Blasphemy and Free Speech. An excellent, fact-filled commentary on Islamic suppression of all free speech that criticizes Islam.

Received this latest issue of Imprimis today from Hillsdale College. Here is an excellent commentary on Islamic suppression of free speech.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

Nelson Abdullah

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

February 2011

Paul Marshall, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Blasphemy and Free Speech 

PAUL MARSHALL is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. He has published widely in newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, First Things, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. He is the author or editor of more than 20 books on religion and politics, including Their Blood Cries Out, Religious Freedom in the World, and Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion. Most recently he is the co-author, with Nina Shea, of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 2012.

A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.

Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack.

More recently, we have seen eruptions of violence in reaction to Theo van Gogh’s and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s film Submission, Danish and Swedish cartoons depicting Mohammed, the speech at Regensburg by Pope Benedict XVI on the topic of faith, reason, and religious violence, Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, and a false Newsweek report that the U.S. military had desecrated Korans at Guantanamo. A declaration by Terry Jones—a deservedly obscure Florida pastor with a congregation of less than 50—that he would burn a Koran on September 11, 2010, achieved a perfect media storm, combining American publicity-seeking, Muslim outrage, and the demands of 24 hour news coverage. It even drew the attention of President Obama and senior U.S. military leaders. Dozens of people were murdered as a result.

Such violence in response to purported religious insults is not simply spontaneous. It is also stoked and channeled by governments for political purposes. And the objects and victims of accusations of religious insults are not usually Westerners, but minorities and dissidents in the Muslim world. As Nina Shea and I show in our recent book Silenced, accusations of blasphemy or insulting Islam are used systematically in much of that world to send individuals to jail or to bring about intimidation through threats, beatings, and killings.

The Danish cartoons of Mohammed were published in Denmark’s largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in September 2005. Some were reproduced by newspapers in Muslim countries in order to criticize them. There was no violent response. Violence only erupted after a December 2005 summit in Saudi Arabia of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The summit was convened to discuss sectarian violence and terrorism, but seized on the cartoons and urged its member states to rouse opposition. It was only in February 2006—five months after the cartoons were published—that Muslims across Africa, Asia, and the Mideast set out from Friday prayers for often violent demonstrations, killing over 200 people.

The highly controlled media in Egypt and Jordan raised the cartoon issue so persistently that an astonishing 98 percent of Egyptians and 99 percent of Jordanians—knowing little else of Denmark—had heard of them. Saudi Arabia and Egypt urged boycotts of Danish products. Iran and Syria manipulated riots partly to deflect attention from their nuclear projects. Turkey used the cartoons as bargaining chips in negotiations with the U.S. over appointments to NATO. Editors in Algeria, Jordan, India, and Yemen were arrested—and in Syria, journalist Adel Mahfouz was charged with “insulting public religious sentiment”—for suggesting a peaceful response to the controversy. Lars Vilks’ later and more offensive 2007 Swedish cartoons and Geert Wilders’ 2008 film Fitna led to comparatively little outcry, demonstrating further that public reactions are government-driven.

Repression based on charges of blasphemy and apostasy, of course, goes far beyond the stories typically covered in our media. Currently, millions of Baha’is and Ahmadis—followers of religions or interpretations that arose after Islam—are condemned en masse as insulters of Islam, and are subject to discriminatory laws and attacks by mobs, vigilantes, and terrorists. The Baha’i leadership in Iran is in prison, and there is no penalty in Iran for killing a Baha’i. In Somalia, al Shebaab, an Islamist group that controls much of that country, is systematically hunting down and killing Christians. In 2009, after allegations that a Koran had been torn, a 1,000-strong mob with Taliban links rampaged through Christian neighborhoods in Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, killing seven people, six of whom, including two children, were burned alive. Pakistani police did not intervene.

Throughout the Muslim world, Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Muslims may be persecuted for differing from the version of Islam promulgated by locally hegemonic religious authorities. Saudi Arabia represses Shiites, especially Ismailis. Iran represses Sunnis and Sufis. In Egypt, Shia leaders have been imprisoned and tortured.

In Afghanistan, Shia scholar Ali Mohaqeq Nasab, editor of Haqooq-i-Zen magazine, was imprisoned by the government for publishing “un-Islamic” articles that criticized stoning as a punishment for adultery. Saudi democracy activists Ali al-Demaini, Abdullah al-Hamed, and Matruk al-Faleh were imprisoned for using “un-Islamic terminology,” such as “democracy” and “human rights,” when calling for a written constitution. Saudi teacher Mohammed al-Harbi was sentenced to 40 months in jail and 750 lashes for “mocking religion” after discussing the Bible in class and making pro-Jewish remarks. Egyptian Nobel prize winner in literature Naguib Mahfouz reluctantly abandoned his lifelong resistance to censorship and sought permission from the clerics of Al-Azhar University to publish his novel Children of Gebelawi, hitherto banned for blasphemy. Mahfouz subsequently lived under constant protection after being stabbed by a young Islamist, leaving him partly paralyzed.

After Mohammed Younas Shaikh, a member of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, raised questions about Pakistan’s policies in Kashmir, he was charged with having blasphemed in one of his classes. In Bangladesh, Salahuddin Choudhury was imprisoned for hurting “religious feelings” by advocating peaceful relations with Israel. In Iran, Ayatollah Boroujerdi was imprisoned for arguing that “political leadership by clergy” was contrary to Islam, and cleric Mohsen Kadivar was imprisoned for “publishing untruths and disturbing public minds” after writing Theories of the State in Shiite Jurisprudence, which questioned the legal basis of Ayatollah Khomeini’s view of government. Other charges brought against Iranians include “fighting against God,” “dissension from religious dogma,” “insulting Islam,” “propagation of spiritual liberalism,” “promoting pluralism,” and, my favorite, “creating anxiety in the minds of … Iranian officials.”

Muslim reformers cannot escape being attacked even in the West. In 2006, a group called Al-Munasirun li Rasul al Allah emailed over 30 prominent reformers in the West, threatening to kill them unless they repented. Among its targets was Egyptian Saad Eddin Ibrahim, perhaps the best known human rights activist in the Arab world. Another was Ahmad Subhy Mansour, an imam who was imprisoned and had to flee Egypt, in part for his arguments against the death penalty for apostasy. The targets were pronounced “guilty of apostasy, unbelief, and denial of the Islamic established facts” and given three days to “announce their repentance.” The message included their addresses and the names of their spouses and children.

Mimount Bousakla, a Belgian senator and daughter of Moroccan immigrants, was forced into hiding by threats of “ritual slaughter” for her criticism of the treatment of women in Muslim communities and of fundamentalist influences in Belgian mosques. Turkish-born Ekin Deligoz, the first Muslim member of Germany’s Parliament, received death threats and was placed under police protection after she called for Muslim women to “take off the head scarf.”

But the story gets worse. Western governments have begun to give in to demands from the Saudi-based OIC and others for controls on speech. In Austria, for instance, Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolf has been convicted of “denigrating religious beliefs” for her comments about Mohammed during a seminar on radical Islam. Canada’s grossly misnamed “human rights commissions” have hauled writers—including Mark Steyn, who teaches as a distinguished fellow in journalism at Hillsdale College—before tribunals to interrogate them about their writings on Islam. And in Holland and Finland, respectively, politicians Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho have been prosecuted for their comments on Islam in political speeches.

In America, the First Amendment still protects against the criminalization of criticizing Islam. But we face at least two threats still. The first is extra-legal intimidation of a kind already endemic in the Muslim world and increasing in Europe. In 2009, Yale University Press, in consultation with Yale University, removed all illustrations of Mohammed from its book by Jytte Klausen on the Danish cartoon crisis. It also removed Gustave Doré’s 19th-century illustration of Mohammed in hell from Dante’s Inferno. Yale’s formal press statement stressed the earlier refusal by American media outlets to show the cartoons, and noted that their “republication…has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world.”

Another publisher, Random House, rejected at the last minute a historical romance novel about Mohammed’s wife, Jewel of Medina, by American writer Sherry Jones. They did so to protect “the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”

The comedy show South Park refused to show an image of Mohammed in a bear suit, although it mocked figures from other religions. In response, Molly Norris, a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, suggested an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” She quickly withdrew the suggestion and implied that she had been joking. But after several death threats, including from Al-Qaeda, the FBI advised her that she should go into hiding—which she has now done under a new name.

In 2010, Zachary Chesser, a young convert to Islam, pleaded guilty to threatening the creators of South Park. And on October 3, 2011, approximately 800 newspapers refused to run a “Non Sequitur” cartoon drawn by Wiley Miller that merely contained a bucolic scene with the caption “Where’s Muhammad?”
Many in our media claim to be self-censoring out of sensitivity to religious feelings, but that claim is repeatedly undercut by their willingness to mock and criticize religions other than Islam. As British comedian Ben Elton observed: “The BBC will let vicar gags pass, but they would not let imam gags pass. They might pretend that it’s, you know, something to do with their moral sensibilities, but it isn’t. It’s because they’re scared.”

The second threat we face is the specter of cooperation between our government and the OIC to shape speech about Islam. A first indication of this came in President Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, when he declared that he has a responsibility to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Then in July of last year in Istanbul, Secretary of State Clinton co-chaired—with the OIC—a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance.” There, Mrs. Clinton announced another conference with the OIC, this one in Washington, to “exchange ideas” and discuss “implementation” measures our government might take to combat negative stereotyping of Islam. This would not restrict free speech, she said. But the mere fact of U.S. government partnership with the OIC is troublesome. Certainly it sends a dangerous signal, as suggested by the OIC’s Secretary-General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, when he commented in Istanbul that the Obama administration stands “united” with the OIC on speech issues.

The OIC’s charter commits it “to combat defamation of Islam.” Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” to counter “Islamophobia.” In 2009, an official OIC organ, the “International Islamic Fiqh [Jurisprudence] Academy,” issued fatwas calling for speech bans, including “international legislation,” to protect “the interests and values of [Islamic] society.” The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but the repressive practices of its leading member states speak for themselves.

The conference Secretary Clinton announced in Istanbul was held in Washington on December 12-14, 2011, and was closed to the public, with the “Chatham House Rule” restricting the participants (this rule prohibits the identification of who says what, although general content is not confidential).

Presentations reportedly focused on America’s deficiencies in its treatment of Muslims and stressed that the U.S. has something to learn in this regard from the other delegations—including Saudi Arabia, despite its ban on Christian churches, its repression of its Shiite population, its textbooks teaching that Jews should be killed, and the fact that it beheaded a woman for sorcery on the opening day of the conference.

* * * 

The encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Nor will it bring social peace and harmony. As comedian Rowan Atkinson warns, such laws produce “a veneer of tolerance concealing a snake pit of unaired and unchallenged views.” Norway’s far-reaching restrictions on “hate speech” did not prevent Anders Behring Breivik from slaughtering over 70 people because of his antipathy to Islam: indeed, his writings suggest that he engaged in violence because he believed that he could not otherwise be heard.

In the Muslim world, such restrictions enable Islamists to crush debate. After Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, was murdered early last year by his bodyguards for opposing blasphemy laws, his daughter Sara observed: “This is a message to every liberal to shut up or be shot.” Or in the words of Nasr Abu-Zayd, a Muslim scholar driven out of Egypt: “Charges of apostasy and blasphemy are key weapons in the fundamentalists’ arsenal, strategically employed to prevent reform of Muslim societies, and instead confine the world’s Muslim population to a bleak, colourless prison of socio-cultural and political conformity.”

President Obama should put an end to discussion of speech with the OIC. He should declare clearly that in free societies, all views and all religions are subject to criticism and contradiction. As the late Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, and head of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization, wrote in his foreword to Silenced, blasphemy laws

. . . narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. . . not only about religion, but also about vast spheres of life, literature, science, and culture in general. . . . Rather than legally stifle criticism and debate—which will only encourage Muslim fundamentalists in their efforts to impose a spiritually void, harsh, and monolithic understanding of Islam upon all the world—Western authorities should instead firmly defend freedom of expression. . . .

America’s Founders, who had broken with an old order that was rife with religious persecution and warfare, forbade laws impeding free exercise of religion, abridging freedom of speech, or infringing freedom of the press. We today must do likewise.

---

---

Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

   

Barack Hussein Obama denies the reality of Islamic massacre at Fort Hood by another Muslim.

Visit our News page The Obama administration’s denial of reality— and why Rep. Allen West’s Purple Heart legislation is so important Please add your name today! Dear Nelson, Last week we emailed you about our open letter to the chairmen of both the U.S. House and Senate Armed Services Committees. The letter calls on the committees to take up and pass H.R. 1142, sponsored by Rep. Allen West, which would confer the Purple Heart upon victims of jihadist attacks (Ft. Hood, the Little Rock Recruitment Center, etc.). Doing so would correct a grave injustice. It would also shine a light on a reality the Obama administration is desperately trying to deny: that there is a jihadist ideology; that the primary meaning of the doctrine of jihad has always been warfare against non-Muslims; that the perpetrators of jihadist violence are not mere “criminals”—they are enemy combatants who deserve to be treated as enemy combatants; and that their victims, such as at Ft. Hood and the Little Rock Recruitment Center, are not victims of “crime” or “workplace violence,” but are victims of an act of war—jihad. The Obama administration has gone so far in acting on this denial that, at the insistence of radical Muslim organizations, it is expunging any references to “jihad” or “radical Islam” from FBI terrorism training manuals. This pattern of denial by the Obama administration can be seen in other areas. Recently, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the incredulous statement that Iran is a “rational actor” and is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. This illustrates a triumph of wishful thinking, or perhaps wishful parsing of intelligence data, over an understanding of religious doctrinal beliefs that are at least in part driving Iran’s leaders on its path toward nuclear weaponry. When Ahmadinejad, Khameini, or any other Iranian leader, express their belief in the return of the 12th imam, and how a worldwide apocalypse must occur before this happens, we should take them at their word. What better way to instigate a worldwide apocalypse than to launch nuclear weapons? But instead of taking this seriously, it seems that this administration dismisses such notions as crazy ramblings, because, after all, no one in our leadership would ever believe such a thing. The Obama administration has also been exhibiting a denial of reality in the way it is responding to the accidental burning of some Qur’ans in Afghanistan. It has trotted out one apology after another, from different leaders in the administration, even going so far as to promise that those who burned the Qur’ans will be held accountable. (Interestingly, some modern and ancient Islamic authorities specifically sanction the burning of Qur’ans as a proper means of disposal. To find out more see this enlightening article by our friend and colleague Andrew Bostom.) The Obama administration actions have been undertaken in the hope that this would somehow assuage the wrath of the Afghan rioters, when in fact it denies the reality that such repeated pleas for forgiveness are doing the exact opposite, like throwing gasoline on a fire. The Obama administration’s actions are emboldening the rioters and have failed to achieve their purported goal. Every person who signs the Purple Heart letter is not only calling on Congress to correct a grave injustice, he or she is sending a message that we have lost patience with the denial of the reality that jihad is what is motivating Islamic terrorists and that jihad is an act of war. So if you haven’t yet signed the Purple Heart letter, for the sake of the victims at Ft. Hood and Little Rock, please add your name today. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

British Defence League web site reveals: Muslim Brotherhood in Our White House and the Murder of SEAL Team Six

Muslim Brotherhood in Our White House and the Murder of SEAL Team Six

An investigation of President Obama and his administration must commence immediately ...

Published by deedee on 2012/1/24  

An investigation of President Obama and his administration must commence immediately.

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, author and self-described Liberal Democrat Marxist Muslim who campaigned for Barack Obama, revealed the identity of Obama’s White House appointees who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see Muslim Brotherhood in our White House – Vetting Obama).

Obama’s appointees could access sensitive military and National Defense information while in our White House, to include military missions that were planned for SEAL Team Six. Important questions surround the murder of 30 U.S. special operations troops, which included 17 members of Navy SEAL Team Six.


An investigation is fully warranted, starting with the takedown of Osama bin Laden by SEAL Team Six in May 2011, their subsequent murder on August 6, 2011 and the actions of Barack Obama and his appointees before, during and after these events.

Questions That Must Be Answered:
Why did Obama release the identity of SEAL Team Six as the specific team that took out Osama bin Laden?

Never before has a sitting U.S. President done this. Releasing their identity puts a bulls-eye on their backs by providing Al Qaida, Hamas and the Taliban (terrorist groups created by the Muslim Brotherhood) with the information they need to target those specific soldiers. It also openly provided their identity to White House appointees who have alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now all that was needed was the time and location of a future mission for SEAL Team Six in order to take them out and avenge the death of Osama bin Laden, which appears to have happened.

Did Obama’s appointees know, in advance, that members of SEAL Team Six would be in that chopper at that location when it was taken down by terrorists?

If not, how is it that the terrorists were in that exact location at that exact time, fully equipped with the artillery needed to destroy the chopper and all who were on board?

Why were the SEALs in a standard Chinook chopper instead of the Boeing MG-47E/G (the ‘Darkhorse’ which is a SPECOPS Chinook used by SEAL Teams)?

Through her devotion and acumen, Ann Barnhardt discovered that the chopper the SEALs and special operations (SPECOPS) troops used on that tragic day was a National Guard Chinook instead of their Darkhorse Chinook. Here is more from Ann’s blog:

GEN. BOYKIN: NATIONAL GUARD CHINOOK INADEQUATE
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT – AUGUST 10, AD 2011 12:46 PM MST
At BigPeace.com, Lt. Gen Jerry Boykin confirms that the National Guard Chinook was “inadequate” and “not designed for Special Operations missions.

Who ordered the SEALs and SPECOPS troops to use the National Guard Chinook?

From President Obama to Leon Panetta to Hillary Clinton and on down the chain of command, an investigation must find the answer to this question to determine who ordered the troops to conduct their mission in a standard Chinook instead of the Darkhorse SPECOPS Chinook.

After the SEALs and SPECOPS troops were murdered, why did Obama release that information to the public?

Never before has a sitting U.S. President done this. Informing America’s enemies that we have lost our most well trained elite force of SEAL Team Six soldiers and SPECOPS troops provides a direct signal of vulnerability and weakness in America’s military capabilities. It would be difficult to imagine that Obama would not realize the emboldening of America’s enemies that this would cause, to the direct endangerment of the precious lives of our armed forces.

And that is exactly what has happened – Al Qaida is emboldened. The Associated Press (AP) reported on Saturday:

“BAGHDAD (AP) — Al-Qaida in Iraq has vowed to carry out “100 attacks” across the country, starting in the middle of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, to exact revenge for the death of Osama bin Laden…
Monday marked the middle of Ramadan.

On that day, a wave of crushing attacks swept across Iraq — from the northern city of Mosul to the southern Shiite heartland. At least 70 people died in suicide bombings, roadside bombs and shootings in what was Iraq’s deadliest day this year.”

Obama’s Outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood:
Cozying up to known terrorist leaders who say they want to destroy America and doing their bidding by going against America’s closest allies because they are targets of these terrorists is dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has stated plainly that they seek to destroy “little Satan” (Israel) and “big Satan” (America). Obama’s actions with regard to the Muslim Brotherhood and those who have ties to these terrorists is beyond comprehension. In the article, “Palling Around with Terrorists,” the following was noted – with links that provide the details:
“Obama and Hillary Clinton are reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic fundamentalist group committed to the destruction of America, Britain and Israel and identified as a terrorist organization by the U.S.

Obama puts Israel on a list of countries that support terrorism while he supports the Hamas-ruled region of Gaza.

Obama began talks with the Taliban to negotiate with these terrorists.”

Now we learn more…
Obama cleanses Israel from the White House website.

Obama sells tanks and weaponry to the Islamists in Egypt who want to suspend the treaty with Israel and annihilate them. They have formed a NAZI party that is gaining strength in Egypt today.

Obama invites people to our White House during Ramadan who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; he omits their names on the Iftar guest list.

Other Facts Regarding Obama’s Perplexing Actions:
Obama called for Israel to return to the 1967 borders on May 19, 2011, knowing full well that Israel will be unable to protect their people from annihilation with those indefensible borders. Yet when he campaigned for the Presidency, Obama said on June 4, 2008, that he would stand with Israel if he were elected President.

Conclusion:

It must be determined whether Obama’s actions and the people with whom he surrounds himself compromised our SEAL Team Six and SPECOPS troops. The fact that Obama brings individuals into our White House who are allegedly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with the other actions he has taken, screams for an investigation into the murder of our beloved Navy SEALs and SPECOPS troops.

The American people must demand it and Congress must carry out this investigation immediately.

British Defence League is Copyright Free - All Articles Can Be Freely Distributed 

No Rights Reserved. 

 

Best joke of the day about politicians going to Hell.

Got this today in an email. This is a parable about politicians going to hell, sort of like the old jokes about lawyers. The author is unknown and a Google search came up blank. Funny thing about the line that reads: "They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people." When I read it the first thing I thought of was those two Democrats, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the banking home loan foreclosure crisis they caused by forcing loans to people who couldn't afford them. Isn't it odd that members of Congress conveniently exempt themselves from all the laws they make for the rest of us? Laws like Obamacare and Insider Trading and Social Security. Is there any wonder they are all millionaires?

While walking down the street one day a Corrupt Senator (that may be redundant), was tragically hit by a car and died.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St.. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher-ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really?, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course.

In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. 

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes.

They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven...”

So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell...

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls to the ground.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.

"I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil smiles at him and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today, you voted.."

Vote wisely on November 6, 2012.

  

Is history about to repeat itself? If you're buying gold you need to read this.

Have you ever heard about the government order issued by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 to CONFISCATE GOLD? I'll bet someone in the White House has. Gold represents the true value of the dollar and people are buying it to offset the possibility of an economic collapse due to Barack Hussein Obama's out-of-control borrowing. And that is why the price of gold is soaring to new levels every day.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Executive Order 6102 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933, by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States". The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

Click image to enlarge view.

Read the whole article on Wikipedia, its an interesting piece of history. In the immortal words of the great American philosopher George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. "

  

The Doctrine of Abrogation: Open the Koran Day from ACT! for America

Visit our News page

February 13, 2012

Equipped and Empowered

Dear Nelson,

Over the past several months, ACT! for America has developed a number of new resources to equip and empower you. Here are two.

• The Doctrine of Abrogation: Open the Koran Day

Last October, over 325 sites hosted "The Doctrine of Abrogation: Open the Koran Day." They showed a 55 minute presentation on DVD, in which Executive Director Guy Rodgers walks through the doctrine of abrogation and its implications for jihad.

The response was overwhelming! One chapter leader emailed us to say that the presentation was 400% better than he expected. Another told us she heard people in the audience exclaiming "this is an ah-hah moment," "this is excellent," "so good."

Another wrote us that "everyone couldn't quit talking about it afterwards." Others said "what an amazing video," "we need more of these," "this video will open the eyes of all Americans about jihad."

Due to all the requests we received, we are now making this eye-opening DVD available to everyone. Click here, select the Contributing Member option, and we will mail you a copy of this DVD for a contribution of only $25. It's safe, simple and secure. If you prefer to make a contribution with a check, click here to print out a reply form. And there's a volume discount offer of $20 contribution per DVD if you request six or more.

• Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam

This book, designed for middle and early high school-aged young people, is a must read. It's a readable book that doesn't talk down to young people and isn't too long or weighty.

It's not enough for us to educate adults - we must do everything we can to ensure the next generation is not misled by a politically correct rewrite of ancient and recent history.

This illustrated book covers all the essential topics needed for a young person to gain an understanding of radical Islam. They'll learn about everything from al Qaeda to Khomeini, from jihad to the Muslim Brotherhood, from sharia law to Wahhabism. The book even contains a timeline and an index.

Click here, select the Contributing Member option, and we will mail you a copy of this book for a contribution of only $26. It's safe, simple and secure. If you prefer to make a contribution with a check, click here to print out a reply form. And there's a volume discount offer of $20 contribution per book if you request six or more.

Arm yourself, your family and friends with these invaluable resources. When you do you'll also be helping the mission of ACT! for America, America's largest grassroots national security organization.

Thank you for your continued support!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

There are more reasons to throw Obama out of the White House then you can shake a stick at.

The following came today from Human Events to advertise a new book but the contents of that book described here provides a valid complaint about Barack Hussein Obama that America needs to know about. So consider this a free plug and a commentary that accurately describes the greatest threat America has ever faced. I also think that when the history of this generation is accurately written at some time in the future it will show that we have been made the victims of such a vast conspiracy to install a Marxist/Socialist puppet to oversee the destruction of our once-great country that many will not be able to comprehend it.

Would the Founding Fathers put up with this mess? There's a lot of monkey business going on with the Constitution. We have judges who think it's a "living document", free to interpret at their "whim du jour" while other judges consult foreign countries for their decisions. We have a president who decides which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. We have an attorney general who thinks his job is suing the states when they enforce the laws. If only we could get James Madison on the phone! Dear Fellow Conservative: One of the scariest parts of the 44th President of the United States is his penchant to play fast and loose with the Constitution. Obama has quickly transformed the Executive Branch into a much more powerful and secretive body than ever before. Lurking in the shadows are troops of Czars and other government officials, often appointed on Friday nights under the radar, who are not answerable to anybody but Obama. So much for transparency! Ironically, all this comes from a guy who claims to be a Constitutional Law expert. But is he an expert? Is he right? Even more importantly, how would the Founding Fathers really feel about all this? Did they give him these powers? Did they really believe in the "Living Constitution" theory that's caused so much titillation in liberal drawing rooms? Our little chat with James Madison... Turns out we got the next best thing to James Madison himself. Brion McClahahan's book, The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution has everything you want to know about our most important document, how and why it was written and what our founders would think about the highjinx going on today, including... Did the Founding Fathers really believe the courts should "interpret" the laws? Do we have the balance right between our three branches of government? Are today's judges doing too much "legislating from the bench?" Are states' rights being trampled by a federal power grab? What happens when the executive branch refuses to enforce the laws? So...should Obama be impeached? All this, of course, is of paramount importance to us at Human Events. So we are making this "tell-all" book of the late 18th Century available to you, just for trying our Human Events introductory offer. In an age when everybody claims to have the inside track on what the Founding Fathers had on their mind, it's high time to get to the real truth, once and for all. Don't mistake this for just some faculty lounge argument over a decaf café latte and a croissant. This is serious. Using the Constitution as a cover, major changes are being made in our government while sweeping court decisions are diminishing our property rights, our personal lives and our freedom. Right in front of our eyes! This sort of insight is typical for Human Events. We don't pull punches. We don't conduct opinion polls to generate "news." Instead, we report to you what is happening and then dig even deeper to bring you the necessary background insight. Not surprisingly, we approach the world from an unapologetically Conservative perspective. There are plenty of other places to find liberal, progressive, socialist and even Marxist perspective. Just turn on your TV if you want proof. More than political sports reporting. This Constitutional mumbo-jumbo is the type of question that Human Events loves to tackle. Instead of joining the political sports reporters in handicappingthe next primary vote or "oohing and aahing" over the latest opinion poll turnaroundor bumper sticker phrase from focus-panel land, Human Events goes to the heart of the matter, giving you an in depth adult analysis of what's really happening and what's really important. Typical things we dig up under the rocks: The roots of Obama's hatred of capitalism and American society. The cozy relationship between Obama, big business, unions, big education, and the environmental movement. Obama's blatant pursuit of race based justice. Our government's gagging of honest discussion about the threat of radical Islam. The Detroit mess including the uber-expensive Voltwagen, cash for clunkers, the screwing of bond-holders and dealers in favor of the unions. Solyndra and other enviro-crony adventures. It's time to subscribe As an intelligent conservative reader, I imagine that you are getting my "gist". And by now, you may have noticed the plethora of subtle red buttons throughout my message. I want you to take full advantage of our current benevolence and largess and subscribe to Human Events at the preposterously generous price of only $39.95 for 30 issues. This cost is so low, I don't know how we can afford the ink, let alone felling the trees. But I'll leave those details to the printing and lumberjack departments. But, suffice it to say, the advantage here is all yours. Even a money-back guarantee Just in case you fall into some sort of teleprompter induced liberal swoon during the next few months and decide that we are being too critical of the president, we will even guarantee your money back for any reason without even asking you what we've done wrong. A free gift as an incentive And, back to the subject of benevolence and largess, I will also throw in the book in question, The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution by Brion McClanahan. Time is of the essence. The next few months will be extremely dangerous on your mental health. Imagine what $1 billion worth of "Yes we can!" (or its 2012 equivalent) chanting will feel like without a sage, savvy and irreverent conservative friend at your side. May I suggest our team at Human Events as the solution to offer the necessary empathy, commiseration and laughter as applicable. So please subscribe today. America needs you with us this year. Sincerely, Thomas S. Winter Editor in Chief, Human Events P.S. In addition to what you'll be getting from each and every issue of Human Events, you'll also have that warm feeling inside that you are helping to promote the cause by supporting our nation's leading conservative publication since 1944. It was Ronald Reagan's favorite. More importantly -- twenty years from now, when school children wonder "what did my parents and grandparents do in the historic 2012 election?," you'll know that you stayed alert and well-informed and helped keep the conservative intellectual fires burning by supporting Human Events. Enough said. Please take advantage of our generous offer right now.

This email was sent to oldironsides@fuse.net because you are subscribed to Special Offers from Human Events. To update your email delivery preferences, click here. Please do not attempt to respond to this message as your reply will route to an unattended email box. If you have questions, please send them to CustomerService@HumanEventsOnline.com.

To advertise in our e-letters or email list, please click here.

Human Events  |  One Massachusetts Avenue, NW  |  Washington, DC 20001

America's first Catholic president, Democrat John F. Kennedy, told his teenage mistress, “I’d rather my children red than dead.”

To think that if I had been a few months older I would have been able to vote for a Democrat in the elections in 1960. As a Catholic I was taken in by the hoopla over the Democratic campaign that year. Here was another Catholic, John F. Kennedy, a handsome, charismatic war hero who was being maligned for his religion. The news media carried numerous stories that asked the question, would the Pope in the Vatican have any say about how a Catholic president performed his duties in the White House. I was thrilled when JFK got elected but my hopes and dreams died a few months later on the day that JFK turned his back on the Cuban exiles who had launched an invasion against Communist Fidel Castro in the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. It was JFK and his brother Robert who had promised the exiles air support and then reneged on that promise after the invasion reached Cuban soil. The invasion at the Bay of Pigs was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States and failed with terrible consequences. Hundreds of Cuban exiles were captured, tortured and killed by Castro's Communist forces.
 
Now, today, one more piece of history about the high moral character of this cowardly low-life Democrat has been revealed. It seems that our first Catholic president was having sexual relations in the White House with a teen-aged intern before, during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. And more so, that our brave, high-moraled Catholic president had told this young girl, after his took away her virginity, that “I’d rather my children red than dead,”.

The New York Post published a story yesterday about a book just released called “Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath,” written by Mimi Alford, who was a 19-year old girl from an influential family from New Jersey. Here is a caption from that story:

Teen mistress addresses relationship, pol's Cold War fears in memoir

By CYNTHIA R. FAGEN

(NYPOST) — She always called him “Mr. President” — not Jack. He refused to kiss her on the lips when they made love. But Mimi Alford, a White House intern from New Jersey, was smitten nonetheless.

She was in the midst of an 18-month affair with the most powerful man in the world, sharing not only John F. Kennedy’s bed but also some of his darkest and most intimate moments.

In her explosive new tell-all, “Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath,” Alford, now a 69-year-old grandmother and retired New York City church administrator, sets the record straight in searingly candid detail.

In the summer of 1962, Alford was a slender, golden-haired 19-year-old debutante whose finishing-school polish and blueblood connections had landed her a job in the White House press office.

Four days into her internship, she was invited by an aide to go for a midday swim in the White House pool, where the handsome, 45-year-old president swam daily to ease chronic back pain. JFK slid into the pool and floated up to her.

“It’s Mimi, isn’t it?” he asked.

“Yes, sir,” she said.

“And you’re in the press office this summer, right?”

“Yes, sir, I am,” she replied.

And a few hours later John F. Kennedy had intercourse with her in his wife's bedroom after she told him she was still a virgin. You will have to click the title link and read the full four-page story to learn of the intimate details.

But it wasn't the salacious details of this sexual encounter describing how this teenager lost her virginity that caused me to write about it. It was a single statement of admission made by a so-called high moraled Catholic war hero, Democrat President John F. Kennedy, to 19-year old Mimi Alford at the height of the missile crisis that caught my eye. And I wonder how many other Democrats hold the same cowardly view as John F. Kennedy did when he said to Mimi, “I’d rather my children red than dead,”. Guess that's what made me grow up to be a Republican because I always believed just the opposite. I'd rather be dead than red. I would rather die standing on my feet than living the rest of my life groveling on my knees like a slave.

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg insults the U.S. Constitution.

The only thing I'd like to add to this is maybe its time to impeach Justice Ginsberg for admitting she cannot uphold her oath of office. If Justice Ginsberg or any other Supreme Court Justice cannot protect and defend the Constitution they should resign or be thrown off the bench. The U.S. Constitution is the fabric that holds our Republic together and prevents tyranny from running rampant in America. Over the years liberals on the Supreme Court like Ginsberg have been shooting holes in that treasured document as if it were a sign posted on some remote backwater road. 

Press Release from Liberty Counsel.

February 3, 2012

Justice Ginsburg Calls U.S. Constitution a Bad Example

www.LC.org
Washington, DC - In a recent interview with Egyptian television, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg insulted the U.S. Constitution and advised Egypt to look somewhere else when drafting its own constitution. Justice Ginsburg was asked to give insight on this crucial topic for the post-Mubarak government but focused more on liberal human rights, rather than traditional American freedom.

When describing the nature of a constitution, Justice Ginsburg did appropriately recognize the importance of a constitution and the duty of the citizens to defend it. Justice Ginsburg did not, unfortunately, take her own advice. She undermined insight of its crafters and stated, “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.”

Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution.” This directly refutes the U.S. Constitution’s relevance today.
For a United States Supreme Court Justice, entrusted with the duty to interpret the Constitution, this type of statement is unacceptable. Justice Ginsburg failed to respect the authority of the document that it is her duty to protect. When given the opportunity to promote American liberty abroad, Justice Ginsburg did just the opposite and pointed Egypt in the direction of progressivism and the liberal agenda.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said, “For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least. Justice Ginsburg's comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document.”

As for Mathew Staver's comment, “For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least.", THAT is an understatement. Justice Ginsberg should be hauled before Congress and read the riot act. That old expression that says, "America, Love It Or Leave It" applies to everyone, including the Supreme Court.