Tag Archive: human-rights


Daily Digest for Thursday
November 13, 2014 Print

THE FOUNDATION
“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 15, 1787

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Details of Obama’s Immigration Plan Leaked
As early as Nov. 21, Barack Obama will announce his 10-point plan on immigration, circumventing Congress and disregarding the Constitution. Fox News reports on a leaked draft of Obama’s executive action that does everything from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers a raise, to granting differed action to 4.5 million illegal immigrants. It will also give a discount to the first 10,000 illegal immigrants who apply for naturalization. In response, some GOP lawmakers advocate a tough line against Obama’s plan. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) wants the GOP to work a provision into December’s appropriations bill where Congress leaves no money for Obama’s executive actions. But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell wants a softer approach — more cooperation among politicians. Still, Obama could continue going Rambo on immigration by waiting until after Congress passes its appropriation bill Dec. 11, or by placing a few Republican carrots in the executive order. Republicans need to remember this is not just a policy debate: This is an argument over Rule of Law and the constitutionally separated powers in Washington. Both high ideals. More…

Comment | Share

Reid Has ‘No Desire’ to Create Obstruction
Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ran the chamber with an iron fist, but now that he’s headed for the minority, he wants everybody to get along. “I’ve always believed it wise to follow Will Roger’s admonition: ‘Don’t let yesterday use up too much of today,'” he said from the Senate floor. Therefore, he added, “I’m ready … to work with [Mitch McConnell] in good faith to make this institution function again for the American people.” He then had the temerity to blame Republicans for the dysfunction. “I saw firsthand how a strategy of obstruction was debilitating to our system,” he continued, blaming McConnell for creating gridlock. “I have no desire to engage in that manner.” That’s all he ever did as majority leader — blocking amendments, letting House bills stack up on his desk, etc. We don’t believe for a second he’s turned over a new leaf.

Comment | Share

Part-Time Workers Can’t Get Full-Time Jobs
About 32% of part-time workers wish for a full-time job, according to a survey conducted by CareerBuilder, but a lack of education and a crummy job market has landed those people in jobs bringing in little money on few hours. Of those wishing for full-time work, 39% say they have to stretch their salary and 31% say they are the only person bringing home the bacon in their family. The challenge to getting that 40-hour-a-week position? Only 31% said they weren’t looking, 51% said they didn’t have the necessary skills, and the top reason was the lack of full-time work since the recession (54%). Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder, said, “Though we’re seeing an uptick in full-time, permanent hiring, many workers are still having difficulty finding positions in their field of expertise.” Five years after the federal government declared the recession over, one-third of the part-time workforce wishes for something better, but the jobs are opening up at an excruciatingly slow pace. Just the latest dispatch from the sorry Obama recovery. More…

Comment | Share

Senate Vote Looming on Keystone
Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid squelched any effort to pass legislation regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. Now that Democrats got thumped in the election, however, the legislation is headed for a vote. Why? Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu needs help in her Louisiana runoff. Bloomberg reports, “The purpose of the vote would be symbolic: To highlight Landrieu’s support for the pipeline and her influence on energy issues in Washington — a centerpiece of her campaign. A vote in favor of the pipeline may benefit Landrieu in her Dec. 6 runoff election, in which she faces Republican Representative Bill Cassidy.” Landrieu’s being able to tout passage of the pipeline sure would be good on the stump in a state that stands to benefit from it. In fact, it may even be more helpful if Barack Obama vetoes it — he and his ecofascist constituents get what they want, while Landrieu can claim to have opposed Obama on something. It’s a win-win … for Democrats. Unfortunately, that usually means a loss for the country. More…

Comment | Share

School Refused Veterans Day Ceremony Over Firearms
The Eau Claire school district in Wisconsin did not hold its traditional Veterans Day ceremonies Tuesday because guns are scary. That’s right — the 21-gun salute that was a standard part of the program is no longer acceptable on school grounds. “We like to honor the veterans; we bring them in on a regular basis,” says Tim Libham, the executive director of administration with the district. “There are just some conditions that we have to adhere to and the shooting of guns, even with blanks, is something we don’t feel is appropriate given society, and the concerns that we have and that the community has, on school premises.” The ceremony was instead held at a local Burger King. School officials should be ashamed. They’re teaching kids that fear is more important than honor. More…

RIGHT ANALYSIS

The Phony Climate Deal With China
2014-11-13-7cae1639.jpg
Obama at the Star Trek convention
Barack Obama waves around five magic beans from his climate change talk with the Chinese while China walks away with the cow. On Tuesday, the White House announced it made an agreement with the Communist nation limiting carbon emissions. Obama’s in China this week, where the world’s two biggest energy producers hashed things out before UN delegates meet in Paris in December 2015 to write a new treaty regulating the world in response to supposedly man-made global warming.

Just like he has with so many other policies, Obama went it alone. Most everyone was surprised by the announcement that China and the U.S. had reached an agreement — a bad sign on an issue so large as climate change. But it’s a bum deal, and the Republican-led Congress must rescue Obama from himself.

During his first term, Obama set the goal of cutting the nation’s emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. This week’s announcement increases that goal of cutting emissions to 26-27% of 2005 levels by the year 2025. The White House said it was opening trade with China for “sustainable environmental goods and clean energy technologies.” The nations will be working to study responses to climate change together.

While Obama pledges to further cut emissions — strangling business and increasing the almighty power of the EPA — China pinky-promises (with fingers crossed) it will begin to decrease its emissions by 2030 and start to produce 20% of its energy from clean energy sources. Only years after the United States has met its goal will China think of following in those footsteps. Really? We’re supposed to believe this?

Last September, it was checkup time at the UN. Every country, from Ebola-stricken Liberia to large, industrialized nations, gathered in New York City to share specifics of what each had done to combat the scourge of global warming.

China slunk into that climate summit like the slacking student in a group project. It’s a “responsible major country,” said Zhang Gaoli, Vice Premier of the State Council of China, who added, “We will announce post-2020 actions on climate change as soon as we can.” The world’s biggest polluter, one of the giants when it comes to industry and energy production, had nothing.

In response to this week’s U.S.-China announcement, the UN released a statement: “Today, China and the United States have demonstrated the leadership that the world expects of them. This leadership demonstrated by the Governments of the world’s two largest economies will give the international community an unprecedented chance to succeed at reaching a meaningful, universal agreement in 2015.”

It took Obama — not the U.S. — a promise to further cut and cripple the U.S. economy for China to agree to the most basic of plans that would be agreeable to the ecofascists in the global community.

Senate Republican leaders hope to undermine Obama’s environmental policies. One of Congress’ most important tools is control of the purse strings. Republicans could defund Obama’s environmental policies, hamstring new EPA regulation by withholding funds and weaken Obama’s presence at the UN 2015 Paris meeting.

Indeed, the GOP believes it has a mandate from voters to stand in the gap against Obama and his economically damaging environmental policies. In a statement, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “The President said his policies were on the ballot, and the American people spoke up against them. It’s time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape. Easing the burden already created by EPA regulations will continue to be a priority for me in the new Congress.”

But Obama has plenty of moves to hinder the Republicans’ pledge to work against his green policies. Obama still wields the veto pen and Republicans don’t have veto-proof majorities in either chamber. But neither can Obama enter into a binding international treaty. So he uses his phone to create working groups, research centers and initiatives with China — all little things compared to what Obama would truly like to accomplish.

“It’s hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20 percent of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030, and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the world’s largest economy to buy time,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said. “China builds a coal-fired power plant every 10 days, is the largest importer of coal in the world, and has no known reserves of natural gas. This deal is a non-binding charade.”

Obama has his five magic beans, a pat on the back from the UN, a boiling political fight when he returns to Washington and a long road until the UN meeting in Paris. Going it alone has weakened Obama on the global stage. He can only go so far before the Constitution reins in his unlawful attempt to transform the country. But he’s still trying.

Pirouette Toward Asia
2014-11-13-2fb6f603.jpg
China is aggressively pushing asymmetric militarization — that is, targeted ramping up capabilities to probe vulnerable seams and gaps in U.S. capabilities — as well as conducting more pronounced maneuvering in the South China Sea. That means the Obama administration’s strategy of “pivoting toward Asia” is now in what can best be described as an endless “pirouette.” A better description would be a classic death-spiral.

The U.S. just reached agreement with Communist China on notification protocols for major military exercises, ostensibly diffusing alarm when one nation conducts such an exercise. Perhaps like conducting an otherwise-unannounced major naval exercise in the South China Sea. Another agreement reaffirms the now 50-year-old traditional rules for encounters at sea and in the air, because, apparently, these things aren’t patently evident to all civilized nations by now, having been codified into international law for half a century or so. Great job, Chosen One! We’ll show those naked aggressors who’s boss!

Meanwhile, as Russian President Vladimir Putin tries desperately to get the gang back together — a few invasions of sovereign states, a shoot-down of a plane carrying a few hundred innocent civilians — Team Hopeless is trying to return to its “pivot” script. Never mind that Putin just solidified Russian economic ties to China with another Siberia gas deal. Also overlook the fact Moscow has reclassified NATO as Russia’s official adversary (did we mention NATO is ostensibly led by the U.S.?). We should also not dwell on “blame” for that SA-11 shot that murdered 300 innocents, either, right? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The whole reason Barack Obama “pivoted” to “Asia” (read: China) in the first place was because of so much intense saber-rattling in the South China Sea. China’s bald regional hegemonic machinations meant the U.S. could no longer ignore the threats to its allies — Japan, Australia, New Zealand and a host of others within that vulnerable region.

Our “good friends” in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) recently developed their own version of the Marshall Plan to cope with all the unrest (which, by the way, they have generated): The so-called “Silk Road” is a $40 billion plan to buy off opposition to Chinese designs on regional hegemony. Effectively, it will force nations in the region to “chose a side” — the sides being, of course, the U.S. and China. As such an unwaveringly solid friend as the kowtow administration has demonstrated itself to be to these “lesser” states, any guesses which side most of them will choose?

Luckily, China has a long way to go to catch up with the U.S., despite the debut of its new J-31 stealth fighter — during Obama’s attendance at the Asian economic summit in Beijing, no less. Who could have predicted such timing for test flights? Of course, the “Chinese stealth fighter” is better known as the “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,” an American jet, since the Chinese unabashedly stole top-secret technical data through cyber espionage against Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors. Testing their plane during Obama’s visit signals they know they have nothing to fear from him.

We should also point out the inconvenient truth of China’s deployment of two brigades of DF21D ballistic missiles — so-called “carrier killers,” and not without good reason. Supposedly, these missiles had been a long way off from reaching operational capability. Yet they are now part of what the emperor Chinese leader might call a “fully armed and operational battle station.”

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall put a fine point on the whole issue of technology: “Our technological superiority is very much at risk. There are people designing systems specifically to defeat us in a very thoughtful and strategic way, and we’ve got to wake up, frankly.” Kendall went on to name several areas in which the U.S. remains critically vulnerable: China’s threat to the U.S. surface fleet as well as U.S. overseas bases; China’s challenge to U.S. air dominance; Chinese threats to U.S. space capabilities and access to space; and finally, China’s ability to mount cyber assaults on U.S. networks. The myth of U.S. technical superiority is quickly becoming just that: a myth.

The real lesson here is what is wrought when a nation chooses a position of weakness. Starting in 2009 with his World Apology Tour and continuing with numerous international failings and foreign-policy-related humiliations, Obama has abjectly demonstrated what happens when the U.S. abdicates its leadership role in the world and chooses instead to be the world’s buddy. Rogue nations, belligerent nations and nations ruled by an iron thumb are not content with being anyone’s buddy. They are content only with being conqueror.

OPINION IN BRIEF

American writer E. B. White (1899-1985): “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time.”

Columnist Ann Coulter: “People who voted Republican took the attitude of ‘We’re giving you one more chance.’ They are not going to back off, and they can’t be tricked or lied to. They’re looking the GOP in the eye and saying: We’re not fooling around: Amnesty is dead, right? Republicans won by ignoring the establishment when it said, Don’t criticize amnesty! and ignoring the tea party when it said, Let’s run candidates like Christine O’Donnell! Don’t confuse who’s good at what here. The establishment has to drop amnesty and the tea party has got to drop — for now — demands for government shutdowns to repeal Obamacare. Without the presidency, Republicans’ sole objective for the next two years is to keep sending Obama bills that 80 percent of Americans will support. They can pass some great legislation — and they’ll also force Democrats into votes that won’t be easy to explain to their constituents. Republicans might start by dusting off that bill requiring Congress to live under Obamacare.”

Comment | Share

Historian Victor Davis Hanson: “Midterm voters apparently understood that ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ has devolved into something like comprehensive health care reform — a euphemism for Obama’s larger efforts at fundamentally transforming America. … It’s hard to find supporters of immigration reform who argue that the Kenyan, South Korean, Czech or Jamaican applicant for entry into the U.S. should be treated equally on the basis of skill sets, education or prior background — rather than as a future identity-politics voter. … If advocates of comprehensive immigration reform are going to win Americans over to their side, they are going to have to find a new approach to the debate that they have now lost. For now, the position remains the current one of ethnic-privileging one group over another. The selfish position is the current one of burdening the host society by accommodating the language of the guest. The surreal position is that of ingratitude of guests toward generous host country by demanding that its laws either be ignored or changed to fit their own particular agendas and preferences. On matters of immigration, open-borders advocates have become reactionaries. Last week’s midterm results proved it.”

 

Polls show Republicans firmly ahead in 3 key Senate races

WASHINGTON (MCT) — In the final stretch before Tuesday’s midterm elections, Republicans appear on solid footing in three key Senate races, according to new polls that show Democratic hopes of holding control of the Senate looking increasing faint.

In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has a nine-point lead over Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, the NBC News/Marist poll found. Meanwhile, Senate races in Georgia and Louisiana appear headed for runoffs, but in both cases the Democrats were poised to lose the head-to-head matchups.

The outlook in the Southern states is not a shock to Democrats. All three states are rough terrain for Democrats in any year — and even more at a time when voters express widespread dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama’s performance on nearly every major issue of the day.

Still, all three races have featured flashes of hope for Democrats in recent months. Grimes has shown herself a tough campaigner and unafraid to knock the president and his policies. In Georgia, Michelle Nunn’s fight against Republican David Perdue has become a test of whether the Democratic Party can mobilize African American voters in an off year. In Louisiana, two-term incumbent Mary Landrieu is hoping her powerful name and GOP division can inch her over the edge.

The polling suggests Landrieu won’t know the answer until the results of a Dec. 6 runoff election. Among likely voters in Tuesday’s ballot, Landrieu stood at 44 percent, compared with Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy’s 36 percent and Tea Party-aligned candidate Rob Maness’ 15 percent. One candidate needs to exceed 50 percent to avoid a rematch. In hypothetical head-to-head matchups against either Cassidy or Maness, Landrieu loses, the poll indicates.

In Georgia, Nunn was trailing Perdue, 44 percent to 48 percent, and Perdue was projected to win in a runoff. In Kentucky, McConnell was leading Grimes, 50 percent to 41 percent.

If Democrats lose each of the three Senate seats, their slog to 50 seats in the Senate is tough. They would have to win four of the six tightest races across the country in Alaska, Colorado, Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.

Republicans need to pick up six seats to gain control of the Senate and are already seen as having a lock in South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana.

–Kathleen Hennessey
Tribune Washington Bureau

How This School Treated a Marine Dad who Refused to Let Daughter Study Islam Is SHAMEFUL

Kevin Wood, a Marine and father living in Maryland, is under a “no-trespass order” at La Plata High School after he asked his daughter to be excused from a biased assignment about Islam.

The patriotic father first spoke first to an administrative assistant, then discussed the issue with Vice Principal Shannon Morris. But a school official is making the wild accusation that Wood threatened to cause problems at the school in his conversation with Morris.

She said: “Safety comes first. We don’t allow disruptions at the schools, especially if we’re forewarned of them.”

Wood denies making any threats. His version of the conversation is that he explained in no uncertain terms that he does “not believe in” Islam and wants his daughter removed from class while other students study the Muslim religion.

The Wood family will be taking their complaints to state legislators and the Maryland Department of Education. But first, he discussed this important issue with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly (above):

Wood’s wife Melissa said her husband was simply trying to make a point.

“The people do not understand what he endured when he was over in Iraq,” she said through tears. “And he lost friends, and he lost brothers and sisters to these people.”

The Wood family is trying to work out an agreement with the school board. If they can’t, they say their daughter won’t do the assignment and will take the ‘F.’

It is very interesting how seriously the school takes an assignment teaching about the “5 Pillars of Islam” but wouldn’t dare have students memorize the 10 Commandments or Biblical scripture.

Do you support this Marine dad’s battle against his child’s school? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/school-treated-marine-dad-refused-let-daughter-study-islam-shameful-video/#ixzz3HgArvbVD

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/29070
Daily Digest
Sep. 12, 2014

THE FOUNDATION
“[T]his is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers – but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” –James Madison, Speech in Congress, 1792

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Blocking Obama’s ISIL Strategy
In his speech to the nation1 on ISIL Wednesday, Barack Obama declared, “[W]e will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. … [W]e will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq.” He claimed to be assembling a “broad coalition” in support of his mission so as to not, as he has previously put it, “go it alone” like George W. Bush in Iraq. Bush went with support from 37 countries; Obama has fewer than 10. And one of them is not Turkey, which announced Thursday2 it would not permit U.S. aircraft to conduct airstrikes from its air bases. That limits our options to carriers in the region or other NATO bases further away. Oh, and Great Britain and Germany3 also won’t be helping with airstrikes. Behold, the results of “leading from behind.”

We’re Not at War, Kerry Says
Secretary of State John Kerry insisted Thursday that we are not at war with ISIL – at least not just yet. “What we are doing,” he said, “is engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation.” Just to reiterate the point, he said, “If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counter-terrorism operation.” We’re glad he cleared that up. It reminds us of Kerry’s comments just over one year ago4, when he was pumping up action against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. He promised we would counter Assad “without engaging in troops on the ground, or any other prolonged kind of effort, in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort,” and that any action would be an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.” The administration sure is twisting itself into knots to assure its hard-left base that Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. Kerry’s remarks would be funny if they weren’t so disgraceful.

To Claim Islam Is Like Other Religions ‘Is Just Plain Wrong’
HBO’s Bill Maher is a leftist atheist and no friend of Christianity. But he came to the religion’s defense in addressing Barack Obama’s assertions regarding ISIL and Islam. “Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it,” Maher said, objecting to comparisons. “Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it. So yes, does [ISIL] do Khmer Rouge-like activities where they just kill people indiscriminately who aren’t just like them? Yes. And would most Muslim people in the world do that or condone that? No. But most Muslim people in the world do condone violence just for what you think. … So to claim that this religion is like other religions is just naïve and plain wrong.” For once, Maher is right on the money.

Executive Action on Immigration Possible by Year’s End
The White House promised angry Latino lawmakers Thursday the president would make his move on immigration “reform” before the end of the year. The lawmakers feel Barack Obama betrayed them when he announced delaying his pen from drawing sweeping changes to the immigration system, possibly granting amnesty to five million illegal immigrants. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said, “The president understands the depth of the broken immigration system that we have and he’s bound and determined to make sure that we fix it because it’s impacting our economy, it’s impacting our job growth and it’s a humanitarian issue that’s impacting families across the country. So we’re going to fix it and we’ll do it before the end of the year.” While the delay helps Democrats running for re-election in November, Hot Air’s Allahpundit5 says the president could wait until next year to act on immigration in order to help his successor win the White House in 2016. More…6

Scientists Say Gov’t Intervention Is Healing Ozone Layer
A new United Nations report praises government intervention for helping heal the ozone layer over Antarctica, a finding made famous by scientists Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland in 1974 – incidentally during the height of the “next ice age” scare. The ozone hole was primarily blamed on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), prompting a global ban on the compound in 1987. Now, CBS News reports, “For the first time in 35 years, scientists were able to confirm a statistically significant and sustained increase in stratospheric ozone, which shields us from solar radiation that causes skin cancer, crop damage and other problems.” In fact, an older UN study predicted that, had no action been taken, we’d be looking at an additional two million skin cancer cases annually within the next decade and a half. So regardless of whether the ozone is experiencing a natural oscillation (which it most assuredly is), alarmists can now make the unproven assertion that their activism helped prevent a calamity. Molina says the recovering ozone layer is “a victory for diplomacy and for science and for the fact that we were able to work together.” And no doubt, scientists will use this new report to stress the need for a pact to limit greenhouse gases like CO2, which they say will otherwise threaten any long-term ozone recovery. More…7

For more, visit Right Hooks8.

RIGHT ANALYSIS
Boos for Cruz Shouldn’t Overshadow Christian Persecution
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was booed off the stage of a Washington, DC, summit exploring the plight of Christians in the Middle East because he supported the nation of Israel. The whole episode illustrates the complexity of the Middle East – especially when it comes to our understanding of the region’s religious and political tensions.

A video of the event9 shows Cruz standing before the crowd, which was murmuring angrily. “I will say this,” Cruz said. “I am saddened to see that some here – not everyone, but some here – are so consumed with hate.”

The audience grew angry and a man near the camera shouted, “You speak for yourself!”

“If you will not stand with Israel,” Cruz said, “then I will not stand with you,” walking off the stage. The camera follows him, catching the words projected onto the wall: “Solidarity Dinner.”

The summit, put on by In Defense of Christians (IDC), brought together Coptic Christians, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians and Catholics, as well as Democrats and Republicans alike. All were there to raise awareness of the threats to religious freedom in the Middle East, particularly ISIL’s threat of genocide10 against Christians.

IDC president Toufic Baaklini said11 the goal of the summit was to “empower the Middle Eastern Christian Diaspora and energize the American people to stand in solidarity [with] the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. Their survival is vital to stability in the region, and their ability to flourish in their countries of origin has national security implications for the United States.”

Unfortunately, that laudable goal will be eclipsed by click-bait headlines focused only on the brief altercation with Cruz. Meanwhile, the intolerant drum of radical Islam beats stronger and stronger in the dissolving states of the Middle East.

While the gathered Christians may have been of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, they were not all one with the state of Israel. Let’s give Cruz the benefit of the doubt on this one, as this misunderstanding is a common problem between Evangelical Americans and some of the Christian communities still living in the land where Jesus walked. Religion News Service points out12:

“The episode highlighted a central tension between U.S. evangelicals, who strongly support Israel, and Middle Eastern Christians – including thousands of Palestinian Christians – who hold Israel responsible for expropriated Arab lands and the death toll in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

However, despite the well-documented brutality of dictators like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Assads in Syria Christians in those countries prefer the relative stability of those dictators to the jihadist alternatives. The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan writes13, “An estimated two-thirds of the Christians of Iraq have fled that country since the 2003 U.S. invasion. They are being driven from their villages in northern Iraq. They are terrorized, brutalized, executed. This week an eyewitness in Mosul, which fell to Islamic State in June, told NBC News the jihadists were committing atrocities. In Syria, too, they have executed Christians for refusing to convert.”

IDC set a lofty goal. In its statement after the disruption14, Baaklini admitted that people in the Church and in the field of foreign policy thought the organization would fail. “For more than 48 hours,” he said, “our initial IDC conference was successfully bridging divides of faith, language, geography and politics.”

The views of the speakers ranged across the spectrum. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) spoke, as well as writer Eric Metaxas, who schooled president Obama15 at the 2012 Presidential Prayer Breakfast. On the other hand, some of the Christian leaders from the Middle East supported groups like Hamas or Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, The Washington Free Beacon reported16.

Within that spectrum of Christians stood Sen. Cruz. In a statement17 explaining why he left the dinner, Cruz outlined his message on Israel:

“When I spoke in strong support of Israel and the Jewish people, who are being persecuted and murdered by the same vicious terrorists who are also slaughtering Christians, many Christians in the audience applauded. But, sadly, a vocal and angry minority of attendees at the conference tried to shout down my expression of solidarity with Israel.”

Cruz is right to show solidarity with Israel, a key ally of the United States and the only nation in the Middle East where Christians needn’t fear persecution. But Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist argues Cruz is no hero for what he did18, saying he approached the whole speech politically, meeting with The Washington Free Beacon beforehand and using the situation generally to advance his platform.

“When Cruz was supposed to give the keynote address and discuss the deadly serious topic of persecution of Christians,” Hemingway wrote, “he instead insulted a largely immigrant and foreign crowd as a group that didn’t understand their own political situation and stomped out of the room after calling them a bunch of haters.”

Thus was the IDC summit reduced to another sound byte in the Beltway political machine. But its purpose remains paramount: Christians are being threatened10 in the Middle East – Christians with complex and nuanced geopolitical views based on interests sometimes not aligned with the U.S. If they fall, the region – and the world – will be far worse for it.

The Phony Investigation of Scott Walker
It’s not unusual for the Leftmedia to behave corruptly and circle the wagons for Democrats. Aside from becoming an echo chamber for Democrat talking points, the media have a history of dishonesty – from intentionally blowing up GM trucks to “prove” the dangers of owning them, to utterly ignoring Bill Clinton’s one-man War on Women. There isn’t much we haven’t witnessed. Currently, the mainstream media are aligned to smear Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker with lies and disinformation before the November election.

In 2012, Democrat Wisconsin district attorneys, led by Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm, launched a secret probe known as a John Doe investigation of Gov. Walker, alleging he illegally coordinated a conservative group’s fundraising. These Democrats sought to prove Walker received an illegal in-kind campaign contribution in the form of ads Walker approved. Since Democrats never violate campaign finance laws, they are uniquely qualified to pursue those who do. The district attorneys issued more than 100 subpoenas, demanded private information from individuals and conservative groups, and even conducted secret raids. Furthermore, those targeted or privy to the investigation were required to keep it secret.

But prosecutors lost the first round in court as Judge Gregory Peterson quashed their subpoenas, saying they “fail probable cause.”

After the John Doe debacle, the DAs appealed to U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Randa. The judge slammed the prosecutors for seeking “refuge in the Court of Public Opinion, having lost in this Court of law.”

The defendants then asked for the release of reams of the secret documents while leaving out those involving two unnamed, unindicted persons for the sake of their privacy. Randa agreed. The DAs then complained that all records should be made public rather than a select few. Randa shot back saying that the prosecutors’ complaint “smacks of irony.” Their position is “at odds with their duty as prosecutors, which is to see that in any John Doe proceeding the rights of the innocent accused are protected in pursuit of a criminal investigation.”

While that state appeal was pending, Eric O’Keefe of the Wisconsin Club for Growth filed a federal civil rights suit, alleging the DAs’ secret investigation and tactics are an unconstitutional abuse of his civil rights. The civil rights case is currently before three judges from the Seventh Circuit Court, and the media are dutifully touting a big win for the Wisconsin prosecutors.

The story broke last June, and since then the Leftmedia has portrayed Walker as another corrupt conservative politician, hypocritically violating campaign finance laws. Despite the fact that the case was thrown out of a state court and then a federal court for lack of evidence, Democrats continue pursuing Walker as though he were the reincarnation of another Wisconsinite, Sen. Joe McCarthy.

The real in-kind campaign contribution went from prosecutors to Walker’s Democrat challenger Mary Burke. Democrats have handicapped fundraising at many of the most effective conservative independent groups while forcing them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers to defend their rights in court. Burke has made the probe a centerpiece of her campaign, which has helped her get close in the polls.

But prosecutors aren’t done yet. They’re asking the Seventh Circuit Court to let them reopen the investigation, despite its nearly two years of failing to nail Walker on any charge. Furthermore, they claim immunity from being sued and that the interests of the public outweigh the interests of the investigated group. Clearly, all they really want is to drag out the constant allegations until the November elections, hoping to rid themselves of Walker. Let’s hope the voters of Wisconsin aren’t fooled by Democrats’ shameful behavior.

For more, visit Right Analysis8.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
David Harsanyi: Actually, Senators, You’re the Ones Who Threaten the Country19
Jonah Goldberg: Is the Islamic State Really un-Islamic?20
Mona Charen: Presidential Malpractice21
Michelle Malkin: Post-9/11: Protect the Freedom to Warn22
Stephen Moore: In Japan’s Economic Folly, a Lesson for U.S.23
For more, visit Right Opinion24.

OPINION IN BRIEF
Canadian-American chemist and author O. A. Battista (1917-1995): “One of the hardest things to teach a child is that the truth is more important than the consequences.”

Columnist David Harsanyi: “It is true that 16 states and the District of Columbia, along with more than 500 cities and towns, have passed resolutions calling on Congress to reinstitute restriction on free speech. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support the abolishment of super PACs. So it’s important to remember that one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers offered us the Constitution was to offer a bulwark against ‘democracy.’ Senators may have an unhealthy obsession with the democratic process, and Supreme Court justices are on the bench for life for that very reason. On Monday, Democrats offered an amendment to repeal the First Amendment in an attempt to protect their own political power. Whiny senators – most of them patrons to corporate power and special interests – engaged in one of the most cynical abuses of their power in recent memory. Those who treat Americans as if they were hapless proles unable to withstand the power of a television commercial are the ones who fear speech. That’s not what the American republic is all about.”

Columnist Jonah Goldberg: “Is the Islamic State ‘not Islamic’? Moreover, is it really ‘clear’ that it’s not Islamic? … [T]he fact that the majority of its victims are Muslim is irrelevant. Lenin and Stalin killed thousands of communists and socialists; that doesn’t mean Lenin and Stalin weren’t communists and socialists. If such terrorists who kill Muslims aren’t Muslims, why do we give them Korans when we imprison them? … [I]t also seems flatly wrong for an American president to be declaring what is or is not Islamic – or Christian or Jewish. Given the First Amendment alone, there’s something un-American in any government official simply declaring what is or is not a religion. … Instead of Americans trying to persuade Muslims of the world that terrorism is un-Islamic, why shouldn’t Muslims be working harder to convince us?”

Comedian Argus Hamilton: “Obama vowed to arm Syrian rebels to fight ISIS. He had a change of heart. Last month he dismissed the rebels as doctors, dentists and pharmacists, but he’s come to realize it’s cheaper to give them the half billion now than pay their bills through ObamaCare.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/29028

http://www.albawaba.com/news/turkey-u.s.-iraq-603319

http://patriotpost.us/posts/29034

http://patriotpost.us/posts/19926

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/11/oh-my-some-senate-democrats-now-want-obamas-executive-amnesty-suspended-indefinitely/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/white-house-immigration-latino-lawmakers-110871.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ozone-layer-begins-to-recover-u-n-panel-says/

http://patriotpost.us/

http://patriotpost.us/articles/27642

http://www.indefenseofchristians.org/idc/release-washington-summit-call-attention-plight-christians-middle-east/

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/09/11/ted-cruz-booed-stage-touts-israel-christian-solidarity/

http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-genocide-of-mideastern-christians-1410474449

http://www.indefenseofchristians.org/idc/statement-idc-president-following-disruption-idc-gala-dinner/

http://freebeacon.com/issues/ted-cruz-stands-up-to-hatred-and-bigotry-at-conference-of-middle-eastern-christians/

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1723

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/11/ted-cruz-is-no-hero-for-insulting-a-room-of-persecuted-christians/

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/29041

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/29042

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/29010

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/29044

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/29049

http://patriotpost.us/opinion

New Book Says C.I.A. Official in Benghazi Held Up Rescue

The American Mission in Benghazi, Libya, during the 2012 attack. Five C.I.A. contractors who were nearby say they were told not to intervene.
ESAM OMRAN AL-FETORI / REUTERS
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
SEPTEMBER 4, 2014
CAIRO — Five commandos guarding the C.I.A. base in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012 say that the C.I.A. station chief stopped them from interceding in time to save the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and an American technician during the attack on the diplomatic mission there.

In a new book scheduled for release next week and obtained by The New York Times, the commandos say they protested repeatedly as the station chief ordered them to wait in their vehicles, fully armed, for 20 minutes while the attack on the diplomatic mission was unfolding less than a mile away.

“If you guys do not get here, we are going to die!” a diplomatic security agent then shouted to them over the radio, the commandos say in the book, and they left the base in defiance of the chief’s continuing order to “stand down.”

The book, titled “13 Hours,” is the first public account of the night’s events by any of the American security personnel involved in the attack. The accusation that the station chief, referred to in the book only as “Bob,” held back the rescue opens a new front in a fierce political battle over who is at fault for the American deaths.

Republicans have blamed President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state, for the security failure.

American officials have previously acknowledged that the Central Intelligence Agency security team paused to try to enlist support from Libyan militia allies. But the book is the first detailed account of the extent of the delay, its consequences for the rescue attempt, and who made the decisions.

The commandos’ account — which fits with the publicly known facts and chronology — suggests that the station chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority. He hoped to enlist local Libyan militiamen, and the commandos speculate that he hoped the Libyans could carry out the rescue alone to avoid exposing the C.I.A. base.

No meaningful Libyan help ever materialized.

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

The commandos were former members of American Special Forces teams hired by the intelligence agency as private contractors. Two of the team, both former Navy Seals, died fighting the attackers at the C.I.A. base later that night. Five others are credited as co-authors of “13 Hours,” which was written with their cooperation by Mitchell Zuckoff, a professor of journalism at Boston University. Mark Geist, Kris Paronto and John Tiegen are credited by name, and two of the authors use pseudonyms.

They say that they learned that the mission’s building had been set on fire during the short drive there, from another plea for help over the radio. The ambassador and the technician, Sean Smith, suffocated in the smoke.

No American fired a weapon of any kind in defense of the mission until the C.I.A. commandos reached the compound, more than 40 minutes after the attack began, the commandos say. The Libyan guards hired to protect the mission quickly retreated. The handful of diplomatic security agents, caught by surprise and outnumbered, withdrew to separate buildings without firing a shot.

One of the commandos fired grenades to help disperse the attackers and clear an entrance to the mission. They later exchanged fire when the attackers returned for a second assault. And the commandos say that after pulling back to the C.I.A. base they fought off-and-on gun battles with fighters lurking in the shadows outside for much of the night.

Although the commandos write of several Libyans who risked their lives to help the Americans, the difficulty of discerning friend from foe is a recurring theme. They write that a supportive militia leader who appeared to be helping them approach the mission also said he was talking on the phone with the attackers, trying to negotiate.

“What’s the difference between how Libyans look when they’re coming to help you versus when they’re coming to kill you?” the commandos joked with the diplomatic security agents. “Not much.”

The contractors say they raced so quickly to arm themselves when they heard the alarm that one failed to put on underwear. Another went into the battle in cargo shorts.

Then, fully armed, they found themselves waiting inside their armored vehicles, making small talk.

“Hey, we gotta go now! We’re losing the initiative!” Mr. Tiegen says he complained to the station chief, who he says replied, “No, stand down, you need to wait.”

“We are going to have the local militia handle it,” the chief added later, according to the commandos.

Analysis: New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

BY NAPP NAZWORTH , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
July 9, 2014|7:07 am

Several liberal media organizations are reporting the results of a new same-sex parenting study which suggests that gay parents do a better job of raising children than the general population. There are four imporant points to understand about that study, however.

Here are a few of the headlines:

CBS News: “Children of same-sex couples healthy, well-adjusted, study finds”

NBC News: “Children of Same-Sex Parents Are Healthier: Study”

The Huffington Post: “Children Of Gay Parents Are Happier And Healthier Than Their Peers, New Study Finds”

Vox: “Largest-ever study of same-sex couples’ kids finds they’re better off than other children”

The study, though, does not warrant the conclusions suggested by those titles.

“Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: a cross-sectional survey,” by lead author Dr. Simon R. Crouch at The University of Melbourne in Australia, was published June 21 by the journal BMC Public Health. The co-authors were Elizabeth Waters, Ruth McNair, Jennifer Power and Elise Davis. Power is affiliated with La Trobe University. The rest of the authors are at The University of Melbourne.

The study found that children of same-sex parents scored higher on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion than the general population of Australia. The study also measured how often the parents felt stigmatized for being gay. A high number of stigmas was negatively correlated with measures of the children’s physical activity, mental health and family cohesion.

Here are four important points to understand about the study:

1) The study did not use a random sample.

To make a generalizable conclusion about a population, scientific studies need a large, probability sample of the population, sometimes called “random sample” or “representative sample.” A probability sample means that those surveyed are representative of the general population.

The Crouch study was based upon a convenience sample, or non-probability sample. Participants for the study were recruited through gay and lesbian community email lists and ads posted in gay and lesbian press. This means that the participants volunteered for the study and were not randomly chosen from the population.

The sample had 315 parents of 500 children. Most of the children, 80 percent, had a female parent complete the survey. Eighteen percent had a male parent, while the remaining parents described themselves as “other gendered.”

As stated in the study: “Every effort was made to recruit a representative sample, and from the limited data available about same-sex parent families it appears that the [study’s] sample does reflect the general context of these families in contemporary Australia.”

Convenience samples can be an important research tool when probability samples are difficult to achieve. They can also help researchers design better studies and help them resolve issues with their research before conducting large scale studies. Social scientists understand, however, that conclusions about a general population should not be drawn based upon a convenience sample.

2) The study did not compare same-sex parents to biological parents.

Previous studies have shown that kids do best when they are raised by their biological parents and those parents are married. The Crouch study, however, compares its convenience sample of children raised by same-sex parents to the general population, which includes those raised by single parents, step parents, foster parents and other same-sex parents.

The study cannot conclude, therefore, that children raised by gay parents have better or worse outcomes than children raised in two-parent heterosexual households.

3) The study relies upon parent-reported outcomes.

The health and well-being of the children are based upon what the parents say they are. While these measures are being compared to other parent-reported measures, there are reasons that gay and lesbian parents might overstate their outcomes at a greater rate than the general population.

The survey was conducted while Australia is debating redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Part of that debate deals with child-rearing. Government recognition of marriage should only be for a man and woman, proponents of traditional marriage argue, because this arrangement is best suited for the raising of children, which is a public good.

It is in the interests of gay marriage supporters, therefore, to show that gay couples can raise children just as well as straight couples. The gays and lesbians who volunteered to participate in the Crouch study likely understood the significance of the study. As a result, they may have inflated their results more than the average parent. Additionally, gays and lesbians who are raising children with poor outcomes may have been reluctant to participate in the study for similar reasons.

4) Studies using probability samples show poor outcomes for gay parents.

Two recent studies that did use probability samples showed some poor outcomes for children of gays and lesbians.

RELATED
The New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas led by sociologist Mark Regnerus found, for instance, that those who reported that at least one parent had a same-sex relationship had poor outcomes along a range of variables. They were, for instance more likely to be depressed, unemployed, have more sex partners and report negative impressions of their childhood.

A study published last December by economist Douglas W. Allen looked at a 20 percent sample of the Canadian census and found that children from gay and lesbian families were less likely to graduate from high school than children raised by opposite sex couples and single parents.

The issue of gay parenting in highly politicized. In such an environment, liberal media tend to exaggerate the results of those studies that appear to confirm their biases and write hyper-critically about the studies showing different results. Conservative media have similarly focused more on reporting the research that confirms their biases.

There are some significant differences, though, between how Allen and Regnerus are presenting their findings compared to Crouch and other social scientists who say there are no differences between gay and straight parents. Unlike the “no differences” social scientists, Allen and Regnerus do not argue that their studies are conclusive.

Gay parenting is difficult to study because it is so new. In the history of human civilization, gay parenting has only recently become culturally accepted. To understand the effects on the children they raise, social scientists need more and larger samples and time — time for the kids raised by gays and lesbians to grow up and have outcomes that can be measured and compared to those raised by other family types. Allen and Regnerus point this out in their research and other reports.

For the time being, research has shown that biological, two-parent households provide, on average, the best outcomes for children compared to all other family types. Additional research has demonstrated the unique contributions of mothers and fathers to child development. (One study, for instance, found that fatherlessness harms the brain.) These studies should be sufficient to at least raise suspicion of the studies suggesting that kids raised by parents of the same gender have the same, or better outcomes as kids raised by both a mom and a dad.

The social scientists reporting “no differences,” on the other hand, make sweeping generalizations based only upon their small, non-random samples that confirm their liberal biases. Liberal media uncritically follow them.

Some of Regnerus’ liberal critics have also argued that his findings should be ignored because he is a conservative Catholic. Crouch, though, is a gay man raising two kids with his partner. Would these same critics suggest that Crouch’s study should be ignored because Crouch is personally invested in the results?

Contact: napp.nazworth@christianpost.com, @NappNazworth (Twitter)

Published on Clarion Project (http://www.clarionproject.org)
Efforts Mount to Gloss Over Islamist Ideology of Boko Haram

The reason that Boko Haram believes its kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian girls is justified is because of Islamist teachings that the taking of female slaves is justified during jihad. And this jihad is not limited Nigeria. In a recent video, its leader said it is at war with Christianity and democracy.

There are efforts to gloss over the fact that Boko Haram is inspired by Islamist doctrine. Comedian Dean Obeidallah writes that Boko Haram is not “Islamic” and the media shouldn’t describe it as “Islamist,” “Islamic terrorists” or anything of the sort.

Ahmed Bedier, former executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and current leader of United Voices for America, speaking at a press conference organized by Muslim advocacy groups to distance Islam from Boko Haram, said he was “tired of people coming on television asking, ‘Where does this ideology come from?’ ” His answer was that it “comes from nowhere.”

Yet, the leader of the same press conference, Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, the spokesman for the Dar Al Hijra mosque in Falls Church Va., said in reference to formally excommunicating Boko Haram’s leader Abubakar Shekau, “There is a great reluctance to excommunicate someone by extension. … It would be like convicting someone in absentia.”

Two days later, in a telephone interview, when asked to give sources from Islamic texts that contradict Boko Haram’s Islamist ideology, the interviewer reported that Abdul-Malik “quickly ended the call.”

CAIR and its allies work hard to cleanse the semantics of the media so the Islamist ideology isn’t a topic of scrutiny, but Boko Haram leader Abubaker Shekau wants the world to know that he is motivated by Islamic sources. For example, he said:

“If we meet infidels, if we meet those that become infidels, according to Allah, there is not any talk except hitting of the neck. I hope you, chosen people of Allah, are hearing. This is an instruction from Allah. It is not a distorted interpretation. It is from Allah himself.”

He also cites Islamic sources when justifying Boko Haram’s kidnapping of the Nigerian girls. Slavery of one’s adversaries, he says, is permissible during a jihad. The captives are the booty of war. Shekau explains, “There are slaves in Islam, you should know this, Prophet Muhammed took slaves himself during [the] Badr war.”

Shekau isn’t saying that it is permissible to take just anyone as a slave, but only those that belonged to the enemy. So how do these innocent girls qualify as seized enemy property? Because Shekau believes the jihad is not against an army, government or ethnic group but against Christianity, Western influence, democracy and Muslims that Boko Haram sees as impure.

Shekau declared, “To the people of the world, everybody should know his status, it is either you are with us mujahideen or you are with the Christians.”

He continues:

“We know what is happening in this world, it is a jihad war against Christians and Christianity. It is a war against Western education, democracy and constitution… This is what I know in Quran. This is a war against Christians and democracy and their constitution, Allah says we should finish them when we get them.”

Contrary to Bedier’s assertion that Boko Haram’s ideology “comes from nowhere,” it does come from well-established Islamic interpretations, even if most Muslims disagree with those interpretations (a mere 2% of Nigerian Muslims view Boko Haram favorably).

Shekau’s view is substantiated by IslamWeb, a popular website that endorses Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. In a 2002 fatwa (authoritative Islamic ruling), IslamWeb concludes:

“Islam left only one source for slavery that is enslavement in war and only legal war (i.e. against the non-Muslims). Indeed, the enslavement of prisoners of war was a part of warfare. So, Islam did not free the slaves of its enemies while its own followers are enslaved by those enemies and given the worst possible treatment.”

In another 2002 fatwa, IslamWeb specifies that females from the enemy camp can be taken as booty. It says:

“’the slaves that your right hand possesses’…includes the slave girls and slaves in general those who are under the control of a free Muslim. As a rule, the only channel of producing this segment of society is Jihad in the cause of Allah.”

It continues:

“At last, a Muslim has the right to have sex with a slave girl since she is “in the possession of his right hand.”

Islam Q & A is a website by Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid. He is an Islamic scholar that preaches in Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and has two television shows.

In fatwa 10382, Islam Q & A states, “It is permissible for you to take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty,” regardless of if one has a spouse. It says, “Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.”

“The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam [prohibited] or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars,” it rules.

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi is another supporting source. He is the Islamist scholar that founded the Jamaat-e-Islami group in Pakistan and is continues to be referenced by Islamists around the world. The New York-based Islamic Circle of North America, one of the largest Muslim-American groups, continually cites him as a top authority on Sharia.

Maududi wrote, “And forbidden to you are the wedded wives of other people, except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war): This is the Law of Allah.”

Then there’s the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, based in California. In 2006, it issued a fatwa written by Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a member of its Fatwa Committee.

“God miraculously laid down a system by which all the tributaries feeding into the river of slavery would be cut off except for the captives of war,” AMJA’s fatwa rules (emphasis mine).

The fatwa’s author, Al-Haj, is also the Dean of the College of Islamic Studies of the Mishkah Islamic University of North America that is headquartered in Minnesota. Mishkau University also has branches in Detroit, Houston and Montreal and on-site activities in Tampa and Rutgers University in New Jersey.

All of these Islamic sources are in agreement. That doesn’t just “come out of nowhere,” as former CAIR official Ahmed Bedier insists.

 

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s National Security Analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and is frequently interviewed on top-tier TV stations as an expert on counterterrorism and Islamic extremism.

 

Pro-Lifers Have More Intensity But Fewer Registered Voters, Gallup Poll Shows

Americans are about evenly split on the issue of abortion. The issue is more likely to be a deciding factor in the vote of pro-lifers than pro-choicers, but there are fewer pro-life registered voters.

Forty-seven percent of Americans consider themselves pro-choice and 46 percent consider themselves pro-life, according to Gallup’s May 8-11 poll of 1,028 adults.

With a sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, the split is too close to say which position has the highest level of support. Since 2009, Lydia Saad wrote for Gallup, abortion attitudes have been “roughly split” with only a few fluctuations.

Pro-lifers, however, demonstrated more intensity in their position. When asked if they only support candidates who share their views on abortion, about one in four, 24 percent, of pro-lifers said they would, compared to only 16 percent for those who identify as pro-choice. Thirty-two percent of pro-choice identifiers said they do not see abortion as a major issue, compared to only 21 percent of those who identify with the pro-life position.

position on abortion
The pro-life intensity advantage in the voting both is diminished, however, by the fact that fewer of them are registered to vote. Among registered voters, 50 percent are pro-choice and 44 percent are pro-life.

Franklin Graham Calls on Pastors to Speak Out on Abortion, Homosexuality; Says ‘God Hates Cowards’

Marco Rubio Mentions When Life Begins According to Science; Washington Post Looks for Answers With Pro-Abortion Group

20th Abortion Clinic Closes in Texas After Abortionist Is Denied Hospital Privileges

When looking at intensity among registered voters, the eight percentage point advantage for pro-lifers shrinks to, within the margin of error, only three percentage points — 11 percent of registered voters say they only vote pro-life and eight percent say they only vote pro-choice.

About two-thirds of Democrats are pro-choice, 28 percent are pro-life. Republicans are essentially the reverse of that — 69 percent are pro-life and 27 percent are pro-choice. Independents, like the full sample, are about evenly split — 46 percent are pro-choice and 45 percent are pro-life.

Regionally, Easterners are the most pro-choice, 59 percent, and Midwesterners and Southerners are the most pro-life, 50 percent and 49 percent, respectively. Westerners were evenly split, 48 percent pro-choice and 47 percent pro-life.

Gallup also found a high level of intensity from the partisans on both sides of the abortion issue. Twenty-four percent of Republican voters and 19 percent of Democratic voters will only vote for candidates who share their views on abortion.

These voters, therefore, are “prime targets for party turnout efforts,” Saad wrote. “While their impact could result in a draw on the abortion issue, it is a battle neither party can afford to ignore.”

 

Published on Clarion Project (http://www.clarionproject.org)
Home > Hollywood Stars Call For Brunei Boycott Over Sharia Law
Hollywood Stars Call For Brunei Boycott Over Sharia Law

Hollywood stars were the prominent protesters against the famous Beverly Hills Hotel that is owned by Brunei, a Southeast Asian country that has just begun to implement sharia law and its harsh punishments.

As Clarion Project previously reported, as of April 1, the first phase of sharia law went into effect in the country. Eventually, punishments including the stoning to death for the crimes of adultery, homosexuality and blasphemy and the amputation of limbs for theft will be implemented.

Jay Leno, who participated in the protest organized outside the hotel, said, “I’d like to think that all people are basically good and that when they realize that this is going on, hopefully, they will do something about it … I mean, it’s just … I don’t know. Berlin, 1933? Hello, does it seem that far off from what happened during the Holocaust?”

Other celebrities and business people are joining in the boycott, including comedians Stephen Fry and Ellen DeGeneres, and TV host Sharon Osbourne.

British billionaire Richard Branson, owner of the Virgin Group, said in a tweet: “No @virgin employee, nor our family, will stay at Dorchester Hotels until the Sultan abides by basic human rights.”

On Tuesday, the city of Beverly Hills voted unanimously to pressure the government of Brunei to divest itself from the famous hotel. Protesters have called for a boycott of the century-old establishment, frequented since its inception by Hollywood’s elite.

Council members stopped short of calling for a city-sanctioned boycott.

In recent days, a number of organizations have cancelled events scheduled for the hotel. The Feminist Majority Foundation announced it had cancelled the Beverly Hills hotel as the venue for its annual Global Women’s Rights Awards. The Motion Picture & Television Fund’s annual “Night Before the Oscars” charity event has also cancelled its event at the hotel.

Tensions at the city council meeting ran high between those outraged over human rights abuses inherent in sharia versus those interested in preserving the jobs the hotel generates for local workers.

Christopher Cowdray, the chief executive of the London-based Dorchester Collection of hotels owned by Brunei, said it was unjust to single out the Beverly Hills Hotel and its employees. “There are other hotel companies in this city that are owned by Saudi Arabia … you know, your shirt probably comes from a country which has human rights issues,” said Cowdray.

“This is misguided,” Robert Anderson, the great-grandson of the founder of the hotel, told Reuters after the vote. “We should be against human rights violations in all countries, not just the Brunei.”

On Tuesday, the U.S. State Department said the U.S. ambassador in Brunei had privately relayed concerns to the Brunei government about implementing sharia law. Previously, State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki had said, “We don’t take a position on this specific effort,” while acknowledging it was the right of citizens to institute a boycott.

The initial phase of sharia law in Brunei, instituted on April 1, begins with fines and imprisonment for violations of sharia. Press reports mentioned offenses such as “indecent behavior,” pregnancies outside of marriage, the preaching of religions besides Islam and not attending mandatory prayers on Fridays.

The second phase institutes physical punishments, such as cutting off hands and floggings for offenses like theft. The Guardian says this is to be implemented later this year, but Reuters says it will happen in 2015.

The third phase mandates executions, including stoning, for offenses like adultery, sodomy and blasphemy. Reports differ as to whether this starts in 2015 or in 2016.

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers