Indonesia: Muslim violence against religious minorities “relentless”
Reprinted from Jihad Watch
November 14, 2011
When even the reliably dhimmi Time Magazine notices Muslim intolerance and persecution of people of other faiths (and “heretical” Muslims like the Ahmadis), you know the situation has gotten very bad in modern, moderate Indonesia. “The Other Indonesia,” by Emily Rauhala in Time Magazine, November 21:
[...] A key measure of the level of justice and compassion in any society is how it treats its minorities — often its most vulnerable citizens. On that score, Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, is failing. In the past year, public violence against religious minorities, who together make up about 12% of the 240 million population, has been relentless: there has been a slew of incidents, from burnings and bombings of churches to attacks by radical Muslims on moderates. The authorities appear unable or unwilling to firmly intervene.That seemed to be the case when I was in a packed courtroom outside Jakarta a few months ago. On trial were 12 men charged in connection with a mass assault early this year on members of the peaceful Ahmadiyah sect. Ahmadis believe that their Indian founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was also a prophet, after Muhammad — a claim orthodox Muslims find heretical. This plus other differences have made Ahmadis a target for hard-liners in Pakistan, Bangladesh and, of late, Indonesia too. The attack on the Ahmadis was brutal. A hundreds-strong crowd gathered at opposite ends of a remote rice-farming village on the western edge of Java and converged on an Ahmadi home. The people inside were surrounded and attacked with machetes, sharpened sticks and stones. Three men died; five were badly injured.
At the trial, before the judges entered the chamber, an Islamic cleric in a white robe stepped from the gallery and led the courtroom in prayer. Those inside — plus many more pressed against the outside gate — prayed for the mob, not those killed. People in the crowd told me the Ahmadis had it coming, that the mob was provoked and the violence spontaneous.
One of the accused, 17-year-old Dani bin Misra, was filmed smashing an Ahmadi man’s skull with a rock. He and the other defendants were convicted of “participation in a violent attack that results in casualties.” Dani was sentenced to three months’ jail. The rest, including two clerics, received five to six months. (By contrast, an Ahmadi got six months for wounding an attacker when defending a family’s property.) Said New York City — based Human Rights Watch: “The trial sends the chilling message that attacks on minorities will be treated lightly by the legal system.”
I raised the Ahmadiyah verdict with Suryadharma Ali, Indonesia’s Minister of Religious Affairs, one of whose responsibilities is to keep the peace among all faiths. Suryadharma was unapologetic in tone: he said Indonesia respects religious freedom, but that minorities could not use that freedom to “completely modify” Islamic beliefs. He also defended regulations that ban Ahmadis from proselytizing or openly practicing their faith. The minister compared antagonism toward Ahmadis to flag burning: “Your country would get angry if you burned their flag. And the case of religion is higher than the flag.” Perhaps so, but for Indonesia to be truly the modern, moderate society it claims to be, it needs to show through word and deed that it will not tolerate intolerance.
Marina Mahathir: liar and high-profile Malaysian apologist for Islam
Reprinted from Jihad Watch
November 14, 2011
Marina Mahathir is a Malaysian social activist and writer. And you may recognize her last name: she is also the oldest daughter of a certain Malaysian former prime minister, the man who is in many ways responsible for the ongoing Islamization of Malaysia, Doctor Mahathir bin Mohamad. In case you forgot, he is infamous for his virulent brand of antisemitism and his remark as Malaysia’s prime minister during a 2003 Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting: that Jews “…run the world by proxy.” Marina has largely inherited his particular political outlook; she is always ready to utter any amount of cognitive dissonance in the service of Islam. From “Irrational Fears Abound”, by Marina Mahathir, The Star, 9 November 2011:
TEN years ago the world turned a decidedly nastier place for Muslims. Although Islamophobia already existed before Sept 11, the events that day ratcheted it up several notches. Suddenly Muslims in the United States and all over the world found themselves under intense scrutiny, much of it hostile.
What happened on September 11, 2001? Three thousand people, the vast majority of whom were non-Muslims, were murdered en masse, not by ‘Islamophobes’, but by Muslim jihadists in explicit accordance with Islamic teachings. And Marina has the typically Islamic chutzpah to proclaim Muslims are the real victims. It’s like a teenager murdering his own mother and father, and then petitioning the court for leniency during his murder trial because he’s an orphan.
Stereotypes abounded. Although Islam is a religion of peace, all Muslims were branded terrorists, undemocratic, violent, oppressors of women.
The only images seen in the media were of angry bearded men wielding weapons and shouting threats to the West. Only Muslim women covered head to toe in dour black, were seen. It did not help that some Muslims themselves provided fodder for these images.
Tales of aggression against Muslims abounded. Headscarves were pulled off, insults hurled and, at airports, anyone with the slightest tinge of an Arabic name was pulled out for special inspection. Some people suffered even more violence, resulting in injury and even death.
These ‘tales of aggression’ are precisely that—largely fictional tales, consisting almost entirely of disinformation and victimization fantasies. Documented cases of actual violence against Muslims in western countries by non-Muslims are exceedingly rare, while the copious amounts of legalized discrimination, official oppression, and documented violence directed against non-Muslims by Muslims (especially in Muslim-ruled lands like Malaysia) are almost always conveniently ignored by Muslim apologists like Marina Mahathir.
Fear ruled and with it came prejudice and discrimination, much of it fuelled by the media. Most of it stemmed from ignorance about the world of Islam, which is not only large but also diverse.
This diversity does not at all mean that there is no agreement in the Islamic world on the eventual objective for Islam to implement sharia around the globe, and the use of Jihad, violent or otherwise, as a legitimate means towards this goal.
A Muslim in the Middle East is culturally different from a Muslim in Asia, but that was not appreciated in much of the West. Indeed Middle Eastern Muslims comprise only 15% of the entire Muslim world. Furthermore there are many Western Muslims who look and act no different from their fellow citizens.
Meanwhile, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq only angered Muslims, who then reacted in ways that ingrained the stereotypes about them.
See, all that terrorism committed by Muslims is really the fault of their victims. Are Muslims ever responsible for any acts of violence, Marina?
The early post-Sept 11 Islamophobic madness only lessened when much better information and knowledge about Islam and Muslims became available. This took two forms.
One, many Muslims took it upon themselves to educate non-Muslims about Islam, and in particular reached out to other faith communities to talk about their commonalities, rather than differences.
And two, thousands of students flocked to universities to learn more about Islam. Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of Islam did much to teach students about the real religion, rather than the one perpetuated by the media.
Ten years later, although it cannot be said that Islamophobia has disappeared, Western perspectives on Islam have become more measured and based on better knowledge. One of the biggest boosts to the image of Islam and Muslims has been the Arab Spring.
Suddenly the images of Muslims were young, modern, and protesting not about the West but about their own corrupt leaders. Although they did not explicitly talk about religion, in 2011 the Middle East became associated with the yearning for freedom and democracy, one not too different from what developed countries enjoyed.
Women were seen at the forefront of the revolution, both head-scarved and not, and changed the image of the oppressed Muslim woman.
We know that the ‘Arab Spring’ has been, at the very least, vastly oversold by the very same Western media that Marina happily bashes. This so-called ‘spring’, rather than being the birth of Jeffersonian freedoms, is proving to be a season for old tyrants to be replaced, sometimes violently, by more ‘Islamist’, sharia-compliant ones.
As for the oppression of Muslim women, who is oppressing them, and why? Would that have anything to do with Islamic scripture that devalues women, renders them effectively as minors and forever places men as their superiors? Or is this oppression yet again somehow the fault of the infidels? Don’t hold your collective breath waiting for Ms. Marina to answer that.
It just goes to show that prejudice and discrimination, both rooted in fear of the unknown, can always be dispelled with better knowledge, at least in those willing to learn. There are of course many who simply refuse to open their hearts and minds to such enlightenment, but progress has been made in incremental steps.
It is also clear that very often those who steadfastly refuse to eliminate their prejudices do so because they think it is politically profitable to them. The loudest Islamophobes always seem to be politicians trying to win the populist vote. And the only way they maintain those votes is by keeping people ignorant. Hence, their refusal to engage at all with Muslims.
See, it is the fault of infidels for refusing to bend over backwards to accommodate (i.e. ‘engage’) the Muslims.
Every phobia about groups of people who are different from us works in the same way. They rely on stereotypes and on the fear that allowing these minority people the same basic rights as others would mean that they would demand more.
Thus, although no Muslim ever asked for it, some people in the US insist that there are plans to impose syariah law there. The media stokes the hysteria and stigmatisation. Unjust accusations and calls for depriving them of citizenship becomes the norm.
The way Marina writes, you might think ‘syariah’ (sharia) law is something bad that might cause harm to Americans. Why would she suggest that—is she herself an Islamophobe? Regardless, the historical record does not lie—Muslims everywhere always move to implement Sharia law, or parts thereof, as soon as their numbers and influence in a given jurisdiction make it politically feasible to do so. Are Muslims in the US going to be any different? Plainly, as even a cursory examination of the facts reveals, the answer is almost certainly ‘no’.
Although those baying for blood are small in number, they still make innocent people suffer. People who have never harmed anyone else suffer distrust and hostility from their former neighbours. Violence against them is justified, sometimes with religious backing. The entire atmosphere is poisoned by hate.
Muslims never hate anyone, it seems—only ‘Islamophobes’ spread ‘hate’ by reporting on the actions of Muslims and the ideology that they follow.
This past week, where some people seem to be proudly picking on the powerless, has reminded me of that Islamophobic hysteria. I fear for our country and where we are heading.
Where is Malaysia heading? The truth is likely not to unduly worry the likes of Marina Mahathir or her father, but Malaysia’s future, in short, is more Muslims and more sharia. In other words, Malaysia’s future is firmly in the hands of not ‘Islamophobes’, but of Islamic supremacists.
Gaza jihadist prays to Allah: “You have made our killing of the Jews an act of worship, through
which we come closer to you”(VIDEO CLIP)
Reprinted from Jihad Watch
Novemver 13, 2011
The statements below make reference to Allah, Muhammad, and jihad. According to them, killing Jews is an act of Muslim worship (as is suggested by the genocidal hadith in which Muhammad says: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
So does Allah really command murder of Jews? Does jihad really involve the murder of Jews? Does Muhammad exemplify such behavior? Quoting the statements below will immediately be classified as “Islamophobia,” but once, just once, couldn’t one of those who will cry “Islamophobia” explain how the Gaza rallyers were Misunderstanding the Religion of Peace and Tolerance?
They won’t, of course. But the challenge stands: can Honest Ibe Hooper, or Boy Reza Aslan, or Man of Peace Rauf, explain why these statements are false and not Islamic? And if not, what does that tell us about Islamic antisemitism and Islam in general?
“Islamic Militants in Gaza: Allah’s Teachings Are the Fire with Which ‘We Harvest the Skulls of the Jews'; ‘We Move Closer to Allah through Blood, Body Parts, and Martyrs,'” from MEMRI, November 3 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Following are excerpts from statements made at a rally of the Palestinian Al-Ahrar movement in Gaza, a pro-Hamas group that split from Fatah, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on November 3, 2011:Rally organizer: Praise be to you, our Lord. You have made our killing of the Jews an act of worship, through which we come closer to you.
Allah’s prayers upon you, our beloved Prophet [Muhammad]. You have made your teachings into constitutions for us – the light with which we dissipate the darkness of the occupation, and the fire with which we harvest the skulls of the Jews.
Yes, our beloved brothers, even though the entire world moves closer to Allah through fasting, through hunger, and through tears, we are a people that moves closer to Allah through blood, through body parts, and through martyrs.
Oh sons of Palestine, oh sons of the Gaza Strip, oh mujahideen – wage Jihad, wreak destruction, blow up and harvest the heads of the Zionists. Words are useless by now. The lie of peace is gone. Only weapons are of any use – the path of [recently killed] Yousuf and Ali, the path of martyrdom and Jihad. Only our wounds talk on our behalf. We speak nothing but the language of struggle, of Jihad, or rockets, of bombs, of cannons and of martyrdom-seekers. This is the language in which we talk and negotiate with the Zionist enemy….
Anti-Semitism has often and rightfully been called the longest hatred, the oldest prejudice. It has plagued Europe for a very long time and has, over the centuries, brought untold suffering to the Jewish people. Its most deadly expression was the Nazi Holocaust, which caused the death of 6 million Jews and extinguished ancient civilizations in much of Europe. So terrible, so evil were those events that anti-Semitism was shunned and repudiated by the civilized world.
What are the facts?
Anti-Semitism is integral to Muslim culture. But while anti-Semitism has indeed been shunned by the civilized world, things are quite different in the Muslim/Arab world because anti-Semitism is an integral part of their religion and culture. The Muslim countries are the only places in the world in which anti-Semitism is publicly endorsed and where it flourishes. The Koran abounds in anti-Semitic statements. An expression of that hatred toward Jews is imbued in Muslim children from an early age. It is the fate of Jews in Muslim lands. For centuries they were tolerated, but only in the submissive capacity of “dhimmis” – second class citizens. They were subjected to countless humiliations, bizarre rules of conduct and clothing and in many cases to assaults and pogroms. When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Jews in Muslim lands had to flee for their lives or were driven from their homes, where they had lived, in most cases, for centuries. When Israel emerged victorious from the 1967 Six-Day War, virtually all of the remaining Jews were expelled – from Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Morocco. In those countries, virtually no Jews remain today. The vast majority of them wound up in Israel where they and their descendants form a large part of the population and are fully integrated, of course. Compare that to the Palestinian refugees, who, mostly at the urging of their leaders, fled the nascent Jewish state in 1948. Their descendants, who have now miraculously increased to 5 million, still live today in miserable refugee camps, at the dole of the world – mostly of the United States, of course.
Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, which is prohibited in Germany, is, in Arab and Farsi translations, a perennial best seller in Muslim countries. So is the fraudulent invention The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Muslim world is the only place in which those scurrilous books are readily available. A recent Egyptian television series of 41 installments, based on the “Protocols,” was a huge success in the Muslim world.
Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is a favorite topic in the Muslim world. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (a reputed “moderate”) wrote his doctoral thesis with this title: “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement.” In some regards, Arab Jew-haters are even worse than their infamous predecessors. For all their terrible deeds, the Nazis never lionized their killers, named streets or buildings after them or encouraged their children to emulate them. That is, however, standard practice in the Muslim world. To kill Jews, to become a martyr, is the highest goal and promises immediate access to a paradise of
Many people believe that the existence of the state of Israel is the cause of this hatred and that Muslim anti-Semitism would disappear if the Jewish state would disappear. But that is not true. As former “refusenik” and Jewish Agency Chairman, Natan Sharansky, has said: “The Jewish state is no more the cause of anti-Semitism today than the absence of the Jewish state was a century ago.”
Hatred of Jews is an integral part of Arab/Muslim culture and did not come about with the creation of the Jewish state. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, at that time the highest Islamic authority in that part of the world, was a staunch and steadfast ally of the Nazis, a trusted accomplice of Hitler. He personally raised SS Waffen troops among the Bosnian Muslims and promised the Nazis that he would fully cooperate with them in the extermination of the Jews in the Middle East. That was in the 1930’s – 20 years before the creation of Israel. One shudders to imagine what the Arabs would have done to the Jewish residents of the area if the Nazis had come out victorious in
World War II.
Israel has tried for over 60 years to come to terms with its Arab-Muslim neighbors. But it is difficult to make peace with those who think of them as sons of pigs and apes. In the words of Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hasan Nasrallah, who declared: “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak or feeble… we would not find anyone like the Jew.” How can one make peace with such people, with hatred like that?
Spencer: Great Moderate Muslim Hope Mohamed Elibiary Leaks Intel
In Human Events today I discuss the dangers that the avid quest for moderate Muslims opens us up to:
Mohamed Elibiary is that hottest of commodities: The moderate Muslim who will stand forthrightly against terrorism. Youthful, engaging and well-spoken, Elibiary’s star has been on the rise for years. In October 2010, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano named him to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
But as so often happens with Muslims that the media or government rushes to anoint as the Great Moderate Hope (remember, the New York Times praised Anwar al-Awlaki as a moderate after 9/11), Elibiary is now under a cloud. He is suspected of leaking highly sensitive intelligence documents to a media outlet—and Napolitano is stonewalling.
Investigative journalist Patrick Poole reported at PJ Media last week that “Elibiary may have been given access to a sensitive database of state and local intelligence reports, and then allegedly shopped some of those materials to a media outlet.” According to Poole, Elibiary approached “a left-leaning media outlet” with reports marked For Official Use Only that he said demonstrated rampant “Islamophobia” in the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). The media outlet declined to do a story, but what was Elibiary doing shopping them Official Use Only documents in the first place?
Poole checked with Steve McCraw, Director of the Texas DPS, who “confirmed that Elibiary has access to the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC) database, which contains hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports and products that are intended for intelligence sharing between law enforcement agencies.” Said McCraw of Elibiary: “We know that he has accessed DPS documents and downloaded them.”
Questioned last week about Elibiary’s activities by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R.-Tex), Napolitano professed ignorance and didn’t even seem to know who he was—which strained credulity, because she swore him in to the DHS Advisory Council. The DHS website still carries a press release proudly listing his accomplishments, and the record is impressive indeed:
Mohamed Elibiary has advised numerous federal, state and local law enforcement organizations, including the Texas Department of Safety, and National Counterterrorism Center Global Engagement Group on matters relating to homeland security. Recently, Elibiary served on DHS’ Homeland Security Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, and currently serves on the Texas Department of Public Safety Advisory Board.
Elibiary has been working along such lines for many years. Yet there have been questions about his moderate bona fides for a number of years as well. He was one of the speakers at a December 2004 conference in Dallas titled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary.” The visionary in question was none other than the founding father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
When questioned about his appearance at such a conference, Elibiary claimed that he hadn’t known what kind of conference it was going to be, although he did not explain why he went ahead and appeared there anyway once he found out. Among those who found this explanation wanting was journalist Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News, whose skepticism angered Elibiary. The great moderate subsequently threatened Dreher, telling him: “Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe.”
Not Properly Vetted
Yet despite all this, Elibiary still got his appointment to the DHS Advisory Council – and not just Napolitano, but everyone with whom he has worked seems to have been completely blindsided by the nes allegations. Steve McCraw seemed particularly crestfallen, saying: “If in fact this happened we will be extremely disappointed in him. We’ve worked with him and other groups to get their comments regarding a wide range of issues in order to be inclusive.”
Ah, inclusiveness – what could be more important? Dare I suggest that a genuine concern for national security ought to trump even that most sacred of things, inclusiveness and diversity? Mohamed Elibiary has risen as far as he has without ever being properly vetted because government and law enforcement officials, and the media as well, are so avid to find a moderate Muslim who will stand against Islamic jihad terrorism that they will accept virtually anyone’s claim to be just that, no questions asked.
The Mohamed Elibiary incident, whether or not the allegations against him are true, should lead officials to be more careful in the future, and perhaps even to adopt a more realistic view of Islamic beliefs and its implications for terror and national security. But it won’t.
November 14, 2011The Iran nukes intelligence fumble: where are the rolling heads? Is thereanother Philip Agee?
By Wes Vernon
Let’s just roll out the facts, and see what you think.
Start with the UN report
1 — The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has just confirmed the long widespread knowledge that Iran has been trying to build nuclear weapons.
4 — President Obama nonetheless has insisted that “if we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems, and if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort, it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up the pressure on Iran.” Furthermore —
5 — Obama administration officials are saying anonymously that while the IAEA study confirms suspicions that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear ambitions is not of the
benevolent kind, the new information is not likely to change the U.S. position.
See no evil
6 — In December 2007, an assessment by American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
7 — The consensus report of U.S. intelligence agencies added “with confidence” that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international security and pressure.”
8 — Visitors to Iran have stated that in some ways such pressures — mainly economic boycotts — have harmed and weakened the civilian anti-government population and in fact have served to strengthen the oppressive regime.
But hold on. Get this.
11 — Reports of “boots-on-the-ground” spying indicate Iran started its nuclear weapons program back in the 1980s. At that time, Iran was at war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The Iranian Guards at the time had intelligence that Iraq’s then-dictator Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy a nuclear bomb for Iraq. Obviously, the Iranians feared Saddam would use the bomb on them.
12 — A former CIA spy, writing under a pseudonym, says an Iranian official’s trip to Pakistan (which is a nuclear power) resulted in Iran obtaining a blueprint and centrifuges for nuke weaponry, the first of which was transported to Iran on Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s private plane. From then on, Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions were translated into a focused drive toward reality.
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in 2007 failed to consider alternate explanations as to why Iran may have appeared to have “shut down” its nuclear program. The NIE said the plan “was stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a ‘halt order’ instruction issued in late 2003 by senior Iranian officials.”
Of course, some were not so naïve as to think the bloodthirsty, ultra-hard line Iranian regime would suddenly say, “Okay, I guess they’ve got us. We’re just going to have to shut this thing down so we can all live happily ever after.” In reality, all the Iranians did was to move their nuclear operation underground.
Much the same mindset could be attributed to the Obama administration in the early 21st century. Knocking off a couple of high-profile Islamist killers won’t do much good if a fully armed Iran can threaten us with nuclear blackmail. (But we’ll worry about that after the 2012 election, okay?)
But was it all just naiveté?
So as the flawed National Intelligence Estimate was issued in 2007 about something that supposedly happened in 2003, what else was happening in that time
Recall that the CIA (since its inception populated more often than not with ivory-tower educated types with a leftward tilt) was then embroiled in a classic teapot tempest over the alleged “outing” of a desk-bound bureaucrat named Valerie Plame, whose equally self-absorbed ex-diplomat husband Joseph Wilson sought to undermine Bush administration policy in Iraq.
Ironically, that effort concerned an inaccurate claim by Wilson contradicting President Bush’s claim that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase yellow cake uranium. Mr. Bush cited credible reports by British intelligence and others.
The attitude at CIA Langley headquarters was very anti-Bush at the time — mainly for ideological reasons.
Yet the nagging question: If the above-referenced anonymous CIA undercover agent (telling his story recently in the Washington Times) was in on Iranian plansfor a nuclear program as far back as the 1980s, does that not suggest that Langley knew very well that the hate-filled Islamist regime in Iran was in fact
building up a nuclear system capable of wiping out Israel and possibly raining bombs on American cities?
Still, would that prompt the CIA to push for a false Intelligence Estimate to set the public opinion table in a pre-emptive move whose effect would be to deny the U.S. of options in the face of a regime that is disposed to take the lives of millions of Americans?
And for what? To effect a conviction of Scooter Libby — Cheney’s close aide and the only party to suffer a legal penalty (unjustly) in the Valerie Plame case?
Doesn’t add up
Back in the seventies and eighties, a CIA agent named Philip Agee left the agency and offered his services to the Soviet KGB and Castro’s Cuban intelligence. Among his other treasonous activities, Agee identified some of his former fellow agents, endangering their lives. Agee’s words: “I approve KGB activities, communist activities in general.”
Is there another Agee?
Moreover, Peter Vincent Pry, a former CIA man and president of EMPact America — who is also a nuclear weapons expert — reminds us that Iran needs only one nuclear weapon to incapacitate and destroy the United States. As explained in this column (see “American civilization wiped off the earth?” — Sept. 8, 2011) an electronic magnetic pulse (EMP) can disable — wipe out — the national electric grid and other essential backups for the lives of over 300 million Americans.
It is hard to believe the people who contributed to an incorrect NIE report whose accuracy carried such huge life-and-death implications would do so to avenge petty political gripes or even to embarrass a president on a policy issue.
There is ample reason to suspect an Agee-like mole may have had some input or influence. Hopefully the congressional intelligence committees — whose hearings are mostly behind closed doors — are trying to sort this out.
Meanwhile, all this begs the question: Where are the rolling heads at Langley and elsewhere?
© Wes Vernon
Senate panel OKs repeal of Defense of Marriage Act
Associated Press – Reprinted in The Washington Times
Thursday, November 10, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — The SenateJudiciary Committee voted Thursday to repeal a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but the legislation lacks the votes for passage in either house.
The vote was 10-8, with all committee Democrats favoring appeal and all Republicans opposed. The only immediate effect is political: Democrats can show part of their liberal base of backers that they strongly support equality in federal benefits for gay couples.
The repeal bill would need 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, and sponsors acknowledged the votes aren’t there. The measure would have no chance in the House, which is controlled by conservative Republicans.
The current federal law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, has a huge negative economic impact on gay couples through the denial of federal government benefits.
Those couples cannot file joint federal income tax returns and take deductions available in traditional marriages. There are no spousal Social Security benefits. Gay couples can’t take advantage of the Family and Medical Leave law that protects one’s job and health insurance during emergency absences. Surviving gay spouses have no protection from estate taxes.
Because of the law, “thousands of American families are now being treated unfairly by their federal government,” said the committee chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat. “They are shunted aside — singled out from all other marriages recognized by their states.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee’s top Republican, called it “simply wrong to claim that the bill would create federal benefits for all lawfully married couples. In reality, it would create federal benefits for many same-sex couples who are not lawfully married.”
Mr. Grassley said he was referring to the repeal bill’s federal recognition of a same-sex marriage, even if the legally married couple moves to a state where gay marriage is illegal.
The bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, said the law “is discriminatory and should be stricken.” Numerous businesses, she said, have supported repeal because they need to maintain a separate set of books when calculating health and retirement benefits.
Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, “has no intention of bringing this bill up this year or next. Reid “would face a revolution in his own caucus” if he did, Mr. Cornyn said.
He said the Democrats were trying to satisfy their gay-marriage supporters for the 2012 election.
In advance of the vote, Mr. Leahy defended the timing, saying that “it is never the wrong time to right an injustice.”
It is likely that the issue will be debated right up to the 2012 elections, while challenges to the law take place in several federal appeals courts. Conservatives pledged to make it a front-burner issue after President Obama decided in February that his administration no longer would defend the law.
Much has changed since President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The District of Columbia and six states now recognize gay marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New York and New Hampshire.
DECKER: Obama: China’s stooge
President blames America while running economy into the ground
The Washington Times
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Americans With Religious Faith Have Fled the Democratic Party
Of all the divisions between Democrats and Republicans, the deepening religious divide may be the most important.
Knowing someone’s religion doesn’t necessarily predict which party he supports. But increasingly, knowing how devout that person is does. Devout Americans are abandoning a Democratic Party whose deepest devotion is to Big Government.
According to a new Gallup poll, for the first time a majority of Democrats, 52%, say they never or seldom go to church. Only about one-quarter of self-identified Democrats, 27%, say they attend weekly or more.
This contrasts with 38% of Republicans surveyed, who say they never or seldom go to church, and 40% who go at least weekly.
What’s more, 19% of the Democrats surveyed by Gallup say they have no religious denomination, while just 9% of Republicans are religiously unaffiliated.
These data confirm an ongoing trend of people of faith abandoning the Democratic Party and people of no faith flocking to it.
The Democratic presidential nominee’s share of the atheist vote has increased in each of the last four elections.
George W. Bush beat his two Democratic opponents by lopsided margins among regular churchgoers. And even as Barack Obama beat John McCain by seven percentage points in 2008, he lost among those who attend church weekly or more frequently by eight points, 55% to 43%. Even more revealing, Obama beat McCain by 37 points among voters who never attend church.
The data underscore how much difficulty Democrats have had in convincing voters that they stand for religious values.
But it’s not for lack of trying. Republicans are often derided in the media for wearing religion on their sleeves. But some Democrats talk about their faith as much as Republicans do. Obama trumpets his faith at nearly every opportunity, and Big Media applauds.
But most voters suspect that even though many on the Left talk about their faith as the source of their public policy positions, their true loyalty does not lie with the reliable standards of right and wrong laid out in most religions.
Democratic policies increasingly make that party a hostile environment for people of faith. Religious Americans look at the modern Democratic Party and see that its most powerful interests are a Hollywood culture that mocks Christians and embraces the gay-rights and abortion lobbies.
Whenever a display of the 10 Commandments is ruled unconstitutional, there’s almost always a left-wing, Democrat-appointed judge behind it. Whenever a crèche is removed from public property, it’s usually a liberal politician or judge who made it happen.
The President hasn’t helped his party by denying that America is a “Christian nation.” He often incorrectly refers to the Middle East as the “Muslim world.” But he refuses to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian foundation of the U.S.
Sadly, Democrats who do have strong faith—most notably black Americans—are unwittingly empowering a party whose elites are intent on stripping away our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Democrats often proclaim that the most important moral issues have to do with the federal budget. Recently, “religious Left” leader Jim Wallis launched a “What would Jesus cut?” campaign and labeled the Republican Party’s proposed budget cuts “unbiblical.”
Jesus commanded that we help “the least of these,” which clearly includes the economically disadvantaged.
But the left-wing view is that government is the preferred provider for the poor. Liberals demonize conservatives who believe that while government does have an obligation to the poor, it also has other moral obligations to the taxpayers, and to the future generations we are saddling with debt.
What’s more, conservatives believe that government is not the only entity with an obligation to help the poor. Nonprofits, churches, families and individuals also must help, and they are often better at doing so. This belief helps explain why political conservatives and people of deep faith are more likely to donate their time and money to assist the poor.
The two parties don’t disagree on the scriptural obligation to help the poor, only on where that help should come from. For example: The Left’s love of government action over private charity can be seen in calls to raise taxes and to put caps on the tax deduction for charitable giving. This approach assumes that help from the government is superior to help from the community.
Of course, the materially poor aren’t the only ones included among “the least of these.” When it comes to another group of marginalized persons—the unborn—the two parties differ much more dramatically.
Conservatives believe that unborn human life should be protected by the law and welcomed into the world. But the Left believes unborn babies aren’t human persons, have no rights, and thus can be destroyed at a whim. They further believe that abortion is such a societal “good” that all citizens must pay for it.
That’s a pretty fundamental difference. And the prevailing Democratic view on abortion is one that most devout believers simply cannot abide. No wonder numerous polls show that religious Americans are more likely to be pro-life.
It wasn’t long ago that a churchgoer could strike up a conversation with the person next to him in the pew and have no clue about that person’s political affiliation. That’s no longer true.
The faithful will continue to abandon the Democratic Party so long as its deepest devotion is to the false gospel of Big Government.
Israel says Iran closer to atom bomb than thought
JERUSALEM | Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:12pm EST
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday the full extent of Iran’s nuclear program was not reflected in a recent U.N. report, which said that Tehran appeared to have worked on designing an atomic bomb.
“Iran is closer to getting an (atomic) bomb than is thought,” Netanyahu said in remarks to cabinet ministers, quoted by an official from his office.
“Only things that could be proven were written (in the U.N. report), but in reality there are many other things that we see,” Netanyahu said, according to the official.
The Israeli leader did not specify what additional information he had about Iran’s nuclear program during his cabinet’s discussion on the report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released last week.
At the start of meeting, Netanyahu made a broadcast repeating his call for the world “to stop Iran’s race to arm itself with a nuclear weapon before it is too late.”
Iran has dismissed accusations that it is developing nuclear weapons and says it needs atomic technology for electricity and other peaceful projects. it called the IAEA report “unbalanced” and “politically motivated.”
The IAEA paper has intensified media speculation that the United States or Israel might take military action against Iran to destroy its nuclear program.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog said it had “credible” information that Iran had built a large explosives vessel to conduct hydrodynamic experiments, which are “strong indicators of possible weapon development.”
Both Washington and Israel have said they are keeping all options on the table to stop Tehran developing a nuclear bomb.
Israel, a close strategic ally of Western powers, is widely believed to have the Middle East region’s only nuclear arsenal, dating back decades. It has never confirmed or denied this, under a policy of ambiguity designed to deter attacks.
November 14, 2011
murders/deaths (at least three of them [some reports say four] as of this writing) and all-around bad behaviors to the streets, businesses and byways of multiple cities throughout the [former] USA. Women are being beaten and raped by OWS protesters across the country. OWS ObamaThugs are barging into private meetings and conventions and becoming more and more violent. Note: The days of Noah have returned with a vengeance.The SEIU (aka “ObamaFriends”) and other patently Marxist-Communist labor unions are adding to the violence as they egg-on the protesters.
As predicted, the OWS “movement” quickly degraded and devolved into what it was all along — a violent Marxist-anarchistic melee. The OWS project was started by Obama friend and former ObamaCzar Van Jones — an avowed Communist. This is the Marxist Democrats’ version of the TEA Party — that is, the exact opposite of the TEA Party. If ever the Left was being shown with its true face and in its true glory…OWS is it.
Holder Lies…Agents and Civilians Die
As well as the Obama-syndicate planned turmoil and anarchy on the streets, Dictator Obama is again working on deleting the Second Amendment.
In order to establish gun control on the US population, Obama and lackey Eric Holder (I suspect some mentoring from Soros and his bosses also occurred) devised the “Operation Gunwalker (aka “Gunrunner” in 2009) Fast and Furious” which placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. As no follow-up of where the guns ended up was planned by the illegal Obama regime, none occurred. However, the guns did turn up at one crime scene after another in both the USA and Mexico. Agent Brian Terry was murdered by a drug cartel member with an Obama/Holder provided gun. Mexican civilians have been slaughtered by guns provided by the Obama syndicate. The Obama syndicate has actually sided with the Sinaloa drug cartel against Los Zetas drug cartel. In October 2011, the FBI released a report stating that US gang-bangers coalitions with the Mexican cartels has spiked 40% since Obama took the office of president and the leader of the Sinaloa cartel — Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — is reported to now be living
in the US. So, the Mexican drug cartels in the USA that Obama has armed are A-OK with the regime but, the Dear Leader Obama is pushing to disarm the American people.
Obviously, Obama and Holder had sought to blame everything on gun shop owners — the ones they told would be harmed one way or another if they didn’t play ball and provide the illegal guns to the cartels — but, they were caught red handed. However, they are still — despite also being caught with pants down — pushing to end US citizens’ gun rights. That, of course, would leave We-the-People unarmed and the criminals (now firmly including the US Government) with the guns and the power over us all…to do anything and everything they want. Seriously, does this sound like a good plan to you? Have we become so complacent and submissive that we will accept any and all assaults
on our lives, our loved ones and our own beings?
Media’s Marvelous and Malevolent Mendacity
No reporting on these topics would be complete without an assessment of our dearly beloved media; the same media who said the TEA Party members were racist and gun-toting at their gatherings (with NO produced evidence whatsoever that these statements were true) and then said that the OWS crowds were “patriots.” So, the TEA Party gatherings in a peaceful fashion to support the US Constitution, not defecating on police cars (as OWS members do), not raping and pillaging (as OWS members are still doing), picking up one’s trash before leaving and providing the police with not ONE single arrest before they leave is ‘racist.’ But, the OWS attacks upon women, at least
3-4 OWS homicides nationwide, defecating and copulating in public, hundreds of arrests, litter and debris thrown everywhere, barging into conventions and attacking the attendees is ‘patriotic’ according to the now fully-controlled — by Obama — press. Thus far, there has only been one viable and in-depth reportage of Operation Gunwalker by the ‘mainstream’ press. That piece and her subsequent pieces were investigated and actually reported by Sharyl Attkinson of CBS News. For her accurate reporting, she has been cursed at and threatened by the Obama cartel.
As Obama becomes less and less popular amongst the US population, he is removing more and more of our liberties and pulling in more and more power and control for himself. He now regularly dismisses federal court decisions that go against his plans to completely decimate OUR country. As I have written in column after column since 2009, the Obama syndicate is totally lawless.
By the way, did you know that despite a Federal Appeals Court decision and the US Congress telling the FCC not to enact Obama’s takeover of the Internet (aka “net neutrality”) Obama and his bought-and-paid-for FCC are still going to affect it on 20 November? How many lost souls still actually believe that we’re not already living under a
dictatorship and police state in the USA. And when how soon will it be before the Obama syndicate officially lowers the US’ Iron Curtain? I suspect that it won’t be long now.
“If you’re not willing to fight for Liberty, you doom yourself to die under Tyranny. If we refuse to rise up and fight, we’ll be forced to lie down and die.” — Sher Zieve
Deaths at Occupy camps bring pressure for shutdown:http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1757427
Rampaging Occupiers Attack 78-Year-Old Woman:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/rampaging-occupiers-attack-78-year-old-woman.php
The Obama Media Helps Launch Van Jones Revolution:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/
Holder Plays Dumb, Dems Push Gun Control: Diane Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer run interference:
Sinaloa drug cartel members:ObamaFriends?: http://bitterqueen.typepad.com/friends_of_ours/los_zetas/
Sinaloa Cartel Leader lives in US: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/10/calderon-chapo-comments-drug-war-interview-united-states.html
U.S. appeals court rules against FCC on ‘net neutrality':http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/us_appeals_court_rules_against.html
“Grenade-walking” part of “Gunwalker” scandal by Sharyl Attkinson:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/14/earlyshow/main20120395.shtml
Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard
news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.
Copyright 2011 by Sher Zieve http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/111114
The Case for Banning Sharia Law in America
The incompatibility of Islamic sharia law with secular courts stems from the underpinning of Islamism — the unyielding union of the laws and punishments of the Qu’ran and Hadiths with the country’s legal and political system. Sharia law is the legislation of these religious and criminal rules, which rejects America’s constitutional secularism and legal penalties.
The Qu’ran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia, eventually establishing Islamic law worldwide. Islamic courts want their fatwas to supersede the civil and criminal laws, untying Muslims from civil secular courts.
The facts reveal that in 2008, when the first sharia court was recognized in the U.K., within one year, over 85 recognized sharia courts were established within the U.K.’s Tribunal Court system. The problem with this rapidly spreading dogma is that several of these courts have issued some fatwas that are completely incompatible with British and European law.
As Islam is a male-dominated ideology, the laws of the Qu’ran make half of its devotees, its female population, second-class citizens. This inequality has drawn recent attention to the need for additional British legislation to rein in these courts so they abide by British law.
It appears that once any legal system opens its doors to Islamic law, that door will be hard to close…and eventually, the only thing missing will be a parallel Islamic government.
But even with this reality in front of Americans, there are still many who insist that our laws will prevent such circumstances from ever occurring in the U.S. And because of this nonchalant attitude, there are numbers of people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who believe that sharia law is not a threat to non-Muslim Americans or to the Western liberal democratic rule of law.
Sharia Law Is in the U.S.
The possibility that Muslim-only towns and urban enclaves could be created in the U.S. seems unimaginable to most Americans, but it already is a reality. Just travel 150 mile northwest of New York City to the woods of the western Catskills, and you will find Islamberg, a private Muslim community founded in 1980 by Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani. Sheikh Gilani is said to be one of the founders of Jamaat al-Fuqra, a terrorist organization believed to be responsible for dozens of bombings and murders in the U.S. and abroad.
Islamberg is only one of twenty to thirty Muslim-only communities and training compounds that this Pakistani group supports through Muslim affiliates in America. This radical group has purchased land in isolated areas close to city networks and infrastructure. Jamaat al-Fuqra now has sites in Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, and Illinois, as well as Canada, Venezuela, and Trinidad.
The sharia debate in the U.S. is heating up as more and more Americans are reacting to lawyers requesting rulings based on sharia law, and local judges agreeing to make them. This has happened in a New Jersey divorce case, a Maryland child custody case, and most recently in a Florida property case. These cases are now a precedent for other American-Muslim communities. In addition, according to the Center for Security Policy study that was published in May 2011, there are actually over fifty Appellate Court cases from 23 states that all involve conflicts between sharia law and American state law.
There are numbers of Muslim community leaders challenging the delicate line between religious freedom and the laws against state religion by petitioning in favor of living under sharia law. The moment one court allows the establishment of an independently ruled enclave, others courts in liberal cities across the nation will petition for the same opportunity.
Another example of efforts to usurp the Constitution are the actions of the global Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose main agenda is to have “hate speech” laws enforced against anyone who criticizes Islam. And, unfortunately, there are those determined to enforce sharia on their own who attack and murder any nearby dissenters. The Qu’ran justifies and protects these people’s violence by declaring that it is blasphemous to mock or degrade any component of Islam. According to sharia law, such activity is punishable by death.
It is this ongoing effort to shut down public criticism of Islam that presents the gravest danger to America — one that the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist organizations regard as key to limiting individual rights over the rights of the community. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with other Islamic activist groups, continues to push back, often with demonization of character and follow-up lawsuits. Recently, intimidation and character assassination have been used against U.S. politicians who question Islamism or want hearings on issues relating to radical Islamic terrorism, along with those Congressmen who introduce state legislation to ban all foreign law.
Preventing Sharia through Legislation
The Court of Appeals is the system used to review lower court decisions and believed by some to be the stopgap against foreign law, including sharia, from entering our legal system. However, some Islamic cases that have reached the Appellate Court for review have retained the sharia rulings even in the face of sharia’s contradiction to American civil law.
The U.S. is heading towards dangerous territory if its citizens buy into the twisting of constitutional amendments. Indeed, what everyone really needs is the interpretations of the laws as they are written in order to prevent the encroachment of Islamism into the court system.
The establishment of sharia courts within the arbitration laws is a leading objective of every peace-loving, kindhearted, moderate male Muslim. I have asked several male American Muslims whom I know, some living very happily in my community and in the U.S., what their one greatest wish is. The answer is always the same: “Everyone should be a Muslim.”
The line must be drawn in states’ legislatures, not in the courts. It is imperative that we recognize the differences between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islamism. Political correctness is leading to interpretations of the Constitution and its amendments that are pushing America across that line.
If non-Muslim Americans do not recognize how close they are to the precipice, then they are beyond a shadow of a doubt going to fall victims to an Islamic conquest. Time is running out.
New D.C. Episcopal Bishop Seeks to ‘Build Up the Liberal Church’
The Rev. Mariann Budde, the newly consecrated and seated bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, wants to make a stronger voice for progressive Christians.
(Photo: REUTERS/Jason Reed)The west front of Washington’s National Cathedral is photographed from the damaged main tower after an earthquake August 24, 2011. A 5.8 magnitude quake rattled the U.S. East Coast, sending tremors as far as Canada, damaging well-known buildings in the nation’s capital and sending scared office workers into the streets. Washington’s National Cathedral, host to state funerals and memorial services for many U.S. presidents, suffered damage with three spires in the central tower breaking off.
- National Cathedral Earthquake: Reopens Next Month After $25M in Repairs
- Westboro Baptist Church to Picket Funeral of Controversial Episcopal Bishop
- California Episcopal Bishop Removes Same-Sex Union Ban
- Group Upset About National Cathedral Repair Request
- S.C. Episcopal Church to Break From National Body Over Homosexuality?
“I want to build up the liberal church again so we can be a legitimate conversation partner in the public arena religiously,” said Budde to the Washington Post’s Michelle Boorstein.
Budde stated that she believed this “public arena” is presently “dominated by evangelical Christians and what many would call the Christian right, and I would agree.”
“It’s legitimate for them to be there, but they’re drowning us out,” said Budde.
In talking with the Washington Examiner, Budde spoke of supporting “full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in every aspect of the life of the church and of our society.”
“My guess is that in five to 10 years this issue would be behind us, I really do,” she told the Examiner.
Budde was elected by the Washington Diocese in June, having previously served as rector for St. John’s Episcopal Church in Minneapolis.
“The community of St John’s is delighted that Bishop Mariann has this new role,” said Kate MacKinnon, senior warden of St. John’s Episcopal Church, in an interview with The Christian Post.
“We will miss her terribly, but [we] have known for some time that she was destined for work in the greater church. She will be an incredible asset to the Diocese of Washington D.C. as well as the wider Episcopal Church.”
MacKinnon said that as rector at St. John’s, Budde helped develop “a number of outreach, inclusion and social justice ministries.”
While the Diocese of Washington consecrates Budde, conservative Episcopalians, like the American Anglican Council, look on with concern.
Robert Lundy, communications officer for the AAC, took exception to Budde’s statement that she wants “to build up the liberal church.”
“What happened to building up Christ’s Church?” Lundy asked CP, adding that he considered the statement to be “ridiculous.”
Regarding how Budde becoming bishop would affect the AAC, Lundy said that “in a twisted way it’s going to help us.”
Lundy went on to explain that if Budde continues to advance the Episcopal Church’s “biblical revisionism” and say things like her remarks regarding the liberal church, it will serve to help differentiate between churches that are faithful to the Bible and churches that are not.
The Rev. Mariann Budde officially became bishop of the Washington Diocese on Saturday, making her the first woman to hold that position. The consecration of Budde as Bishop of the Diocese of Washington was the first event to take place at the National Cathedral since the East Coast earthquake on Aug. 23.
While the structure remains sound and the damaged stone has been removed, a complete restoration may not be completed until 2021.
N.J. Nurses Say Hospital Still Pressures Them to Perform Abortion-
Nurses involved in a moral conscience lawsuit against a New Jersey teaching hospital say teachers and medical staff are still pressuring them to perform abortion-related activities.
Twelve nurses held a press conference Monday across the street from the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ)’s administration building to reveal that the university’s hospital were not heeding their right to moral conscience despite an order issued Nov. 3.
The nurses complained last month that the New Jersey hospital that employed them had changed its policy allowing medical staff to exercise moral conscience and choose not to perform an abortion. Under the new policy, all nurses are required to assist in abortion procedures. Nurses who do not comply with the policy can be fired.
The nurses filed a lawsuit against the UMDNJ, which operates the hospital, Oct. 31.
U.S. District Court Judge Jose Linares issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting UMDNJ from firing any nurses who refused to participate in abortion trainings, procedures or performances.
However, the nurses say that they are still being pressured to participate in abortion-related activities.
At the press conference Monday, New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith said UMDNJ’s behavior is not only unethical but “blatantly illegal.”
The U.S. Supreme Court as well as several federal laws require that medical workers be given the right to refrain from performing an abortion, he said.
The Supreme Court opinion on Doe v. Bolton said that that “appropriate protection” is needed to ensure that “a physician or any other employee has the right to refrain, for moral or religious reasons, from participating in the abortion procedure.”
Additionally, the 1974 Church Amendment and 2005 Hyde-Weldon Conscience Law bar medical facilities receiving federal funds from discriminating in employment, promotion or termination against a person who exercises their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Smith said that state laws also forbid employees from being required to perform abortions.
He concluded, “In pursuit of an illegal and highly unethical policy to coerce its own nurses to participate in abortions including support activities such as pre- and post-procedure complicity in abortion, UMDNJ has not only imposed irreparable harm and suffering on its own nurses, but has willfully and recklessly put federal funding for the institution at risk.”
The Alliance Defense Fund, the legal firm defending the nurses, estimates that the university receives about $60 million annually in federal funds.
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) released a statement saying nurses are not compelled to be involved, or present, at any procedure to which they object.
“The university is in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and is confident its position will be vindicated when the court gives this matter a full hearing,” the statement declared.
The hearing for Danquah v. Uni. Of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey is set for Dec. 5.