|
IN DEFENSE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
By Avi Davis
 One Sunday afternoon, in Washington State, a 13 year-old- boy complains to his parents that he is being required by them to go to church three times a week – which, in his opinion, is two times too many. Unable to budge them from their insistence that as their child he has an obligation to do what they say, junior arrives at a novel conclusion - that his human rights have in some way been compromised. He calls 911, complaining of mistreatment.
The police arrive and after some discussion with their superiors and reference to their code books, agree that there is cause to believe that the child’s liberty has been compromised. They thereafter remove him from his parents’ custody. Three days later, a local judge, instead of immediately dismissing the case as a nuisance, acknowledges that the child actually does possess human rights that have been affected by the parents’ decisions and orders against them.
The parents, now frightened that an appeal could result in months, if not years, of loss of the custody of their own son, reluctantly surrender to the local court’s ruling. From that moment on, junior will be required to go to church only once a week – and on the day and time of his choosing.
What is described above might offer a comedic scene straight out of Disney’s The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, if it wasn’t all too real. It is eerily close in character to the story of Sheila Marie Sumey, a landmark parental rights case which reached the Washington State Supreme Court in the 1980s. In that case, the child’s parents had become alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences by grounding her.
But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parents’ actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was a "conflict between parent and child." Listening to this advice, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed her in foster care.
Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.
If you think that this sounds all too implausible to become a common trend, think again. Since the mid-1990s the United States has been the signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), an international treaty that not only accords children these kinds of rights, but requires American courts to override our Constitution by imposing international rulings on American law. Yet, while the treaty was signed by President Bill Clinton in the mid-90s, it was never presented to the Senate for ratification.
That all may change soon. The call for a vote on the treaty could reach the United States Senate within 30 days. During the confirmation hearing for U.N. Ambassador designate Susan Rice in January, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) demanded a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review of the international treaty and its submission for ratification. Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect “the most vulnerable people of society.”
But the United States has had very good reason to reject the treaty. Among the many aspects of parent -child relations that the treaty would seek to monitor or regulate are corporal punishment (which it would outlaw); a child’s right to leisure; the child’s right to reproductive health information without regard to parental involvement or permission; the sentencing of juvenile murderers to death and the sentencing of juvenile murderers to life imprisonment. According to the treaty, Government can override parental decisions based on “the best interest of the child” without proof of abuse, neglect, or harm. Under this new regime, American children would have legally enforceable rights to complain about parental decision-making in every area of their lives, including religious, economic and educational matters.
The negative scenarios which could occur -- and are occurring -- as a result of this dangerous notion, are both manifold and frightening.
Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government would have the authority to override parental choices at their whim because only government appointed monitors would be trusted to determine what is in "the best interest of the child." In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.
Moreover, a committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, would have the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty, interpretations which would possess binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to a foreign committee. Such rulings would be supported by international law which provides, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
The treaty would also have a pernicious impact upon American sovereignty because of the Supremacy Clause embedded in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Under this clause, “all Treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” In other words, any treaty, ratified by the Senate, effectively preempts state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law.
If the treaty is ratified it will immediately find itself in direct conflict with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Troxel vs Granville, a landmark case in 2000, the court found that parental rights are indeed fundamental rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Parental rights, according to this ruling, are therefore the kind of integral “unalienable rights” referred to in the Declaration of Independence. The ratification of the Convention, if construed as interfering with constitutional rights, would set off a firestorm of litigation which would embroil the courts in years of contentious debate.
The overreaching assault on parental rights and family life, is a piece with the alarming penetration of international humanitarian law into our judicial system and government. We should not forget that the belief in principles of natural law which supersede sovereign enactments and aspects of domestic common law is one that has been similarly used to justify the indictment of Israeli generals, the prosecution of U.S. politicians and the detention of U.S. military personnel in countries around the world
More threateningly, human rights theory has been employed to justify the regulation of freedom of speech, the curtailment of press freedom and to stymie the exercise of the right to practice the religion of one’s choosing. Its boosters among the international human rights community - those who largely control the direction and efficacy of international human rights law- include such powerful non-governmental organizations as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders. But these are not transparent representative bodies in any respect and they propound philosophies which are avowedly inimical to the continuity of liberal democracy and the maintenance of traditional values.
With all this said, the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would be a grevious mistake for the United States, endangering national and state sovereignty and enabling the UN to dictate how parents raise their children while encouraging children to defy their parents by doing exactly as they please.
No more destructive assault on the foundations of our democracy, our way of life and our fundamental values can be imagined.
Want to comment on this article? See Avi Davis’ blog
Avi Davis is the Executive Director and Senior Fellow of the American Freedom Alliance in Los Angeles. He can be contacted at isdev@ix.netcom.com
Geert Wilders Welcomed in Washington, Shows 'Fitna' at the Capitol
by Robert Spencer
Geert Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian -- producer of the film expose Fitna -- and international champion of free speech, electrified a standing-room-only crowd in Washington Friday, declaring: “We will never apologize for being free men. We will never give in. We will never surrender. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty.” Wilders spoke these words at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, site of the Conservative Political Action Conference, at an independent event organized by Pamela Geller, publisher of the popular website AtlasShrugs.com, and co-sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Dr. Andrew Bostom (editor of The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism), and my own Jihad Watch. Geller’s determined efforts to get Wilders a platform in Washington show what one tireless citizen can do to make a difference -- a lesson that conservatives should increasingly heed in the Age of Obama, when so many organizations on the Right seem to have lost their focus and will. (HumanEvents)
NEWS: EUROPE AND AMERICA
Obama’s Third Way: Release the Terrorists-Andrew C. McCarthy
Binyam Mohammed, who planned terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, has been set free.
Let’s imagine we’ve captured a highly trained terrorist al-Qaeda was attempting to embed in the United States, à la Mohamed Atta and company, to carry out mass-murder attacks in American cities. For eight years, our national-security debate in the United States has been divided into two camps on these cases. In the first are those who accept the post-9/11 law-of-war paradigm. They would have that enemy combatant detained for intelligence purposes (and to remove him from the battlefield) until he could be tried for war crimes by a military commission, and then either executed or imprisoned for life. In the second are those who uphold the pre-9/11 law-enforcement paradigm. They would have that criminal defendant prosecuted in an ordinary civilian court, and correctly observe that federal courts have a strong track record of producing convictions and imposing adhesive sentences, at least for the tiny proportion of terrorists who have been tried in them. (NationalReview)
 We were sitting ducks for terrorists': English hero of deadly attacks on Sri Lankan cricket team describes his terror-Michael Seamark
An Englishman was last night hailed as a hero of the Lahore cricket atrocity. Chris Broad bravely shielded a fellow match official who was wounded when terrorists ambushed the Sri Lankan team. The former Test batsman was in a minibus behind the players’ coach when 14 gunmen armed with rifles, grenades and rocket launchers opened fire on both vehicles. They shot the minibus driver dead and hit umpire Ahsan Raza, prompting Mr Broad to jump on him to save him from further harm. The 51-year-old, whose son Stuart is playing for the England cricket team in the Caribbean, narrowly avoided being shot himself and minutes later was seen in a blood-spattered shirt. The 15-minute rampage by suspected Islamic extremists claimed eight lives, six those of Pakistani policemen. Seven cricketers were wounded, along with a British coach. (Dailymail.co.uk)
A Giant Mosque for Marseilles-Tiberge
For a long time there has been talk about a giant mosque to be built in Marseilles in the department of Bouches-du-Rhône. Now, the project is several steps closer to becoming a reality. An article in the regional newspaper La Provence (Feb. 9) begins by saying that any resident of the 15th arrondissement of Marseilles, who leaves and returns in three years, will not recognize the place: A grand mosque measuring 2500 square meters, for 4000 persons, a Koranic school for 120 students, a restaurant accommodating 230, a library for 150 persons, an underground parking for 250 vehicles: the former stockyards will be converted into the largest Islamic site of the city and will spread out over 6500 square meters and will hold in all up to 8000 persons. The Mecca of Bouches-du-Rhône! (Brusselsjournal)
Norway: Muslim girls beaten for not wearing the hijab
Muslim girls who don't wear the hijab all the time are beaten, says Gerd Fleischer, of Self-Help for Immigrants and Refugees (Seif). "In my office, women cried brave tears over having to go with a hijab. Countless young women despairingly told me that they don't have the hijab on all the time, they'll get a beating." "These don't dare appear in the public debate," Fleischer told Vårt Land. She's upset that young Muslim women say they are free to choose if they want to go with a hijab. She says that the proud educated women who appear with the hijab, know too that their sisters are coerced. But they speak little of it. Fleischer says it should be part of their women's liberation to also support them. The coercion many women experience, is barely mentioned as an aside. (Islamineurope)
Austrian Students Get Lessons in Hate-David J. Rusin
Charlotte Bronte cautioned that "prejudices … are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education; they grow there, firm as weeds among rocks." But sometimes educators are the ones planting those prejudices. The Islamic Religious Community in Austria (IRCA) — the sole legally recognized body that represents Muslim interests before the government and in which all Muslims automatically receive membership — has been providing Islamic education in public schools since 1982. Mouhanad Khorchide, a professor of sociology, recently published the first major study of this program, which has processed more than thirty thousand pupils. The disturbing results offer yet another warning to states about the groups they empower to speak on behalf of Muslims: (Islamistwatch)
 Banned cleric Omar Bakri addresses conference at London primary school-Richard Edwards
Omar Bakri, the radical cleric banned from Britain, has addressed a conference at a primary school in London in which he called for the country to become an Islamic state.
Dozens of Muslims attended the rally at Sudbury Primary School in Harrow, north London, to hear Bakri preach for 40 minutes over the telephone from his exiled home in Lebanon. The 51-year-old has been living in the country since 2005, having been banned from returning to Britain after he fled his London home after the July 7 attacks. Bakri told his followers: "The existence of the Islamic state is a necessity for justice to be established, a necessity for the people in order to keep away from personal desire and greed.
"I believe the way forward is Islam. It is time to go back to basics. I believe Islam is the future." (Telegraph.co.uk)
Academic freedom
Academic Freedom Is a Public Trust-Steve Balch
Acceptance Remarks: 2009 Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award
It is a great honor to receive this award. Jeane Kirkpatrick was a courageous and eloquent champion of freedom in the university and throughout the world. As generally happens, she paid a price for that heroism: having her own freedoms challenged by homegrown totalitarians.The institution from which I received my advanced degrees, the University of California, world-class in so many respects, has among its indelible shames the abuse Dr. Kirkpatrick received when she delivered an address on its campus in 1983, the first of a number of prominent speakers to get this treatment including conservatives like Clarence Pendleton and Benjamin Netanyahu, and not-so-conservatives such as Madeleine Albright and Sandra Day O’Connor. (NAS)
Wright State University Bans Christian Group from Campus-Fire Press Release
DAYTON, Ohio, March 2, 2009—Wright State University has banned a Christian group from meeting on campus because of its requirement that voting members be Christian and its refusal to accept "nondiscrimination" language that would eliminate faith-based standards for its voting members. In response, the Campus Bible Fellowship has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help."A Christian group has the right to be Christian, a Jewish group has the right to be Jewish, and a Muslim group has the right to be Muslim," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "Courts have affirmed this principle time and time again. It is shocking that in a free society, public universities like Wright State still don't seem to understand or respect this crucial component of religious liberty." (FIRE)
UCLA Tests Congress-Stanley Kurtz
The university's Center for Near Eastern Studies is colliding with a recent reform of Title VI subsidies.
In August of 2008, Congress resolved a hard-fought five-year battle over the system of federal subsidies to programs of Middle East Studies. In past years, in addition to subsidizing language instruction, millions of federal dollars have funded intensely biased university-run programs of “public outreach.” In effect, the taxpayer has subsidized the public political agitation of university professors, even as those professors have discouraged their students from contributing badly needed language expertise to our defense and intelligence agencies. Wealthy Saudi donors now exercise substantial influence over these federally funded centers of Middle East Studies, often using them to promote Saudi-designed curricula for America’s K-12 students. Fortunately, Congress has at long last taken steps to curb these abuses. U.S. lawmakers acted not a moment too soon, because the first test case for this new law may be playing out even now at UCLA’s government-designated “National Resource Center” for knowledge of the Middle East. (NationalReview
Media Bias
Puzzled in Gaza-Yvonne Green
I'm a poet, an English Jew and a frequent visitor to Israel. Deeply disturbed by the reports of wanton slaughter and destruction during Operation Cast Lead, I felt I had to see for myself. I flew to Tel Aviv and on Wednesday, January 28, using my press card to cross the Erez checkpoint, I walked across the border into Gaza where I was met by my guide, a Palestinian journalist. He asked if I wanted to meet with Hamas officials. I explained that I'd come to bear witness to the damage and civilian suffering, not to talk politics. What I saw was that there had been precision attacks made on all of Hamas' infrastructure. Does UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticize the surgical destruction of the explosives cache in the Imad Akhel Mosque, of the National Forces compound, of the Shi Jaya police station, of the Ministry of Prisoners? The Gazans I met weren't mourning the police state. Neither were they radicalized. As Hamas blackshirts menaced the street corners, I witnessed how passersby ignored them. (Jpost)
 ABC Skips Opposing Views; Continues to Fret About No Ice at North Pole-Steve Whitlock
Despite evidence to the contrary, Tuesday's "Good Morning America" continued to hype the idea that there could soon be no arctic sea ice at the North Pole. Co-host Robin Roberts began a segment on the subject by fretting, "But, can you imagine going to the beach and finding it's not there? Sounds like science fiction." Referencing a group of scientists who are traveling 600 miles across the arctic to test ice thickness she added, "Well, a new expedition is under way to find out if this could happen in the not-so-distant future." However, "Good Morning America" has been wrong on this issue in the past. On the June 28, 2008 GMA, weekend anchor Kate Snow introduced a story on polar bears by worrying, "You know, the polar bear has become the iconic face of climate change and this summer scientists are saying the North Pole could be without ice, another symptom of a warming planet." Yet, by the fall of last year, the arctic ice caps had grown [1] by 150,000 square miles (which, while still low, is not the same as disappearing.) (Newsbusters)
Freedom of Speech
Geert Wilders Speech in the U.S. Senate, February 26, 2009
Thank you very much for inviting me. And - to the immigration authorities - thank you for letting me into this great country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane. I feel very honored to have the privilege to speak and to show my short documentary Fitna here in this heart of your democracy, here in the US Senate. Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for. As you might know, I will be prosecuted in my own country, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace.’ A few years from now, I might be a criminal. And on top op that The Kingdom of Jordan also threatens to prosecute me for insulting Islam and ask for my extradition. (Centerforsecuritypolicy)
Totalitarianism at the U.N.-Gordon G. Chang
Last Wednesday, CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim [1] reported that a coalition of 57 Islamic nations will introduce a U.N. anti-blasphemy resolution soon, perhaps as early as this month. If enacted, the resolution would require all member states to prevent defamation of Islam. In past years, the General Assembly, at the behest of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has passed nonbinding anti-blasphemy resolutions. The last such one was adopted in December. Of course, the Islamic nations cannot succeed in getting the U.N. to adopt a binding resolution that Christopher Hitchens has rightly called “totalitarianism defined” and “a rape and butchery of the First Amendment of our Constitution.” Therefore, we can, if we so choose, continue to ignore the antics taking place at the so-called Parliament of Man. The General Assembly, where each nation has one vote, has increasingly become a forum for extreme ideas as more developing nations have joined. Although these states are now able to form large majorities on their own, the United States, with a Security Council veto, can block the U.N. from doing any real short-term harm. (Pajamasmedia)
 Which is worse - Islamic terrorism or Muslim ghettos? - Damian Thompson
The cabinet is increasingly divided over what to do about Muslims. That has been obvious for some time, and an article in The Economist explains what has gone wrong. It's a subtle and closely argued piece, but I'm in the mood for crude generalisations. Here goes. Which is the bigger threat - Islamic terrorism or Muslim ghettos? Now, obviously we can't definitively answer that question: if a group of Islamist "radicals" successfully explode a dirty bomb in (say) Manchester city centre, then obviously we will look back and see the fight for social cohesion as a bit of a sideshow. We'll wish we had put more resources into anti-terrorism initiatives. But, as the Economist article makes clear, the old argument that you fight terrorism by empowering British Muslim "moderates" is looking pretty shaky these days. (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
ANTISEMITISM
Wiesenthal Centre to Spanish Prime Minister: "Why Does Spain's 'Universal Jurisprudence' Legislation Target Israelis But Not War Criminals and Human Rights Violators in Spain?"
In a letter to Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's Director for International Relations, Dr Shimon Samuels, noted the Centre's "great concern at the apparent misappropriation of Spain's 1993 law of 'universal jurisprudence', which grants power to Spanish judges to prosecute delicts beyond Spanish territory, committed by non-Spaniards against non-Spaniards. As recently witnessed in Belgium, such a regime is subject to political mischief as, indeed, is Judge Fernando Andreu's pursuit for war crimes of seven senior Israeli political and military figures." (SWC)
VIENNA (EJP)---Europe has seen a significant rise in anti-Semitic attacks since Israel's operation in the Gaza Strip and the onset of the global economic crisis, a report said on Monday.
The Vienna-based European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) released its new report on "Anti-Semitism. Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2008".
The study shows that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in EU countries declined in 2007 and most of 2008 only to see an upsurge since December. "This recent surge in anti-Semitic incidents is reason for great concern," said FRA Director Morten Kjaerum. He added: "The Agency's research shows that during 2007 and most of 2008, the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the EU declined, but that it has been on the rise again since December of 2008. While it is too early to draw conclusions, there are indications that this rise could partly be affected by the situation in the Middle East, as well as by the global financial crisis." (EJP)
Nobel Peace laureate blasted for talk ‘demonising’ Israel-James Martin
A Nobel Peace laureate has been heavily criticised by the Northern Irish Jewish community for “demonising” Israel in a lecture last week. Mairead Maguire, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate from Belfast, gave this year’s Erskine Childers lecture in London, under the auspices of the UK United Nations Association. She described Israel as having carried out a “siege” of Gaza and called the Israeli government’s recent incursion a “crime against humanity” and a contravention of the Geneva Conventions.Ms Maguire, 65, said she would “encourage people to support the boycott/divestment campaign against Israel until they start to uphold their obligations under international law and give human rights and justice to the Palestinians”. She described Israel’s actions as constituting “an all-out military bombardment of Gaza, killing 2,300 people, the majority of them women and children, thus committing war crimes and crimes against humanity”. (JewishChronicle)
 Lebanese Liberal 'Uqab Saqr Fails to Persuade Self-Proclaimed Extremist Yasser Qechlaq to Refrain from Antisemitic Incitement-MEMRI
Following are excerpts from a debate between Lebanese intellectuals Yasser Qechlaq and 'Uqab Saqr, which aired on ANB TV on February 16, 2009.
To view this MEMRI TV clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2038.htm.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP AND OTHERS, YOU MUST LOG IN/REGISTER FOR MEMRI TV, AT http://subscriptions.memri.org/content/en/member_registr_tv.htm.
REGISTRATION IS FREE OF CHARGE.
"I Refuse to Acknowledge Any Jew... as a Human Being... He Is an Abject, Filthy, And Usurping Terrorist"
Yasser Qechlaq, owner of dp-news.com: "We are facing a society that believes in nothing but force, violence, crimes, and the killing of our children and women."
'Uqab Saqr: "They also believe in rationality."
Yasser Qechlaq: "Hold on. I refuse to acknowledge any Jew, whoever he may be. I do not acknowledge his holy books or holy places, nor do I acknowledge this Jew as a human being. I acknowledge just one thing: That he is an abject, filthy, and usurping terrorist, and I curse him..."
'Uqab Saqr: "This serves Israel..."
Yasser Qechlaq: "No, no..."
"This Kind Of Talk Serves Israel - There Are Jews Who Defend the Palestinian Cause More Than Some Palestinians"
'Uqab Saqr: "This kind of talk serves Israel. There are Jews who defend the Palestinian cause more than some Palestinians."
Yasser Qechlaq: "I refuse to acknowledge any Jew in the world, because he refuses to acknowledge my existence as a Palestinian." (MEMRI)
TERRORISM, INTERNET, JIHAD
The atrocity in Pakistan highlights a web of terror that spans the world-Melanie Phillips
Today’s appalling attack on a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team on its way to play in the Pakistani city of Lahore has been blamed on Islamic terrorists. Gunmen killed at least five Pakistani policemen escorting the team bus, while at least six cricketers and their assistant coach were injured. The sophistication of the attack, with one group of gunmen firing a rocket-propelled grenade in order to create a diversion, while others then approached, firing guns on the convoy, has drawn comparisons with the horrific multiple attacks by Islamists on the Indian city of Mumbai last November. There were claims that Pakistan itself was implicated in the Mumbai atrocities. Today's attack will increase suspicions that Pakistan, notionally the ally of the west in the defence against Islamist terror, is turning a blind eye to the Islamists on its own soil and their suspected connections with Pakistan's intelligence network. (Dailymail.co.uk)
Report: Hizbullah now $1B richer-Roee Nahmias
Business research facility asserts that majority of donations from Tehran in bid to shore-up terror organization ahead of elections in Lebanon. But funds also pouring in from other sources – in spite of economic crisis-
Hizbullah's treasury has recently received no less than USD 1 billion. The bulk of the sum, some USD 600 million, was transferred to the Lebanese terror organization from Iran in a bid to strengthen the former's standing prior to the upcoming general elections in Lebanon this June. The claim was made Info-Prod Research (Middle East) Ltd. The institute, which deals in economic reviews regarding the Middle East and also monitors terror funding, released a report Tuesday evening detailing the massive increase to Hizbullah's finances. According to its sources, Hizbullah is adamant to succeed in the coming elections and expand its power in the Lebanese parliament. All the better for the group if this were to come at the expense of their rivals, the anti-Syrian camp. (Ynet)
Iraqi-Born Dutch Citizen Pleads Guilty to Terrorism Conspiracy Against Americans in Iraq Defendant Also Agrees to Plead Guilty to Beating D.C. Prison Guard Unconscious-FBI
WASHINGTON – An Iraqi-born Dutch citizen today pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to murder Americans overseas, including by planting roadside bombs targeting U.S. soldiers in Fallujah, Iraq, and by demonstrating on video how these explosives would be detonated to destroy American vehicles and their occupants. The guilty plea by Wesam al-Delaema, a/k/a Wesam Khalaf Chayed Delaeme, age 36, was announced today by Matthew G. Olsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; and Joseph Persichini Jr., Assistant Director in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Washington Field Office. (FBI)
Radical ENVIRONMENTALISM and Science
Obama’s 'Cap and Trade' Plan Imposes Huge Tax-Christopher. C. Horner
In his February 24 speech, President Obama asked Congress to send him “…legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America.” But by “market-based cap” he means that the government would mandate carbon dioxide emission permits – which are essentially permits to use energy – that companies would then be able to sell among themselves.
His budget assumes a staggering $650 billion in revenue from this scheme. But who picks up the tab? Who ultimately pays the cost of buying these slices of global warming baloney, and why would industry support such a scheme? The answer is that you and I do, as does everyone who buys anything requiring energy, just like we pay the cost of all the other taxes paid by manufacturers. It’s a tax, folks. Plain and simple, Obama’s “market-based cap” plan is a tax on American business. (HumanEvents)
 Breakthrough by British scientists could see stem cells made from human skin - NOT embryos-Fiona Macrae
A breakthrough by British scientists could allow stem cells to be safely made from human skin, avoiding the need to use ethically controversial embryos. The landmark research brings the dream of using such cells to combat intractable diseases – from Alzheimer’s to cancer – a step closer to reality. Using skin rather than embryos would quell the ethical storm surrounding regenerative medicine. Using skin rather than embryos would quell the ethical storm surrounding regenerative medicine. ‘What we’ve got here is something that will bring joy to the pro-life movement: a way of obtaining embryonic-type stem cells without having to destroy human embryos,’ said ethicist Josephine Quintavalle. Stem cells, found in the adult body and in embryos, are master cells, capable of turning into every sort of tissue. They offer hope as a ‘repair kit’ for the body, replacing dead and worn-out cells and tissue. (Dailymail.co.uk)
Society and CULTURE
 U2's Latest Experiment in Sound-Jim Fusilli
As its new album, "No Line on the Horizon" (Universal), demonstrates, U2 is the only rock band of its stature and authority that is so willing to toy with its formula for success. By the standards of today's iPod shuffle mentality, "No Line" is a great album, though it has no consistent flow and no musical arc. Rather than presenting a cohesive statement, it's a collection of songs held together by an effective and slightly experimental sound. It tops the band's most recent recordings, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" (2004) and "All That You Can't Leave Behind" (2000). But, like them, it features memorable performances alongside others that fall a bit short."No Line" also fits in the continuum of U2's recorded work, which now stretches back almost three decades. The band has always experimented -- sometimes tweaking its approach to pop music, other times just about discarding it altogether. (WSJ)
Book on life under Stalin banned by Kremlin, claims Orlando Figes-Jon Swaine
Historian Orlando Figes's latest book on life under Stalin has been banned in Russia by the Kremlin for political reasons, he believes.
Atticus, the Russian publishers, have cancelled their contract with the award-winning British author for his latest work, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. Their decision comes after masked officers from the Russian general prosecutor's office raided the offices of Memorial, a human rights organisation which helped Professor Figes research the book. As well as confiscating about a third of the material used for the book, the officers seized Memorial's entire St Petersburg archive, according to Prof Figes.The archive included vast historical databases containing information on repression in the country, as well as recordings and transcripts of interviews, he said. Writing in The Guardian, Prof Figes said: "The raid was part of a broader ideological struggle over the control of history publications and teaching in Russia that may have influenced the decision of Atticus to cancel my contract." He added: "The history in my book... is inconvenient to the current regime in Russia... The Kremlin has been actively for the rehabilitation of Stalin. Its aim is not to deny Stalin's crimes but to emphasise his achievements as the builder of the country's 'glorious Soviet past'." (Telegraph.co.uk)
www.americanfreedomalliance.org
|
