Archive for the ‘Freedom of Speech’ Category

CALL OBAMA TO THANK HIM!! THIS HAS TO BE CELEBRATED!!! COME ON PEOPLE, YOU ARE FORMALLY A SLAVE NOW!!! AREN’T YOU GLAD?

Mesa Police Lynch Free Speech

Posted on April 7, 2012 by Conservative Byte

Claire Waites, an Alabama school teacher who joined the local teachers union to obtain liability insurance, was pressured by her union to donate to the NEA Fund for Children. In reality, she found out later that the funds went to political action groups chosen by the union—which turned out to be in support of John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. Waites was furious and recently testified about the situation on the House floor.
As it stands, the law empowers unions over employees when conflict arises. This is the opposite of how America should be, and there are several things being done to combat it.
One of them is the Employee Rights Act (ERA), which would protect private-sector workers from union pressure and extortion. This law wouldn’t specifically protect Waites, because she works for a government union, but it would go a long way for those with the same issues in the private sector.
Simply put, individuals would have a say in what kinds of political causes (if any) they care to endorse monetarily through the union. The ERA would require unions to get permission from workers before spending their dues on politics. James Sherk, Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst in labor economics, explains that the act would actually “shift the balance of power in the workplace from unions to workers.”he truth is that most union members oppose their unions’ active political spending. Polling shows that 60 percent of workers object to their money being spent in this way. Unfortunately, the law currently protects the union action. In 2010, the AFL-CIO devoted one-sixth of its national budget to politics and lobbying. Most of that money goes toward liberal candidates who, in turn, do the union’s bidding.
In addition the ERA would guarantee every worker enough time to research the costs and benefits of unionizing before voting—no snap elections. Unions would also have to regularly stand for re-election as workers’ bargaining representatives, allowing workers to hold them accountable.
The House Oversight Committee, lead by Representative Darrell Issa (R–CA) is committed to fighting this rampant abuse with a new site, “Protecting American Workers,” where employees affected by partisan politics in their union are encouraged to speak out against the infringement on their personal freedoms. The home page of the new site explains why individuals should come forward and stand up for their rights:
Workers should decide how their hard-earned money is spent. They should know how their dues are spent…because personal freedom isn’t partisan: it’s American. We are committed to working with everyone—workers, union leaders and each other—to restore workplace freedom and fairness for all Americans.
Already, three individuals have come forward to call out their unions for abuse. House Oversight sent letters this week to their unions—SEIU, UAW Local, NEA and Alabama EA.
Unions spent a reported $1.1 billion on politics and lobbying in the 2010 election cycle (LINK). How much input did the union members—whose dues funded those contributions—get? Many support the individual provisions of the ERA, and that ought to tell you something about how well people feel their rights are currently being upheld. Who wouldn’t want the “paycheck protection” that is included in the ERA? As Sherk explains:
The “paycheck protection” requires unions to obtain employees’ permission before spending dues for purposes—like political activism—unrelated to collective bargaining. Employees would be free to support these activities, but the union would have to get their permission first. Union members support this proposal by a 4-to-1 margin.
Employees should not be afraid to stand up for their rights and demand that their money be spent fairly and transparently. Unions have a chokehold on the American political scene, and the power has gone to their heads. It’s time to restore employee rights and empower individuals to resist union pressure. That’s the American way.

Source:Now The End Begins

In a development that could chill the dedication of every soldier in the field, the U.S. government has refused to deny reports by the government of Afghanistan that NATO has agreed to have the soldiers who burned copies of the Quran face trial.

Afghans burn an effigy representing President Obama during Friday’s protest over Koran burning at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, in Ghani Khail, east of Kabul. (Associated Press photo)

Last week, Afghan president Hamid Karzai demanded NATO turn over the U.S. troops to be tried in Afghanistan. President Obama subsequently sent a letter to Karzai reassuring him that the troops involved would be punished for their actions.

Part of the three-page letter to Karzai said, “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies. We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

It is unclear exactly what Obama meant by that statement as the White House has not released the full text of the letter. However, the Afghan government may have provided insight into its contents.

Over the weekend, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan government media and information center website posted a joint statement by the delegations assigned to probe the Quran burning incident.

The statement says that two delegations were created to “investigate the circumstances and causes that have led to the inhumane incident.”

The statement listed several items, including a demand that the U.S. turn over the authority of the prison in Bagram to the Afghan government to ensure similar incidents do not recur and “calls on the U.S. government to fully and comprehensively cooperate to this end.”

However, the statement used vastly different language when discussing the fate of the U.S. soldiers involved in the incident.

“NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible,” the statement said.

The wording suggests members of the military could be handed over to an Afghan system that imposes Shariah-related penalties.

U.S officials were unwilling to state emphatically that the soldiers would not be turned over to the Afghan legal system for burning the Qurans.

Cmdr. William Speakes, a spokesman for the Pentagon said, “It would be premature to speculate at any potential outcomes. Any disciplinary action if deemed warranted will be taken by U.S. authorities after a thorough review of the facts pursuant to all U.S. military law and regulations and in accordance with due process. We have made no commitments beyond that.”

When asked if that meant the only commitment officials were willing to make was the soldiers would not be tried in an Afghan court, Speakes said, “No. The only commitment we have made is that we will take any appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary by the investigation. Any suggestions that we have made more detailed commitments beyond what I just told you is inaccurate.”

Although the statements apparently were made by the Afghan government Feb. 25, they have received no mention in the mainstream media.

Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy, said if the statement by the Afghan government turns out to be true, it would be an unprecedented betrayal of our men and women in uniform.

“I can’t imagine we would ever do this, what would we charge them with? Are we going to try Americans for crimes committed under Shariah law? I cannot believe our government would go that far,” she said.

Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch, said it was fascinating that the U.S. government has not gotten out in front of this issue and denied the statement. “The administration needs to clarify their stance on this. The longer they wait to deny this the more it has the opportunity to further inflame the Muslim in Afghanistan.” Spencer said that whether the soldiers end up being turned over to the Afghan government or face court-martial, either decision would set a dangerous precedent.

“It would be unconscionable either way,” he said. “If they turn them over to the Afghan government for trial then we are endorsing the applicability of Shariah law to non-Muslims in the U.S. military. If they court-martial them then they are adopting those norms as part of the UCMJ. Either way it’s frightening.”

Lopez said that while U.S. officials have made large concessions to appease Muslims, turning the soldiers over to face trial would be over the line.

“If they were to allow our soldiers to be tried under a legal system that calls for the death penalty for destroying a Quran, that would be unthinkable,” she said.

She said that the silence on the part of U.S. officials has the potential to cause real damage to the morale of troops.

“When the government will not come out with a strong denial of this statement by the Afghan government it has the potential to cause our troops to wonder if the U.S. will truly stand behind and protect them when they are simply trying to do their job,” she said.

It appears that the soldiers may not have violated Islamic law at all by their burning of the Qurans. In a PBS interview, Imam Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at the Islamic Center of Southern California, said it was acceptable to burn the Quran if it was in a state of “disrepair.”

“When Muslims want to respectfully dispose of a text of the Quran that is no longer usable, we will burn it. So if someone, for example, in their own private collection or library had a text of the Quran that was damaged or that was in disrepair, so the binding was ruined, etc., or it got torn, they might bring it by to the Islamic Center and ask that someone here dispose of it properly if they were unsure how to do that,” Turk said. “And what I’ll do is I’ll take it to my fireplace at home and burn it there in the fireplace. So I sort of take the pages out and then burn it to make sure that it gets thoroughly charred and is no longer recognizable as script.” Spencer added, “You are supposed to burn a Quran that is worn out and you are not to write in it. Do they have a problem with the burning of the Quran? No, they do it all the time.”
Source WND

For those unfamiliar, Ted Nugent doesn’t shy away from sharing his opinions on myriad controversial political topics — from gun-rights to homosexuality, from religion to the military.

The veteran rocker recently said at a Republican event that, ”The whole world sucks, but America still sucks less.” He followed up the assertion by clarifying, “But with this administration, we are catching up,”

The Detroit native caught up with Mike Broomhead’s team at KFYI-AM in Phoenix for yet another bombshell of an interview. We warn, the following clip contains graphic language. Still, many will find Nugent’s trademark no holds barred attitude on politics a refreshing change of pace.

Among his more piquant revelations, Nugent believes that having Tim Geithner sever as Secretary of The Treasury, bearing in mind Geithner’s “tax cheating,“ is like having Jeffrey Dahmer ”in charge of a children’s playground.”

He also said that “welfare is slavery” and that we have “American hating maniacs” in our government.

A legal expert, a former Navy chaplain, and a pro-family leader agree that a Pennsylvania judge should be removed from the bench for throwing out an assault case lodged against a Muslim who attacked an atheist dressed as a zombie Muhammad at a Halloween parade last year.

Judge Mark Martin is an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley. The incident, recorded on video, occurred on October 11, 2011 at the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Halloween parade. Ernie Perce, an atheist, was attacked by Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, because of the former’s costume.

Judge Martin threw out video evidence of the assault, dismissed the testimony of an eyewitness officer, and then lectured the atheist victim about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture. He stated in court that Elbayomy was obligated to attack the victim because of his culture and religion.

“They are so immersed in it,” he said. “And what you’ve done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive.”

Gordon Klingenschmitt is a former Navy chaplain who was forced out of the service for publicly praying in Jesus’ name while in uniform. He now runs “The Pray In Jesus Name Project” and says the judge is basically conveying the message that if you mock Muhammad, you deserve to get beaten.

“He freed the Muslim attacker and said basically it’s okay to choke atheists if they insult Islam,” he comments.

Klingenschmitt also finds it outrageous that Judge Martin told Perce that mocking Muhammad in Muslim countries is punishable by death.

“This is a different country. We live in America where we have a free society,” the former Navy chaplain points out. “And Christians have historically protected the rights of minorities to express their religious or anti-religious views.”

So he believes Martin should be removed from the bench, and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel agrees. The latter tells OneNewsNow Judge Martin’s decision an indication of what may be coming if sharia is used in the U.S. court systems.

“This particular judge actually had the audacity to rule in favor of the attacker, saying that the attacker was compelled to attack this individual because it was an insult to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad,” Staver reports.

And Diane Gramley, head of the American Family Association (AFA) of Pennsylvania, suggests that the judge’s religion “tainted” how he looks at the law.

“That definitely changes everything, because if he’s a Muslim convert, then that definitely has tainted his view of the law, and he is looking at sharia law and making his decision,” she offers. “You cannot look at a situation where a Muslim has physically harassed, physically attacked an atheist — granted the guy’s an atheist who’s in a parade; he’s dressed as a Muslim — but that’s not against the law.”

Staver finds the ruling to be almost unbelievable.

“This situation is one involving a judge that needs to be removed from the bench,” the attorney suggests. “He is clearly instituting sharia from the bench, using sharia law as a basis to ultimately acquit a person who actually committed an assault and a battery against an individual.”

Professor Turley also notes that another atheist, dressed as a zombie Pope, was marching beside the zombie Muhammad, but no outraged Catholics attacked him.

“If a Christian had been doing the harassing, I don’t believe the judge would have dismissed those charges,” Gramley contends. “I think in this case, Judge Martin is showing preference to the Muslim.”

Staver concludes that this is the type of case that has prompted several states, including Oklahoma, to work on legislation to prohibit courts from using sharia or foreign laws and court rulings as a basis for decisions in American courts. In Oklahoma’s case, however, the measure was overturned in federal court.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, following a recent anti-piracy legislative debacle with SOPA and PIPA, will lead his second effort of 2012 to push Internet-regulating legislation, this time in the form of a new cybersecurity bill. The expected bill is the latest attempt by the Democrats to broadly expand the authority of executive branch agencies over the Internet.

Details about the bill remain shrouded in secrecy. Clues available to the public suggest that the bill might be stronger than President Barack Obama’s cybersecurity proposal, which was released in May 2011. Reid said that he would bring the bill — expected to come out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman — to the floor during the first Senate work period of 2012.

A classified meeting behind closed doors in October 2011 between key Senate committee leaders with jurisdiction over cybersecurity and White House officials, took place at the request of the Obama administration. Lieberman, in an interview with The Hill in October, said that past Senate cybersecurity bills were considerably stronger than the White House proposal.

The White House proposal recommended that the Department of Homeland Security be given broad regulatory authority for cybersecurity matters over civilian networks. The White House proposal also recommends that the DHS program be “developed in consultation with privacy and civil liberties experts and with the approval of the Attorney General.”

A recent bill in the House – the Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act of 2011 or PrECISE Act — also empowers DHS in the event of a cyberattack, but the bill has been criticized by Reid as not giving the agency enough power. PrECISE focuses on strengthening the information sharing component between private corporations and DHS by allowing a limited amount of information to be shared between the two.

Reid favors an approach that would expand DHS authority beyond currently regulated “critical infrastructure,” such as utilities and financial institutions, to also include Internet service providers and private networks. (RELATED: Full coverage of the tech industry)

“Lieberman said the turf war over which agency should be in charge of implementing the government’s cybersecurity plan has been largely resolved and there is a ‘broad consensus’ that DHS is best suited to the task, with technical and intelligence support from the military and National Security Agency,” reported The Hill.

Paul Rosenzweig, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, recently concluded that the NSA “does it better than DHS” when it comes to cybersecurity. Rosenzweig, who crafted policy inside of DHS, noted that the preference should be for a civilian agency to oversee a predominately civilian network, but it lacks the manpower to handle that responsibility. DHS recently announced a decision to hire 1,000 new cyber experts.

“But until these new experts are on board (and finding and hiring that many will be a long process), civilian defenses will have to rely on existing expertise that lies predominantly with NSA,” said Rosenzweig.

The NSA, at present, already works closely with financial institutions to battle hackers.

Reid sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in November, which urged the need to act for fear of a major cyber attack, regardless of whether legislative working groups that have been working on this issue come to an agreement. McConnell replied with a letter of his own, advising Reid to introduce legislation that would have bipartisan support.

“Everyone wants to improve cybersecurity, but, if we’ve learned nothing else from previous legislation affecting the Internet, we know that an imposition of an overly broad regulatory regime of the Internet ecosystem will not sit well with the American people,” a Senate aide told The Daily Caller.

A group of Amish men were sent to jail in western Kentucky Thursday for refusing to pay fines for breaking a state highway law that requires their horse-drawn buggies to be marked with orange reflective triangles.

The men have a religious objection to the bright orange signs, which they say are flashy and conflict with their pledge to live low-key and religious lives.

Ananias Byler, the first of 10 Amish men due in Graves County District Court on Thursday, was sentenced to 10 days in jail. The men were jailed for being found in contempt of court for refusing to pay the fines. Byler told Judge Deborah Crooks Thursday that he would not pay the $489 he owes.

I totally understand your objection,” the judge told Byler. “But you’re in violation, and it’s not up to me to change the law. It doesn’t really matter what I think about any of this.”

Photos: Inside Amish Life

The men belong to a conservative breakaway group of Amish known as Swartzentruber. They live simply, with no electricity, plumbing or appliances. But in recent years they have been running afoul of the law for refusing to use the triangles on their buggies, and some were sent to jail last year.

9 Amish men get jail in Ky. safety triangle case

The Amish men, wearing long dark coats on a snowy day in Mayfield, removed their black wide-brimmed hats before entering the courtroom. They sat quietly until their names were called.

Amish plead not guilty in beard-cutting attacks

Amish boy left horse at Walmart, now what?

Sheriff: Ohio man cleaning gun killed Amish girl

Jacob Gingerich said he and the other men will continue to refuse to pay the fines. Gingerich owed the most, $627, and was sentenced to 13 days in jail Thursday.

“We’re just not going to pay,” Gingerich, a farmer with 12 children, said before the court appearance.

Police and prosecutors say the orange triangles help motorists see the buggies and avoid collisions.

“You get behind one of the buggies at night, you can’t see it,” Graves County Sheriff DeWayne Redmon said. “We’re citing them for their own safety as well as the safety of others.”

Gingerich and two other Amish men, with help from the Kentucky chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, have sued over the state highway law, saying it infringes on their religious freedom. The Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case later this year after the state appeals court rejected the Amish men’s argument in June.

Gingerich said Thursday that he wished the judge would have waited for the state Supreme Court to hear the case before throwing the men in jail.

Kentucky lawmakers are considering changes to the highway law to allow the Amish to use gray reflective tape instead of the orange triangles.

Of Kentucky’s 120 counties, Graves County has recorded the most violations for failure to use the orange triangles in the last five years, according to data obtained by The Associated Press. The county has recorded 57 of a total of 89 violations statewide since 2007.

Vice President Joseph Biden said on Monday that the Taliban are not United States’ (US) enemy — a statement later backed by the White House.      

“Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens US interests,” Biden said in an interview with Newsweek magazine.

“If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us. So there’s a dual track here,” he added.

“One, continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda and continue to diminish them. Two, put the government in a position where they can be strong enough that they can negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban, and at the same time try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al Qaeda or any other organisation that they would harbour to do damage to us and our allies,” Biden said.

The vice president said the US and the Afghan Government were engaged in a reconciliation process. “Whether it will work or not is another question. But we are in a position where if Afghanistan ceased and desisted from being a haven for people who do damage and have as a target the US and their allies, that’s good enough. We are not there yet,” Biden said.

“Of that process is our support for the Afghan-led reconciliation talks. The conditions for reconciliation for the Taliban are very clear, but reconciliation has to be a part of the long-term process in Afghanistan, if Afghanistan is going to evolve into a peaceful country,” he said.

Remarks should be seen in the context Biden was speaking in: White House

Meanwhile, the White House stood by Biden’s comments that the Taliban, per se, is not America’s enemy and stressed Biden’s remarks should be seen in the context he was speaking in.

“Not at all,” replied Press Secretary Jay Carney when asked if Biden regrets using that language that the Taliban were not per se the enemy in Afghanistan.

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.Is this man truly a genius? Checked out and this is true…it DID happen!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on this plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Gun-toting granny Ava Estelle, 81, was so ticked-off when
two thugs raped her 18-year-old granddaughter that she tracked the
unsuspecting ex-cons down… And shot off their testicles.

“The old lady spent a week hunting those men down and,
when she found them, she took revenge on them in her own special
way,” said Melbourne police
investigator Evan Delp.

Then she took a taxi to the nearest police station, laid the
gun on the sergeant’s desk and told him as calm as could be:
“Those bastards will never rape anybody again, by God.”

Cops say convicted rapist and robber Davis Furth, 33, lost
both his penis and his testicles when outraged Ava
opened fire with a 9-mm pistol in the hotel room where he and former
prison cell mate Stanley Thomas, 29, were holed up.

The wrinkled avenger also blew Thomas’ testicles to kingdom
come, but doctors managed to save his
mangled penis, police said. “The one
guy, Thomas, didn’t lose his manhood, but the doctor I talked to said
he won’t be using it the way he used to,” Detective Delp told
reporters. “Both men are still in pretty bad shape, but I think
they’re just happy to be alive after what they’ve been through.”

The Rambo Granny swung into action August 21 after her
granddaughter Debbie was carjacked and raped in broad daylight by two
knife-wielding creeps in a section of town bordering on skid row.

“When I saw the look on my Debbie’s face that night in
the hospital, I decided I was
going to go out and get those bastards myself ’cause I figured the Law
would go easy on them,”‘ recalled the retired library worker.
” And I wasn’t scared of them, either – because I’ve got
me a gun and I’ve been shootin’ all my life. And I
wasn’t dumb enough to turn it in when the law changed about owning
one.”

So, using a police artist’s sketch of the suspects and
Debbie’s description of the sickos, tough-as-nails Ava spent seven days
prowling the wino-infested neighborhood where the crime took place till she
spotted the ill-fated rapists entering their flophouse hotel.

“I knew it was them the minute I saw ‘em, but I shot a
picture of ‘em anyway and took it back to Debbie and she said sure as
hell, it was them,” the oldster recalled…

“So I went back to that hotel and found their room and
knocked on the door, and the minute the
Big one opened the door, I shot ‘em right square between the legs,
right where it would really hurt ‘em most, you know. Then I went in and
shot the other one as he backed up pleading to me to spare him.
Then I went down to the police station and turned myself in.”

Now, baffled lawmen are trying to figure out exactly how to
deal with the vigilante granny. “What she did was wrong, and she
broke the law, but it is difficult to throw an 81-year-old woman in
prison,” Det. Delp said, “especially when 3 million people in
the city want to nominate her for Mayor.”

DEPORT HER TO AMERICA – WE NEED HER!

Should public school officials have the right to prevent students from wearing pro-American garb on Cinco de Mayo?

This question has been at the heart of a California court battle between the Morgan Hill Unified School District and students who were told by a principal and assistant principal that they could not wear American flag t-shirts on the Mexican holiday back in 2010.

Following the incident, a lawsuit against the district was launched by the students and their families. This week, the case came to a close, with a federal judge ruling against the students — a blow that is likely to infuriate some free speech advocates.….Read More

Love him or hate him, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a man who sticks by his convictions.

He started by making Wisconsin more business-friendly, then took on the public sector unions. And now, the state lawmaker that has solidified a national name for himself is taking on atheists and non-believers — over the state’s “holiday” tree.

On Monday, Walker decided that he wanted to shake things up a bit. Rather than following recent tradition and referring to the (Christmas) tree that is placed in the Wisconsin’s Capitol Rotunda as a “holiday tree,” he’s changing course. For the past 25 years, lawmakers have referred to the evergreen that is decorated with ornaments and a star with this benign, uncategorized reference. Now, Walker plans to, once again, call the tree what it is — a Christmas tree.

From 1916 until 1985, the state did, indeed, refer to the tree as such. But in 1985, when lawmakers began getting nervous about government endorsement of religion, they began referring to it as a holiday tree. Walker, though, doesn’t want to continue doing so.

(Photo courtesy of the Daily Mail)
Rather than making a big deal out of the change, the governor simply put out a press release that referred to the holiday decoration as a Christmas tree. The release doesn’t note that any change in reference occurred. A portion of the document reads:

Today Governor Walker asked art teachers, parents, and youth all across Wisconsin to help the State of Wisconsin decorate the Capitol Christmas Tree. The theme of the tree this year will be Honoring 163 years of Wisconsin’s Veterans.

“As the holiday season comes, I am excited to announce that the Christmas tree displayed in our State Capitol will have homemade ornaments created by Wisconsin’s youth,” said Governor Walker. “I am hopeful we receive ornaments from all across Wisconsin so that we are able to showcase the diversity that makes up our great state. I invite all Wisconsin residents to stop by the Capitol and view our state’s holiday display.”
But when asked, spokesman Cullen Werwei confirmed that the decision was intentional. “It’s a Christmas tree,” Werwei said. “In all honesty, I don’t know what more to say about it.” In the Charleston Daily Mail, Don Surber echoed this sentiment, writing, “Republican Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin just ended 25 years of stupidity.”

Not everyone agrees, though. The infamous Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and “freethinkers,” doesn’t plan to let the change go unnoticed. Annie Laurie Gaylor, the group’s president, called the decision both rude and insensitive to non-Christians. Gaylor said:

“The reason that it was turned into a holiday tree was to avoid this connotation that the governor chooses one religion over another. It’s essentially a discourtesy by the governor to announce that. He intends that to be a slight and a snub to non-Christians, otherwise he would not do it.”
Considering the FFRF’s track record, it’s likely the group will be doing more than simply commenting on the matter. We’ll have to wait and see their next legal moves.

Posted on October 27, 2011 at 12:00am by Liz Klimas

Last year, Google established a transparency report revealing the requests it receives for user data from the government conducting criminal investigations, as well to as record disruptions in service and follow traffic patterns.

Yesterday, Google released an
update to its report from January to June 2011, disclosing for the first time the number of users or accounts that were in requests, not just the number of requests.

Wired reports that during this six month timeframe, government requests for user data were up 29 percent, averaging 31 requests per day. Google honored 93 percent of the government’s requests.

Wired goes on to note that the government wasn’t just asking for Google to provide information, but also to take it down:

The search and software giant also received 92 requests to remove data from its services, including YouTube. The requests collectively asked for 757 individual pieces of content be removed. Google says it complied fully or partially with 63 percent of the requests. The company noted it received a request from law enforcement to take down a video showing police brutality and another for videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. Google did not comply with either.
Some things, accorded to Wired, are not included in Google’s report, such as National Security Letters; “national security wiretap and data requests, known as FISA warrants, that are approved by a secret court in D.C. to combat spies and threats to national security”; and information of requested of those outside of the United States.

In its blog, Google writes that it provides this information in its transparency reports to showcase the need for updated Internet privacy laws, like the 25-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Wired notes that because Google does not categorize requests made to it by type, that it is unclear how many fall under the ECPA. But, although Internet Service Providers and email providers, advocate updating of ECPA, only Google produces such a report. It’s something that Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, told The Blaze he thinks more sites should do.

“[Google's report] is a wonderful tool,” Nojeim said. “I wish more companies would publish some of their info so people would have a better idea the extent to which law enforcement is obtaining information on their communication.”

Google’s blog post shows the same sentiment: “Yet at the end of the day, the information that we’re disclosing offers only a limited snapshot. We hope others join us in the effort to provide more transparency, so we’ll be better able to see the bigger picture of how regulatory environments affect the entire web.”

Nojeim said that unless the law is changed to provide as much protection online as we expect on our lives offline, then we can expect to see these requests to increase and our privacy to decrease.

Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:51pm by Jonathon M. Seidl

Over the past couple weeks, The Blaze has received reports that some NYC Occupy protesters have been leaving their tents at night and fleeing to a local hotel for better accommodations. And while we’re still investigating those claims, it seems now there’s evidence of something similar going on in London.

The Daily Mail has published thermal imaging pictures showing that the tents at the Occupy camp near St. Paul’s Cathedral are nearly empty at night. The Daily Mail commissioned the photographs itself after images from a police helicopter showed similar findings. Here’s how it explains the photos:

These are the damning images that prove the anti-capitalist protest that has closed St Paul’s Cathedral is all but deserted at night.
Footage from a thermal imaging camera taken late at night reveals just a fraction of the makeshift camp was occupied.
An independent thermal imaging company, commissioned by the Daily Mail, captured these pictures after similar footage from a police helicopter found only one in ten tents were occupied after dark.
In these shots, taken late on Monday night, the presence of body heat from humans is represented by yellow and red inside the tents.
The tents that are coloured purple indicate they are colder and thus empty. The buildings behind are also yellow and red because of the higher temperatures inside.
Here are some of the photos the Daily Mail captured:

But The Daily Mail isn’t the only new outlet that became suspicious and decided to take thermal images. The Telegraph did the same thing the following night (Tuesday) and came to the same conclusion.
Here’s how the Telegraph explains its findings:

The footage, shot at 1230am on Tuesday Oct 25 shows a multitude of darkly coloured tents around the courtyard indicating those that were unoccupied.
On Monday the revelation was described as a “charade” and pressure was growing on the church and other authorities to evict the camp.
It would appear most of the protesters are heading home to sleep in their own beds at night rather than staying onsite.
“It is like a phantom camp – a big charade,” Matthew Richardson, a Corporation of London councillor, told the Telegraph.

“It just shows that most of the people don’t have the courage of their convictions and are here just to make trouble and leaving your tent here overnight is a good way to do that.”

An Occupy London spokesperson, however, told ABC News the images are misleading:

Naomi Colvin, an Occupy London spokesperson, called the use of heat sensing cameras an “invasion of privacy,” and said the analysis did a poor job of estimating the number of people inside the camp.
“We had at least 140 people that night,” Colvin told ABCNews.com, noting that the group uses sign in and sign out sheets to keep track of who is inside the tent city at any given time.
Colvin contended that the encampment is consistently two-thirds full and that people share their tents with others if they know they will be gone for a night.
The group has been at St. Paul’s since Oct. 15 and their presence forced the landmark to close for the first time since WWII.

“WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE”

by JB Williams, ©2011

(Oct. 20, 2011) — On October 5, 2011, the following national call was released to the public –

“An undisclosed number of American Veterans and former service members have come together to prepare and present this Call-to-Action on behalf of the U.S. Constitution, the Republic, the Rule of Law and equal justice for all freedom loving citizens of the United States of America. Acting together as one, via The Veteran Defenders of America, co-sponsored by civilian patriot group The Unites States Patriots Union, LLC – we issue the following CALL for peaceful disobedience.

 

We CALL upon every member of federal, state and local government, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and military, who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitutional Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to act upon those oaths for the stated purpose of restoring the Constitutional Republic.

 

We CALL upon ALL veterans and veteran organizations in America, who still believe in their oath to protect and defend, to unite with us at once – in this Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic.

 

We CALL for ALL citizens who still desire freedom and liberty, to stand with us in peaceful protest, and carry our demands to right the wrongs against our nation in the preservation of freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of law.”

 

(The full Call-to-Action is available here.)

 

This National Call-to-Action for Veterans Day, November 11, 2011 in Washington D.C. is scheduled for 0600 EST at the Washington Monument.

 

The call is led by MG Paul Vallely, Col. James Harding and Col. Harry Riley of Veteran Defenders of America (VDA), a service member division of The United States Patriots Union. Both are member-only organizations formed and funded by an undisclosed number of members.

 

The Veterans organization focuses on matters of national security and defense of the US Constitution, freedom and liberty. Patriots Union is an advanced patriot group focused on tangible strategies for reclaiming the republic, ending corruption and tyranny in government and returning the power to the American people.

 

Together, they prepared and launched a nation-wide Call-to-Action to ALL freedom loving Americans willing to fight for their right to live free from government tyranny. But they also issued a Code of Conduct for their event in D.C. scheduled on 11.11.11…

 

The Call-to-Action has gone viral on the internet, thanks to vital coverage by conservative news outlets like World Net Daily, Canada Free Press and Post & Email. Veterans, patriots and groups have been joining the Call-to-Action since and it’s beginning to look like patriots across the country are finally ready to join forces for real solutions.

 

In any movement, there are two types of participants, active and passive. Over the last hundred years, as our constitution and nation was being systematically destroyed, only a relative few were active participants in the destruction.

 

But most Americans were indeed passive participants in that destruction, sitting silent as the destruction took place, thereby passively participating by default, via their inaction.

 

Today, a Call-to-Action has been issued that requires active participation from people who are passive by nature. The average American may be angry about what is happening in their country, but how many are truly ready to do whatever it might take to end the madness?

 

When asked who is supporting this Call-to-Action, VDA’s Col. Harding responded as follows – “Every red blooded American we reach is on board, except those who will never be on board.”

 

Harding went on to explain – “it is much easier to list who is not on board at this point.” – “leftists who have a very anti-American vision for America, people who have not yet accepted that there is no political solution now and those who have a seat at the table of corruption, are not on board.” – “Everyone else we reach is on board…”

 

The Code of Conduct clearly indicates that the group’s call is for peaceful resistance on 11.11.11. The likelihood that Obama & Co. will resign on request is zero. The odds that members of congress will do the right thing and impeach are also slim. So, what is the real goal of the 11.11.11 event?

 

Co-Founder of Patriots Union Timothy Harrington explains – “We have to start somewhere. We are hoping to show D.C. insiders that the people have had enough. That the time for talking has passed and the time for serious action to save this nation has arrived.”

 

“Every member of every branch of government has taken an oath to uphold and protect the constitution and the people of the United States and it’s high time we see which of them is ready to live up to that oath.” – said Harrington.

 

The event calls upon all freedom loving citizens fed up with the corruption and tyranny in D.C. to take a stand with their veterans at the Washington Monument on November 11, 2011. Additional information is being released at the organizations web sites as available.

 

The chanting crowd at the radical Muslim protest in Indonesia stood out for its normalcy: smartly dressed businessmen, engineers, lawyers, smiling mothers, scampering children.

 

At a time when al-Qaida seems to be faltering, the recruitment of such an educated, somewhat mainstream following is raising fears that Hizbut Tahrir, an enigmatic global movement, could prove more effective at radicalizing the Islamic world than outright terrorist groups.

 

Active in 45 countries, Hizbut is now expanding in Asia, spreading its radical message from Indonesia to China. It wants to unite all Muslim countries in a globe-spanning bloc ruled by strict sharia law. It targets university students and professionals, working within countries to try to persuade people to overthrow their governments.

 

The movement’s appeal to an often influential part of society worries experts. Its goal of an Islamic state may be far-fetched, but it could still undercut efforts to control extremism and develop democracy in countries such as Indonesia, which the U.S. hopes will be a vital regional partner and a global model for moderate Islam.

 

“Our grand plan over the next five to 10 years is to reinforce the people’s lack of trust and hope in the regime,” said Rochmat Labib, the group’s Indonesia chairman in a rare interview with a Western reporter. “That’s what we are doing now: converting people from democracy, secularism and capitalism to Islamic ideology.”

Hizbut Tahrir, which means The Party of Liberation, is also raising its profile in the U.S. after operating largely underground since the 1990s. Its first major event was a 2009 conference, followed by another one in Chicago this June.

Starkly conflicting views swirl around Hizbut. It has been described as both a peaceful movement to restore one-time Islamic glory and a breeding ground for future suicide bombers, “a conveyer belt to terrorism,” in the words of Zeyno Baran, an expert on Islam in the modern world.

Banned in most countries, Hizbut remains legal in others, including the United States, Great Britain, Australia and Indonesia, where its leaders say it has spread to all 33 provinces. It is closely monitored everywhere, and often operates on the knife-edge of legality.

“The rhetoric they have goes to the fringe of democracy,” said Hans Joergen Bonnichsen, the former head of Denmark’s intelligence service. But the Danish Justice Ministry has twice asked the nation’s top prosecutor if Hizbut could be banned under Danish law, and both times the answer was no.

Its new frontier in Asia ranges from Indonesia and neighboring Malaysia to Pakistan and China, where Beijing has accused it of inciting violence among Muslim Uighurs in the remote west. It has also become the most widespread, and persecuted, radical Muslim group in Central Asia.

The Indonesia chapter is believed to be the largest, with a following estimated in the hundreds of thousands, according to Sidney Jones, an expert on Islam in Southeast Asia.

“They are a real force here. They are a greater long-term threat to Indonesia than people who use violence,” said Jones, a Jakarta-based analyst with the International Crisis Group think tank. “Collectively, hardline civil society can have a bigger effect than jihadists and terrorists.”

Her words are echoed by anti-terrorism expert Zhang Jiadong of China’s Fudan University, who said Hizbut is “more harmful than terrorist organizations, because it has more influence on ordinary people.” The group, estimated at up to 20,000 members in China, is more likely to foment riots or rebellions than terrorist attacks, he said.

Ismail Yusanto, the group’s urbane spokesman in Indonesia, insists that “we are a peaceful Islamic movement.”

 

“We believe people can be influenced by their environment, so so-called terrorists could be influenced by everyone, not just us. But Hizbut itself is committed to not being violent. There is no evidence,” he says, when asked whether some adherents later veer to violence.

 

The claims of nonviolence contrast with the movement’s fiery rhetoric, which calls for the annihilation of Israel – that’s what led to it being outlawed in Germany in 2003 – and exhorts Muslims to fight coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. One flyer shows a decapitated Statue of Liberty with New York City aflame in the background.

 

The U.S. State Department says the group “may indirectly generate support for terrorism but there is no evidence that it has committed any acts of terrorism.”

 

Hizbut followers may later “graduate” to terror under the tutelage of other groups. Often cited are the first British suicide bombers, Asif Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, who attacked a Tel Aviv bar in 2001 and had past Hizbut links.

 

Reports have also linked Hizbut to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Sept. 11 mastermind, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former al-Qaida chief in Iraq, but they have never been proven.

 

Hizbut calls for the establishment of a caliphate, uniting all Muslim nations under centralized Islamic rule in emulation of such entities that flourished in the past.

 

This is to be attained by changing Muslim mindsets to think beyond national borders, then pressing the message among political leaders, the armed forces and other power brokers until governments crumble.

 

Taquiddin an-Nabhani, a Palestinian lawyer who founded the movement in 1953, didn’t rule out violence during the last stage of creating the caliphate, or the possibility of fighting Western nations to protect it or expand it into non-Muslim countries. In earlier days, Hizbut staged failed coups in Jordan, Syria and Egypt, and it is now largely banned in the Middle East.

In Indonesia, Jones said, Hizbut appeals to those who believe that neither the country’s earlier dictatorship or present democracy has worked.

She said it has been able to infiltrate the top cleric body, the Indonesian Ulema Council, and local governments and exercises some clout on issues such as introducing sharia law, banning non-mainstream Muslim sects and opposing the operations of Western companies in Indonesia.

Unlike many Islamist groups, it welcomes women, who make up about a third of the membership, according to Ratu Erma, the head of its women’s organization. It also enjoys a following among parts of the elite.

“Some of them work by day in Jakarta‘s main business district making the wheels of capitalism turn and after work talk about overthrowing the country’s infidel system. It’s one of the conundrums about the HT,” says Greg Fealy, an Indonesia expert at Australian National University who is adamant that at least in Indonesia the group is nonviolent.

In Malaysia, young hard-liners disillusioned with the moderating stances of mainstream political parties have turned to Hizbut because “they feel it is sticking to Islamic principles more closely,” said Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.

Nawab, an expert on the group in Asia, said that Hizbut, which barely filled a meeting room in Malaysia in 2004, recently drew more than 1,000 to a conference and is present in every state but one.

Leaders and followers interviewed in both countries dodge questions about their numbers and inner workings, even the whereabouts of the current global leader, Ata Khalil Abu-Rashta, except to say he is based in the Middle East.

Behind its public face, Hizbut is built along Marxist-Leninst lines with secretive cells as key building blocks. Nawab says “students” may go through up to five years of arduous training and indoctrination to prove their commitment and become members. Some 60 percent don’t make the grade.

Hizbut members have been imprisoned in Russia, Central Asian nations and elsewhere, but some experts say the broad definition of terrorism in these countries – rather than any acts committed – landed many of them in jail, and sometimes before execution squads.

Within the U.S., opinion is divided. The State Department doesn’t name Hizbut as a terrorist group, but the New York City Police Department, in a document obtained by The Associated Press, identified it as a “tier one extremist group” in 2006.

The British government came close to banning the group after the 2005 London bombings, and government officials say membership has shrunk to fewer than 2,000 members. But Britain remains an important base for fundraising, propaganda efforts and recruiting senior members. Many leaders in Indonesia and Malaysia were once asylum seekers in the U.K. who got an education and made connections and then returned home.

Ed Husain, who described his time as a British member in the 2007 book “The Islamist,“ said that globally the movement is ”strong, robust, growing.”

“I still believe that the message and ideology of Hizbut Tahrir is as potent as ever,” he said in an interview. “Their antidemocratic, anti-West, anti-Israel and anti-Muslim governments stance remains firm. As such, they implant confrontational, radical ideas and thus attitudes among young Muslims.”

When someone sneezes, a common response is, “God bless you.” But one California teacher finds this statement so offensive and disruptive that he’s working to cut back on its usage in the classroom.

Steve Cuckovich, a health teacher at William C. Wood High School in Vacaville, California, has attempted to banish the friendly gesture, as he believes it is both disrespectful and disruptive. To punish students who do, indeed, say “God bless you” after one of their classmates sneezes, he purportedly knocks 25 points off of their grade.

While this story may seem unbelievable at first glance, Cuckovich, himself, has commented on the classroom ban. According to KFSN, he says that the policy isn’t about religion. He simply believes that the gesture is outdated and that it is disruptive. He says:

“When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying, ‘god bless you’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, I said what you‘re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.”

Parents, of course, are outraged, especially considering the fact that this move very clearly stands to impose Cuckovich’s view on the classroom. The school has come to agree with concerned parents, with the teacher now pledging to implement a more palatable punishment for the offense.

By Captain John ,, American Airlines Pilot

I’ve been trying to say this since 911, but you worry me. I wish you didn’t. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don’t blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.

I notice you because I can’t help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don’t fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On September 11, ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings, killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children’s mothers.

The Palestinians celebrated, the Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So, I notice you now. I don’t want to be worried. I don’t want to be consumed by the same rage, hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.

How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim Americans and the Arab/Muslim terrorists in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter MORE of the same good neighbors and children?

The events of September 11 changed the answer.. It is not MY responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.
I want to know, I DEMAND to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America … Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that Allah will destroy it in one of your Jihads? Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America ? ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.

Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions YOU are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America . Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent, because I worry about who you regard as innocent…. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks, because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy; I am interested only in action. What will you do for America – our great country – at this time of crisis, at this time of war?

I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting ‘Allah Bless America ‘. I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.

The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize right now in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Hand them over to us, NOW! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals.

The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing ‘leaders’ like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.

If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good, pure, and true, when your ‘leaders’ ARE teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance? It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if huge numbers of the world’s Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.

We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us — our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to DEMAND it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.

I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American…… But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance, and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then, “YOU WORRY ME!”

CANADIAN COMMENTS:

I totally agree with this sentiment. I hope you will forget all about the ‘political correctness’ mandate we’ve had rammed down our throats, and see if this doesn’t ring true in your heart and mind. For Canada , with all the multiculturalism we’ve been told is so important…..why should we not, as Canadians, expect that the millions of new people immigrating to our country will show their love for our country, their allegiance to our country, their willingness to obey the laws of our country, and acceptance that we are a Christian country? Just because they are able to enjoy exercising their own religion, they should NOT expect us to be ashamed of ours. They knew Canada was a Christian country when they came here. Why are we erasing Christianity because immigrants who are unwilling to adopt our way of life expect us to? There is just too much insanity in the world, and we have to start taking a stand.

I hope you will forward this, so that others will feel they are not alone if they are starting to feel the same.

BRITISH COMMENTS:
At last a clear non racist example of the concerns that the vast majority of our Nations population probably share. The pilot’s letter encapsulates all that is fair and just about national pride and protection of one’s national culture. I fear it may be too late here in UK , BUT we too want our country back in the form that attracted all these different cultures to come here in the first place!! In all our conversations with a wide range of friends and acquaintances we have not met one that disagrees with our own views. If only we all had the courage of our convictions to pass this on, it is a statement that should be accepted as the heart-felt feelings of someone with honest commendable national pride.

Share with everyone you know!

THIS IS TOO GOOD TO JUST READ AND DELETE — LET’S SATURATE NEW ZEALAND , AUSTRALIA , UK , EUROPE, USA , CANADA AND THE REST OF THE FREE WORLD WITH THIS ONE!