YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

'Broken gun' conviction upheld by court
Rules government does not need to provide evidence to defendant

What a federal agent did during a testing procedure to result in "automatic" fire from an AR-15 has no bearing on the case of a man convicted of transferring a "machinegun" after he loaned to a prospective buyer the gun he considered a semi-automatic rifle, according to a ruling from a panel of appellate judges.

The ruling has come in the case of David Olofson, a Wisconsin man sent to prison for 30 months after a semi-automatic rifle he loaned to a prospective buyer unleashed several bursts of multiple rounds and then jammed.

His defense team had explained the case is about nothing more than a malfunctioning gun, and there was evidence to support that. But according to judges Daniel Manion, Michael Kanne and Virginia Kendall of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the weapon is a machinegun, and government information about the tests that determined that are not pertinent.

Constitutional lawyer Herb Titus, who argued at the appellate level on behalf of Olofson, said the government's case was simple: "Olofson's malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle functioned as a machine gun because it fired more than one shot at the single pull of a trigger."

However, Titus contended the government's position is contrary to fact, established law and precedent.

The government even, in Olofson's case, applied a definition "contrary to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives own definition in a guide to law enforcement," Titus had argued.

Under this government definition, regardless of the reason, a gun is a machine gun if more than one bullet is fired with a single pull of the trigger. That could apply to grandpa's double-barreled as well as the local police sidearm, if it malfunctions similarly, he said.

The normally accepted definition of a machine gun is a weapon that will fire repeatedly until the trigger is released or the ammunition exhausts. But in Olofson's case, the trigger was pulled, the first tests showed no "automatic" action.

Then the government reported a change in the type of ammunition used and the rifle loosed off several shots and jammed.

"By this time, the weapon had been in the hands of the ATF for four months. What caused the functional change in the weapon to fire as it had not done before is unknown, although the ATF agent did acknowledge that the change in the outcome from the October test resulted from a change to 'softer primer' ammunition," the appellate documents said.

But the court ruling said neither documentation of the procedures used by the ATF to test the AR-15 nor correspondence between the ATF and the maker about the ability of the AR-15 to fire automatically were needed to reach a guilty verdict.

"Regarding the first non-disclosed item – the ATF's internal procedures for test-firing AR-15 rifles – Olofson says he wanted that information because '[f]ailure to follow those procedures by changing the type of ammunition in the second test could demonstrate that the tests had been manipulated to arrive at a reversal of the results of the first test,'" the court said.

"We do not see how that information could have exculpated Olofson; section 5845(b) does not require compliance with ATF test-fire procedures in order for a weapon to qualify as a machinegun, nor must the weapon fire any particular grade of ammunition or in the prohibited fashion during the first test-fire.

"The government’s expert admitted that the gun fired automatically more than one round with a single function of the trigger without manual reloading in the second test with civilian grade rounds, but jammed in the first test with military grade rounds. Even if the second test was inconsistent with ATF procedures, that fact would not undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial," the court said.

"With respect to his request for the ATF's correspondence with the manufacturer of his AR-15 concerning the use of M-16 parts in early AR-15 rifles, the defendant contends that evidence was exculpatory because it was relevant to his knowledge of whether or not his AR-15 was a machinegun. The district court denied Olofson's request on the first day of trial. At the sentencing hearing, the court revisited the issue; the court inspected a document in camera, stated that it was not exculpatory, and placed it under seal. We subsequently ordered that document to be unsealed," the appellate judges wrote.

"That evidence is a 1983 letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of the AR-15 in which the ATF advised the company that the installation of certain M-16 parts in AR-15 receivers may permit the weapon to fire automatically even though an automatic sear is not present," the court ruled. "It has no bearing on Olofson’s knowledge of whether his AR-15 was a machinegun."

Olofson also argued documents relating to the ATF's registry procedures were needed "because they could have been used to refute the government expert's testimony that the M-16 parts in Olofson's AR-15 made it a machinegun."

"We do not see how the ATF's opinions or positions regarding the presence of M-16 parts in AR-15 rifles are the least bit germane," the judges wrote.

One Internet observer wrote that in light of the Olofson decision, the Miranda warning, well-known for its directed advisory to suspects about their rights, would begin like this:

    You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Not that it will do you any good. Do you understand?

    Anything you do say, or we say you say if we have more witnesses than you, will be used against you in a court of law, if we think we can get away with it. Do you understand?

    You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. You will not have a chance to challenge our lack of standards or scientific method in our lab results and your expert witness will not be allowed to witness anything if we can help it. Do you understand?...

A participant at the forum page on David Codrea's gun page said, "Did anyone seriously think that this would go any other way? The judges had this thing 'fixed' before it went to court the first time."

"Chugachugachuga CHOO CHO! Another railroad job," said another.

The defense has explained that the rifle involved, the AR-15, is made with some of the same parts as the automatic M-16, and the problem was caused by "a malfunction, known as 'followdown' created by the failure of the disconnector to retain the hammer in a cocked position after the discharge of each round."

WND reported earlier when the Gun Owners of America launched a campaign to help support Olofson's family.

Olofson, of Berlin, Wis., surrendered to federal authorities last July to begin his 30-month prison term.

"A gun that malfunctions is not a machine gun," Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America said that the time. "What the [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has done in the Olofson case has set a precedent that could make any of the millions of Americans that own semi-automatic firearms suddenly the owner [of] an unregistered machine gun at the moment the gun malfunctions."

ATF officials have declined to speak with WND on the record.

"It didn't matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier … that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back," said a commentary in Guns Magazine on the case.

"It didn't matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn't even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today," the magazine said. "What mattered was the government's position that none of the above was relevant because '[T]here's no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it's a machine gun.'

"No matter what the cause."

[nChrist]

Many of the things we are watching are the combination of two simple words:

EVIL!

AND

TYRANNY!

The so-called hate crimes legislation is ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face. There is NO LEGAL WAY to enforce an ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL law. Further, acting under COLOR OF LAW in an ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL manner involves CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONSEQUENCES! Further it is completely LEGAL to resist an ILLEGAL ARREST! These clowns have no idea what they're doing.

I would not hint at violence, but I would do more than hint at exhausting every legal and peaceful means to stop this ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation. If something this RIDICULOUS AND ILLEGAL is passed, the first and most obvious course of action would be for NOBODY TO HONOR IT, everyone intentionally disobey it, and everyone file suit for any ILLEGAL ENFORCEMENT OF AN ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Yielding to TYRANNY on something this stupid would result in the TYRANT trying much more. If you're ever going to tell the TYRANT NO! - do it NOW! IF YOU DON'T - WHAT'S NEXT? WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR CHILDREN? THERE COMES A TIME WHEN A DECENT PERSON MUST SAY NO! IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND SAY NO! - IT WOULD EVENTUALLY AMOUNT TO BEING SUBMITTED TO EVERY MANNER OF EVIL!

Throughout history, there has come a time for decent and moral people to either STAND UP or lay down under the whip of ENSLAVEMENT AND TYRANNY! I have already chosen to STAND UP! I was born free because of countless sacrifices made by many generations of courageous people. I will not dishonor their memory by giving up what they paid so dearly for. IF IT'S BACK TO THE BEGINNING - SO BE IT! I WOULD SIMPLY REPEAT WHAT MY FOREFATHERS SAID - GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH! WE WILL KEEP OUR FREEDOMS, LIBERTIES, AND RIGHTS - PERIOD - END OF STORY!

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawmakers claim Oklahoma's sovereignty
Resolution would tell Congress to 'get back into their proper constitutional role'

House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty


Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.

Gov. Brad Henry speaks to members of the Oklahoma Press Association at their convention held at the Doubletree Hotel Downtown in Tulsa. SHERRY BROWN/Tulsa World Friday, Feb. 6, 2009

Advertisement

Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.

The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City.

"I think our governor is out of step.”

House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action.

Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.

Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.

Congress should not be providing bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, he said.

"We give all this money to all these different entities, including automakers, and now they’re talking about, ‘Well maybe it’s better to let them go bankrupt,’” Key said. "Well, maybe we should have let them go bankrupt before we gave them the money.”

[nChrist]

Lawmakers claim Oklahoma's sovereignty
Resolution would tell Congress to 'get back into their proper constitutional role'

YEAH! - Score a BIG POINT FOR THE OKLAHOMA BOYS! There is nothing radical at all about claiming Sovereignty that belongs to you anyway! The same is true for claiming FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS THAT BELONG TO YOU ANYWAY!

The time does come when it's time to say NO! - THAT'S MINE! - YOU CAN'T HAVE IT! - I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU TAKE IT AWAY! - PERIOD! - END OF STORY! If I understand correctly, there are 29 other states doing something similar, and that number will probably grow!

[Soldier4Christ]

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

The MSM in it's hurry to show another problem with the Patriot Act and refusal to miss an attempt to slam the Bush Administration leads to another “woops, our bad!” Great fact finding reporters  :


Feds: Teen's not being held under Patriot Act
Ashton Lundeby

The U.S. Department of Justice said Thursday a local mother's claim that her son is being held under the USA Patriot Act is incorrect.

Responding after nationwide media attention following the story, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana said in a news release that the charge is based on federal law prohibiting bomb and death threats.

"This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act," U.S. Attorney David Capp said.

Capp and the FBI initially declined to talk about the case, citing a gag order and law that prohibits disclosure of information in federal cases involving juveniles.

But in Thursday's release, he said, the arrest stems from a false bomb threat directed at Purdue University and similar threats to other schools.

"The FBI, the Purdue University Police Department and the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor's Office conducted an extensive investigation into this matter, resulting in that arrest," Capp said.

Not mentioning Ashton Lundeby by name, Capp also said the "juvenile" has been represented by counsel at each of his three court appearances and that his mother "has been apprised of each" and that he is being held in a facility that permits family visits.

Lundeby said Thursday she has not been made aware of any other court appearance other than his initial one in Raleigh, despite her "constant inquiries."

More interesting information on this story that may include a future arrest of the mother:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/teenage-bomb-threat-suspect-was-an-internet-prank-phone-call-star/

[Soldier4Christ]

Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'
Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those 'suspected dangerous'

A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."

"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"

Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.

"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt's biggest concern, however, is the sidestepping of the Constitution and due process that the nebulous language of this bill could permit.

"Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast," Pratt told WND. "This is such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

As WND reported, right-wing "extremists" aren't the only Americans on the DHS watch list.

"Legalize the Constitution" bumper sticker

Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its now notorious warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups as potential "threats."

That memo, the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" expanded the list from typical "right-wing" causes to include left-wing extremism, animal rights activists, black separatists, anarchists, Cuban independence advocates, environmental extremists, the anti-war movement and more. It even insisted some of these groups were prone to violence.

For example, the lexicon defined the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified."

It further states that tax protesters "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."

The DHS memos were meant for distribution to law enforcement officials around the country, prompting some to worry the definitions might be used to classify Americans who simply disagree with government policies as being dangerous.

As WND reported, the relative of a Louisiana driver claims her brother-in-law has already been unfairly targeted by police simply for having a supposedly subversive, "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.

According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through Ball, La., which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him "he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car."

"They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes," she told WND.

Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.

WND has withheld the driver's name and the relative's name at their request.

H.R. 2159 has six co-sponsors, from both parties, and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

WND contacted Rep. King's office for comment on the bill, but received no response.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Hate crimes' fate
now up to people
Congressman: 'If you don't raise enough
stink, there's not a chance of stopping it'

A Texas member of Congress is warning Americans that unless they act – and act now – the nation soon will have a "hate crimes" law that actually was written so that it protects pedophiles and others with alternative sexual orientations such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.

"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's not chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said today on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She's the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.

Already well over 2,000 people have utilized the procedures and more than 200,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.

"It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country," Gohmert told Porter. "If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."

WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President George W. Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived… sexual orientation, gender identity."

He warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: it assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."

He said he fought in committee and in the House, where it was approved 249-175, to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."

Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, 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…"

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.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.

According to published reports, the Senate Judiciary committee may be holding a hearing on the bill on Tuesday.

According to a staunch critic on "hate crimes" provisions, Rev. Ted Pike, "This is a 'hearing' to which no witnesses will probably be called. No troublesome Republican debate or amendments may be allowed."

Akers' analysis said the bill would result in the federalization of "virtually every sexual crime in the United States." And he said it appears to be part of an agenda that would relegate pro-family and traditional marriage advocates into the ranks of "terrorists." Critics also hvae expressed alarm because in committee hearings Democrats admitted that a Christian pastor could be prosecuted under the law if he spoke biblically against homosexuality, someone heard the comments and then committed a crime.

"Under [the plan] the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive," Akers said.

He said there's already an effort afoot in the U.S. to list those pro-family organizations "alongside several neo-Nazi groups … to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association."

The letter to senators being promoted by Porter, in part, says:

    "I am writing to urge you to do all in your power to oppose passage of S.909, also known as 'The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.'

    "Passage of this bill by the U.S. Senate would be reckless and irresponsible not only because of the 'chilling effect' it would have on First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech, but also because it would provide, for the first time ever, special legal protections for pedophiles and other sexual offenders.

    "If there was ever a time for the Senate to stand and fight with a filibuster, that time is now. We are calling for members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to stop S. 909.

"While the bill's supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection," Akers wrote.

"The bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God-given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality," he said.

Foremost, the bill simply ignores the 14th Amendment requirements that all citizens be protected equally, providing special protections for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyle choices, he said.

Matt Barber, also of Liberty Counsel, wrote in a commentary, "Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required 'equal protection of the laws;' it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government's authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution."

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

"To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed 'hate crimes' victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.," he wrote. "This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard's memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being 'gay.' … The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary 'hate crimes' legislation," he said.

During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

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 it.

"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," explained Gohmert. "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."

[nChrist]

"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," explained Gohmert. "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."

The examples could and are much worse in real life. Average people wouldn't have a clue about what SICKOS are capable of and enjoy doing. "Enjoy" is a mild word compared to their actual motivation. Your imagination is NOT sufficient!

[Soldier4Christ]

Pastors win challenge to political involvement
IRS rules voter education on moral issues, registration permissible

In a decision that holds ramifications for churches around the country, the Internal Revenue Service found that a non-profit organization that gathered pastors to a series of public policy conferences did not violate the political entanglement laws governing its tax-exempt status.

Prompted by a complaint filed by the Texas Freedom Network, which calls itself "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right," the IRS investigated the Houston-based Niemoller Foundation for organizing during the 2006 election season six pastors briefings, which included speeches from prominent politicians and training for pastors on urging and registering their congregations to vote.

Despite charges that the foundation had therefore engaged in political partisan activity in violation of its tax exempt status, the IRS investigation found "no evidence of political intervention."

"This liberal attempt to intimidate pastors has backfired," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represented event organizers. "There is now a clear IRS statement outlining these pastors' events and approving them as valid under the law."

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Institute, further explained to WND the ramifications the ruling holds for churches.

"The Niemoller Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, just like a church," Sasser explained. "So by the Niemoller activities being granted as lawful, then any church that engages in the same kind of voter education combined with voter registration drives on the moral issues of the day is perfectly fine with the IRS regulations, according to the IRS itself."

Sasser reiterated, "The whole point was to educate everyone about the important social issues and get them to go vote and register others to vote, and the IRS said this was perfectly okay."

The Niemoller Foundation organized six of the pastors conferences across the state of Texas from May through September 2006. The events were described as briefings to educate pastors on major moral issues that often intersect with politics, such as abortion and same sex marriage.

And while neither the foundation nor the gatherings endorsed any individual candidates or political party, keynote speakers at the conferences included prominent Republican politicians, including Texas Governor Rick Perry, who spoke at all six conferences.

In its letter to the IRS, the Texas Freedom Network complained, "No other candidate for governor in the 2006 elections – including then sitting state Comptroller Carole Strayhorn (a Republican who sought election as an independent in the gubernatorial election) or an Democrat or other independent candidate – was invited to attend any of the briefings."

Pointing to the selection of speakers and the effort to train pastors in voter registration, the Texas Freedom Network accused the Neimoller Foundation of "partisan electioneering activities."

The complaint alleged the Foundation "appears to have served as a partisan voter-mobilization tool for the Perry reelection campaign, with affiliated pastors encouraged to use their churches as partisan, political extensions of that campaign."

After reviewing speeches and other materials from the pastors gatherings, however, the IRS did not concur.

"The speaker did not state anything that would have been considered political or request any action of the attendees to vote for or against any legislature," the IRS ruling, released last week, states. "In the speeches provided, no political intervention type activity was noted. Several other speeches by politicians were provided and reviewed: The speeches did not appear to be made in their capacity as a candidate, since no solicitation was made for a vote. Also no appeal was made to sway anyone on the issues. The speeches did not appear to be political intervention. An appeal was made to request attendees to vote and to request their members to register and vote, but in each instance observed they were told to vote their values."

While the IRS does forbid tax exempt organizations under the 501(c)(3) code from overt political entanglements – such as endorsing candidates or requiring members to vote in a certain way – the Liberty Legal Institute's Kelly Shackelford encouraged churches not to be intimidated into political silence.

"Be careful what you hear from these liberal organizations," Shackelford said in a statement. "They sound very confident and file many complaints, yet none are found valid even by the IRS."

Laurence White, director of the Niemoller Foundation and a Lutheran pastor himself, encouraged churches and pastors to get involved.

"We educate churches on moral issues facing our society and encourage them to participate in the democratic process," said White in a statement. "The IRS has unequivocally affirmed the right of pastors nationwide to come together as spokesmen for the Word of God, to interact with political leaders, historians and scholars in discussing the moral issues under debate within our culture and to assert their biblical responsibility to address such issues from their pulpits."

[nChrist]

Pastors win challenge to political involvement
IRS rules voter education on moral issues, registration permissible

Bluntly, I'm shocked and amazed, but I like it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Whaddya mean, 'America
is not a Christian nation'?
Congressmen challenge Obama assertion
by drafting 'spiritual heritage' legislation

While Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. is "no longer a Christian nation," several members of Congress have taken a stand to boldly disagree.

A bipartisan group of 25 members of the House of Representatives earlier this month submitted H.Res. 397, which calls on Congress to affirm "the rich spiritual and religious history of our nation's founding and subsequent history" and to designate the first week of May as America's Spiritual Heritage Week for "the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith."

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., specifically challenged the president's claims that America is not a Christian nation in a news conference announcing the bill immediately following last week's National Day of Prayer observance.

"The overwhelming evidence suggests that this nation was born and birthed with Judeo-Christian principles," Forbes told reporters, "and I would challenge anybody to tell me that point in time when we ceased to be so, because it doesn't exist."

Read for yourself the timeless evidence of Christianity's impact on America in the freshly republished "Christianity and the American Commonwealth."

The bill itself cites over 70 historical references and quotes from past presidents, Founding Fathers and Supreme Court decisions as proof that Judeo-Christian principles have been the foundation of our nation.

H.Res. 397, which has now accumulated 41 cosponsors, not only calls on Congress to affirm the nation's spiritual heritage, but also resolves that the U.S. House of Representatives "rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure or purposely omit such history from our nation's public buildings and educational resources."

The full text of H.Res. 397 begins by asserting that "religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization and growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all three branches of the federal government from their very beginning."

The bill's long list of "whereas" affirmations begins with the statement, "Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring 'This is a religious people. … From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.'"

Among the many historical proofs included in the bill were the following:

    * Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a national shortage of '"Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches," announced that they "desired to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement" and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported;

    * Whereas in 1782, Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be "a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools' and therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that 'the United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States";

    * Whereas the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially ended the Revolution and established America as an independent [nation] begins with the appellation "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity";

    * Whereas in 1795, during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby "public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock";

    * Whereas in 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first federal law touching education, declaring, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged";

    * Whereas by 1867, the church at the Capitol was the largest church in Washington, D.C., with up to 2,000 people a week attending Sunday service in the Hall of the House;

    * Whereas in 1853, the United States Senate declared that the Founding Fathers "had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people. … They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy";

    * Whereas in 1854, the United States House of Representatives declared "It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. … Christianity, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions";

    * Whereas President John Adams, one of only 2 signers of the Bill of Rights and First Amendment, declared "As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him";

    * Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible "is the rock on which our Republic rests";

    * Whereas President Franklin D. Roosevelt not only led the Nation in a six-minute prayer during D-Day on June 6, 1944, but he also declared, "If we will not prepare to give all that we have and all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our land, we shall go to destruction";

    * Whereas President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared, "Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism. Thus, the Founding Fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be," in a declaration later repeated with approval by President Gerald Ford;

    * Whereas the United States Supreme Court has declared throughout the course of our Nation's history that the United States is "a Christian country," "a Christian nation," "a Christian people," "a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being," and that "we cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion"

Following the lengthy "whereas" section, the bill then calls on the House to resolve to affirm the spiritual history of the nation, reject efforts to cleanse that religious history and establish America's Spiritual History Week to appreciate and educate the citizenry on the country's foundations in faith.

Forbes was joined in announcing the bill's introduction by several members of Congress who spoke in favor of the bill, religious leaders like Dr. James and Shirley Dobson, professional football player Shaun Alexander, and leaders of several national education, policy and advocacy groups.

Asked last year to clarify his remarks on America's spiritual heritage, Obama repeated them to the Christian Broadcast Network: "I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama wrote in an e-mail to CBN News senior national correspondent David Brody.

"We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the statehouse to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community," wrote Obama.

Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who serves as co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus with Rep. Forbes, spoke at the press conference announcing H.Res. 397 and asserted to the contrary that it's "high time" the nation recognize and affirm the "integral part of our nation's history" that Christianity has played.

McIntyre said Americans don't know, for example, that even Ben Franklin, who "wasn't known as the most spiritual of the Founding Fathers," nonetheless looked to God as the only hope for our country:

"Ben Franklin," McIntyre said, "stood up and called the assembly of delegates to prayer, because, he said, 'Scripture teaches us that if a sparrow can't fall to the ground without his notice, is it likely that an empire will rise without his aid?' And if we don't first go to prayer, he said, 'We'll be no more successful then the builders of Babel.'"

[HisDaughter]

Whaddya mean, 'America
is not a Christian nation'?
Congressmen challenge Obama assertion
by drafting 'spiritual heritage' legislation

While Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. is "no longer a Christian nation," several members of Congress have taken a stand to boldly disagree.

A bipartisan group of 25 members of the House of Representatives earlier this month submitted H.Res. 397, which calls on Congress to affirm "the rich spiritual and religious history of our nation's founding and subsequent history" and to designate the first week of May as America's Spiritual Heritage Week for "the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith."

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., specifically challenged the president's claims that America is not a Christian nation in a news conference announcing the bill immediately following last week's National Day of Prayer observance.

"The overwhelming evidence suggests that this nation was born and birthed with Judeo-Christian principles," Forbes told reporters, "and I would challenge anybody to tell me that point in time when we ceased to be so, because it doesn't exist."

Read for yourself the timeless evidence of Christianity's impact on America in the freshly republished "Christianity and the American Commonwealth."

The bill itself cites over 70 historical references and quotes from past presidents, Founding Fathers and Supreme Court decisions as proof that Judeo-Christian principles have been the foundation of our nation.

H.Res. 397, which has now accumulated 41 cosponsors, not only calls on Congress to affirm the nation's spiritual heritage, but also resolves that the U.S. House of Representatives "rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure or purposely omit such history from our nation's public buildings and educational resources."

The full text of H.Res. 397 begins by asserting that "religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization and growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all three branches of the federal government from their very beginning."

The bill's long list of "whereas" affirmations begins with the statement, "Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring 'This is a religious people. … From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.'"

Among the many historical proofs included in the bill were the following:

    * Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a national shortage of '"Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches," announced that they "desired to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement" and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported;

    * Whereas in 1782, Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be "a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools' and therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that 'the United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States";

    * Whereas the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially ended the Revolution and established America as an independent [nation] begins with the appellation "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity";

    * Whereas in 1795, during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby "public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock";

    * Whereas in 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first federal law touching education, declaring, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged";

    * Whereas by 1867, the church at the Capitol was the largest church in Washington, D.C., with up to 2,000 people a week attending Sunday service in the Hall of the House;

    * Whereas in 1853, the United States Senate declared that the Founding Fathers "had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people. … They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy";

    * Whereas in 1854, the United States House of Representatives declared "It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. … Christianity, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions";

    * Whereas President John Adams, one of only 2 signers of the Bill of Rights and First Amendment, declared "As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him";

    * Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible "is the rock on which our Republic rests";

    * Whereas President Franklin D. Roosevelt not only led the Nation in a six-minute prayer during D-Day on June 6, 1944, but he also declared, "If we will not prepare to give all that we have and all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our land, we shall go to destruction";

    * Whereas President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared, "Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism. Thus, the Founding Fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be," in a declaration later repeated with approval by President Gerald Ford;

    * Whereas the United States Supreme Court has declared throughout the course of our Nation's history that the United States is "a Christian country," "a Christian nation," "a Christian people," "a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being," and that "we cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion"

Following the lengthy "whereas" section, the bill then calls on the House to resolve to affirm the spiritual history of the nation, reject efforts to cleanse that religious history and establish America's Spiritual History Week to appreciate and educate the citizenry on the country's foundations in faith.

Forbes was joined in announcing the bill's introduction by several members of Congress who spoke in favor of the bill, religious leaders like Dr. James and Shirley Dobson, professional football player Shaun Alexander, and leaders of several national education, policy and advocacy groups.

Asked last year to clarify his remarks on America's spiritual heritage, Obama repeated them to the Christian Broadcast Network: "I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama wrote in an e-mail to CBN News senior national correspondent David Brody.

"We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the statehouse to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community," wrote Obama.

Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who serves as co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus with Rep. Forbes, spoke at the press conference announcing H.Res. 397 and asserted to the contrary that it's "high time" the nation recognize and affirm the "integral part of our nation's history" that Christianity has played.

McIntyre said Americans don't know, for example, that even Ben Franklin, who "wasn't known as the most spiritual of the Founding Fathers," nonetheless looked to God as the only hope for our country:

"Ben Franklin," McIntyre said, "stood up and called the assembly of delegates to prayer, because, he said, 'Scripture teaches us that if a sparrow can't fall to the ground without his notice, is it likely that an empire will rise without his aid?' And if we don't first go to prayer, he said, 'We'll be no more successful then the builders of Babel.'"

Praise GOD and Amen!

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama renews vow to close Gitmo
Pushing transfer of some terror suspects to U.S. 'supermax' prisons

In a scathing attack on the Bush administration, President Obama stood steadfast Thursday in his pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer some terror suspects to federal "supermax" prisons in the United States.

Accusing the Bush administration of creating "a misguided experiment" that created more threats to America, Obama told an audience at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., that the Guantanamo facility will be shuttered by his deadline of January 2010. He also tried to assure that no prisoners who pose a danger to the U.S. will be set free.

"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people," Obama said.

"Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal 'supermax' prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists," he continued.

On Wednesday, the Senate rebuked Obama's request for funding to close the Guantanamo prison, withholding on a 90-6 vote $80 million that would go to shutting down the facility until the president presents a plan for what to do with the remaining detainees. That followed a similar move last week in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's Democratic allies in Congress over the issue.

Both Democrats and Republicans have faced an uproar in their districts over the possibility that terror suspects would be housed in local prisons, making it more difficult for administration officials to convince European and Muslim allies to take some of the detainees.

The administration got no help Wednesday when FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States could pose a number of risks, even if they were kept in maximum-security prisons. Attorney General Eric Holder quickly responded that Obama would never do anything to endanger Americans.

In announcing the latest approach to Gitmo, Obama offered few concrete details. But he cited Pentagon numbers that show one in seven of the 534 detainees already released from the prison have returned to the battlefield. He used that as evidence that the Bush administration's approach to prosecuting the detainees didn't work.

"We are acutely aware that under the last administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past," Obama said.

He said his decision to close Guantanamo did not create the legal challenges that currently exist; those preceded him. But, he said, "if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future."

The president announced five categories of prisoner that the administration will use to evaluate the 240 detainees who are still at Guantanamo:

-- Those who have violated American criminal laws and will be tried in federal courts;

-- Those who violated the laws of war and are best tried through military commissions;

-- Those who have been ordered released by the courts;

-- Those who can be transferred safely to another country;

-- Those who cannot be prosecuted, but pose a clear danger to the American people.

Obama defined the final category as detainees who have trained at Al Qaeda camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed allegiance to Usama bin Laden or "made it clear that they want to kill Americans."

"I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face," Obama said of the final category. "We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."

Early Thursday, Holder announced that the first Al Qaeda suspect held at Guantanamo Bay will be sent to New York to stand trial for the deadly 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. The suspect, Ahmed Ghailani, will stand trial in a civilian criminal court.

"This guy was picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. But since Ghailani was linked to the embassy bombings, he is being prosecuted on U.S. soil.

"That same kind of evidence, those same kinds of standards weren't in place and aren't in place for many of the other guys," Hoekstra said.

The president used strong language to condemn the Bush administration, claiming a "flood of legal challenges arose" because of how the Guantanamo facility was used. He said those challenges consume the time of "government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country."

"The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents," Obama said. "In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place."

The president said he would refuse "to allow this problem to fester," or for politicization of the issue to prevent solutions. He accused his opponents of "fear-mongering" by suggesting that bringing prisoners to the U.S. will threaten Americans.

"Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country," he said.

The president rejected the idea of an independent commission that would investigate the whole range of national security issues under the Bush administration.

"I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an independent commission," he said. But "our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability," he said.

However, Obama's coming up with a plan without congressional input is also a non-starter to some.

"I hope the president doesn't announce a plan for Guantanamo today. You know why? Because if he does, he will have developed a plan, and he will never have consulted with Congress, either Republicans or Democrats, as to what that plan should be," Hoekstra said.

"It's a tough issue ... we ought to be working together to get a resolution to this," he added.

Immediately after Obama spoke, former Vice President Dick Cheney, a strong supporter of the Guantanamo facility, spoke at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Cheney had been invited to speak months before, but the timing of the two speeches set up a contrast in the two administrations' approaches. Cheney praised Obama's decision to withhold photos of alleged abuse of detainees by U.S. military abroad.

But he added, "When he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer."

[Soldier4Christ]

I understand and agree with all the arguments against closing down Gitmo and moving the prisoners to U.S. soil. I still sometimes wonder what difference it makes since we have a terrorist breeding ground right here in our prisons because we are allowing radical islamists to proselytize in the manner they are doing. We also have jihadist training camps in various places throughout the nation and an open border that allows many more to come across it each and every day.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, I want to thank you for posting the information about the pending Bill regarding our Heritage Under God. This is the best and most uplifting news I've heard in a long time. I'm especially happy that some of our representatives actually have the backbone to stand up for what's right. Maybe this is the spark that was needed to start a fire-storm of RIGHT, action, and prayer. There is no better way of starting than to recognize our GOD, CREATOR, AND MASTER!

I listened to Obama's speech that day, and it made me sick. Avoiding National Prayer should also be a hint - along with a lengthy list of other actions - that we have a Godless barbarian in the office of President. Obama is showing more of his face every day, and it's UGLY!

Dear Heavenly Father, we pray that the people of this nation wake up, realize what they've done, ask You for forgiveness, and pray that You give us strength, conviction, courage, and guidance to start making things RIGHT WITH YOU! LORD, help us all in the precious name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever! Amen.

Love in Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!