God Save America

Tupelo, MS - The United States Supreme Court today ruled that after almost two decades of protracted litigation, pro-life leader Joseph Schiedler and his pro-life demonstrators cannot be held liable under federal racketeering laws. In the case of NOW v. Scheidler, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in an 8-0 decision that the Hobbs Act requires a robbery or extortion component that was not present in the actions of the pro-life demonstrators.

“This case has dragged on for too long, and it is high time the Supreme Court put an end to this baseless harassment of pro-lifers seeking only to exercise their First Amendment rights,” said Stephen Crampton, Chief Counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy (CLP), which represents pro-life demonstrators across the country. “Joe Scheidler is to be commended for never giving in to these persistent attempts to silence his message of life and hope to hurting women,” Crampton added.

Brian Fahling, Senior Trial Attorney for the CLP, said: “The cause of protecting the unborn has been rejuvenated since the new Roberts Court convened. This is yet another nail in the coffin of the grisly business of abortion.”

The High Court’s opinion ends the long history of this litigation, and forever bars reinstitution of the nationwide injunction previously entered against Scheidler.

Having not been on the Court when the matter was argued in November, Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case.

The Center for Law & Policy is the legal arm of the American Family Association, Inc. located in Tupelo, Mississippi. The Center restricts its practice to First Amendment issues.

Source: American Family Association

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

A credit union is opening new politically correct offices in D.C. for foreigners and illegal aliens!
What is wrong with this picture?

Cross-posted from The Epistolizer

By Frederick Meekins

Interesting how when Americans go to place money in an account of an established financial institution, one has to produce multiple forms of identification such as driving permits, social security numbers, and credit cards.

Withdrawing these funds is an even greater ordeal as, not only does one have to produce the collection of ID’s, one is burdened with the additional responsibility of having to justify why one desires to take repossession of one’s own money. And if one wishes to extract more than an arbitrary limited amount, Big Brother must often be informed that one is doing so.

However, a new credit union is opening in Washington, DC for the purposes of serving the area’s expanding population of illegal aliens. This raises a number of issues and questions.

Foremost, will the individuals utilizing the service and those providing it be subject to the same kind of identification requirements imposed upon actual Americans since it is stated in the story how applicants will be permitted to use foreign identification? Interesting how this will be allowed when American’s have to submit to everything just short of a rectal exam (and it was predicted on “Futurama” that down the road one would be required to have a “colonic map” on file) in the name of homeland security and preventing terrorism, but if one happens to be from one of the protected groups more prone to commit subversion one is granted a waver in these matters.

Secondly, this credit union is being marketed to appeal to Hispanics. Would regulators allow for the establishment of a parallel institution that had no qualms about letting it be known that its founders preferred or only wanted Caucasian money?

Few Americans will have the courage to addresses these issues because of the torrents of criticism that inevitably follow from doing so. However, if valiant patriots do not do so soon, the precious heritage of citizenship will become virtually meaningless in the years to come as leftists conspire to ply their system of double standards where equality before the law will be abolished in favor of a system of racial spoils and set asides compelling all within such a domain to bow as peons of the elite.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

RALEIGH, N.C. — The Alliance Defense Fund has issued a letter to North Carolina school officials on behalf of a parent requesting that they immediately halt their offering of a seminar titled “The New Gay Teenager.”

“Schools should be required to follow the law.  The seminar in question violated North Carolina statutes,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson.  “Teaching sexually-oriented material without parental knowledge is not only morally wrong, it is illegal.”

ADF attorneys believe officials broke the law because the organizers of the 2005 Governor’s School program did not follow state protocol, which dictates that schools must notify parents and obtain their authorization before any student can attend a class focusing on sexual matters.  A unilateral decision by school officials to offer the controversial seminar apparently came without legal consultation.

“The seminar’s organizers also erred by including anti-religious advocacy in the seminar’s curriculum and activities,” Johnson said.  “Such practices breach the First Amendment and require immediate corrective action.”

The letter sent by ADF to state education officials is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/BurrowsLetter.pdf.

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

http://www.telladf.org/

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Cross-posted from the Northeast Intelligence Network website:

24 February 2006: A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company’s Web site.

Check Northeast Intelligence Network

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

“The ACLU’s lawsuit was nothing more than a veiled attempt to use a technicality to stop the will of the people," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — In a lawsuit in which attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund defended Tennessee lawmakers, a state judge ruled today that the American Civil Liberties Union had no case against Tennessee’s proposed constitutional amendment protecting marriage.  The judge dismissed the ACLU’s case.

“What we’re really discussing here is whether we’re going to let political special interest groups or the law define marriage,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione, who argued the case before the court.  “The ACLU’s lawsuit was nothing more than a veiled attempt to use a technicality to stop the will of the people.  The court’s ruling today upheld the right of the people to be heard.”

The ACLU lawsuit aimed to prevent Tennesseans from voting on a constitutional amendment proposed by state lawmakers that defines marriage as “the relationship of one man and one woman.”  ACLU attorneys claimed that the General Assembly did not publish the text of the amendment soon enough for it to be included on the November 2006 ballot.  The judge today disagreed.

According to the ruling, the state constitution does not require the publication to be an act of the General Assembly.  Since the text of the amendment never changed from the time it was filed and the time it was published in the media, the judge concluded that “media coverage cured the General Assembly’s default in publication.  Under the unique facts of this case, the publication requirement was met and the plaintiffs were not injured,” the judge wrote.

“This is a great victory for the voters, who will decide this issue, not the courts,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Heather Gebelin Hacker.  “The judge respected the will of the voters, pointing out that the voters elected the members of the General Assembly who passed the amendment, and the will of the voters should not be invalidated.”

The full text of the order issued by the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District, Davidson County, Part III, in the case American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee v. Darnell can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ACLUvDarnelldecision.pdf.

For more information on the battle to protect marriage, visit www.domawatch.org.

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

http://www.telladf.org/              www.domawatch.org

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Press release from American Family Association

Tupelo, MS - The United States Supreme Court agreed today to hear the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which presents the question of the constitutionality of the federal partial birth abortion ban. It thus presents the first opportunity for the new Roberts Court to address the issue and is Justice Samuel Alito’s first chance to vote on such a case.

The Center for Law & Policy is the legal arm of the American Family Association, Inc. located in Tupelo, Mississippi. The Center restricts its practice to First Amendment issues.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The U.S. Congress is calling for legislation to stop or delay the takeover of six major U.S. ports by a UAE company. This move is perceived as a possible threat to our national security. President Bush is threatening a veto if such a bill comes to him.

According to BBC:

The threat came as Bill Frist, leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, said he would move a blocking law if the government did not delay the deal.

The issue has developed into a very serious political standoff between Mr Bush and senior Republicans, the BBC’s Justin Webb reports.

And continuing:

Sen Frist is the most senior Republican and the most senior figure in the Senate to oppose the deal.

Senior Republicans believe Mr Bush should have paid more attention to the way the deal would be perceived in the US, our correspondent says.

Critics fear an increased risk of terrorist attacks, pointing out that the UAE was the home of two of the hijackers involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Democratic Sen Charles Schumer of New York said: "This company is coming out of a country that has had a strong al-Qaeda presence.

The six ports to be handed over to the UAE company are New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami. And many of the political leaders of these cities were not aware of the pending change until the story came out.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

NEW YORK — For the second time in three months, supporters of same-sex “marriage” in New York were dealt a setback, as a state appeals court reaffirmed 5–0 Thursday that preserving the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is legitimate and permissible under the New York Constitution.

“The court’s ruling confirms the importance of focusing on the legal purpose of marriage rather than making a political statement,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Chris Stovall. “This is yet another decision recognizing that the protection of children has always been central to the state’s interest in maintaining and regulating the institution of marriage.”

ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, in which 12 same-sex couples were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.  ACLU attorneys had appealed a lower-court ruling that rejected the ACLU’s attempt to establish same-sex “marriage” as a constitutional right under the New York Constitution.

According to the ruling handed down today by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, “this case is not simply about the right to marry the person of one’s choice, but represents a significant expansion into new territory which is, in reality, a redefinition of marriage.  The cornerstone cases acknowledging marriage as a fundamental right are laced with language referring to the ancient recognized nature of that institution, specifically tying part of its critical importance to its role in procreation and, thus, to the union of a woman and a man.”

The full text of the opinion issued today in the case Samuels v. New York State Department of Health can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SamuelsOpinion.pdf.

“We are pleased that another New York court recognizes that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not, and never has been, a constitutional right,” Stovall said.  “This victory will provide momentum in the fight to preserve marriage in the state and across the country.”

In December, an earlier challenge to New York’s marriage law was rejected by a state intermediate appeals court, which ruled that same-sex “marriage” is not a constitutional right and would not provide the same benefits to society.  The court also stated that the union between man and woman is the “cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing and to encourage sufficient marital childbearing to sustain the population and society.”

ADF attorneys have written friend-of-the-court briefs in five separate cases in the appellate division to support marriage in the Empire State (www.telladf.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3515).  For more information on the battle to protect marriage, visit http://www.domawatch.org/.

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

http://www.telladf.org/              www.domawatch.org

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Slater Bakhtavar

The volatile political situation in Iran should alarm historical intellectuals. Less than seventy years after Hitler committed mass genocide against millions of innocent people in Nazi Germany, a new anti-Christ has emerged from the land of Ancient Persia. Following in Hitler’s footsteps, the current Iranian President is a fanatical dictator whose agenda is fueled by a form of anti-Semitism which is expressed through his occult following of hard-line Islamic terrorists. His recent call to “wipe Israel off the map,” reinforces his ideological motive of mass genocide against innocent people. Optimistically but perhaps only temporarily he lacks the means to achieve his agenda. On the other hand, the current dictatorship may gain the means to commit mass genocide if the West continues to ignore the demands of the Iranian people for a free democratic society.

Those who doubt the possibility of genocide should take a look at the first-hand experiences of pro-Democracy Kurdish guerrillas. The oppressed minority has been fighting with the Islamic dictatorship for decades. Aaron Glantz interviewed two Kurdish guerrillas who spent three months under severe conditions of torture in Iranian captivity. One of the guerrillas recounted his impression of the Iranian justice system:

"They told us that we could not have a lawyer because the Islamic Republic itself represents God on this earth. They said you were working against the Islamic Republic. That means you were working against God, so you will be punished by torture."

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

America lost control of the Panama Canal to Red China who controls both entrances in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico. That deal was signed by President Carter and President Clinton handed the keys to the Chinese in 1999.

Now America’s national security is again being threaten by another country, the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE banks provided the major funding for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Today, the Northeast Intelligence Network reports:

In exposing what is being called a "secretive deal", the White House is under fire for approving a $6.8 billion transaction that gives Dubai Ports World, of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), majority control over operations at six major U.S. ports. The Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ultimately approved the sale, stating that all sitting members found no problems with the sale, even after reviewing information from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The sale itself was pending between Dubai Ports World (UAE), and the Peninsula and Oriental Navigation Company of London (UK), and the completion of this transaction would cause the UAE-controlled company to rank third-largest of world marine terminal operators.

Congress is calling this big-business deal into question, and is pushing for hearings on this matter. Similarly, Congress was previously able to halt business transactions in the 1990s which would have given the Communist Chinese control of Port Long Beach (CA).

The idea that a single U.S. port of call would be controlled by a country which harbors support for the very enemies who wish to destroy us is, at best, unwise. To have this situation repeated in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New York, New Orleans, and Philadelphia is nothing short of unfathomable.

Even the main-stream news media has reported on this braking story. Reported today in CNSNews.com:

Allowing a country like the United Arab Emirates to take control of American ports is a "step in the wrong direction," the New York Times opined on Thursday.

"Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?" the Washington Times opined on Wednesday. "President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal," the newspaper said.

"If that doesn’t happen, Congress should take action. The country’s ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda."

We need to pray for our political leaders that they follow the will of our Lord Jesus.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.