YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[nChrist]

All this will accomplish is tyranny over decent, law-abiding people. It might slow the terrorists down for a few minutes, and that would be it. It would be a huge waste of money and time, and anyone with common sense should already know this. They would spend much less money and have 100 times the results by creating secure and encrypted networks. The biggest advantage of the Internet is REDUNDANCY and automatic re-routing if a server or hub goes down. They could build REDUNDANCY into the system and use the additional servers for a dream that has been in place for a long time: standardized communications, data storage, and data retrieval in a secure system. This would mean that they were throwing money at their own systems that would be dedicated for their purposes - AS OPPOSED to throwing money at public computers that could NEVER BE SECURED. They would have nothing to show for throwing money at public networks, AND they desperately need the dream I was talking about. ALL of law enforcement shares the same dream, and this dream is nearly always identified as a TOP PRIORITY that has never been addressed in an appropriate manner.

Wanting to use the Internet for this stated purpose appears to be nothing but an excuse to achieve a non-stated purpose. IT WOULD NOT BE FOR THEIR STATED PURPOSE!

[Soldier4Christ]

Report: Bailed-out firms bankrolled conventions
AIG, Ford, Citigroup, Freddie Mac gave millions to Democrats, GOP before asking for gov't aid

What were major corporations such as AIG, Ford, Citigroup and Freddie Mac doing in the weeks before they asked Washington for taxpayer-funded financial bailouts?

They were donating millions of dollars to underwrite the Democratic and Republican Party conventions.

According to a new report released today by the Center for Responsive Politics in conjunction with the Campaign Finance Institute, the companies were some of the largest sponsors of the political conventions that resulted in the nomination of Barack Obama and John McCain for president.

In the two years spent fundraising for the conventions, CFI claims the two parties only provided the names "they elected to disclose. The institute announced today that the first official host committee reports have been released, and it now has a complete list of donors.

"The two convention host committees raised $118 million, virtually all of it in private funds: $61 million for the Democratic conclave in Denver and $57 million for the Republican one in Minneapolis-St. Paul," it reveals. "The latter figures are almost four times the separate $16 million each party received from the federal government to support its convention."

Key industry actors in the current financial crisis gave $14 million to conventions, CFI reports. The following are some of its findings:

    * Freddie Mac gave $500,000, half to each committee.

    * Ford Motor Company donated $200,000 for the conventions, half to each host committee (Also, Kirk Kerkorian, Ford’s largest shareholder with ties to GM and Chrysler, gave $3.5 million).

    * General Motors provided 735 new cars to the Democratic and Republican Party convention committees for elected officials' use.

    * American International Group, or AIG, gave $1.5 million split evenly between the two committees

    * Hedge funds and their managers gave $3.9 million – $2.7 million to Republicans and $1.2 million to Democrats.

    * Investment companies including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, UBS and Lehman Brothers, gave $1.5 million.

    * Other financial institutions that have received or are eligible for bailouts, such as Citigroup, U.S. Bancorps, Wells Fargo, Cobank and Bank of America, donated $2.9 million – much of it was given to the Republican committee.

Finance, insurance and real estate companies gave $24.6 million toward the conventions, according to Center for Responsive Politics, or CRP.

"If the executives who have come to Washington, hat in hand, looked familiar to members of Congress, maybe it's because they met over the summer at the conventions," CRP Executive Director Sheila Krumholz said in a statement. "The conventions provided representatives of major corporations and industries with many opportunities to interact with Washington's decision-makers. Those conversations may have paid off just weeks later, when the government started handing out money to those companies and industries that are struggling."

The study also found that the drug industry gave $9.8 million to the parties, Internet companies donated $4.1 million to Republicans and $3.1 million to Democrats, while unions representing government employees contributed all of their $2.7 million to the Democrats' convention in Denver.

Krumholz said, "By taking advantage of the false distinction between a political party and the committee hosting the party's convention, unions were able to support the Democratic Party in a way that hasn't been allowed since the days of soft money, when labor was among the biggest givers."

[Soldier4Christ]

It sounds like more Chicago style corruption to me. These companies want to blame the union workers for demanding high pay and a lot of benefits yet when it comes down to it most of the money is given in deals such as this. How many of these companies also threw large sums of money into supporting such things as abortion and same sex marriage instead of putting that money back into the companies to further their own progress?

[Soldier4Christ]

Rezko is singing like a bird

A footnote to the 76-page criminal complaint and affidavit charging Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) with soliciting bribes confirms what has long been rumored -- that a former longtime friend and fundraiser for President-elect  Barack Obama is talking to federal prosecutors in hopes of a reduced sentence.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko's offer to provide authorities with evidence of others' wrongdoing is "not complete," and prosecutors are working to corroborate the claims he has made so far, the footnote said.

Rezko, a 53-year-old developer, was convicted in June of 16 criminal counts, including fraud, money laundering and abetting bribery. He is in custody awaiting sentencing.

Prosecutors depicted Rezko at trial as a fixer for Blagojevich and the man to see to secure a high-level appointment with the governor's administration. Rezko had been a longtime fundraiser for Blagojevich and other Illinois politicians, including Obama.

Obama was not implicated in the months-long trial, and he has said that Rezko sought no favors from him. At a news conference on Tuesday, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, went out of his way to dampen speculation about Obama.

"I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever," Fitzgerald said. "We make no allegations that he's aware of anything, and that's as simply as I can put it. . . .

"There's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that's all I can say."

Legal experts said it was unusual for a prosecutor to make such a blanket statement while an investigation was continuing.

"That carries a great deal of weight," said Jan Witold Baran, a Washington lawyer who represents politicians on ethical complaints and campaign finance matters. "It is really unusual for a U.S. attorney to say someone is not implicated.
ad_icon

"Could evidence pop up in the future to the contrary? Sure, it's possible. Is it likely? I think that, based on what he said yesterday, the answer is no," Baran added.

The ongoing investigation is sure to present political complications for the Obama Justice Department, because advisers close to the president-elect are referenced in the criminal complaint and will be interviewed by federal prosecutors, legal analysts said. A lawyer for the Obama transition team did not return calls or e-mails yesterday.

Fitzgerald was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush, but he is a political independent. Obama could retain Fitzgerald, lending an element of continuity to the Blagojevich case and insulating himself somewhat from accusations that he is seeking to remove a dogged prosecutor from a case targeting Illinois Democrats.

Rezko's reappearance in the headlines in recent years has been of continuing use to Obama's political opponents -- including  Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and  John McCain (R-Ariz.), both of whose presidential campaigns pointed out that Obama shared a long history with the Chicago developer.

Over Obama's political career, Rezko raised contributions for him and introduced him to powerful aldermen. Rezko even offered real estate advice when Obama bought an expensive house on Chicago's South Side.

The two met in the early 1990s. Obama has said he was finishing his studies at Harvard Law School when Rezko and his business associates first contacted him about a job possibility in development. Obama declined a job offer from Rezko, instead accepting a position at a small Chicago law firm that would later represent Rezko's company and whose senior partner would in time go into business with Rezko.

A few years later, Obama entered politics. Records list three checks arriving on his first day of fundraising for the Illinois Senate. Two of them, totaling $2,000, came from companies associated with Rezko. Over time, the businessman and Obama began meeting regularly for lunch and dinner, occasionally with their wives.

After he joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, Obama took Rezko on a tour of a six-bedroom house in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. Rezko recommended that Obama buy the home and, on the day Obama closed the deal, Rezko's wife closed on an adjoining lot. The Rezkos resold a portion of their lot to Obama to expand his yard.

Lawyers in the Blagojevich case said information provided by Rezko and others who testified at Rezko's trial could form the backbone of several additional charges against the governor. Blagojevich's wife, Patricia, had worked on real estate deals with Rezko.

Nearly half of the criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday deals with allegations that members of the Blagojevich administration offered access to jobs and state contracts in exchange for campaign cash. Neither Blagojevich nor his chief of staff, John Harris, was immediately charged with involvement in those alleged schemes. Several of the fundraisers testified at Rezko's criminal trial this year.

Fitzgerald said authorities did not "rely upon" information from Rezko in the complaint. Joseph Duffy, a defense attorney for Rezko, did not return calls yesterday.

[nChrist]

I think that only a tiny corner of the picture has been revealed thus far. "Corner" is an appropriate term, and the center main portion of the picture is what we really want to see.

I hope that I'm not naive in thinking that one of the main prosecutors of this case is outstanding and completely honest. That is the reputation for Patrick Fitzgerald, and I hope that he's true to his reputation. Eventually, this case should involve multiple defendants because it actually involves a MOB of people involved in long-term corruption of all kinds. In fact, corruption was a way of life for this MOB, and "MOB" is also an appropriate term. I definitely believe that the people of Illinois deserve to have this pack of crooks cleaned out. They belong in PRISON - not PUBLIC OFFICE!

[Soldier4Christ]

Patrick Fitzgerald does have a good reputation at least as far as what is visible. Unfortunately he has yet to get to the source of all these problems of corruption in Illinois. There seems to be a wide variety of problems in this area that involves more than one group.

[Soldier4Christ]

Constitution rewrite
only 2 states away
Critic: 'This is a horrible time
to try such a crazy scheme'

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.

"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."

DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.

State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

    If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

    And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.

"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."

DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.

"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.

"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.

The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.

"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.

American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'

"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.

A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children."

"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.

American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.

WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. troops' new mission:
America's 'special events'
Proposal would allow civilians to activate
Army to prevent 'environmental damage'

New rules published in the Federal Register would allow certain civilians to call American soldiers into action inside the U.S. to prevent environmental damage or respond to "special events"  and "other domestic activities."

The alarming warning is contained in proposed rules published last week for the Department of Defense's  "Defense Support of Civil Authorities" plan.

Under the U.S. Constitution, soldiers inside the country essentially are tasked with the responsibility of quelling "insurrections" and repelling invasions as well as making sure each state has access to the republican form of government.

But the new rules go far beyond that, essentially establishing a plan to activate the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues under provisions that appear to be devoid of any connection to the Constitution, according to an expert.

"I think the thing that's of concern with respect to this set of rules is it appears to have no constitutional foundation, no reference whatsoever of any constitutional structure. It's totally missing," said Herb Titus, a onetime candidate for vice president for the Constitution Party and a longtime constitutional professor.

Titus, whose biography includes teaching at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools and service as founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University, reviewed the federal proposal at WND's request.

The multi-page plan is to establish policies and assign responsibilities "regarding military support for civilian law enforcement."

The plan states, "This proposed rule will allow civil authorities access to the correct procedures when they are seeking assistance from the Department by establishing updated policy guidance and assigning the correct responsibilities within the Department for the Defense for support of civil authorities in response to requests for assistance for domestic emergencies, designated law enforcement support, special events, and other domestic activities.

Titus, who has testified before Congress on constitutional issues and is authorized to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, said, "All of this is based on the assumption that government was created for the purpose of preventing things from happening in our lives."

A plain reading of the law, he said, would allow drastically different actions than what Americans probably expect.

"Instead of prosecuting somebody charged with murder, we should profile people who are likely to commit murder, round them up and prevent them from endangering lives," he said, citing the plan's apparent permission for the government to restrain liberties when there is concern about potential damages or injury.

A contact at the Department of Defense did not return a WND call requesting comment on the proposal.

But the plan itself says the person calling for soldiers' actions could be either a military official or civilian leader. And it renews questions about Barack Obama's stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Even Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, says there will be a mandatory "force" for Americans.

"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News.

WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposal. The new wording reads, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.

Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.

The newly proposed Department of Defense rules leave a virtually wide open door for what could be cited as a reason for military intervention.

It defines "Imminently Serious Conditions" as "Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of a military commander or responsible DoD civilian official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, to safeguard public health or safety, or to prevent or mitigate great property or environmental damage."

Repeatedly the rules cite "special events."

"Special event support to non-governmental organizations is a DSCA activity," it states under policy issues.

That, Titus contemplated, could even be a Democratic National Convention in Denver.

He said it's important to keep the foundations of the nation in mind and that many of the principles of justice and government for America were derived from the pulpits of the 1700s.

"If you go back and look at Romans 13, the civil government was authorized to punish evil doing, not to prevent it from happening," Titus said.

The new proposal specifically states it applies to a "potential or actual domestic crisis" and even confirms that conditions not always will allow "prior authority" before "action is necessary for effective response."

"All this is really designed to do is legitimize by rule essentially a broader discretionary power," Titus said.

It also reverses the role of the boss, he said, because of the repeated references to a situation "manager."

"It's the image that's being created. A manager. You're supposed to do what the manager tells you. Contrast that with civil authorities who are our servants. They're supposed to do what we want them to do," he said.

Many state constitutions were specific in that area, he noted. Virginia's, for example, declared that all powers derive from the people, and in Pennsylvania the constitution specifically reserved the right to regulate police to the people.

Although many would argue such military occupation of the U.S. would be reserved only for such "emergencies," the Washington Post reported just a few days ago on plans by the U.S. military to have 20,000 uniformed troops stationed inside the U.S. by 2011.

The plan has been lauded by some in the Bush administration and Congress as a reasonable response to the threat of terrorism, despite concerns over how it would undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that restricts the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

At word of the plan, the ACLU warned of expansions in "presidential and military authority," while the Cato Institute called it a case of "creeping militarization," according to the Post.

Gene Healy, Cato vice president, told the newspaper, "There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green … and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."

The DoD says it will accept comments on the proposal until Feb. 2 at the federal government's link.

[Soldier4Christ]

Federal Reserve sued for funding Shariah products
'There is an internal cultural jihad under way against our great nation'

A lawsuit has been filed against the Federal Reserve Board and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. over Wall Street bailout money going to American International Group, which is funding Shariah-compliant insurance and products.

WND reported a week ago that AIG has benefited from two major bailout agreements with the U.S. government giving $152.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to the company. Then it confirmed it is stepping up its dealings with Islamic finance offering homeowners insurance that complies with Islam's religious Shariah laws.

According to an announcement at the time, Risk Specialists Companies, Inc., or RSC, a subsidiary of AIG Commercial Insurance, was introducing its Shariah-compliant Takaful Homeowners Policy to the U.S.

The Shariah-compliant policy is underwritten through RSC member company A.I. Risk Specialists Insurance, Inc., in conjunction with Lexington Insurance Co. and in association with AIG Takaful Enaya.

"Takaful" is based on Quranic principles of "Ta'awon" – or mutual assistance. The term originates from the Arabic word "Kafalah," meaning "joint guarantee." Similar to mutual insurance, where policyholders own a stake in the organization, members of a Takaful group pool their resources to help the neediest member, and losses are divided among them.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop AIG from using any taxpayer funds distributed as part of the Wall Street bailout, because of its Islamic-based businesses and activities.

"This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, which is handling the case.

"Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad under way against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it," he said today.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq.

It challenges the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" as being unconstitutional, because of the $40 billion in taxpayer funds used to support the U.S. government's new majority ownership interest in AIG.

The company's "Islamic religious activities" are "anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American," the lawsuit says, and violate the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause.

According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9 percent) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress provided money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government-owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.

The lawsuit said an important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is up to 20 percent, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.

"The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat," the lawsuit said.

"Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other 'infidels' under Islamic law," the lawsuit said.

"This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 – whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad," Thompson said.

AIG's Shariah program was set up with the help of a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments," the lawsuit said.

But of particular interest Pakistani Board member, Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani, the case said.

"Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country – even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize," the lawsuit said.

Murray was one of those who "answered the call" when Islamic terrorists, "guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against 'infidels,' attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians,'" the case said.

"Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome," the lawsuit said.

"Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore," the complaint said.

WND also reported earlier that the U.S. Treasury was teaching a course called "Islamic Finance 101."

"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."

Jeffrey Imm of Family Security Matters and the Anti-Jihad League of America has written extensively on the subject, warning that AIG would expand its Shariah products in the U.S. He has even created a petition demanding the Federal Reserve, Securities Exchange Commission and Department of the Treasury require AIG to divest itself of its Shariah businesses.

"The Sharia legal codification is intended to enforce discriminatory and segregationist practices against women and non-Muslims and to suppress the liberties of those living in Islamic theocracies," Imm writes."... Sharia is incompatible with democratic values and the inalienable right that 'all men are created equal.'"

A part of AIG's government bailout includes its Takaful Sharia-based insurance business, its divisions promoting Sharia finance and Sharia mutual trusts.

"You own it," Imm declares. "That's where your tax dollars are going today."

Imm warns investing in Shariah-compliant businesses is dangerous for the U.S. When the government first considered providing a bailout to AIG it should have first required the company to divest itself of Shariah-based businesses, he wrote.

[Soldier4Christ]

John Kerry to head foreign relations panel
Democratic senator pledges to remake 'war on terror,' fight climate change

Democrat John Kerry was named Monday the new chairman of the US Senate's powerful foreign relations committee, pledging to remake the "war on terror" and fight climate change.

The party's 2004 presidential nominee succeeds Joseph Biden, who is leaving the Senate to become Barack Obama's vice president.

"We have a big agenda ahead of us, just as our country faces big challenges across the globe," Kerry said in a statement.

"I look forward to working with all members of the committee to help strengthen America's hand in Afghanistan and Pakistan, work towards global climate change solutions, and end the war in Iraq responsibly," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bailout for Planned Parenthood

Abortion groups have submitted their 50 page proposal to the Obama-Biden transition team. At the top of the list? More taxpayer dollars for abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood. How much more? Over 1.5 billion dollars more!

The Abortion Bailout Package:

    * $1 BILLION dollars in taxpayer funding for International Abortion Groups
    * $700 million in taxpayer funding for “Title X” Health Clinics (aka your local Planned Parenthood affiliate)
    * $65 million for the UNFPA, an international aid organization connected to coercive abortion as part of China’s coercive one-child policy
    * Repeal the Hyde Amendment – Vastly expanding federal taxpayer funding for abortions
    * Include Abortion coverage in any taxpayer-subsidized national health care program
    * Expand taxpayer-funded abortions on military bases
    * Expand taxpayer-funded abortions through the Peace Corps program
    * Expand taxpayer-funded abortions for federal prisoners

[Shammu]

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

I know what it is like to be financially poor, and disabled.

I don't dislike Obama because he's Black. I dislike him because he supports Abortion. I dislike him because he panders to race haters. I dislike him because he hates the military. I dislike him because Nancy Pelosi controls him like a puppet on a string. I dislike him because he'll say anything to whomever for whatever to get whatever. I dislike him because he's a left wing ding-dong. I dislike him because he doesn't like facts, something liberals know nothing about.

I am thinking about moving to Texas.

Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from
the Union .  (Reference the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)

[nChrist]

I am thinking about moving to Texas.

Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from
the Union .  (Reference the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)

 

I'm just 50 miles North of Texas. In fact, Texas is my back yard. Holler if you decide to move, and I just might move with you.

[Soldier4Christ]

I lived in Texas at one time. A real tiny city called Whaley between Texarkana and New Boston. I wouldn't mind moving back there myself.

Maybe we could get a secession movement started.