Group items tagged

"(CNSNews.com) - The new federal hate crimes law has all the potential to be a major attack on religious liberty and freedom of speech, according to top religious liberty attorneys. The law was chosen the number one anti-Christian act of 2009 by the Christian Anti-Defamation League. Attorneys who defend religious rights agree: The recently enacted hate-crimes law is a threat to religious liberty. "The very fact that this law elevates 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' to the same protected status as race - that in and of itself is a cataclysmic shift in policy," said Mathew Staver, president of the religious liberty law firm Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School. "That will have a ripple effect far beyond the specific words of this bill," he added. "That is contrary to our Judeo-Christian heritage and beliefs, far beyond any particular disclaimer that it is not going to affect speech." Erik Stanley, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is based in Scottsdale, Ariz., said the hate-crimes law is not about punishing crimes. It's about punishing beliefs and ideas. "It is actually a thought-crimes law," Stanley said. "There is no difference between, say, an assault that is already punishable, and an assault that is punishable as a hate crime, other than the belief of the perpetrator." "

"There is something about the Arab-Israeli conflict that does strange things to people. Even otherwise distinguished personalities, who in every other context are rational, sensible thinkers, become unrecognizable. The international law of self-defense is a case in point. United Nations. United Nations. Photo: AP [file] It is trite to say that the first and most basic human instinct is that of self-preservation. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which enshrines "the inherent right" of self-defense, emanates from this. The occurrence of "an armed attack" triggers the right. In the context of Israel's incursion into Gaza last year, in response to several thousand rockets which had been fired from there into Israel over a period of years, a letter appeared in The Times of London, exactly a year ago today, signed by 31 lawyers. The lead signatory was Sir Ian Brownlie, professor emeritus of public international law at Oxford University, undoubtedly one of the world's preeminent international law authorities. The letter asserted, in so many words, the astonishing proposition that the thousands of rockets which landed in Israel (and were aimed at civilian populations and centers) "do not, in terms of scale and effect, amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defense." "

"No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site is the Dec. 17 announcement and one-paragraph text of President Obama's Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: "Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities."In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it. There are multiple reasons why this Obama decision is so deeply disturbing. First, the Obama order reverses a 1983 Reagan administration decision in order to grant Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, two key privileges. First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Second, Obama has exempted Interpol's domestic facilities -- including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice -- from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens. Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA. The Examiner has asked for but not yet received from the White House press office an explanation of why the president signed this executive order and who among his advisers was involved in the process leading to his doing so. Unless the White House can provide credible reasons to t

"A little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats. At David Horowitz's Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama's expansion of President Ronald Reagan's order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges. Reagan's order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425. That means, van der Galien wrote today, "this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse." Get "Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World" from the WND Superstore! "'Property and assets,' including the organization's records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities," he wrote. Obama's order said he was removing the Reagan limitations on INTERPOL:"

"I spent twenty-two years serving in the Colorado criminal justice arena. I worked as a municipal police patrolman, a police detective, a patrol sergeant, and as a uniformed county sheriff's deputy and detective. Following twenty years as a cop, I also spent two years on the other side of t he Courtroom as an Investigator for the Colorado State Public Defender's Office. So, I saw crime and punishment from both sides of the Courtroom. I spent my share of time at crime scenes gathering facts and evidence, then in Courts of Law, presenting the evidence and testifying under oath in trials. Sometimes, warrant in hand, I actually kicked in doors and made arrests at gunpoint, but not exactly like this Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry" operation. Real cops don't get to do business like Dirty Harry did - but it is fun to watch his movies. To convince a judge to sign a search or arrest warrant I had to first make sure that in preparing my affidavit for arrest or search warrant I had jumped through all of the hoops within the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees protection from unreasonable police searches of our homes, and capricious or illegal arrests. All of my reports, photos, and collected evidence were a matter of public record, available to defense attorneys through motions for discovery, to lay members of the public, and to members of the press via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Imagine now a foreign international police department that does not have to worry about the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, an agency that has license to bypass American Courts of Law, can investigate and arrest American citizens within our own borders, haul them off to Court in a foreign land, and does not have to reveal any records or documents to anyone in the United States. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I can foresee American military officers and enlisted personnel, CIA agents, former White House policy makers, even Dick Cheney and George Bush in jeo

"(1/4/10) FORT LAUDERDALE, FL - A new state law attempting to meet the requirements of the Federal Real ID Act instituted by Congress in 2005, now requires Floridians either getting a new license or renewing an expiring license to provide additional documentation to prove their identity before their new license can be issued. Even if a person uses the on-line renewal system or does so by mail, every renewing driver will have to bring at least four items to a local DHSMV/Driver's License office, proving their identity, address and Social Security Number. The DHSMV has set up a convenient website to help customers gather the necessary documents by creating a personalized list of items to bring with them to a driver's license office. Effective January 1, 2010, drivers are required to provide one of the following to establish their identity: a certified, state-issued birth certificate, a valid passport, a counselor report of birth abroad, a certificate of naturalization, or a certificate of citizenship. Expired or expiring driver's licenses/ID cards will not be accepted to prove one's identity. To prove their Social Security Number, they must provide one of the following items: a Social Security Card, a W-2 Form from their employer, a recent pay check, or a Form 1099. Additionally, drivers will have to show two documents to establish their home address, including (but not limited to): a recent mortgage bill or statement, a Florida voter registration card, Florida vehicle registration, a utility hook-up bill no more than 60 days old, a W-2 or 1099 form, recent bank statements,or even a current homeowner's insurance statement or bill. For those minors or dependents who do not have any of these items in their own name, a parent or guardian residing at the same address must accompany the driver and provide proof of their residence. For homeless persons, a letter from a homeless shelter or half-way house is only one of the documents allowed. Mail received from s

"BEIJING - In China's first official response to Google's threat to leave the country, the government Thursday said foreign Internet companies are welcome but must obey the law and gave no hint of a possible compromise over Web censorship. Foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu, without mentioning Google by name, said Beijing prohibits e-mail hacking, another issue cited by the company. She was responding to questions about Google at a regular ministry briefing. "China's Internet is open," Jiang said. "China welcomes international Internet enterprises to conduct business in China according to law." Google Inc. said Tuesday it would stop censoring search results in China and might shut down its China-based Google.cn site, citing attempts to break into accounts on its Gmail service used by human rights activists."

"WASHINGTON - The U.S. health care system is in serious need of changes, but the Democratic plan to overhaul it is badly flawed and should be repealed and replaced, the Senate Republican leader says. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Saturday in the GOP radio and video address that "nobody is satisfied with the health care system as it is." Costs are out of control and "people are being squeezed out of the market," he said. But he said the health care bill signed by President Barack Obama this week doesn't solve those problems and undermines what is best about health care in this country - a wide variety of medical options and innovations. The main health care law and a companion "fix-it" measure aim to crack down on insurance industry abuses and to reduce federal deficits by an estimated $143 billion over a decade. Most Americans would be required to buy insurance for the first time or face penalties. McConnell was emphasizing a new GOP political approach opposing Democrats' health care measures that proposes "repealing and replacing" the bill rather than just repealing the new health care law. Republicans say they can push for parts of the health care overhaul without adopting elements they don't like, such as tax increases. "We can do better," he said. "We can expand access to people with pre-existing conditions. We can keep people from being kicked off their plans. We can lower costs and premiums. We can do all of these things without undermining the things we do best and without raising taxes that kill jobs in a bad economy." Republicans want to appeal to tea party supporters and other conservatives upset at the size and scope of the legislation, while acknowledging that many people, including moderate Republicans and independents, want to see changes in American health care. Obama said this week that he welcomes a political fight with Republicans over efforts to repeal the bill. Repeal is highly unlikely because Repu

In the introduction Zawahiri stated that he had always heard from Pakistani scholars that the Pakistani constitution is indeed based on "true Islamic foundations," but that "the ruling class" is corrupt. Challenging the claims, Zawahiri said he studied the Pakistan constitution to determine why the country is "the biggest U.S. ally." He condemns those who do not make Islamic law the foundation for ruling society, and notes that in Pakistan the president can "pardon anyone he wishes," whereas the Muhammad, according to an Islamic saying, was not immune to punishment. He concluded "Pakistan is an un-Islamic country," and that "its constitution is un-Islamic" due to its "many grave contradictions with the Islamic shariah." Pakistan's 23 million people are believed to include about 2.3 million or 10 percent who are viewed as sympathetic to Al Qaida's Islamist creeds.

""The title to my special order tonight is:"Current Conditions or Just a Bad Dream.Could it all be a bad dream or a nightmare? Is it my imagination or have we lost our minds? It's surreal - it's just not believable - a grand absurdity - a great deception - a dillusion of momentous proportions. Based on preposterous notions and ideas whose time should never have come. Simplicity, grossly distorted and complicated...insanity passed off as logic...grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff...evil described as virtue...ignorance pawned off as wisdom...destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism...violence the tool of change...preventive wars used as the road to peace...tolerance delivered by government guns...reactionary views in the guise of progress...an empire replacing the Republic...slavery sold as Liberty...excellence and virtue traded for mediocracy...Socialism to save capitalism... a government out of control, unrestrained by the constitution, the rule of law or morality..." - Congressman Ron Paul"

"A nonprofit organization devoted to advancing religious liberty for Christians has scoured the news, sought the opinion of its e-mail subscribers and selected a list of "the top 10 incidents of anti-Christian defamation, bigotry and discrimination in the U.S. from last year." "It is arguable that anti-Christian hatred has spilled over into material forms of persecution in 2009," said Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Christians were killed and bullied for their witness, ministers and churches threatened with violence and vandalized for standing for marriage and Christians were fired for not compromising their faith. If these are not bona fide examples of persecution, than I wonder what more it might take?" CADC subscribers chose from a list of 20 stories - both those that made headlines and those that were conspicuously absent from wide media coverage - to pick their top 10. The winners included a wide array of events deemed to insult, injure or marginalize Christianity. They included acts of violence, laws and judgments, actions by schools against students and decisions by the Obama administration to promote causes and leaders at odds with Christian teaching. (Story continues below) Here, then, is the list, as reported by the CADC: 1. "The Federal Hate Crimes Bill that attacks religious liberty and freedom of speech." As WND has reported, Canada's experience with "hate crimes" legislation has caused many American Christians to fear the U.S. will follow a similar path of censoring or even punishing in the name of "hate speech" people who declare the Bible's teachings on homosexuality. Gerald Chipeur is an attorney working to defend a Canadian pastor whose letter to the editor of a local newspaper prompted a complaint, a $5,000 fine and a court order not to express his beliefs further. "

"Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them. BARACK OBAMA"

"The Burj Dubai tower officially opened yesterday, six years after construction began on the $4.1 billion, half-mile-high skyscraper. Conceived as a monument to the Arab city-state's economic ambitions, the Burj today looks more like a modern-day Tower of Babel. Dubai has been wracked by a debt crisis, and the building stands mostly empty and unwanted by the international tenants for whom it was supposedly built. But then, the main argument for these monuments has never been purely economic. In early 20th-century New York, one tycoon after another vied to build the world's tallest building, adding their marks to Manhattan's iconic skyline. Both General Motors and Chrysler in their day saw fit to build testaments to their economic might in the form of tall towers. Later on, the gods of vanity shifted to the Far East, where Malaysia's Petronas Towers and more recently Taiwan's Taipei 101 vied to be the world's tallest. Today a half-dozen Asian skyscrapers put Chicago's Sears Tower (now the Willis Tower) in the shade. As for Dubai, the Burj is merely the most recent bauble in a quest for excess that includes the world's largest man-made islands, indoor shopping mall and indoor ski resort. It even boasts the world's heaviest gold ring, weighing in at something like 62 kilos. The economic theory behind all this, we suppose, is that being the land of superlatives confers a comparative advantage to a place of otherwise few charms and little human capital-though we do wonder who proposes to wear that ring. If the past century has taught us anything, it's that there will always be another, bigger building built somewhere, and Dubai cannot hope to keep up indefinitely. By contrast, in cities such as Houston and Hong Kong the skylines are not the cause of their economic prosperity, but merely one visible manifestation of it. That's a prosperity that has been built over the years on the basis of those old reliables: economic freedom, the rule of law, hard work and sound ma

"SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. will stop censoring its search results in China and may pull out of the country completely after discovering that computer hackers had tricked human-rights activists into exposing their e-mail accounts to outsiders. The change of heart announced Tuesday heralds a major shift for the Internet's search leader, which has repeatedly said it will obey Chinese laws requiring some politically and socially sensitive issues to be blocked from search results available in other countries. The acquiescence had outraged free-speech advocates and even some shareholders, who argued Google's cooperation with China violated the company's "don't be evil" motto. The criticism had started to sway Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who openly expressed his misgivings about the company's presence in China. But the tipping point didn't come until Google recently uncovered hacking attacks launched from within China. The apparent goals: breaking into the computers of at least 20 major U.S. companies and gathering personal information about dozens of human rights activists trying to shine a light on China's alleged abuses. Google spokesman Matt Furman declined to say whether the company suspects the Chinese government may have had a hand in the attacks. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Google allegations "raise very serious concerns and questions" and the U.S. is seeking an explanation from the Chinese government."

"Jordan has asked Canada to seize the selected parchments of the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls that have been on display in Toronto, invoking international law in a bid to keep the artifacts out of Israel's hands until their "disputed ownership" is settled, the Toronto-based Globe and Mail reported last week. The Isaiah Scroll portion of... The Isaiah Scroll portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Photo: The Israel Museum SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World In its request, Jordan invoked the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which is concerned with safeguarding cultural property during wartime. The 1954 convention requires signatories "to take into its custody cultural property imported into its territory either directly or indirectly from any occupied territory." The Jordanians claim Israel acted illegally when it seized the scrolls from the Rockefeller Museum, located in eastern Jerusalem, during the Six Day War. On Sunday, Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum ended its exhibit "Words That Changed the World," which featured scroll fragments on loan from the Israel Antiquities Authority. "

" A proposed law passed recently in the state House is intended to make the process more convenient, boost voter turnout and cut the state's costs to register voters, said its main sponsor, State Rep. Lesia Liss, D-Warren. "You can register online for selective service, we pay our taxes online," she said. "So why not make online voter registration a priority as well?" (emphasis added) Registering for selective service and paying taxes on line is a weak argument. No one is going to register an extra six times for selective service and no one is going pay taxes two or three times. However, people will try to vote more than once."

"2009 ended with a flurry of important events on the climate-change front. In November, the Climategate scandal broke. An anonymous whistle-blower released over 1,000 e-mails from key scientists (both British and American) in the alarmist climate-change camp. The e-mails revealed a shocking pattern of the abuse of science by both American and British scientists collaborating at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University the source of various global-warming studies that have formed the alleged scientific justification for capping human CO2 emissions. E. Calvin Beisner wrote that the e-mails showed: serious scientific malfeasance the fabrication, corruption, destruction, hiding, and cherry-picking of data as well as intimidation of dissenting scientists and journal editors and efforts to evade disclosure under Freedom of Information Laws in the United Kingdom and the United States. James Delingpoles blog found Conspiracy, collusion manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. The incriminating e-mails were followed in December by charges from Russia's Institute of Economic Analysis that Britain's Meteorological Office deliberately skewed Russia's temperature data. With the underlying climate-change science so thoroughly compromised, did policymakers pause to reconsider the need for colossally expensive CO2-curbing policies? No. Instead they are locked into automatic-pilot mode. In the United States, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) dismissed Climategates revelations as irrelevant and continued to push her expensive cap-and-trade proposal (potential cost: trillions of dollars; potential climate impact according to its own proponents: a few hundredths of a degree). Internationally, last month's U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen ignored it. The delegates didn't skip a beat in pursuing a multi-trillion-dollar transfer of wealth from developed to undeveloped countries. Could it be that climate-change politics is more a

"The world's largest Internet search company and the world's most powerful electronic surveillance organization are teaming up in the name of cybersecurity. Under an agreement that is still being finalized, the National Security Agency would help Google analyze a major corporate espionage attack that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter. The objective is to better defend Google -- and its users -- from future attack. Google and the NSA declined to comment on the partnership. But sources with knowledge of the arrangement, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the alliance is being designed to allow the two organizations to share critical information without violating Google's policies or laws that protect the privacy of Americans' online communications. The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data. The partnership strikes at the core of one of the most sensitive issues for the government and private industry in the evolving world of cybersecurity: how to balance privacy and national security interests. On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair called the Google attacks, which the company acknowledged in January, a "wake-up call." Cyberspace cannot be protected, he said, without a "collaborative effort that incorporates both the U.S. private sector and our international partners." But achieving collaboration is not easy, in part because private companies do not trust the government to keep their secrets and in part because of concerns that collaboration can lead to continuous government monitoring of private communications. Privacy advocates, concerned about a repeat of the NSA's warrantless interception of Americans' phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, say information-sharing must be limited and closely overseen.

"WASHINGTON-The U.S.'s top intelligence officials said Tuesday that an attempted al Qaeda attack on the U.S. in the next three to six months was "certain." An official also said the Nigerian who allegedly attempted to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day was again cooperating with federal investigators. Republicans have accused the administration of squandering a chance to gain valuable intelligence from the suspect by using the civilian court system to charge him, instead of declaring him an enemy combatant and subjecting him to more interrogation. Al Qaeda remains a significant threat to the U.S., the officials said, and the group's recent evolution in tactics includes dispatching individuals who can enter the U.S. without arousing suspicion, such as the man accused of attempting the Christmas Day attack. Such tactics have created "a new degree of difficulty" for U.S. spies seeking to thwart the next attack, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Al Qaeda will remain intent on attacking in the U.S. at least until Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al Zawahiri, are killed or captured, Mr. Blair said. Al Qaeda's many affiliates are also of great concern to the spy agencies. The Yemeni affiliate, which is believed to have directed the attempted Christmas Day attack, will continue to attempt additional attacks on the U.S., Mr. Blair said. Militant groups in Pakistan are also coordinating their attacks with al Qaeda, which has led to an increase in terrorist attacks inside Pakistan as well as rising concerns the groups may expand their ambitions to attack outside Pakistan, officials said. Republican lawmakers also pressed Mr. Blair and FBI Director Robert Mueller on the decision to read Miranda rights to the alleged Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, rather than submit him to further interrogation. Both officials said that decisions on whether to read a terror suspect his rig

"Divorce agreement " Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McC