US Policymakers Look for Ways to Cut United Nations Funding

Members of Congress met this week to discuss cutting some US funding of the United Nations until it undertakes “sweeping” reform measures to prevent corruption and allow for voluntary funding.

The US is the single largest donor to the UN, covering nearly a quarter of the organization’s annual operating budget, which does not include the additional funds that the US provides for peacekeeping operations. US lawmakers are pressing for broad spending cuts as they seek to reduce the US budget deficit.

US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, pushed for “reform first and payment later,” and minced no words over her displeasure with the controversial UN Human Rights Council.

“I’d like to make sure that we once and for all kill all U.S. funding for that beast,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Ros-Lehtinen’s proposed reform would allow the US to choose UN projects and activities that are in line with American interests and would foster greater transparency as “each UN office, activity, program, and sub-program, country by country and function by function, must be justified on its own merits.”

Indeed, corruption scandals continue to plague the UN. Currently, the UN’s chief investigator is now under investigation for retaliating against whistle-blowers.

In the wake of a staggering federal deficit, other US policymakers are taking a hard look at US funding of the UN. On the first day of session in the House, Rep. Cliff Stearns introduced a measure calling on Congress to deny the use of federal funds for the “design, renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the United States” unless President Obama “transmits to Congress a certification that the United Nations has adopted internationally recognized best practices in contracting and procurement.”

Another bill introduced this month by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) calls for a 10% reduction in voluntary contributions.

US lawmakers have withheld funding from the UN in the past. In the 1990s, then-head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, succeeded in blocking all UN funding for an extended period of time.

By Samantha Singson

Although UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon publicly stated that he is confident in keeping the funding status quo, some media reports suggest Ban was anxious to meet with congressional leaders to make his case for their continued full support of the UN.

Concerned Women for America’s Wendy Wright told the Friday Fax, “UN officials have lived well off the backs of US taxpayers.” Voicing her support for Ros-Lehtinen’s reform measures, Wright said, “It’s time for transparency and accountability and the end to waste fraud and abuse at the UN.”

UN dues must be financed through annual congressionally approved spending plans and are subject to approval by both the House and Senate. Ros-Lehtinen promised that this week’s meeting is just the first in a series of consultations the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold on UN funding.

This article was first published in the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) publication FridayFax on January 27, 2011.

Islamic Society of North America Comments On President Obama’s State of the Union & Commentary

Last Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered his first 2011 State of the Union Address. Where democrats and republicans crossed the “party line” in Congress to sit with one another, the President also focused on inclusion, and stated his “conviction that American Muslims are a part of the American family.”

ISNA welcomes his remarks and shares some of them with you below:

“We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled. That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation…

And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity.

And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

“We sincerely hope that President Obama’s message of a united American family resonates with the general public and that, as Congress enters the upcoming hearings on religious extremism, they do not take them as an opportunity to unfairly punish the entirety of a religion for the actions of a few misguided and wrongful individuals. We hope Congress will remember our President’s message, from last night, that American Muslims are united with all Americans in the war on terror, and the mis-guided actions of a few by no means represent the whole,” said ISNA Secretary General Safaa Zarzour.

Notes:

First Safaa Zarzour is an Illinois lawyer and educator who was appointed to the position of Secretary General in 2010. Second, ISNA and Zarzour have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and so-called terrorism, according to investigative research of The Hudson Institute and Time Magazine and reported by Islamic Jihad Watch. Third, although Zarzour is an effective inter-faith communicator and educator, his work for ISNA and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) not only benefits Hamas and the global Muslim Brotherhood but also Muslim charity work and terrorism conducted by the same origanzations. That is the irony of so-called radical Islamic terrrorists; they function as community organizers and charities among Muslim communities (i.e., Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, etc.) and function as terrorist outside the community (i.e., Israel, Africa, London, Spain, New York City, etc.). Fourth, Zarzour appears to be an accomplished American, outstanding Muslim, and passoniate educator, and lawyer, but natural skepticism raises the question whether or not his inter-faith relations building is really an effort to convert all America’s infidels into faithful Muslims. That alone would be a good thing–the American way–if it were not for Islam’s ultimate Quranic justification of using the sword to make disciples and eliminate unbelievers. Fifth, the problem is that it can happen in America as it has elsewhere throughout history.

Do you remember the recent near genocide of Southern Christians in Sudan? It was carried out by the Muslim leaders of Sudan.

How about the Muslim League of Arab Nations attempt to exterminated the new nation of Israel in 1948?

Or, maybe, you remember the Jerusalem Muslim Mufti’s contributions leading to the Holocaust? The Mufti campaigned against Hitler’s legal and illegal attempts to force migrate German Jews to their ancient homeland.

Perhaps, you remember the history about the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by the Islamic Ottoman Imperialists? Some of their methods employed by the Nazis mimicked the Ottmans.

Most American Muslims and ISNA leaders may only want to live free under American rule-of-law. Zarzour may be seeking only to understand the faith of others while helping them understand Islam. But, it does not mean others will not come after who will seek to subjugate all infidels by force. Global reign is the goal of Islam.

This is what Americans must remember.

Small Business Group’s Response to President Obama’s State of the Union

In response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, the nation’s leading organization dedicated to promoting entrepreneurship and protecting small business issued the following response:

“Entrepreneurs are heartened to hear that President Obama wants to make the U.S. the best place on earth to do business. Indeed, across the globe, nations are cutting taxes, simplifying their tax systems and reducing regulations to make it easier to start up and grow a business. Developed and emerging countries alike have quickly adapted to the competitive environment and are reaping rewards in their aggressive efforts to attract capital and business investment. President Obama has awoken to this realization, and mere rhetoric alone will not change the competitive dynamic. Entrepreneurs and investors must now see dramatic changes on the policy front. This means, immediately locking in a pro-growth tax system, restraining the regulatory tide that is sweeping over every sector of our economy and reducing government spending,” said Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan.

SBE Council chief economist Raymond J. Keating added: “While the President’s pro-business rhetoric is encouraging, other specifics in his speech were disappointing. First, his explicit call for a tax increase on upper-income earners showed that he still fails to grasp that such a tax hike on entrepreneurs and investors would be bad for the economy. Second, his call, in effect, for higher taxes on oil companies in order to subsidize other energy sources reveals a desire for politics to overrule markets, with the result being higher costs in the end. And third, he took one step forward on trade, by urging Congress to approve the South Korea trade deal, but two steps back by failing to push ahead now with the Panama and Colombia accords.”

Kerrigan concluded: “We look forward to working with President Obama and Congress in the critical areas of reducing regulation and simplifying the tax system. Leadership and action are desperately needed on these issues if the U.S. is to become more competitive in the global economy. Furthermore, small business owners have substantive ideas for improving the health care overhaul bill that was enacted into law. We only hope the Administration will listen to our solutions this time around.”

SBE Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy and research organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship.

Ready To Start A Business? The Ohio’s Small Business Development Centers Partnership with SCORE Could Help

Two organizations are using their combined strengths to offer extensive quality training and assistance to start-up businesses. The Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) of Ohio are partnering with SCORE’s Southern Ohio District to offer services that will encourage small businesses to grow, expand, and increase productivity, providing long-term sustainable success.

The Small Business Development Center of Ohio Network was created in 1985 through a partnership between the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Ohio Department of Development. The SBDC provides quality in-depth business management consulting, training and technical assistance.

SCORE was organized in 1965 and is a resource partner of the U.S. Small Business Administration. It is a nonprofit organization whose 13,000 national volunteers are successful entrepreneurs and executives who share their “no cost” expertise to start up and in business clients. Some volunteers have mentored their clients for more than 10+ years.

Both Ohio’s SBDC’s and SCORE’s Southern Ohio District will provide counseling and mentoring to individuals and groups where knowledge and guidance are shared from previous experiences, and will host informational seminars and workshops coaching and educating businesses about available services and resources, maximizing business potential.

“Our focus is to educate and guide businesses about the opportunities and resources available, putting the right tools in their hands and allowing company owners to benefit and strengthen their bottom line,” said Karen Shauri, State Director of SBDC of Ohio. “This partnership increases our network reach and maximizes both organizations’ strengths and talents.”

To accomplish these objectives, the Ohio SBDC program links federal and state government resources and local public/private nonprofit resources to meet the needs of the small business community.

“The combined business objective of our partnership is to help strengthen our clients’ opportunities for successful growth and profitability” said Mary Jane Good, SCORE’s Southern Ohio District Director.
The focal point of the collaboration is small business development. This joint effort will enable the organizations to maximize resources to best reach goals. By partnering two organizations, Ohio’s business community can have access to a wide variety of resources, furthering economic growth and success.

The SBDCs foster a strong climate for small business growth with many local community partners including colleges and universities, economic development agencies, chambers of commerce, and other community organizations. In 2010, SBDCs served more than 25,000 clients and assisted with 432 business starts.

SCORE has strong business partnerships with Chambers of Commerce, various universities, schools, libraries, city officials, and organizations. Since October 1, 2010 the Southern Ohio District has provided more than 2,695 services to interested individuals in the form of face to face, online counseling, and seminars. The District has Chapters in Columbus, Dayton, Greater Cincinnati, Newark, Chillicothe and Marietta.

American Exceptionalism: Part I

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

This report is the first of a series in which I am going to extract parts of my just-finished book America’s Unknown Hebraic Republic: A Goal for the Almost-Chosen People. The goal will be described at the end of the series. This book marks the conclusion of some fifty years of research and writing on the foundational principles and structure of the American Republic, beginning with a trilogy on the Statesmanship of America’s Founding Fathers. Allow me a personal note.

My intellectual odyssey began with my doctoral dissertation, The Philosophy of the American Constitution, which was published by the Free Press in 1968. Professors Leo Strauss and Herbert Storing of the University of Chicago were my dissertation advisers. This first book was followed by A Discourse on Statesmanship published by the Illinois University Press in 1984, which was the first theoretical work on statesmanship based on The Federalist Papers and Aristotle’s Politics. My third book On the Silence if the Declaration of Independence was published by the University of Massachusetts Press in 1976, the bicentennial of that foundational document.

In that year I immigrated to Israel where I taught political science at Bar-Ilan University. Israel was of course the best venue in which to study the Judaic roots of the American Constitution and the Declaration. Thus, in 2000, I wrote Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fail, a book that was translated into Hebrew and Russian. Alas, Israeli statesmanship was disheartening, even funereal. Israel’s government was not only dysfunctional; appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, the government had only the veneer of democracy. For example, the absence of constituency elections in Israel compels citizens to vote for national party lists rather than individual candidates, which enables Knesset Members, indeed the government, to ignore public opinion with impunity. If this were not enough to discredit the political system, the inordinate frequency of Israeli elections—the average duration of Israeli governments is only two years­—renders government policies haphazard and devoid of Jewish vision.

This prompted me in 1995 to establish The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, one purpose of which was to show how Israel could be made more democratic by means of Jewish principles, and more Jewish by means of democratic principles. To this end it would be necessary to import the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers on the one hand, and to revive the wisdom of the Jewish Sages on the other.

Hence, without ignoring the great merit of the founders of modern Israel (who facilitated the in-gathering of millions of Jews to the Promised Land), I proceeded to write several books on Judaic thought and institutions. Suffice to mention the most recent: A Jewish Philosophy of History (2004); The Myth of Israeli Democracy (2007); Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America (2009), An American Political Scientist in Israel (2010), and now the final book of this intellectual odyssey, America’s Unknown Hebraic Republic.

This last book has three interrelated objectives. One objective is to revive the foundational principles which made the United States of America the greatest nation on earth: the principles embodied in America’s Declaration of Independence and original Constitution. It is widely known that America is in a state of decline thanks largely to the multicultural relativism of its college-educated elite. This situation, however, is reversible. An uncorrupted and no longer silent majority of Americans has the will and spiritual values to restore American Exceptionalism, a concept discussed in the first chapter of my latest book.

The second objective is to revive the source of American Exceptionalism, namely Hebraic Exceptionalism. Unknown to most American, Christian Hebraists in Europe regarded the Hebraic Republic of antiquity as the most just and wisest polity in history, superior to those praised by Greek and Roman philosophers. This evaluation was shared by the presidents of various eighteenth-century American universities. It is extremely important for Jews to know this because their one and only homeland, Israel, is the only nation on earth threatened with extermination. The Jewish people need to know that what a matured Israel stands for, and what was manifested in the Hebraic Republic of antiquity, remains and will ever remain the fondest hope of mankind.

The third objective is to articulate the political and meta-political convictions that bond America and Israel, convictions concerning man’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rights which necessitate limitations on the powers or functions of government. Public acknowledgement of these political and meta-political convictions will fortify the will of these two exceptional nations, not only to stand firm against their common foe—Islam’s global ambitions and its “we believe in death and you believe in life” mantra—but also prompt the West to roll back Islam’s deadly threat to civilization. I have written elsewhere about this common enemy, which can only advance by the default of decent nations. Hence ponder this prophetic epigram from Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm:

“It is my purpose … to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been avoided; how the malice of wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded together into larger organisms, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how even in matters of self-presentation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course, adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull’s-eye of disaster.”

Now let me mention Abraham Lincoln. On his way to his inauguration in Washington in February 1861, Lincoln stopped in Trenton and addressed the New Jersey State Senate. There he voiced these remarkable words: “I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be a humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost-chosen people …” This is the source of American Exceptionalism.

American Exceptionalism is rooted in the Declaration of Independence. Ponder these words of the Prologue:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The Preamble affirms the existence of a Creator-God, the God of the Hebrew Bible. The Preamble also affirms that all men are created equal, alluding to Genesis, which states that man is created in the image of God. This suggests that just as God is a creator in an infinite sense, man is a creator in a finite sense. This creativity made possible the political creativity of America’s Founding Fathers and American Exceptionalism.

I have yet to say a word about the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Viewed in the context of the Bible, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God was deemed the “moral law.” Christian Hebraists identified the Laws of Nature with the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality. We must also emphasize the “Peroration” of the Declaration of Independence, where its 56 signers appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions,” and whose final sentence speaks of their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” The Peroration clearly confirms that the Declaration is a theistic, not a Deistic document. The Declaration of Independence thus embodies not only a political philosophy, as is generally understood, but a political theology. This warrants our inquiry into the Hebraic roots of the American Republic from which blossomed its unknown Constitution or Hebraic Republic. God willing, I shall elaborate in next week’s report.

US State Department Steps Up Promotion of Homosexual Agenda

By Lauren Funk

The Obama administration has made it repeatedly clear that one of their priorities is the promotion of the homosexual agenda both in the US and around the world. The latest salvo in this campaign is the just-announced policy that the applications for Consular Reports of Birth Abroad and passports would use the designations of “Parent 1” and “Parent 2,” instead of “Mother” and “Father.”

The State Department said, “The improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” Homosexual activists celebrated the change. Such groups have been pushing for the gender neutralization of passport applications and other official document for years, launching online petitions and lobbying government officials.

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, played a key role in achieving the gender neutralization of the passport application. She applauded the change last week, while assuring her supporters online that the FEC would continue to lobby for similar modifications in other identification and medical forms. The gender-neutralization of such documents is one of the goals of the Blueprint for Positive Change, a comprehensive homosexual -rights agenda presented to the Obama Administration in 2008.

In response to rising criticism from conservatives and pro-family groups, last weekend Secretary Clinton modified the previously announced change so that the application would include “mother or parent 1” and “father or parent 2.” Clinton’s press secretary reported that she was unaware of the complete removal of mother and father from the application, and decided to include both terms so that the application would be as “inclusive and informative” as possible.

Clinton has made the advancement of homosexual rights a personal priority, prompting Change.org to name her the most “pro-LGTB” Secretary of State ever. In 2009, Clinton announced that the partners of homosexual diplomats would be eligible for spousal benefits, a move that rest of the US government promptly replicated. Additionally, the State Department recently eased the regulations regarding change of gender procedures on passport applications, making it easier to verify a sex change. Both of these changes were goals of the Blueprint of Action for Positive Change.

The US’s homosexual-rights agenda has also made its way into the halls of the United Nations. Last summer, Clinton instructed the US diplomatic corps to prioritize reporting homosexual rights violations and related issues in their correspondences. The US also muscled through a reversal in a UN committee’s rejection of a homosexual group’s application for official UN recognition. What’s more, US-UN Ambassador Susan Rice recently pushed the UN to include the language of sexual orientation in a General Assembly resolution, a resolution from which the US abstained when it came time to vote. Days earlier, Ambassador Rice pledged to a Human Rights Day event that the US would continue to advocate for the homosexual agenda in international law and policy.

This article was originally published in Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute publication FridayFax, January 13, 2011.

World Congress of Families’ 10 Best and Worst Developments for the Family in 2010

In the January issue of its newsletter, World Congress of Families News, the international family-values group published its list of “The 10 Best and Worst Developments for The Family in 2010.”

The 10 Best Developments are:

01. The U.S. elects a pro-family House of Representatives
02. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev begins discussion of his nation’s demographic crisis
03. California voters reject marijuana legalization
04. Canadians refuse to legalize euthanasia
05. Spain holds huge pro-life rallies challenging expansion of abortion
06. U.K. plans to block children’s access to Internet porn
07. Developing nation reject E.U. “sexual orientation” mandate
08. Regarding abortion, Europe preserves right of conscience for medical professionals
09. Hungary’s new government considers pro-life/pro-marriage constitution and
10. U.N. members reject special rapporteur’s recommendations on sexuality education.

Here are The 10 Worst Developments for the Family:

01. Ontario court tries to legalize prostitution in Canada
02. Mexico City institutes same-sex marriage
03. New Kenyan Constitution undermines right to life
04. Ted Turner calls for worldwide one-child policy
05. Hollywood is sexualizing teen girls
06. In U.S., high levels of out-of-wedlock birth among less educated
07. Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
08. Planned Parenthood says abortion and contraception are economic stimulus
09. Growing anti-Christian bigotry in Europe and
10. EU tries for stealth recognition of same-sex marriage.

Click here for the complete list and explanations of why these particular developments or trends were chosen.

WCF Managing Director Larry Jacobs observed: “Anyone can draw up a list of 10 best or worse trends. Ours is validated by the Congress’s experience and expertise. We’ve been dealing with family issues internationally for the past 14 years. Last year, World Congress of Families was directly involved in fighting same-sex marriage in Mexico City, legalization of marijuana in California and Kenya’s pro-abortion Constitution.”

For more information about the Congress, go to http://www.worldcongress.org.

Sharia Law Gains Foothold in US

Last week, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, a federal district court judge in Michigan, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Government’s bailout of AIG, which used over a hundred million dollars in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Sharia-compliant financing (SCF). SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law.

The challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and co-counsel David Yerushalmi, on behalf of Kevin Murray, a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War. TMLC filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling and will be seeking review of the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented: “Judge Zatkoff’s ruling allows for oil–rich Muslim countries to plant the flag of Islam on American soil. His ruling ignored the uncontested opinions of several Sharia experts and AIG’s own website, which trumpeted Sharia-compliant financing as promoting the law of the Prophet Mohammed and as an ‘ethical product, ’ and a ‘new way of life.’ His ruling ignored AIG’s use of a foreign Islamic advisory board to control investing in accordance with Islamic law.”

Continued Thompson: “This astonishing decision allows the federal government as well as AIG and other Wall Street bankers to explicitly promote Sharia law ? the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Koran, which demands the destruction of Western Civilization and the United States. This is the same law championed by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; it is the same law that prompted the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks; and it is the same law that is responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians throughout the world. The Law Center will do everything it can to stop Sharia law from rearing its ugly head in America.”

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2008 against Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which is considered the market leader in SCF. According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Sharia-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG; and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated $70 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities, $47.5 billion of which was actually distributed to AIG. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in SCF, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. AIG itself publicly describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .”

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG also employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee.” According to AIG, the role of its Sharia authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”

Shortly after filing the complaint in 2008, attorneys for the Obama administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on behalf of the named defendants. In a written opinion issued in May 2009, the judge denied the request, holding that the lawsuit properly alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.
In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, DOJ argued that the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, who is a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action. And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court disagreed….

Following this favorable ruling, the parties engaged in discovery. During discovery, TMLC took depositions, acquired numerous sworn affidavits from AIG and many of its subsidiaries, and acquired thousands of documents. This voluminous evidence was filed with the court in support of TMLC’s motion for summary judgment—a request that the court enter final judgment in its favor because there is no genuine issue of material fact and TMLC should prevail as a matter of law.

On January 14, 2011, the court reversed its earlier position and ruled against Plaintiff Murray, claiming that there was no evidence presented of religious indoctrination, and if there were such evidence, the indoctrination could not be attributed to the federal government and besides, the amount of federal money that was used to support SCF—$153 million—was “de minimus” (minimal) in light of the large sum of tax money the federal government actually gave to AIG—$47.5 billion.

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC, commented: “Based on the incredible amount of evidence presented, much of which DOJ could not refute , and in light of the strength of the court’s prior ruling, we expected the court to ultimately rule in our favor and hold that the federal government violated the U.S. Constitution by using federal tax money to fund Islamic religious activities. As soon as we read the court’s adverse opinion, we filed an immediate appeal.”

In addition to the court’s remarkable claim that $153 million in tax money is “de minimis, ” the court stated the following: “In the absence of evidence showing that AIG’s development and sale of SCF products has resulted in the instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling those beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that AIG has engaged in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF products.”

In the court filings, however, TMLC presented overwhelming and un-rebutted evidence from experts and AIG itself to demonstrate that AIG, with the direct support of the U.S. Government, was engaging in religious indoctrination. Specifically, in addition to AIG’s own description of its Islamic financing as based upon Sharia and Sharia in turn described as “Islamic law based on Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH), ” AIG promotes Sharia and SCF as a way to proselytize non-Muslims through an “ethical product” and a “new way of life.” Indeed, in the U.S. Government’s filings in the case, it admitted that SCF involves “a theological proposition.”

Muise concluded: “Apparently, the court does not believe that the federal government violates the U.S. Constitution when it provides $153 million in taxpayer money to support Islamic religious activities. This is certainly more than the ‘one pence’ James Madison warned about when he helped craft the First Amendment, and I am sure this decision is news for all of the Christian and Jewish organizations and businesses that are prevented from receiving a dime of federal tax money to support their religious activities.”

The appeal is expected to take at least a year to complete.

From Thomas More Law Center January 19, 2011 email.

Republicans Can Use Senate Rules to Force Vote

by Gary Palmer

Now that H.R. 2, the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed the House of Representatives, the nation’s attention will turn to the Senate. If there is to be a repeal vote before the 2012 election, Republicans must be willing to use the rules of the Senate to force the issue.

When bills are passed by the House, they are sent to the Senate for consideration. When the bill is received, it is referred to a committee. Brian Darling, the director of government relations at The Heritage Foundation, recently explained in his blog that in order to force a Senate vote on the House bill, two procedural steps must be taken.

The first step is that a senator must use Senate Rule 14 to prevent H.R. 2 from being assigned to a committee in the Senate. Darling points out that once the repeal bill is assigned to a Senate committee, the Democrats still in the majority in the Senate will prevent a hearing and a vote to get it out of committee. However, with a letter or phone call to the party leader, any senator can invoke Rule 14 to hold H.R. 2 at the Senate desk. In effect, implementing this rule would bypass the committee process and put the bill directly on the Senate calendar.

This puts it in position for the Senate Majority Leader to begin debate at any time. Given that the Senate Majority Leader is Harry Reid (D-NV), it is almost certain that the bill will not be brought up for debate. In order to get the bill up, Republicans will have to initiate the second procedural step by invoking Senate Rule 22, the filibuster rule.

Under Rule 22, any senator who can get 16 other senators to sign a cloture petition would force a cloture vote to limit the delay of a pending matter. It is unlikely that 13 Democrat senators would be willing to vote with 47 Republicans to bring H.R. 2 up for debate and a vote because a cloture vote puts every senator on record, for or against repeal. The Republicans can continue to use Rule 22 to keep the issue front and center going into the 2012 election.

In the meantime, pressure to repeal continues to mount as more and more information about the scope and cost of the health care law reaches the public. There are currently 26 states that have filed suit in federal court to block the implementation of the individual mandate provision in the law that one federal judge has already ruled is unconstitutional. These efforts are peeling the veneer from a law that will exert unprecedented control over the lives of almost all Americans at a cost far greater than Obama and the Democrats told the American people at the time of its passage.

Now that the bill is law and people are seeing what is really in it and what it is going to cost, there is strong public opinion in favor of repealing the bill and starting over. While the first objective should be to repeal the government takeover of our health care system, the Republicans must also have a sensible and affordable health care reform bill to offer as an alternative.

Darling wrote, “At a minimum, Senators have the power to force a vote on full repeal of Obamacare if they have the will to do so.” By doing so, Republicans can make it clear that they are once again the party that stands for smaller government, fiscal discipline and respect for individual rights.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society

The Health Care Joke Continues

By Mr. David Zanotti

This has to be a comedy. There is no other way to grasp the hysterical claims of those advocating, now defending the nationalized health care take over. Picture clowns with big red noses and giant floppy feet trying to sell a child a balloon. That’s about the size of it. You can only laugh. For example:

  • The Secretary of HHS is out front claiming hundreds of thousands of people will be thrown on the street and left for dead because of pre-existing conditions. Really? This is one problem that states have been successfully working to fix for years. Does the Secretary really think that Congress would roll back this progress or not pass a “replacement” bill to make sure the problem stays fixed.
  • The Secretary, who under this plan becomes one of the most powerful bureaucrats in American history, is certain that repealing this measure will cost billions. So how does the math on that one work? If the government doesn’t spend trillions of NEW money in a field they don’t belong — it will cost the government more money. Explain that one to your kids. Oh, we know the Administration’s logic on this one. There is just one problem: the only way you can cover more people and spend less money is to ration care.
  • A funny thing happened this week: The British Prime Minister is calling for an overhaul of the British Nationalized Health Care system. Great Britain desperately needs to break down their bureaucracy and bring Doctors and non-profits back into the center of health care services. Hmmm… that would be the exact opposite of the current American Administration plan.
  • And of course, the prize joke of the day: Some members are calling for hearings and amendments to the Republican repeal effort in the House. These are the same members who one year ago passed a 2200-page health care bill that would (and did) choke a few elephants. There were no substantive hearings because no one saw the bill until it was time to vote. No one read the bill then and most likely NO ONE has read the bill to this very day. So why would they want to start actually reading legislation now?

This whole thing would be a joke but for two real dangers. First, people will die because of all this clown-town drama in Washington, D.C. And if that isn’t horrid enough, we can already see this Administration playing the oldest, most corrupt game in politics. They are claiming they gave us something that we cannot live without and blaming their opponents for trying to take it away. The old “taking candy from the baby” strategy. The design of the Administration is to paint opponents as evil and hateful and willing to take the “precious” health care away from millions.

The truth is that dastardly deed has already been done. No one in the media or the Administration or most of the Congress has read the news or the bill. Thus they are as clueless as a circus clown — or just pretending to be.

From the American Policy Roundtable’s For the Common Good blog, January 18, 2011.