YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

Epstein said. "Perhaps, the 'real' enemies of our state are at the helm."

I have absolutely no doubt that this is true. It is evidenced daily by the actions of many people in this current administration.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California has ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and long has been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

I find it difficult to believe that this came out of the California Courts. It does give one hope that the government is not all corrupt yet.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judiciary Committee greenlights 'hate crimes'
Members refuse to protect Christian pastors from charges

Members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today rejected an opportunity to protect Christian pastors who preach the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and approved on a 15-12 vote a "hate crimes" bill that supporters admit could be used to bring charges against religious leaders.

The bill, H.R. 1913, now will be considered by the full House of Representatives.

The committee rejected a number of amendments offered by several members seeking to protect religious liberty, to protect the unborn, to protect against violence by illegal aliens, and to clarify the bill's meanings of "gender identity" and "sexual orientation."

One of the rejected proposals was offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, who sought to ensure ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" simply because they preach from the Bible or another religious book.

When a nearly identical plan was developed in the last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the bill it could be used to prosecute pastors merely for preaching under the premise that they could be "inducing" violence in someone.

The bill ultimately failed then because President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably was unconstitutional.

"The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone," said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

"Instead of treating all crime victims equally, it creates a caste system where select groups, such as gays and lesbians, are given greater priority in the criminal justice system. This is not progress; it is political correctness. In other nations and states, the adoption of hate crimes legislation has been the first step toward widespread suppression of speech and ideas critical of homosexuality," he said.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913, the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009," a number of times.

"As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," he said.

Barber said the 14th Amendment already provides that victims of violent crimes are afforded equal protection under the law "regardless of sexual preference or proclivity."

"If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally, discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e.,'gay' and lesbian 'sexual orientation' or cross-dressing 'gender identity')," he said.

He also said there is "zero evidence" suggesting homosexuals do not get equal protection now.

"In fact, you need only look to the most famous 'hate crime' of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard's murder was not a 'hate crime' by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard's murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible)," he said.

Barber said likewise the murderer of Mary Stachowicz, a devout Catholic grandmother brutally killed by a homosexual for sharing the Bible with him, also was given a life sentence.

"The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory 'hate crimes' legislation," he said.

Barber cited FBI statistics showing there were about 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, but only 1,512 were presumed to be "hate crimes." And two-thirds of those involved claims of "hateful" words, touching and shoving.

Under the specifications of the law, a Christian needn't touch a homosexual to face charges, he noted.

"If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in 'apprehension of bodily injury' by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony 'hate crime,'" he said.

The committee also rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would have withheld its special protections from pedophiles.

WND reported just a day ago that the plan was introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who said, "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way."

Section 10 of the act states, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

However, critics cite United States Code Title 18, Section 2, as evidence of how the legislation could be used against people who merely speak out against homosexuality. It states: Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, warned Christians to speak up before the legislation passes. He said they are acting like the proverbial frog in a slowly heating kettle that boils to death.

"They need to wake up and take action to oppose this threat to religious liberty."

[Soldier4Christ]

State threatens locals:
Marry 'gays' – or else
Attorney general: 'We must live by
and follow what the courts decide'

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is warning the county recorders' offices in his state that workers must process "marriage" licenses for same-sex duos or face possible charges in a court of law.

"If necessary, we will explore legal actions to enforce and implement the court's ruling, working with the Iowa Dept. of Public Health and county attorneys," he warned on his website.

But an announcement today from a statewide pro-family organization and a public interest law firm with a reach that goes around the world means the issue of same-sex weddings eventually could end up back in court.

The statements from Miller relate to the state Supreme Court's decision that Iowa must provide same-sex couples access to the state's marriage processes.

Miller praised the decision as "clear and well-reasoned" and explained it is expected to take effect April 27, since court offices are closed tomorrow.

In a series of messages on his website, he first "advised" recorders and registrars to provide "full access" to marriage.

Then he instructed: "A county registrar should furnish the forms in the same manner as in opposite gender applications."

"The Supreme Court's decision … does change state law: the decision expressly strikes from Iowa Code chapter 595 the language which limits civil marriage to a man and a woman," he ordered.

Then came the warning that "legal actions" could be pursued.

"We must live by and follow what the courts decide," he said.

However, a letter sent to county recorders by the Alliance Defense Fund says Miller is forgetting completely about "one of the most foundational rights and liberties we enjoy as Iowans" … "the right of conscience."

That right, the letter says, is codified in Iowa Code 146.1.

"This right is based upon the simple truth that it is wrong to force anyone to violate his or her conscience," said the letter, also from the Iowa Family Policy Council.

It cites the motto on the seal of the state, which reads, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain."

"This noble motto … is emblematic of the moral sentiments of Iowans from the banks of the Missouri to the waters of the Mighty Mississippi. … As citizens of the State of Iowa and thus, the United States, we enjoy the protections of this right guaranteed in the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions. This right of conscience protects individuals against coercion by the state authority, and serves as the first line of defense against the cancer of tyranny."

The letter suggests counties adopt policies that ensure no one will be required to "issue or process a marriage license, or to perform, assist, or participate in such procedures, against that individual's religious beliefs or moral convictions."

The suggested policy continues: "A person shall not discriminate against any individual in any way, including but not limited to employment, promotion, advancement, transfer, licensing, education, training, or the granting of employment privileges or conditions, because of the individual's participation in or refusal to participate in the issuance of a marriage license."

If Miller does not like that, the ADF "will defend this policy language and will provide free legal review and defense if this policy is challenged on the basis of its content."

"This policy would protect objecting employees from being forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if doing so would violate the employee's conscience," the ADF said.

Doug Napier, ADF senior legal counsel, said government employees who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs.

"This policy allows an employee who does not wish to violate his or her own conscience by issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple to abstain and allow the transaction to be performed by someone who is willing to do it," he said. "Forcing them to participate in offensive acts contrary to their deeply held beliefs in order to remain employed is unconstitutional.

"Contrary to the threatening statement issued by Attorney General Tom Miller on April 21, the citizens of Iowa enjoy the protections of the right of conscience guaranteed in the U.S. and Iowa constitutions – the very constitutions that county recorders swore to uphold when taking office," Napier said. "Mr. Miller conveniently omitted any discussion of their rights of conscience or the recorders' duty to protect the rights of their employees.

"This right of conscience protects individuals against heavy-handed coercion by the state, including the attorney general," he said.

Napier said the Iowa marriage law was settled and supported by Iowans, but then the court justices "stepped outside of [their] proper role of interpreting the law and has instead overruled the will of the people and created new law."

Miller, on his web page, affirmed that the justices were creating new law.

Napier said the solution would be for the state legislature to allow state residents to vote on the issue. The Iowa Family Policy Council already has begun work on that effort at a website promoting a marriage amendment.

A spokesman for the state organization said it had been contacted by a number of recorders or their employees expressing concern that the state's orders on a moral issue would violate their religious beliefs.

The same issue arose when a state court in California  last year ruled there that county offices must issue same-sex "marriage" licenses. Several county officials were in the position of developing a challenge to the orders when voters took the issue in hand and in November overruled the court.

The voters in California embedded in their state constitution the definition of marriage limited to one man and one woman.

In California then, as in Iowa now, state officials rewrote state forms and procedures even though the legislatures are the only agencies authorized to write state law.

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama Administration to Release Detainee Abuse Photos; Former CIA Official Says Former Colleagues 'Don't Believe They Have Cover Anymore'

In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge yesterday, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.

The photographs are part of a 2003 Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU for all information relating to the treatment of detainees -- the same battle that led, last week, to President Obama's decision to release memos from the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing legal justifications for harsh interrogation methods that human rights groups call torture.

Courts had ruled against the Bush administration's attempts to keep the photographs from public view. ACLU attorney Amrit Singh tells ABC News that "the fact that the Obama administration opted not to seek further review is a sign that it is committed to more transparency."

Singh added that the photographs "only underscore the need for a criminal investigation and prosecution if warranted" of U.S. officials responsible for the harsh treatment of detainees.

But some experts say the move could have a chilling effect on the CIA even beyond President Obama's decision last week to release the so-called "torture memos."

Calling the ACLU push to release the photographs "prurient" and "reprehensible," Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, tells ABC News that the Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

"They should have fought it all the way; if they lost, they lost," Lowenthal said. "There's nothing to be gained from it. There's no substantive reason why those photos have to be released."

Lowenthal said the president's moves in the last week have left many in the CIA dispirited, based on "the undercurrent I've been getting from colleagues still in the building, or colleagues who have left not that long ago."

"We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong," Lowenthal says. "They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Releasing the photographs "will make it much worse," he said.

Even though President Obama has announced that the Justice Department will not prosecute CIA officers who were operating within the four corners of what they'd been told was the law, Lowenthal says members of the CIA are worried. "They feel exposed already, and this is going to increase drumbeat for an investigation or a commission" to explore detainee treatment during the Bush years, he said. "It's going to make it much harder to resist, and they fear they're then going to be thrown over."

The Bush administration argued that releasing these photographs would violate US obligations towards detainees and would prompt outrage and perhaps attacks against the U.S. On June 9 and June 21, 2006 judges directed the Bush administration to release 21 photographs depicting the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and last September, the Second Circuit Court affirmed that decision.

The Bush administration had argued that an exemption from FOIA was needed here because of the exemption for law enforcement records that could reasonably be expected to endanger “any individual." The release of the disputed photographs, the Bush administration argued, will endanger United States troops, other Coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the court found that the exemption was not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy."

The Bush administration had also argued that releasing the photographs would violated the Geneva Conventions, which protect prisoners of war and detained civilians “against insults and public curiosity." The court ruled that the Geneva Conventions "do not prohibit dissemination of images of detainees being abused when the images are redacted so as to protect the identities of the detainees, at least in situations where, as here, the purpose of the dissemination is not itself to humiliate the detainees."

Moreover, the court found that releasing "the photographs is likely to further the purposes of the Geneva Conventions by deterring future abuse of prisoners."

"There is a significant public interest in the disclosure of these photographs," the court ruled. "The defendants concede that these photographs yield evidence of governmental wrongdoing, but nonetheless argue that they add little additional value to the written summaries of the depicted events, which have already been made public. This contention disregards FOIA’s central purpose of furthering governmental accountability, and the special importance the law accords to information revealing official misconduct."

A November 6, 2008, petition for a re-hearing was denied last month.

The Obama administration could have opted to go all the way to the Supreme Court to try to keep these photographs from public view, but yesterday Acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin wrote to District Judge Alvin Hellerstein and said the Pentagon was preparing to release 21 photos at issue in the appeal, in addition to 23 others "previously identified as responsive."

The materials will be released to the ACLU no later than May 28, after which the ACLU says it will make them public. This release will come just days before President Obama travels to the volatile Middle East.

Dassin wrote that the Pentagon also was "processing for release a substantial number of other images contained in Army CID reports that have been closed during the pendency of this case."

Singh said in a statement that the photographs "will constitute visual proof that, unlike the Bush administration's claim, the abuse was not confined to Abu Ghraib and was not aberrational. Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse."

Lowenthal said his former colleagues at the CIA were "put off" by President Obama's trip to the CIA earlier this week. "I don't think the president's speech went down very well, particularly the part when he said they made mistakes. They don't think they made mistakes. They think they acted to execute policy. And those in the intelligence service don't make policy."

Those in intelligence are "gong to become increasingly wary about doing dangerous things," Lowenthal said. "They feel at the end of the day they won't be covered. It's not irreparable right now, but it's problematic."

[Soldier4Christ]

Waxman bribes Mr. Gene Green? - private deal “allowances” if Dems will vote for cap and trade bill


It seems our future is being bargained away for a few pieces of silver as this passage from the article indicates.

While Shimkus acknowledged that closed-door negotiating was “just a way of doing business” in Congress, he said offering emission allowances for votes may take the process beyond ethical boundaries.

From the Washington Examiner:

To get votes, Waxman offers cap-and-trade breaks
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent

In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama.

Green says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the panel, is trying to entice him into voting for the bill by giving some refineries favorable treatment in the administration’s “cap and trade” system, which is expected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years. Under the plan, companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide, but Green and other lawmakers are angling to get a free pass for refineries in their districts.

“We’ve been talking,” Green said, referring to a meeting he had with Waxman on Tuesday night. “To put together a bill that passes, they have to get our votes, and I’m not going to vote for a bill without refinery allowances.”

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the top Republican on the energy panel, said Waxman and others are also dangling allowances for steel and coal-fired power plants to give political cover to Democrats whose districts rely on these companies.

Democrats so far have been unable to get enough support from their own members to pass the bill out of a small global warming subcommittee because most Republicans and many Democrats say the plan will raise energy rates, destroy jobs and increase prices on manufactured goods.

Republicans said Waxman and subcommittee chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass., are calling Democrats into their offices and offering allowances, also called credits, in exchange for votes.

Waxman told The Examiner he was not trading votes for allowances.

“That is what the Republicans are saying, but that is not accurate,” he said. The bill left out specifics on allowances “in order to be able to have discussions on how best to ease the transition for various geographical regions and ratepayers.”

“I will politely disagree,” said energy committee member John Shimkus, R-Ill., who insisted Waxman “is calling members into his office to try to get their vote, and that will be based on the credits they are offering.”

While Shimkus acknowledged that closed-door negotiating was “just a way of doing business” in Congress, he said offering emission allowances for votes may take the process beyond ethical boundaries.

“We are talking real dollars here, real shareholder wealth,” Shimkus said, “and we are not being given the time to analyze these credits.”

Environmentalists and free-market advocates say the credits will favor struggling, out-of-date operations.

“We are going to have electricity that is dirtier because the allowances are going to be misallocated,” said Robert Michaels, an economics professor at California State University and senior fellow for the Institute for Energy Research.

[nChrist]

Bluntly:  cap and trade by itself is CRIMINAL EXTORTION that will line the pockets of CORRUPT POLITICIANS.

SO, we should not be surprised to see that EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH CAP AND TRADE IS CRIME AND CORRUPTION! Implementation of cap and trade will be something that THE PEOPLE WILL NOT TOLERATE! It's INSANE, CRIMINAL, ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING, AND CAN'T BE PAID FOR BY AVERAGE PEOPLE ANYWAY.

Our DICTATOR WANNABE needs a calculator to see what everything he wants ADDS UP TO as a cost per family. We would all need 3rd and 4th jobs JUST to pay the NEW AND INVENTED COSTS FOR THINGS BEING PUSHED RIGHT NOW! oOOOOOOOPHS! - There's a shortage of jobs, so we can't get that 3rd and 4th job. Regardless, MOST FOLKS WILL JUST SAY NO! BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO - NO MONEY - CRIMINAL! AVERAGE PEOPLE WOULD NOT SURVIVE SUCH TYRANNY  --  AND PEOPLE WITH ANY BACKBONE WON'T TOLERATE THIS! Our WANNABE DICTATOR gets new ideas for spending money every 5 minutes. We're already to the point where average people will have a HORRIBLE TIME JUST PAYING THE INTEREST ON THE MONEY BEING BORROWED TO DO STUPID THINGS!

Have you been over-joyed with that huge $13 a week extra in your paycheck that's supposed to be your TAX CUT? Don't get used to it because it's going to disappear and be replaced with BIG NEW TAXES in so many different areas that all average people will be bankrupted! Oooooooophs! --  Never mind - the whole country will be BANKRUPT! It will take decades to just pay the INTEREST! WHO WILL OWN THIS COUNTRY?

[Soldier4Christ]

House agrees to muzzle pastors with 'hate crimes' plan
'This is first time protected status given to whatever sexual orientation one has'

Members of the U.S. House today approved a plan to create a federal "hate crimes" plan that will provide special protections to homosexuals and others with alternative sexual choices, but leave Christian ministers and pastors open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a "gay."

The vote was 249-175, and came despite intense Republican opposition to the creation of the privileged class.

Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. of the High Impact Leadership Coalition also condemned the action, offering a warning about the future of the United States.

Jackson said the action simply puts "sexual orientation" in a specially protected class under federal law.

"Based on history, it really isn't something that needs to be protected," he said. "There's a problem that this is going to mark the first time that a protected class status is given to … whatever sexual orientation one has."

He said the history in other nations is a fairly certain prosecution of Christians. In Sweden, for example, a minister who preached out of Leviticus was sentenced to 30 days in jail – for preaching out of Leviticus.

Similar state laws have resulted in similar results. In Philadelphia several years ago a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival, he said.

U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said H.R. 1913 will create "thought crimes," and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it will end equality in the United States.

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, charged the plan will divide America into groups of more favored versus less. He again cited USC Title 18, Section 2a, the foundation of H.R. 1913, which says anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender.

But there is no epidemic of hate in the U.S. he noted.

U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., introduced a striking argument: If Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who supports traditional marriage had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage under H.R. 1913 she could be indicted as a "violent hate criminal," facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under H.R. 1913.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "The Anti-Christian Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives has acted today to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, youth pastors, Bible teachers, and anyone else whose Bible speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in the Bible.

"A pastor’s sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.' The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime," she said.

"This Democrat-controlled Congress has now elevated pedophiles and other bizarre sexual orientations, as well as drag queens, transgenders, lesbians and gay men to the level of protection of that already given to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in the law," she said.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Democrats simply have placed a higher value on some lives compared to others, a decision he said is unconstitutional.

Not happy with just making Christian teachings on homosexuality illegal, noted officials at Liberty Counsel, supporters have approved the law that also provides grant money for so-called "sensitivity-training" to provide pro-homosexual propaganda.

When a plan virtually identical to the current Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 was developed in the last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the bill it could be used to prosecute pastors merely for preaching against homosexuality under the premise that they could be "inducing" violence in someone.

The bill ultimately failed then because President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably was unconstitutional.

"The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone," said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

"Instead of treating all crime victims equally, it creates a caste system where select groups, such as gays and lesbians, are given greater priority in the criminal justice system. This is not progress; it is political correctness. In other nations and states, the adoption of hate crimes legislation has been the first step toward widespread suppression of speech and ideas critical of homosexuality," he said.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913 a number of times.

"As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," he said.

Barber said the 14th Amendment already provides that victims of violent crimes are afforded equal protection under the law "regardless of sexual preference or proclivity."

Barber cited FBI statistics showing there were about 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, but only 1,512 were presumed to be "hate crimes." And two-thirds of those involved claims of "hateful" words, touching and shoving.

Under the specifications of the law, a Christian needn't touch a homosexual to face charges, he noted.

"If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in 'apprehension of bodily injury' by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony 'hate crime,'" he said.

WND reported previously that the plan was introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who said, "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way."

Section 10 of the act states, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

However, critics cite United States Code Title 18, Section 2, as evidence of how the legislation could be used against people who merely speak out against homosexuality. It states: Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, warned Christians to speak up before the legislation passes. He said they are acting like the proverbial frog in a slowly heating kettle that boils to death.

"They need to wake up and take action to oppose this threat to religious liberty."

[nChrist]

The above is ridiculously ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL in many different ways! It's also ridiculously ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN EVERY STATE!

Bluntly, the people won't tolerate the removal of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH. This would just be the first two guarantees this can't be done - THERE'S MUCH MORE! DUH! - This is a very stupid and divisive thing to do in a FREE COUNTRY. It doesn't appear that they have a clue about what they might be starting. I'll just call it "IT" for right now, and 30 states have already addressed "IT". "IT" can be figured out pretty quickly when coupled with the word "TYRANNY". "IT" may be spelled out rather boldly soon.

[Soldier4Christ]

Censors for talk radio expected within 90 days
Leader of public awareness campaign warns of 'Arctic blast' against free speech

The leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local "boards" will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an "Arctic blast" against the expression of opinion in the United States.

WND reported just days ago on a meeting at which more than two dozen principals of the nation's top talk radio shows held a private strategy meeting to discuss government plans to squelch critical political speech on radio.

Organized by Brad O'Leary, author of the new book, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," and Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the group chose one attendee to be spokesman and chairman of the coalition – syndicated host Roger Hedgecock of San Diego.

The American Radio Free Speech Foundation was adopted as the name, and leaders now have announced a public awareness campaign and educational initiative, called Don't Touch My Dial.

The announcement said the U.S. now is facing "an insidious attack on its First Amendment Rights that is being cloaked in legislation and regulation evidenced by the recently circulated draft FCC regulations … to impose 'localism' and 'media ownership diversity' on talk radio."

"In addition, under the guise of 'cyberspace security,' Sens. Rockefeller, Snowe and Nelson have introduced S773 which would, critics say, give the federal government control over the Internet including, under emergency conditions, the right of the president to shut down the whole Internet or sites on it, including the interruption of e-mail," the announcement said.

"When the public is informed about what is happening behind the scenes to threaten their First Amendment rights, they will be outraged. As shown in a recent poll that was commissioned by the coalition and is part of the 'Zogby/O'Leary Report's First 100 Days Poll' when 3,937 voters from the last election were asked: 'Four members of the U.S. Senate recently introduced a bill that would allow the president of the United States to turn off the Internet nationally in the event of an emergency, however the Bill does not DEFINE what constitutes an emergency. Do you support or oppose this bill?'" the announcement said.

Nearly 82 percent opposed the idea. Only 5 percent agreed with it.

Hedgecock told WND that most people simply don't understand what the government appears to be demanding.

"I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions," he said.

"I believe the strategy is to make the current state of compliant journalism that prevails in the mainstream media the norm as well on the Internet and in talk radio," he said.

And it's coming soon.

"I think in the next 90 days we will see the imposition of the local advisory boards. They will immediately become complaint departments staffed by the Left on all local and nationally syndicate talk programs," Hedgecock warned.

The underlying threat, of course, would be to the license the business needs to operate as a radio station.

"The threats of those complaints to the viability of the underlying station licenses will be immediate and will force corporations that own these stations into a very defensive posture," he said.

"Talk about a chilling effect on free speech, this will be an Arctic blast of restraint on opinion based on the threat to take the license away," Hedgecock said.

But talk radio will be just the first target, he said.

"The assault on the First Amendment that is being planned by the government and the extremist Left is not limited to their desire to silence conservative talk radio," he said. "Newspapers and television are not immune to the anti-First Amendment efforts that are at work here. In addition, the Internet is also a target for receiving the restrictive aspects of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'"

Just weeks ago, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., submitted an amendment to the D.C. Voting Bill which would require the FCC to "encourage and promote diversity in ... media ownership" and reaffirm FCC authority to mandate the presentation "of opposing points of view on issues of public importance."

Also of concern to the hosts and producers gathered in the nation's capital was a decision last week by Clear Channel, the nation's largest owner of radio stations, to mandate the creation of local advisory boards by June at all of its properties. The move was seen as pre-emptive as the industry anticipates an FCC stacked with Barack Obama appointees will soon require stations to answer to panels of community activists.

In February, the FCC floated several proposals to require stations to better serve local communities, including establishing community advisory boards to consult stations on programming.

"We are materially increasing our commitment to community programming, increasing our accountability and broadening our public-service contributions in every local market we serve," said John Hogan, president and chief executive officer of Clear Channel. "We believe when radio focuses on servicing local communities, it is radio at its finest."

Other key members of the group so far include Lars Larson, Rusty Humphries, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Steve Gill, Martha Zoller, Joyce Kaufman and Kirby Wilbur.

The public awareness campaign website includes a petition campaign to protest the developing limits. It also describes the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," explains what it does to free speech and quotes a number of experts on the subject.

"Rather than having the government regulate what people can say, we should let the market decide what people want to hear. That's precisely why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, and that's why it ought not to be revived," said U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in a commentary critical of the plan.

"This fight is a First Amendment fight and one that every American must be involved with, which is why we have created 'Don't Touch My Dial' as a vehicle for mass participation," Hedgecock said.

Hedgecock also is chairman for Unfair Air, an effort to to protect First Amendment Rights as they pertain to radio and radio audiences.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah launched a petition campaign months ago to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

"This issue – and the urgent need for a broad-based, aggressive coalition to fight back – is much bigger than talk radio, and much more dangerous than an effort to simply silence a few voices that the current administration dislikes," says Hedgecock. "This fight is a First Amendment fight and one that every American must be involved with, which is why we have created 'Don’t Touch My Dial' as a vehicle for mass participation."

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

I've been up and down recently with illness, so I didn't realize how far things have gotten. I'll just say that I'm sad because I know where this is headed. All of the people I know won't tolerate this, and this is part of what 30 states have already prepared for.

Those who know anything about our system of government know that the Federal Government IS THE SERVANT TO THE STATES - NOT the other way around. The STATES are SOVEREIGN and also have rights under at least two Constitutions. The system was never designed to be a friendly playground for a DICTATOR OR TYRANT. Someone trying to be a DICTATOR OR TYRANT would face a rude awakening. I hope and pray that things don't go this far because I know what will happen. My personal thoughts on this are pretty conservative, but I won't tolerate a DICTATOR OR TYRANT either. I will live free and keep my rights for the remainder of this short life.

[Soldier4Christ]

I will live free and keep my rights for the remainder of this short life.

I'm with you there.

[Soldier4Christ]

Kennedy brings 'hate crimes' into Senate
Matches House-approved plan to crack down on biblical teachings

A bill that would provide federal money to train law enforcement officers to identify and criminally prosecute speech and thought offensive to homosexuals has been introduced into the U.S. Senate, matching a House-approved bill that critics fear will be used to crack down on biblical teachings.

The proposal, from Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy, aligns with H.R. 1913, which was approved in the U.S. House yesterday.

It denies protections to classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly that would be granted to homosexuals and those with gender issues.

It it named the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after a Wyoming homosexual who was killed in a horrific robbery and beating in 1998.

It also provides money "to improve the education and training of local officials to identify, investigate, prosecute and prevent hate crimes."

Kennedy described "hate crimes" as "especially poisonous."

"They are acts of domestic terrorism that target whole communities, not just individuals," he claimed. "This bill will bring greater protection to our citizens and much-needed resources for state and local law enforcement to fight these vicious crimes."

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

Christians across the nation, however, have spoken with an almost unanimous voice in opposing the special designation of homosexuals and others for federal protection denied other groups of citizens.

They condemned House members who refused to provide the same protections for seniors, pregnant women and members of the military. Also rejected was an amendment that would have specified that pedophiles cannot claim any protection under the bill.

The House vote was 249-175.

Similar state laws have resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said H.R. 1913 will create "thought crimes," and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it will end equality in the U.S.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, charged the plan will divide America into groups of more favored versus less. He again cited USC Title 18, Section 2a, the foundation of H.R. 1913, which says anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender.

But there is no epidemic of hate in the U.S., he noted.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., introduced a striking argument: If Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who supports traditional marriage, had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage under H.R. 1913 she could be indicted as a "violent hate criminal," facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under H.R. 1913.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "A pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.' The pastor could be prosecuted for 'conspiracy to commit a hate crime'" she said.

"This Democrat-controlled Congress has now elevated pedophiles and other bizarre sexual orientations, as well as drag queens, transgenders, lesbians and gay men to the level of protection of that already given to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities in the law," she said.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Democrats have placed a higher value on some lives compared to others, a decision he said is unconstitutional.

The bill previously failed when President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably was unconstitutional.

"The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone," said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913 a number of times.

"As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," he said.

[nChrist]

Isaiah 5:20 ESV  Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

This is what we are watching and hearing. If anyone needs additional protections, it would be Christians, their Free Speech, and their Religious Freedom - THE FOUNDING VALUES AND RECOGNITION OF GOD AS MASTER!

What we are watching is an ATTEMPT to make all call ABOMINATIONS good! Bluntly, that's not going to happen and won't work - law or no law from man. GOD has already spoken on this issue, and what HE said is FINAL!

[Soldier4Christ]

Teen homeschooler jailed under Patriot Act
FBI holds 10th-grader for months with little contact from family

A 16-year-old homeschooled boy from North Carolina was taken away from his home in handcuffs two months ago and has been held by the FBI in Indiana ever since, a victim, his mother claims, of the Patriot Act spun out of control.

According to Annette Lundeby of Oxford, N.C., armed FBI agents and local police stormed her home around 10 p.m. on March 5, looking for her son, Ashton. The officers presented a federal search warrant and seized the tenth-grader's computer, cell phone and bank statements.

Ashton was then taken to a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind., charged with making a bomb threat in Indiana from his home computer.

His mother, however, told Raleigh's WRAL-TV that she argued with the authorities, claiming someone must have hacked into her son's IP address and used it to make crank calls. The agents' search, she claims, also failed to uncover any trace of bomb-making materials.

"Undoubtedly, they were given false information," Lundeby told the station, "or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats."

Allowed little access to see her son over the last two months, facing a court date that keeps being pushed back and given no information by FBI agents sitting behind a gag order on the case, Lundeby now says the USA Patriot Act has unjustly imprisoned an innocent boy and stripped her son of due process.

(Story continues below)

          

"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she told WRAL-TV. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend."

Passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the USA Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism – or P.A.T.R.I.O.T. – Act armed law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism. Among other measures, it better enables interagency cooperation and allows law enforcement a wider array of technological and surveillance tools to more quickly and stealthily investigate terrorist threats.

Dan Boyse, a former U.S attorney not connected to the case, explained to WRAL-TV how Ashton Lundeby could have been swept up by the Patriot Act.

"They're saying that 'we feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we're going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States,'" Boyce told the station.

Boyce theorized that if an FBI agent came to the conclusion that Lundeby was a serious terrorist threat, the usual rules of law enforcement don't apply.

"There's nothing a matter of public record," Boyce said. "All those normal rights are just suspended in the air."

Ashton's mother told the television station, "Never in my worst nightmare did I ever think that it would be my own government that I would have to protect my children from. This is the United States, and I feel like I live in a third world country now."

According to the WRAL-TV report, because a federal judge has issued a gag order in the case, the U.S. attorney in Indiana cannot comment on Lundeby, nor can the FBI.

[Soldier4Christ]

Next on Senate agenda? 'Pedophile Protection Act'
'Hate crimes' law definitions would protect 547 sex 'philias'

The leader of a pro-family organization says families across the nation need to contact their U.S. senators now to try to derail a legislative plan that already has passed the U.S. House and is being awaited by President Obama – after a Democrat confirmed that it would protect "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action.org Christian ministry, today cited S. 909, dubbed the "Pedophile Protection Act" as an extreme danger to America.

As H.R. 1913, the House version of the so-called "hate crimes" bill was adopted on a 249-175 vote, but not before several amendments were proposed by Republicans trying to mitigate the impact of the draconian law.

Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy immediately introduced a matching plan in the U.S. Senate, and activists say a vote in committee could come as early as tomorrow.

The proposal, formally called the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after a Wyoming homosexual who was killed in a horrific robbery and beating in 1998, creates a special class for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles and provides them protections against so-called "hate."

It specifically denies such protections to other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly.

Wrote Porter, "I've written extensively about how this bill would criminalize Christianity and turn those who disagree with the homosexual agenda into felons, but criminalizing Christianity is just the beginning of what this bill would do. It would also elevate pedophiles as a special protected class – since the term 'sexual orientation' which has been added to the 'hate crimes' legislation includes them in the American Psychiatric Association's definition of various 'sexual orientations."

Read the column warning against the dangers of Sen. Edward Kennedy's "hate crimes" plan.

Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple:

    The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.

But majority Democrats refused to accept that.

Congressman Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, then explained what that means, Porter wrote.

    There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?

    If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

    I know my friend said that we have a definition in the law, but there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act…it's not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there.

    And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.

King, Porter wrote, also told the full U.S. House that the APA has a list of 547 different "paraphilias" that would be protected by members of Congress under the "hate crimes" plan.

Find out how homosexuality as a "civil right" was sold to America, in the best-selling "Marketing of Evil."

U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, agreed, saying:

    This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"

Porter said families, parents, Americans, anyone interested in the future of the nation, needs to contact their members in the Senate and demand hearings, then demand a filibuster.

"Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviants would enjoy an elevated level of protection while children, seniors, veterans, and churches would not," Porter said.

The "hate crimes" proposal not only sets up criminal charges against those whose actions or words offend homosexuals but also provides money "to improve the education and training of local officials to identify, investigate, prosecute and <I>prevent</i> hate crimes."

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission said the Senate proposal could be voted on in committee as early as tomorrow.

"You must call the Senate today and demand that they hold hearings on this bill," he wrote. "It is one of the most radical pieces of legislation to ever make its way to the Senate. If passed, it will lay the groundwork for restricting religious liberty and freedom of speech as it has in Canada and Europe."

Similar state laws have resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said H.R. 1913 will create "thought crimes," and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it will end equality in the U.S.

Gohmert warned the law will be used against pastors – or anyone else – who speaks against homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyle choices. He said it provides that anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender.

Critics say that would allow for prosecutions against pastors who preach a biblical ban on homosexuality if someone who hears such a message later is accused of any crime.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "A pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.' The pastor could be prosecuted for 'conspiracy to commit a hate crime'" she said.

The bill previously failed when President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably is unconstitutional.

"The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone," said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913 a number of times.

"As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," he said.