Fla. School Sued for Banning Bible Distribution

For years, the Collier County School District allowed World Changers to offer Bibles to interested students during non-school hours on Jan. 16 in honor of Religious Freedom Day. But since last year, the superintendent and the Community Request Committee have refused to grant permission to the Southern Baptist Convention-related mission group to do so.

School officials claim Bibles do not provide any educational benefit to the students and thus distribution should stop.

But Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, the legal group representing World Changers, pointed out that many of the founding fathers learned to read using the Bible.

“How sad that on the eve of Independence Day, when we celebrate the religious and political freedom our forefathers won for us at the cost of much blood and great sacrifice, we are compelled to sue to protect the right simply to make free Bibles available to students in public schools,” said Staver.

“The distribution of religious literature in a forum opened for secular literature is constitutionally protected,” he asserted.

World Changers, Staver noted, makes it clear to students that its activities are not endorsed by the school and that receiving a Bible is voluntary. The school district has misunderstood the First Amendment, he said.

“There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect,” he stated.

Jerry Rutherford, president of World Changers, had set up tables offering free Bibles to high school students on Religious Freedom Day in 2007 and 2008 without problem. But last year his request for permission was denied by Superintendent Dennis Thompson.

Liberty Counsel wrote a letter last year on behalf of Rutherford asking the board to reverse the decision. But the board refused to do so.

"We're losing our religious freedoms and that is very scary to me," Rutherford said earlier, according to WINK News.

Each year, the U.S. President declares Jan. 16 to be Religious Freedom Day, which commemorates the anniversary of the 1786 passage of Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Holder’s Black Panther Shame

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Christian Adams, who served in the Voting Section of the U.S. Department of Justice for 5 years. He was previously in private practice and also General Counsel to the South Carolina Secretary of State. He has litigated election cases across the United States on a variety of issues, including voter intimidation and redistricting under the Voting Rights Act. He is a member of both the SC and VA bar.

FP: Christian Adams, welcome to Frontpage Interview. It is a pleasure and privilege to have you here with us.

I would like to talk to you today about your own personal experience in witnessing how Attorney General Eric Holder dropped a New Black Panther voter intimidation case for racial reasons.

But I would first like to start by asking you about the New Black Panthers in general. Describe them to us. How do they contrast with the Black Panthers of Huey Newton?

Adams: The New Black Panthers are a completely different, and more radical, organization. They are a militant black separatist organization. They are vehemently anti-Semitic. While the old black panther party had relations with like minded members of the white community, the New Black Panthers want total racial separatism. The old black panthers had an ostensible social welfare operation. The New Black Panthers have attempted to engage in some aspects of social welfare but these efforts have only commenced after a great deal of bad publicity in the last few months.

At their core, the New Black Panthers exist to advance a limited, militant and racial agenda. They have harassed Korean grocers, they have made false allegations against Duke Lacrosse players, and wherever they go, they inject fiery racial rhetoric into their demonstrations. They have brandished weapons on multiple occasions at these events. And as hard at it is to believe, the New Black Panthers are so radical and militant, that the old black panthers of Huey Newton want nothing to do with them. There was actually a trademark fight between the two over the use of the term “black panthers.”

FP: Tell us about the voting intimidation that the New Panthers have engaged in. What are the federal voting intimidation statutes and what has been done about the intimidation?

Adams: Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation, coercion and threats to voters or those aiding voters, such as poll watchers. It also prohibits any attempt to do the same. The Justice Department sued the New Black Panther Party, the national Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz for violations of 11(b). Jackson and King Samir Shabazz were posted outside the polling place on election day in 2008.

FP: What were Jackson and Shabazz doing while they were posted outside the polling place on that day?

Adams: They were yelling racial slurs at whites – “you are about to be ruled by the black man Cracker!” and “White Devils” – and brandishing a weapon. They attempted to block an individual from entering the polls and were menacing to others.

FP: What are leftist views of voter intimidation (“suppression”) vs. historical sorts of intimidation?

Adams: Voter “suppression” theories are the next generation of voter intimidation prohibitions. Voter suppression theories have less support in the law than voter intimidation protections. Simply, they are more tenuous arguments and possibly bump up against the First Amendment. In fact, there is really no civil federal law prohibiting “voter suppression.” After all, every candidate wants to “suppress” the turnout of their opponent’s supporters.

When Barack Obama was a Senator, he introduced a bill that would make illegal any speech that would have the intent or effect of causing voters to be misled. The Constitutional problems with this sort of regime are obvious. Nevertheless, enactment of a “voter suppression” law is a priority of many academics and purported civil rights activists. Voter intimidation laws, in contrast, ban the sort of mischief that has plagued democratic elections for hundreds of years. Even in the 1700’s in Philadelphia, riots broke out between sailors and Quakers at the single polling place in downtown. In the reconstruction South, armed white militias clashed with armed black militias around election time. Indeed, Louisiana essentially had a number of mini-civil wars in the reconstruction period – with the white militias eventually winning and disarming the black militias through some of the first gun control laws in the nation.

The history of voter intimidation in the Jim Crow south was famous, and even affected the attempt to register to vote. One thing that separates America from thug regimes around the world is how we treasure access to the polling place. The German elections in 1933 were plagued by poll watchers with truncheons. Around the world, voters still fear casting a ballot because of the threat of violence. Protecting the sanctity of the polling place should be one of the top priorities of a free nation.

FP: In our democracy, one would think that there would be equal enforcement of civil rights laws (i.e. against all races of perpetrators) and on behalf of all races of victims. But that’s not happening is it?

Adams: No, it’s not happening. The Black Panther case was dismissed and the dismissal was motivated, I believe, by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. America has been characterized and blessed with great leaders who understood how fragile this grand Constitutional experiment is. The rule of law is not a mere abstraction. Equal Protection isn’t just a noble aspiration. It has real impacts on our lives. It’s what ensures the farmer plants his fields, knowing a system exists to get the crop to market. Confidence in law funds and builds homes. Equal protection before law means we enjoy civil peace, enough peace to build great universities and great institutions.

Examples surround us. Belief in equality before law is deeply embedded in our cultural and legal history. Examples to the contrary are anathema to Americans. That’s the good news – that Americans instinctively rebel against examples of inequality in law. The bad news is that the constitutional system can only absorb so many blows. Lawlessness undermines the structures that support civil society, that support this grand Constitutional experiment. Most of your readers understand this. The challenge is to ensure that the vast majority of Americans continue to understand it.

FP: What has the DOJ done? Has anything changed since 2009?

Adams: After January 2009, the Attorney General said that the civil rights division was being reopened. This means a great deal, including the end to a race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws.

FP: How were you personally involved in the New Black Panther Case? Why did you quite your job?

Adams: I was one of the 5 attorneys who commenced the case. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal of the case, statements falsely characterizing the case by officials in the Department and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, in June I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.


FP: What has been the role of Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez?

Adams: Perez was not at the Department when the corrupt dismissal was ordered. He was confirmed in the fall of 2009 and has defended it since.

FP: Some media outlets are reporting that you are saying that Perez lied under oath.

Adams: It is not accurate to say that the facts and law did not support going forward with the case. Tom Perez wasn’t in the Department when the dismissal happened and he didn’t have anything to do with the dismissal of the case. He isn’t responsible for the corrupt decision to dismiss the case and shouldn’t be blamed for the dismissal. I have never said Perez knowingly lied under oath. I said that it is inaccurate and false that the facts and law did not support the case. Lying under oath involves, as best as I know, more than being incorrect or inaccurate. In this media age, stories get inflated to generate traffic and that is usually a bad thing.

FP: So what’s really happening here under the Obama administration? Is it “payback” time or what? Has a former oppressed minority now become an empowered majority with vengeance on its mind?

Adams: I don’t think the Obama administration is interested in payback. But neither do I think it is interested in enforcing the law in a race neutral fashion.

FP: What was your experience in the U.S. vs. Ike Brown case in Mississippi? The Left was pretty enraged about it.

Adams: We won that case. Ike Brown committed flagrant racial discrimination against whites – threw out their votes, stuffed the ballot box with his votes to dilute white votes, illegally imported ineligible candidates to run, and threatened white voters with a challenge if they sought to vote. Chris Coates talked about the hostility he encountered when he brought this case. There were many in the voting section that voiced opposition to it, refused to work on it, and treated him with hostility after he filed it. It went against the Orthodoxy, to borrow a term.

FP: Who is dictating DOJ policy and what are the consequences?

Adams: The Civil Rights Division is now managed by and populated by folks who believe in leveraging the Division aggressively in only one direction in litigation. These are not bad people, they are just wrong on many issues. On many issues they are right, but their hostility to equal enforcement of the law is not one of them.

FP: What are the attitudes and backgrounds of DOJ political appointees?

Adams: This has been written about extensively in other places. (See Hans Von Spakovsky in NRO). All of the leadership of the civil rights division comes from what is called the “civil rights community.” Simply, this means activist groups or causes. Elections have consequences.

FP: What dangers does this dismissal of the New Black Panther Case pose for the future? What will it mean for the ballot box? And what will it mean for white victims in voting rights cases?

Adams: One of the things that makes America exceptional is how we believe the ballot box as sacred. Thug regimes around the world and dangerous phases in world history got their start with men in uniforms holding weapons standing in front of polls. In my mind, history shows that this is one of the characteristics when democracies start to devolve into totalitarian regimes. I’m not implying America is on that path because, for starters, the widespread outrage to the Black Panther dismissal shows how little tolerance there is for this in America. But we can never forget the warning signs history has told us, and we must be extra vigilant when they appear. Ronald Reagan said we are always a mere generation away from losing freedom. I don’t know whether that is true, but if it is, anytime you have thugs violating our most cherished rights, freedom loving citizens must rise up and give no quarter.

FP: What can be done about this problem?

Adams: The Department could refile the case tomorrow. They would win the panther case if they did. It’s tough to admit mistakes in government but this would be a good place to start because nearly everyone would support them. The Department could also file cases in voting on behalf of white victims to reverse this bad policy. There are no doubt cases that can be brought, but whether they bring them or not, we will have to see.

FP: Christian Adams, thank you for joining us at Frontpage Interview. We really appreciate you taking the time and energy to speak with us.

Adams: Thanks. You can follow my blogging about elections and the Justice Department at www.electionlawcenter.com.

Who Is Eskender Henareh Mafarani ???

By Debbie Schlussel

Yesterday, Eskender Henareh Mafarani was sentenced to 37 months in prison for trying to smuggle into the U.S. more than $2.1 million in U.S. cash, six cell phones, and a laptop computer in late 2008. The cash was wrapped in 130 bundles and it and the cellphone and computer were hidden inside Mafarani’s truck as it attempted to cross into the U.S. from Canada over the Ambassador Bridge to Detroit. Mafarani lied to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

islamiccrescent.jpgicebadge.jpg

But press reports refer to Mafarani as only a “Canadian.” Here’s the full scoop on Mafarani: he is an Iranian Muslim of Kurdish descent who emigrated to Canada. Because of the way the money was packaged and the multiple cell phones, ICE agents believed that he was involved in drug dealing. And it appears he could also have been involved in terrorist financing. According to documents concerning Mafarani, he made many trips in and out of the U.S. from Canada, using similar trucks. X-Ray images caught the hidden cash. Check out the affidavit signed by ICE Senior Special Agent Anthony C. Romolino in the Federal Criminal Complaint against Mafarani.

Arizona still in American hands – For now

Arizona still in American hands – For now

Posted: June 17, 2010
4:43 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
GA_googleFillSlot("WND_NWS_C0201");
Arizona lands not closed to the public
Bream told Pinal County Sheriff Babeu she received an e-mail stating that the government has been erecting signs that said "Don't go past this point," "Stay away" and "This is not safe." But Viramontes explained that Bream was talking about signs erected by the Bureau of Land Management in the Sonoran Desert. "One of our sister agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, recently erected signs in Pinal County that warn visitors on their public lands just to be aware that things may be out in the desert," he said. "Most of the signs you see on the news programs are that sign. That recently happened within the past week or two." WND called the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management to inquire about the recently posted signs. Dennis Godfrey, spokesman for the bureau in Arizona, explained, "We have posted some advisory signs, but we have not closed any areas." He said, "The signs went up with the recommendation of our law-enforcement personnel because of increased illegal activity in portions of the Sonoran Desert National Monument, which is a very large area. It's actually divided by Interstate 8 that runs through there. It's the southern portion of that where we've put up signs advising people of the danger and recommending that they use public land north of the interstate." Contrary to the report, the bureau signs do not state, "Don't go past this point" and "This is not safe." Rather than "Stay away," as Bream claimed, one portion of a sign reads: "Stay Away From Trash, Clothing, Backpacks, and Abandoned Vehicles".Godfrey said he's been in contact with Fox News and hopes the organization will correct its report. WND's messages left with "America Live" and the Fox Nation were not returned at the time of this report.The bureau's chief law-enforcement officer, Tom Lister, told WND the agency has had the following permanent signs up since last year: [Image]
Bureau of Land Management posted this permanent sign as an advisory to travelers in 2009. However, the bureau has recently posted the following temporary sign with a stronger advisory: [Image]
Bureau of Land Management posted this "temporary" sign in June as an advisory to travelers.
"With the activity we've seen – an increased level in both human and drug smuggling along with the shootings and homicides – the local district felt like we should have some stronger signs in there until we see a change in the activity level," Lister said. "So these temporary signs were put up, and they're a brighter sign that gets people's attention." He said law-enforcement officers have been seeing smugglers traveling at high speed late at night without headlights. Also, he said the bureau is advising American travelers to refrain from approaching material that appears to be trash because it could be a supply cache for smugglers. "Our advisory is that you visit the lands north of the interstate rather than south of the interstate," he said. However, Lister said the U.S. government has not given the land to Mexico, the area is not closed to Americans and the bureau is not prohibiting U.S. citizens from traveling there. "We have people who have gone down there for years and know what's going on," he said. "They're comfortable with their ability to stay out of trouble. We're not going to close the area to the American public, but we felt like that we owe the users there – especially people who aren't as familiar with the area – a stronger advisory."All of the officials whom WND interviewed agreed that the current levels of violence and human and drug trafficking are issues of great concern that must be addressed. Increase in illegal activity in Pinal CountyAsked why there has been an uptick in illegal activity in the Pinal County area, Lister said, "With the things that are going on in Mexico – the various drug cartels and fighting over smuggling routes – my thought is that this is probably one of the areas that they haven't had a lot of fighting over. I don't know. For whatever reason, we've definitely seen that increase." He noted that officers are seeing an increase in evidence of weapons in the area as well. "We've recently had reports of 11 or 12 shootings," Lister said. "Most of them, when you track it back, most of the individuals and victims involved appear to be involved in trafficking in one way or another." But Lister said one American visitor in the area had shots fired at him. "He had tried to follow the vehicle to get a better description of it to try and call," he explained. "He engaged them. We're saying, if you see something out there, avoid it. Get out of the area and call 911." In the meantime, Lister said his office has been working with Border Patrol, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, sheriff's offices, local Indian reservations, local police departments and other agencies to stop the illegal traffic and violence. "Besides our normal day-to-day work that each of us do out there, we also do coordinated operations out there targeting the drugs and human trafficking," he said. "It's been pretty successful." However, Babeu warned that the problem is out of control, and he said posting advisory signs is not the answer."We're talking three counties deep into the heart of Arizona where the answer from our government is to put up signs warning our citizens in our sovereign nation to beware of foreigners who are there who are heavily armed," he told Bream. "We have squad-size paramilitary elements that are working deep in our country that are escorting drugs and human illegals." He added, "Quite frankly, I'm telling you as a sheriff that I don't control that part of the county. My county is larger than the state of Connecticut. We need support from the federal government. It's their job to secure the border, and they haven't done it. In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence. It's just simply outrageous." Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, ranking Republican on the House Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee, told Fox News today that federal laws protecting the environment are forcing Border Patrol agents to patrol parklands on horseback – making the areas prime locations for drug gangs, human smugglers and illegal aliens."They're not allowing the Border Patrol to do the job that they know they need to do," he said.As for the advisory signs in Pinal County, Lister said, "We're looking at this as a temporary thing. We're not trying to close this to the public. We're hoping we'll see the effects of our targeted enforcement efforts out there, and hopefully be able to take the signs down completely and just go back to the caution signs that we've had up there." [Image]
Two soldiers from the Tennessee National Guard on duty along U.S.-Mexico border, near Yuma, Ariz.
Obama administration efforts fall shortAs WND reported, the Obama administration announced its decision to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S. southern border to counter cross-border drug and weapons trafficking. However, many lawmakers have warned that 1,200 will not be enough. Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain said Obama's decision to send an "insufficient number of National Guard troops" is a "weak start and does not demonstrate an understanding of the current situation in the region." "Our children are living in fear, but the Obama White House is living in denial," said Sen. John Cornyn. "The president must make border security a priority, not an afterthought or an empty talking point." However, the State Department announced the National Guard troops will not be used to stop illegal immigration. As WND recently reported, thousands of illegal aliens apprehended along the 2,000-mile border stretching through California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas aren't even from Mexico. Many are citizens of countries that are known sponsors of terrorism, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Iran. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo told WND he doesn't believe Obama's decision to send troops is intended to improve the situation. "I don't think anybody thinks this matters," he said. "Obama certainly doesn't." He added, "The desire is not to fix the problem. The desire is to have amnesty. All of this is in anticipation of amnesty."

WND Exclusive LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Search engines spy for gov't: 'It would blow people's minds' 'Law-abiding citizens' may have private queries

Posted: June 28, 2010
9:08 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

As WND reported, Katherine Albrecht, radio talk-show host and spokeswoman for Startpage, the American version of Ixquick, warned, "It would blow people's minds if they knew how much information the big search engines have on the public. In fact, their dossiers are so detailed they would probably be the envy of the KGB."

It happens every day, Albrecht explained. When an unfamiliar topic crosses people's minds, they often go straight to Google, Yahoo or Bing and enter key terms into those search engines. Every day, more than a billion searches for information are performed on Google alone.

"If you get a rash between your toes, you go into Google," she said. "If you have a miscarriage, you go into Google. If you are having marital difficulties, you look for a counselor on Google. If you lose your job, you look for unemployment benefit information on Google."

Albrecht said Internet surfers unwittingly share their most private thoughts with search engines, serving up snippets of deeply personal information about their lives, habits, troubles, health concerns, preferences and political leanings.

"We're essentially telling them our entire life stories – stuff you wouldn't even tell your mother – because you are in a private room with a computer," she said. "We tend to think of that as a completely private circumstance. But the reality is that they make a record of every single search you do."

The search engines have sophisticated algorithms to mine data from searches and create very detailed profiles about users. She said those profiles are stored on servers and could fall into the wrong hands.

Albrecht said the government may also subpoena citizens' private information after it has been stored by Google, Yahoo and Bing. In a December 2009 interview with CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt divulged that search engines may turn over citizens' private information to the U.S. government.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt said. "But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it's important, for example, that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."

"My jaw hit the floor when I heard that," Albrecht said. "Now they are just coming right out and telling us that they will turn our data over to the feds. Based on what I know about how much information they have on us, it's really terrifying."

Startpage and Ixquick visit the selected website, retrieve the information and show it to users in a privacy-protected window. A private user's browser never interacts directly with the external website so the websites cannot capture or record personal data or load malware onto a private computer. The search engines never record personal information, search data or IP addresses.

Tiziano Motti, Italian member of the European Parliament and author of Written Declaration 29, issued an "important clarification" to all members of the European Parliament stating that the goal of the measure is to seek out Internet users who upload content, images and videos portraying abuse of children.

"There is no intention to extend this directive to the same search engines for Internet users looking for any other kind of topic," he wrote.

However, Stuart Corner of ExchangeDaily, a telecommunications news publication, wrote, "Well that's as clear as mud! So we can rest assured that, even though all our search records will be retained the powers that be will only ever go sniffing through them in search of child porn-related searches? Or is it supposed to mean something else?"

He added, "I'm not sure which is more appalling: the idea of this Big Brother surveillance, or the EU's ineptitude in communicating its intentions!"

While a declaration is not a legal document, it is a statement of the parliament's formal opinion, and the European Commission may act upon it. More than 100 organizations from 23 European countries have urged for the repeal of the EU requirements for data retention in favor of more targeted collection of traffic data.

Florian Altherr of the Working Group wrote, "According to a German survey, about 70 percent of citizens are opposed to a recording of their contacts and location in the absence of any suspicion. They want to be sure their private and business contacts to marital crisis lines, lawyers, journalists and others cannot fall into the wrong hands or erroneously make them a suspect in the eyes of law enforcement authorities."