would follow their own paths, “and so it fell through.”

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America’s minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.” “From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money,” Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them.”

Ambassadors Jefferson and Adam efforts to form an international coalition to fight the Barbary pirates failed. When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli’s demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean.

Today Jefferson and Adams, for their efforts, would be called by some “Islamophobes”. President Jefferson had a Qu’ran in order to understand America’s enemies in North Africa, not to embrace them. Jefferson understood that when tolerance of barbarism becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide.

Perhaps Speelberg needs to study English and American history? Or is she trying to rewrite American history to fit her political narrative?

RELATED: President Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates by Robert F. Turner

Editorial: Florida libraries celebrating Muslim American Heritage Month

The Hillsborough County Public Library Cooperative was selected as one of 840 libraries and state humanities councils across the country to receive the Bridging Cultures Bookshelf: Muslim Journeys from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the American Library Association (ALA). The endeavor aims to familiarize public audiences in the United States with the people, places, history, faith and cultures of Muslims in the United States and around the world.

The six library branches that received the bookshelf, which included 25 books, 3 films, and access for one year to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, will be offering related programming the week of October 6th to October 12th in celebration of Muslim American Heritage Month. Hillsborough County is the epicenter of this program in Florida offering Arabic calligraphy classes, books and films.

This celebration is an oxymoron. There is no American Muslim heritage. There is a Muslim heritage in Islam. All of the books and films are about Islam, not one is about a Muslim heritage in America.

One film Muslim Journeys is being shown at the John F. Germany Public Library on October 12th. It is about “an African-Muslim prince who was captured and sold into slavery in the American South.” However, there are no books on the reading list by South African-born Ronald Segal. According to Salon.com, “Segal is the author of 13 books including ‘The Anguish of India,’ ‘The Americans’ and ‘The Black Diaspora.’ In his latest book, ‘Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora,’ he offers one of the first historical accounts of the Islamic slave trade.”

In an interview with Segal, Suzy Hansen from Salon.com writes, “Another slave trade, however, the Islamic one, remains a mysterious aspect in the history of the black diaspora. Fourteen centuries old, this version of slavery spread throughout Africa, the Middle East, Europe, India and China. It is the legacy of this trade that continues to ravage Sudan and Mauritania today.”

Hansen asks: How did the Atlantic and Islamic slave trades differ?

Segal’s “Islam’s Black Slaves” documents a centuries-old institution that still survives, and traces the business of slavery and its repercussions from Islam’s inception in the seventh century, through its history in China, India, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, and Spain, and on to Sudan and Mauritania, where, even today, slaves continue to be sold.

Islam’s Black Slaves also examines the continued denial of the very existence of this sector of the black diaspora, although it survives today in significant numbers; and in an illuminating conclusion, Segal addresses the appeal of Islam to African-American communities, and the perplexing refusal of Black Muslim leaders to acknowledge black slavery and oppression in present-day Mauritania and Sudan.

Events in Nairobi, Egypt, Syria and across the Middle East and North Africa are not on the library reading list. There are no films or books about attacks by Muslims against their fellow Muslims, no discussion of Shariah laws and its impact on minorities and women and nothing about the ongoing slave trade operated by Muslims buying and selling black Africans.

Perhaps a more balanced approach to at least the slavery issue is in order?

Exclusive interview with Egyptian activist Cynthia Farahat (+ Video)

Cynthia Farahat

Florida radio talk show host Tom Trento interviews Egyptian activist Cynthia Farahat on the imploding and exploding events in the Middle East. During this exclusive interview Farahat provides key insights into what is happening in Egypt and its short and long term implications on the United States and its allies.

Cynthia Farahat is an Egyptian political activist, writer and researcher. Co-founder of the Misr El-Umm (2003-06) and the Liberal Egyptian (2006-08) parties, which stood for peace with Israel, secularism, and anti-Islamism, she was under long-term surveillance by the State Security Intelligence Service before seeking political asylum in the United States in 2011.

Ms Farahat worked with Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty in Cairo, and the Center for Security Policy and Coptic Solidarity. She has testified before the U.S. House of Representatives and received an award from the Endowment for Middle East Truth in 2012, and the Profiles in Courage Award from ACT for America in 2013.

She is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum and co-author of two books in Arabic and, among other journals, has published in the Middle East Quarterly, National Review Online, Front Page Magazine and The Washington Times.

Watch this exclusive interview with Cynthia Farahat courtesy of TrentoVision.TV and The United West:

EDITORS NOTE: Please contact Tom Trento at The United West for more information on his program and guests. WDW – FL is not responsible for the content of this broadcast.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Cairo newspaper sends personal message to Obama
Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood members murder seven, injure dozens on way to anti-Morsi protests
Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood supporters attack Christians in Luxor, murder four, injure 32
Chilling video: Pro-Morsi supporters threaten suicide bombings and death to Christians
Egypt’s military takes charge with Morsi in custody; other Brotherhood leaders being sought
Egypt: Muslims burn down 23 houses belonging to Christians
Muslim Brotherhood claims interim Egyptian president is Jewish

Editorial: Is Rubio the new face of “Progressivism”?

Florida has a penchant for growing and electing Republicans who morph into big government “progressives”. The most recent example is Marco Rubio. But he is not the first and certainly will not be the last.

Before Rubio there was Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist.

Jeb is the brother of George W. Bush, the “compassionate conservative” President. Compassionate conservative came to mean during Bush’s second term “progressive big government”. Remember it was former President  Bush who dramatically expanded Medicare (Part B) and bailed out the banks. Government stimulus is an ongoing program created by a Republican President and expanded under the current administration. G.W. Bush famously said, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Jeb and G.W.’s father former President George H.W. Bush signed the Agenda 21 Treaty.

Charlie Crist soon after being elected governor adopted California’s carbon emission standards by issuing an Executive Order imposing them on all Floridians. Crist morphed from being a Republican, to a Progressive Independent and is now a registered Progressive Democrat. It is expected Crist will challenge Governor Rick Scott in 2014.

Jeb has visions of following in his father’s and brother’s footsteps. He has embraced President Obama’s Common Core education initiative, which will enrich Jeb and his family. In September of this year he will award the Liberty Medal to Hillary Clinton. Jeb will present the award on the eve of the deadly Benghazi attack in Libya. The Liberty medal is awarded by one of Jeb’s many foundations.

Rubio willingly became the face of the progressive goal of amnesty with the passage of the immigration bill this week. There is a pattern. While Rubio was Florida Speaker of the House he supported the REAL ID and failed to strengthen immigration laws in Florida. Many were concerned that Rubio would be pro-amnesty but he reassured Floridians that he would not during his 2010 campaign. In 2010 Rubio stated, “’an earned path to citizenship,’ such as his opponent Gov. Charlie Crist, former President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain had advocated, was nothing more than a ‘code for amnesty’.”

Fast forward to this week. Greg Gutfeld, co-host of The Five on Fox News, said, “For politicians [like Rubio] immigration is more about bodies than borders.” Republicans, like Rubio, are becoming more and more progressive in their views and now actions. Many conservatives say the Republicans have compromised their principles on key issues, which according to Slade O’Brien from Florida Americans for Prosperity, “Is the art of losing slowly.”

Today, Florida Republicans are breeding the next generation of progressive politicians. Heritage Action for America scorecard gives a lower than 60% rating to six Florida Republicans in Congress, including Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL 13), who leads the Florida delegation and sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Another of the upcoming “new progressives” in Florida is Senator Nancy Detert who was given an “F” rating on the Americans for Prosperity legislative scorecard.

Is seems to more and more Americans that both Democrats and Republicans are now two squads on the same team. The only difference is who has the ball.

Gone are conservative men of conscience like former Senator Barry Goldwater, American Politician and Senator, 1909-1998. It was Goldwater who wrote:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

While Florida Republicans may embrace Ronald Reagan, and declare they are conservatives during their campaigns, it is their actions once elected that make their true beliefs clear. Is the public conscience in decline and Republican politicians just a reflection of the “new, new”; or are they the proximate cause of the moral and cultural decline in America?

That is the question.

Killing Lee Rigby for Allah

President Obama gave a one hour national security speech yesterday, May 23rd. He addressed the global threat against America. However, the President did not discuss the why of the threat. The President stated, “Now make no mistake: Our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth.” The President never mentioned the attack on Lee Rigby.

Here is the full unedited video of the attack on Lee Rigby:

But why are we still under a relentless attack?

Tom Trento, SW Florida radio talk show host on WNN AM 1490 answers the question: Why did Lee Rigby, the young soldier beheaded in London, have to die for Allah?

Trento notes, “Words fail to communicate the abject savagery of the attack by two Muslim jihadis on Lee Rigby, a 25 year old band member in the British Army. In part 1 of a two-part series the TrentoVision team digs deeply into the reason for the attack and why the West, in particular, the United States can and MUST make changes to stop Muslim immigration and seditious activity in Islamic mosques.”

PART I – Why Lee Rigby had to die for Allah:

PART II: Why Lee Rigby had to die for Allah:

Fellow soldiers described Lee Rigby as a larger-than-life personality who was liked and respected across the regiment. “Drummer Rigby, or ‘Riggers’  (he played the drum) as he was known within the platoon, was a cheeky and humorous man, always there with a joke to brighten the mood,” said Capt. Alan Williamson who was his platoon commander from 2010 to 2011.

Rigby’s family issued a brief and poignant tribute: “Lee was lovely,” the family said. “He would do anything for anybody, he always looked after his sisters and always protected them. He took a ‘big brother’ role with everyone.

“All he wanted to do from when he was a little boy, was be in the army,” the statement said. “He wanted to live life and enjoy himself. His family meant everything to him. He was a loving son, husband, father, brother  and uncle, and a friend to many.  We ask that our privacy be respected at this difficult time.”

Jerry Gordon, a WDW contributor notes, “The grisly Islamic slaughter perpetrated by British Nigerian converts to Islam on the streets of South East London of 26 year old British soldier Lee Rigby, an Afghan war vet who left a two year old child behind, has shocked all who have seen the video and read the news. However, the vapid unctuous comments by UK PM David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson about this heinous act not representing the real Islam or UK policy represent totally ignorance of the goals and totalitarian imperative of normative Islam. He is not alone among western politicians, save for Dutch MP Geert Wilders and a few others. Certainly, neither current President Obama, who received initial instruction in normative Islam while an impressionable child in Indonesia, and former President George W. Bush demur from this totally ignorant view of fundamentalist Islam. The mentor of the mujahideen murderer Michael Adebolajo, self-styled British Muslim Sheikh, Anjem Choudary, is totally truthful about Islam’s total lack of human rights for any non-Muslims under Sharia and doctrinal rejection of all Western civil and human rights.”

Gordon notes these comments of Choudary from an interview on an April 11, 2013 Press TV interview courtesy of MEMRI TV:

Anjem Choudary: “Let me be absolutely clear: As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals.”
Other TV guest: “You reject human rights? I believe you.”
Anjem Choudary: “There is nothing called a republic in Islam. When we talk about the shari’a, we are talking about only the shari’a. We are talking about rejecting the U.N., the IMF, and the World Bank.”

The Council on Foreign Relations reports, “President Barack Obama defended his administration’s efforts to fight terrorists overseas (ABCNews) as ‘proportional’ and ;just,’ but said he would seek to curtail drone use, limit presidential war powers, and work to close the Guantanamo prison as part of a gradual winding down of the fight against terrorism that began in 2001. Obama’s proposals were welcomed in the two countries most affected by drone strikes (AP), Pakistan and Yemen, although Pakistan says the strikes should stop completely.”

RELATED COLUMNS:

Police: French soldier stabbed in neck while on patrol [by a Muslim]

Muslim behead two Coptic Christians in New Jersey

Jihad Butchery in London and the Big Islamic Lie (Blog and Interview)

Terrorism is never justified

Stockholm rioting continues for 5th night…

‘They don’t want to integrate’…

A Call to Courage Over Benghazi

The following op-ed is posted with permission of the author Joseph R. John, Captain, USN (Ret), a 1962 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress:

Admiral James A. Lyons, US Navy (Ret.) USNA ‘52, USN (Ret) former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet and the former Senior US Military Representative to the UN

After eight months of stonewalling the Congress, an article by Admiral James A. Lyons, US Navy (Ret.) titled “A call to courage over Benghazi” calls for Congress to take action to force the Obama Administration to provide the American people with the truth about what happened leading to the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The article is a further attempt to shed light on the heroic actions of two Navy SEALS who saved 32 American lives during the assault on the Benghazi Consulate.

That attack was perpetrated by over 150+ Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists, from Ansar al-Shariah, in a well-coordinated and premeditated commando style assault on the US Consultant. US Ambassador Stevens, two heroic Navy SEALs (Glen Doherty and Tyrone Wood), and the Ambassador’s aide were assassinated.

The two Navy SEALs were not part of the Ambassador’s security detail, yet the White House intentionally misreported their status as such.

They were killed in the Consul Annex. They had previously jumped into the breach to try to save the lives of the Americans in the Consulate. Despite urgent and desperate calls for help from Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens sent directly to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she and her staff ignored Ambassador Stevens repeated cries for help, and let him twist in the wind for 8 hours, until he was delivered to a hospital with severe wounds, where he finally died about 4 hours after the attack began.

The article was forwarded by ADM James A Lyons, Jr., USNA ‘52, USN (Ret) former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet and the former Senior US Military Representative to the UN. He is calling for the establishment of a Select Committee in the House of Representatives to investigate and respond to the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. To date 122 Congressmen have signed on to House Resolution 36 calling for the establishment of a House Select Committee on the Benghazi Attack.

House Speaker John A. Boehner has been stonewalling the establishment of such a Select Committee.

Everyone in the Benghazi Consulate knew in the very beginning of the attack at, 9:40 PM on September 11th, that the attack was a well-planned and premeditated attack by Al Qaeda terrorists with heavy weapons, RPGs, and mortars, and Ambassador Stevens reported that fact, over and over again the Consulate and the Navy SEALs kept requesting support, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the White House Situation Room, and to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Yet for a period extending for over 2 weeks after the terrorist attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Obama in his speech to the UN (2 weeks after the attack) kept repeating that the attack was the result of a Libyan civilian demonstration against a YouTube video on the Internet that went bad—we do not think anyone in Libya has ever seen that that fathom video.

THE TIMELINE:

On March 28, the Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens requested additional security of Secretary Hillary Clinton; she turned him down on April 12th.

On May 3rd, the State Department turned down a request for a Security Team from the Libyan Embassy.

On May 22nd Terrorist attack Red Cross Office in Benghazi (the Red Cross Office in Benghazi was closed after the attack); at that time, the US Consulate was warned of a pending attack. On June 6th, terrorists attacked the US Consulate and blew a hole through Consulate wall.

On June 6th, Ambassador Stevens was told his Security Team contract would “not” be renewed. June 22nd, Ambassador Stevens warned the State Department that extremist groups were operating openly in Benghazi.

On June 7th, Ambassador Stevens asked the State Department for two Security Teams to protect US personnel in Benghazi (the request was rejected). On June 10th, the British Ambassador survived an assassination attempt on his convoy and Al Qaeda Terrorists openly rallied in Benghazi (the British Consulate in Benghazi was closed after the assassination attempt).

On July 9th, Ambassador Stevens mad a request for 13 more security personnel to protect the Benghazi Consulate. Instead, to protect the embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the State Department hired the Libyan Militia Group, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, that had clear Al Q’ieda sympathies; they were hired to protect the Consulate, even though it had prominently displayed the black Al Q’ieda flag on its Facebook page for many months.

On July 21th, the Regional State Department Security Officer warned the State Department that the risk to the US Consulate in Benghazi was HIGH.

On August 2nd, Ambassador Stevens sent another urgent cable directly to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton requesting a “protective bodyguard detail” for him because he was in danger.

On August 5th, the State Department ordered the “removal” of Ambassador Stevens Security Team.

On August 15th, there was an emergency meeting in the US Consulate in Benghazi on security matters.

On August 16th, the Regional Security Officer sent a direct E-mail to Secretary of State Clinton warning of the dire security situation developing in Benghazi.

On September 8th, the Benghazi Security Officer warned the Department of State and the Secretary of State of imminent attacks.

On September 10th, the Al Qaeda Leader, Ayman al-Zawahri publically called for Libyans to avenge the death of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri’s deputy, Abu Yahya al-Lib, on September 11, 2013, the anniversary of the Al Q’ieda terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York.

On September 11th:

Ambassador Stevens warned the State Department via cable of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi, and meets with a Turkish diplomat at 7:30 PM in the Benghazi Consulate.

At 8:00 PM, Al Qaeda terrorists set up check points around the Benghazi Consulate. At 8:30 PM. Ambassador Stevens ended his meeting with the Turkish diplomat.

At 9:40 PM, terrorist fire the first shots in the coordinated attack on the Benghazi Consulate, and Ambassador Stevens called Hicks in Tripoli to tell him that he was now under attack by terrorists, and asked for help.

At 9:59 PM, the Pentagon ordered a surveillance drone to overfly the Benghazi Consulate; from that point on, the White House Situation Room, the CIA, the State Department, and the Pentagon could view live video feed of the ongoing attack in Benghazi (the live feed continued for 8 hours with a second relief surveillance drone).

At 10:05 PM, the Benghazi Consulate was in flames for all to see on live video feed, and messages were being transmitted between the White House, the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

At 00:06 AM on September 12th, Ansar Al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack on the Consulate.

At 1:00 AM, on September 12th, the body of Ambassador Stevens was transported to the hospital by friendly local Libyans for medical attention; that was 3 hours and 20 minutes after the attack began.

At 4:00 AM, on September 12th, two Navy Seals were killed on the roof of the Consul Annex; that was 6 hours and 20 minutes after the attack began.

On September 12th, at 3:00 PM Washington, DC time, about 3 hours after the Navy SEALs were killed, Obama departed for a Las Vegas fundraising rally.

THE MILITARY SUPPORT THAT WAS AVAILABLE:

It is a well-known fact that F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy could have arrive over the scene of the attack on the Consulate in 90 minutes, and could have retaliated against the Al Qaeda terrorists to save the lives of those under attack. In addition, there was also a 130-man US Marine Corps Marine Force Recon Team at Sigonella, Italy that was on the tarmac, ready for deployment, which could have arrived at the compound within 2 hours. General Carter Ham, Commander African Command, was relieved of his command, when he ignored the White House’s order to “stand down”, and tried to send a military reaction force to save the lives of the Americans under attack, which was only several hours away.

General Petraeus at CIA put out an urgent request for military assistance to the White House, in order to save American lives, but the White House ignored his request. The entire attack was viewed by live video feed from two separate drones overflying the on-going attack for 8 hours; one of those drones could have been armed and to strike the terrorist. For 8 months 32 survivors of the attack, whose lives were saved by the two Navy SEALS, have relayed their fear of intimidation from the Obama Administration; they hired attorneys and informed congressmen that they have been threatened and were warned not to testify as to what actually happened leading up to, during, and following the Benghazi attack. The Foreign Emergency Support Team that is required to be called up by the Secretary of State, to arrive a US Mission within 48 hours to preserve and protect all forensic evidence after an attack for FBI investigation, was never called up by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and 8 months later, the Foreign Emergency Support Team still has not been called up.

THE COVER-UP:

Even before the attack in Libya ended, intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of the events unfolding in Benghazi, and concluded that Q’ieda-linked terrorists were responsible for the attack; the Obama administration asked to modify the findings. Senior Obama Administration Officials in the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House, sought to cover-up the emerging picture and downplayed the significance of the attack just before the national election. On September 15, three days after the Navy SEALs were killed by Al Qaeda, and everyone in Obama’s National Security apparatus knew the attack was perpetrated by Al Qaeda terrorists; Obama publicly blamed the attack on Libyan civilians, who he said were demonstrating against a YouTube video on the Internet.

The next day, on the morning of September 16th, UN Ambassador Susan Rice in 5 Sunday morning TV network programs, stated the attack was by Libyan civilians demonstrating against a YouTube video on the Internet, even though she knew that Al Qaeda terrorist executed the attack. On the same day, Susan Rice kept repeating the same lie, over and over again, the Libyan President reported to the world press that the attack that killed US Ambassador Stevens and two Navy SEALs was planned and executed by terrorist. Four days later, on September 20th, once again Obama blamed the attack on civilians demonstrating against a YouTube video on he Internet. On September 25st, even though he knew it was a lie, Obama, in a speech at the UN, blamed the attack on Libyan civilians who were demonstrating against a YouTube video on the Internet. On October 10th, the State Department said they had no previous warnings of the September 11th attack on the Benghazi Consulate.

The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, who headed up the Accountability Review Board, the Obama Administration’s Official Investigation of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

His official report, alleged that for over an 8 hour period, no military assistance was available or could be deployed in time to oppose the Al Q’ieda terrorist attack. That unconscionable and flagrant lie by Mullen has been proven to be a false whitewash  and was only inserted in the report, to give the Obama Administration’s political cover for the deceitful and shameful failure by a Commander-in-Chief’s dereliction of duty; he ignored repeated and desperate requests for help from Ambassador Stevens and the two Navy SEALs, requesting protection of their lives and the lives of State Department personnel under attack in Benghazi by Al Qaeda terrorists. The then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, the current head of the CIA John Brennan, and the National Security Agency have all been involved in a massive cover-up; they all knew full well that F-16 fighters support was just 90 minutes away and that other military reaction teams were just several hours away.

Mullen knows that his statement that military protective support was not available was a cover-up. Mullen’s report covered up the murder of two Navy SEALs. He disgraced the Navy uniform he once wore.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Clinton kept counterterrorism out of loop, Benghazi testimony will show

24 September 2012: Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack
5 October 2012: Diplomatic Deception
8 October 2012: Lemmings… At the precipice of WW III
23 October 2012: Death Race Damascus: 13 Days in October
26 October 2012: The hidden real truth about Benghazi
29 October 2012: Obama’s October surprise – exposed by Benghazi?
1 November 2012: Abandoning America’s honor
5 November 2012: Obama’s real world game of Risk
10 November 2012: Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
11 November 2012: The “secret” information by Paula Broadwell
13 November 2013: Sex, Lies and Obama Ben Ghazi – A Shakespearean tragedy
27 November 2012: Benghazi explained: Interview with “Intelligence Insider” (Part I)
29 November 2012: Benghazi explained: Interview with “Intelligence Insider” (Part II)
11 December 2012: Benghazi explained: Interview with “Intelligence Insider” (Part III)
2 December 2012: Behind the lies of Benghazi
4 December 2012: Chemical weapons reports in Syria, exactly as warned
19 December 2012: The wretched absurdity of the Benghazi Report
8 January 2013: Flashing red lies of Benghazi
24 January 2013: Running down the clock on Benghazi
21 February 2013: Brennan: From Barack to Benghazi
25 April 2013: Benghazi Report: Trinkets of Treason

The complete Benghazi timeline courtesy of the American Thinker in spreadsheet form:

For a larger view click on the image.

An open letter to Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor Northland Church in Longwood, Florida

The following was received by WDW – Florida and is reprinted with permission.

‘An open letter to Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor Northland Church in Longwood, Florida

Dear Dr. Hunter,

Information about your wish to prevent a law that would protect America from the insinuation of Islamic Sharia law into our legal system was brought to my attention.  I refer to SB 58 Application of Foreign Laws in Certain Cases to the Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability, March 21, 2013. Be assured that the disease is indeed upon us, and we must never be made to accept laws foreign or domestic that are antithetical to those established by our Founding Fathers.

Dr. Hunter, we are under attack by stealth jihadists who understand our governance and the way to circumvent our laws far better than we understand theirs.  The Bishop of Canterbury in the UK also granted acceptance of Sharia law to accommodate their wave of immigrants only to learn that Muslims do not assimilate and will never accept British law over the laws that they deem to be direct from Allah. Similarly, in our country, Muslims demand that their decrees be accepted over The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, to override the laws of the land they’ve allegedly adopted as their own, ultimately to destroy our Constitution as their process of Islamization unfolds.

Of the multitudes who have come to live in America – the different races and religions, languages, laws, customs – realize that Muslims are the first and only ones to have ever asked exceptions to our laws, and to demand that we accept theirs as our own.  This is not the assimilation of the masses, but invasion and conquest of a fascist ideology.  Your willingness to accept Atif Fareed’s petition without a complete investigation of the ramifications of relinquishing our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is criminal.  Fareed is a former member of CAIR, Council of American-Islamic Relations, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. How long after this concession will this feigned friendship evolve into demands that your church accommodate Muslim needs, before you lose your congregants, your pulpit, and your church to Islam?  It’s time you learned more about Islam.

Islam is an aggressive, political,economic, military, social and legal system, a totalitarian ideology posing as religion.  Since Muhammad’s first conquest of the cities of Mecca and Medina in 624 a.d., cities he called holy after slaughtering every Jewish and Christian inhabitant, he and his followers have continued to capture, butcher, convert and enslave – 270 million people over 1400 years, and more than 20,666 deadly jihad attacks since September 11, 2001, consider the website, Religion of Peace.  There is not one country in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe and in the Americas where Muslims have settled and not brought with them demands, riots, threats, conversion, and deadly conflict with the host culture.  And, where they have completely swallowed a nation, such as all the countries that were never Islamic before 624 a.d., they have also erased history by destroying the artifacts of that culture.

So, what is Sharia Law?

Muslims who choose not to live under our Constitution and strive to implement Sharia Law in their  immediate communities and ultimately infiltrate and change our administration are here to destroy our American way of life, just as they’ve done in other countries in the past.  Considering our laws and size, the Muslim Brotherhood has determined that the best road to conquest  is through stealth – working within our system and deceiving our religious and community leaders.  You do not have the right to forfeit our way of life to Islam.  You owe it to yourself and to your followers to be educated before petitioning to relinquish our rights in support of Islam. Muslims do not have the right to force us to infuse their laws into ours; this is usurpation, destruction, and conquest. Sharia is incompatible with Democracy.

The Declaration of Independence clearly stipulates, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Further, when despotism is introduced, we have the right and the responsibility to throw off such government.  Our Constitution empowers us with the duty and ability to reject and combat both foreign and domestic tyranny.  Islam is such tyranny, as their Koran mandates them to unite our country into a global Islamic caliphate,with complete domination.

Islam is a death cult, where murder is encouraged, honor killings of their own children accepted, suicide bombings inspired to confiscate land, and motivated by promises of virgins in heaven and gifts and monetary reward to surviving families.  Islam institutionalized slavery and justified rape and enslavement of captured women and children as their bounty.  Islamic countries are to this day the leading slave traders in the world. 

In most Islamic countries, women are treated as slaves and prisoners: forced into wearing complete coverings (burqas) or subject to beatings; prevented from attending schools; prevented from walking unaccompanied by a male; forced to undergo damaging genital mutilation, facially disfigured and gang-raped; and have no legitimacy in a court of law.  Kidnapped toddlers are forced to be camel jockeys for the pleasure of Dubai’s sheiks.  Children are forcibly sodomized, used as expendable warriors or human shields in war zones and girls are forced into  pre-pubescent marriages with older men.  Fatwas (legal pronouncements) are issued to find and execute apostates, and Islamophobia was created to curb our speech and prevent the populace from criticizing Islam or learning about their malevolence.    

In addition to a recent revelation that the Taliban has approved a new widower’s sexual relations with hisdeceased wife within six hours after her death, it has now been revealed that Egypt’s high school curriculum now encourages students to perform ritual human sacrifice and cannibalize apostates and Muslims who have abandoned praying  (raw, not cooked).  The more we delve into Islam, the more unabashed evil we uncover.

While the Islamist may claim the First Amendment as his right to impose Sharia law on our citizens (such as banning what offends them, special financial accommodations, and taking over streets for outdoor prayers), it actually states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Thus, Sharia law may not be practiced in the United States; Sharia violates our Constitution, and the Muslims and you are complicit and guilty of Criminal Sedition, and subject to prosecution by our Federal government.

As an American citizen, you are obliged to prevent the Islamization of our country.  You are duty-bound to thwart the law that you have duped into supporting so willingly.  Be assured that Muslims do not have the Constitutional right to impose their laws in our land, thereby destroying ours.  AND Fareed has already shown his hand by being a former chairman of  CAIR, a terrorist-supporting front organization.  Together you are betraying  everything for which America stands.

Dr. Hunter, you must understand the danger that comes when despotism is accepted in the spirit of multiculturalism.  I recommend you read SHARIA, The Threat to America – an exercise in competitive analysis, a report of Team B II, produced by The Center for Security Policy.

Tabitha Korol

Analysis of the Prop 8 and DOMA “gay marriages” cases before US Supreme Court — what’s going on and what could happen.

The following comprehensive analysis is provided by MassResistance.org:

As most people know, this is a terribly critical time regarding the imposition of “gay marriage” on America.

On Tuesday, March 26, the United States Supreme Court in Washington heard arguments on the lawsuit to overturn the Proposition 8 Constitutional Amendment vote in California. The following day, the Court heard arguments on the lawsuit to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Either of these would be huge wins for the homosexual movement and could change the country similar to the way that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” changed the military.

Christian-bashing. Homosexual activist taunts Christians gathered near US
Supreme Court building during “gay marriage” arguments. Expect to see
more of this if any of these cases wins.

Both of these cases were strategically targeted and crafted for maximum success. And they were filed in carefully chosen venues to get the most gay-friendly federal judges. All of that worked out stunningly for the homosexual legal teams. Both cases sailed through the federal courts with barely a hitch. And both, as we shall see, were further aided by less than stellar representation by their opposition.

Both cases have generated mountains of paperwork in their filings, amicus briefs, and rulings, along with the myriad of groups and individuals that have been involved on each side,. It can be quite overwhelming. Our aim here is to explain all this in reasonably simple terms.

Most important to understand is that both of these cases have used the “equal protection under the law” clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment as their primary argument. And in our opinion, this what the pro-family side has largely failed to effectively defend.

The Proposition 8 Case

Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex “marriage.” An additional state, Hawaii, passed an amendment to allow the legislature to decide. Nine states currently allow same-sex “marriage.”

The homosexual movement calculated that it could undo all of this by getting a federal court to declare such an amendment unconstitutional. They decided to target the California amendment, known as “Proposition 8”, which was passed in 2008.

Tolerance? During Proposition 8 campaign in California, two lesbians parked this car in front of home of parents and 5 children who supported Proposition 8.

There were good reasons for this choice. California is in the very liberal 9th Circuit federal court district. But in addition, they were able to arrange for Judge Vaughn Walker to preside over the case. Walker, who later publicly acknowledged he was homosexual, struck down the amendment. (However, he did order a stay of enforcement until it worked its way through the legal system. This stay was challenged in court by the homosexual legal team but in this they were not successful.)

The gist of the case, as mentioned above, is that under the “equal protection under the law” clause of the US Constitution, homosexuals who want to marry were being treated differently from heterosexuals who want to marry. Instead, California allows them to enter into civil unions. Such discrimination is unconstitutional, they argue. Homosexual couples should have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals, because they as citizens have the same basic civil rights. The federal judge and the appeals judges all agreed with that reasoning.

The counter-argument was that the same laws on marriage apply to everybody — i.e., everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex — therefore, there’s no “equal protection” problem. But that was rejected by the judges. The fact that the lawyers on our side accepted California’s civil union law as a legitimate compromise made that argument difficult to defend. (That was another strategic reason for choosing California as the target.)

But beyond that, the pro-family handling of that case was widely criticized as a “perfect storm” of incompetence and non-aggression. See the MassResistance report from 2010 on this.

It’s always appeared to us that the only effective way to discredit the “equal protection” argument would be to discredit homosexual behavior itself. It should be easy. There’s certainly an enormous amount of material to do that. But the pro-family lawyers have almost completely avoided that approach.

Thus, during the US Supreme Court arguments, when the right made a brief foray into some stronger points, it didn’t go well. Here’s how (the far-left pro-gay) Mother Jones magazine reported on pro-family lawyer Charles J. Cooper’s interchange with the justices:

When Cooper argued that California was justified in enacting the ban because of “society’s interest in responsible procreation,” Justice Elena Kagan asked if it would be constitutional to ban marriages between infertile couples. When Cooper argued that it’s possible that same-sex marriage harms children, Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that there were already more than 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California. Asked by Kennedy and Kagan how same-sex marriage could have a negative effect on “traditional” marriages, Cooper couldn’t offer any examples.

According to reports, throughout all the court hearings the pro-family lawyers were trying craft arguments that would fit the predicted the temperament of Justice Kennedy, the assumed “swing vote,” rather than on the strict legal aspects of the case. It’s an interesting type of calculated risk.

If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the lower courts, what does that mean? The answer: It’s devastating. 

It would effectively strike down all laws and state constitutional amendments in the US against same-sex “marriage.” This is the holy grail of the entire homosexual movement. It will basically undo all the work that’s been done in defending marriage, and in one stroke will completely redefine the family unit for the entire country. Like the 1973 abortion ruling, it would be a sweeping mandate by judicial fiat with no possibility of fighting back by the citizens.

The Defense of Marriage (DOMA) case

DOMA was passed in 1996 by huge majorities in Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law (1) bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages” in any of its laws, programs, benefits, etc. It also (2) gives individual states the legal option not to recognize them, even if other states allow them.

The homosexual movement’s strategy here was to file several cases and hope that at least one was successful. In 2009 and 2010 four separate federal lawsuits seeking to overturn DOMA were filed: two in Massachusetts, one in Connecticut, and one in New York. All four were filed in “pro-gay” federal court venues with relatively gay-friendly judges presiding.
July 9, 2010: The DOMA ruling in Boston Federal Court was celebrated in the mainstream press as a great civil rights victory.

July 9, 2010: The DOMA ruling in Boston Federal Court was celebrated in the mainstream press as a great civil rights victory.

But the “equal protection” clause was the primary argument they used, but one of the Massachusetts lawsuits also invoked the 10th Amendment “states’ rights” argument. (Ironically, the “states’ rights” argument has also been used — more persuasively — by lawyers on our side of this case. They argue on the rights of states NOT to recognize “gay marriage” on a federal level.)

MassResistance had followed the two lawsuits in Massachusetts, one filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) legal group, as they went through the federal court in Boston. Read our analysis published in 2010.

VIDEO: Telling it like it is. After the Boston Federal Court ruling, Brian Camenker of MassResistance was interviewed by CNN.(Also see video of local TV interview.)

All four anti-DOMA lawsuits won in the federal courts. A contributing factor was the weak-kneed defense of DOMA by the Obama Administration’s justice department. The DOJ’s reluctance to be aggressive was admitted to in a statement in February, 2011.

From these, the US Supreme Court selected the New York case, Windsor v United States, to hear. But after seeing how poorly the Obama Administration defended the DOMA case in the lower courts, the House of Representatives sued and won the right to hire its own legal counsel to defend it before the Supreme Court. They hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement.

After Clement accepted case, his high-profile firm, King and Spaulding in Atlanta, caved in to pressure from homosexual activists and withdrew the firm it! So Clement resigned from the firm and has continued defending DOMA.

The DOMA lawsuit targets particular part of the law (Section 3 in the statute) which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’

The plaintiffs have argued that the federal government must treat “gay marriages” the same as regular marriages throughout all its laws, regulations, etc., because “gay people” have the same rights as everyone else and “gay marriages” are still marriages. Otherwise, “gay people” are not being treated equally under the law. And it’s the right of the states to determine that.

Unfortunately, in our opinion, Clement’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court and in his briefs were only moderately better than the pro-family Proposition 8 lawyers. He didn’t aggressively take on the heart of the matter regarding “equal protection” — the issue of homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Instead, he mostly stuck to the states’ rights argument and the traditional purposes and reasons for the institution of marriage.

Interestingly, it was Justice Kagan who brought out the fact that DOMA was originally passed because of the widespread disgust over homosexuality in America. As Politico reported:

Kagan read aloud from the House Judiciary Committee report on DOMA which described the statute as a way to resist the immorality of homosexuality. “I’m going to quote from the House report here….’Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality,'” she said.

How important are these points? No one can really tell.

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling and overturns the key Section 3 of DOMA, the homosexual movement can accomplish the following:

  • It would require the federal government (funded by taxpayers in all 50 states) to include homosexual “marriages” in all federal benefits. This includes Social Security, federal pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran’s benefits, and everything else involving marriage, including filing jointly on Federal income taxes.
  • It also includes access to federal programs and other things run or controlled by the federal government, such as housing, federal loans, passports, health insurance, military housing, burial in military cemeteries, etc. Thus, the federal government would recognize homosexual behavior as equal to regular marriage throughout the range of all its activities.

  • But even more frightening: Given the wording of the decision it would also likely extend to any activities that receive federal funding, such as state programs, college programs, and virtually anything else involving federal money, such as federal contracts. We believe that the Obama administration would use this as a lever to accelerate the forced equalization of homosexuality with heterosexuality in all federal activities or anything connected to federal money — similar to the way it did in the military with the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Also going on: Massive nationwide PR assault

The two Supreme Court cases are the homosexual movement’s “ground war.” There is also the “air war” going on.

Most people, even pro-family activists, don’t realize that for the last few months America has been under what’s likely the largest and most expensive public relations campaign in the history of the homosexual movement.

All of those politicians (including some Republicans) who are suddenly very publicly “coming around” on the “gay marriage” issue isn’t a coincidence but clearly the result of a very intense lobbying effort — targeted for the time when the Supreme Court would be considering the “gay marriage” cases.

The same goes for the huge news generated when Sen. Portman’s “gay” son conveniently persuaded them to change his mind at just the right time. And how does it happen to get into all the right media in the right way? It goes on and on. There are the full-page ads in major newspapers listing the major corporations supporting “gay marriage.” The influx of gay-marriage and gay-relationship issues on this season’s TV shows. The magazine stories, including TIME with the homosexual kisses. Even the flood of Internet ads (even on conservative sites) on gay marriage. And of course, the phony polls on major networks showing a huge national support for gay marriage. We’ve even seen “gay rights” sidewalk canvassers in some cities.

“Gay” ads flood the Internet. And we meaneverywhere! Actual screenshot of National Review Online website, Feb. 13, 2013 with two prominent ads for Human Rights Campaign, radical homosexual group. Ads say: “Take a stand against fear, hate-mongering, and bigotry. Make a monthly gift.”

Most of the money for this seems to be flowing from established groups like Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. But there are obviously other vehicles that are less visible at work.

It a D-Day-like effort to persuade the nation — and especially the Supreme Court — that “gay marriage” is inevitable and that trying to fight it is fruitless.

A tale of two marriage rallies: DC and Boston

The two “gay marriage” rallies that took place the first day of the first Supreme Court “gay marriage” oral arguments said a lot about the nature of this battle.

On Tuesday, March 26, thousands of regular pro-family people made the trip to Washington DC and marched outside the Supreme Court building, easily outnumbering the homosexual activists gathered there. The speakers were various pro-family activists, group leaders, and a few politicians.

That same day in downtown Boston it was the elites: The homosexual lobby and the liberal establishment held its own rally celebrating the DOMA lawsuit which was first filed in Boston. It attracted a few hundred activists and press. But the speakers were an impressive gathering of at least a dozen prominent city, state, and federal politicians, including the Mayor of Boston, Congressman Ed Markey, along with major homosexual activist leaders. (There was one Republican, US Senate candidate and current state rep. Dan Winslow, who gave a rousing pro-gay speech.)

VIDEO: What it was like. Scenes from the two marriage rallies: Washington DC the Boston.

How will the Supreme Court rule?

As the battle continues across the country, over the next few months the Justices and their staffs will digest the oral arguments and the large number of amicus briefs submitted by both sides, and also discuss the cases among themselves. It’s generally predicted that they will release their decision in the latter part of June, just before this year’s session ends at the end of June.

If this were decided strictly on the rule of law, we think that both cases would lose. Applying “equal protection under the law” to homosexual behavior is absurd by any rational application. And the states’ rights argument is far-fetched, despite the liberal Boston judge’s ruling; DOMA was written to protect states’ rights. But unfortunately, there’s a long history of the courts ignoring the obvious constitutional law.

The conventional wisdom is that Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote on this. So most of the national focus has been on him. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are considered safe traditionalists expected to decide against both cases, and Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are seen as left-wing on just about everything and will support both. (The fact that Sotomayor and Kagan, the Obama nominees with documented radical pasts, are even on the Supreme Court is a testament to the cowardice of the Republican Party for not blocking them when they should have.)

Many commentators have also read in their tea leaves that Kennedy is not eager to have the courts mandate national “gay marriage” by fiat the way the court did with the much-maligned and contentions 1972 abortion ruling. But it’s hard to believe that they would leave the homosexual movement with nothing at all.

Our prediction is that Kennedy will not overturn Proposition 8 and mandate gay marriage everywhere. But he’s likely to strike down DOMA to at least some degree, and force it throughout the federal government.

But who knows? Whatever side of the bed Kennedy gets up on that day could determine the fate of the family structure and morality in America. It’s a terrible situation. The Founding Fathers never intended courts to have this kind of despotic power over the country. But our politicians (and ultimately the citizens) and have allowed it to happen.

On the other hand, there’s still two months to go. Anything can happen. If anything the fight needs to be stepped up.

Bill Maher: Bloomberg’s Nanny State ‘Makes Me Want to Join the Tea Party and Marry Ann Coulter’

Clash Daily reports on an interview between Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Maher:

Here is the video:

JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST: Mayor Bloomberg is somebody that…

BILL MAHER: [Sighs] Ohh.

KIMMEL: Now, what do you think of his efforts to protect us from carbonated beverages and the like?

BILL MAHER: I don’t like it. You know, I think it gives liberals a bad name. I really do. It makes liberals look like bullies who want to tell people what to do. And they never met a regulation they didn’t like. I mean, obviously we do have a problem with child obesity. I don’t want our children to be 99 percent Mountain Dew. But this is not the way to go about it.

You know, I mean, because, first of all, we all do something that hurts our health, you know? We all eat stuff we shouldn’t. Probably the optimal food for primates is bread, fruit, lawn clippings and rain. But at a certain point that gets old. And we just don’t want, I mean, we don’t want to be a nanny state like this. I mean, you know, I don’t know what Mayor Bloomberg has in mind, but there’s something wrong about the seventh richest man in the world sitting in bed at night thinking, “You know what people shouldn’t do? Drink too much Sprite. Let’s make that a law.” That makes me want to join the Tea Party and marry Ann Coulter, you know, and that’s not where I want to be.

Read more.

RELATED COLUMN: 

Harsanyi: Jeremy Irons rips Michael Bloomberg, Nanny State

Fertility (Dis)Figure(d) – A view from an American woman in Paris

Column by Nidra Poller (February 2013) an American journalist living in Paris, France. She is reporting on the movement in France to question where it is as a culture.

Fertility (Dis)Figure(d)

Un enfant quand je veux si je veux… The battle cry of the feminists marching for freedom from fertility—“a baby when I want one if I want one”—was ringing out in the streets of Paris when I came to live here in 1972. After lagging behind the United States, where the diaphragm + spermicide had been available to married women since the 1940s and oral contraception since 1957, France caught up with The Pill in 1967 and legalized abortion in 1975, championed by Auschwitz survivor and then Health Minister Simone Veil. The process has gone forward on all fronts, with generalized use of fail-proof methods, unfettered access to abortion when fail-proof fails, reimbursement across the board including, just recently, 100% free contraceptive pills for women 15 to 18.

Contraception and abortion alone could not bring about the desired transformation of the female condition. They were the technology. The metaphysics was what has become known as “gender studies.” In the early days of Women’s Liberation it was makeshift ideology peddled in volumes of look-alike fiction and non-fiction best sellers shouting that maternity was a drag, femininity a hype, sexual differences induced by cynical manipulation, love and marriage an extension of the military industrial complex, and men were chauvinist pigs. No more pink for girls and blue for boys. Sexually marked toys were not abandoned but switched: cars and trucks for girls, dolls and tea sets for boys. Women wanted, or were told they wanted, something called equality.

The harbingers of this “sexual revolution” were, more often than not, closet lesbians. Later we not only discovered that they were lesbians telling heterosexual women to kick their men in the balls and out of their lives, they were also playing stereotypical sexual roles in private, some as simpering mistresses to others more macho than any man could be.

In the space of one generation we went from the prohibition of pre-marital sex to promiscuity for all. The stakes were high for a young woman in the 50s. Sleeping around or, oh horrors, getting pregnant killed her chances of a good marriage… only way to climb the social ladder. Unmarried women could not be fitted for a diaphragm. There was no place to make love decently. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin in 1952, female students under 21 were not allowed to live off campus. We were quartered in dorms, with 10 PM curfews. The lower classes and a dissolute bohemian minority did what they wanted and dealt with the consequences as best they could. Decent women waited to discover the pleasures or disappointments of conjugal life. Twenty years later, a young man with nothing to offer and nothing to lose, would mumble his momentary itch; if the chick dared to decline, he’d toss off a whiny “what’s the matter, you got hangups?” before shuffling off to another.

Teenage girls rushed to lose their virginity before getting their first bra. The boys they slept with had a pressing need for freedom. Don’t cramp my style, don’t try to hold on to me, I’m not into commitment. A girl who, for whatever reason, didn’t solve the fertility problem by taking The Pill was too much of a bother. Women were supposed to be liberated… meaning, available 24/24 with no strings attached. Somehow Women’s Liberation turned out to be an emergency exit for men, inclined to run out on their responsibilities and give in to their more shiftless instincts.

Well- educated, professionally accomplished, financially independent women made babies with a male friend or part time lover, with the clear understanding that the woman would assume 100% of the responsibility for raising and providing for the child. Looking back, it’s almost laughable to see how feminine they were! Liberated from drudgery they voluntarily opted for impossible burdens. A woman’s work is never done. Marriage was spurned or diluted by up-front adultery. Lovers and mistresses joined the family for dinner, children’s birthday parties, and family vacations. Wives and husbands moved in and out, and it was no more dramatic than changing seasons.

None of this nullifies the undeniable improvements in the lives of women, our chances for fulfillment in love, marriage, maternity, and a wide range of professions. No longer on the outside looking in, we can see for ourselves how the working world is organized, how power is won and exercised, how many seemingly fascinating jobs are less interesting than, for instance, taking care of babies. Today, young women deserve our help in re-examining the past to reconceive the equilibrium between biology and choice. They have heard enough about what was acquired. What about the losses?

Fertility is formidable. Connecting unbridled fertility to irresistible sexual pleasure is a work of genius. Is it true that primitive people did not make the connection between making love and making babies? Everything has been arranged to make young fertile men and women forget it… until it’s too late. The consequences are enormous. Mouths to feed, and a lifetime of responsibility. Women, until just recently, could be left holding the bag… unless the man voluntarily took his share of the burden and attendant joys. At the same time, women took the blame for sterility. In the understandable wish to get beyond all of that primitive stuff we have, of course, created new problems.

While reassuring women that the advantages of oral contraception outweigh the dangers, the French Health Ministry has issued warnings about 3rd and 4th generation contraceptives after a young woman suffered a debilitating stroke. But these dramatic risks are the visible peak of a throbbing ache that has never been addressed. Women who cannot bear the changes induced by oral contraceptives may be a minority but those who are uncomfortable with the effects associated with artificial hormonal activity are probably a silent majority. How does the body regain the intelligence of reproduction when it has been silenced for years by oral contraception or IUDs?

Fertility is a daunting challenge, a stunning competitor that interferes with our short and long term plans. It should not be treated as an enemy. Granted, we need some control over this magnificent life force that doesn’t exactly go with our current lifestyle. But if we smash it, suppress it, rough it up, and fail to honor it we wake up one day with a problem that few futurists imagined: drastic population decline. Just as a family can wither away and disappear in a few generations, a nation can lose its bid for posterity. We find ourselves with advanced societies collapsing on an upended age pyramid while the under-25 majority of retrograde populations are out in the streets throwing rocks and firebombs or drugging themselves on heroin and despair.

And then there is AIDS. Super safe birth control that theoretically allows for super carefree pleasure notwithstanding, the clumsy old condom was brought back into service.

Once and for all defined as progress, women’s liberation is stubbornly entrenched. Thinking women, happy to be involved in board meetings, business travel, financial transactions, and research projects, have pocketed the progress and ignored the twisted paths that take us away from our destination. The fine arts and literature, seemingly locked into the hysterical phase, do little to help women conserve or recover the delicate skills that help us nurture the masculinity of men. Women have used more clout to get the right to drive buses, work on automobile assembly lines and now, in the US, go into combat than to improve the balance between work, maternity, and child care.

We keep getting hit with the downside of our miracle solutions. For example, the two-for-one baby boom. I am not qualified to say whether the proliferation of twins is due to post-contraception sterility, pre-menopausal maternity or new techniques of assisted procreation, but it is troubling when every third stroller you pass on the street is a double. First, contraception has to be 99.9% reliable for women at the peak of fertility, then medical genius has to compensate for damaged fertility… there is a time for everything but who knows what time it is?

Un enfant quand je veux comme je veux. The motor of Progress must not idle. Having established the religion of free love, liberated women from the disgusting femininity-maternity couplet, placed abortion on the same level of noblesse as procreation, demanded parity everywhere from floor sweepers to CEOs, purified language of the despicable undifferentiated masculine collective, the battalions of Progress are back on the front lines and their battle cry is “A child when I want how I want.” Are homosexuals the latter day saints of love marriage and procreation? The issue of same-sex marriage is currently debated in the French legislature. Debate is a euphemism for the arrogant steamroller of the left wing majority, reveling in a no holds barred shouting match against the opposition. Deaf to the outcry of a huge segment of the population, indifferent to reasoned argument, secure in the certainty that President Hollande will not put the question to a popular referendum, the majority is having a ball.

The bill, in an inimitable French lace formulation, is called “mariage pour tous [marriage for everyone]. It actually means “marriage for no one,” in that the institution will be gutted and the shell decorated with garlands of flowers. Lurking behind this mariage nouveau is a devious plan for “procreation without biological borders.” With imperial disdain, a government, elected with a modest majority is dismantling the basic building block of society. Long stretches of the proceedings at the National Assembly are broadcast live on our equivalent of C-Span. Dozens of mini-Robespierres grab the microphone as if it were a whip and lash out at the Opposition, accused of homophobia, retrogradia, and obstruction of the wheels of History. Following the lead of Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, whose corn rows are meant to be an argument in themselves, deputies alternate revolutionary thunder with cooing over kitschy homosexual weddings with all the trimmings and heartfelt pleas for the children (hundreds? thousands? who knows?) who will finally bathe in the crowning glory of marriage for their homoparents.

Indulgent media visit the happy homes of happy homosexuals with their happy broods. No complaints from these child soldiers. Daddy plus Daddy makes a house a home. And aren’t two mothers better than one? Who are the dastardly reactionaries that would deprive innocent children of the dignity of married homoparenthood? How dare they insinuate that same sex parents are not as good if not better than heterosexuals? Who are they to say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman intending to make a family? Homosexuals deserve the same rights to marry and found a family as heterosexuals!

The opposition claims “mariage pour tous” is a Trojan horse: procreation-booster rights will inevitably follow the same-sex marriage & adoption bill. In fact, MAP (medically assisted procreation) for lesbian partners, included in an earlier draft of the bill, was withdrawn due to opposition within the majority party and the French electorate. It will eventually be tacked on to a family affairs bill initially promised for March, now postponed to October, pending—but not depending on—the recommendations of the Bioethical commission. Opposition deputies predict that males will demand and obtain, on the grounds of equality, legalization of surrogate motherhood. The majority cries Foul! You don’t want same-sex marriage so you drag in unrelated issues. False, shouts the opposition, and the memorandum shows what’s up your sleeve. For some reason the Justice Minister issued a memorandum last week notifying consular officials that recourse to surrogate motherhood– a criminal offense under French law– is not in and of itself grounds for refusal to naturalize the child.

Once these fait accompli children are brought to France, the father(s) will demand official filiation. Does the wish to have children–against the implacable laws of nature–justify cheating? Other subterfuges are detailed in a chuckling article in Le Monde.1 One member of a lesbian union hides all evidence of her partner during the adoption procedure. Then the two women raise the adopted child together… until they separate. The once-hidden partner now fears her ties to the child might be broken. Karim was the odd man out when his partner Yann fertilized a Ukrainian woman, but today they live happily with their five year-old twins in a remote village where friendly neighbors are satisfied to learn that that both men are “papas d’intention” [daddies by intention] of the children born via a “maman de naissance” [birth mommy]. Yann doesn’t like the term “maman porteuse” [carrying mommy]; it sounds too industrial. He says there’s nothing inspiring about the biological bond. “The act itself is shabby– masturbating into a test tube–and the consequences are a monstrosity.” I assume he means the pregnancy.
Members of the left wing parliamentary majority, infuriated by the Trojan horse argument of the opposition, cannot in fact justify the same-sex marriage juggernaut without the hidden procreative project. Back in 1999, their predecessors promised that the PACS [contract of civil solidarity], tailored to the needs of homosexuals, was the last and final stage. No marriage, no adoption, no procreation, no filiation. Of 142,738 contracts signed in 2012, 3,680 were male-male, 3,064 female-female, and 135,994 male-female. Did homosexuals shun the PACS because it was beneath them or because they weren’t really interested in forming more perfect unions? And what if a tiny minority of a tiny minority will actually take advantage of same-sex marriage? How can that justify the slapdash, sloppy, ill-considered, unjustified dismantling of marriage and filiation?

Can the impossibility of making children without a male and a female participant be solved by same-sex marriage, MAP, and surrogate motherhood? Isn’t it a way of forcing the children born under these circumstances to perpetuate the myth of homoparenthood? Neither our respect for homosexual friends and family nor individual examples of wonderful children raised by same-sex partners can resolve this dilemma. The question is what shall society encourage, allow, condone, facilitate, tolerate, forbid or punish.

The idea that a child needs a mother and a father is suddenly labeled reactionary! One might as well burn all the world’s literature and retool humanity into heartless robots. Who can deny the suffering of a child who loses a mother or a father by illness, accident, abandonment or divorce? Proponents of mariage pour tous claim the opposition is motivated by base prejudice against equality in marriage, while they stubbornly deny the inequality imposed on the children brought into the world via this misconception. An infant doesn’t need to be cradled against a mother’s breast and held in strong male arms? The orchestration of contrasting male-female sensations–muscles, odor, voice, rhythm, mentality– is a vital need for children. It has nothing to do with socially-imposed stereotypes; it is a corollary of the ineluctable reality that reproduction is only possible when a female ovule is fertilized by male sperm.

Advocates of same-sex marriage portray homosexuals as innocent victims of discrimination; there is nothing intrinsically distressing about their biologically sterile sexuality. Evil lies in the eyes of the beholder. End the social disapproval, costume homosexuals in bridal attire, and let them get on with their normal lives. The reality is far more complex. Honest acceptance of homosexuals does not exclude a guts rejection of their sexuality. In your face lurid gay pride, smoldering hostility to heterosexuals, coteries and rainbow flag nationalism can’t be ignored. The slogan on a banner carried in a Mariage pour Tous demonstration — “Une paire de meres est mieux qu’un père de merde” [a pair of mothers is better than a shitty father]—reminds us of the 70s: “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” When homosexuality was a disgrace, many hid their shame in heterosexual marriage; when coming out was in style, homosexuality was worn as a badge of honor. Many of the children raised in same-sex households today were born of heterosexual marriages that ended when one of the partners discovered his or her homosexuality. Children should not be dragged like rag dolls into these complications.

At a time when half the children born in France are technically out of wedlock, why would homosexuals be dying to get married? Why not create an institution that is truly adapted to their difference? No. If we don’t give them our marriage and turn ourselves into fish farms to provide them with progeny, we’re selfish reactionaries. Same-sex marriage, we are promised, will subtract nothing from marriage; it is the simple addition of one unjustly excluded category of citizens to the existing cohort. Though the opposition doesn’t have the votes to defeat the mariage pour tous bill, the National Assembly debate has the merit of casting light on its hidden consequences. The “simple” addition of same-sex unions nullifies marriage, makes spaghetti of filiation, axes the patronym, betrays the biological facts of procreation by deleting their representation in law and language, and dumps centuries of continuity into muddy confusion. The nation is sterilized. Justice Minister Taubira pours an acid smile on opposition deputies who object to some 200 radiations of the words (and the concept) “father and mother” from the Code Civil. Voyons, messieurs, it’s replaced by “parents.”(“Parents” means parents or relatives.) And what’s wrong with replacing “mari” and “femme” by the unisex “époux.”

The government and its majority are now spelling opposition “o-b-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.” No one must stand in the way of the forward march of History. Or should it be called Itstory?

We have reached the endpoint of a package of social changes that began in the sixties. Instead of reexamining the premises and consequences, today’s activists want to take us over the cliff. Before we can help our homosexual citizens, we have to ask ourselves why the femininity decried in women is acceptable when parodied by men. Why men were male chauvinist pigs but macho women can simultaneously be husbands to their female partners and mothers to “their” children. Why is everything organized so that young women at the most propitious time for childbearing use overwhelming contraception while women in their forties and same sex partners resort to every possible stratagem to have children?

And how can we maintain the prohibition against incest when Johnny Appleseed donors are spreading their sperm to the winds with no return address?

ABOUT NIDRA POLLER:

Nidra Poller is an American writer and translator who has lived in Paris since 1972. She has contributed to English-language publications such as The Wall Street Journal, National Review, FrontPage Magazine, and The New York Sun.

Poller has been described as a novelist, author of illustrated books for youth, and also a translator, notably of the philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas. Her writings include observations on society and politics, including the Muhammad al-Durrah incident and the Ilan Halimi trial.

What the Boy Scouts can learn about Gays in Leadership Positions from the Catholic Church and Penn State

Raynard Jackson a president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm, wrote in his Black Press USA column Boy Scouts Shouldn’t Become ‘Gay Scouts’:

In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that Boy Scouts, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards. In 2004, the BSA adopted a new policy statement, including the following as a “Youth Leadership” policy:

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.”

The Boy Scouts of America are reported to be reconsidering their position on gays becoming scout leaders.

What can the Boy Scouts of America learn from others who have put gays into leadership positions? Perhaps the experiences of the Catholic Church and Penn State University are two case studies that will predict what could happen.

BishopAccountability.org, an “online archive established by lay Catholics,” reports that over 3,000 civil lawsuits have been filed against the Catholic church, some of these cases have resulted in multi-million dollar settlements with multiple claimants.

In 1998 the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas paid $30.9 million to twelve victims of one priest ($44.1 million in present-day terms). From 2003 to 2009 nine other major settlements involving over 375 cases with 1551 claimants/victims, resulted in payments of over $1.1 billion. The Associated Press estimated the settlements of sex abuse cases from 1950 to 2007 totaled more than $2 billion. BishopAccountability.org puts the figure at more than $3 billion in 2012. Addressing “a flood of abuse claims” five dioceses (Tucson, Arizona; Spokane, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego) got bankruptcy protection. Eight Catholic dioceses have declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse cases from 2004-2011.

Penn State University (PSU) had a similar experience with Jerry Sandusky. The Sandusky scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky’s part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them.

In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a “total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims” for 14 years and “empowered” Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse.

On July 23, 2012 the NCAA imposed sweeping penalties on Penn State—among the most severe ever imposed on an NCAA member school—including a fine of $60 million, a four-year postseason ban and vacating of all victories from 1998–2011. In doing so, NCAA President Mark Emmert stated that the sanctions were levied “not to be just punitive, but to make sure the university establishes an athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of education, nurturing and protecting young people.” The Big Ten Conference subsequently imposed an additional $13 million fine. Spanier, Curley and Schultz have since been brought up on criminal charges for their role in the cover-up.

In addition 40 scholarships were stripped from Penn State University in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.

Sandusky was a pederast, as were all of the Catholic priests involved in the abuse of young boys. All pederasts are gay according to Liberty University Visiting Professor of Law Judith Reisman, who said that “post the ‘landmark’ Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003, paraphrasing Justice Antonin Scalia, everything goes.” Professor Reisman said, “Following Alfred Kinsey ‘sexologists’ began to occupy our schools, so that educated professionals have largely been trained to be a form of sexual anarchists.”

“Although the stupidity of advocating harmless amoral sexuality overwhelms us daily, our arrogant ‘educated’ populations say morality has no place in our sexual lives,” Reisman said. “Just as AIDS is a natural outgrowth of amoral sexual education and media, so too is child sexual abuse. We are breeding a new human character and child sexual abuse is increasingly part of that character.”

Tensions Abroad

WDW received the column below which was written by Matthys van Raalten, a Dutch citizen. It is reprinted with his permission. It is important to understand what is happening in the EU as member nations like Holland are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine for “multiculturalism”.

Tension Abroad by Matthys van Raalten:

The best way to understand what is going on in Europe, is to look at small details. The overall picture can be confusing. An outsider can be deceived easily by the intelligent political moves of its leaders. Just one example: PM Cameron of the UK says he wants a referendum about the European Union. Could this not be just a smart move, in order to stop the rising star of Nigel Farrage?

The real issues in Europe center around two themes: the development of a political union, by critics dubbed “EUSSR” and multiculturalism. Was all the work to liberate Europe just wasted, when the Europeans choose for a big bureaucratic semi-socialist state, ruled from Brussels and Strassbourg? What about the safety and the freedoms? Are the Europeans really going to sell that all by letting millions more Islamic immigrants come over?

Let’s have a look at some relatively small matters, in my home country; the Netherlands.

Last week, I wanted to buy a book with a work of Vondel, the country’s greatest poet. Joost van den Vondel lived from 1587 until 1679. This was an important period in Dutch history, as the country liberated itself from Spain in an eighty-year lasting war. Vondel is to the Dutch, what Shakespeare is to the English-language world, or Goethe to the German speaking world. He is our Ovid, and he also translated beautifully the works of Ovid into Dutch. He also composed plays about, among others, stories from the Bible. He was a devout Christian, without doubt one of our patriarchs. I could only find a single soft-cover book with a work by him in the city center of Amsterdam, in its most famous bookshop. Therefore, I turned to a large second-hand bookshop. They had a couple of writings by his hand, one about Joseph in Dothan for 1 Euro 50 only. Though I could have been happy that I had such a cheap buy, I was sad instead. Is this the fate of my heritage? Aren’t the Dutch people interested in their own cultural heritage any longer? I have been informed by the way, that there is very little in print of Vondel these days, so also in the future we shouldn’t expect the bookshops of Amsterdam to fill their shelves with his jewels.

Now let’s take a look at the Christian parties in Holland. Wilders says he wants to defend the Judeo-Christian foundation of our country. But what are the Christians themselves doing with their foundations? The Dutch political parties CDA (medium-large) and ChristianUnion (medium size) are hardly making a fist against the Left, who have already made abortion and gay marriage the new foundations of the new Dutch culture. Only the very small SGP party seems to be wanting to get back to our real roots, but they can’t make a fist, too small in size.

A Florida Citizens Letter To Senator Marco Rubio on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

The following is a letter WDW recieved from a Florida resident. The letter was sent to Senator Marco Rubio:

VIA: senator@Rubio.senate.gov

RE: “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform (Read Amnesty)

Senator Rubio:

Let me say as a Florida resident I vividly remember you blocking 6 immigration bills when you were Speaker of the Florida House in 2008 stating “The House was too busy” to deal with state immigration laws.

I remember you campaigning to be senator opposing amnesty (though you supported the Florida Dream Act early in your state legislative career) as you followed in the footsteps of previous Cuban Senator Martinez who campaigned opposing amnesty and three years later in 2007 led the charge for it. It seems you couldn’t wait three years to change positions back to what you supported during your early state tenure.

That said, let me respond to what I have read regarding your proposed legislation and zero in on Comprehensive which to me means dealing with all related topics to amnesty.

It is a well known fact constantly blared by open border types Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and that is correct having researched all the latest numbers. Their chant is you better deal with the criminal illegal aliens if you want our support. Look at the immigration numbers and they are correct. The tail is now wagging the dog and how did it happen? It happened through the Family Reunification immigration program you heartily support with no limits basically emptying peasant villages in Mexico and Central America and moving them into balkanized barrios around the country. It has also happened through the failure of the U.S. Government Executive Branch performing its duties in protecting our borders and regulating visa holders with no outcry from Congress.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE PURPOSE OF IMMIGRATION?

In 1962 then President Kennedy called for a reform of the immigration system. He did not call for an increase in immigration quotas stating we need not increase the level of immigrants allowed because “we have no lands left to settle.” Following his death the Democrat controlled Congress concocted the Family Reunification visa program introducing mass immigration favoring Hispanic countries and why is a good question? Prior to 1965 the large majority of under 250K allowed in the country annually were educated, had a skill and spoke English. Following 1965 legislation the overwhelming majority imported have been a perfect democrat candidate being unskilled, uneducated and non English speaking. When politicians and talk show hosts scratch their heads about the level of poverty in the country and how to lower it they aren’t looking at the primary cause being the importation of an endless stream of poverty. Statistics show 68% of legal MX immigrants with children are in or near poverty. The study by CIS also shows over 50% of Mexican immigrants are still on welfare 20 years after arriving in the country. Other Hispanic immigrants have similar statistics.

You have recently stated you are a BIG BELIEVER in family based immigration. Please explain why since it has shown to simply be the conduit for exporting poverty from banana republics to here?

We never had a mass amnesty in this country until President Reagan in an unwise move granted the first ever amnesty in 1986. From then until 2000 there were 6 more for a grand total of 6 million amnesties granted in 14 years. In 2012 President Obama directed an amnesty by fiat without Constitutional authority affecting more than a million criminal illegal aliens and nary a peep was heard from Congress. Representative Steve King promised on 8/17/2012 to challenge Obama’s amnesty by fiat and in my inquiry a week ago to his office he was still gathering facts. WOW!

As a result of the 7 previous amnesties we now have, based on government numbers I find highly suspect, 12 million waiting in line for amnesty. If that is the number you want to use then promise to cap it at that number.

Attempting the same thing over and over again is a form of insanity. Actually, I believe the Congress is quite content with the millions of unskilled joining the work force ranks keeping wages low for their large corporate donors like Walmart and at the same time providing them ever new customers. As far as illegal immigration goes it satisfies the needs of criminal illegal alien employers wanting cheap labor in a modern day version of slavery.

If Congressional members really cared about American workers do you think they would have allowed 125K new immigrants a month to continue to be imported to worsen the employment picture for 23 million Americans suffering through the worst recession since the great depression? I never heard a word from one Congressman or woman to at least suggest a pause of the onslaught of the endless stream of immigrants month after month. Not one word was ever even uttered and that silence is a damn loud message to American workers and all citizens.

Senator Rubio, these are tasks that need to be accomplished long before the amnesty discussion even begins for criminal illegal aliens. You said in an interview you wanted to solve their problem. Sir, who cares about solving their problem since they brought it upon themselves. The most important thing is how it will affect the citizens of this country. They are the ones who self inflicted their pain and it could end quickly by returning to their home country instead of demanding a path to citizenship.

End the nonsensical family reunification visa program that has simply uprooted tens of millions of peasants who couldn’t even spell the United States of America in English before arriving and come simply to start sucking on the government teat that is nearly dry.

Secure the borders. President Obama and Sec. Napolitano say the border has never been more secure. I suppose then the signs posted 70 miles north of the border warning travelers to beware of illegal aliens were previously 100 miles north of the border. The Border Patrol recently issued a statement they only intercept 61% of illegals attempting to enter the country and who knows how little as a percentage of the drugs entering illegally.

Senator, when you talk about securing the border I hope you mean the same way we protect the Korean border at the 39th parallel. We have been there for 60 years and rarely if ever is the border breached by anyone. If that is the case then great. However, what you promise has to be executed by the Executive Branch and President Obama has no appetite for securing the border. In fact, neither has Congress since it was promised over 25 years ago. We protect a foreign countries borders half way around but not our own and the citizens deserve to know the reason why.

Get the Visit USA program to work so visa over stayers can be located and deported. Over 40%, or perhaps more of the criminal illegal alien population has supposedly come legally and just melted into a city to live and work. With over 100 Million visitors to the United States annually the 40% number of total criminal illegal aliens appears awfully low.

Make it a felony to enter the country illegally or overstay a visa. This is a common sense measure since we currently treat the crime like jaywalking. Get permission to house the lawbreakers in Guantanamo to end their appetite for breaking our laws.

Make E-Verify mandatory for all employers and direct the SS administration to check the user is who they say they are. You achieve that by having the SS office issue a new tamper proof card with picture to all prospective employment seekers to eliminate document fraud (HR98). Regarding Mandatory E-Verify in a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research 89% of Whites, 81% of Blacks and 76% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans were in favor of it.

Pass and enforce Childbirth legislation that would remove a magnet to come here now granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to foreign parents by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act (HR140) requiring at least one parent be a citizen ending the anchor baby link to the welfare system. Over 200K births like this are performed annually with taxpayers footing the majority of the bill. There is a cottage industry for birth tourism for wealthy foreign women making a mockery of our citizenship requirements. Coincidentally you would not have been a citizen either if the law is changed since when you were born your parents were not citizens of the United States but still of Cuba.

Repeal the antiquated Cuban Adjustment Act which is a knee jerk cold war relic reaction meant to damage Castro’s Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and grants any Cuban who arrives in the USA anywhere preferred treatment and a path to citizenship. This is especially important since Cuba is now granting travel Visas to their citizens. The last thing we need is an aerial version of the Mariel boat lift that forever changed Miami into what is now the fifth most impoverished City in the USA and where English is the second language.

End the corrupt Diversity Visa lottery Program that brings in people to the USA from supposedly countries that need greater representation under the guise of diversity. Senator Rubio, name a more diverse country than the United States of America; You can’t.

End the Temporary Protected Status program that is permanently temporary. Case in point are the over 200K EL Salvadorans brought here after an earthquake in their country and undoubtedly sucking on the welfare teat since. They are only here temporarily 10 years later wink wink.

Dramatically reduce the corrupt refugee program and remove the UN’s participation in determining who comes and make the US groups profiting from the refugee business get the approval from the locales where they want to dump the refugees before doing so. I understand every refugee entering costs the U.S. government $20K for shipping and handling.

End the work visa program which Milton Friedman correctly identified as corporate welfare. Work visas that allow maids and lawn mower operators into the country as specialty occupations illustrates the lengths companies will go to avoid paying U.S. workers and the fica. If the US is not graduating candidates to fill America’s needs whose fault is it since we are the third most populated country in the world and had, I emphasize had, a great education system when I attended and undoubtedly has been ruined since by the teacher unions and Federal interference.

Commission a study to determine the impact of the 12 million criminal illegal aliens will have on our welfare system, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environment and the impact on American workers.

Commission a independent study to determine the optimum population the United States can comfortably sustain. When talking about immigration I have never heard a politician mention what our optimum population should be regarding Natural Resources and avoiding similar terrible human conditions suffered today in India, Bangladesh and China. Publish all the findings.

Senator Rubio, do those tasks necessary to get a clear picture of what you propose to do and its impact on American Society so the facts speak for themselves as to whether it is in the national Interest of the citizens of the United States of America to support or reject amnesty for the criminal illegal aliens.

I am also sending along a speech given by Democrat Ex. Governor Richard D. Lamb several years ago titled “I Have a Plan to destroy America and many parts of it are underway.” Read it and see if you can relate it to what is happening in the country today from a speech written 10 years ago.

George Fuller

Sarasota, Florida

The 10 Worst Regulations of 2012

The Heritage Foundation published its 10 worst regulations of 2012. Here they are:

1. HHS’s Contraception Mandate

The Department of Health and Human Services on February 15 finalized its mandate that all health insurance plans include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraceptives. To date, 42 cases with more than 110 plaintiffs are challenging this restriction on religious liberty.

2. EPA Emissions Standards

The EPA in February finalized strict new emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utilities. The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually.

3. Fuel Efficiency Standards

In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency, finalized fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require a whopping average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Sticker prices will jump by hundreds of dollars.

4. New York’s 16-Ounce Soda Limit

Not all regulations come from Washington. On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

5. Dishwasher Efficiency Standards

Regulators admit that these Department of Energy rules will do little to improve the environment. Rather, proponents claim they will save consumers money. But they will also increase the price of dishwashers, and only about one in six consumers will keep his or her dishwasher long enough to recoup the cost.

6. School Lunch Standards

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in January published stringent nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs. More than 98,000 elementary and secondary schools are affected—at a cost exceeding $3.4 billion over the next four years.

7. Quickie Union Election Rule

In April, the National Labor Relations Board issued new rules that shorten the time allowed for union-organizing elections to between 10 and 21 days. This leaves little time for employees to make a fully informed choice on unionizing, threatening to leave workers and management alike under unwanted union regimes.

8. Essential Benefits Rule

Under Obamacare, insurers in the individual and small group markets will be forced to cover services that the government deems to be essential. Published on November 26, the HHS list of very broad benefits has created enormous uncertainty about the extent of essential treatment.

9. Electronic Data Recorder Mandate

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on December 13 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to mandate installation of electronic data recorders, popularly known as “black boxes,” in most light vehicles starting in 2014. The government mandate understandably spooks privacy advocates.

10. “Simplified” Mortgage Disclosure and Servicing Rules

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its proposal for a more “consumer friendly” mortgage process, with a stated goal of simplifying home loans. The rules run an astonishing 1,099 pages. Then, one month later, the bureau proposed more than 560 pages of rules for mortgage servicing.

According to the Heritage Foundation, “It seems that no aspect of American life can escape government regulation. In the past year, regulators drafted rules that addressed everything from caloric intake to dishwasher efficiency.”

“Most of these rules increase the cost of living, others hinder job creation, and many erode freedom. Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course, but increasingly, the rules imposed by the government have less to do with health and safety and more to do with whether government or individuals get to make basic pocketbook and lifestyle decisions that affect them. And it is not just the regulators who are to blame. Congress writes laws that give unelected bureaucrats the broad powers they wield,” warns the Foundation.