U.S. government passes draconian NDAA law behind Duck Dynasty smoke screen

 

 

Cruz Warns: 2014 NDAA Still Lets Obama Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens without Due Process

Says it “does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected”

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
December 21, 2013

Texas Senator Ted Cruz was one of a handful of legislators who took a stand against the renewal of the National Defense Reauthorization Act this week by refusing to sign onto the legislation, which Cruz says still contains wording allowing President Obama to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens absent of due process.

Just voted against NDAA because it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected http://t.co/Ewi4GAah1t

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) December 20, 2013

 

“Just voted against NDAA because it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected,” Cruz tweeted Thursday evening.

The legislation passed the Senate in an 84-15 vote late last Thursday night and “clears the Pentagon to spend $607 billion, including $527 billion in base funding and $80 billion for America’s global operations,” reports Defense News.

According to Cruz, the bill contains many provisions he supports and even introduced, including provisions requiring “an independent investigation into reports of religious discrimination against troops sharing their faith,” and one insisting on “Improved assistance for widows of troops killed in combat.”

However, the embattled senator, who earlier this year helped defeat an assault on gun rights and staged a 21-hour filibuster against the president’s namesake healthcare law, also stated in a press release that attempts to amend the bill for the betterment of due process rights were blocked.

Cruz said in a Facebook post Thursday:

Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.

The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.

I hope that next year the Senate and the House can come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the importance of our constitutional rights even in the face of ongoing terrorist threats and national security challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee toward this common goal.

Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a September 2012 decision made by U.S. District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest which ruled that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA bill, the section authorizing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, was unconstitutional. However, in less than 24 hours the Obama administration appealed the ruling.

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., writing for The New American, says the 2014 version of the bill additionally contains “frightening” provisions strengthening government surveillance powers under the Patriot Act, and will also “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center,’” whose goal it would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

“…[T]here is in the NDAA for 2014 a frightening fusion of the federal government’s constant surveillance of innocent Americans and the assistance it will give to justifying the indefinite detention of anyone labeled an enemy of the regime,” Wolverton writes.

The website Activist Post published a list of the Senators who voted for and against the 2014 NDAA:
roll call

Image

Phil Roberston is just a government smoke screen

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following statement regarding today’s final vote on the National Defense Authorization Act:

“Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.

“The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.

“I hope that next year the Senate and the House can come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the importance of our constitutional rights even in the face of ongoing terrorist threats and national security challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee toward this common goal.”

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pasadena/opinion/cruz-ndaa-does-not-ensure-our-most-basic-rights-as/article_186bad89-0875-5176-bd5d-0964fc38e6cb.html

Obama paralyzed by fear

U.S. general: Obama paralyzed by fear

 

By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)

Now I understand! For years, many veterans and active military have been alarmed about the idiocy of the changes in battlefield aeromedical evacuation known as Dust Off. For reasons having nothing to do with patient care, Dust Off has been removed from the control of the professionals, the medics, and put under the control of amateurs, aviation staff officers, or ASOs. This is the first such change since the Civil War.

I document the unparalleled excellence of Dust Off, and the effects of the changes, in my book, “Dead Men Flying.” Needless to say, it was the most outstanding battlefield operating system of that war – some one million souls saved and unprecedented survival rates. No warrior of Vietnam is more revered than the Dust Off crews.

In the words of Gen. Creighton Abrams, former U.S. Army chief of staff and former supreme commander in Vietnam: “A special word about the Dust Offs … Courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them. It was a daily thing, part of the way they lived. That’s the great part, and it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dust Off was there. It was a great thing for our people.”

Fast forward to current battlefields. We hear horror stories about patients waiting and dying because Dust Off didn’t launch or came too late. The launch standard in my unit in Vietnam was two minutes; today it is 15 minutes! Can anyone imagine a fire truck taking 15 minutes to get under way? I could go on and on, but one has to ask, why? Why the changes to an excellent, proven system?

The answer is the Obama-Panetta Doctrine. In response to the horrible abandonment of dying Americans in Benghazi, Defense Secretary Panetta said: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

On its face, that is a remarkable, indeed incomprehensible, change from America’s doctrine in past wars. By that standard, there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact, I can’t think of a war we fought in which we didn’t go into harm’s way without real-time information or to save lives – something the president refused to do in Benghazi. Dust Off would never launch in Vietnam under that doctrine.

To fully understand the doctrinal change, one has to understand President Obama. He has a dearth of understanding of our military and military matters. We hear he is uncomfortable in the presence of ranking military and seldom meets with them. He is not a person who can make decisions, and he takes an extraordinary amount of time to do so, leading to such unseemly labels for a commander in chief as “ditherer in chief.”

President Obama may have set records for voting “present” on important issues. He cowers from crisis decisions.He is a politician who thinks only in terms of votes and his image. Although I was a psychology major back in the day (I’d love to hear a professional analyze risk and Obama), I won’t try to define his insides, but I believe he is risk-averse – fearful of risk – and that is the basis of the Obama-Panetta doctrine.

This aversion for risk dominates Dust Off rescue operations where, in addition to an unconscionable reaction time, risk assessment is the primary consideration for mission launch – not patient care. In two years flying Dust Off in Vietnam, I never heard that term, nor did any Dust pilot I know. The ASOs, remote from the battle, have developed time-consuming algorithms to analyze risk while the patient bleeds, something that’s impossible to do by anyone other than the pilot and the ground forces at the scene.

And Obama’s terror of risk contributed to the massacre of Americans by terrorists in Benghazi. We hear that the president did not even convene the Counterterrorism SecurityGroup while the Benghazi terrorist massacre was visually and verbally available in real time. That is like ignoring FEMA during Hurricane Sandy. But once you bring in a group labeled anti-terrorist, you have to acknowledge terror exists, something the president is loath to do.

My veteran friends are horrified by the Obama-Panetta doctrine. At least 359 retired flag officers support Mitt Romney – only five that I know of support Obama. Some 150 former prisoners of war also support Romney; I know of none who support Obama.

America needs to listen to these veterans. They understand leadership. They know how to deal with risk in war. They would not want this man with them in combat or crisis. They never left a needy comrade behind. Obama did.


Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/u-s-general-obama-paralyzed-by-fear/

Aside

Report urges programs to develop consumer confidence in government research

 

In an age when government demands nude X-ray images for someone to be an airplane passenger and is planning to have the IRS watch what kind of health coverage one has, is there any area of life that actually is private?

Well, maybe DNA, at least until the feds launch their programs to convince consumers to trust government agents with their most personal data, that which can reveal not only present characteristics but possible future outcomes for that person and his or her family.

The U.S. government now has released a report called “Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing,” that comes from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

Its goal was to “find the most feasible ways of reconciling the enormous medical potential of whole genome sequencing with the pressing privacy and data access issues raised by the rapid emergence of low-cost whole genome sequencing.”

The chairman, Amy Gutmann, said without the cooperation of millions of Americans the research will falter, perhaps fail.

“The life-saving potential of genome sequencing depends on gathering genetic information from many thousands (perhaps millions) of individuals, most of whom will not directly benefit from the research,” she said.

“Those who are willing to share some of the most intimate information about themselves for the sake of medical progress should be assured appropriate confidentiality, for example, about any discovered genetic variations that link to increased likelihood of certain diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, heart disease and schizophrenia.”

She warned that without assurances in place, “individuals are less likely to voluntarily supply the data that have the potential to benefit us all with life-saving treatments for genetic diseases.”

The commission’s report found that current procedures vary. On one end of the scale would be secure methods of protecting such private information – and on the other end?

“In many states someone could legally pick up a discarded coffee cup and send a saliva sample to a commercial sequencing entity in an attempt to discover an individual’s predisposition to neurodegenerative disease. The information might then be misused, for example, by a contentious spouse as evidence of unfitness to parent in a custody case. Or, the information might be publicized by a malicious stranger or acquaintance without the individual’s knowledge or consent in a social networking space, which could adversely affect that individual’s chance of finding a spouse, achieving standing in a community, or pursuing a desired career path,” the report said.

That cooperation will be needed from many is not the question.

“Realizing the promise of whole genome sequencing requires widespread public participation and individual willingness to share genomic data and relevant medical information,” said commission vice chair James W. Wagner. “In other words, scientists and clinicians must have access to data from large numbers of people who are willing to share their private information.

“This, in turn,” he said, “requires public trust that any whole genome sequence data shared by individuals with clinicians and researchers will be adequately protected.”

A primary goal, then, would be for procedures to be established so that all genomic data is protected, and that would include a ban on whole genome sequencing without the consent of the person.

“Your genome sequenced at your doctor’s office would be the same as your genome sequenced during research,” Gutmann suggested. “However, the sequence information collected in a doctor’s office is protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act … and the sequence information collected during research is protected by what’s known as the Common Rule… These are just a few discrepancies in public policy that can create confusion and uncertainty.”

She continued, “Confusion and uncertainty tend to erode trust, and trust is the key to amassing the large number of genomic data sets needed to make powerful life-saving discoveries.”

The medical experts putting the report together said, “Currently, the majority of the benefits anticipated from whole genome sequencing research will accrue to society, while associated risks fall to the individuals sharing their data.”

Among the recommendations:

  • All those involved in genomic research, from those who fund it to server companies that offer computing availability, “should maintain or establish clear policies defining acceptable access to and permissible uses of whole genome sequence data.”
  • There should be a “consistent floor of privacy protections … regardless of how they were obtained.”
  • “Professional ethical standards” related to privacy and confidentiality would have to be observed by every researcher, manager, operation of any database and others. Penalties would apply for failure.
  • Access by “law enforcement or defense and security” to biospecimens should be allowed “only in exceptional circumstances.”
  • “Robust and workable consent processes” should be developed so participants fully understand who has access to their information and for what purpose.
  • A clear procedure for revealing to patients “incidental findings” must be established. Those could involve markers that could indicate a proclivity for development of a specific disease, such as cancer.

“Respect for persons implies not only respecting individual privacy, but also respecting research participants as autonomous persons who might choose to share their own data. Public beneficence is advanced by giving researchers access to plentiful data from which they can work to advance health care. Regulatory parsimony recommends only as much oversight as is truly necessary and effective in ensuring an adequate degree of privacy, justice and fairness, and security and safety while pursuing the public benefits of whole genome sequencing. Therefore, existing privacy protections and those being contemplated should be parsimonious and not impose high barriers to data sharing,” the report said.

“Clinicians and researchers must also act responsibly to earn public trust for the research enterprise,” the report said.

WND previously has reported on disputes over DNA data, including a case in Minnesota where the state was warehousing the DNA of all newborns.

Ultimately, the state Supreme Court gave privacy advocates a huge victory over their state government, deciding state law does not allow Minnesota’s health agencies to take, keep and use the blood spots that include DNA data for each child without restriction.

The state had argued that officials were entitled to the information and could use it for outside studies as they chose.

The case had been brought by nine families with 25 children. The Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom, which monitored the case’s progress since it was launched, had expressed concern about the possible eugenics influences that could result from inappropriate use of DNA data.

President Twila Brase said at the time last year, “We are cheered by this good news. When our organization discovered the state health department’s baby DNA warehouse in 2003 and the use of newborn DNA for genetic research without parent consent, we determined to do all that we could to stop this practice. No state law expressly permits these activities.”

She said, “We are pleased that these nine families were willing to sue the state of Minnesota. Their action and this decision now secures the genetic privacy rights and informed written consent rights of all Minnesota parents and newborn citizens.”

The ItsMyDNA.org website posts information for consumers, especially parents of newborns, to show what their own state does regarding the acquisition, maintenance and use of babies’ DNA.

She said there are 18 states that keep such information from 10 years to indefinitely.

“We know at the federal level, researchers want the states to become the steward of these blood spots,” she warned. “We’re saying that this DNA is the property of the children and the state doesn’t have a right to claim ownership.”

She continued, “We are not government subjects of research by virtue of being born, and our DNA is not government property.”

In a previous report, Brase warned that the accumulation of DNA data on entire generations of the population could result in unwelcome actions.

“Suppose … expanded screening of an infant reveals not a fatal and incurable disease but instead a host of genetic variants, each of which merely confers elevated risk for some condition or other,” her report said. “Who is to say at what point an uncovered defect becomes serious enough to warrant preventing the birth of other children who might carry it? At what point have we crossed the line from legitimate family planning to capricious and morally dubious eugenics?”

WND reported earlier when Brase’s report said the concept of “identifying” those who would be “unsuitable” for reproduction is enough reason for parents to be alarmed.

Her report said most parents “have no idea that government is doing the testing or retaining the data and DNA.”

“It is not hard to imagine the day when any discovered but nonsymptomatic condition could become a ‘pre-existing condition’ for which private insurers would not pay. The eugenic implications are obvious. Thus, the growing collection of genetic test results and newborn DNA could easily enable a eugenics agenda on the part of government agencies and private industry,” the report said.

WND also reported when the state of Texas forwarded the DNA from hundreds of newborn babies to a military database without parental permission or knowledge.

The Texas Tribune, an online publication founded by a former editor of the Texas Monthly and a longtime owner of the Texas Weekly, had published a story about the Department of State Health Services in Texas giving some 800 DNA samples to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology’s DNA Identification Laboratory.

The actions were uncovered as part of the publication’s review of nine years’ worth of e-mails over the collection of babies’ DNA, which recently was targeted by a lawsuit.

WND reported late last year that the dispute was settled out of court, providing a victory for genetic privacy.

According to the Tribune report, Texas officials routinely collected blood spots to screen for health issues. Then around 2002, officials started storing the blood spots on cards at Texas A&M University.

But officials never obtained parental permission and found themselves targeted by a lawsuit over their actions.

The Tribune reported that in addition to storing the blood spots, the state gave 800 samples – from which it removed identifying labels such as names and dates – to the military operation.

Brase said at the time there remain concerns, “This is the government. This is what people forget. This is the government planning to create a DNA warehouse of citizens.”

Would you trust the federal government with your DNA?

Obama says trust us with your DNA

ISRAELI SCIENCE WEBSITE: OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGED

Long-Form Birth Certificate of Obama is a Forged Document

A note of explanation

Since this is a site of Science and technology, there is a need to explain why this site dedicates a page to expose forgery about a document related to Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is the President of the USA that is currently the leader of the Free World, and the most powerful country in the Western hemisphere. In his position as the President, the policies pursued by Mr. Obama affects the whole world and not just the USA.

Because of the persisting controversy about his eligibility, On April 27, 2011 the Office of the President at the White House released a document that is called “Long-Form Birth Certificate”. The release of this simple document, after two years of controversy, raised in our minds the possibility that there could be something suspicious about the information available on this document. To check this, we downloaded the document that was posted at the White House site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf.

The analyses presented below reveal without a doubt that the Long-Form Birth Certificate of Mr. Obama is a fabricated, fake and forged document.

The publication of such a blatantly fake document about something so basic as the birthplace of Mr. Obama, should raise great concern about the suitability of the person who is holding the reigns on the most powerful country of the World.

Moreover, the lack of action on the part of the members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate, as well as the courts of the United States, despite many previous appeals to these three branches of American government, also raise a concern about how the governmental institutions of the reputedly best, and certainly the most important democracy in the Free World have avoided this issue.

Below, we present two different means by which the PDF document of Long-Form Birth Certificate of Mr. Obama can be examined.

Analysis of the document using Foxit Reader

A PDF document can be read by many different type of programs freely available. Here we used Foxit Reader version 4.3.1 that can be downloaded from the Foxit web site.

Instructions to check the document:

  1. Download the document fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
  2. Open the PDF document using Foxit Reader.
  3. Zoom into the document 800%. Scroll down until you see the serial number of the document “61 1064″ in the top right-hand side of the document. In full page view the number appears as “61 10641″. But, after magnification, the last digit “1” disappears! This last digit is also in a font that is different from the other digits. This is only one example. Many more examples can be discovered by examining magnified document with full page view of the document.

In brief, this simple analysis using just a viewing software reveals that the PDF document has been doctored by a graphics software.

Analysis of the document using Inkscape, a vector graphics software.

Reservations could be raised about the results of imaging by Foxit Reader noted above. As an independent test of the composition of the “Long-Form Birth Certificate” of Obama, the PDF file was also examined by an open source freely available Inkscape (version 0.48.1) graphics software.

Instructions to check the document:

  1. Download the document fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
  2. Import the PDF document using Inkscape. Unmark the two options in order not to modify the document.
  3. In vector graphics software, an image is composed of elements. If the “Long-Form Birth Certificate” of Obama was a photocopied document then it should not be composed of separate parts. To reveal if the document has parts, click on the image opened. The status line at the bottom of the software reports that the image is composed of “2 objects” that have been grouped.
  4. To “ungroup” image components click Ctrl-Shift-G or select Object>Ungroup.
  5. For a second time, again click on the image and to “ungroup” image components click Ctrl-Shift-G or select Object>Ungroup. The status line at the bottom of the program reports that the image includes 9 objects.
  6. Again click on the image and for a third time to “ungroup” image components click Ctrl-Shift-G or select Object>Ungroup. This time you see the outlines of nine rectangles marking the boundaries of the 9 objects.
  7. The most important object among the 9 objects that are revealed is shown below.

Obama Birth-Certificate Object 2

Comparing the object above with the original document, it is seen that in the top right-hand corner of the document the last digit “1”, of the serial number of the form “61 10641″ is missing. This repeats the same observation as seen in the simple magnified view of the document in the PDF Foxit Reader (see above).

Obama forces Christians to provide contraceptives

Evangelical and Catholic groups on Friday blasted the Obama administration over its decision not to expand religious exemption from the new health care law that will require them to provide insurance plans covering contraceptives, sterilization and some abortion-causing drugs.

 

Christian groups joined together in condemning “Obamacare” after the Health and Human Services announced its decision, which officials claimed was reached after reviewing more than 200,000 comments from interested parties and the public.

“Despite the fact that certain drugs and devices approved by the FDA can work after conception to destroy a newly developed baby, the Obama Administration mandate still forces all insurance plans to carry these drugs and devices even if employers are morally opposed,” Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action said in a statement.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said religious groups would have one additional year to comply with the mandate (until August 2013 rather than August 2012). “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

But McClusky said the one-year delay “does nothing to change the anti-religious, anti-conscience, and anti-life contraceptive mandate, rather it only postpones its implementation until after the presidential election.”

The new rule also mandates that religious groups with a one-year reprieve in the meantime be “forced to tell their employees where to obtain contraceptives,” FRC Action pointed out. “This completely violates the conscience rights of many Americans. As we approach the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade tomorrow may all voters who respect life take note of the Obama Administration’s ardent policies against life and religious liberty and vote accordingly in November.”

 

The National Association of Evangelicals also said it was “deeply disappointed” by the White House decision that was announced Friday. Freedom of conscience is a “sacred gift from God, not a grant from the state,” said Galen Carey, vice president for Government Relations at NAE. “No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience. The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent.”

The HHS policy includes a thin exemption for religious organizations that focus only on religious services to their own members.

“The exemption leaves the vast majority of religious employers who serve the entire community unprotected,” the NAE stated. “If this narrow definition of ‘religious employer’ is adopted in other areas of law, it may lead to further erosion of the conscience protections Americans have historically held.”

FRC Action also contended that the mandate, issued in August, violates the principles of the Church Amendment which protects conscience rights for those who object to contraceptives and other services on moral or religious grounds,. “Additionally, the U.S. government already funds domestic family planning at a level of $1.9 billion annually.”

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York also lambasted the Obama administration’s health care law. “Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” he said in a statement. “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”

He encouraged his community to tell their elected leaders that “you want religious liberty and rights of conscience restored and that you want the administration’s contraceptive mandate rescinded.”

Religious groups are not likely to comply, the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has hinted.

Given the anger among religious groups, they might choose to pay fines rather than act against their conscience, some believe.

Egypt official: U.S. president claims to be Muslim

WND

Quote from foreign minister stirs up tempest

An Egyptian foreign service official’s comment about President Obama is turning into a sensation among bloggers for its claim that the American leader claims to be Muslim.

Obama’s religiosity has been the subject of discussion since before he was elected and his Chicago-area pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered a “God d— America” sermon that was caught on video.

Obama later claimed to be a Muslim in a television interview where the interviewer corrected his “misstatement” and he has referenced the Muslim heritage in America’s past several times.

Now the heat on the issue is being turned up because of a weeks-old report in Israel Today.

In the report, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit was quoted as saying during an appearance on Nile TV that, “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

The White House remained silent on the comment, declining to respond to a WND request for comment.

But blogger Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs wrote, “This is akin to an SS officer getting elected president during WW II. Every country in the free world must be cognizant of such a catastrophic sea change in the leadership of the free world (as witnessed by events over the past year). This changes everything. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet he has gone around the world promoting Islam, the Shariah (Islamic law).”

She suggested that the exchange could have happened early in 2010 when Gheit was in Washington, D.C., to address “Mideast peace talks.”

Obama’s comments from before the 2008 election:

The Israel Today report, from late in April, focused on the “crisis” in relations between Jerusalem and Washington under Obama.

It quotes sources who called Obama a “strategic catastrophe” for Israel.

They expressed concern, speaking on condition of anonymity to the newspaper, that Obama’s administration is a serious threat to the future of Israel.

The report then said Israelis feel Obama is “appeasing” Muslims at the expense of Israel.

“‘The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,’ said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV. That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term ‘Islamic extremism’ no longer be used in official government documents and statements,” according to the report.

There was no independent verification of the statement attributed to Gheit.

But a video has been assembled by a group called Feel the Change Media highlighting Obama’s numerous remarks about Islam:

It has been viewed more than two million times already.

It was last year when Toby Harden, of the Daily Telegraph, cited Obama’s statement that the U.S. is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

Obama had said, he quoted, “if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’ be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

Obama also previously said in Turkey that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.”

That prompted members of Congress to disagree. At that time a bipartisan group of 25 members of the House of Representatives 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 a 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.”

During a June 2007 speech available on Youtube, Obama stated, “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

In that speech, Obama took aim at the “Christian Right” for “hijacking” religion and using it to divide the nation:

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us,” he said.

Geller suggested perhaps other evidence should be considered as well, listing how Obama in early 2009 declared the “war on terror” over, suggested discussions with Hamas and recruited more Muslims for the White House staff.

He also created the Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community in the State department, announces cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, offered funding to a Muslim technology fund, issued a special hajj message, had a “non-religious” Christmas, ordered NASA to work with Muslim nations and offered support for an anti-Israel resolution at the U.N.

“This is one hellacious argument and anyone not lobotomized by liberalism can see Obama’s an agent of Islam inside the wire,” said one participant in Geller’s forum page.

Ex-Mossad chief: Israel can hit Iran without U.S. OK

WND

‘A nuclear Tehran with the present regime is a threat of survival scale’

Shabtai Shavit, Ex-Mossad chief

JERUSALEM – Israel does not need American permission to strike Iran, said Shabtai Shavit, former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, in an exclusive interview with Aaron Klein, WND’s Jerusalem bureau chief.

Asked whether Israel must coordinate with the U.S. on any future military actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Shavit replied, “I don’t think that Israel needs American permission when it comes to the survival of Israel.”

“But I would expect Israel to try to coordinate such a move if push comes to shove,” Shavit said.

Shavit, who traditionally shies away from news media interviews, was speaking during an interview on New York’s WABC Radio with Klein, who hosts a weekend show on station.

Shavit posited that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration last week that his country is a nuclear state “proves that the international strategy addressing the nuclear threat until today was completely wrong.”

Shavit said he doesn’t see a consensus materializing to push through the crippling sanctions that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been lobbying for.

Shavit did suggest, however, strong sanctions may still work to dissuade Iran from forging ahead with its nuclear ambitions.

“If there is a consensus among the U.S., Europe, Russia and China, I believe it is still possible to convince the Iranians that for them the price that they will have to pay for achieving the nuclear ways is prohibitive for them,” he said.

Asked by Klein whether Israel should strike Iran if sanctions failed and Tehran pressed ahead with its uranium enrichment program, Shavit replied, “I wouldn’t like to elaborate too much about this section, but I will only say that a nuclear Iran with the present regime of the extremists’ fanaticism – this is a threat of a survival scale.”

Digg This
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad: an astonishingly bold stand

CSM

The Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback says he stands up for what he believes. Even so, the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad against abortion threatens to politicize ‘Super Sunday’ and turn some fans and NFL coaches against him.

In this Jan. 1 photo, Florida quarterback Tim Tebow stands on the sidelines during the Sugar Bowl football game at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans.

By Patrik Jonsson

Atlanta

In a historic career at the University of Florida, Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Tim Tebow has kept his faith and his convictions confined mostly to a few square inches beneath his eyes: Every Saturday, he would write a Biblical citation on his eye black.

Now, at the very moment when his hope of becoming a pro football quarterback hangs in the balance, Tim Tebow is taking on perhaps the single most divisive topic in America – abortion – in an advertisement set to air during the single most-watched television program of the year: the Super Bowl.

For a handsome and humble young man, who has become revered throughout much of the South for his devoutness as well as his on-field skill, it is an astonishingly bold decision. In the 30-second ad against abortion, he will speak from his own experience of how his mother did not abort him despite medical advice to do so.

Abortion-rights groups are already calling for the ad’s removal, saying that the group behind the ad is “anti-woman” and “anti-equality.” Online chatter is expressing an unease about Tebow’s willingness to infuse Super Bowl Sunday – an apolitical American rite – with politics. And, perhaps most concerning for Tebow himself, pro football teams already skeptical of his ability to transition to the National Football League might see this as further reason to avoid him on draft day.

“I do stand up for what I believe,” Tebow told Sports Illustrated last summer. “And at least you can respect that.”

Tebow’s story

Raised on a farm outside Jacksonville, Fla., by the son of an evangelist preacher and a mom who home-schooled him, Tebow is an amalgam of charismatic leader, world-class athlete, and devout Christian Southern boy. His faith resonates among fans in the Deep South.

But by targeting the Super Bowl, his “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” ad ranges far beyond the familiar confines of the conservative South. Fans and coaches in the NFL might resent him for pushing a cultural message on a day usually reserved for quarterback matchups and halftime extravaganzas.

“We’re going down a road here that is filled with potholes, moral and otherwise,” writes Orlando Sentinel sports columnist George Diaz, suggesting that the ad could lead to more advocacy ads, which Super Bowl broadcaster CBS has said it will consider.

The ad, funded by the Focus on the Family organization, is expected to tell the story of Tebow and his mother, Pam. Ill while pregnant with Tim, Pam refused suggestions to abort her son. Those who have seen the ad describe it as “uplifting.”

“I asked God for a preacher, and he gave me a quarterback,” Tebow’s dad, Bob, has famously said about the trying pregnancy.

The appropriate venue?

But various groups, including the National Organization for Women, have called for CBS to withdraw the ad. They say that both the ad’s advocacy content, as well as the group behind it are unacceptable. So far, CBS has said it intends to run the ad.

“This un-American hate doesn’t have a place in this all-American pastime,” Kierra Johnson, executive director of Choice USA, told Fox News.

Tebow has for years had to walk the line between the conviction of his faith and open proselytizing. But the ad comes at a crossroads for Tebow. Professional scouts have said Tebow’s throwing motion and skill-set are poorly suited for the NFL, and his preparations for the upcoming Senior Bowl, which offers coaches a first up-close look at college prospects, haven’t gone well so far this week.

“The anti-abortion ad that he’s in that will possibly run during the Super Bowl will likely create an uproar for him as well that some teams might not want to get involved in,” writes Mark Miller on Yahoo! Sports.

Yet it is the timing of his ad – and not necessarily the content – that could knock Tebow down a few notches among NFL fans. Indeed, a May 2009 Gallup poll found that, for the first time since the poll began in 1995, more Americans are anti-abortion than pro-abortion rights. But timing is everything.

“There are going to be about 100 million of us who won’t be happy for 30 seconds of the Super Bowl,” writes CBS Sports’ Gregg Doyel. “I’m not complaining about the ad because it’s anti-abortion and I’m not. I’m complaining about the ad because it’s pro-politics. And I’m not. Not on Super Sunday.”

Digg This
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Help Haiti

CHRISTIANPOST

Haiti Map

The native Taino Amerindians – who inhabited the island of Hispaniola when it was discovered by COLUMBUS in 1492 – were virtually annihilated by Spanish settlers within 25 years. In the early 17th century, the French established a presence on Hispaniola. In 1697, Spain ceded to the French the western third of the island, which later became Haiti. The French colony, based on forestry and sugar-related industries, became one of the wealthiest in the Caribbean but only through the heavy importation of African slaves and considerable environmental degradation. In the late 18th century, Haiti’s nearly half million slaves revolted under Toussaint L’OUVERTURE. After a prolonged struggle, Haiti became the first black republic to declare independence in 1804. The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti has been plagued by political violence for most of its history. After an armed rebellion led to the forced resignation and exile of President Jean-Bertrand ARISTIDE in February 2004, an interim government took office to organize new elections under the auspices of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). Continued violence and technical delays prompted repeated postponements, but Haiti finally did inaugurate a democratically elected president and parliament in May of 2006.

By Aaron J. Leichman

From denominations and mission agencies to broadcasters and foreign governments, groups and individuals are responding to the devastation in Haiti with an outpouring of aid, on-site efforts, and calls for prayer and donation.

Meanwhile, officials fear that the death toll from Haiti’s devastating earthquake could reach into the tens of thousands, with some saying a toll of 100,000 and even 500,000 is possible.

“The death toll is climbing by the hour in the wake of the magnitude 7.0 quake that tore through the capital of Port-au-Prince,” reported U.S.-based Christian Aid, which has been assisting native missionary efforts in Haiti since 1970. “The trembler and aftershocks are the most powerful in 240 years and affect 1.8 million people who live in the immediate area of the epicenter.”

On Tuesday, the powerful 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck at 4:53 p.m. ET 10 miles southwest of Port-au-Prince, bringing down buildings great and small and leaving behind dead bodies throughout the city’s streets.

Quickly following the disaster, people and groups worldwide began to mobilize, such as World Vision, which is distributing emergency survival kits – including food, water, blankets and tents – to provide immediate aid to affected children and families, and also providing emergency health services to the injured.

“World Vision is rushing emergency supplies to thousands of people left homeless by the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that rocked Haiti. Staff on the ground fear hundreds, or even thousands, dead or injured,” reported Rich Stearns, president of World Vision U.S.

U.K.-based Tearfund was also dispatching emergency funds Wednesday to help survivors of the devastating quake, who were already among the poorest in the western hemisphere.

“With so many buildings destroyed and so many people made homeless, the need for shelter and basic essentials such as food and water is extremely urgent,” reported the agency.

“We are sending disaster specialists to help our partners assess immediate needs, including emergency shelter, clean water and sanitation, nutrition and health care,” it added.

“Please support our partners in prayer, as they themselves face the immense scale of disaster, the trauma, the destruction and loss of life that this earthquake has brought,” Tearfund urged supporters.

Also getting involved in rallying support are noncommercial broadcasters in the United States, who received permission from the Federal Communications Commission to raise funds for relief efforts, thanks to the National Religious Broadcasters.

“This morning, I contacted Federal Communications Commission Chairman Genachowski to ask the FCC to grant a waiver enabling noncommercial broadcasters to raise funds for relief efforts,” said Dr. Frank Wright, President & CEO of NRB. “Chairman Genachowski’s staff was very amenable and acted swiftly, and the Chairman issued a statement this afternoon granting such a waiver.

“We are grateful that in this time of emergency, the FCC has acted promptly to allow noncommercial broadcasters, so many of whom are religious broadcasters, to be part of the effort to help our brothers and sisters who are in such great need here in our own hemisphere,” said Wright.

Pastors and other Christian leaders, meanwhile, urged their congregants and their members to pray for Haiti and give generously to relief agencies that are responding to the crisis.

“Our hearts go out to the people of Haiti as they face the impact of this huge disaster,” expressed Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director of the World Evangelical Alliance in a statement. “We are calling upon our entire WEA family to pray for the people of Haiti as they come to grips with the magnitude of this situation. We know there has been a huge loss of life as well as property.

“Please pray for the Christians and local churches as they will be on the forefront of responding to the spiritual, emotional and physical needs of hundreds of thousands of people. We would also ask that you would give generously and support the WEA members who are actively involved in responding to crisis,” he added.

Christian groups currently involved in relief efforts include World Vision, the Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, and the relief arms of denominations such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church, among many others.

According to the international Red Cross, a third of the country’s 9 million people may need emergency aid, a burden that would test any nation and a crushing catastrophe for impoverished Haiti.

By most economic measures, Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas. It is also one of the world’s poorest and least developed. Most Haitians live on $2 or less per day.

Haiti Earthquake Disaster Response

Emergency Disaster Services

The overwhelming response by the American public  has led us to setup two separate donation systems to handle your credit card donations.  If you experience any lengthy delay, please click on the second donation link.

Donate Now to the Haiti Earthquake relief (Option 1)

Donate Now to the Haiti Earthquake relief (Option 2)

Digg This
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]