Re-Post: Late Author Penned Revealing Probe Into U.S. Educational System

(AgapePress) - When conservative talk-show host Marlin Maddoux unexpectedly passed away during heart surgery on March 4, 2004, all of us, including his family, presumed that a book (that he told us he was working on) had not been completed and would never be published.
After his death, however, his sons went to clean out his office and discovered the manuscript of that book: Public Education Against America: The Hidden Agenda (Whitaker House, March 2006). Maddoux had managed to complete it, even during a time of difficulty due to poor health. And this powerful book, which has just been published, is his final legacy to every parent in America.
Public Education Against America is the most thorough, fully documented inside-look at the public school system yet to be published. Every parent in America should read this book to learn what the government schools are actually teaching their children. It puts a spotlight on those "strangers" to whom we trust our children and grandchildren every day -- and the reader will be shocked!
For the sake of your children, get this book and read it. Then do something about it! No responsible parent can do otherwise. As the philosopher Immanuel Kant might say, this book will awaken America from its dogmatic slumber.
First of all, learn what these public schools do with your children in secret ... yes, in secret! Children are told by those schools not to tell their parents what is being taught to them, such as the emphasis on homosexuality indoctrination. And you will see in this book how parents have been refused entry to these presentations that their children are required to attend. There are interviews with parents who have experienced this. The public schools refuse to let parents see the materials being used for "instruction." Why this secrecy? It's obvious.
Maddoux, who hosted the program "Point of View" beginning in 1972, once interviewed a woman who asked him to read, on the air, a page from her child's textbook. He had to stop a few lines down the page. The text was so obscene and so vulgar that had he read it on the air, his radio network could have been fined for indecency by the FCC.
One chapter alone -- entitled "Public Education's Dirty Little Secret" -- should outrage you and spur you to take your children out of the public schools.
You will read about the presentation that Planned Parenthood gives at public schools, complete with pornographic films and having little girls practice placing a condom on little boys' fingers. Public schools are dedicated to reprogramming your children to their liking starting in kindergarten.
This reviewer is adamant that children should not be instructed about sexual matters, especially homosexuality, when they are in kindergarten. Children should be allowed to be children without this kind of pressure and responsibility that they are absolutely not ready for.
In Public Education Against America, you will read how liberal, Marxist teachers are intent upon ripping from children any belief they have in God. But what is most startling of all, these same teachers endorse and teach Islam -- and not just as history or culture courses, as the government school system represents them to be.
A mandated three-week intensive course for all 7th-graders in the public school system requires students to pray to Allah, wear Muslim clothing, and take on a Muslim name. It is not only indoctrination, but Islamic leaders have stated that there will be suicide bombers in America. And where will they come from? Figure it out.
Parents have been asleep at the wheel for too long, being overly busy working, commuting to and from work, then being literally entertained to death by questionable offerings from TV, movie theaters, and anything else that will dominate their attention. They have been programmed to feel that the least of their priorities is checking on the schools they send their children to. After all, parents surmise, the schools are run by the government, there have always been schools, going to school is necessary, and those who run the public school system must know what they are doing.
You bet they do. The schools today spend a minimum of time on academics. That should be obvious. Instead of kids graduating with knowledge, grace, ethics and principles, they emerge robbed of their faith ... defiant ... unkempt ... rebellious ... and many of them cannot even read their diploma after they graduate.
But they know everything about sexual perversion, Islam, America as the evil nation, and that there is no right or wrong. Their attitude is "Whatever is right in my own mind is right -- and nobody should challenge that."
Your children are programmed in the public schools to gladly accept all lifestyles, no matter how repugnant they may be -- all in the name of "tolerance." At the same time, they are taught to have no tolerance for those who don't agree with deviant behavior or conduct. Marriage is out ... lust is in. Take what you want and move on. This is the current curriculum of the public schools.
The primary emphasis in the public schools of America is to recruit children at an early age into "alternative" lifestyles rather than in actually educating them -- to turn them against God, against parents, and against America. And if they are squeamish about something like homosexuality, then they are told they should try it in order to understand it.
These are the present re-education factories called the public schools, which have turned out the worst generation in our history -- graduates without morals, ethics, or even decency. It is the "do your own thing" generation, no matter how many people are hurt and destroyed in the process.
In this his final book, Maddoux also gives insights into the philosophy of education and pertinent history of major educational influences such as socialist-humanist John Dewey, a professed atheist who praised Vladimir Lenin and determined to model American education after the godless, communist example of the former Soviet Union. It is time to learn about this man whose influence is still evident in our public schools today. That chapter alone ("Dawn of the Post-Christian Era") is worth the price of the book.
Maddoux has interviewed all the experts who are on the front lines of this subject to positively document everything he has written in his book. The book includes a list of resources to help you make a choice regarding your child's education. In my family, the kids are the first priority ... not convenience. What a difference in the children attending Christian schools and those in the public school system.
Public Education Against America, with a foreword by well-known Christian author Tim LaHaye and a preface by Probe Ministries' Kerby Anderson (who took over as host of the "Point of View" radio broadcast), is well written, informative, and an easy read.
Rev. Austin Miles is an interdenominational chaplain working in the Bay Area in California whose reviews of books, art shows, and classical concerts have been widely published. He received an award for Critical Review by California State University-Fullerton, has appeared on many TV programs, including Larry King Live, Fox News with Shepherd Smith, and has been spotlighted in Guideposts and People Magazine.

Christian Teens' Rally Irks San Francisco's City Fathers

More stupidity from the goverment of SF, CA.

(AgapePress) - An estimated 25,000 youths showed up last weekend for a "Battle Cry" rally in San Francisco -- and then became the latest targets to receive a resolution against them by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
"Battle Cry" is a coalition of 30 groups that is attempting to turn today's youth away from the lure of popular culture and toward Christ while they are still teenagers. But on the day of the rally in the City by the Bay, opposing protesters took to name-calling, in one instance chanting the phrase: "Christian fascists, go away! Racist, sexist, anti-gay!"
In addition, both the rally and related protest caught the attention of City Hall, which adopted a resolution criticizing both as "acts of provocation" by an "anti-gay" pro-life organization. Democratic State Assemblyman Mark Leno, talking to the counter-protesters, referred to the Battle Cry rally as a "fascist mega-pep rally," and said the Christian teens involved in the rally should "get out of San Francisco." This in a city that has long been touting the importance of "tolerance" to support the homosexual movement.
Ron Luce, founder of the ministry Teen Mania and whose group helped to found Battle Cry, appeared afterward on the Fox News show O'Reilly Factor, during which he made it clear that the rally was nothing close to the picture portrayed. "We're not mean," Luce says, "and if you look at the video clips of that rally, they're very kind and they're praying -- and it was pretty startling to see such a violent response."
According to Luce, it was the first time one of his meetings was officially condemned. He says Battle Cry is helping youth to use one of the most important tools for culture change in America -- one he says the political Left has employed best up until now. "Whoever raises their voice in culture is the one who shapes culture," the ministry leader says.
In the coming weeks, similar rallies -- with the intent to change the culture by battling for the hearts and souls of the current teen generation -- are set in Detroit (April 7-8) and in Philadelphia (May 12-13).

Censorship of Child's Poster Depicting Christ Could Require SCOTUS Resolution

It's important for all parents of school aged children to realize something:
Political Correctness is not in the Constitution.

If asked to do an assignment where the child's opinion is part of the assignment, as in this case "to draw posters illustrating their understanding of the environment", if in the course of doing that assignment, God, Jesus or a religious overtone is presented by the student, the school cannot censor the student's work.
As an example, if the teacher told the kids to draw a picture of a recycle bin, and the child drew a picture of Jesus, then the school would have grounds to gripe a bit, because the student did not follow the instructions of the assignment. They still could not gripe about the picture of Jesus, because having a student draw the picture is not the school endorsing religion. It's the student who is endorsing religon.
I have learned through my own experience here in Texas, in regards to religon and school:
1. If asked to write or draw about a broad topic, the student cannot be censored for talking or drawing about God, Jesus and religion.
2. A student can take a Bible to school and read it during their own time. It must be treated as any other book brought from home. As long as the student is not reading it in class when they are supposed to be doing school work, the school cannot make the student stop.
3. Students can discuss God, Jesus and religion on their own time, during the school day. They cannot do so in class if another topic is under discussion. They must respect a student who does not want to listen and leave that person alone.
4. The school cannot make the student leave the area of the discussion, if they were there first and then a student, arriving later, complains about the discussion.


(AgapePress) - The United States Supreme Court may hear a case involving a school district's censorship of an art poster that a kindergartener drew for a school assignment -- a drawing that was partly suppressed by school officials because it contained the child's depiction of Jesus.
The case involves Antonio Peck, who was a kindergarten student in the late 1990s at Baldwinsville Elementary School in Syracuse, New York. The boy's teacher told members of the class to draw posters illustrating their understanding of the environment. Antonio's poster featured children holding hands and encircling the globe and people picking up trash and recycling, along with a picture of Jesus, kneeling with one knee to the ground and his hands outstretched toward the sky.
School officials folded the poster in half in order to cover up the drawing of Christ. They claimed the picture violated "church and state" and would give the impression that the school was teaching religion, even though the drawing was clearly a student's artwork.
According to the pro-family legal group Liberty Counsel, the fold made Antonio's look odd and the student's name on the poster was cut in half, and he felt ashamed of his displayed work, especially after school officials informed him and his parents why his poster was folded. The child assumed he had done something wrong, and when school officials refused to apologize, rectify the situation, or adopt a policy to prevent future censorship, Liberty Counsel filed suit on the Peck family's behalf.
Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver claims common sense should dictate "that no one would assume the school indoctrinated students in religion simply because one kid's drawing contained an unidentified religious figure." He argues that the fact that school officials would go "out of their way to humiliate a kindergarten student in front of his parents and classmates can only stem from antagonism to his Christian viewpoint."
In 2000, a federal trial court ruled that the school had the right to censor the child's poster due to "church and state" concerns. However, a court of appeals reversed that ruling on March 28, 2001, in a 3-0 decision, sending the case back to the trial court. And in 2004, the same trial court judge again ruled in favor of the school, at which point Liberty Counsel appealed.
On October 18, 2005, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again ruled 3-0 in favor of Antonio. Nevertheless, Staver says the matter remains unresolved because there remains "a conflict among the federal courts of appeals."

Appellate Courts Render Split Decision on Religious Censorship Case
The Court of Appeals in Antonio Peck's case "got it right," Staver asserts. According to the Second Circuit's ruling, he explains, "when students give responses to a class assignment and as long as they respond within the subject matter of the assignment, you cannot censor their religious viewpoints."
However, the attorney points out, "There are other courts in certain parts of the country that have disagreed with that." While the Second Circuit joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits in saying schools may not censor students' viewpoints under such circumstances, the First and Tenth Circuits hold that viewpoint discrimination in the curricular context may be permissible. For that reason, Staver believes there is a good chance the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case.
"When Justice Samuel Alito was a Federal Court of Appeals judge, he ruled specifically in a case that you cannot censor the Christian viewpoints of students when they give information or responses in response to a class assignment or instruction," the Liberty Counsel spokesman notes. "So I think this would be a great case for the court to take. We'll wait to see."
If the high court does take the case, Staver contends, "it could have a major impact on student free religious expression within the public school system."
In the Supreme Court justices did take up the matter, Liberty Counsel's president says his group anticipates that the court would agree with those appeals courts that say public schools may not discriminate against students' religious viewpoints when the students are addressing permissible subjects in response to class assignments.

A Ransom for Many

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Mark 10:45 (New American Standard Bible)

Anti-conversion law passed in 'tolerant' Algeria

As with the violence we saw earlier this year concerning cartoons of the islamic "prophet", we find the relgion of peace and tolerance going after Christians yet again, this time in Algeria.
People want the right to choose for themselves what path they wil follow in life. If you a muslim, your path is choosen for you. "Stay with us or die". What a choice. The religion of death (aka islam) continues to show it's true colors to the world. Wake up and take notice.

As attention focused on an Afghan Christian convert who faced the death penalty for his conversion, Algeria quietly passed a law that punishes anyone who persuades a Muslim to leave his faith, with up to five years in prison, and banishes house churches.
The government said the law's purpose is to prohibit "clandestine organizations" it claims are secretly trying to convert Muslims, according to London-based Alarab Online.
But the news agency said the cabinet is attempting to win over Muslim radicals ahead of a general election next year.
As WorldNetDaily reported, charges against Afghan convert Abdul Rahman were dropped Sunday with the court citing a lack of evidence. Last week, Western nations pressured Afghanistan for threatening to execute Rahman under Islamic Shariah because he converted from Islam to Christianity. Rahman arrived in Italy early yesterday after being granted asylum in the wake of death threats from Muslim clerics.
Christians in Algeria – who affirm the new law is the result of increasing influence of radical Islamists in the North African nation – say that to this point, the government has been relatively tolerant of Christianity.
According to the most recent U.S. State Department religious freedom report, published last year, the Algerian constitution declared Islam as the only state-sanctioned religion, and laws limited the practice of other faiths, including prohibiting public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam.
"However, the government follows a de facto policy of tolerance by allowing registered, non-Muslim faiths, in limited instances, to conduct public religious services," the 2005 report said.
The State Department said "non-Islamic proselytizing" was a deportable offense for foreigners, and the importation of religious texts faced lengthy delays for government approval.
According to the new law, passed March 21, the penalty is imprisonment of two to five years and a fine of up to about $12,000 for whomever "incites, constrains or utilizes means of seduction tending to convert a Muslim to another religion, or by using to this end establishments for teaching, for education, for health, of a social or cultural nature, or training institutions, or any other establishment, or any financial means, makes, stores, or distributes printed documents or audiovisual productions or by any other aid or means, which has as its goal to shake the faith of a Muslim."
In addition, the Algerian government now will regulate all places where Christians can worship, with the officially-Muslim government having to explicitly approve any new Christian church.

House churches are explicitly banned.
The law says, "Collective exercise of religious worship takes place exclusively in structures intended for this purpose, open to the public and identifiable from the exterior."
The new legislation also provides for the possible imprisonment and expulsion of foreign Christians for the same "offenses."
Christians and Jews make up less than 1 percent of Algeria's population, with the rest mostly Sunni Muslims.

U.N. Gives Iran 30 Days to Comply on Nuclear Program

"30 days or else" says the U.N.
"Or else what?" asks Iran.
"Well issue a resolution against you, that's what!!" responded the U.N.
Looking at Iraq, Iran laughed.

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.
The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures
The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.
Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Enrichment is a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.
"The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.
Members of the council wanted to reach a deal before Thursday, when foreign ministers from the five veto-wielding council members and Germany meet in Berlin to discuss strategy on Iran.
Diplomats would not say exactly what will happen if Iran does not comply the statement within 30 days, but suggested that would be discussed by the foreign ministers in Berlin.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said earlier Wednesday that the statement "sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what it's doing are not going to be sufficient."
The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The West believes council action will help isolate Iran and put new pressure on it to clear up suspicions about its intentions. They have proposed an incremental approach, refusing to rule out sanctions.
U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.
Russia and China, both allies of Iran, oppose sanctions. They wanted any council statement to make explicit that the IAEA, not the Security Council, must take the lead in confronting Iran.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated his stance that Moscow would not support the use of force to solve the Iranian nuclear problem.
"As many of our European and Chinese colleagues have stated more than once, any ideas involving the use of force or pressure in resolving the issue are counterproductive and cannot be supported," Lavrov said Wednesday in Moscow.
Iran remains defiant. The government released a statement through its embassy in Moscow on Tuesday warning that Security Council intervention would "escalate tensions, entailing negative consequences that would be of benefit to no party."

Tom DeLay Sees World War on Christianity

I agree completely with Congressman DeLay. I see it only getting worse as time goes on too.

The conference was entitled, "The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006," so the topic of Tom DeLay's speech to conferees came as no surprise.
The scope of his comments, however, went somewhat beyond the headline.
"Our faith has always been in direct conflict with the values of the world," Rep. Tom DeLay told his audience.
He added that Christians are looked down on in the U.S. as well. "We are, after all, a society that provides abortion on demand, has killed millions of innocent children, degrades the institution of marriage and all but treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition."
The Washington, D.C. conference is being hosted by Vision America, a group founded by the Rev. Rick Scarborough "to mobilize 'patriot pastors' of all denominations to promote Christian involvement in government." according to the Houston Chronicle.
DeLay said, "we have been chosen to live as Christians at a time when our culture is being poisoned. ... God made us specifically for it. ... Jesus Christ himself made us just so that we could live in this nation at this time."
The sermon/speech delivered by DeLay came one day before Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist linked to DeLay and some of his associates, was sentenced to six years in prison.
Rev. Scarborough told the conference that DeLay had been "nearly destroyed in the press," but that he is "a man, I believe, God has appointed ... to represent righteousness in government.
The audience included Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafly, former ambassador Alan Keyes, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Afghan Convert Saved, But Apostasy Problem Endures

I know I've already blogged about this, but this is just intolerable. The man's only crime was to convert from islam to Christianity. Even though he's out of there, he still has to fear for his life. What kind of perverted religion is willing to go to the trouble of hunting someone down and killing them just for leave that religion. The answer is "islam". You know it well. The so-called religion of peace (RoP), the so-called religion of tolerance (Rot), but in reality, the religion of death (RoD).

(CNSNews.com) - An Afghan Christian threatened with execution for leaving Islam has arrived safely in the West, but religious freedom campaigners remain concerned about the broader and enduring problem of the shari'a-mandated death penalty in parts of the Islamic world.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced that Abdul Rahman had arrived in Rome, where the Italian cabinet unanimously agreed on Wednesday to approve a request for asylum.
Berlusconi said "all necessary precautions" were in place to ensure the safety of the Afghan, whose whereabouts were being kept secret.
Rahman was freed from custody in Kabul earlier this week after his plight drew international concern.
Heavy pressure was applied by Western countries, led by those that took part in the U.S.-led campaign to topple the Taliban in 2001 or sent troops later, and which shore up the government of President Hamid Karzai.
Pope Benedict XVI also sent a letter to Karzai on the matter. At the weekend, he expressed concern for communities in countries where religious freedom is lacking, "or where despite claims on paper they in truth are subjected to many restrictions."
The pope's reference may have been to Afghanistan's new constitution, whose religious freedom provision appears to be contradicted by a clause stating that "no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam."
Afghan officials said the case against Rahman, who reportedly became a Christian while working with an aid group outside his homeland, was dropped for lack of evidence and because of suspicions he may be mentally unwell.
On the day he flew to Italy, the Afghan parliament debated the case, protesting the convert's release and demanding that he not be allowed to leave the country. During the debate, lawmakers declared that not punishing Rahman violated shari'a, or Islamic law.
According to a fatwa, or religious ruling, posted on the Islam Online website, "leaving Islam is the ugliest and the worst form of disbelief in Almighty Allah"
How Muslims should treat an apostate (or "murtadd" in Arabic) is the subject of much debate. Some Islamic scholars focus on the words and actions of Mohammed, who was reported in the Hadith, or traditions of the prophet, to have said that anyone who abandons Islam should be killed.
Others emphasize the Koran's injunction that there should be "no compulsion in religion," and argue that Mohammed's words on the subject were only applicable in specific contexts and applied in cases where people left Islam and also betrayed the Islamic state.
The Barnabas Fund, which campaigns for Christian minorities in Islamic societies, says although a minority of liberal Muslims had long promoted the latter argument, it had yet to make any impact on the official teaching of shari'a, as formulated in the Middle Ages.
The religious freedom group International Christian Concern welcomed the news about Rahman, but said it was "merely a short-term solution to the fundamental problem with Afghanistan's interpretation of Islamic law."
"While we can celebrate the rescue of a courageous Christian, Afghanistan remains unchanged in its lack of respect for human rights."
Arie de Pater, advocacy spokesman for Open Doors, said the release of Rahman "leaves the [Afghan] constitution and the law unchanged, so that apostates remain under threat of being hanged."

Campaigners say the problem is not restricted to Afghanistan.
"Minority Christians face severe and growing persecution in many Islamic nations including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere," Jim Jacobson of Christian Freedom International said earlier.
"This must be condemned at the highest levels wherever and whenever it occurs."
"There are former Muslims who now follow Jesus Christ in every country of the world, including others in Afghanistan," said the Barnabas Fund.
"For all of them Islam's apostasy law has implications. Though only a handful of countries have the death sentence for apostasy in their law, in every Muslim society there is a widespread knowledge of what shari'a says on this subject."
As a result, it said, converts face difficulties including harassment, rejection by their families and communities, official discrimination on a variety of pretexts, violence, and sometimes murder.
In a recent letter to President Bush, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) noted its previously-expressed concerns that failings in the Afghan constitution could lead to unjust criminal accusations of apostasy and blasphemy.
USCIRF chairman Michael Cromartie said Washington should press Karzai to "allow for free manifestation of religious belief and debate on critical human rights issues."
He said the case also provided a critical opportunity to encourage Karzai to reform the judiciary and appoint well-trained judges.
The USCIRF was established under 1998 legislation to provide recommendations to Congress and the executive branch on religious freedom issues.

Israel Views Katyusha Rocket Firing As 'Ominous Sign'

Got to love the way the pali terrorist live up their agreements of "peace". Once a pali terrorist, always a pali terrorist.

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - While all eyes were focused on the Israeli elections, the terror group Islamic Jihad launched into Israel a rocket with twice the range of those its usually fires.
Southern Israel has been hit by hundreds of homemade, short-range, and imprecise Kassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip over the last few years. Tuesday marked the first time that a Katyusha was launched from Gaza. No injuries or damage were reported.
The Katyusha has twice the range of a Kassam -- about 20 to 30 kilometers (12-18 miles) instead of 11 kilometers (6.6 miles). The longer range rocket puts much more of southern Israel in the danger zone. Both the large coastal city of Ashkelon and the port city of Ashdod are now within range.
Although the Kassams are crude, inaccurate weapons, they have killed a number of Israelis and caused considerable damage to Israeli homes and property. The Katyusha is more powerful.
It is an "ominous sign" from the new Hamas government that there will be no let-up in terrorism, said prime ministerial spokesman Dr. Ra'anan Gissin.
"[The terror groups] are continuing to try to acquire the capability to disrupt the strategic balance there," said Gissin.
Hamas may not engage in terrorism directly but they are going to give a free hand to other groups that want to carry out attacks, he said. "They will try to sweet-talk the West, but in practice they will not do anything to stop [the terrorism]."
Islamic Jihad, which is ideologically aligned with and backed by Iran, claimed responsibility for firing the Katyusha rocket. The group has launched more than 450 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets since the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip last September.
According to the military sources, the rocket probably was smuggled into Gaza across the Egyptian border. Sources said Islamic Jihad probably doesn't have many of the longer-range rockets -- yet.
Five of the cruder Kassams were launched from Gaza toward Israel on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, two Bedouin shepherds, a father and son, were killed when they handled a Kassam rocket that had been launched into Israel earlier.
Residents of northern Israel have suffered for years from Katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli border towns launched by the Iranian-backed Hizballah.

No Amnesty, House Members Tell Senate

Well, it's a step in the right direction. I hope the Republicans stand firm on this.

(CNSNews.com) - Members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus have a message for the Senate: Immigration proposals that include amnesty are unacceptable and will not pass the House.
Or will they? According to Thursday's New York Times, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is hinting at a compromise on the guest worker issue.
"We're going to look at all alternatives," Hastert said at a news conference Wednesday. "We're not going to discount anything right now. Our first priority is to protect the border. And we also know there is a need in some sections of the economy for a guest-worker program."
But any plan that goes easy on illegal aliens will face stiff opposition in the House.
On Thursday, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), and other members of the Immigration Reform Caucus were holding a "Just Say No to Amnesty" press conference on Capitol Hill. The message is aimed at the Senate.
Tancredo, who chairs the 94-member Immigration Reform Caucus, said recent immigration rallies -- where protesters waved Mexican flags -- show the magnitude of the problem:
"For years, the government has turned a blind eye to illegal aliens who break into this country. It isn't any wonder that illegal aliens now act as if they are entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship," he said in a press release.
Tancredo says the McCain-Kennedy-Specter bill that emerged from the Judiciary Committee earlier this week would give amnesty to the more than 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said the bill does not offer amnesty, but "earned citizenship.")
Regardless, If the Senate passes the Judiciary Committee's bill, "the prospects of getting a reform bill to the president's desk this year are slim, to say the least," Tancredo said. "No plan with amnesty and a massive increase in foreign workers will pass the House," he insisted.
"Americans want enforcement first, and disagreement over foreign workers should not prevent us from securing our borders," Tancredo said.
The House passed a border security bill by a 239-182 margin in December. Among other things, the bill calls for a fence along the U.S. border; it cracks down on alien smuggling rings and those who come to this country illegally; and it sets up a system for employers to verify the legal status of the people they hire.
The bill does not include a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, nor does it include a guest worker program.

'Fear-mongering'
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), the author of the border security bill, complained this week that critics of his bill are spreading misconceptions about it.
He said his bill give prosecutors new tools to fight smuggling rings. But it does not target humanitarian and church groups, as critics contend.
It's "fear-mongering" to say that "clergy and good Samaritans will be thrown in jail," he said. "That's absolutely false -- and beneath the level of dialogue this important issue deserves...Targeting alien smuggling gangs is the intent -- and the effect -- of the House bill," Sensenbrenner added.
Sensenbrenner also noted that his bill would make "unlawful presence" in the U.S. a crime instead of a civil immigration offense.
Democrats, trying to poison the House bill, made "unlawful presence" a felony. Sensenbrenner and other Republicans wanted unlawful presence to be a misdemeanor, not a felony, but his amendment was rejected.
"While I was disappointed in this cynical maneuver taken by my Democratic colleagues, I remain committed to making unlawful presence a misdemeanor and producing a strong bill that will prevent illegal immigration and bolster control of our borders in an effective and compassionate way," Sensenbrenner said.

Student's Lawsuit Compels UW to Lift RA-Led Bible Study Ban

Another victory for Free Speech over Political Correctness.

(AgapePress) - A Christian resident assistant (RA) at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire has dropped his lawsuit against the school following its elimination of a ban on RA-led Bible studies. The UW's Board of Regents recently approved a policy allowing student dormitory workers to lead Bible studies.
Student Lance Steiger had sued the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire over its prohibition of RA-led scripture studies; however, as a result of the new policy, he has agreed to drop the case. In return, the school has agreed to pay Steiger's attorneys' fees and costs and hand him a symbolic damage award of $1.
Steiger's attorney, Kevin Theriot with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the UW administration's change of heart had everything to do with the lawsuit.
In a "very clear case like this one of a violation of a student's free-speech rights," Theriot asserts, particularly "on campus where students are supposed to be learning about the American ideals of free speech -- especially religious speech -- the university has, really, no choice but to change course."
However, the university did not make that choice without a degree of pressure. Although other RAs had led discussion groups in their room on various secular topics, including feminism and sexual issues, school officials told Steiger and other RAs they were not allowed to hold Bible studies anywhere in their dorms, including their own rooms.
University officials originally justified the ban by suggesting that leading Bible studies would make RAs less "approachable" to non-Christian students. The school did not change its policy, even after the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education was contacted and sent a letter on Steiger's behalf to the administration explaining his rights.
It was when ADF lawyers representing the Christian RA filed suit that UW temporarily suspended its policy, saying it would strike a committee to study the matter. Ultimately, Theriot notes, the school "came to the right conclusion that the First Amendment protects religious speech and that this student's rights had indeed been violated." It is "high time," he contends, for universities like UW-Eau Claire to examine their policies and start focusing on "being constitutionally correct instead of politically correct."
Steiger's lawsuit and its resolution send "a clear message to universities nationally that are considering these type of politically correct restrictions on speech," the ADF-affiliated attorney points out. In effect, he says, this case "lets them know that organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund are going to react very quickly and that people are not going to stand for second-class status when it comes to expressing their religious views."
Colleges and universities should not treat Christian students any differently than other students, Theriot insists, whether those students are religious or not. A student's speech in his or her dorm room is constitutionally protected free expression, he adds, and ADF is "very pleased" that UW-Eau Claire had decided to respect the First Amendment rights of its student RAs instead of restricting them.

Afghan Convert to Christianity Finds Asylum in Italy

I'm so glad that Mr. Rahman has been able to get our of Afghanistan, but I'm sad that he even had to. Although he's now in Italy, he still must guard his life. Since he's "insulted" islam by leaving it, they can still hunt him down and kill him. I love it when islam shows off it's more sensitive side of love and tolerance. They talk about it a lot. I wonder when they are actually going to start doing it? Hint: Never!

(AgapePress) - Intense international pressure and attention -- not to mention the prayers of his fellow Christians worldwide -- played a role in Abdul Rahman's release from an Afghan prison earlier this week. Now the Afghani who left the Muslim faith for a relationship with Jesus Christ has found safe haven in Italy.
According to news reports, 41-year-old Abdul Rahman is now safely in Italy, which granted asylum to the Christian convert who held fast to his faith when faced with the prospect of a death sentence for leaving the Muslim faith. Rahman, who went into hiding after he was released from prison Monday evening when all charges were dropped, had sought asylum in another country for fear of death threats made by top Muslim clerics in Afghanistan.
Associated Press reports that, according to Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, Rahman may have arrived in Italy overnight and is now in the care of the country's Interior Ministry. Berlusconi says his country is glad to welcome someone he says is "courageous." Italy granted Rahman asylum after his imprisonment and trial inspired an appeal from Pope Benedict to Afghanistan's president, and efforts by the United Nations to find a country to take him.
Meanwhile, Muslim clerics in Afghanistan are outraged at Rahman's release, says AP. That country's new parliament had demanded that the convert be barred from leaving the country, but no formal vote was taken on the issue. A top cleric in southern Afghanistan called Rahman's release a "betrayal of Islam," and some 500 Afghans rallied on Wednesday at a mosque, demanding that Rahman be either forced to return to Islam or be killed. The cleric has threatened to incite violent protests.

'Religious Freedom' in Afghanistan
A spokesman for The Voice of the Martyrs says Abdul Rahman's trial in Afghanistan has put a much-needed spotlight on the true nature of Islam. An official with VOM is hopeful that attention generated by the case will spark worldwide prayer -- and a revival in the Muslim nation.
Todd Nettleton is a spokesman for VOM, a worldwide ministry that serves those who are persecuted for their Christian faith. He says under the new constitution of Afghanistan -- which some interpret to require the death penalty for a Muslim who rejects that faith -- Islam controls all aspects of life.
"In the United States we talk about the separation of church and state," notes Nettleton, "but in an Islamic country, there is no separation. Islam controls not just religion but also politics, legal issues, and all of life. And Islamic law simply does not allow a person to leave Islam and follow another faith."
And despite a new constitution for the supposedly developing democracy, persecution of Christians is still common in Afghanistan, he says.
"The Afghan government has recognized that Afghans can be Hindus and can be Sikhs, but they do not recognize Afghan Christians," the VOM spokesman explains. "Our brothers and sisters there have no legal standing, and that's got to change."
Nettleton makes reference to those who are currently in the predominantly Muslim nation, trying to secure freedom for all of its citizens. "American soldiers didn't go to Afghanistan and lay down their lives so that Christians could be persecuted," he states. "They fought and died so that Afghans could truly have freedom, including freedom of religion."
Rahman converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working with a Christian aid group in Pakistan. His wife divorced him, his parents gained custody of his two daughters, and he lived in Germany before being deported to Afghanistan after several years of seeking asylum in European countries.

Duke Profs Reportedly Behind Student-Led Harassment of Guest Speaker

And we could expect no less from our fine, outstanding, bastions of higher education.

(AgapePress) - A conservative columnist is criticizing Duke University for taking no punitive action against three feminist professors who attempted to talk 20 students into stripping during the middle of a speech by conservative activist David Horowitz on campus.
Earlier this month, the group of students -- led by professors Diane Nelson, Caroline Light, and Jocelyn Alcott -- repeatedly interrupted one of the largest student-sponsored speeches in Duke history. The three professors originally urged a group of 20 male and female students to remove their shirts during the speech, but later decided the protesters would laugh repeatedly throughout the event and harangue the speaker.
The protest against David Horowitz, according to FrontPageMag.com writer Ben Johnson, violated Duke's own faculty handbook, yet the university has only said it is investigating the matter. Johnson, who has written a column on the incident called "Red-Faced at Duke," explains that the handbook instructs faculty to "protect the exercise of [academic freedom] from disruption or interference," and states that "substitution of noise for speech and force for reason is a rejection and not an application of academic freedom."
"If you want to have a speech of your own to counter that, that's fine," says the columnist. "But the answer to free speech is more speech. It's not shouting down the speaker, which is what these three professors chose to do." The faculty handbook specifies that staff members who violate the guidelines outlined in the faculty handbook could face possible termination of employment.
Johnson also addresses the original plans for the protest, pointing out the actions of one of the professors involved. "Diane Nelson had sent out an e-mail in advance that said what they wanted to do, at a certain time; they wanted to have the men wear nothing underneath these protest shirts," he explains. According to Johnson, the shirts that were to be worn made reference to one of Horowitz's books, titled The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.
"[Nelson] ... wanted to have the women wear bras underneath the tee shirts, and [then] at a certain point [in the speech] they would stand up and flash David Horowitz," he adds.
Johnson says Duke's willingness to allow the disruptive protest and its unwillingness to punish those involved indicates the school is no different than other prestigious universities he describes as "far to the left of the American mainstream."

Doomsday for Islam: Commentator Rebutal

Commentator Eleanor said...
"We are under attack by the Islamic World because we support the Israeli occupation of Palestine and because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, said he attacked us because of our biased support of Israel.(See "The 9/11 Commission Report" p. 147) The recent paper by professors Mearsheimer and Walt exquisitely documents the power of the Israeli lobby in its control of the press, our politicians, and US foreign policy. Rather than continuing to incite terrorism, plus threatening all sorts of inhumane nuclear revenge on innocent people (as Israel has historically done, ie collective punishment) we would do better to address the legitimate grievances in the Muslim World and mend our ways. When one studies tapes by Osama bin Laden it is clear he is not motivated by an urge to convert us all to Islam: this is neocon propaganda. See: www.dundeesblog.blogspot.com"

I felt it necessary to make a separate post on the comment Eleanor left me in regards to my post "Doomsday for Islam?" Ms. Eleanor seems to have missed a few facts and I wanted to take a moment to present them to her and anyone else who is still buying into this train of thought.

You said "When one studies tapes by Osama bin Laden it is clear he is not motivated by an urge to convert us all to Islam: this is neocon propaganda."
In the letter bin Laden released in November of 2002, he clearly states that the people of the United States "are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind," and "you are the nation who rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its constitution and laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire." He goes on to list "conditions" that "If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for a fight with the Islamic Nation."
These conditions, again, directly from his letter are:

1. The American people must convert to Islam.
2. Americans must "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest."

So to recap, in order for bin Laden, and if he speaks for them, the rest of the Islamic world, not to attack us further, all we have to do is give up our Constitution and replace it with one what follows Islamic law. In other words, all the homosexuals would have to be put to death. The bars would be shut down and no restaurants could serve alcohol. Sporting events could no longer serve beer. Casinos, the lottery and slot machines are gone. No couples living together before marriage. Male/Female segregation at schools and public events. No right to vote for females. All females would have to wear headscarves in public and walk ten steps behind men. No credit cards and loans to buy cars and houses. No retirement fund, because it is made primarily from investments. Second century values on life, standard of living and education.
Hummm...this is a pretty bleak picture. Is this really what you want? If it is, please let me know and I can suggest several countries you can relocate to in order to enjoy this way of life.

Let's move on.
You said "We are under attack by the Islamic World because we support the Israeli occupation of Palestine and because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan."
Exactly when did Israel occupy Palestine? You're probably going to say 1948. Well, actually, God gave that area of the world to Israel back in the 15th century BC. Since that time, many different empires and governments have laid claim to that area. Despite the efforts of many of these rulers, Jews (Israelites) have always been a significant presence in this area. Other populations would come and go, but "Israel" was always there.
The local inhabitants did not call themselves "Palestinians". The concept of a "Palestinian" to describe the local residents had not even been invented by 1948; neither was there ever in history a "Palestinian Arab" nation. None of today's Arabs have any ancestral relationship to the original Biblical Philistines who are now extinct. Even Arab historians have admitted Palestine never existed.

• In 1937, the Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Peel Commission: "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. Palestine is alien to us."

• In 1946, Princeton's Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "It's common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history."

• In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The 'Palestinian people' does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel."

• Mark Twain - Samuel Clemens, the famous author of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer", took a tour of the Holy Land in 1867. This is how he described that land: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

• In 1874, Reverend Samuel Manning wrote: "But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude.... Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter -- "the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants."

And yet, despite their very own self profession of being an invented people, they sure are fast to call on the world to acknowledge their so called "occupation". Apparently you've bought into this mantra as well.

You said "...because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan."
It seems you like to throw around the "occupy" word quite liberally.
According to the Hague Conventions of 1907, Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State, Article 42 states:

• Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

• The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

In Article 43, it states:

• The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Are you familiar with the elections in Afghanistan back in September of 2005 and with the elections in Iraq back in December of 2005, in which the populations of both of these countries democratically elected their leaders?
According to The Hague Conventions of 1907, the United States armed forces and the forces of the coalition governments are in place at the request of the legitimate government of those countries. They are no different then military bases in Germany, Korea or Japan.

Eleanor, I'm sure you're way to young (as am I) to remember World War 1 and World War 2. If you have studied these wars, you will see us assisting our allies (World War 1 and World War 2) in defeating tyrannical governments who were determined to expand their dominance or sphere's of influence and responding to attacks directly on us (World War 2). In both cases you have sited (Iraq and Afghanistan) you have tried to spin this as though the United States is evil and awful for going to war against the former governments of these countries. I'd like to ask you to explain in what ways, these wars are different than World War 1 and World War 2.
In Afghanistan, we went to war after being attacked by an enemy force. We went to the country where they were based. We defeated them (a major goal of war) and assisted the government in rebuilding their country.
In Iraq, we went to war to remove a tyrannical government set on expanding their dominance and sphere of influence and as a bonus, removed a leader who had terrorized his own people, killing thousands of them. Their only crime was dissent, something you are allowed to do daily with no threat of death.

You went on to site the working paper that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt made about the force of the Israeli lobby in America. I would like to point out, that this "study" was so filled with misinformation that Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where Mearsheimer is a professor, removed it's logo from the paper and added a disclaimer.

Eleanor, instead of "mending our ways", why don't we ask the rest of the world to be accountable to their people's wills, via a democratically elected government and take responsibility for those in their midst who preach hate and destruction.

In regards to the article, Islam better wake up to the fact that they will be held accountable for what people who claim to represent them do. Instead of taking a "root them on from the sideline" attitude, they need to be reclaiming their so-called "hijacked" religion from these radicals. Don't look for this to happen any time soon. They agree with the radicals, they just have to say otherwise when meeting with civilized people.

Mark my words:
If the Islamist terrorist succeed in detonating one or more nuclear devices in the United States, the retaliation against the Islamist who sat on their hands and let it happen, will be swift and more deadly than anything this world has ever seen. It is in their best interest to police themselves now, before this calamity can happen.

Marchers say gringos, not illegals, have to go

So the gloves are off? Do illegal aliens want to be deported that badly that they would make a claim of this is their country, not ours? Not a good idea.
Just for the record:
My family was at Jamestown Colony. We helped settle this country from shore to shore. We have fought, and in some cases died, in every conflict this country has been involved in.
If you are here illegally, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! You are a criminal. That is what illegal means.
Don't you dare think for one moment that you have the right, either legally or morally, to tell me to get out of my own country! I EARNED the right to be here. All those who have come here legally have EARNED the right to be here. All the rest of you are illegal, freeloading criminals.
Keep pushing and protesting and you might find out just how unwelcome you can become.

WASHINGTON – While debates about guest-worker programs for illegal aliens take place in the corridors of power, in the streets of America's big cities no amnesty is being offered by activists calling for the expulsion of most U.S. citizens from their own country.
While politicians debate the fate of some 12 million people residing in the U.S. illegally, the Mexica Movement, one of the organizers of the mass protest in Los Angeles this week, has already decided it is the "non-indigenous," white, English-speaking U.S. citizens of European descent who have to leave what they call "our continent."
The pictures and captions tell the story.
* "This is our continent, not yours!" exclaimed one banner.
* "We are indigenous! The only owners of this continent!" said another.
* "If you think I'm illegal because I'm a Mexican, learn the true history, because I'm in my homeland," read another sign.
"One of the more negative parts of the march was when American flags were passed out to make sure the marchers were looked on as part of 'America,'" said the group's commentary on the L.A. rally.
Both Rep. James Sensebrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a proponent of tougher border security, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were caricatured as Nazis by the group on its posters and banners.
The group insists the indigenous people of the continent were the victims of genocide – a campaign of extermination that killed, according to one citation, 95 percent of their population, or 33 million people. Another citation on the same website claims the toll was 70 million to 100 million.
The only solution, says the Mexica Movement, is to expel the invaders of the last 500 years, force them to pay reparations and return the continent to its rightful heirs.
The platform of the group illustrates the diverse – and sometimes extreme – agendas of those participating in the mass mobilizations that have been seen largely as protests against efforts to curb illegal immigration.
Some of those involved, including the Mexica Movement, have much bigger goals than stopping a piece of legislation before Congress.
The Mexica Movement has big issues with many other equally radical groups participating in the massive, united-front rallies. The group makes a point of distinguishing its goals and objectives from others, such as the separatist Aztlan Movement.
Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs, is regarded in Chicano folklore as an area that includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. The movement seeks to create a sovereign, Spanish-speaking state, "Republica del Norte," or the Republic of the North, that would combine the American Southwest with the northern Mexican states and eventually merge with Mexico.
A group called "La Voz de Aztlan," the Voice of Aztlan, identifies Mexicans in the U.S. as "America's Palestinians." Many Mexicans see themselves as part of a transnational ethnic group known as "La Raza," the race. A May editorial on the website, with a dateline of Los Angeles, Alta California, declares that "both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories."
Others in the coalition hope to see a "reconquest" of the American southwest by Mexico. This would not likely take place through military action, they say, but rather through a slow process of migration – both legal and illegal.

Doomsday for Islam?

An interesting article, by Robert Pfriender, that discusses what some of the repercussions could be if radical islamist actually set off a nuke in the United States.


The focus on the ports fiasco obviously would pale in comparison to a terror nuke actually detonating in one of our ports. But what about the flipside of that terrible event? What would happen to Islam as a result of a massive nuclear retaliatory counterstrike against Islamic targets?

Perhaps this week's most ominous headline was "Islamic websites carry al-Qaida's Last Warning." The story in WorldNetDaily detailed how Osama bin Laden's terror group plans to bring destruction upon the United States and force it into surrender. Apparently this is more of the same threat that has been circulating for some time that al-Qaida plans to detonate seven nuclear warheads it claims to have acquired from Pakistan and the former Soviet Union in the United States. There have also been accompanying threats that al-Qaida planned to follow up the nuclear attacks with crop-dusting planes that would spread smallpox on American cities.

Despite grandiose plans for such an attack on the United States, bin Laden has again failed to understand the nature of the American spirit and the likely vengeance such an attack would unleash from American military strategic nuclear forces. Since the United States entered the era of nuclear weapons technology many decades ago, it has always had detailed contingency plans on how the country would respond in a nuclear crisis.

Perhaps best known among those contingency plans is the one drawn up during the Cold War with the Soviets commonly described as "MAD," or Mutual Assured Destruction. Simply, MAD is the doctrine whereby the United States sought to dissuade its adversaries from ever even considering a nuclear attack against our country by assuring that such an attempt would be met with such a hyper-violent nuclear response that would undoubtedly result in the annihilation of not just the United States, but also the enemy that initiated the attack.


For some odd reason, bin Laden and his fanatical associates seem to believe that the United States would back down in the face of a nuclear terror attack. It would seem that their psychotic thought processes have blinded their judgment in a profound and ultimately self-destructive way. Their warped perception leads them to believe that such an attack could not be traced back to their hands and hence the United States would be left with no retaliation targets. They obviously fail to see the difference between tactical and strategic planning and this error may ultimately lead Islam to disaster.

Enter what history may someday describe as the Bush doctrine of "Terror-MAD," the likely response to a terror nuke attack on our country. Although no one in government will confirm such a doctrine even exists, simple common sense and past comments by government officials to the press would indicate that, in fact, it does exist. And herein is Mr. bin Laden's very fatal flaw.

A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.

Bear in mind the reality of such an attack against the United States. Not only would the United States not be chastised by the international community for such a massive counterstrike, but no one in the American government would likely care about what others think under such circumstances. While we're busy throwing all those retaliatory nukes around, who is going to standup and object? Certainly, it won't be Russia to complain since they have their own serious radical Islam problem to deal with in former republics on its borders.

Let's be reminded that there is no provision in any of the Pentagon's war plans or myriad assortment of contingency plans for a national surrender. It would just never happen under any circumstance. Actually, the Pentagon's logic is that for each escalation of attack against us our response would be a vastly increased level of violence against our adversary. And you can be sure – when push comes to shove – whatever weapon is in the inventory will be used ... nothing will be held back.

Such a contingency plan is likely contained in the largely still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review, the comprehensive war plan for the Pentagon. Unlike bin Laden's shortsighted tactical plans, the Pentagon has an extremely detailed strategic plan for dealing with essentially any circumstance, threat or contingency that may conceivably face our nation.

The likely target list for retaliation for a nuclear terror attack against the United States includes Iran, Syria, and Libya as the primary targets. We can supplement those targets with countries such as Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (and that are most likely targeted with the "neutron bomb" designed with such a scenario in mind that kills with enhanced radiation levels but essentially leaves facilities and oil infrastructure intact – except for holy sites such as Mecca, Medina, Hebron, Qom and others, which planners might want to completely annihilate). There are likely other "Islamic" countries also on the potential target list and even ones we generally consider as being friendly to the U.S. such as Pakistan, especially if radicals gained control of its nuclear weapons.

You may recall that Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., suggested exactly that awhile back, and while his statement met with denials from the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House were silent on the Tancredo comment. A statement previously released from the Pentagon says, "The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies. We do so in order to deter such attacks in the first place ... This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of weapons of mass destruction," the Pentagon statement also said.

While the Pentagon was busy "cleaning house" our strategic nuclear force would also likely target North Korea just to be certain we don't face any additional threats while we are in a recovery mode from the terror attack. Depending on the circumstances at the time of the attack against us, the Pentagon might even include China on the potential target list since China's own military doctrine (especially "Unrestricted Warfare") could be interpreted as using any advantage such as an already weakened United States to further its own military goals. Simply, our military planners would likely destroy every conceivable real or imagined threat to our country after we are attacked with a nuke.

Americans as a whole seem to have tremendous patience, much more so than say Islamic countries. The American flag is burned on a daily basis in many countries during what seem like endless protests against our country and it hardly elicits any response at all here. On the other hand, a few cartoons – even ones showing Muhammad in a favorable way – sends masses of violent protestors into the streets in Islamic countries. However, we do have limits to our patience. If we got nuked, there would undoubtedly be a tremendous outcry for massive retaliation. After all, the country quickly united on Sept. 12, 2001, and widely supported President Bush's initiative to attack Afghanistan.

According to the portions of the Nuclear Posture Review that are public, nuclear weapons can be used "in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons," or "in the event of surprising military developments." It also recognizes the need for nuclear retaliation in cases of "immediate, potential or unexpected" contingencies against potential adversaries that have "long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners" including countries that "sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs."

Former U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton (now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) said a while back:

We would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent civilian population ... The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody ... has just been disproven by Sept. 11.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has said that the Bush administration wants to "send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States." Further, "The only way to deter such a use is to be clear it would be met with a devastating response," she said. A State Department spokesman has previously stated "if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of response."


Considering the huge number of nuclear weapons in the United State's inventory, there would be no need to pick and choose targets for economy purposes. While bin Laden's claim that he has a few nukes (which may or may not be still operational) may turn out to be true, there is the utmost certainty that the United States has a huge number (somewhere in the thousands) of extremely well-maintained and very reliable nuclear warheads in all shapes and sizes for every possible purpose.

A nuclear attack on America by al-Qaida would – by many informed accounts – lead to a renewed crusade to destroy Islam throughout the world. Bin Laden's grandiose plan to destroy modern civilization and restore some absurd form of radical Islamic rule throughout the entire world will undoubtedly have exactly the opposite effect. Already we see a tremendous backlash against most things Islamic, the recent port fiasco is a perfect case in point. Imagine the reaction after a nuke attack.

Absent an international movement by those in the moderate Islamic community – who can and should be able to locate and bring Mr. bin Laden and his despicable cohorts to justice – he just might one day make good on his threat to nuke America.

In his fanatical zeal to convert the entire world to radical Islam, there will be two groups of victims resulting from bin Laden's insanity – innocent people just wanting to live their normal lives here in our country, and Islam itself with its followers throughout the world. Such a result would hardy be considered a noble pursuit and or end-result by people who claim to be the servants of their God.

Republicans Demand Vote on 'Holly's Law'

Amazing. The FDA will yank drungs off the market, in a hearbeat, when they have even a hint that it will cause problems. When dealing with abortion, even if the drugs are proven to kill women, the FDA drags it's feet. Is this all backwards or what?

(CNSNews.com) - House Republicans are demanding quick action on proposed legislation that would force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to withdraw approval of the abortion drug RU-486.
The bill, H.R. 1079, is called Holly's Law, named after 18-year-old Holly Patterson of California. She died of infection in 2003 after taking RU-486.
Earlier this month, two more deaths were linked to RU-486, bringing the U.S. death toll for medication abortions to 7.
A group of House Republicans wants the FDA to pull RU-486 off the market, pending a thorough review of the drug and how it was approved. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) has accused the Clinton administration of rushing approval of the drug for political purposes -- and ignoring safety concerns in the process.
Republican lawmakers are holding a press conference on Wednesday, hoping the publicity will help them bring the bill to the House floor for a vote.
Even the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has expressed concern about the deaths of women who took RU-486.
In a statement on its website two weeks ago, Vanessa Cullins, Planned Parenthood's vice president for medical affairs, said the organization was "seeking additional information" about the two most recent deaths linked to RU-486.
"At this time, none of those deaths have been directly attributed to mifepristone," said Cullins, a physician. But, she added, "Due to health concerns about infection rates and adverse events, we are updating our medical protocol for medication abortion."
Planned Parenthood said it will no longer administer misoprostol vaginally, but instead will give it orally. (Misoprostol is the second drug in the two-drug RU-486 abortion regimen).
Putting the situation in "context," Planned Parenthood also noted that since RU-486 was approved by the FDA in September 2000, 560,000 medication abortions have taken place in the U.S., and seven women who were taking the drug died.
Republican lawmakers attending Wednesday's press conference include Reps. Chris Smith, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Mike Pence of Indiana, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Trent Franks of Arizona, and Jean Schmidt of Ohio.

Group Says Rahman One of Thousands Awaiting Death Sentence for Accepting Christ

This is such a sad situation. To have to leave your home in order to keep from being killed for your faith. Mr. Rahman, the Christians of the United States welcome you with open arms.
I've studied islam too much to buy into their "religion of peace and tolerance" mantra. But how anyone can look at islam and not see them for what they are is beyond me. They are, and always have been, a religion of death, violence and destruction.
It is impossible to see their reaction to events over the last several months and not come to that conclusion. From riots over cartoons and people dedicated to blowing up hospitals in Israel to calling for the death of someone who's only crime was leaving islam, the true colors of this "religion" are showing through.
If islam really was a religion of peace and tolerance, the riots and protest would have been against the militants that the "moderate" muslims claim have taken over. They would have been against this small minority of people who distort the koran. But the silence is deafening. Why, you might ask? The only reasonable conclusion is, because muslims, as a whole, agree completely with these “militants”. Islam is a religion of death, violence, bloodshed, destruction, and intolerance, made up entirely of militants, from the youngest child to the oldest seniors. Come on islam, prove me wrong.

(AgapePress) - News reports indicate that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who faced a possible death penalty for his acceptance of Christ as his personal Savior, has been released from a Kabul prison. No one, however, seems to know where he is since being released late yesterday. He had indicated that because of death threats from radical Muslim clerics, he wished to seek asylum in another country.
The United Nations says it will work with Afghanistan to accommodate Rahman's request for asylum. Rahman, who claims he converted from the Muslim faith 16 years ago, recently faced the death penalty for that decision until a Kabul court dismissed the charges and reportedly released him from a high-security prison near Kabul on Monday night.
But Islamic extremists have called for his death since the start of the trial, prompting groups that are concerned about Rahman's safety to call for his quick exit from the predominantly Muslim nation. Associated Press is now reporting that Rahman "quickly vanished" after being released on Monday night, and speculates he did so "out of fear for his life" with Muslim clerics still demanding his death.
A spokesman says the U.N. expects the 41-year-old convert's request for asylum to be met. "We've been working closely with the government of Afghanistan to find a solution to this," Adrian Edwards tells Associated Press. "As for Mr. Abdul Rahman, he has asked for asylum outside Afghanistan. We expect this to be provided by one of the countries interested in seeing a peaceful solution to this case."
He says the U.N. assistance mission in Afghanistan "has a mandate for good offices and for upholding human rights in Afghanistan" and has been following the case "closely since the outset." Hundreds of people protested against the court's decision to drop the case. The decision came partly because officials expressed concern that Rahman is mentally unfit to face trial. (See earlier story)

Conversion from Islam Taboo in Most Muslim Nations
The president of a grassroots human-rights organization says while much attention has been focused on the Afghan Christian who was on trial for his faith, the case is not an isolated incident. A recent report from Associated Press confirms that observation.
AP points out that Afghanistan is not the only U.S. ally where Muslim converts to Christianity can face prosecution or even execution. Saudi Arabia, for example, neither permits conversion from Islam nor allows other religions in the kingdom. In addition, there are no churches, and missionaries are barred. Islamic Shariah law considers conversion to any other religion apostasy and most Muslim scholars agree the punishment is death. Saudi Arabia considers Sharia the law of the land, though there have been no reported cases of executions of converts from Islam in recent memory.
The report continues, noting that in Jordan, after a Muslim man converted to Christianity two years ago, a court convicted him of apostasy, took away his right to work, and annulled his marriage. And in Kuwait, a court convicted a Shiite Muslim man who publicly proclaimed his conversion to Christianity, but did not sentence him since the criminal code did not set a punishment.
Jim Jacobsen, president of the group Christian Freedom International (CFI) says there "literally thousands" of Christians all over the Islamic world who are awaiting a death sentence because they converted to Christianity.
"We're involved with many, many other cases just like [Rahman's]," Jacobsen says. "They lose everything -- all possessions, their inheritance. They're literally thrown out into the streets. The local mosque will issue a fatwa or death sentence against them."
The CFI leader says his organization sent a letter to President George W. Bush, asking him to push for Rahman's immediate release -- and reminding him that minority Christians face severe and growing persecution in many Muslim nations. Jacobsen theorizes that Rahman's case has received widespread media coverage simply because it can embarrass the president.
"He's spent so much effort and treasure on assisting in Afghanistan, and they see this somehow as the president's fault and that his policies have failed," he says. "But give me a break here. Yeah, we'd like to see a lot more, but this is the kind of thing that's happening throughout the Islamic world."