YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

DNC sponsors event honoring sadomasochism

The 20th annual meeting of the nation's second most powerful homosexual activist group is welcoming some new participants -- and a very recognizable sponsor.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is holding its annual "Creating Change" conference in Detroit this week. Its sponsors claim to have trained more than 30,000 activists since 1988. Peter LaBarbera with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality has reported on the event in the past. "It's essentially a grassroots training conference for homosexual, bisexual, transgender -- and now, it turns out -- sadomasochistic activists," says LaBarbera.
 
The event originally focused on homosexuals, but has expanded to include individuals who are convinced that they were born into the wrong sex. The event's handbook even addresses "transgender restroom etiquette."
 
"It says that, 'Each of us can decide for ourselves in which bathroom we belong,'" LaBarbera points out. "And, so, I mean, this movement is now getting so crazy that they can choose their own gender and then the restroom that matches that."
 
And LaBarbera says he is not sure if he is more surprised by one of the sponsors of the event or by one of the activists who will be honored. "It's incredible to me," he continues. "But the Democratic Party is endorsing an event where they're actually presenting an award for sadomasochism."
 
A sponsorship acknowledgement notes that the Democratic National Committee gave at least $2,500 to help pay for the event. The recipient of the "Leather Leadership Award" is Guy Baldwin, a psychotherapist who has successfully lobbied against treating sadomasochism as a mental health problem.

[Soldier4Christ]

Looking Under a Rock: FBI and CIA Hit New Low in Recruitment Drive

In a frightening and bizarre turn, the two chief agencies tapped with safeguarding America's national security have started advertising in a publication that can only be described as objectively pro-terrorism.

The online edition of the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), a publication linked to former Congressman Paul Findley, who once described himself as "Yasir Arafat's best friend in Congress," features recruiting advertisements seeking new agents for both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.

WRMEA's history of support for Hamas, other terrorist groups and individual terrorists is well known. Currently on the front page of its website, right in the center, is an homage, constituting of a collection of articles and hagiographies, to convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian.

Al-Arian was investigated by the FBI for a decade and finally brought to trial in 2005, prosecuted by the Department of Justice in Tampa. In April 2006, Al-Arian pled guilty to one count of "Conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a Specially Designated Terrorist."

This is the same Al-Arian who once told an audience of Muslims, "Let us damn America. Let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death. Why do we stop?"

And yet, the same FBI that sought to convict him as a terrorist is now advertising for recruits on a pro-Al-Arian (and pro-terrorist in general) website. The pro Al-Arian orientation is part of a long and documented history of pro-Islamic terrorist features published by WRMEA during the past 15 years. Reviewing just about any issue of this Saudi-financed magazine would clearly determine its pro terrorist bias.

It is the same lack of judgment that led the Department of Justice to set up a recruitment booth and serve as a co-host for the annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention in September. Four months earlier, the same Justice Department designated ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) case as part of the Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy in the United States. U.S. Reps. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Sue Myrick, R-NC, protested the Justice Department's recruitment effort with ISNA in a letter to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserting that ISNA is a Jihadi organization.

The Justice Department blithely dismissed the concerns, saying other organizations did it, too. That was true. That willful blindness was evident in the fact that, in 2006, the Department of Defense dispatched Deputy Secretary Gordon England to an ISNA conference and sent another representative to the annual conference in 2007. The Department of Homeland Security was there, too, with its recruitment booth adjacent to the Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical movement which endorses the use of violence and is devoted to establishing a global Islamic state governed by Shariah law.

After that embarrassment, the FBI placed a full-page recruiting ad in the November 2007 issue of ISNA's magazine Islamic Horizons. "Help us light the way to a new era of understanding," the ad reads.

Just what types of recruits are the FBI and CIA looking for? Apparently, these agencies do not learn from experience, even recent experiences. Just last November, former FBI and CIA agent Nadia Nadim Prouty was arrested and pled guilty to fraudulently obtaining American citizenship through a sham marriage, and using her illegally acquired status to attain employment with both the FBI and CIA. Prouty is the sister of Elfat Al Aouar, who is the wife of Talal Chahine – the Detroit-based restaurateur linked to Hizballah.

While it is too soon to determine where the breakdown occurred in allowing a Hizballah operative to infiltrate the FBI and the CIA, it is clear that these ads fall into the disturbing pattern where background checks of Islamic militants are not being pursued properly.

Prouty used her security clearance, in violation of the law and her job responsibilities (for which she also pled guilty), to do background searches into the FBI investigation of her sister and brother-in-law. But that hasn't stopped the FBI – or the CIA for that matter – from reaching out to a pro-terrorist crowd for its next batch of recruits. And it is Americans who will likely pay dearly for the fact that the FBI and CIA have failed to learn the obvious lesson from the Prouty case. And Prouty aside, the fact that the CIA and FBI are advertising for employment on a site that lionizes an Islamic Jihad kingpin and other terrorist groups should frighten everyone.

Congress should immediately investigate.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress should immediately investigate.

Not that it would do much good when they have muslims advising them what to do.

[HisDaughter]

Not that it would do much good when they have muslims advising them what to do.

Exactly.  What kind of statement is that??  "Congress should investigate"  Hahahahaha!

[Shammu]

Georgians thirst to move Tennessee state line
200-year-old survey error puts river’s water tantalizingly out of reach

Feb. 8, 2008

COLE CITY HOLLOW, Tennessee - Nearly two centuries after a flawed survey placed Georgia's northern line just short of the Tennessee River, some legislators are suddenly thirsting to set the record straight.

A historic drought has added urgency to Georgia's generations-old claim that its territory ought to extend about a mile farther north than it does and reach into the Tennessee — a river with about 15 times greater flow than the one Atlanta depends on for its water.

"It's never too late to right a wrong," said Georgia state Sen. David Shafer, whose bill would create a boundary line commission that aims to resolve the dispute.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen's reaction: "This is a joke, right?"

In Cole City Hollow, an obscure border community where some northwest Georgia residents rely on Tennessee roads, the river is so close to crossing the state line it almost juts into the yard of a Georgia house.

If Tennessee's southern border were the 35th parallel — as Congress designated in 1796 —Georgia would have a share of the Tennessee River. But a surveying team sent by Georgia to chart the line in 1818 was a bit off the mark.

Historians say mathematician James Camak, who led the team, begged the state to provide him the latest equipment, but instead he had to rely on an English sextant, an instrument more familiar to sea captains than land surveyors. Other stories say Camak's team was scared away by an American Indian party.

Making of the 35th parallel line
Surveyors now know that the Georgia-Tennessee border was placed about 1.1 miles south of where it should be. But that, surveyor Bart Crattle said, is history.

"Just because you have more accurate equipment, you can't start moving border lines," said Crattle, a Georgian who works in Chattanooga and is licensed to survey in both states. "Can you imagine what would happen to our boundary lines? They'd be all willy-nilly.

"It's correct — no matter how wrong it is."

Here are just two side effects of making the 35th parallel Tennessee's southern line: Not only would Georgia get a chunk of Chattanooga, Mississippi would get a slice of Memphis.

The border has been in place for generations, though there is some dispute over whether Georgia ever formally agreed to it. In any case, Georgia partisans say they want what is rightly theirs.

"A state boundary can only be changed by the legislatures of the states, with the consent of Congress," said Shafer, a Republican from Duluth. "It cannot be changed by a mathematician with a faulty compass or a skittish surveying party afraid of the Indians."

Drought drives demand for water
The drought has whetted Georgia's thirst for the river, but this is far from the first attempt to redo Camak's math. Shafer's resolution traces efforts as far back as 1887, when North Carolina — another state affected by the line — authorized its governor to appoint commissioners and a surveyor to meet with neighboring delegations over the boundary. No record of such a meeting exists, it said.

The river winds closest to Georgia near the Camak Stone, a slab placed by surveyors to mark the corner where Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee meet. Georgians here drive on Tennessee roads to get to their homes, and few locals on either side of the line are happy with the idea of moving it.

"All they want to do is get them some water, and I'm against it," said 70-year-old Freddy McCulley, who lives on the Tennessee side. "They ought to control their growth in Atlanta. This has nothing to do with the people. It's the politicians."

He was standing at the Camak Stone, which resembled a picnic site Thursday as several neighbors gathered to vent about the Georgia proposal.

"That would be ridiculous. I'd have to move my phone line and everything," said Joe Dugger, a 63-year-old Tennessean. "This is a forgotten part of Georgia, and they have nothing to do out here except pave the roads every once in a while."

Jerry Body interrupted him.

"They don't have hardly anything — they don't even have dog catchers," quipped Body, a 66-year-old Georgia resident whose mailing address is in Tennessee.

Some influential Georgia politicians have suggested using old-fashioned horse trading to broker a water deal, saying Georgia should offer a high-speed rail line from Atlanta to Chattanooga in exchange for rights to the river. But Tennessee's governor said he was unaware of the Georgia legislation until he was told of it by The Associated Press earlier this week.

Bredesen, a Democrat, said he does not believe the resolution is a step toward a more heated battle over water rights in the region.

"I would say it represents the ratcheting up of a PR war, and nothing else," he said.

Just in case, he added, "We will protect our borders here in Tennessee.

Georgians thirst to move Tennessee state line

[Brother Jerry]

This is not the first water rights war that Georgia has fought....

http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?s=7824866

A battle for Lake Lanier

[Soldier4Christ]

Iowa lawmaker criticizes Islamic prayer

An Iowa lawmaker says it's not appropriate for an Islamic religious leader to give a prayer on the floor of the State House which calls for "victory over disbelievers."

It has been a common practice in the Iowa State House for individual members of the Legislature to invite religious leaders to open each day of legislative business. But in January, on the opening day of the 2008 session, Democratic State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad, the only Muslim member of the Iowa Legislature, invited a Muslim cleric to give the prayer.
 
During his speech, the cleric included the phrase "victory over disbelievers" -- words that prompted reaction from some of the lawmakers, including Republican Gary Worthan. "The way the Jihadists interpret that phrase -- 'victory over disbelievers' -- there are only two ways to attain that, and that is either convert them to Islam or kill them," says the lawmaker. "That's the literal interpretation that the Jihadists use -- and so that struck right at my heart."
 
Worthan says in the weeks since the controversial comment, many lawmakers have received calls from people criticizing the prayer. But he says Abdul-Samad sees nothing wrong with the cleric's words, insisting they are simply a doctrinal part of the Islamic faith.
 
The Republican state representative says he hopes any future Islamic speakers will be sensitive to the feelings of non-Muslims. "Tolerance has to be a two-way street," says Worthan. "We're tolerant of their religion and beliefs .... They also need to be tolerant of our perceptions."

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

Things like this shouldn't be subject to debate. This is political correctness to the level of insanity. The open encouragement of radical hate and violence shouldn't have any place in our government. In reality, terrorists are simply trying to have some legitimacy under the guise of religion. In our current insane society, we've already seen satan worship approved as a religion, so why not Skin-heads and the American Nazi Party?

Violent and subversive cults should not be given the status of a "Religion", especially if they are Anti-CHRIST. What has happened to common sense? Why is it that we have people serving in our government who want to overthrow it? Bluntly, we are watching insanity and the devil at work.

[HisDaughter]

The Republican state representative says he hopes any future Islamic speakers will be sensitive to the feelings of non-Muslims.

A-hem.  We are called Americans.

[Shammu]

U.S. braces for face-off over weapons treaties


February 11, 2008

By Nicholas Kralev and John Zarocostas - The United States is headed for a showdown with Russia and China this week over competing international treaties, one banning the production of nuclear materials and the other trying to prevent an arms race in space.

The squabble is certain to prolong an embarrassing stalemate at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that has received an unusual rebuke from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, diplomats and analysts said.

U.S. officials said their top priority at the conference is beginning negotiations on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), which would ban the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons purposes.

"We believe it is in everybody's interests to reduce the availability of fissile materials on the streets — [first] for producing bombs, which is a disarmament measure, and [second] preventing terrorists from getting hold of it, [which is] a nonproliferation measure," said Christina Rocca, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference.

Trying to reach an international agreement on such a ban has been one of the longest-running arms-control exercises since World War II. No agreement was secured during the Cold War, even after the groundbreaking deals between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

The latest attempt to negotiate a treaty began more than a decade ago, but diplomats said getting 65 countries to agree to such a document has been difficult.

Now Russia and China have linked negotiations on the FMCT to a treaty that aims to prevent an arms race in space. They are expected to co-sponsor a draft in Geneva tomorrow.

Foreign diplomats and analysts suggested that Washington's push for the FMCT is an attempt to pre-empt that proposal. State Department officials countered that Moscow and Beijing are trying to upstage Washington with their draft.

"We put our FMCT draft forward in May 2006 and have been pushing it all along, before there was any talk of a treaty on outer space," one official said. "This is just another attempt to block the FMCT."

Another official said the United States opposes the Russian-Chinese proposal because it considers the 1967 Outer Space Treaty sufficient, although Washington is "prepared to look at new transparency and confidence-building measures."

"Given the dual nature of space activities, trying to negotiate something with the idea that you can prohibit the deployment of weapons in outer space but not their development is ludicrous," he said.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said the FMCT faces a "complex diplomatic web," because "everyone is saying that the other one is the bad guy."

Four of the five declared nuclear powers — the United States, Britain, France and Russia — have said publicly that they no longer produce fissile material. The fifth, China, has not made such a statement.

China opposes the FMCT, as do India and Pakistan, which still produce highly enriched uranium, analysts say. India also extracts plutonium, and Pakistan is expected to begin doing so in the near future.

India has said it would support the treaty only if it includes a verification mechanism. A verification provision was taken out of the text in the latest U.S. draft, which the Bush administration put on the table after a long review of a series of international treaties and proposals.

The administration said that effective verification was impossible to achieve.

Iran, Syria and Israel also are expected to object to the FMCT text.

The Conference on Disarmament, established in 1979, is desperate to break its long stalemate. Mr. Ban voiced frustration with the body's inability to overcome differences last month at its opening session for this year.

"Even with widespread agreement on the gravity of threats to international peace and security, you still have not been able to find common cause to address them," he told the delegates. "I'm deeply troubled by this impasse over priorities."

U.S. braces for face-off over weapons treaties

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush criticizes Congress on terror bill
House Republicans stage walkout to protest Democrats' 'grandstanding'

In a day of political brinkmanship, President Bush pressured the House on Thursday to finish a bill giving the government more leeway to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists. House Democrats didn't budge and angry Republicans staged a walkout down the Capitol steps.

From the White House, Bush argued that the House has plenty of time to pass a bill before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act expires at midnight Saturday. The president plans to leave on a five-nation trip to Africa on Friday afternoon, but said he'd delay his departure and stay in Washington "if it will help them complete their work on this critical bill."

On Capitol Hill, House Republicans stormed out of the House chamber to boycott a vote to hold two presidential confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether federal prosecutors were ousted for political reasons.

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," said Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader.

"Let's just get up and leave," he told his colleagues, before walking out with scores of Republicans in tow.

A short time later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had instructed Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to meet with their Senate counterparts by Friday to start reconciling the House and Senate eavesdropping legislation - something she predicted could be done within 21 days.

The first step must be reconciliation of the two bills, she said, adding: "If the president wants to work together on that - we have been trying mightily to get the administration to engage."

Bush is backing the Senate-passed bill, which includes retroactive protection from lawsuits that telecommunications companies are facing because they cooperated with government eavesdropping following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The House bill does not provide immunity from lawsuits for the telecommunications companies.

Rather than wait for the House and Senate to negotiate differences in their versions of the intelligence legislation, Bush wants a rubber-stamp of the Senate bill so he can sign it into law immediately. Bush has said he will not approve another extension, and House Republicans helped defeat a 21-day extension of the law on Thursday.

In his second statement on the bill at the White House in two days, Bush said that "it would be a mistake" if Congress allowed the law to expire. "Members of Congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching," he said. "They set it themselves. They've had more than six months to discuss and deliberate. And now they must act."

He rebuffed claims that the issue had turned into a political game of chicken.

"I certainly hope not," Bush said. "I can assure you al-Qaida, in their planning, isn't thinking about politics. They're thinking about hurting the American people again."

In a letter to Bush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats stand ready to reconcile the two bills, but that the current law should be extended until that could be accomplished.

"Your opposition to an extension is inexplicable. ... Nonetheless, you have chosen to let the Protect America Act expire," Reid wrote. "You bear responsibility for any intelligence collection gap that may result." Reid also said he saw no crisis that should lead Bush to cancel his trip to Africa.

Expiration of the current law would not mean an immediate end to eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. Existing surveillance could continue under the law for a year from when it began - at least until August. Any new surveillance the government wants to institute could be implemented through underlying FISA rules, which could require warrants from a secret court.

But the White House says that if the law expires, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence would be stripped of the power to authorize new certifications against foreign intelligence targets, including international terrorists abroad. The White House says the government would be unable to get assistance from private companies, which are not assisting the government now but may be called on in the future, to collect foreign intelligence information about terrorists and other foreign threats.

"Without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector's cooperation. ... and that of course would put the American people at risk," Bush said.

Pelosi, D-Calif., dismissed the Bush administration's warnings of dire consequences if the current law lapses. The underlying intelligence surveillance law that would be reverted to, along with other federal law and presidential orders, give Bush authority he needs for spying and other measures, she said.

"We are trying to pass a bill that protects the American people and protects the Constitution," she said. "We know the president has the authority to do everything he needs to do to protect the American people in the interim."

Speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, said the current law is not enough because it does not include immunity for the phone companies.

"We must rely on the private sector to be effective," McConnell said, adding that failure to pass the Senate bill will do "grave damage to our ability to protect the nation."

Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, disagreed.

"As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized," Reyes wrote in a letter to Bush.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pelosi's Witch Hunt

House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt

The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated.

Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout.

The vote was 223-32 to hold presidential chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt. The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings.

Republicans said Democrats should instead be working on extending a law - set to expire Saturday - allowing the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails in the United States in cases of suspected terrorist activity.

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," said Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader.

"Let's just get up and leave," he told his colleagues, before storming out of the House chamber with scores of Republicans in tow.

The White House said the Justice Department would not ask the U.S. attorney to pursue the House contempt charges. However, the measure would allow the House to bring its own lawsuit on the matter.

It is the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress has voted on a contempt of Congress citation.

The action, which Democrats had been threatening for months, was the latest wrinkle in a more than yearlong constitutional clash between Congress and the White House.

The administration has said the information being sought is off-limits under executive privilege, and argues that Bolten and Miers are immune from prosecution.

Democrats said they were acting to protect Congress' constitutional prerogatives.

If Congress didn't enforce the subpoenas, said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, it would "be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial presidency, above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances."

Republicans argued that there had been no evidence of wrongdoing in the prosecutors flap, and called the vote a waste of time that would actually damage Congress' standing.

"We don't have evidence that we can give to the U.S. attorney. What we're giving to him is the desire to continue a witch hunt which has produced up to today zero - nothing," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.

Under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department officials consulted with the White House, fired at least nine federal prosecutors and kindled a political furor over a hiring process that favored Republican loyalists.

Bush's former top political adviser, Karl Rove, has also been a target of Congress' investigation into the purge of prosecutors, although Thursday's measure was not aimed at him.

Fred Fielding, the current White House counsel, has offered to make officials and documents available behind closed doors to the congressional committees probing the matter - but off the record and not under oath. Lawmakers demanded a transcript of testimony and the negotiations stalled.

The White House blasted Democrats for scheduling action on the contempt measures instead of moving to extend the eavesdropping law.

"The American people will find it baffling that on a day that House leaders are trying to put off passing critical legislation to keep us safer from the threat of foreign terrorists overseas, they are spending scarce time to become the first Congress in history to bring contempt charges against a president's chief of staff and lawyer," said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman.

The contempt debate sparked an unusually bitter scene even in the fractious House. Democrats accused Republicans of marring the Capitol memorial for their fallen colleague Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., by interrupting it with a protest vote. GOP leaders shot back that it was Democrats who were responsible for dishonoring Lantos, by calling the House into session for the contempt debate before the service had ended.

It's not clear that contempt of Congress citations must be prosecuted. The law says the U.S. attorney "shall" bring the matter to a grand jury.

The House voted 259-105 in 1982 for a contempt citation against EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, but the Reagan-era Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.

The Justice Department also sued the House of Representatives in that case, but the court threw out the suit and urged negotiation. The Reagan administration eventually agreed to turn over the documents.

The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt of Congress citation was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

On Thursday, three Republicans joined 220 Democrats to support the contempt resolution, including Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland, who was defeated this week in a primary. One Republican, Rep. Jon Porter of Nevada, voted "present."

[Soldier4Christ]

Pelosi's Witch Hunt

The first place they need to look is in the mirror. The democrats in the house has done nothing but go against the majority of the people pandering to the enemies of America.

[nChrist]

Pelosi and company need to resign or be recalled. They need to go do things that they are good at, things like gay pride parades. The serious work of government needs to be done by people with some common sense, especially when we're talking about life, death, and survival.

[Soldier4Christ]

Wolf to Georgetown: Detail Use of Saudi Millions

A U.S. congressman is asking Georgetown University about its academic scrutiny of Saudi Arabia and its use of $20 million donated by a Saudi prince in 2005.

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) wrote to Georgetown President John DeGioia Thursday, saying he was concerned about how the money was being spent at the university's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Of particular concern, Wolf said, was the university's role in training current and prospective U.S. foreign service personnel.

"The Saudi government continues to permit textbooks to contain inflammatory language about other religions," Wolf wrote. "Restrictions on civil society and political activists continue to be pervasive. No changes have been made to the underlying legal authority relating to non-Muslim worship that the Saudis have relied on to enforce these rules. The Saudis have cleansed their own country of religious liberties by severely restricting public religious expression to their interpretation and enforcement of wahhabism."

Wolf's letter seeks assurances the Georgetown center "maintains the impartiality and integrity of scholarship that befits so distinguished a university as Georgetown." He then asks whether:

    · "the center has produced any analysis critical of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example, in the fields of human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, women's rights, minority rights, protection for foreign workers, due process and the rule of law."

    · "the center has examined Saudi links to extremism and terrorism, including the relationship between Saudi public education and the Kingdom-supported clerical establishment, on the one hand, and the rise of anti-American attitudes, extremism and violence in the Muslim world, on the other."

    · "the center has examined or produced any critical study of the controversial religious textbooks produced by the government of Saudi Arabia that have been cited by the State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and non-governmental groups for propagating extreme intolerance."

    · "any of the Saudi-sourced finds have been used in the training, briefing or education of those going into or currently employed by the U.S. government.

Harvard University also received $20 million from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal but that is not addressed in the letter. Wolf is the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations and is co-Chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

The answer to his questions likely will be no, said Martin Kramer, former director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University and a fellow at Harvard and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Prince Alwaleed's money wasn't designed to stop academic scrutiny of Saudi Arabian society and policies, Kramer said. The Georgetown center wasn't doing that anyway. Rather, "It's a move to change the subject [and say the roots of terrorism lie elsewhere]. For the Saudis after 9/11, changing the subject is important."

The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is run by John Esposito. His research has not delved into aspects of Saudi society or human rights to determine why 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, or why so many of the foreign fighters in Iraq have been from the Kingdom. Rather, Kramer said, Esposito's research places U.S. policy under the microscope and finds it responsible for fostering anger and resentment.

"He's not doing anything he wasn't doing before he got the Saudi money, he was doing it anyway," Kramer said. "The Saudis just rewarded him for it."

Esposito has a history of minimizing the threat of Islamic extremism and supporting Islamist regimes and movements. He has praised Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi as an intellectual who "reinterpreted Islamic principles to reconcile Islam with democratization and multiparty political systems and recast and expand traditional doctrine regarding the status (dhimmi) of non-Muslim minorities."

Qaradawi has expressed support for the killing of American forces in Iraq and praised Palestinian suicide bombers, writing "it is wrong to consider these acts as ‘suicidal,' because these are heroic acts of martyrdom, which are in fact very different from suicide."

In the summer of 2001, Esposito criticized those who emphasize the threat Osama bin Laden posed. "There's a danger in making Bin Laden the poster boy of global terrorism, and not realizing that there are a lot of other forces involved in global terrorism," Esposito wrote in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. "Bin Laden has become the new symbol, following in the footsteps of Qaddafi, Khomeini, and Sheikh Omar Abdur Rahman. Bin Laden is a perfect media symbol: He's tall, gaunt, striking, and always has a Kalashnikov with him. As long as we focus on these images we continue to see Islam and Islamic activism through the prism of ayatollahs and Iran, of Bin Laden and the Afghan Arabs."

In addition to his academic work, Esposito has been allied with a series of people directly involved in terrorist and extremist movements. He continues to consider Sami Al-Arian, an acknowledged member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to be a friend and "

• ne of the most impressive people I have met under fire."

He served on the Board of Advisory Editors for the Middle East Affairs Journal, published by United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). The UASR was established by Hamas Deputy Political Director Mousa Abu Marzook and run by Ahmed Yousef, now a Hamas spokesman in Gaza.

When the gift was made, the $20 million was reportedly designed to finance scholarships, three faculty chairs and expand academic outreach to "beef up" what the center already had in place.

In 2001, Alwaleed's attempt to donate $10 million to a fund for 9/11 victims was rejected by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after Alwaleed suggested U.S. policy contributed to the attacks. In a news release, Alwaleed called on the U.S. to reexamine its Middle East policies "and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."

Esposito defended the Prince's statement, saying "He was expressing his enormous sympathy with the United States but also trying to give people the context in which this [terrorist attack] occurred."

In addition to probing how the prince's money is being used at Georgetown, Wolf is asking the Bush Administration similar questions in opposition to a proposed $20 billion arms sale to the Saudi government.

In 2006, Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom issued a report on Saudi Arabian education. Despite claims that it modernized its curriculum and text books to remove intolerant and extreme references, the study found "an ideology of hatred toward people, including Muslims, who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi sect of Islam."

The issue of Saudi education was highlighted in a 2006 study by the Freedom House Center for Religious Freedom. Nina Shea, the report's author and then-director of the Freedom House center, penned an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on May 21, 2006 saying, "The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the ‘polytheists' and ‘infidels').

This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to ‘spread the faith.'"

Among the many examples Shea cited was this, from a sixth grade textbook:

    Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power.

The heart of Wolf's concern in both his letter to Georgetown, his alma mater, and in his opposition to the arms sales, appears to be a question of how reliable an ally Saudi Arabia is in the fight against terrorism and extremism. In addition, Wolf seems concerned over a cumulative effect Saudi interest in the U.S. has on policy. The letter notes a request to the Government Accounting Office about investigating "the revolving door" of senior officials who leave government only to lobby on behalf of governments where they previously served. And he specifically asks Georgetown about training current and future foreign service officers.

He notes that there has been a fair amount of promising talk, but "the Saudi government's promises remain unfulfilled."