Stop the Ground Zero Rajab!!

ACLJ's litigation against the Ground Zero Mosque project is going forward, with oral arguments tomorrow. Jordan seeks to maximize the impact of popular opposition by gaining more signatures on their on line petition.  If you have not yet signed the petition, use this link to go Jordan's note, which has a link to the petition at the end. 

    This is not really an issue of desecration of sacred soil, neither is it an issue of sensitivity.  It is an issue of supremacism. Islamic doctrine holds that Islam must be superior; it must be in a dominant position. 

    Park 51 is not a 'community center', nor is it strictly a mosque; it is a rajab: a fortification built on a site of conquest as a symbol of supremacy and a staging area for further expansion through military expeditions

    Islamic supremacism is best summarized in one ayat: 9:33 and Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65 but it is far deeper and broader than that.  Three blog posts on that subject have been compiled into a chm file: Islamic Supremacism.  Triumphalism  is a similar, related and conjoined concept covered in: Know Thine Enemy Part 11. 

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09

United Nations A/C.3/64/L.27 Combating defamation of religions tabled in the third committee. by Belarus, Syrian Arab Republic* and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of):
{A/C.3/64/L.28 Combating defamation of religions is embargoed, I can not determine if it is a competing draft or whether it is related in any way. }

*for the OIC.
The draft resolution is in the form of a 7 page, 56kb pdf consisting of an enumerated list of 25 items, the substantial parts begin on page 2.

Since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in remarks introducing the current Religious Freedom Report, rejected the concept of defamation of religions and accepted the concept of negative stereotyping:

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

I will begin with references to those concepts.

Defamation occurs twelve times in the draft resolution, beginning with the title.

Stressing that the defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

That section implies a cause : effect relationship between defamation of religions, restriction of freedom & hatred and violence. Did Christians who viewed the Danish Cartoons subsequently assault Muslims and destroy their property as a result?

Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

How do they plan to combat the defamation of Judaism and Christianity in the Qur'an wherein Allah expresses anger toward us, curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Is that really part of their program of action?

Noting with concern that the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions,

"Inaction of some states" is a vague term; what does it mean? Is it a reference to Denmark allowing publication of the cartoons and Holland allowing the publication of Fitna? What discrimination against Muslims resulted from those publications?

...sessions, in which the Special Rapporteur highlighted the serious nature of the defamation of all religions and the need to complement legal strategies...

"Legal strategies" is a reference to national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

"Overall campaign of the defamation of religions" ; is one single source defaming more than one religion and inciting religious hatred? Where is religious hatred incited other than in Mosques Madrassas and the state run media of Islamic nations where Jihad against Jews & Christians is preached? Was it Muslims or Mormons who perpetrated that attack and those in London & Madrid? Because Muslims perpetrated those attacks and others in the name of Allah, we are unable to trust Muslims. Failure to profile would be suicidal.

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;

Does anyone else recognize the non sequitur in that item?

8. Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of religions; [Emphasis added.]

Take a good long look at the emphasized clause in item 8. Terrorism is associated with Islam because it is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, sanctified & exemplified in the Qur'an and confirmed in Moe's sunnah.

• 3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
• 8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
• 33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
• And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
  Narrated Abu Huraira:
  
  Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

But we must not say or write that: to do so constitutes "defamation", "negative stereotyping", and " incitement to religious hatred & violence", according to the OIC and their factotums at the UN. Debate must be closed and silence imposed by law, even of truthful expressions which expose Islam's intrinsic evils.

Does anyone recognize the subsequent non sequitur? Promoting tolerance for the intolerable does not promote peace or justice. Islam is infamous because of its own canonical texts and its continuing history of rapine. Peace & justice would be promoted by recognizing and eliminating aggressive evil.

15. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general;

Item 15 asserts that accurate description of the doctrines and practices of Islam incites hatred, intimidation & coercion. It demands the passage & enforcement of national laws to prevent & punish truthful criticism of Islam, including Fitna and this blog post.

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

19. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising, and urges all States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling;

To make item 19 honest, indoctrination should be substituted for "education".

25. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session.

Negative stereotyping occurs three times.

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;

They are concerned about Fitna & similar videos, the Danish Cartoons and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal warfare & terrorism.

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

Truthful exposure of Islamic doctrines & practices does not diminish freedom of religion. Where Allah's writ runs, as in Egypt, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia, Islam diminishes freedom of religion.

23. Welcomes the initiative by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert seminar on freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, on 2 and 3 October 2008, and requests the High Commissioner to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and their communities;

According to the OIC and their UN factotums, Fitna and the Danish Cartoons are advocacy of religious hatred constituting incitement of violence. The Cartoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. Fitna exposed the relationship between Allah's Jihad imperatives, the hatred preached by Muslim clerics and the violence done by their congregants. In reality, that is not defamation neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it incitement.

The draft resolution is a demand for national and international enforcement of Islam's blasphemy law, which punishes any negative statement about Allah, his messenger or his book with death.

Reliance of the Traveller’s Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant items in that list.

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

Another provision prescribes the penalty.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive. What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe? According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The passage of these Defamation of Religion resolutions gives an unwarranted aura of legitimacy to the blasphemy laws enforced in Pakistan and other Islamic countries. Those laws are frequently used to persecute innocent victims, including indigenous Christians, converts to Christianity and missionaries.

Canadian, British, Australian and European critics of Islam have been persecuted, jailed and fined for truthful expressions about Islam. The policy of the Obama administration places our First Amendment right of free expression at risk. The Secretary of State condemns the defamation clauses but supports those alleging negative stereotyping. Both clauses have the same effect: criminalizing accurate description of Islamic doctrines and practices.

We must therefore resist and counter attack. Please sign, support and publicize the following on line petitions.

• International Qur'an Petition
• Free to Believe
• ACLJ

For a long list of links to previous resolutions, related documents and blog posts, refer to Defamation of Religions: Background Info.

External References in the resolution: superscripts refer to footnotes in the draft resolution.

• ¹ICERD
• ²ICCPR
• For detailed documentation of how Islamic doctrines violate these international covenants, refer to Islam vs Human Rights 64kb chm file compiled from 7 blog posts.
• ³Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
• ⁴Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live
• ⁵Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
• Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council in this regard,
• None specified; assuming the reference is to previous defamation resolutions.
• E/CN.4/1999/167
• E/CN.4/2005/135
• E/CN.4/2004/127
• E/CN.4/2002/200
• E/CN.4/2001/167
• E/CN.4/2000/167
• A/HRC/4/123
• A/C.3/60/L.29
• A/RES/60/150
• A/RES/61/164
• A/RES/63/171
• A/C.3/60/SR.45
• A/HRC/4/123
• A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev
• ⁶United Nations Millenium Declaration
• ⁷Durban Declaration A/CONF.189/12
• Durban Declaration - A/CONF.189/12 Chapter I - UN Documents
• ⁸Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009 A/CONF.211/8
• ⁹Taking note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
• A/HRC/4/19
• A/HRC/6/6
• A/HRC/9/12
• A/HRC/12/38
• ¹⁰Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, A/RES/56/6
• ¹¹Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007 A/62/464, annex.
• ¹²A/62/18
• CERD/C/63/CO/11, para. 20 (10 December2003)
• CERD/C/63/CO/6, para. 14 (10 December 2003)
• CERD/C/NGA/CO/18, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
• CERD/C/TZA/CO/16, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
• CERD/C/IRL/CO/2,para. 18 (14 April 2005)
• CERD/C/RUS/CO/19, paras. 16 and 17 (20 August 2008)
• resolution 63/171 of 18 December 2008
• ¹³report of the Secretary-General A/64/209
• ¹⁴United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, A/RES/60/288 General Assembly
• ¹⁵general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/48/18), chap. VIII, sect. B.
• ¹⁶World Programme for Human Rights Education proclaimed by the General Assembly on 10 December 2004 resolutions 59/113 A and B.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop the ACLU! Weekly Roundup 11/25-12/01/2007

I'm combining two things this week because they're both timely. First, of course, is the standard Stop the ACLU! Weekly Round-up from Jay here. Following the round-up is a little bit of help from the American Center for Law and Justice ("ACLJ") here, regarding your and your family's rights this Christmas season.

Articles:
Boston Wants to Ban Spanking
Nannystating at its core definition. Boston wants Mass to be first! I can only ask what the h**l is wrong with these people? There was a time when an unruly child got paddled when they misbehaved. Over the last couple of decades that has been set aside in favor of "time outs" and other such "punishments" that don't really work. What do we have to show for it? Unruly children terrorizing teachers across the land, falling test scores and disrespectful children.

Kucinich and Ron Paul Ticket?
Kucinich is actually suggesting his hopes for this. Wouldn't this be a sign of the apocalypse if it happens?

"Christ" Taken Out of Christmas Festival
Just another casuality in the war. Thanks to political correctness and groups like the ACLU. Chipping away at the core.

The traditional Dickens Christmas Festival has been re-named the Dickens Holiday Festival so the city can advertise in local schools.

In order to get more bang for their buck out of a thinning advertisement budget, the organization wants to put fliers in schools. For that to happen, the word "Christmas" had to be removed.

Downtown Development Coordinator Michelle Sponseller said many people are unhappy with the change.

"We changed the name this year for the schools because we wanted to advertise in the school brochures and the schools have a list of words you can't use like Santa, Christmas and Nativity. So did a brochure for the schools and we took those words out."

Hillary Plant in Republican CNN YouTube Debate?
It is basically confirmed. Of course, not admitted, but much that wasn't disclosed on this guy. He member of the Hillary Clinton campaign

Report: Guiliani's Mistress Used N.Y. Police as Taxi Service
Hopefully I don't make any enemies with this one, or accusations of eating my own, but I'm not a Rudy fan and don't look at him as one of our own anyway. I really don't understand why I'm not seeing more conservative blogs comment on this. Rudy's explanations are shabby, and don't even answer the accusations that his mistress had her own taxi service with the Police. It will be of interest to me to hear his explanations to the charges. Innocent until proven guilty. However, I think he is wrong that this will not hurt him. I've put up my opinion on this.

The ACLU Thinks This Is An Endorsement?
Seriously, the ACLU just put out a snarky press release thanking Mitt Romney for recognizing their work. It full of sarcasm, and while I'm not a big Romney fan, he just scored points with me by getting a personal attack from the ACLU.

Rudy Guiliani Should Not Be the Republican Nominee; He Really Shouldn't Even Call Himself Republican
I'm having a hard time understanding why the most liberal contender is getting so much support. I'm having a hard time understanding those that say he is the only one that can beat Hillary. He is on the opposite side of almost every conservative issue. If he were to be president it would be a backwards step for the conservative movement. It is about more than just beating Hillary. Its about beating back liberalism. The only thing that can do that is conservative values and principles being incorporated. That isn't gonna happen if Rudy Giuliani gets elected. Hopefully anyone supporting Rudy on the false premise that he is the only candidate that can beat Hillary will wake up and come back to core principles of conservatism. Thats really the only thing that can win in the end.

New York Times Hopes for SCOTUS Gun Grab
The "paper of record" once again makes like a broken record with another prosaic call to take away guns from the average American. The New York Times again displays its complete disregard of the Constitution in an editorial titled, "The Court and the Second Amendment", claiming our founding law is out of date and doesn't "confront modern-day reality." In another editorial filled with extreme language, untrue definitions and arrogance, and cementing its reputation against self-defense and American principles, the Times addressed the recent decision by the Supreme Court to soon take on the DC Gun banning reversal case. Hitting all its best low notes and filled with propaganda laced verbiage, the Times again made the case that you, Mr. and Mrs. America, are too stupid and filled with bloodlust to be trusted with a firearm… quite despite that musty, stupid old, out of date Constitution thingie.

********************

Videos:
Liveblogging CNN/YouTube Debate
I've got some nifty new way of liveblogging.

Fred Thompson's Revolution Ad
They asked for fire in the belly...heh.

Muslim Questioner at CNN Debate Was CAIR Plant
I thought you would want the scoop on this. The Plantgate keeps going and going and going.

Frontrunners Get Passed Up In Latest Iowa Poll
Things are starting to get interesting. Latest Iowa poll puts Huckabee and Obama at the top.

********************

Jay Sekulow at ACLJ has set up some guidelines for us during this Christmas season. Follow the links and contact the ACLJ if you run into any legal issues this season!


Your personal, constitutional rights are important to me and the staff at ACLJ.

We want to make sure you are fully aware of what is permissible when it comes to celebrating the Christmas holiday according to your religious beliefs.

With this in mind, we have prepared an online Christmas Resource Center that I invite you to visit right now.

There, you will find answers - clearly spelled out - to the most common questions we receive this time of year regarding your legal rights.

We have also prepared and posted legal guidelines outlining the proper way for students to express their religious beliefs in school during this holiday season.

I encourage you to visit this valuable online Christmas Resource Center and know your rights ... and the rights of your children or grandchildren ... when it comes to celebrating Christmas.

If you encounter any hostility or have further questions about your rights, contact the ACLJ at 757-226-2489.

God bless you and Merry Christmas!

********************

Lot's of good stuff, some timely, some sure to set off some excellent debates. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

Partial Birth Abortion-Here We Go Again

Take a good long look at the picture above. That child was the victim of a partial birth abortion.

Offended? GOOD--those who endorse abortion SHOULD be offended. They should also be ashamed and sick enough to their stomachs at actually seeing the results of that which they advocate they're throwing up for months afterwards and haunted by their nightmares.


How about this one for some nightmares?




Or this one?




Or this?



Too graphic you say? I shouldn't show things like this? I shouldn't show the effects of infanticide because it might offend the liberals who advocate infanticide? The same liberals who go after a child dressed in a soldier's uniform for Halloween in honor of his soldier father and is beaten to a pulp by his classmates while the classmate's mothers' stand by? The same liberals who post in the comment thread the child honoring his father should have been killed (the child was about 10)? The same liberals who want to give our 11 year old daughters birth control pills at school without a parent's permission? The same liberals who think it's a good idea to let underage girls have abortions without parental permission? The same liberals who think the Folsom Sex Fest is wholesome and not a slap to decent people, not a slap to Christianity and take their children to see it? THOSE LIBERALS? I MIGHT OFFEND THOSE LIBERALS?

TOUGH SHIT.

I have absolutely no sympathy for them--NONE.

The following came to me in my email from the American Center for Law and Justice.

Dear [Redacted], It would be understandable if you felt cheated, frustrated, or even angry. After all our efforts to see the horror of partial-birth abortion officially banned in this country ... After Congress voted to ban it, the President signed the bill into law, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that law ... Even after all this, within minutes of that Court ruling, pro-abortion members of Congress introduced a bill which would totally thwart the will of the people - reversing the decision of Congress and the President and undoing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Give your immediate online gift of support and stand with the ACLJ right now to turn back this challenge to the federal ban on partial-birth abortion! These members of Congress have put some ''spin'' on their bill: they call it the ''Freedom of Choice'' Act - but it's not really about freedom of choice. It's actually a slap in the face to the American people ... it's a tip of the hat to the abortion doctors and their lobbyists ... and it's a very real threat against the lives of unborn babies. Support for this bill flooded in from the entire abortion lobby -- the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., NARAL: Pro-Choice America, and others. Which means millions of dollars will almost certainly flow into the campaign for this legislation. The ACLJ truly needs the generous support of members like you today to mount an aggressive counter-offense, or all our vital efforts in support of the unborn will have been in vain. Senators Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and others have introduced this bill (H.R. 1964 and S. 1173) in one of the most brazen political moves we've seen in years - but it is also extremely dangerous, because if passed, it would enshrine abortion into law. [Emphasis mine] In order to stop this tidal wave, we absolutely must take VERY aggressive action through our Washington, D.C., office. I have set in motion several lawyers and a senior research team. We are dealing with members of both the House and the Senate. We can't simply work to prevent passage; we must also prepare to litigate in case the bill does become law. I assure you, we will fight every step of the way. But we need your help. Right now, the ACLJ is carrying an enormous workload on top of this issue, and as a result, we urgently need a generous online tax-deductible contribution from you today. We are returning to the Supreme Court of the United States with not one but two simultaneous cases in which public displays of the Ten Commandments are under fire. The work required for these twin cases is of MONUMENTAL proportion. It's a massive number of work-hours - and you can see why we really need your support now in this current fight for life. Here's the bottom line: your personal part in this effort is vitally important. Please let us hear from you right away. Thank you.

And so goes the slippery slope into socialistic thought. Rid yourself of those you don't want and find a way to justify it.

Then, find a way to legislate who is allowed and who isn't allowed to bear children. Those not allowed will have their children aborted and will find themselves sterilized. Like the eugenics project of Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood). Like China with their one child per family law.

Where does the slippery slope end? How long before euthansia is justified? How soon before we become like the Netherlands that allow infanticide AFTER the child is born because the parents may not like the child--for WHATEVER reason, wrong eye color, wrong hair color, wrong sex--how long?

Below is the summary of the Freedom of Choice act from the ACLJ website:

The Freedom of Choice Act

While the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart, abortion supporters in Congress have acted quickly to counteract the decision. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced a bill, called the Freedom of Choice Act, that would dramatically expand federal protection of abortion rights beyond what is required by Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The bill would invalidate many federal, state and local abortion laws, including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The Freedom of Choice Act would create an absolute right to abortion that would override any federal, state or local law that simply "interfered with" that right, no matter how compelling the justification for the law. For instance, the Freedom of Choice Act would likely invalidate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act even though the statute is constitutional. The findings section of the Freedom of Choice Act states that Congress’s decision in the partial-birth abortion case "permits the government to interfere with the woman’s right to choose to terminate pregnancy . . . ." Since the Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate any federal, state or local law that interferes "with a woman’s right to choose . . . to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability," federal and state partial-birth abortion bans would likely be invalidated.

This attempt to not only reverse the Supreme Court decision but to expand the right to abortion must be dealt with aggressively. Our Government Affairs staff is already working on congressional efforts to defeat this bill. I have assembled a legal team that is already reviewing possible legal challenges if this bill were to actually be passed. While I am not surprised by this move, I am very concerned. We must work aggressively to protect the most vulnerable among us. We have prepared a special video presentation on the Freedom of Choice Act. Click here if you’d like to view it.

Take a good look at the sponsors: Barbara Boxer and Jerrold Nadler. Look who supports it: Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer.

Put a stop to this atrocity--don't let any more children die from this sanctioned infanticide.

My previous posts on abortion:

My Pet Rant of All Time-Abortion
Thank You Supreme Court 9--Or At Least the 5 of You With Morals
THIS Is Partial Birth Abortion
The State of Nevada v. Darryl O. Clark, NDOC Prisoner ID 24347

Sphere: Related Content

ANOTHER Victory--This one for Free Speech!

Dear [Redacted], I am pleased to report on a significant victory at the House of Representatives! Please take just a moment to view a special video report I prepared for you just hours following this pivotal victory, which defeated Congressman Marty Meehan's dangerous amendment to the lobbying reform legislation. Congressman Meehan sought to impose a grassroots lobbying restriction as part of the lobbying reform bill. This amendment was nothing short of an imposed gag-order on conservative, pro-family, pro-life organizations. If it were to have passed, the language would have severely limited and restricted the First Amendment rights of grassroots organizations ... such as the ACLJ ... to mobilize on the key cultural issues of the day. This is an important free speech victory for churches and non-profit organizations! Your voice, raised in protest, along with more than 180,000 Americans, helped to squash this dangerous legislation before the Judiciary Committee. The aggressive work of the ACLJ posed a formidable challenge to Congressman Meehan's grassroots prohibition. Please watch my video report right now and remember, your solid support makes these significant victories possible!

An important free speech victory for churches and non-profit organizations...

To ensure that you continue to receive e-mails from the ACLJ, please add to your address book. American Center for Law and Justice P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C. 20090-0555 Phone: (800) 296-4529 Copyright©2007, ACLJ | Privacy & Security Policy | Registration | Unsubscribe This came in my email..I think it sums it up quite nicely! Another pelosi idea down the tubes--this idea one to put muzzles on those of us that disagree with her.

Sphere: Related Content