They shall walk in darkness…


ADMINISTRATOR’S NOTE: Some truth of what the Mormon cult is really about…


Mormon Baptism Targets Anne Frank — Again

Anne Frank

A photograph of Anne Frank.

02/21/2012  7:45 pm Updated: 02/23/2012

Anne Frank, the Jewish girl whose diary and death in a Nazi concentration camp made her a symbol of the Holocaust, was allegedly baptized posthumously Saturday by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to whistleblower Helen Radkey, a former member of the church.

The ritual was conducted in a Mormon temple in the Dominican Republic, according to Radkey, a Salt Lake City researcher who investigates such incidents, which violate a 2010 pact between the Mormon Church and Jewish leaders.

Radkey said she discovered that Annelies Marie “Anne” Frank, who died at Bergen Belsen death camp in 1945 at age 15, was baptized by proxy on Saturday. Mormons have submitted versions of her name at least a dozen times for proxy rites and carried out the ritual at least nine times from 1989 to 1999, according to Radkey. But Radkey says this is the first time in more than a decade that Frank’s name has been discovered in a database that can be used both for genealogy and also to submit a deceased person’s name to be considered for proxy baptism — a separate process, according to a spokesman for the church. The database is only open to Mormons.

A screen shot of the database sent by Radkey shows a page for Frank stating “completed” next to categories labeled “Baptism” and “Confirmation,” with the date Feb. 18, 2012, and the name of the Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Temple.

As The Huffington Post has reported, Mormon posthumous proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims or Jews who are not direct descendants of Mormons has continued, despite church vows to stop such practices.

Negotiations between Mormon and Jewish leaders led to a 1995 agreement for the church to stop the posthumous baptism of all Jews, except in the case of direct ancestors of Mormons, but Radkey says she found that some Mormons had failed to adhere to the agreement.

The name of Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel was recently submitted to the restricted genealogy website as “ready” for posthumous proxy baptism, though the church says the rite is reserved for the deceased, and Wiesel is alive. Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, was among a group of Jewish leaders who campaigned against the practice and prompted the 2010 pact by which the Mormon Church promises to at least prevent proxy baptism requests for Holocaust victims.

Wiesel last week called on Republican presidential candidate and Mormon Mitt Romney, a former Mormon bishop who has donated millions to the church, to speak out about the practice.

The Romney campaign has previously refused to comment and referred The Huffington Post to the LDS church. HuffPost emailed a church spokesman for comment Tuesday, but did not immediately receive a reply.

Radkey’s discovery of another possible proxy baptism for Frank follows an apology from the Mormon Church last week for recent posthumous baptisms of Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal’s parents.

Radkey noted that the latest baptism of Frank by proxy is especially egregious, because she was an unmarried teenager who left no descendants. Mormon officials have stressed that church members are only supposed to submit the names of their ancestors, in accordance with the agreements.

“The security of the names submissions process for posthumous rites must be questioned, in view of the rash of prominent Jewish Holocaust names that have recently appeared on Mormon temple rolls,” Radkey said about her latest find. “This one sailed straight through, with Anne’s correct name in their ‘secure’ database.”

Radkey said she expects once word gets out that church officials will scrub the records as they did with Wiesel and Weisenthal’s parents.

The Mormon Church responded later Tuesday in a statement by spokesman Michael Purdy, sent to The Huffington Post: “The Church keeps its word and is absolutely firm in its commitment to not accept the names of Holocaust victims for proxy baptism.”

“While no system is foolproof in preventing the handful of individuals who are determined to falsify submissions we are committed to taking action against individual abusers,” the statement says, “It is distressing when an individual willfully violates the Church’s policy and something that should be understood to be an offering based on love and respect becomes a source of contention.”










ADMINISTRATOR’S NOTE: If readers of ACP did not see the article that appeared a couple of days ago the following might think the act of the U.S. military burning some copies of the Qur’an was an incendiary act, and we were just begging for violence to follow. The facts are the Qur’an’s that were burned were from a library on a U.S. military base where it was discovered there were numerous vehement and volatile Islamic extremist handwritten notes and passages. The Qur’an’s were discovered and burned to stop the Islamists from passing these radical messages around to each other via their professed “sacred book.” If they deem it so sacred why then do they deface it with radical messages to transmit to each other? If readers are not aware of why please go to the February 22nd edition of “History 101” here on ACP and read the first part in a series titled “Muhammad: Prophet of War.”

Islam cannot ferment hostility and war; pledge themselves to jihad and the extermination of any and all people who do not convert to Islam, and then when caught sending volatile messages to each other – in their own Qur’an on a U.S. military base (which begs the question what is really going on over there?) pitch a fit and begin to murder and set their own country ablaze. Their reasoning is alien to anything on this earth in any other people. And it is high time the West realized what is really going on and what Islam is really about. And to think of the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars we’ve poured into Afghanistan and into the murderous criminal hands and bank accounts of Karzai and his henchmen.

So before anyone gasps, or thinks the U.S. is enraging these people needlessly, or we’re at fault all the U.S. military was attempting to do is slow the flow of Islamic messages being passed from one rabid Islamic follower to another.


Quran burning incites deadly riots in Afghanistan

Demonstrators protest the desecration of the Quran by NATO troops in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Wednesday. NATO issued an apology and has offered its full cooperation in the investigation.
Ahmad Massoud/MCT

Demonstrators protest the desecration of the Quran by NATO troops in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Wednesday. NATO issued an apology and has offered its full cooperation in the investigation.

By   Alissa J. RubinTHE NEW YORK TIMES
Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012KABUL, Afghanistan — Armed with rocks, bricks, pistols and wooden sticks, protesters angry over the burning of Qurans at the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan this week, took to the streets in sometimes lethal demonstrations in a half-dozen provinces Wednesday that left at least seven dead and many more injured.The fury didn’t appear likely to abate soon. Members of Afghanistan’s parliament called on Afghans to take up arms against the U.S. military, and Western officials said they feared that conservative clerics might urge people to violence at the weekly Friday prayers, when large numbers of Muslims go to mosques.

“Americans are invaders and jihad against Americans is an obligation,” said Abdul Sattar Khawisi, a member of parliament from Parwan province’s Ghorband district, where at least four demonstrators were killed in confrontations with police Wednesday.

“I am calling upon all (Muslim clerics and scholars) to urge the people from the pulpit to wage jihad against Americans,” Khawisi said as he stood with about 20 other members of parliament.

President Hamid Karzai is scheduled to address parliament this  morning.

With the mood tense across the capital, where roads were closed and the U.S. Embassy along with most other diplomatic missions were locked down, Karzai made his first public statement on the incident, condemning the Quran burnings and setting up an ad hoc committee of senior religious figures to investigate it.

He said the preliminary investigation showed that U.S. “soldiers had burned four copies of the holy Quran.” It was unclear if other copies were damaged but not actually burnt. Earlier reports from elders who visited Bagram Air Base on Tuesday and saw some of the Qurans indicated that between 10 and 15 were damaged.

U.S. diplomats and military officials met with Karzai and spoke to senior Afghan government and religious figures in an attempt to tamp down their anger, U.S. Embassy spokesman Mark Thornburg said. They apologized and offered full cooperation with the Afghan government in its investigation into what led to the burning of the Qurans. NATO has said the Qurans had been mistakenly sent to be incinerated.

The highway to Jalalabad from central Kabul was closed by a crowd numbering several hundred and sometimes swelling even larger. They set tires alight and burned checkpoints and a government minibus as they surged toward Camp Phoenix, a NATO military base.

“This is not just about dishonoring the Quran; it is about disrespecting our dead, and killing our children,” said Maruf Hotak, 60, a man who joined the crowd on the outskirts of Kabul, referring both to an incident in Helmand province when U.S. Marines urinated on the dead bodies of men they described as insurgents and to a recent incident of civilian casualties in Kapisa province in which eight young men were killed by an airstrike.

“They always admit their mistakes, they burn our Quran and then they apologize; you can’t just disrespect our holy book and kill our innocent children and make a small apology,” he said.

The injuries suffered by protesters came mostly in confrontations with Afghan police and army units who were trying to contain the violence and in some cases prevent assaults on NATO bases by angry mobs.

“I do not blame people for throwing rocks at us,” said Gen. Mohammed Ayoub Salangi, Kabul’s police chief, after he was pelted when he went out to visit his forces, “because this is their right to protest their anger about dishonoring our holy Quran and the police are their sons and their servants.”







Newt Gingrich Criticizes U.S. Apology To Afghan Authorities For Burned

Qurans On Military Base

By BRIAN BAKST  02/24/12  AP


Newt Gingrich

Republican presidential candidate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appears on stage during a debate sponsored by CNN and the Republican Party of Arizona at the Mesa Arts Center February 22, 2012 in Mesa, Ariz. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

SPOKANE, Wash. — GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Thursday a U.S. apology to Afghan authorities for burned Qurans on a military base was “astonishing” and undeserved.

Gingrich lashed out at President Barack Obama for the formal apology after copies of the Muslim holy book were found burned in a garbage pit on a U.S. air field earlier in the week

Obama’s apology was announced Thursday morning. A few hours later, news organizations reported that an Afghan soldier had killed two U.S. troops and wounded others in retaliation for the Quran burning.

Campaigning in Washington state, Gingrich said Afghan President Hamid Karzi owes the U.S. an apology for the shootings.

“There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama’s attention in a negative way and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States period,” Gingrich said.

“And, candidly, if Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing then we should say good bye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care.”

Even before Gingrich’s comments, White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to counter any criticism of the president’s apology.

“It is wholly appropriate, given the sensitivities to this issue, the understandable sensitivities,” Carney told reporters traveling to Miami with the president on Air Force One. “His primary concern as commander in chief is the safety of the American men and women in Afghanistan, of our military and civilian personnel there. And it was absolutely the right thing to do.”

Later Thursday, Gingrich continued his criticism of Obama’s foreign policy during a rally in the town of Coeur d’Alene in northern Idaho, a stop in one of the 10 states that votes on March 6. He was spending Friday in Washington state, which holds caucuses a week from Saturday.

“This president has gone so far at appeasing radical Islamists that he is failing in his duty as commander in chief,” Gingrich said.








How will the 2013 Defense Budget Cuts Affect America’s Economy?

From the Center for Security Policy

Washington DC February 23, 2012:  Last week the House and Senate Armed Services Committees held hearings to investigate the serious security and economic impacts of proposed defense budget cuts. Testifying at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on February 17, Secretary of the Army John McHugh stated: “To use an axe to cut a half-trillion dollars from defense spending would be perilous enough, but to do so without providing the department with any means of managing those reductions would be beyond risky.”
To assist community leaders and citizens in managing the local economic impact on businesses and jobs from these reductions in the defense budget, the Center for Security Policy has published an online help center with over 29,000 detailed reports for cities, counties, congressional districts and states at  These Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will be updated monthly with new data and specific program cut impacts, as Congress debates the proposed 2013 budget.
The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact reports have received media coverage in industry and national publications, as well as local stories in radio, television and print  in Ohio, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington DC and many other states.  To view local and national press coverage about the Defense Breakdown reports, click here.
Summary Reports (2 pages each) for both the national and state levels can be downloaded here. Highlights from the national report are below.  A non-technical FAQ explaining data sources, methodology and future plans for the Defense Breakdown can be read here.  To compare the national average estimate in the Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Report for your community, to the proposed 2013 budget, visit the Department of Defense Office of the Comptroller website.
The Defense Breakdown Detailed Reportsfound here – are estimates that show the potential state-wide economic impact of defense budget cuts on cities, counties, congressional districts, minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and other small business categories, organized with over 2,700 “Contractor Location” reports.  An additional set of over 26,000 reports shows estimated impacts from defense spending cuts at the “Place of Performance” – a closer measure for potential job losses – for cities, counties and states, with three separate reports for each location: spending by weapon system, by government contracting office, and by products and services.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center, stated:
“A weaker national defense threatens the security of the United States and its allies.  Furthermore, to the extent that those in favor of cutting the defense budget argue that such cuts are necessary to strengthen the economy, this report shows the opposite to be true.  Drastic cuts to defense of 9% – and under the “Sequestration” cuts required for 2013, at least 18% – will cause irreversible damage to America’s industrial base and R&D capabilities.”
“Local employers, citizens and communities will bear the brunt of these cuts.  The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will allow them to prepare for this impact and to enlist their elected officials in mitigating it.”
Highlights from the National Summary Report:
National businesses will not escape the 9% and 18% cuts
  • Public data for 2010 shows American businesses earned over $344 billion supporting America’s defense.
  • But under these 10-year defense cuts of at least 9%, American annual business losses could be greater than $30 billion. American businesses may have to fire workers.
  • And at the “Sequestration” level of at least 18% in defense cuts, American annual business losses could be greater than $61 billion.  Some American businesses may have to shut down.
American Businesses Projected Revenue Reductions Based On National Average
Type of Business
Numbers of This Business Type 2000-2010
Revenue for This Business Type 2010
Revenue Losses for Business Type 2010 – at Least 9% Reduction
Revenue Losses for Business Type 2010 – at Least 18% Reduction
Minority Owned
Small Businesses
Small Disadvantaged
Service-Disabled Veteran
Black American
Hispanic American
Asian-Pacific Owned
The Center’s “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are part of a broader 2012 initiative, the Coalition for the Common Defense, to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense.
About the Coalition for the Common Defense
The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.
A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at
About the Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.
For more information visit






Click on the link below to view the film “The Third Jihad”


Click on the link below to watch “Islamic Indoctrination in American

Education System.”






February 23, 2012

The Iranian Plan to Annihilate the Jews

By Reza  Kahlili
American Thinker


(See also in AT today: Reza  Kahlili and the Truth About Iran)

For  many years, I have tried to raise awareness not only of the threat posed by the  fanatics ruling Iran, but also of the injustices done to the Iranian  people.  This has drawn the ire of the mullah-appeasers and those in  alliance with the criminal Islamic regime in Iran.

Recently,  I revealed a shocking piece, “Ayatollah: Kill All Jews, Annihilate  Israel,” in which a well-known strategist within the  Iranian government introduced a new doctrine not only to destroy Israel in a  preemptive attack, but also to commit to genocide and kill the Jewish  people.  The piece got international attention and made headlines across  the world.

The  facts in my piece were an exact copy of the original piece, which was published  in Iran.  I even left a link to the Iranian piece that interestingly was  not only written in Farsi, but also translated into English.  I wanted to  make sure that the world could see that my piece was a true and accurate  reflection of what was said in Iran.


I  wanted the world to see that the jihadists in Tehran had no shame in openly  calling for the mass murder of the people of another nation.   I wanted the world to realize that we were once again dealing with madmen who  had no interest in humanity, love, or peace, and that they were determined to  commit a grave crime, based on their belief in glorifying  Allah.

Even  though I did my best to make it easy to verify the facts, many Islamists, and  those supporting negotiations with the regime in Iran, launched an attack  against me and my article and did not hide their hatred for Israel and the  Jewish people.

In  their attacks, they not only tried to assassinate my character, but also tried  to deceive the readers, claiming that my piece was a lie and that no one in Iran  was calling for the killing of the Jewish people.

These  people failed to mention that just recently, the Iranian supreme leader once  again called Israel “a  cancerous tumor that should and will be cut” during his recent Friday prayer sermon.  One must be living in a cave not to have  heard Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other officials of the  Islamic regime call for the destruction of Israel and how this “cancerous cell”  needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

But  the clarity is in the piece that was published in Iran, which has a full  paragraph with the title “Israeli People Must be Annihilated.”  All Iranian  state media are strictly pro-government and highly sensitive to any statement  that might cause the regime problems.  The original piece was published in  over 28 major official media sites  of the Islamic regime, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency and  Mashregh News.  It does represent the official view of the Islamic  regime.

The site, Alef, which ran the piece, belongs to Ahmad Tavakoli, a  hard-line parliamentarian and a close ally of Khamenei.  The author,  Alireza Forghani (who

recently resigned his post as governor of southern  Iran’s Kish Province over tensions with pro-Ahmadinejad circles), entered the  Basij forces when he was 14 and served one of the most fanatical elements of the  regime, the Ansare Hezb’allah in the city of Mashhad, from age 17 to 21.   He continued his education in the field of analytical strategy.   He was one of the first within the Iranian government to call Khamenei an  imam, and is an analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp.  He  has the following in his bio on his blog:

Favorite  book: The Absolute Rule of the Jurisprudent

Favorite  sport: Jihad in fierce war

But  let’s take direct quotes from the  original piece, which was published in English:

In  the name of Allah Iran must attack Israel…

The  necessity of Israel annihilation … :

Today,  the first Qibla of the Muslims has been occupied by Israel, a cancerous tumor  for the Middle East. Today, Israel is causing division using all evil means.  Every Muslim is obliged to equip themselves against Israel. … and since the  potential danger is facing the foundations of Islam, it is necessary for the  Islamic governments in particular and other Muslims in general to remove this  corrupting material by any means. All our troubles are due to Israel! And Israel  results from America too.

Military  Aspects of Iranian Attack on Israel

In  order to attack Iran, Israel needs western and U.S. assistance, permission and  coordination. In the current situation and passiveness of U.S. and the West,  Iran should wipe out Israel.

…  Based on preemptive defense doctrine, Israel should get under heavy military  strikes through first and final strikes. In the primary step of first scene,  ground zero points of Israel should be annihilated by Iranian military attacks.  To get this end, Iran can use long-range missiles. The distance from Iranian  easternmost point to westernmost point of Israel is about ۲۶۰۰ km (2,600km).  Strategic targets deep inside Israeli soil are in the range of Iranian  conventional missiles.

Israeli  People Must Be Annihilated

Israel  is the only country in the world with a Jewish majority. According to the last  census of Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, this country has a population of ۷.۵ (7.5) million including ۵.۷ (5.7) million Jews …

Residents  of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa can be targeted even by Shahb ۳ (3). Population  density in these three adjacent areas composes about ۶۰ % (60%) of Israeli  population. Sejjil missiles can target power plants, sewage treatment  facilities, energy resources, transportation and communication infrastructures;  and in the second stage Shahab ۳ and Ghadr missiles can target urban settlements  until final annihilation of Israel people.

There  is no need to post the whole piece, as the link here is available for all to see.

The  point is that my piece was a true reflection of this new doctrine and shocking  ideology of genocide of the Jewish people.

However,  in order to see the truth, one must be faithful to one’s spirit.  In Iran,  Basiji bullies, Revolutionary Guards armed to the teeth, and Ansare Hezb’allah  thugs with chains and knives attack those bold enough to reveal the truth.   In America, the mullah-appeasers attack and character-assassinate those who  reveal the truth about this criminal regime. There’s no difference between the  two.

I  do not take these attacks on me to heart, as I choose truth over lies, love over  hate, justice over injustice, and light over darkness.  I choose to be the  voice of the voiceless.  Although it is a constant battle on many fronts, I  know that in my heart that I walk the path of My Lord.

I  do not expect those who have chosen evil to understand, but again, if they had  any dignity, if they had respect for humanity, then they would not support a  regime that stones women to death, a regime that rapes and tortures Iranian boys  and girls to suppress their desire for freedom, a regime that chops off hands  and feet in punishment for stealing, a regime that lashes Iranians as punishment  for not adhering to Islamic rules and savagely attacks anyone opposing it.   This is a regime that is at the helm of worldwide terrorism in which many of its  officials are wanted either by Interpol or courts around the world for terrorist  acts and assassinations.

Though  it saddens me to know there are such individuals among us — individuals who  profess loyalty to a barbaric regime — I am happy to report that even they will  not be able save the criminals ruling Iran.  Their final outcome is in the  hands of God.

Long  Live the Iranian People.

God  Bless America.

Reza  Kahlili is a  pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary  Guards and the author of the award-winning book A Time  to Betray.   He is a senior fellow with EMPact  America and teaches  at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy  (JCITA).

Read more:








Western Financial Organizations Now Reaching Out to Muslim


The Wall Street Journal now has an article published entitled: “Muslim Brotherhood Looks West in Bid to Revive Egyptian Economy.”

The article requires a subscription to the Journal, so not everyone who clicks on the link below will be able to read it. But suffice it to say that the West is engaging the Muslim Brotherhood to aid the Egyptian economy. This comes as no surprise, seeing as the West has promoted Shariah-Compliant Finance against its own interests. (Note that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has already declared its intention to make the country’s stock market Shariah-Compliant.)

Western cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood is ill-advised to say the least. While the Brotherhood claims to have sworn off violence, they founded HAMAS, a designated terrorist organization and all Sunni Jihadist terrorist organizations trace their origins back to the Brotherhood. And even though the Brotherhood claims to be non-violent, their ultimate goals are virtually identical to those of Al Qaeda, Hamas and other Jihadist terrorist groups.











Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by judge

The ruling by a U.S. district judge was the first since the Obama administration announced a year ago that it would no longer defend a law it considers discriminatory.

February 23, 2012

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at a hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act last summer in Washington. (Scott Applewhite / Associated Press
A judge on Wednesday declared the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and ordered the federal government to ignore the statute and provide health benefits to the wife of a lesbian federal court employee.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White was the first since the Obama administration announced a year ago that it would no longer defend a law it considers discriminatory and reflective of a long history of denying equal rights to gays and lesbians.
White ordered the federal Office of Personnel Management to enroll the wife of Karen Golinski, an attorney for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the health benefits program available to other employees of the federal judiciary. The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the extension of federal benefits to same-sex spouses, and Golinski’s wife, Amy Cunninghis, had been repeatedly denied coverage since the couple married in 2008.
“The court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law … without substantial justification or rational basis,” wrote White, who was named to the federal bench a decade ago by President George W. Bush.
White’s ruling echoed that of a Massachusetts judge who in 2010 deemed parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, a case now on appeal before the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
The decision by White is expected to add momentum to the national campaign to get the statute struck down as unconstitutionally discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.
It was also a setback for the conservative-dominated Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the U.S. House of Representatives panel that intervened to defend the statute after Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said the administration would no longer do so.
At a December hearing in White’s San Francisco courtroom, lawyers for the five-member House panel argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted to protect and nurture traditional opposite-sex marriage. They also submitted evidence of “some fluidity” in the commitment of homosexuals to that identity, urging the judge to reconsider 9th Circuit rulings that homosexuality is “a defining and immutable characteristic.”
In his 43-page ruling, White said “tradition alone” doesn’t justify legislation that targets a vulnerable social group.
“The obligation of the court is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,” White wrote. “The ‘ancient lineage’ of a classification does not render it legitimate.”
The lead attorney for the congressional group defending the statute, former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, did not respond to calls or emails inquiring whether the group would appeal White’s ruling. That appeal would go through the 9th Circuit, where Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has already ruled in administrative orders that the federal government’s refusal to provide benefits to Golinski’s spouse violates her rights.
Gay rights advocates heralded White’s ruling.
“This ruling, the first to come after the Justice Department announced it would no longer defend this discriminatory statute in court, spells doom for DOMA,” said Tara Borelli, a staff attorney for the national gay rights advocacy group Lambda Legal.








Click the link below for information regarding “The Isaiah 9: 10






Is Obama’s America God’s country?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The political beliefs of Barack Obama, said Rick Santorum last week, come out of “some phony theology. … Not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”


Given the opportunity on “Face the Nation” to amend his remarks, Santorum declined the offer and plunged on:

“I don’t question the president’s faith. I’ve repeatedly said that I believe the president is a Christian. He says he is a Christian. I am talking about his worldview and the way he approaches problems in this country. … They’re different than how most people do in America.”

Obama’s surrogates on the Sunday shows charged Santorum with questioning the president’s faith.

Not exactly. What Santorum is saying is that in the struggle for the soul of America, though Obama may profess to be, and may be, a Christian, he is leading the anti-Christian forces of what Pope Benedict XVI has called “radical secularism.”

In Plano, Texas, last week, Santorum was even more explicit:

“They (the Obamaites) are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. … What’s left in France became the guillotine.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we … follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”

Santorum is saying that where Thomas Jefferson attributed our human equality and our right to life and liberty to a Creator, secularism sees no authority higher than the state. But what the state gives, the state can take away.

The media think Santorum is singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” while heading off into the fever swamps. But Santorum is wagering his political future on his assessment of where we are in 2012.

He sees America dividing ever more deeply between those who hold to traditional Christian views on marriage, life and morality, and those who have abandoned such beliefs. He believes that the former remain America’s silent majority, and he is offering himself as their champion against a militant secularism that has lately angered more than just the right.

Last week, Santorum declared that radical environmentalism is also rooted in this same anti-Biblical view of mankind’s purpose here on earth.

“I think that a lot of radical environmentalists have it backwards. This idea that man is here to serve the earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the earth. Man is here to use the resources and use them wisely, but man is not here to serve the earth.”

This is straight out of Genesis:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Santorum seems to want to steer his primary and general election campaign into a conflict that goes back deep into American history and has surfaced time and again.

An early triumph of secularism came with the Scopes trial in 1923 in Dayton, Tenn. Clarence Darrow, defending a teacher who had violated state law by introducing Darwin’s theory of evolution into the classroom, mocked the Old Testament teachings of the Evangelical Christians, to the merriment of the establishment.

From that day on, Darwinism was taught in our schools, first as theory, then as fact, then as higher truth. With the Darwinian tenet — we evolved, we were not created — established truth in the public schools, secularism set about driving its enemy, Christianity, out completely.

Under the Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s, it succeeded.

All Christian commandments, holidays, prayers, pageants and plays were gone. Where Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter had declared that America is a Christian nation, Obama has declared, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,” but rather a nation of all faiths.

Santorum is undeniably taking an immense gamble here.

First, he is wagering that by emphasizing his moral, social and cultural conservatism, he can trump Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital job-creator card.

Second, he is wagering that Obama, with his latest attempt to impose secular values on Catholic institutions, can be portrayed as possessed of an “overt hostility to faith in America.”

Third, he is wagering that he has the rhetorical and political skills to make this case to the nation through the prism of a hostile media.

Fourth, he is betting that these issues are also the concern of a plurality of Americans in a country far different from the one he grew up in.

Finally, Santorum is betting that Americans still believe this is God’s country, that America’s laws should reflect his Law, and that they will elevate to the presidency a man who presents himself as the instrument to carry out God’s will.



Amy L. Contrada


Click on the following link to read Mitt Romney’s CPAC Speech His Claims

Versus the Truth By Amy L. Contrada







HALF of Americans don’t pay income tax despite crippling government


  • 151.7m people – 49.5% of the U.S. population – paid no federal income tax in 2009, figures show

By Daily Mail Reporter

Daily Mail UK


Only half of U.S. citizens pay federal income tax, according to the latest available figures.

In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government – the lowest proportion in at least half a century.

And the number of people outside the tax system could have climbed even higher since as the economic downturn has continued to bite and unemployment has remained high.

Figures: This graph from the Heritage Foundation shows that half the population of the U.S. pays no federal income tax at allFigures: This graph from the Heritage Foundation shows that half the population of the U.S. pays no federal income tax at all

The decreasing number of taxpayers threatens government revenues, and could also cause resentment from those who believe that welfare recipients are taking money out of the economy.

151.7million U.S. citizens paid no federal income tax in 2009, according to figures compiled by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

In 1984, the middle of the Reagan era, 85 per cent of Americans paid federal income tax, meaning just 34.8million people did not.


The figures include children, the retired and others who do not participate in the labour force.

Nonetheless, they largely reflect the sudden jump in the unemployment rate after the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession.

Unemployment rose from around five per cent at the beginning of 2008 to a high of 10 per cent in October 2009.

Crisis: Unemployment has declined slowly under Barack ObamaCrisis: Unemployment has declined slowly under Barack Obama

As well the increased number of jobless people, the reduction in the number of taxpayers is a result of low-income workers taking pay cuts and reduced hours, and therefore slipping out of the tax system.

It also includes people who illegally fail to file a tax return even though they might have earned enough money to do so.

Another finding by the Heritage Foundation shows that 21.8 per cent of U.S. citizens receive financial assistance from the federal government.

This means that 67.3million people – a record high – are ‘dependent on the federal government’, excluding government employees who rely on the public sector for their salaries.

The conjunction of fewer taxpayers with higher welfare payments has led to intense pressure on the public purse, with the national deficit running at $1.3trillion per year.

The Heritage Foundation argues that the reduction in the number of taxpayers will create an electorate dominated by non-taxpayers, who will always support higher taxes and spending because their own money is not at stake.







Buying The Vote: 12 Facts About Super PACs

22 Feb 2012 03:16 PM PST

 Reprinted from The American Dream


In American politics, it takes an enormous amount of money to win campaigns, and the rise of the “Super PACs” is allowing the wealthy to exert even more influence over the political process than they did before.  When you examine the results of federal elections over the past several decades, you quickly discover that the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins.  Wealthy individuals are limited by law as to how much money they can give directly to a political campaign, but there are no limits on how much money they can give to Super PACs.  During the 2012 election season, some of these Super PACs actually have more money than the campaigns of the candidates that they support do.  Buying the vote is not illegal in America, and these Super PACs are buying huge amounts of advertising in key states.  Unfortunately, most Americans have never learned to think for themselves.  Instead, they let the television do much of their thinking for them.  If their trusted friend, the television, tells them to vote a certain way, then that is what they are likely to do.  Super PACs are much more likely to run negative ads than the actual candidates are, and we have already seen very negative ads dramatically move the poll numbers in some of the states.  Sadly, as long as very negative ads keep working people are going to keep using them.

Super PACs are supposed to be completely and totally “independent” of the campaigns that they support, but the reality is that many of these Super PACs are run and staffed by former top aides of the candidates.

Some of the candidates are relying on the Super PACs to be the “attack dogs” while they sit back and try to maintain a more “positive” image.  If a Super PAC goes too far, a candidate can simply claim that he does not have any control over that Super PAC.

If money did not influence elections, then people would stop giving so much of it to the campaigns and to the Super PACs.  The truth is that money does influence elections, and when wealthy individuals and big corporations are allowed to pour millions upon millions of dollars into these Super PACs it gives them a much, much larger say in the outcome of our elections than you and I have.

When Mitt Romney stated that he was “not concerned about the very poor“, he may have misspoke, but there was some truth to what he was saying.  Mitt Romney and the other candidates don’t need the poor.  What they need is to keep the flow of money coming from the rich so that they can buy the votes of the poor.

When you have a very high percentage of “sheeple” in a society, the hearts and minds of the people can be bought.  Our horrific education system has dumbed-down the general population, and most Americans spend their days in an entertainment-induced haze.  Critical thinking is in short supply in the United States today, and most Americans are more than happy to have someone else tell them what to think.

Politics has become a war of money, and Super PACs are “bazookas” in that war.

The following are 12 facts about Super PACs that will blow your mind….

#1 Sheldon Adelson and members of his family have already given more than $10 million to Winning Our Future – the Super PAC that is promoting Newt Gingrich.

$10 million dollars sounds like a lot of money, but a recent CNN article put these donations into perspective….

Recent estimates peg his net worth at around $20 billion. That means his $10 million donation was exactly one twentieth of one percent of his net worth. Yes, 0.05%.

That would be like a millionaire giving a $500 donation. Or a $50 gift for someone worth $100,000.

#2 Texas businessman Harold C. Simmons has given more than $14 million to Republican Super PACs during this election season.

#3 Overall, well over $50 million has been spent by Super PACs so far and we have not even gotten to the general election yet.

#4 The Red, White And Blue Fund, a Super PAC that supports Rick Santorum, has raised at least 2.8 million dollars so far.

#5 Winning Our Future (the Newt Gingrich Super PAC) has raised at least 13.1 million dollars so far.

#6 American Crossroads, a super PAC that boasts Karl Rove as a senior adviser, has raised at least 23.4 million dollars so far.

#7 Restore Our Future, a super PAC that was created by former aides of Mitt Romney, has raised at least 36.8 million dollars so far.

#8 In January, Mitt Romney’s campaign raised 6.54 million dollars.  Restore Our Future raised even more than that – 6.62 million dollars.

#9 The four Republican presidential candidates raised a total of more than 21 million dollars in January.  Their Super PACs raised a total of more than 22 million dollars.

#10 Donations from New York, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, California and Texas make up 2 out of every 3 dollars raised by the Super PACs.

#11 During the race for the Republican nomination, 27 percent of all the ads run by the Republican candidates have been negative.  Conversely, about 75 percent of all the ads run by the Super PACs have been negative.

#12 The Federal Election Commission is projecting that a total of 11 billion dollars will be spent on political campaigns during the 2012 election season.

Right now, Mitt Romney has raised far more money than the other Republican candidates have an his Super PAC has raised far more money than the other Republican Super PACs have.

It doesn’t really matter that he is just a slightly more experienced version of Barack Obama.  He has the money, he has the support of the establishment, and the mainstream media is telling Americans that he is the person that the “red team” is supposed to vote for.

Yes, there is always the chance that Romney could fall apart and that the Republican establishment would be forced to find another option.  Miracles do happen.

But remember, the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins.  The following is from Politifact….

In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a large percentage, but it’s lower than what the sign indicated.

Indeed, the percentage for 2010 was lower than it had been in recent election cycles. The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

If you think that most Americans are going to sit down and critically assess the political positions of these candidates before deciding who to vote for you are being delusional.

Most Americans do what the television tells them to do.

And the candidates with the most money are able to buy more influence on television.

What do you think our founding fathers would say if they could see us now?





Obama administration ‘stonewalling’ freedom of information request on

Planned Parenthood funding

Ben Johnson Wed Feb 22 08:08 EST Abortion

MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, February 22, 2012, ( – The Obama administration is “stonewalling” on a Freedom of Information Act request about why it chose to fund the local affiliate of Planned Parenthood after New Hampshire’s state government cut off state funds, according to a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund.

The New Hampshire Executive Council – a part of the state government’s executive branch – denied Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE) a $1.8 million grant last June, while approving family planning contracts with nine institutions that do not provide abortions. Its members suggested the state “should find health centers who would be able to utilize these monies more effectively than Planned Parenthood, which was unwilling to give the Executive Council the proper assurances and documentation of how this money was going to be spent,” ADF-affiliated attorney Michael Tierney told

Then, in August, the HHS informed state officials that it would open the Title X grant in 2012 to a competitive bid. However, a local clinic in Manchester says it never received a response about how to apply. Instead, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, announced she had written a letter urging Kathleen Sebelius to make a “direct grant” to Planned Parenthood. (ADF’s legal complaint records that Shaheen received $390,000 in political donations from Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, and NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2008.)

The Obama administration subsequently made a direct $1 million grant to PPNNE. Councilor David Wheeler said the action smacked of “arrogance,” saying, “Even though the state of New Hampshire turned down Planned Parenthood as a contractor, the Obama administration says you’re going to take it anyway, whether you like it or not.” Three councilors filed a formal complaint.

New Hampshire Right to Life filed an FOIA request to determine if HHS ever actually made the grant competitive, or received assurances PPNNE would not divert tax dollars to promoting abortion. It has yet to receive two-thirds of the documents it has requested.

According to the HHS website, “Under the FOIA program, agencies initially have 20 working days and may take an additional ten (10) working days to respond to the request.” Tierney said the process has taken 130 days, and the government has yet to give a deadline for compliance.

Federal officials repeatedly told the pro-life organization it had to change its wording or petition another agency of government before HHS could provide the documents, as required by law.

“I think it was a run-around,” Tierney told LifeSiteNews, adding that some of their explanations bordered on the “comical.”

New Hampshire RTL has received 465 of 1,225 requested pages – including many duplicates of the same document. “For example, the Susan B. Anthony List issued a press release on these Planned Parenthood grants. I think I’ve received that 30 times already,” Tierney told Tierney added HHS officials sent him copies of e-mails he had sent them. “But Planned Parenthood’s grant application? I haven’t received even one copy of that.”

The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted last month to divest Planned Parenthood of state tax funds by a wide margin. That bill is now before the state senate, and Tierney thinks senators deserve information related to the grant process before casting a vote – particularly information relating to the Executive Council’s suspicions that PPNNE would not be able to assure Title X money would not be illegally used for abortion.

Such fears are not without basis. A compilation of state audits and whistleblower lawsuits assembled by the ADF uncovered an alleged $99 million in waste, abuse, and potential fraud by at least 20 percent of all national Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Slow compliance from Washington is nothing new, Tom Fitton, president of the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, told

New Hampshire Right to Life’s treatment adds corroboration to claims that the Obama administration has politicized the FOIA process to deny information to its perceived enemies, he said. FOIA requests filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and National Public Radio were answered in less than the 20 working days – sometimes the same day – while requests filed by conservative institutions such as the Washington Times, Human Events, and the English First Foundation dragged on for months or were never answered.    “You can’t treat people unequally based on where you think they’re coming from in terms of philosophy,” Fitton said. “This is what the administration seems to be doing.”

Fitton said the problem of federal evasion “goes way back” – and things are only getting worse. “Comparing [the Obama administration] to the Bush administration, which was supposedly the pinnacle of secrecy, it’s a lot worse,” Fitton told “Administratively, they play more games, and in court they’re as hardcore.”

“You have an administration that is more secretive than the Bush administration,” he said.

Many of Judicial Watch’s investigations have requested documents about RU-486, the Plan Bmorning after pill,” and the Gardasil vaccine.

Fitton said Judicial Watch has sued the government at least 60 times to receive documents it has requested under the FOIA law.

“There’s a real problem with lawlessness in Washington,” Fitton said. “It’s about time we see this administration follow the law.”












, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply, please --- thank you.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes