Thursday, February 05, 2009


By Coach Dave Daubenmire
February 5, 2009

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” --Declaration of Independence July 4, 1176.

Duty- “Something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.”

Rights- “Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.”

We hear a lot these days about our “rights”, but we hear very little about our “duties.” Duty is not the same as rights. If there is any hope to the saving of our Republic it is time that we once again began to talk about our duties.

Let me say right up front folks that this is serious stuff. There are things going on in America that most people do not want to believe. In fact, whenever you hear someone bring up some of the things I am going to talk about the immediate reaction by most is to try and marginalize anyone who would insinuate such radical stuff.

“You are too black-helicopter for me, Coach. I don’t buy into the whole conspiracy nonsense that you hear from the lunatic fringe. You would better spend your time just preaching the Gospel.”

Well, I want you to know that much of what is going on in America is scary to me as well. I too, would like to stick my head in the sand and pretend as if none of this was happening. But we have been here before. As hard as it is to swallow, this great nation that many fought and died for is in the midst of a revolution. The land of free and the home of the brave is rapidly becoming neither. Our freedoms are being stripped from us daily, and it is harder and harder to find any courage anywhere.

But we have been here before. Two hundred and thirty-three years ago a band of brave men reached the point where they determined that enough was enough. As we used to be taught in our schools, one brave man rose to his feet and said “Give me liberty or give me death.” (You will be inspired to read what Patrick Henry had to say).

Patrick Henry and his fellow patriots signed their death warrants on July 4, 1776. As a result most would lose everything they had. But they understood one thing that today we no longer get. Their lives were not as valuable to them as ours are to us. They were a generation who lived their lives for the benefit of the next. They understood that their duty was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Aren’t you glad they “did their duty?”

But things were different for them than they are for us today. They were living under a King who didn’t believe in such things as God-given rights. The King was the law, and the King made the law. The idea of a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” was nothing more than a wild-eyed pipe dream to most in the colonies. Thank God for men of vision, men of courage, and men of sacrifice.

Do we have the courage to live like that today? Are there brave men still living in America today who will live out the cry of Patrick Henry’s heart? Let me assure you of this, those who would desire to see America free of tyranny, and are not afraid to say-so, face the same fate as the Founders. Tyrannical leaders will not give up their power freely. Freedom must be seized.

I am reminded today, after watching the Super Bowl, of former Cardinal Pat Tillman’s decision to trade a professional football career for a tour of duty in the mountains of Afghanistan. That decision cost him his life. When asked why he walked away from the NFL to fight for his nation, Tillman responded, "My great-grandfather fought in Pearl Harbor, my family has fought in five wars, and I haven't done a damn thing as far as laying myself on the line like that."

Pat Tillman understood duty.

Are you aware that today, as you sit in the comfort of your home, a bill is the legislature that will create detention camps designed to “create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.”

That another “tax cheat” is being appointed to the Obama Cabinet? That Mayor Bloomberg wants to install “unlimited intersection cameras? That an environmental wacko is proposing a two-child per family limit? That the Obama administration wants to silence the loyal opposition through the Fairness Doctrine? That the Feds want to take over the Campus Police at our universities? That the “government stimulus” will give checks to illegals? That steps are being taken to create a “civilian workforce” to monitor America? That homosexual indoctrination in our government schools is shifting into high gear? That ACORN has received $5.2 from the stimulus package to continue the voter fraud that has changed the electoral map of the nation? That One World Government is clearly within the sights of the elites? That parents have no rights when dealing with the “public schools?” That we are being pressured towards Global Governance? That we are trading capitalism for socialism? That if they can’t get your guns they will prevent you from getting ammo? That American citizens have lost control of their government.? That the Feds want your medical records?
That pastors are being paid to work for FEMA? That Obama is being exposed as the Marxist many warned he was? That Alan Stang is right?

And that is just for starters. It looks like the “lunatic fringe” hasn’t been wasting time watching Oprah or American Idol.

It is obvious that Pastors are either too cowardly or two worldly to do their duty. Stop waiting on them. One day they will give account for their cowardice. Our elected officials have sworn an oath to protect us from enemies “foreign and domestic” yet they are ignoring their duty, thereby empowering our domestic enemies. Our republican form of government was created to operate within the restraints of a Constitution, but the judges regularly ignore or re-interpret it. We change Presidents but the ruling oligarchy only switch seats.

So, let’s stop worrying so much about our rights and ask ourselves what is our duty? What kind of country do we want to leave to our children? Who can we count on to restore our freedoms? Who did the colonists turn to?

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." --Thomas Jefferson

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson

Fight and you may die. Run and you will live at least awhile. And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here as young men and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom!" --William Wallace

We Americans are so used to hiring someone to do the dirty work. It is the scourge of our prosperity. We hire folks to mow our yards, plant our gardens, paint our houses, clean our gutters, pick up our trash, un-plug our toilets, rake our leaves, and fight for our freedom. It is time that all of us who love freedom made the decision that it is time to stand up for our posterity. As Jefferson told us, it is our duty.

I know it is scary, I know you don’t want to come out of your comfort zone. I know you don’t want to believe that the freedom you enjoy today will not be passed to your children and grand-children. We foolishly believe that those in power will return the power that they have fought so hard to amass.

Eventually you will get it…understand that there is a small group of men who are really in control. When your eyes are finally opened I pray that it is not too late.

There is a tsunami of resistance beginning to build all across this nation. It is underground, below the radar screen, but visible to the powers that be on their culture seismographs. We will all soon have to decide whether we stand with the people…or with the government. “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”

(Listen as you read!) “Oh what I would do to have
The kind of strength it takes to stand before a giant with just a sling and a stone.
Surrounded by the sound of a thousand warriors shaking in their armor
Wishing they'd have had the strength to stand.

But the giant's calling out my name and he laughs at me,
Reminding me of all the times I've tried before and failed.
The giant keeps on telling me time and time again. "Boy you'll never win!"
"You'll never win!"

Is that Patrick Henry I hear?

By Greg Evensen

February 4, 2009

The last great fight for survival has begun. It is not about reality television. It is also not about the great misleading slogan adopted by the Democratic Party last fall. It IS about preparing for the ultimate test of your ability to persevere and win against governmental, geo-political, economic, physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual forces that are aligned into the “perfect storm” bearing down on you with freight train speed and size.

As THE major event of your lifetime, it will overwhelm you and disconnect you from all realty should you have to face it unprepared. Let’s go over this situation and take the final measures necessary to see that you, your family, and your community come through this prolonged crises intact.

Regardless of your political alignment, your education, your vocation or your cultural background, we share a common heritage that is secure in both its historical fact and in its genius in building a sovereign United States of America (the nation, not the United State’s corporate government). Because the USA was a state of mind as well as a state of being, our pioneering nation building forefathers of the 18th and 19th centuries laid a solid, though not perfect foundation, for the rest of us. The 20th century saw a bold and supremely corrupted Congress pass the 16th amendment (income tax) 17th (direct election of senators) and the Federal Reserve Act that effectively moved us from freedom to a compromised road of European banking centered socialism.

Together, with the expanded socialist agenda adopted by the 12 year rule of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, the USA was beaten and indebted into a “league of nations” dedicated to world order and elite power centers in Europe, Asia and North America. Illuminati agents in government, business, banking, the military, education, environmental sciences, major church denominations bound by the National and World Council of Churches, the media and universities have all competed to complete the subjugation of the USA into a United Nations concept that has destroyed our American culture.

The Breton Woods agreement and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) of the UN took control of the Treasury in 1921 and have led to the irreversible and complete disintegration of American monetary solvency. We are a hopelessly indebted nation enslaved by the ultimate greed of our elected officials, banking and investment institutions and our own individual avarice. So what great method of “change” has the socialist black liberation theology endorsing president embraced? It is more debt, more centralized power and a self-proclaimed (Berlin, July 2008) world citizen status for our own “elected” foreign born president.

This concise and accurate picture of events contributing to our current dilemma has set the stage for the final act as those double minded, insidious members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateralists, and the Bilderberger adherents work around the clock to complete, through Barack Obama and his socialist one world first team, the destruction of the sovereign USA Republic.

In so doing, he and all of the others who have contributed to the open border policy, (Clinton, Bush I, Bush II) that is overseeing along with vast cartels fed by US drug addiction, the catastrophic disintegration of Mexico. The world elites are awaiting the final act or series of closely related acts that require a massive response from the security and military apparatus in Washington to keep a smoldering American population from sinking into outright armed rebellion.

There is NO fix for the economic ELE (extinction level event of the movies). There is no renewal around the corner for industry or the job market. There will be no leaner more effective government at all levels. What is coming is an increasing rise in desperation by desperate people in every corner of America. From the farms, to the malls, to the small businesses where production is floundering, complete disintegration will soon be felt in every market in the land. Massive numbers of people--legal, illegal, and refugees coming from the south--will soon outstrip supplies on the shelves using money they don’t have, but which is supplied by Obama’s government printing presses.

Power, communications, heating and medical supplies will be strained as well as goods and services that we have taken for granted, will be gone because of the economic wasteland lying before us.

This calls for preparations that you have never contemplated before. For many, the final wake-up call has come far too late. For others, there are simply no funds or credit cards left to gather in the supplies that are required to get you through an economic earthquake or a real disaster just over the horizon. The need is the same and the requirements to become self-sufficient are just as stringent, regardless of the cause.

No amount of delusional behavior will change the situation. Government at all levels will begin to fail the needs of the state citizens counting on aid now more than ever before. California’s dilemma in delaying payments to its people comes immediately to mind. Michigan is a close second. The list goes on and on. So, Obama thinks that cranking out another 820 billion will do the trick. All that does is set the stage for hyper-inflation within the next two to three years. As a result he will become a forlorn one term wonder, the man who brought change to America. He changed us from barely alive to extremely dead as a manufacturing nation capable of feeding itself to ultimate starvation, bankruptcy and rioting. Many of you bought into his fresh manure sale last November. Now it’s not even good for fertilizer.

So how do we make some kind of headway out of this disastrous situation? There are a few things that you can do starting right now.

First, elect solid people that are not career liars (politicians). Secondly, support your local businesses and buy only what you need. Third, begin to reform or organize movements within your community and state that will seek true change BACK to a Republic. Merge small groups of people that have similar interests and can compliment or invest in one another for real life expertise and deep skills necessary to rebuild and thrive. Storage of food and water supplies are most critical, followed by natural medicines and hardware necessary to repair or construct other items.

Over the past four years, I have made lasting friendships with hundreds of men and women who are experts in their fields of law enforcement, the military and the private sector security establishment, many of whom are increasingly being called upon to work with governmental agencies at all levels in the planning and field assignments formerly held exclusively by government agents. They have testified as to the mindset of faceless bureaucrats who are committed with a religious zeal to bringing an iron fist down upon the American public when the dogs of internal war are unleashed. They agree to a person, that my warnings have been 100% accurate and timely.

Even the US military has agreed as a whole that economic rioting in America is an event they are planning for as if it were an offensive against a sworn enemy. The clear and present danger remains that Americans will be caught “off-guard” and unprepared to maintain survivability during a major terrorist event or the imposition of martial law from whatever source. This could be natural in nature or conspiratorial. It matters little what the ultimate cause will be, for the result will be the same. Millions will be completely at the mercy of government and security forces for their lives and that of their families. Containment camp living will be the new government housing. Is this what you really want? Is this how you see your future?

Organize your survival boat immediately. In that boat will be your provisions, personnel, and the tools to achieve survival. Contact the businesses that provide these essentials and begin your movement away from governmental dependency and toward the establishment of your own personal freedom. Your family and your nation deeply need your efforts far more than it needs another bailout. It will be the best investment you have ever made. The time is 11:59pm. At midnight, it will be too late.

© 2009 Greg Evensen - All Rights Reserved

By: Devvy
February 3, 2009

© 2008 -

46 Of 50 States Could File Bankruptcy In 2009-2010

"It's very possible you'll see the end of the United States as we know it. If the Fed doesn't bailout the States when their cash dries up and the banks don't loan them money, then our States will be left in financial ruin. This would be a tragic and unprecedented event never experienced in the United States."

An all too familiar refrain. California is getting the highest visibility. A state run by a nit wit governor who has continued to rubber stamp the mass fleecing of taxpayers year after year by the Democrat controlled state legislature. Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka and so forth, is claiming that Republican governors are begging for the gang rape "economic stimulus package." Actually, governors of both parties want their share of the booty, some $176 BILLION dollars that doesn't exist:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2012, said governors have little choice but to accept the relief being offered. "States have to balance their budgets," he said. "So if we're going to go down this path, we are entitled to ask for our share of the money."

They're all lining up, including Saint Sarah Palin. I got beat up from Sarah fans during the pretend election because I would never vote for her based on her past record as a governor, her phony rhetoric about being a reformer and the poor judgment she displayed regarding her former brother-in-law. Palin signed bloated budgets and now she's lined up with her hands out for you to pay for her state's shortfall under her stewardship:

"We in Alaska all know Alaska has a fiscal disaster waiting to happen. If the oil production decline rate steepens and oil prices drop, the state's rosy financial situation could turn bleak, which could be a problem with a bloated state budget."

This woman has never met an earmark she didn't love. Palin attended the Alfalfa Dinner last weekend in Washington, DC. This 'closed club' of 200 of Washington's "elites" was established in 1913. No press allowed. Saint Sarah was introduced to the attendees by none other than Vernon Jordan. Remember him? He was the adulterer-in-chief's legal fixer when he dropped his drawers for Monica Lewinsky. Jordan also introduced Slick Willy to world "leaders" at the Bilderberger conference in 1991. That's when the fix was in to install a little known governor who raped a woman named Juanita Broaddrick and was famous for his sexual escapades and cocaine use. I have some advice for Palin: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. However, as she is a player and not some neophyte in the world of politics, Palin has her own agenda. She also has a financial mess in her own state.

Where is this $176 BILLION dollars supposed to come from? Not the people's treasury. It's now over drawn $10.6 TRILLION dollars with the interest compounding faster than a speeding bullet and another $72 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt for programs like social security, Medicare the these endless "wars" against terrorism.

Are all these governors stupid? Have they never heard of the 'national debt'? Where do they think this "money" will come from? This worthless fiat currency will have to be borrowed by CON-gress from the "FED." They will create more debt to reward state legislatures for incompetence and they want you, me, our children and grand children to hand over every penny we make to fund this lunacy. It will turn into nothing more than another massive "income" tax hike through the back door.

But, are the states really broke?

At least ten years ago, a man named Walter Burien began exposing something called a CAFR: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Walter managed to get on a SF radio show hosted by my friend, Geoff Metcalf. It was a real eye opener. Try as we all did, not one newspaper in the State of California would expose the truth of how the taxpayers were being fleeced. Nor would 99% of the radio stations statewide. I guess they all love being flogged every April 15th to reward the thieves in the state house.

I've written about this issue before and perhaps now, with the states crying poor, the citizens of the 50 states will do what I did years ago: I went to the Comptroller's Office in downtown Sacramento and got a copy of the CAFR. Oh, they didn't want to give it to me, but I whipped out my press credentials and after some muss and fuss, I obtained a copy. I am not an accountant so a lot of that tome was foreign to me. However, thanks to Walter and Gerald Klatt, even someone like me can understand this complicated shell game:

What is the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)?

By Gerald R. Klatt

"Each year all State and local governments prepare a financial report on assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures in more or less a standardized format that must conform to the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) accounting and financial reporting standards. This financial report is called the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR, pronounced "cay-fer"). Most people have heard of the budget, which is the document that plans and authorizes the spending of money. The CAFR describes what actually was spent and the status of assets and liabilities at the end of the fiscal year."

This is Walter's attempt last month to get the intellectually lazy fools at the LA Times to do their job for a change:

Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy
Staff reporters - LA Times

Evan and Patrick:

Per your article: California controller to suspend tax refunds, welfare checks, student grants. "John Chiang announces that his office will suspend $3.7 billion in payments owed to Californians starting Feb. 1, because with no budget in place the state lacks sufficient cash to pay its bills."

"You say short on CASH, stopping payments in the CA Budget accounting? Well now then, let's take a look at the squirreled away investment, self insurance, and advance liability cash equivalent accounts, and many enterprise operations have as can be examined in the California State and "other" CA local government's Annual Financial Reports known as the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) to see a true standing of CA Government wealth held and growth of these, what can be called nothing other than; "for profit government incorporated entities:"

"Some examples of CAFR reports are as follows:

California Government Category Listings
California local Government CAFRs

"As a guide for you, here is a potential surplus review conducted of just "exclusively" for CA State government Inc., conducted in 2004 by Gerald Klatt, a retired Federal Auditor of 30 years that you can use as a guide for a 2009 CAFR review of just CA State Government - and then you can take a look at the some 4,500 other local government AFR's or CAFR's which in composite totals will dwarf the state totals...

"I have sent a CC copy of this communication to Governor Schwarzengger's office for his review also.

"And let us not forget to look and see how much investment wealth local CA governments have standing in a few of the CA government employee "strictly participatory" (employee buys a ticket to ride from point "A" to point "B" on the train but do not own one piece thereof, the local government owns the train), actuarial inflated retirement system wealth accumulation. Are they faring better than the private sector? It appears most definitely yes, and by far...

"What are the trillions of dollars in totals? It is way up there for total CA Government wealth held! Now do the math..... Problem you say? Yes, for the peoples of CA but not so as it appears for the local Governments of California. Learn the "Shell Game" played at your expense."

California: Alameda County Employees' Retirement System, California Public Employees' Retirement System, California State Teachers' Retirement System,
CalPERS 457 Public Agency Deferred Compensation Program

CalPERS Investments and CAFR report: Contra Costa County Employees’ Ret. Assoc., Judges' Retirement System I, Judges' Retirement System II, Legislators' Retirement System, Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System, Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Assoc., Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association, Merced County Employees’ Ret. Association, Office of the President, University of California, Orange County Employees' Retirement System, Part-time, Seasonal or Temporary Employee (PST) Retirement Plan, Sacramento County Employees' Ret. System, San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association, San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, San Francisco Employees' Retirement System, San Joaquin County Employees’ Retirement Association, San Mateo County Employees’ Retirement Association, Savings Plus Program, Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association, Stanislaus County Employees’ Retirement Association, State Peace Officers’ and Firefighters’ Defined Contribution Program, Tulare County Employees’ Retirement Association

Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association

You can type in the system for any of the above, i.e., California State Teachers Retirement System into a search engine. When it comes up, hit 2008 CAFR released. Then you can see the numbers.

Now, go read this pdf file from a representative in the Oregon State Legislature. This will give you a good idea of how a state legislature enters into contractual agreements that are unrealistic and cannot be met decades down the road. Notice what Rep. Richardson says: Once the special interest groups got wind that the legislature was going to live within its means and fund priority expenditures necessary, they mobilized and ganged up on their state rep and senator. "Gimmee, gimmee!" Rep. Richardson is serving his constituency well with his reports and the people of Oregon need to support him and get in the face of their representative.

You see, it's the same old merry-go-round. The real issue is taxes. If the American people were allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, they wouldn't need to continue demanding more and more from mother government, state or federal. There's nothing wrong with retirement systems as long as there is money to pay for them when the time comes for the draw outs. Not only have these states mismanaged their budgets and forecasts, what about the monstrous drain on the states from illegal aliens? In California, the state legislature and many mayors like Antonio Villaraigosa coddle and protect these criminals:

$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally robbing American children within the states of a real education because resources are sucked up to reward breaking our immigration laws. How about this: ''The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .' The cost of incarcerating these animals in state jails and prisons is astronomical. Instead of the states standing up and saying NO to the federal machine and asserting their sovereignty, they simply fleece your wallet. Instead of deporting these millions of illegal aliens (they are NOT immigrants), state legislatures and these governors roll out the red carpet and hand you the huge "pay up" on April 15th.

Mr. Klatt's report back in 2003 shows California had a surplus of $59.83 BILLION dollars. They continued to tax the hell out of the taxpayer. Now, faced with a $40 BILLION dollar "shortfall," they want to tax every breath taken by a California citizen. How much is your state hiding? Click here to see how to become part of exposing this shell game. I'm telling you if people don't get active and hold these legislatures accountable, we're all going to end up in rags while supporting grotesque spending and a free ride for illegal aliens.

Colorado has just introduced an honest money bill. This is picking up steam. YOU must become part of staying in the face of your state rep and senator to get the bill passed. Same as Indiana. See here for the master web site on these bills.

I am going out of the state in a couple of days on business and to see my 82-year old mommy. While I'm gone, I won't have a column until around Feb. 23, 2009. I hope you'll book mark this column and take the time to follow up on these links and the videos listed below. Please take the time on the weekend or when you can, to either read or listen to the truth about taxation and the debt:

1 - Why an income tax is not necessary to fund the federal government - Text or audio
2 - The right argument on taxes
3 - Watch this video (free): state income tax tied to federal

I hope you'll listen to my radio show, Solutions Not Politics. Alan Stang will guest host for me, February 5, 2009. Patrick Briley will be my guest, Feb. 9, 10 and 11th. You don't want to miss those shows. Monday-Friday. 6:00 pm PST, 8:00 pm CST and 9:00 pm EST. Listen live:
Feel free to call in and ask questions or vent!

By Chuck Baldwin
February 6, 2009

I am often guilty of using the term "freedom-loving Americans." But I think the question now needs to be asked, Do Americans really cherish freedom anymore? I believe an argument could be made that not many do. In fact, I doubt that most Americans today remotely understand what freedom--as envisioned by our Founding Fathers--even is.

Freedom is more than not being in prison (although America incarcerates more people than any nation on earth). Freedom is more than driving a car, or taking a vacation, or being able to choose your place of residence, or attending a sporting event. People in totalitarian regimes have, for the most part, been able to do the equivalent of all that.

The freedoms upon which America was founded are outlined in our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. The first principle of freedom is that freedom is a gift of Almighty God. As God is the Giver of life, He is also the Grantor of liberty. This was plainly stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration: "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 . . ."

Ask the average American today, Where do our rights come from? Most will look at you funny and then blurt out, "From government." And, of course, this is evidently the same opinion held by most of today's politicians. To them, freedom is whatever civil government says it is. Yes, I am saying it: most politicians have a God-complex. And, unfortunately, it seems that most Americans today are willing to go along with this calamitous charade.

Jefferson and the rest of America's founders, however, rightly understood that the only legitimate purpose of government was "to secure these rights." The only legitimate purpose of civil government is to secure or protect the freedoms and liberties that have been given to man by our Creator.

Jefferson went on to say that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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." In other words, whenever government stops protecting liberty and starts destroying liberty, it is the right and duty of freedom-loving people to reform or replace such illegitimate government with a government that will fulfill its legitimate purpose. And that is exactly what our forefathers did in the late 1700s. Sadly, here we are in the twenty-first century, the descendents of some of the wisest and bravest men and women in history, and we do not even seem to know what freedom is, much less have the courage to defend it.

For example, we will work for 30 years or more to purchase our own property. After having done that, however, the property still does not belong to us. We are required to pay the State--for the rest of our lives--a property tax (to support concepts and ideas that many of us find reprehensible and detestable, no less), or armed agents will confiscate our property and throw us on the street. Pray tell me, what is the difference between this and the feudal system of old? In reality, none of us own any property. We are all serfs paying the feudal lord. Beyond that, our feudal masters even dictate to us what we can and cannot do with this property we supposedly own. We do not even have the right to manage and control our own land. And yet, we Americans put up with this illegitimacy and still have the audacity to say, "We are free." Again, we don't know the meaning of the word.

Virtually everything we do and say is monitored by the great Nanny State. Practically every service, every act is regulated by the State. Ask any independent business owner how many regulations, laws, acts, etc., demand fulfillment, and how many fees, taxes, permits, etc., are required by various government agencies and bureaucracies before he can perform a single task. For example, the federal government actually dictates how some restaurants can seat people or serve tables. Farmers are told what and how much to plant--and even to not plant. We cannot buy a gun, drive a car, marry the person we love, or even install a toilet without saying, "Pretty please?" to a dozen despots. And we still wave the flag every Independence Day and brag about how "free" we are. Again, we don't know the meaning of the word.

And the people who should be more "jealous over" their liberties than anyone--born-again Christians--are among the first to gladly relinquish their freedom. I know of hundreds-- perhaps thousands--of Christian College employees who happily allow the school Gestapo to barge into their homes--unannounced and uninvited--to inspect their private reading material, or CD and video collections, and even their wardrobes. School officials tell them where they must go to church, what attire their wives and children can and cannot wear in public (off the job)--AND IN PRIVATE--and what amusements they may and may not attend. I am not making it up. Adolf Hitler never had the kind of control that some of these Christian Colleges exert over their employees. And the remarkable thing is, these Christian employees would still assume that they are "free." Again, they do not know the meaning of the word.

And one would think that our veterans--of all people--would be among the first to jealously guard freedom. How, then, can former and retired military personnel sit back and allow the government they once proudly served to lie to them, renege on promises, withhold medical care, abandon their friends and family members still missing in action, and not utter a word of protest? How can they allow their comrades-in-arms to sleep on the streets outside VA clinics? While they were willing to travel halfway around the world--and risk life and limb--to defend America against foreign enemies, many will sit back right here at home and complacently watch while these glorified miscreants--known as politicians--systematically strip this nation of the very freedoms and liberties they swore to defend. Did they not take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC? If the statistics I read are accurate, most veterans do not even vote. I ask, if we do not know what freedom is at home, how can we fight wars across the world and understand what we are fighting for?

Obviously, people who are receiving welfare, or other government handouts, seldom complain about there being too much government, because they personally benefit from the growth of the socialist state. This is also true for many (but not all, thank God) government employees, of course. And please remember that government cannot give a blessed thing without first stealing it from someone else. Big Government is totally incompatible with freedom. For that matter, so is Big Business and Big Religion. In fact, Big Anything is incompatible with freedom. Even Big Cities.

So, I repeat the question, Do Americans really cherish freedom anymore? And, if we do, what are we going to do about it? I believe that there are specific and constructive steps that can be taken to restore liberty in this land. (I will develop these thoughts later.) I further believe that there are still millions of Americans who really do understand and cherish freedom. We may be in a minority, but remember, we were also a minority in 1776. Freedom is laborious, onerous work. And not everyone enjoys hard work. So be it. Let lazy, indolent fools wallow in their servitude. God will yet see to it that there is a land of liberty for those who truly desire it and are willing to fight for it. I firmly believe that.

Remember, liberty is a precious gift from our Creator. For those who fear God, respect Natural Law, and love liberty, there is yet a "promised land." We may have to do a little searching; we may have to rethink our priorities; we may have to adjust our lifestyles; and yes, we may have to "pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in order to obtain it; but our forebears thought it was worth it--and so do I.

As Friedrich Schiller wrote in William Tell:

"By this fair light which greeteth us, before
Those other nations, that, beneath us far,
In noisome cities pent, draw painful breath,
Swear we the oath of our confederacy!
A band of brothers true we swear to be,
Never to part in danger or in death!

"We swear we will be free as were our sires,
And sooner die than live in slavery!

"We swear, to put our trust in God Most High,
And not to quail before the might of man!"

Such people can never be enslaved. And I believe that such people still exist in these United States of America. I count them my brothers. I offer them my arm and my heart. After all, we are freedom-loving Americans.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
United Nations' threat:No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings,homeschooling if children object

Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling


A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."

Tuesday, February 03, 2009


By Chuck Baldwin
February 3, 2009

In response to my two previous columns regarding the current development of a devilish New World Order, many professing Christians wrote me with comments to the effect that we should not be concerned about whatever global tyranny may be developing, because "it's all a part of God's plan," or "Jesus is coming soon," and similar statements. I, too, believe in the imminent return of Jesus Christ to earth. But, then again, so did Christians from every generation over the last two millennia. In fact, the Apostle Paul was looking for the return of Christ while he lived (Philippians 3:20). But does anticipation of Christ's Second Coming excuse personal neglect, indifference, and downright laziness? Of course not.

Had pastors and Christians of colonial America believed and acted as most Christians believe and act today, this country would still be a Crown colony and we would never have known the freedoms and liberties that our forebears bequeathed to us. Christians of that era, however, believed that it was their duty and obligation to fight for right and do everything within their power to resist tyranny. They also believed that God would honor and bless their efforts, which He certainly did!

It is extremely difficult for me to reconcile the apathy and slave-like mentality that seems to permeate modern Christendom (in America) with both our own heritage and the very Word of God. For example, the Apostle Paul is very clear when he writes that a Christian must never "do evil, that good may come" (Romans 3:8). Yet, that is exactly what many, if not most, Christians are doing today.

When confronted with an obvious evil (a burgeoning tyrannical New World Order, not to mention a number of lesser evils), modern Christians will shrug and glibly say, "It's God's will; we must not oppose it," or words to that effect. This attitude says, "I will tolerate or even condone evil in order to hasten Christ's return."

In the first place, no one knows when Christ will return, no matter how many books or tapes they have produced to say they do. In Acts chapter 1, Jesus was asked by His disciples if He would, at that time, set up His kingdom. The first words out of His mouth were, "It is not for you to know." Oh, we can speculate, surmise, and make educated guesses, but that's the best we can do. It's time we were honest enough to admit it: only God knows when Christ will return. In fact, Jesus said, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Matthew 24:36).

In the meantime, millions of Christians across America are trying to play God. They talk as if they know when Christ will come. It's actually worse than that. They have the attitude that they have no personal responsibility to defend freedom and resist despotism. They seem to look at God as some kind of glorified fireman, who is obligated to rush in at the last minute to rescue them from a burning fire--a fire that they helped ignite, or at least, refused to put out themselves when they had the opportunity to do so. It's the old, "God would not let that happen in America" syndrome.

How arrogant can we be? Ask believers from despotic regimes around the world what they think about God letting tribulation come, and they will quickly tell you, "We are already in tribulation." Are Christians in the United States really that arrogant as to believe that God loves them more than He loves believers in other countries? If not, can we not see that if believers around the world have suffered (and still suffer) the heavy hand of tyranny and oppression, it is certainly possible for tyranny and oppression to come to our land? The fact is, the only reason that Christians in America have not (for the most part) suffered tyranny and oppression is because of the hard work and sacrifice of our forefathers. We are simply enjoying the fruit of their labor.

In the second place, how do we know what God would do, if we only had the backbone to do our duty? How do we know that God would not give America "a new birth of freedom" for our children and grandchildren, if we only had the courage and fortitude to oppose the evil being thrust upon us by these would-be tyrants? America is only the "land of the free," because it was the "home of the brave." Take away the latter and we lose the former. And that is exactly what is currently happening.

In the third place, Christians have a moral imperative to resist evil, even if their efforts are fruitless. We are not responsible for outcome, only effort. Believers throughout history acted on principle, leaving the results with God. (Read Hebrews chapter 11.) Some were delivered; some were not. That did not matter. What mattered was doing one's duty. We Christians are to give our bodies as "a living sacrifice" (Romans 12:1). It is God's prerogative to use our sacrifice as He sees fit. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "losing effort," when it comes to doing right. Doing right (resisting evil) is its own reward. The three Hebrew children were not commended because God delivered them from the burning fiery furnace; they were commended because they were willing to go into the burning fiery furnace. So must we be.

I believe the real reason why so many professing Christians are so apathetic and indifferent to what is happening has nothing to do with the teachings of Scripture, Bible doctrine, eschatology, or anything of the like. It has everything to do with old-fashioned laziness. Today's average Christian just flat does not want to be bothered. He has a comfortable house, an easy chair, television, and a set of golf clubs in the closet. He takes two or three weeks' vacation every year, goes to church on Sunday (a church that does not intrude on his comfort zone, of course), pays taxes, and votes for his favorite "pro-life" Republican candidate every two years, and assumes that he is a "good" Christian and "patriotic" American. He is neither!

A real Christian patriot would never allow his country to be taken over by a gaggle of elitist goons bent on stealing his liberties--including his religious liberties--without doing everything in his power to prevent it. A real Christian patriot is active, alert, engaged, zealous, and committed to preserving liberty.

What if Jesus doesn't come for another 100 years? Another 200 years? What are we going to say to our grandchildren when they ask us what we were doing when our freedoms and liberties were being stolen? What will we say to our Christian forebears when we meet them in eternity? They sacrificed everything so that we could live in peace and freedom. What will we say to them? What will we say to God, who handed this land of liberty to us on a silver (albeit blood-soaked) platter?

Tell me again that "there is nothing we can do about it," or "it's God's will," or "Jesus is coming soon." Better yet, tell it again to the suffering Christians around the world; tell it again to our Christian forebears; tell it again to your children and grandchildren who are going to inherit a land of tyranny and oppression, all because you were too lazy to resist.

I know unbelievers who have more character and determination about preserving liberty than many who call themselves Christians. And I have a ton more respect for them, too. Our Lord told us, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). Yes, Christians in America have been given the best of both worlds, and many do not even appreciate it enough to see to it that their own children--their own flesh and blood--will live to enjoy the same blessings. They are pathetic!

So, the next time you hear some piety-draped Christian talking about how he won't engage the enemy and fight for liberty, because of prophecy, or some other spiritually-sounding platitude, just remember, it has nothing to do with prophecy, or anything of the sort: it has everything to do with old-fashioned laziness. My feeling toward him is the same as that of Sam Adams (a fellow Christian) toward the Tories of old: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest for freedom--go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" Amen!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Our great humanitarian friends the Saudis'. Imagine the outcry if a mulluh faced the same in the US!

Saudi Arabia “Threatens” Pastor With Death
Tuesday, February 3, 2009 (1:34 am)
By Joe DeCaro, Worthy News International Correspondent

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA (Worthy News) -- An Eritrean pastor in Saudi Arabia was hiding outside the capital Riyadh Tuesday, February 3, after allegedly receiving death threats, including from the Islamic country's feared religious police.

Yemane Gebriel, a father of eight who also worked as a private driver for 25 years, said the threats were issued in writing and verbally since last month. On January 13, a religious police official, identified as Abdul Aziz, and others allegedly forced the pastor from his car telling him to leave the country.

The pastor said in a statement that he also discovered a note on his van saying: "If you do not leave the country, we will kill you." Three days later, Aziz apparently returned, asking him why he had not left the country. Soon after, four masked men reportedly surrounded his car, saying that if he did not leave Riyadh they would kill him.

Advocacy group Middle East Concern (MEC) told Worthy News that the incidents came as a set-back for Gebriel, "who pastored an informal congregation for ten years and recently handed over leadership to others."

The pastor said he managed to "secretly escape" last week, January 28, to an undisclosed city with support from "consular officials".


This was not the first time the Eritrean pastor had been pressured by Saudi authorities, MEC said. "He was among a group of 17 foreign pastors held by the Saudi authorities in May 2005 before diplomatic pressure led to their release," the group explained. "The member of the religious police thought to have been behind" the pastor's arrest in 2005, "is one of those leading the current threats."

Saudi officials did not comment on the case.

Christians have linked the latest incident to a government-backed crackdown on Christian converts and church activities in Saudi Arabia. Also last month Hamoud Bin Saleh, a Saudi national, was arrested after writing on his Website about his decision to follow Jesus, instead of Islam.

He reportedly also criticized the Saudi judicial system. Local authorities have blocked access to his blog. "This is the third time that Hamoud has been detained, having been held for nine months in 2004 and for one month in 2008," MEC added.


Saudi Christians have expressed concern that the Internet writer may be executed for apostasy, under the country's strict interpretation of Islamic law.

In writings Saudi Christians requested prayers that "Hamoud and Yemane will both know the peace and presence of Jesus throughout these ordeals" and that "authorities will act mercifully" towards the two men, "including releasing him" and ending the threats.

Despite the apparent difficulties, they still hope that, "Those who have read Hamoud's blog would make a similar decision to follow Jesus," and that Christians will be able to continue to worship in this Islamic nation. (With reporting by Worthy News' Stefan J. Bos)

Copyright 2009 Worthy News. All rights reserved.
We’re from the Government, We’re Here to End Your Marriage.” - Touchstone

Most Americans would be deeply shocked if they knew what goes on today under the name of divorce. Indeed, many are devastated to discover that they can be forced into divorce by procedures entirely beyond their control. Divorce licenses unprecedented government intrusion into family life, including the power to sunder families, seize children, loot family wealth, and incarcerate parents without trial. Comprised of family courts and vast, federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield what amount to police powers, the divorce machinery has become the most predatory and repressive sector of government ever created in the United States and is today’s greatest threat to constitutional freedom.

Unilateral Divorce

Some four decades ago, while few were paying attention, the Western world embarked on the boldest social experiment in its history. With no public discussion of the possible consequences, laws were enacted in virtually every jurisdiction that effectively ended marriage as a legal contract. Today it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family. The government can now, at the request of one spouse, simply dissolve a marriage over the objection of the other. Maggie Gallagher aptly titled her 1996 book The Abolition of Marriage.(end excerpt)

While my view is rather extreme, more and more men are beginning to share it. Don't marry in America. Just don't do it. It is tempting when you are young and your hormones are raging in your system. But American marriages are not successful. More often than not they fail and this article goes into some of the reasons why. I am not anti-marriage. I am against the laws that have turned marriage into a legal way to steal a persons kids and wealth using a marriage license as the tool.

The Apostle Paul had the right idea, despite how people today take to denigrating him, I say his is right. Simply put, he said that it is better not to marry.
CAIR's True Colors

By Steven Emerson | Though it represents itself to be a Muslim civil rights organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) devoted most of its resources earlier this month to mobilizing opposition to Israel's attempt to neutralize Hamas militarily. It organized petition drives and bus caravans from chapters across the country to a protest held January 10th in Washington, D.C.

CAIR has cultivated sympathetic coverage in everything from local newspapers to the New York Times, nurtured alliances with members of Congress, including Democrats Jim McDermott of Washington, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, all of whom have spoken at CAIR events.

In the past six months the mayors of Houston and Tampa have issued proclamations designating "Council on American Islamic Relations day" in their cities. Not bad for a group labeled as a front group by an FBI agent during sworn testimony in a successful terror-finance prosecution in which CAIR is an un-indicted co-conspirator.

The following report shows the consistent support CAIR officials have shown for Hamas, Hizballah and other radicals and their refusal to condemn terrorist attacks and suicide bombings by those groups.


I. In Support of Hamas and Hizballah

CAIR incorporator and current executive director Nihad Awad has publicly expressed his support for Hamas. At a symposium at Barry University in Florida on March 22, 1994, he said: "After I researched the situation inside and outside of Palestine, I am in support of the Hamas movement ."[1] [emphasis added]

Again, on CBS' 60 Minutes in November 1994, when Mike Wallace asked him what he thought "of the military undertakings of Hamas," Awad responded, "Well, I think that's — that's for the people to judge," avoiding the question. He then spoke in support of Hamas and armed resistance:

"the United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation [the right] to defend themselves against illegal occupation."[2]

Awad has sought to justify these clear statements of support for Hamas in terms of their timing. In Senate testimony, he wrote, "You will never find a CAIR statement supporting Hamas after the commencement of suicide bombings and United States government's designation of them as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) on January 24, 1995."[3] Similarly, Awad commented on the context of his Barry University remarks, "It [Hamas] has not attacked civilians then, and it was not designated by the United States government as a terrorist organization."[4]

However, CAIR officials have gone back on Awad's statements, criticizing the U.S. government for listing Hamas as a FTO. At the 2007 ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, then CAIR-National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed defended Hamas and Hezbollah by criticizing those who refuse to separate their roles as terrorist organizations and their roles as parts of democratic governments:

"Hamas and Hezbollah are both on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. But Hamas and Hezbollah are also part of their democratic governments. They're elected representatives of their own people. So this presents a problem. And the challenges that often the detractors, who have a vested interest in perpetuating a situation of conflict in the Middle East try to use simple language and simple broad brush to lump them into the same category . And I call this 'Islamic exceptionalism.' In other words that while the discourse among people of influence, people of knowledge, are able to distinguish between the subtleties of different things for other groups, that subtlety of differences are not applied towards Muslims."[5] [emphasis added]

In a May 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Ahmed encouraged cooperation with Hamas, painting the organization as a legitimate and benevolent entity:

"Our posture of diplomacy, our policies have to be significantly altered from where we are today so that we address all issues. If we look at the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, it lists many groups that are part of political processes, like Hamas and Hezbollah. They're part of the political processes in their societies, just like the IRA was part of political process in their society. And part of Al Qaeda's rage come from the un-interest or the lack of progress towards peace in the Middle East."[6]

Mustafa Carroll of the Dallas Fort Worth Chapter of CAIR said the following in support of Hamas in response to the late 2008, early 2009 Gaza crisis:

"I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we've heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas."[7]

CAIR has also come out in support of Hamas by vocally protesting the killing of Hamas leaders.

On March 22, 2004, Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. "CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader,"[8] the organization announced in a press release that day. It criticized Israel for killing a "wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader."[9] Similarly, after an Israeli missile killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Yassin's replacement as head of Hamas,[10] CAIR issued an April 17, 2004 press release blasting Israel for killing a "political leader."[11]

CAIR's 1997 report, "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States," characterized the failure of the U.S. government to respond to pressure by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) to investigate and "to seek justice" for the death of Ahmed Hamida, an Arab-American terrorist killed in Jerusalem, as an act of discrimination.[12] In its description of the incident, CAIR depicted Ahmed as an innocent "Palestinian-American Muslim" visitor "gunned down by armed Israelis." [13] CAIR also implied that the shooting was committed in retaliation for a Tel Aviv bus bombing that occurred a day prior to Hamida's killing.[14]

CAIR failed to mention that Hamida was shot by civilians while attempting to flee after deliberately driving his car into a group of Israelis waiting at a Jerusalem bus stop.[15] In the attack, he killed a mother of two and injured 22 other Israelis.[16] The subsequent investigation left no doubt that the car crash was not an accident, but rather a terrorist attack. Eyewitnesses heard Hamida yell "Allahu Akbar!" as he jumped out of his car.[17] Also, he had indicated to friends on the morning before the attack that they would see him on television that night.[18] Hamas later took credit for the attack.[19]

Also of note is the fact that in 1994, IAP posted a CAIR press release that closely mirrored language in Hamas' Covenant. The press release, which discussed the Hussein-Rabin Summit, was quickly modified to remove this text.[20] The covenant says Hamas "believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf [endowment] throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it."[21]

CAIR's original release described the Cairo and Oslo peace agreements as a chance "for all those who met secretly with the Zionists behind the scenes to come out in public and take their masks off."

"We have affirmed repeatedly the danger of such agreements lies in abandoning the basic legitimate Palestinian rights, and it is a way to penetrate economically, politically, and culturally the ME region where Arab states are in their worst conditions. Thus, we affirm the followings:

1. Palestine is an Islamic and Arabic land which no one has the right to trade, sell, or give up

2. The current situation of the Arab states is at a weakness stage that must end sooner or later, and rights can't be lost with signing agreements."

Also notable in talking about CAIR support of Hamas is that Hamas has itself posted CAIR information and activities updates on its official web site (, including a June 5, 2001 article in which Nihad Awad called for a demonstration at the U.S. State Department to protest American support for Israel.[22]

II. Refusing to condemn by name, when asked, Hamas or Hizballah

An October 27, 2001 National Journal article reported, "Asked to describe CAIR's view of Hamas, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment."[23] A November 18, 2001 Washington Post article quoted Hooper as saying, in response to an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) request to condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad by name:

"It's not our job to go around denouncing, that when they say jump, we say how high."[24] [emphasis added]

Asked by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002 to condemn Hamas, Hooper called such questions a "game" and declared, "We're not in the business of condemning."[25]

Asked in a May 27, 2003 deposition, "Do you support Hamas," CAIR co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad responded, "It depends. Qualify 'support.'"[26] Similarly, he was asked whether he had "ever taken a position with respect to ,,, [Hamas'] 'martyrdom attacks.'" Ahmad responded, "No."[27]

In 2007, CAIR-Chicago's Ahmed Rehab pulled the conversation in another direction when asked if he "condemned organizations which use terrorism as an action." Rehab, instead of addressing the question, turned the question around to blame Israel for killing innocent civilians:

"then you would condemn the IDF and the Israeli army... because they also use..[speaking over other guests] civilians."[28]

Following the example Hooper set years earlier, CAIR national legislative affairs director Corey Saylor refused to directly respond to a challenge to condemn Hamas when pressed to do so during an August 2008 interview with Fox News:

Reporter David Lee Miller:

"Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me- CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?"

Corey Saylor:

"I'm telling you in a very clear fashion — CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them."

David Lee Miller:

"That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah."

Corey Saylor:

"Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question."

David Lee Miller: "It's not no, it's not whether I like it or dislike it. I was asking whether or not you can sit here now and say- CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is." [emphasis added]

Corey Saylor:

"The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens." [29]

In an interview following the Gaza Crisis which began at the end of 2008, CAIR spokesman Hooper avoided commenting on whether the Palestinian people would like Hamas to lose power in the region:


"In your view tending to the aspiration desires of the Palestinian people, does that also include making Hamas irrelevant in the region ?" [emphasis added]


"Well what you want to do is give the Palestinians an idea that their future can be better. That their children can actually eat. Can you imagine right now, in the twenty first century, that we have a situation where there is a blockade keeping children from eating in any part of the world and America is supporting that blockade. It's outrageous, it's illegal, it's immoral and it's against international law. At a minimum we have to end the siege of the Gaza ghetto."[30]

As reported in October 2008 by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin, Ibrahim Hooper once again refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah when asked in an interview. According to the report, Hooper asserted that CAIR has always condemned acts of terrorism, but then "would not answer whether CAIR condemns those designated terrorist groups themselves." The report then quotes Hooper as having ended the conversation saying, "I've already answered your questions."[31]

III. In support of armed resistance and refusing to condemn suicide bombings

CAIR officials often speak out in support of armed resistance in response to occupation and, in doing so, justify and excuse the occurrence of suicide bombings.

Speaking at a 2001 event at the New York Interfaith Center, Ghazi Khankan, who served as executive director of CAIR-NY from at least April 2001[32] through September 2004,[33] said:

"The people of Hamas who direct their attacks on the Israeli military are in the correct position."[34]

When pressed on his definition of a "civilian," Khankan revealed his view that anyone over 18 was a legitimate target:

"Who is a soldier in Israel and who is not? Anyone over eighteen is automatically inducted into the service and they are all reserves. Therefore, Hamas in my opinion looks at them as part of the military. Those who are below 18 should not be attacked."[35]

Also in 2001, Nihad Awad made a strong statement in support of armed resistance against Israel during a press conference and sit-in outside the State Department:

"We are not shy to support the Palestinian resistance against the occupation. It is a legitimate G-d-given right."[36]

Awad continued on during this 2001 press conference to advocate the reduction of violence only if it aids the Palestinian cause or in his words if it "produces a result."

"What we urge, we urge the reduction of violence if it produces a result. But we should not pressure and blame the victims for resisting the occupation. Remember, it is the Israeli forces who come to the Palestinian neighborhoods and Palestinian towns and cities, and they provoke response ,,, The aggression is coming from the Israeli side, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are only responding to the root cause of the issue, which is the occupation. "[37]

In August of 2006, Nihad Awad excused suicide bombings as legitimate results of occupations and attempts to fight injustice during a C-SPAN Program while quoting Hamas apologist University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape:

"[Robert Pape] found out that [suicide terrorism] has more to do with occupations and fighting injustice than religion. And he pointed out that most of these suicide bombings have been done at the hands of the Tamil Tiger in Sri Lanka than by Muslims. I have not fully read that book, but whatever I have read from it I found very interesting and it really responds to the myth and the known notion now that has been used by several commentators and some politicians .."[38]

At ISNA's 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois in 2007, then CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed justified "suicide terrorism" as a response to occupation:

"Another problem when talking about this question of suicide terrorism, suicide bombings, especially in the Middle East, especially in the occupied territories, you know people use a circular logic. It was not the suicide terrorism led to occupation; it was occupation led to suicide terrorism."[39]

At a CAIR Dallas Banquet in 2007, Mustafa Carroll of CAIR- Dallas/Fort Worth excused terrorism as a result of oppression:

"..look at the true cause of the terrorism. It's not somebody is reading a book, reading a Qu'ran, and then go out and say, 'Well, the Qu'ran told me to blow this up. I'm gonna blow it up.' The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression. "[40] [emphasis added]

In January 2004, at a Muslim Students Association of UCLA Islamic Awareness Week event in Los Angeles, CAIR-Southern California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush affirmed the

"legitimate right of the Palestinians to defend themselves against the Israeli occupation."[41]

The Cleveland Plain Dealer summarized the attitude of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's chief spokesman like this in 2003:

"While the Islamic council says it has denounced suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper yesterday would not criticize suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers. Instead, he spoke of Palestinians exercising 'the right to resist military occupation.'"[42]

At the National Press Club in Washington D.C. in May of 2008 then-CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed downplayed the motivations behind suicide bombings:

"Suicide bombings are the product of modern political violence. Suicide bombings by Muslims are not the result of any Islamic ideology, but rather they are the result of social political conditions of occupations."[43]

This wasn't Ahmed's first attempt at suicide bombing apologetics. At an event at the Islamic Center at NYU in October of 2007 Ahmed said:

"Our going to Iraq caused terrorism the same way terrorism by some Palestinians is not the reason Israel keeps Palestine occupied. But it is the occupation that breeds resentment and enables terrorism to fester."[44]

One of the most significant ways in which CAIR has supported suicide bombings is in its support of Yusuf Qaradawi.

IV. Defending Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Qaradawi is a prominent and vehemently anti-Semitic leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood is an 80-year-old Egyptian religious movement that seeks the global spread of Islam and establishment of a Shariah, or religious law, in nations with Muslim populations. It is the ideological underpinning for

all modern Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Al Qaeda.[45] In his award-winning 1994 documentary Jihad in America, Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson showed Qaradawi at a 1989 conference in Kansas City predicting "On the hour of judgment, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them." CAIR claimed that Qaradawi actually had "often spoken out against religious extremism."[46]However — as documented below — Qaradawi defends suicide bombings, is hostile to Jews, and has called for attacks on U.S. civilians in Iraq.

In January 1998, the Associated Press quoted Qaradawi as writing, "There should be no dialogue with these people [Israelis] except with swords. "[47][emphasis added] And in April 2001, commenting on suicide bombings, he said, "They are not suicide operations ,,, These are heroic martyrdom operations ."[48][emphasis added]

In September 2004, Qaradawi ruled it a religious duty for Muslims to fight Americans in Iraq, including U.S. civilians.[49]

And yet, at the 2002 Orange County CAIR fundraiser, Hussam Ayloush referred to Qaradawi as a "scholar:"

"Several people were asking about the eligibility claim for CAIR. And according to many scholars including Yusuf Qaradawi, basically this is one of the venues of Zakat for your money as vis a vis basically educating about Islam in America and the West."[50]

On July 26, 2005, in an interview on MSNBC,[51] CAIR's legal director Arsalan Iftikhar said:

"For example, if you look at Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the — one of the most famous Muslim scholars in Cairo, Egypt , he has said unequivocally that people who commit suicide bombings and — and acts of terror are completely outside the bounds of Islam."[emphasis added]

In 2006 Nihad Awad mentioned Qaradawi as a "prominent and known scholar" in condemning the Jill Carroll kidnapping:

"Even the prominent and known scholar who always appears on Al-Jazeera, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, he conveyed the same message."[52]

V. In denying the legitimacy of Israel

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad also echoed Hamas' absolute rejection of Israel's legitimacy. In an April 1994 letter to the editor of The Message, an American-Muslim publication, he criticized the magazine for using the term "Israel."

"I hope," he wrote, "that the use of 'Israel' in your news briefs was the result of an oversight and not intentional...Furthermore I hope you will return to the terminology 'Occupied Palestine' to refer to that Holy Land ."[53] [emphasis added]

At a Right of Return rally in front of the White House on September 16, 2000, Awad rejected coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, stating:

"they [the Jews] have been saying 'next year to Jerusalem,' we say 'next year to all Palestine.'"[54]

During CAIR's 13th Annual Banquet in San Jose, California in 2007, Awad denied the legitimacy of Israel by saying that the U.S. is wrong in supporting Israel:

"..our government is blindly, unlimitly and unconsciously supporting the state of Israel, oppressing the Palestinian people. This is wrong, and we have to stand up and we have to tell our government, 'Enough is enough.'"[55]

In March of 2008 Hussam Ayloush, Secretary of CAIR-California, characterized Israel with the aim of delegitimizing it and condemned the United States for "act[ing]" like a terrorist state:

"It's a struggle for an America that respects and humanizes religion. It's an America that if free to act on its values and not on the interests of any foreign lobby. It's an America that rejects all forms of collective punishment on the Palestinians of Gaza and West Bank, an America that genuinely supports justice, peace and democracy in Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in Somalia and all over the world, rather than supporting occupation, instability, the interests of defense and war companies and the corrupt allies and puppet regimes that we keep supporting ,,, an America that can defeat terrorists without having to act like one."[56] [emphasis added]

Awad made a similar statement, calling Israel an occupational state, in August of 2008, during an American Muslim Association (AMA) Civil Rights Forum:

"America should take care of its own interests and should not prosecute case on behalf of the state of Israel, because it is an occupational state."[57][emphasis added]

A December 2008 Associated Press article quoted CAIR Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid downplaying the danger of the more than 5000 Hamas rockets fired at Israel in attempting to delegitimize Israel's defensive attacks:

"Today's attack -- which amounts to a massacre -- was definitely a disproportionate response to a few cheap, homemade, makeshift rockets being fired across the border."

CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad echoed this same sentiment as quoted in a CNN article:

"We demand that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population."[58]

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. | How appropriate that Barack Obama featured Aretha Franklin in his Inaugural festivities since her signature song is "Respect." Literally from the moment she finished belting out "My Country 'Tis of Thee" on Jan. 20, the new president has been conveying his "respect" the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the way he practices it seems to be spelled S-U-B-M-I-S-S-I-O-N.

Several observers have noted in recent days that Mr. Obama's outreach to the Muslim world is not only defensive and apologetic. It explicitly embraces a narrative that is factually erroneous and deprecating to his own country.

For example, in his Inaugural address, the president spoke of seeking "a new way forward [with the Muslim world], based on mutual interest and mutual respect." He amplified this idea during his first post-Inaugural interview, which was granted to a Saudi-owned network, Al Arabiya: He is determined to "restore" the "same respect and partnership America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

The problem with this formulation is that it misrepresents the more distant as well as the recent past, even as it panders to those (abroad and at home) who would blame the United States for the ills of the Muslim world. As Charles Krauthammer put it in his syndicated column last week, over the last 20 years, "America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. ... It is both false and injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized."

The president also told Al Arabiya that: "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries." Lest there be any doubt about the priority he attaches to this messaging, Mr. Obama repeated the point. "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

For good measure, the new president described America as a country of "Muslims, Christians, Jews" and others - a presumably intentional upgrading of adherents to the faith of his father, Islam, from the second place position he accorded them in his State of the Union address several days before. (The rankings of both orderings obviously reflect something other than demographics; there are far fewer Muslims than Christians in the United States and, according to independent estimates, only half as many - or less - than Jews.)

Mr. Obama has also seriously mischaracterized our enemy as "a far-reaching network of violence and hatred," averring "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence done in that faith's name." Such statements deliberately ignore the animating and unifying role in jihad of authoritative Islam's violent and hateful theo-political-legal program: Shariah.

What is really worrying is that Mr. Obama's actions and rhetoric are almost certainly being perceived by his target audience as evidence not of respect but of subservience - precisely what Islam (literally, "submission" in Arabic) requires of all of us, Muslims and non-Muslims, alike. Consider the following:

• Mr. Obama has made no secret of his desire to cultivate improved relations with the mullahs of Iran, who have repressed their people and threatened ours for 30 years. It appears he started to do so months before his election, as a senior campaign adviser, former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry, met repeatedly with a representative of Iran's genocide-supporting president, Mahmoud Ahamadinejad. In recent days, Obama special envoy for Afghan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, hired as a senior adviser Professor Vali Reza Nasr - an Iranian expatriate with an appalling record of shilling for the Islamic Revolutionary Iranian regime.

• According to, a newsletter published by The Washington Times' ace national security reporter Bill Gertz, "Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from al Qaeda in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. 'For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,' a diplomatic source said. 'Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.' "

If surrender in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were not enough, upcoming opportunities for Mr. Obama to exhibit American submission to Islam include ordering U.S. participation in the United Nations' "Durban II" conference - thereby legitimating its Iranian-dictated, rabidly anti-Israel, anti-American, Holocaust-denying and "Islamophobia"-banning agenda; adopting the program for undermining Israel promoted by longtime Friends-of-Barack Rashid Khalidi and Samantha Power (the latter just appointed a senior National Security Council official); and reversing the FBI's long-overdue decision to end its association with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent front organization of the Muslim Brotherhood (whose stated mission is "to destroy America from within.")

Whatever Barack Obama's intentions, the kind of "respect" he is exhibiting toward Shariah-adherent Muslims will surely be seen by them as submission. And that spells only one thing: D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R.
Is there devious plot to silence talk radio? GOP lawmaker thrashes 'Fairness Doctrine' as 'government control over political views'

Posted: February 03, 2009
7:41 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn

Despite the absence of any action pending to reenact the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," congressional Republicans have nonetheless introduced legislation to prevent its passage, insisting that Democrats are advancing a quiet agenda to silence conservative talk radio.

Whether Americans realize it or not, say Republican lawmakers, "Free speech is under attack."

For their part, several Democrats have denied there's any attempt underway to reestablish the "Fairness Doctine," insisting the GOP is trumping up paranoia that amounts to "much ado about nothing."

So which is it?

In 1949 the Federal Communications Commission adopted a policy that required broadcasters to devote airtime to the public interest and to air opposing viewpoints when discussing controversial and political issues. The FCC abandoned the policy in 1987, paving the way for talk radio to explode from fewer than 150 stations nationwide to more than 3,000.

The majority of the country's talk radio programs are politically conservative, prompting some, as WND has reported, to long for a more "balanced" menu.

"For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. "I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Former broadcaster Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., however, sees the policy as an attack on First Amendment rights.

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves," Pence has said in opposition to the policy. "It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."

Tell your government no to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Sign WND's Petition to Block Congressional Attacks on Freedom of Speech and Press now!

Now Pence is one of 200 Republican legislators to have co-sponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009, denoted as H.R. 226 in the House of Representatives and S. 34 in the Senate, which seeks to permanently ban the federal government from reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine."

It's not the first time Pence has rallied Congress to his cause. In 2007, Pence sponsored an amendment in the U.S. House, which passed by a wide margin and placed a one-year ban on the "Fairness Doctrine."

At the time, however, many Democrats, led by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., denied any interest in resurrecting the policy and accused Republicans of using the issue as a publicity stunt.

Obey called Pence's amendment "much ado about nothing" and "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

"That's a completely made-up issue," the press secretary to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., recently told Marin Cogan of the New Republic, stressing that Durbin has "no plans, no language, no nothing" to bring the FCC policy back.

Recent developments, however, have led congressional Republicans to believe that Democrats have already begun stealthily slipping the "Fairness Doctrine" back onto the table.

"Freedom of speech is under attack in this country" said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sponsor of the Senate version of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. "And there's no place that it's more visible and easier to see than this idea of the Fairness Doctrine, which several Democratic leaders have already mentioned that they think should be brought back."

In a joint press conference with DeMint and other co-sponsors of the Act, Pence added, "We believe that while it would be possible to see legislation move in this regard – and there are leading Democrats that control majorities in the House and Senate that have expressed an open interest in doing that – we also want to take the power away from a future administration to do this by the promulgation of regulation."

The Republicans are citing comments made by prominent Democrats to the press, such as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."

In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine."

"Yes," Pelosi answered.

When Gizzi further pressed her on whether she would permit a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, she answered, "No … the interest in my caucus is the reverse."

And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on brining it back.

"It should and will affect everyone," Eshoo pledged.

A manufactured controversy?

At the press conference announcing the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a reporter asked Republicans if the proposed bill – in light of no pending Democratic legislation – wasn't just a "manufactured controversy" designed to "mobilize the base" of the GOP.

"I understand that the largest natural resource in Washington, D.C., is cynicism," answered Pence. "But I prefer to take men and women in public life at their word. The speaker of the House has expressed her support for the Fairness Doctrine, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Sen. Dick Durbin, a leader here in the Senate, in widening majorities in their party have expressed their support for this."

Another reporter questioned whether any movement could be expected on the issue, since President Obama is reportedly against resurrecting the controversial policy.

In fact, Obama's press secretary told Broadcasting & Cable during the presidential election campaign, "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible."

DeMint answered the reporter's question, "There are a lot of promises made during campaigns that are not kept. … We want to make sure that the American people are aware that this threat is there."

Obama's words last week did little to reassure Republicans of his viewpoint on the issue, when the president told GOP leaders they need to quit listening to talk radio king Rush Limbaugh.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama said.

As WND reported, the Democratic National Congressional Committee also launched a petition to reprimand Limbaugh directly for his criticism of Obama, only to have the commentary section flooded with contributors pummeling the DNCC for the campaign against the popular radio host.

The alleged quiet agenda

Following the accusation by Republican lawmakers that Democrats might launch legislation to renew the "Fairness Doctrine," a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scoffed at the idea.

"We have enough real problems facing this country that we don't need to invent ones that don't exist," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told the Washington Times. "This is not even close to being on our radar screen."

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.

In a speech to The Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to re-instill the controversial policy without using the red-flagged "Fairness Doctrine" label.

"That's just Marketing 101," McDowell explained. "If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand."

Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.

McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, "Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"

At the press conference announcing the Broadcaster Freedom Act, one of the co-sponsors of the Act, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., also warned that Democrats might try "an end around to accomplish the same goal," only using the words "diversity" and "localism" instead of "Fairness Doctrine."

"What they're going to say is they want diversity of viewpoint on the airwaves," Walden said. "It gets back to the heart of the Fairness Doctrine, which is, to prescribe that through regulation, [which] means there has to be an enforcement mechanism. To have an enforcement mechanism means somebody has to be the gatekeeper of information."

And while Republicans' prediction of "Fairness Doctrine" legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren't just fear-mongering, as some have suggested.

A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.

In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.

"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."

The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."

To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are "operating on behalf of the public interest" to maintain their broadcasting license.

And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC's new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."

In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the "Fairness Doctrine."

Since the report's release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta's think tank.

Last summer, in denying the presidential candidate's support of the "Fairness Doctrine," Obama's press secretary said, "Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Further, the White House website lists on its technology agenda page that the president plans to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

The president's position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair's think tank report almost word-for-word.

And while President Obama has declared no plans to renew the "Fairness Doctrine," 200 Republicans in Congress are determined not to take any chances.

"I want to take President Obama at his word," Pence said. "The reality though is, the speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives has indicated that the interest of her caucus was in the reverse. … We also know some of the most prominent members of the U.S. Senate in the Democratic Party have come out in favor of this legislation."

DeMint added, "If you look at what the Democrats have tried to do with [Internet] neutrality, they're starting to say this is a public entity, everyone has to be treated equally; and the next step for that is starting to regulate what is said on that. You see traditional ideas and moral convictions being called 'hate speech.' Everywhere we see [Democrats] inching in on free speech. The Fairness Doctrine is probably the most visible and understandable, and that's why we need to draw the line in the sand and help Americans see that they're free speech is under attack."

The House version of the Broadcast Freedom Act of 2009, sponsored by Pence and cosponsored by 170 others, is currently referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Senate version, sponsored by DeMint and cosponsored by 28 others, has been read twice and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar No. 12 under General Orders.