YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[nChrist]

YES - Patrick Henry's speech is very fitting today. Further, we must not forget our FOUNDATION! GOD and freedom are our FOUNDATION, and we won't give them up. I would hope that ALL understand this because it is the BLUNT TRUTH that won't go away.

The so-called government is still the SERVANT of the people, and this will remain TRUE until the people VOTE OTHERWISE! Any attempt to remove our rights would be INSANE! All of the 'UNIVERSAL THIS AND UNIVERSAL THAT" are COMMUNISM, and we aren't going there. ALL OF THIS IS WRONG, IMMORAL, UNJUST, ILLEGAL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL! ALL WHO WANT RED CHINA - PLEASE GO QUICKLY - WE'LL PAY FOR YOUR ONE-WAY TICKETS!

It would be very SILLY to misjudge what the people will TOLERATE. IT WOULD ALSO BE DANGEROUS!

[Shammu]

Something else brothers, a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine, Published in 1776 "Common Sense."

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

“The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.”

“And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell, sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every individual inhabitant of America.”

“As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.”

These statements are by Thomas Paine, in "Common Sense."

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama intel pick works for Chinese government
Company's deals were seen as attempt to expand communist nation's influence

President Obama's nominee for a top intelligence post sits on the board of a major oil company owned by the Chinese government that is widely seen as conducting business deals meant to expand China's influence worldwide, WND has learned.

Charles "Chas" Freeman, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, is slated to head the U.S. National Intelligence Council. The NIC is a crucial component of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, serving as the center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking within the American intelligence community. It provides intelligence briefs for Obama and key U.S. agencies and produces reports that help determine American policy on crucial issues, such as Iran's nuclear program.

Freeman is on the board of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, which in 2005 tried to purchase the ninth largest oil firm in the U.S. while he was a member. The merger was halted following bipartisan congressional opposition amid fears the deal would harm American national security interests.

The Chinese oil firm also has been accused of multiple human rights violations.

Freeman has served on the board of CNOOC since 2004. He also founded a pro-China organization, the U.S.-China Policy Foundation, which seeks to promote U.S.-China relations.

Freeman did not return WND requests for comment left with a media representative for his Middle East Policy Council.

CNOOC, the third largest Chinese oil company, focuses on the exploitation, exploration and development of crude oil and natural gas offshore of China. Seventy-five percent of the company's shares are owned by the government of the People's Republic of China.

In 2005, CNOOC made a staggering, all-cash $18.5 billion offer to buy the American oil company Unocal, topping an earlier bid by ChevronTexaco. Immediately, lawmakers and many policy experts, including a broad array of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, mounted a major opposition campaign to the bid, urging the Bush administration to have the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. determine how the deal would affect national security.

"This takeover is part of a Chinese strategy to move very aggressively into acquiring natural resource assets all over the world to fuel China's continued growth, because China is relatively resource-poor," Alan Tonelson, a research fellow with the U.S. Business and Industry Council, told reporters in 2005. "It's also part of a Chinese campaign to move, again, very aggressively into the American economy."

There was concern the deal would give China a major foothold in the U.S. economy and would also boost Chinese influence and political clout worldwide, particularly in Asia, where Unocal maintained major holdings in Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh,

"The acquisition would significantly help China achieve its goal of dominating the entire (Asian) region," John J. Tkacik Jr. wrote in a 2005 article in Capitalism Magazine.

Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., similarly warned the acquisition would give China an economic "leg up" in Asia.

Scores of media reports in major news outlets quoted congressmen worrying the CNOOC deal would give the Chinese an energy bargaining chip during U.S. negotiations seeking a tougher line against North Korea's nuclear program.

Human rights violations

Arakan Oil Watch, a human rights organization, issued a report accusing CNOOC last October of human rights abuses and land theft in an oil prospecting venture in Burma. The accusations came less than a month after the U.S.-based EarthRights International expressed concern about China's increasing grip on Burma's natural resources, including through CNOOC's ventures.

The accusations against CNOOC, with Freeman on its board, ranged from land seizure to wanton pollution of rice fields and water systems with oil waste.

"Observers note that the actions by CNOOC are similar to the methods still used throughout rural China when entrepreneurs in cahoots with Communist Party officials want to pursue a development against local peoples' wishes. They simply steamroller opposition," read a report in Irrawaddy, the independent news magazine based in Thailand.

Freeman has a long history of involvement with China. He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's historic visit to Beijing in 1972 and was a member of the advance team that opened the U.S. Liaison Office in Beijing in 1973. From 1979 to 1981, Freeman directed Chinese Affairs at the State Department. From that point until 1984, he served as chargé and deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Beijing.

Freeman is the co-founder of the U.S.-China Policy Foundation, which, according to its website, promotes a greater understanding between American and Chinese policymakers, researchers and government officials. Among the missions of the foundation is to organize the development of China studies in U.S. institutions of higher education.

Freeman has been widely quoted in the media supporting Chinese policies and even penned a piece praising communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong.

The Weekly Standard recently obtained an e-mail Freeman posted to a list serve rapping the Chinese government for not immediately breaking up the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

He wrote: "I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e., that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than – as would have been both wise and efficacious – to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China."

Saudi Arabia, bin Laden family ties

As WND reported, Freeman served as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based Saudi backed nonprofit that received tens of thousands of dollars a year from the bin Laden family and hundreds of thousands more from other Saudi donors.

As chairman of Projects International Inc., a company that develops worldwide business deals, Freeman declared in an Associated Press interview just after the 9/11 attacks he was still "discussing proposals with the Bin Laden Group – and that won't change."

The Bin Laden Group is a multinational construction conglomerate and holding company for the assets owned by the bin Laden family. It was founded in 1950 by Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, father of the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Freeman told the AP that companies that have "had very long and profitable relationships are now running for public relations cover."

He said bin Laden remains "a very honored name" in the Saudi kingdom.

In a separate interview Sept. 28, 2001, Freeman told the Wall Street Journal he spoke at the time to two of Osama bin Laden's brothers following the mega terrorist attacks. He said they told him the FBI had been "remarkably sensitive, tactful and protective" of the family during the current crisis.

Freeman maintained to the Journal that the bin Laden family company was closely aligned with American interests and that the group was part of the "establishment that Osama's trying to overthrow."

Osama bin Laden worked briefly in his family business and is reported to have inherited as much as $50 million from his father in cash and stock. The Saudi Bin Laden Group has invested in the Carlyle Group, a global private equity investment firm to which former President George H. W. Bush served as adviser. Former President George W. Bush sat on the board.

[Soldier4Christ]

Intelligence pick
wants national ID
Urges creation of federal system
'so we can better know who is who'

Following the 9/11 attacks, President Obama's nominee for a top intelligence post advocated that to effectively combat terrorism, the U.S. government should implement a national identity system, "so we better know who is who."

In testimony before the 9/11 commission, Charles "Chas" Freeman, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, also recommended conducting the war on terrorism primary as a law enforcement effort.

Freeman is slated to head the U.S. National Intelligence Council, or NIC, a crucial component of the U.S. intelligence apparatus. The NIC serves as the center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking within the American intelligence community. It provides intelligence briefs for Obama and key U.S. agencies and produces reports that help determine American policy on crucial issues, such as Iran's nuclear program.

The declassified portions of Freeman's statements before the 9/11 commission were partially rehashed this week by Jerusalem-based researcher Ashley Rindsberg, a blogger for the Huffington Post website.

Freeman gave the commission three recommendations for better fighting Islamic terrorism:

    * "First, the U.S. government should improve the visa system. More names to the forms should be added in order to distinguish among the many 'Abdullah bin Mohammads.' Technical means should also be used to cut the wait."

    * "Second, the United States should implement a national identity system, so we better know who is who."

    * Third, the war on terrorism should be seen primarily as a law enforcement and intelligence war, not as a military one."

Freeman has recently come under fire for his documented ties to foreign governments, including receiving funds from the Saudi government and his service on the advisory board of a Chinese-government-owned oil company widely seen as conducting business deals meant to expand the communist nation's influence worldwide. One of the Chinese company's recent attempts to purchase a large U.S. oil firm drew bipartisan congressional opposition amid fears the deal would harm American national security interests. Violating U.S. sanctions?

Since 2004, Freeman has been on the international advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC.

Ma Bing, an analyst for CNOOC's investor relations department confirmed to WND that Freeman is still on the board. He said Freeman's role is to "provide the (company) management with strategic advice on world events and macro issues that may impact our development."

In 2006, CNOOC, with Freeman on its advisory board, signed a memorandum of understanding with the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company to develop Iran's North Pars gas field in a contract with Tehran reportedly worth $16 billion. The deal was stalled for two years after the U.S. State and Treasury Departments vowed to scrutinize the transaction to see if it violates either international or U.S. sanctions against Iran.

In December, the Iranian oil company announced it finalized the development plan with CNOOC. The two companies are currently negotiating the price of the contract.

Mohammad Ali Emadi, director of the Iranian firm's research and development team, said the terms of the agreement may be finalized "in less than one month," paving the way for the multibillion-dollar deal to be made public.

Emadi said the agreement with CNOOC would last for at least 25 years.

A spokesman for the State Department told WND the U.S. government will look into the deal after it is concluded to determine if it violates American sanctions. The Treasury Department in the past acted swiftly against international firms said to violate the sanctions.

"Such deals suggest to the Iranian government it is business as usual despite Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities and its failure to cooperate with the IAEA," State Department spokeswoman Laura Tischler added in comments to WND.

Freeman did not return WND requests for comment left with a media representative at the Middle East Policy Council, where he serves as director.

Last week, a bipartisan group of American congressmen called for a review of alleged financial ties between Freeman and the Saudi government. His Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based, Saudi-backed nonprofit, received tens of thousands of dollars a year from Osama bin Laden family and hundreds of thousands more from other Saudi donors.

Expanding Chinese influence

The Iran deal may not be the only controversy tying Freeman to the Chinese government.

WND reported that in 2005, CNOOC made a staggering, all-cash $18.5 billion offer to buy the American oil company Unocal, topping an earlier bid by ChevronTexaco. Immediately, lawmakers and many policy experts, including a broad array of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, mounted a major opposition campaign to the bid, urging the Bush administration to have the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. determine how the deal would affect national security.

"This takeover is part of a Chinese strategy to move very aggressively into acquiring natural resource assets all over the world to fuel China's continued growth, because China is relatively resource-poor," Alan Tonelson, a research fellow with the U.S. Business and Industry Council, told reporters in 2005. "It's also part of a Chinese campaign to move, again, very aggressively into the American economy."

There was concern the deal would give China a major foothold in the U.S. economy and would also boost Chinese influence and political clout worldwide, particularly in Asia, where Unocal maintained major holdings in Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

"The acquisition would significantly help China achieve its goal of dominating the entire (Asian) region," John J. Tkacik Jr. wrote in a 2005 article in Capitalism Magazine.

Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., similarly warned the acquisition would give China an economic "leg up" in Asia.

Scores of media reports in major news outlets quoted congressmen worrying the CNOOC deal would give the Chinese an energy bargaining chip during U.S. negotiations seeking a tougher line against North Korea's nuclear program.

CNOOC, the third largest Chinese oil company, focuses on the exploitation, exploration and development of crude oil and natural gas offshore of China. Seventy-five percent of the company's shares are owned by the government of the People's Republic of China.

Human rights violations

Arakan Oil Watch, a human rights organization, issued a report accusing CNOOC last October of human rights abuses and land theft in an oil prospecting venture in Burma. The accusations came less than a month after the U.S.-based EarthRights International expressed concern about China's increasing grip on Burma's natural resources, including through CNOOC's ventures.

The accusations against CNOOC, with Freeman on its board, ranged from land seizure to wanton pollution of rice fields and water systems with oil waste.

"Observers note that the actions by CNOOC are similar to the methods still used throughout rural China when entrepreneurs in cahoots with Communist Party officials want to pursue a development against local peoples' wishes. They simply steamroller opposition," read a report in Irrawaddy, an independent news magazine based in Thailand.

Freeman has a long history of involvement with China. He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's historic visit to Beijing in 1972 and was a member of the advance team that opened the U.S. Liaison Office in Beijing in 1973. From 1979 to 1981, Freeman directed Chinese Affairs at the State Department. From that point until 1984, he served as chargé and deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Beijing.

Freeman is the co-founder of the U.S.-China Policy Foundation, which, according to its website, promotes a greater understanding between American and Chinese policymakers, researchers and government officials. Among the missions of the foundation is to organize the development of China studies in U.S. institutions of higher education.

Freeman has been widely quoted in the media supporting Chinese policies and even penned a piece praising communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong.

The Weekly Standard recently obtained an e-mail Freeman posted to a list serve rapping the Chinese government for not immediately breaking up the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

He wrote: "I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e., that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than – as would have been both wise and efficacious – to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China."

Saudi Arabia, bin Laden family ties

As WND reported, Freeman served as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based Saudi backed nonprofit that received tens of thousands of dollars a year from the bin Laden family and hundreds of thousands more from other Saudi donors.

As chairman of Projects International Inc., a company that develops worldwide business deals, Freeman declared in an Associated Press interview just after the 9/11 attacks he was still "discussing proposals with the Binladen Group – and that won't change."

The Binladen Group is a multinational construction conglomerate and holding company for the assets owned by the bin Laden family. It was founded in 1950 by Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, father of the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Freeman told the AP that companies that have "had very long and profitable relationships are now running for public relations cover."

He said bin Laden remains "a very honored name" in the Saudi kingdom.

In a separate interview Sept. 28, 2001, Freeman told the Wall Street Journal he spoke at the time to two of Osama bin Laden's brothers following the mega terrorist attacks. He said they told him the FBI had been "remarkably sensitive, tactful and protective" of the family during the current crisis.

Freeman maintained to the Journal that the bin Laden family company was closely aligned with American interests and that the group was part of the "establishment that Osama's trying to overthrow."

Osama bin Laden worked briefly in his family business and is reported to have inherited as much as $50 million from his father in cash and stock. The Saudi Binladen Group has invested in the Carlyle Group, a global private equity investment firm to which former President George H. W. Bush served as adviser. Former President George W. Bush sat on the board.

'Anti-Israel' views

Blogs and Israeli news media websites have been highlighting recent comments Freeman made that are perceived as heavily critical of Israel.

He told the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs in 2007 that Israeli policy is generating anti-American sentiment while the Jewish state "no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them."

"American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans," he claimed.

Freeman lauded Hamas as "is the only democratically-elected government in the Arab world and claimed the terrorist group "is showing that if we offer it nothing but unreasoning hostility and condemnation, it will only stiffen its position and seek allies among our enemies. In both cases, we forfeit our influence for no gain."

An investigative article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2005 exposed how Freeman's Middle East Policy Council was peddling to American schools a wildly inaccurate, anti-Israel, Saudi-funded textbook.

His council joined with California-based Arab World and Islamic Resources in selling to U.S. schools the "Arab World Studies Notebook." The JTA found the book described Jerusalem as unequivocally "Arab," characterized Jewish residence in the holy city as "settlement"; labeled the "question of Jewish lobbying" against "the whole question of defining American interests and concerns"; and suggested the Quran "synthesizes and perfects earlier revelations."

"Freeman is a strident critic of Israel and a textbook case of the old-line Arabism that afflicted American diplomacy at the time the state of Israel was born," Steve Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, wrote on his "Obama Mideast Monitor" blog hosted by the Middle East Forum.

[nChrist]

UM? - I wonder how long it's going to take for most people to recognize what's going on. It's even uncertain what we're talking about right now:  politicians? - gangsters? - terrorists? - criminals? - or any combination of the above. Has there been a CLEAN appointment yet? If so, there were so many dirty ones that I can't remember. There was a time not long ago when a tiny percentage of something like this would be a SCANDAL AND TERRIBLY EMBARRASSING for the party involved. I'm now wondering if there is a limit to what a certain party would TOLERATE! SURELY, there must be a FEW left in that party who are decent enough to stand up and do what's RIGHT! However, I'm beginning to wonder just HOW FAR they will stick together and watch a country be destroyed. We should all know there will be CRIMINAL CHARGES, but we don't know how many will be housed in FEDERAL PRISONS YET. It should be well-known that there are an abundance of decent, law-abiding people who will file charges and force the system to work.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge orders homeschoolers into public district classrooms
Decides children need more 'focus' despite testing above grade levels
Posted: March 11, 2009
11:25 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be "challenged."

The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years.

The decision is raising eyebrows among homeschooling families, and one friend of the mother has launched a website to publicize the issue.

The ruling was made by Judge Ned Mangum of Wake County, who was handling a divorce proceeding for Thomas and Venessa Mills.

A statement released by a publicist working for the mother, whose children now are 10, 11 and 12, said Mangum stripped her of her right to decide what is best for her children's education.

The judge, when contacted by WND, explained his goal in ordering the children to register and attend a public school was to make sure they have a "more well-rounded education."

"I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]," he said. "It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement."

The judge said the husband has not been supportive of his wife's homeschooling, and "it accomplished its purposes. It now was appropriate to have them back in public school."

Mangum said he made the determination on his guiding principle, "What's in the best interest of the minor children," and conceded it was putting his judgment in place of the mother's.

And he said that while he expressed his opinion from the bench in the court hearing, the final written order had not yet been signed.

However, the practice of a judge replacing a parent's judgment with his own regarding homeschooling was argued recently when a court panel in California ruled that a family would no longer be allowed to homeschool their own children.

WND reported extensively when the ruling was released in February 2008, alarming homeschool advocates nationwide because of its potential ramifications.

Ultimately, the 2nd Appellate District Court in Los Angeles reversed its own order, affirming the rights of California parents to homeschool their children if they choose.

The court, which earlier had opined that only credentialed teachers could properly educate children, was faced with a flood of friend-of-the-court briefs representing individuals and groups, including Congress members.

The conclusion ultimately was that parents, not the state, would decide where children are educated.

The California opinion said state law permits homeschooling "as a species of private school education" but that statutory permission for parents to teach their own children could be "overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent."

In the North Carolina case, Adam Cothes, a spokesman for the mother, said the children routinely had been testing at up to two years above their grade level, were involved in swim team and other activities and events outside their home and had taken leadership roles in history club events.

On her website, family friend Robyn Williams said Mangum stated his decision was not ideologically or religiously motivated but that ordering the children into public schools would "challenge the ideas you've taught them."

Williams, a homeschool mother of four herself, said, "I have never seen such injustice and such a direct attack against homeschool."

"This judge clearly took personal issue with Venessa's stance on education and faith, even though her children are doing great. If her right to homeschool can be taken away so easily, what will this mean for homeschoolers state wide, or even nationally?" Williams asked.

Williams said she's trying to rally homeschoolers across the nation to defend their rights as Americans and parents to educate their own children.

Williams told WND the public school order was the worst possible outcome for Ms. Mills, who had made it clear she felt it was important to her children that she continue homeschooling.

According to Williams' website, the judge also ordered a mental health evaluation for the mother – but not the father – as part of the divorce proceedings, in what Williams described as an attack on the "mother's conservative Christian beliefs."

According to a proposed but as-yet unsigned order submitted by the father's lawyer to Mangum, "The children have thrived in homeschool for the past four years, but need the broader focus and socialization available to them in public school. The Court finds that it is in the children's best interest to continue their homeschooling through the end of the current school year, but to begin attending public school at the beginning of the 2009-2010 instructional year."

The order proposed by the father's lawyer also conceded the reason for the divorce was the father's "adultery," but it specifically said the father would not pay for homeschooling expenses for his children.

The order also stated, "Defendant believes that plaintiff is a nurturing mother who loves the children. Defendant believes that plaintiff has done a good job with the homeschooling of the children, although he does not believe that continued homeschooling is in the best interest of the children."

The website said the judge also said public school would "prepare these kids for the real world and college" and allow them "socialization."

Williams said the mother originally moved into a homeschool schedule because the children were not doing as well as she hoped at the local public schools.

In last year's dispute in California, the ruling that eventually was released was praised by pro-family organizations.

"We're pleased the appeals court recognized the rights of parents to provide education for their children," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. "This decision reaffirms the constitutional right that's afforded to parents in directing the education of their children. It's an important victory for families who cherish the freedom to ensure that their children receive a high quality education that is inherent in homeschooling."

"Parents have a constitutional right to make educational choices for their children," said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "Thousands of California families have educated their children successfully through homeschooling. We're pleased with the court's decision, which protects the rights of families and protects an avenue of education that has proven to benefit children time and time again.

The North Carolina ruling also resembles a number of rulings handed down against homeschool parents in Germany, where such instruction has been banned since the years of Adolf Hitler's rule.

As WND reported, Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has commented previously on the issue, contending the government "has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion."

"The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling," said a government letter in response. "... You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. ... In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement."

WND also reported recently when a German appeals court tossed out three-month jail terms issued to a mother and father who homeschool their children. But the court also ordered new trials that could leave the parents with similar penalties, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The case involves Juergen and Rosemarie Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, who last summer received formal notices of their three-month sentences.

The 90-day sentences came about when Hesse State Prosecutor Herwig Muller appealed a lower court's determination of fines for the family. The ruling had imposed fines of about 900 euros, or $1,200, for not sending their children to school

Muller, however, told the parents they shouldn't worry about any fines, since he would "send them to jail," the HSLDA reported.

HSLDA spokesman Michael Donnelly warned the homeschooling battle is far from over in Germany.

"There continue to be signs that the German government is cracking down on homeschooling families," he reported. "A recent letter from one family in southern Germany contained threats from local school authorities that unless the family enrolled their children in school, they would seek fines in excess of 50,000 euros (nearly $70,000), jail time and the removal of custody of the children."

HSLDA officials estimate there are some 400 homeschool families in Germany, virtually all of them either forced into hiding or facing court actions.

[Soldier4Christ]

Who'da thunk? Dems made off with Madoff loot!
Wall Street swindler gave hundreds of thousands to candidates

As Wall Street fund manager Bernard Madoff pleads guilty to 11 counts of criminal fraud in the largest investment Ponzi scheme in U.S. history, prominent Democratic politicians apparently have no intention of returning to Madoff's victims the more than $260,000 he contributed almost entirely to Democratic Party campaigns since the Clinton administration.

While the mainstream media have given considerable coverage to the Madoff scandal, few reporters mention Madoff was a Democrat with a history of thousands of dollars in contributions to Democratic Party candidates.

According to Federal Election Commission records, among Madoff's dozens of contributions to Democrats were the following:

    * Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: $2,000 in 2002, $6,000 in 2004 and another $2,000 in 1998;

    * Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.: $1,000 in 2000

    * House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo, presidential campaign: $2,000 in 2003;

    * Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.: $1,000 in 2001; $1,000 in 1998;

    * Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.: $10,200 in 2007; $1,000 in 2004;

    * Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.: $1,000 in 1999.

Madoff appears to have gotten around rules limiting campaign contributions. For instance, he contributed not only to Schumer's campaign but also to a group called "The Friends of Schumer."

Madoff also contributed to Lautenberg's campaign and to the senator's NJ Victory Committee.

Madoff appears to have contributed more than $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee while Schumer was chairman, including a $25,000 contribution in 2005.

OpenSecrets.org at the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Madoff and other individuals at his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, gave $372,100 in campaign contributions beginning in 1991, with 89 percent going to Democrats.

The offices of Schumer and Rangel did not return WND phone calls asking for comment.

Lautenberg's office referred the call to his attorney in Newark, Mike Griffinger, who also did not return WND's phone call.

Corzine's office indicated he had donated Madoff's campaign contributions to charity.

The State Department did not return a WND phone call asking about how Secretary of State Clinton planned to handle contributions Madoff made to her political campaigns.

[nChrist]

The root causes to most of our economic problems are:

GREED

FRAUD

CORRUPTION

CRIMINAL ACTS

Madoff's actions are really small in comparison to what representatives of the people have done. Madoff is just a little fish! The BIG FISH WITH TEETH are folks like Franks, Dodd, Clinton, and big money folks behind groups like ACORN! It appears that things worked exactly like they planned them. The AFTER AND DURING THE FACTS FOLKS who could have done something and didn't are folks like Bush. Regardless, the circumstances required for MELTDOWN didn't come together by accident or coincidence. Just remember that the left-wingers were ready to step in with their plans immediately. They literally did HIT THE GROUND RUNNING BEFORE THEY EVEN TOOK OFFICE. NOTHING IS BY ACCIDENT OR COINCIDENCE!

[Soldier4Christ]

Lose your property for growing food?
Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million

Some small farms and organic food growers could be placed under direct supervision of the federal government under new legislation making its way through Congress.

Food Safety Modernization Act

House Resolution 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in February. DeLauro's husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto – the world's leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seed.

DeLauro's act has 39 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Agriculture Committee on Feb. 4. It calls for the creation of a Food Safety Administration to allow the government to regulate food production at all levels – and even mandates property seizure, fines of up to $1 million per offense and criminal prosecution for producers, manufacturers and distributors who fail to comply with regulations.

Michael Olson, host of the Food Chain radio show and author of "Metro Farm," told WND the government should focus on regulating food production in countries such as China and Mexico rather than burdening small and organic farmers in the U.S. with overreaching regulations.

"We need somebody to watch over us when we're eating food that comes from thousands and thousands of miles away. We need some help there," he said. "But when food comes from our neighbors or from farmers who we know, we don't need all of those rules. If your neighbor sells you something that is bad and you get sick, you are going to get your hands on that farmer, and that will be the end of it. It regulates itself. "

The legislation would establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."

Federal regulators will be tasked with ensuring that food producers, processors and distributors – both large and small – prevent and minimize food safety hazards such as food-borne illnesses and contaminants such as bacteria, chemicals, natural toxins or manufactured toxicants, viruses, parasites, prions, physical hazards or other human pathogens.

Under the legislation's broad wording, slaughterhouses, seafood processing plants, establishments that process, store, hold or transport all categories of food products prior to delivery for retail sale, farms, ranches, orchards, vineyards, aquaculture facilities and confined animal-feeding operations would be subject to strict government regulation.

Government inspectors would be required to visit and examine food production facilities, including small farms, to ensure compliance. They would review food safety records and conduct surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment.

"What the government will do is bring in industry experts to tell them how to manage all this stuff," Olson said. "It's industry that's telling government how to set these things up. What it always boils down to is who can afford to have the most influence over the government. It would be those companies that have sufficient economies of scale to be able to afford the influence – which is, of course, industrial agriculture."

Farms and food producers would be forced to submit copies of all records to federal inspectors upon request to determine whether food is contaminated, to ensure they are in compliance with food safety laws and to maintain government tracking records. Refusal to register, permit inspector access or testing of food or equipment would be prohibited.

"What is going to happen is that local agriculture will end up suffering through some onerous protocols designed for international agriculture that they simply don't need," Olson said. "Thus, it will be a way for industrial agriculture to manage local agriculture."

Under the act, every food producer must have a written food safety plan describing likely hazards and preventative controls they have implemented and must abide by "minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water."

"That opens a whole can of worms," Olson said. "I think that's where people are starting to freak out about losing organic agriculture. Who is going to decide what the minimum standards are for fertilization or anything else? The government is going to bring in big industry and say we are setting up these protocols, so what do you think we should do? Who is it going to bring in to ask? The government will bring in people who have economies of scale who have that kind of influence."

DeLauro's act calls for the Food Safety Administration to create a "national traceability system" to retrieve history, use and location of each food product through all stages of production, processing and distribution.

Olson believes the regulations could create unjustifiable financial hardships for small farmers and run them out of business.

"That is often the purpose of rules and regulations: to get rid of your competition," he said. "Only people who are very, very large can afford to comply. They can hire one person to do paperwork. There's a specialization of labor there, and when you are very small, you can't afford to do all of these things."

Olson said despite good intentions behind the legislation, this act could devastate small U.S. farms.

"Every time we pass a rule or a law or a regulation to make the world a better place, it seems like what we do is subsidize production offshore," he said. "We tell farmers they can no longer drive diesel tractors because they make bad smoke. Well, essentially what we're doing is giving China a subsidy to grow our crops for us, or Mexico or anyone else."

(Story continues below)

          

Section 304 of the Food Safety Modernization Act establishes a group of "experts and stakeholders from Federal, State, and local food safety and health agencies, the food industry, consumer organizations, and academia" to make recommendations for improving food-borne illness surveillance.

According to the act, "Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law … may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act."

Each violation and each separate day the producer is in defiance of the law would be considered a separate offense and an additional penalty. The act suggests federal administrators consider the gravity of the violation, the degree of responsibility and the size and type of business when determining penalties.

Criminal sanctions may be imposed if contaminated food causes serious illness or death, and offenders may face fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years.

"It's just frightening what can happen with good intentions," Olson said. "It's probably the most radical notions on the face of this Earth, but local agriculture doesn't need government because it takes care of itself."

Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act

Another "food safety" bill that has organic and small farmers worried is Senate Bill 425, or the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Brown's bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson. It was introduced in September and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Some say the legislation could also put small farmers out of business.

Like HR 875, the measure establishes a nationwide "traceability system" monitored by the Food and Drug Administration for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging and distribution of food. It would cost $40 million over three years.

"We must ensure that the federal government has the ability and authority to protect the public, given the global nature of the food supply," Brown said when he introduced the bill. He suggested the FDA and USDA have power to declare mandatory recalls.

The government would track food shipped in interstate commerce through a recordkeeping and audit system, a secure, online database or registered identification. Each farmer or producer would be required to maintain records regarding the purchase, sale and identification of their products.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

A 13-member advisory committee of food safety and tracking technology experts, representatives of the food industry, consumer advocates and government officials would assist in implementing the traceability system.

The bill calls for the committee to establish a national database or registry operated by the Food and Drug Administration. It also proposes a electronic records database to identify sales of food and its ingredients "establishing that the food and its ingredients were grown, prepared, handled, manufactured, processed, distributed, shipped, warehoused, imported, and conveyed under conditions that ensure the safety of the food."

It states, "The records should include an electronic statement with the date of, and the names and addresses of all parties to, each prior sale, purchase, or trade, and any other information as appropriate."

If government inspectors find that a food item is not in compliance, they may force producers to cease distribution, recall the item or confiscate it.

"If the postal service can track a package from my office in Washington to my office in Cincinnati, we should be able to do the same for food products," Sen. Brown said in a Sept. 4, 2008, statement. "Families that are struggling with the high cost of groceries should not also have to worry about the safety of their food. This legislation gives the government the resources it needs to protect the public."

Recalls of contaminated food are usually voluntary; however, in his weekly radio address on March 15, President Obama announced he's forming a Food Safety Working Group to propose new laws and stop corruption of the nation's food.

The group will review, update and enforce food safety laws, which Obama said "have not been updated since they were written in the time of Teddy Roosevelt."

The president said outbreaks from contaminated foods, such as a recent salmonella outbreak among consumers of peanut products, have occurred more frequently in recent years due to outdated regulations, fewer inspectors, scaled back inspections and a lack of information sharing between government agencies.

"In the end, food safety is something I take seriously, not just as your president but as a parent," Obama said. "No parent should have to worry that their child is going to get sick from their lunch just as no family should have to worry that the medicines they buy will cause them harm."

The blogosphere is buzzing with comments on the legislation, including the following:

    * Obama and his cronies or his puppetmasters are trying to take total control – nationalize everything, disarm the populace, control food, etc. We are seeing the formation of a total police state.

    * Well ... that's not very " green " of Obama. What's his real agenda?

    * This is getting way out of hand! Isn't it enough the FDA already allows poisons in our foods?

    * If you're starving, no number of guns will enable you to stay free. That's the whole idea behind this legislation. He who controls the food really makes the rules.

    * The government is terrified of the tax loss. Imagine all the tax dollars lost if people actually grew their own vegetables! Imagine if people actually coordinated their efforts with family, friends and neighbors. People could be in no time eating for the price of their own effort. ... Oh the horror of it all! The last thing the government wants is for us to be self-sufficient.

    * They want to make you dependent upon government. I say no way! already the government is giving away taxes from my great great grandchildren and now they want to take away my food, my semi-auto rifles, my right to alternative holistic medicine? We need a revolution, sheeple! Wake up! They want fascism ... can you not see that?

    *  The screening processes will make it very expensive for smaller farmers, where bigger agriculture corporations can foot the bill.

    * If anything it just increases accountability, which is arguably a good thing. It pretty much says they'll only confiscate your property if there are questions of contamination and you don't comply with their inspections. I think the severity of this has been blown out of proportion by a lot of conjecture.

    * Don't waste your time calling the criminals in D.C. and begging them to act like humans. This will end with a bloody revolt.

    * The more I examine this (on the surface) seemingly innocuous bill the more I hate it. It is a coward's ploy to push out of business small farms and farmers markets without actually making them illegal because many will choose not to operate due to the compliance issue.

[Soldier4Christ]

29 congressman vs. Federal Reserve – Who will win?

Push to audit Federal Reserve gains steam
28 lawmakers join call to examine nation's money controllers

A bill calling for the comptroller general of the United States to audit the private Federal Reserve is gaining momentum in Washington, D.C., as more and more representatives add their names to its bipartisan support.

As WND reported, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced last month H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a bill requiring that an audit of both the Fed's Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks be completed and reported to Congress before the end of 2010.

Paul was joined at the time of introduction by 11 other Republican and Democratic co-sponsors.

Since its introduction, 17 additional U.S. representatives have added their names as co-sponsors, bringing the total to 29 legislators seeking the audit.

Rep. Paul has been a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve, even seeking to abolish the private money-control system, arguing that Congress should "reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy."

The Constitution, Paul said, gives Congress, not the private Federal Reserve, "the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency."

(Story continues below)

          

Paul explained his advocacy for the H.R. 1207 audit in the U.S. House:

"Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar," the Texas Republican said. "Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy.

"How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation," he said.

Paul called oversight of the Fed "long overdue."

You've never needed to understand money like you need to understand it now! "Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free" unravels the deception of the Federal Reserve and presents a crystal clear picture of the financial abyss towards which we are heading.

"Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations," he continued.

"The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government – established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight?"

Paul said H.R. 1207, which has been referred to the House Committee of Financial Services, would "achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve."

In his weekly online column, Paul also said the Founding Fathers intended "only gold and silver to be used as currency," but that long since has been abandoned in favor of a monetary system essentially orchestrated in secret.

"People are demanding answers and explanations for our economic malaise, and we should settle for nothing less than the whole truth on monetary policy," he said.

WND reported last month on Paul's continuing effort to abolish the institution.

Paul said every problem in the economy, "from the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the '70s, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble," can be traced to Federal Reserve policy.

Paul's abolition plan calls for the director of the Office of Management and Budget to "liquidate" Fed assets "in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury."

Columnist and commentator Chuck Baldwin believes it's about time.

"'We've seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,' Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor. 'Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?'" Baldwin wrote.

"Senator Dorgan is exactly right. No one oversees the Fed. The Fed is held accountable to absolutely nobody," Baldwin continued. "But Senator Dorgan (as with everyone else in Congress) has no one to blame but himself. Ever since the Marxist, E. Mandell House, convinced President Woodrow Wilson to create the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Congress of the United States has had virtually nothing to do with the way our fiscal policies are managed. The Fed (which is not even a government agency, but rather a private corporation consisting of mostly foreign bankers) dictates America's financial policies."

Baldwin cites the U.S. Constitution itself. In Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, it states Congress has the authority to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

Columnist Jacob Hornberger last year noted that while Paul's abolition plan is considered "wacky" by some, at least two Nobel Prize-winning economists had the same idea.

Economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek called for the abolition of the Fed during their careers, Hornberger notes.

"While Friedman spent much of his life advocating externally imposed constraints on the Fed's power to expand the money supply, his first wish was to have the Fed abolished, as he pointed out in a 1995 Reason magazine interview. In his book, 'Denationalization of Money: An Analysis of the Theory and Practice of Concurrent Currencies,' Hayek advocated a free-market monetary system of competing currencies," said Hornberger.

"Most Americans probably still believe that the Great Depression was caused by 'the failure of the free-enterprise system.' It is a false belief. The truth is that the worst economic disaster in American history was caused by the Federal Reserve. Give current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke credit for publicly acknowledging that fact in a speech delivered in 2002 commemorating Friedman's 90th birthday," Hornberger said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Feds undercut civilian supply of ammunition
Policy leaves manufacturers without brass to make bullets

A recent government policy change has taken a bite out of the nation's already stressed ammunition supply, leaving arms dealers scrambling to find bullets for private gun owners.

Georgia Arms is a company that for the last 15 years has been purchasing fired brass shell casings from the Department of Defense and private government surplus liquidators. The military collects the discarded casings from fired rounds, then sells them through liquidators to companies like Georgia Arms that remanufacture the casings into ammunition for the law enforcement and civilian gun owner communities.

But earlier this month, Georgia Arms received a canceled order, informed by its supplier that the government now requires fired brass casings be mutilated, in other words, destroyed to a scrap metal state.

The policy change, handed down from the Department of Defense through the Defense Logistics Agency, cuts a supply leg out from underneath ammunition manufacturers.

The policy has compelled Georgia Arms, for example, to cancel all sales of .223 and .308 ammunition, bullets used, respectively, in semi-automatic and deer hunting rifles, until further notice. Sharch Manufacturing, Inc. has announced the same cancellation of its .223 and .308 brass reloading components.

"They just reclassified brass to allow destruction of it, based on what?" Georgia Arms owner Larry Haynie asked WND. "We've been 'going green' for the last dozen years, and brass is one of the most recyclable materials out there. A cartridge case can be used over and over again. And now we're going to destroy it based on what? We don't want the civilian public to have it? It's a government injustice."

As WND reported, firearm sales have spiked since the election of a perceived anti-gun president, and Americans stockpiling bullets have produced a stressed ammunition market.

The Orlando Sentinel reports months of steady, heavy buying have left gun dealers in Florida facing shortages of ammunition.

"The survivalist in all of us comes out," John Ritz, manager of a Florida shooting range, told the Sentinel. "It's more about protecting what you have."

"People are just stockpiling," said a spokeswoman for Georgia Arms, which has seen bullet sales jump 100 percent since the election. "A gun is just like a car. If you can't get gas, you can't use it."

WND contacted the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Defense's largest combat support agency, several times seeking comment or explanation for the policy change but received none.

The National Rifle Association confirmed to WND that the DLA had been instructed to require the scrapping of the brass casings but declined further comment at this time.

Other gun advocates, however, have sounded off on the issue, eyeing the change in government policy with suspicion and filling the blogosphere with speculation that the effects of the policy change may be deliberate.

"It is an end-run around Congress. They don't need to try to ban guns – they don't need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit 'assault' weapon sales," writes firearm instructor and author Gordon Hutchinson on his The Shootist blog. "Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless."

A writer named Owen at the Boots & Sabers blog suspects the policy change is an effort by an anti-gun administration to raise the cost of ammunition.

"This policy didn't come out of the blue," writes Owen. "The Commander in Chief is clearly sending a message to gun owners that they should be paying more for ammunition. If he can't do it through regulatory action, he'll do it by forcing ammunition manufacturers to spend more on production."

Hutchinson reports Georgia Arms was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, but without the ability to purchase expended military ammunition, the company may be forced to lay off up to half its workforce.

[Soldier4Christ]

Yup ... creating more jobs.   

[Soldier4Christ]

Case challenges taxpayer-funded AIG 'zakat'
Attorneys argue dismissal would leave U.S. funding Islamic terrorists

A non-profit legal group that sued the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Treasury over the distribution of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the Shariah-supporting American International Group is warning the case must not be dismissed.

The case was brought against the Fed and the Treasury by the Thomas More Law Center, and spokesman Richard Thompson says he's challenging the U.S. government's own "financial support to anti-American, Islamic activities."

"Make no mistake, there is a cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that our government is unwittingly complicit in it," Thompson said

His comments came in opposition to a move on the part of the Obama administration to have the case dismissed.

"Although widespread public anger has rightfully focused on bonuses AIG paid to top executives using taxpayers' money, that anger would be at an even higher pitch if the public knew that our tax dollars were being used by AIG to promote Islam and Shariah law, which provides support for terrorist activities aimed at killing Americans and destroying America," said Thompson, the president of the law center.

In a motion to dismiss, the U.S. Department of Justice alleged the government does not control AIG and that it provided tens of billions of dollars "to address what is possibly the worst financial crisis this country has encountered since the Great Depression," according to the law center.

The Thomas More center, however, said whatever emergency measures may be needed, there is no reason to use tax dollars to promote the religion of Islam in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit in federal court in Michigan is a constitutional challenge to that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that the law center calls "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish."

"The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Shariah-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," the case alleges.

The case was brought on behalf of Kevin Murray, a former Marine who served honorably in Iraq to defend the United States from Islamic terrorists. Murray objects to being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law, which is hostile to his Christian religion.

He is being represented by Thomas More attorney Robert Muise and by David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who is an expert in Shariah law and Shariah-compliant financing, as well as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy.

The case alleges that through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest in AIG and, as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer 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.

According to the complaint, AIG itself describes "Shariah" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."

The case accuses the company of employing a "Shariah Supervisory Committee" that includes Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan.

The law center described Usmani as the "son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government."

The complaint further cites the obligatory "zakat," which under Shariah is a religious tax that must be directed to those in jihad.

"The 'zakat' religious tax is used to financially support Islamic 'charities,' some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the U.S. and other 'infidels,' which includes Christians and Jews," the center said.

Thomas More cited the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development as an example. That organization was convicted of providing millions of dollars to Islamic terrorists, the center said.

"As a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the federal 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 center said.

"This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11, whether overtly through direct attacks or covertly through a taxpayer funded stealth jihad," Thompson said.