"wiretapping"

now that's FUNNY

Wake up
and read the USC


FOX always calls on that Weasel, Jonnathon Turdley, for legal advice. I can't stand the man. Now I dislike him even more with the information that he's defending a Terrorist! Fox needs to clean house of some of the "undesirables" they use as Fox Consultants!


Notice that the article points out that the judges making the ruling, were appointed by Ronald Reagan, George H.W.Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. I don't know what difference it makes who appointed them; but they never tell us who appointed the judges making those ultra-liberal rulings.


"Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program"

"Public disclosure" of national security secrets while they're still classified is called treason, not public disclosure. I would worry about the enemies within who "disclose" secrets for their own personal and financial gain instead of some ridiculous defense attorney shilling for non-elected enemies who are trying to do the killing. But, that's just me.



'Defense attorneys say the willingness of judges to accept secret briefings puts them in an unfair position.' Unfair? Excuse me? Let's take a look at what the Community of Terrorists does. These murdering Muslims get caught in their methods of terrorism against pout country ...... and then, with the help of Lynn Stewart, Ramsey Clark and Jonathan Hurley types, they attempt to USE the U.S. laws to be freed. I am not the only United States citizen relieved that these ruling judges, with the exception of Detroit's Anna Diggs Taylor, are using their brains for a change.


'In every instance, the Justice Department's policy is to refuse to say publicly whether the NSA program was involved in a case, because denying its role in one case but refusing to deny its role elsewhere could disclose classified information, according to public government court filings. Rather, in response to defense motions, the Justice Department has filed secret documents with the court that are not supplied to defense lawyers.'

One of the unrepentant lawyers, Lynne Stewart, CONVICTED of aiding the worst of the TERRORIST thugs, has raised the bar for known criminal activity by mocking the ''client-lawyer'' privilege. Imagine if one of these lawyers were given NSA secrets of any kind. Think it would stay safe and secure away from their terrorist clients?

"Public disclosure" of national security secrets while they're still classified is called treason, not public disclosure.

beasty, et al,

While this is generally true, there are exceptions and a legal defense.


(COMMENT)

It is a defense that since the (as an example) violation of a US Law can NEVER be classified, the disclosure of that portion of the material is NOT a disclosure of properly classified information.

You cannot use the national security act as a justification to conceal a violation of law. Thus, kidnapping (apprehension w/o warrant) is the violation of law relative to the disclosure of rendition; and FISA is the law relative to domestic intercepts w/o a warrant.

This is why you have not seen anyone actually presecuted. If it goes to court, and this defense is used successfully, then the government is, by a judicial proceeding, found to be in violation.

Most Respectfully,

Courts Side With NSA On Wiretaps

NYSun, by JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

12/26/2006 6:41:17 AM

Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program would yield information favorable to their clients are being rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected efforts by terrorism suspects to access the records.

Comments:

The judges are wrong, and the defense lawyers are going after this in the wrong way. All they need to know is WHETHER information gathered by those means was used to identify and prosecute their clients, and if so, for the court to determine whether such evidence was obtained legally or is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and must be excluded in prosecuting their client's case.

For this, defense lawyers don't need to know methods and means used. A simply, penalty of perjury, yes or no answer from the NSA as to whether such program played a role in developing the case against their client would suffice, and would not threaten national security. Even the judge might not need to know methods and means in order to make a determination the legality of the program. After all, all that need be determined is whether or not the President can violate FISA, not the means and methods by which that violation was carried out.

The judges are wrong, and the defense lawyers are going after this in the wrong way. All they need to know is WHETHER information gathered by those means was used to identify and prosecute their clients, and if so, for the court to determine whether such evidence was obtained legally or is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and must be excluded in prosecuting their client's case.

For this, defense lawyers don't need to know methods and means used. A simply, penalty of perjury, yes or no answer from the NSA as to whether such program played a role in developing the case against their client would suffice, and would not threaten national security. Even the judge might not need to know methods and means in order to make a determination the legality of the program. After all, all that need be determined is whether or not the President can violate FISA, not the means and methods by which that violation was carried out.

The judges are wrong, and the defense lawyers are going after this in the wrong way.

Saudi Arabia frees 29 former Guantanamo detainees

Tue Dec 26, 9:32 AM ET

RIYADH (AFP) - Saudi authorities said they have freed 29 prisoners handed over to them after their release from the US detention camp at Guantanamo in Cuba.


The 28 Saudi nationals and a foreigner born in the oil-rich kingdom were ordered released by Saudi justice and were freed some time last week, a spokesman for Interior Minister Mansur al-Turki was quoted as saying by the official SPA agency on Tuesday.

Prior to their release, the men were told in the presence of their families that "their respect for rules and directives will be a determining factor in obtaining the repatriation of other Saudis who are still held abroad," he said.

A total of 53 individuals from Saudi Arabia have returned from Guantanamo. The bodies of two Saudi inmates, whom the United States said committed suicide at the camp in June, have also been repatriated.

At least 74 Saudis are still being held at the facility, a US naval base on the eastern tip of Cuba used as a detention centre for non-Americans captured in the US "war on terror".

The Pentagon said earlier this month that "around 395" people captured in
Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001 are still being held without charge at Guantanamo.

Washington has denied authorizing torture there, while defending the use of robust interrogation techniques in a bid to uncover terror plots.

Not to worry, davey...they don't use panties at Guantanamo.

It's like Hollywood, then?

"We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms."

AWOL and them dont believe in "group thought".

I don't believe in group thought, pitting one group of people against another.

I'm too smarty for my cat too smarty for my cat
Poor pussy poor pussy cat
I'm too smarty for my love too smarty for my love
Love's going to leave me

And I'm too smarty for this song

And I'm way too smarty for this board

Keith Ellison: Lying to the Infidels?

Keith Ellison: Lying to the Infidels?
by Deborah Weiss
Human Events.com

Minnesota Democratic Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (aka Keith Hakim or Keith Ellison Muhammad) is the first Muslim elected to Congress. His promise to take the oath of office on January 4 with his hand on the Koran rather than the Bible has sparked much controversy.

Congressmen and other officials are required to take an oath of office as a prerequisite to being seated. Similarly, witnesses in court are required to take an oath before testifying. The purpose of the oath is to encourage people to tell the truth. By swearing under oath, one obligates himself to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We, as a nation, take the actions of our elected officials and statements made in court very seriously. Therefore, our oaths are made under penalty of perjury. The legal ramification of knowingly making false statements is the possibility of being criminally prosecuted and jailed. Historically, the oath invoked God based on the idea that those who were religious would be less likely to lie if they feared the wrath of God, in addition to the wrath of the state. It was an additional way through which our legal system emphasized the importance of truth-telling.

While nothing in the Constitution or our state laws mandate a person to swear on the Christian Bible, the legal alternative is to "affirm." This is a promise to tell the truth under pain of perjury, available to those who either do not believe in the Christian God, the Christian Bible, or whose interpretation of the Bible forbids them to swear.

Though some have sworn in on the Old Testament or on different versions of the Christian Bible, all these texts were part of, or variations on the Christian Bible, included the Ten Commandments, and endorsed the same moral value of truth telling.

The Christian Bible teaches that "The Truth shall make you free," "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto God what is God's" (separation of church and state), and preaches freedom and equality for people of all faiths. The Koran, by contrast, teaches that it’s okay to lie to infidels if it furthers the cause of Islam, that nation states have no legitimacy, that the only legitimate nation is the nation of Islam, which has no territorial boundaries; and those who do not submit to the will of Allah should be condemned to a life of dhimmitude (second class citizenry). Because the Koran does not mandate truth telling to infidels and because upholding a man-made constitution conflicts with the literal text of Koranic law, the purpose of the oath is not served by swearing in on the Koran.

An individual cannot subjectively select which text constitutes a "Holy Scripture" appropriate for legal oath-taking. Instead, to determine the intent of the framers who wrote the oath requirement in the Constitution, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co....articlevi.html we must look at the meaning their words held at the time they were written. (Click here for text of oath as mandated by statue.) It is clear that the Founding Fathers intended the oath to be made on the Bible, which espoused the value of truth-telling and in which one of God's Ten Commandments was "Thou shalt not bear false witness." They did not contemplate oath-taking on the Koran.

Were we to allow Ellison to swear on a text that states his oath does not have to be truthful because he is making it to infidels, or that his allegiance is to a Higher Authority than the Constitution and he does not have to respect our nation's laws to the degree they conflict with Sharia or the Koran, then his oath would not be equivalent to an oath taken on the Bible. To swear on a book that is in direct conflict with the purpose of our oath, renders the oath meaningless. The object of the oath matters.

However, there is no religious test for elected office, and nobody is trying to force Ellison to swear on the Christian Bible. He can make his affirmation under penalty of perjury, promising to tell the truth and uphold our man-made laws. This would not preclude him from practicing the religion of his choice.

From a legal standpoint, Ellison's promise to swear in on the Koran is much ado about nothing, as he is doing no such thing. The official swearing-in ceremony will take place in the House chamber, where the speaker of the House will administer the oath to all House members en masse and no religious texts will be utilized. The subsequent private swearing-in ceremony is nothing more than a photo op and has no legally binding significance. It is at these individual ceremonies that congressmen traditionally pose with the Bible. (In some official positions, the actual Bible is used in the administration of the oath.) Nevertheless, Ellison's insistence on using the Koran in his is individual ceremony is unprecedented. He is making a political statement that raises questions about his loyalties and values. Does he believe in Sharia law or freedom? Does he respect the authority of nation states or only that of the Nation of Islam? Does he believe in tolerance and equality between Muslims and non-Muslims? Does he believe in freedom of speech even when it slanders Islam? Can he, in good conscience, uphold our man-made constitution even when it conflicts with the Koran?

In answering these questions, Ellison's background does not allay any concerns. A black convert to Islam, Ellison was active with Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, has a history of supporting anti-Semites, cold-blooded cop-killers (Mumia Abu Jamal) and other questionable characters.

Even more frightening, Ellison's campaign was substantially financed by prominent members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization many experts consider to be a Hamas front group. (See "The Real CAIR" by Joseph Farah on WorldNetDaily; "CAIR's Pro-Hamas Press" by Joe Kaufman on FrontPageMag.com; and "CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment" by Sharon Chada and Daniel Pipes, published by Middle East Quarterly.) He recently spoke at the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, touted by counter-terrorism expert Steve Emerson as terrorist front groups. He also spoke at the North American Imams Federation (NAIF) and his lecture flowed into a session at the American Open University, a radical Wahabbi school that trains many of the NAIF Imams.

Reinforcing his pro-Islamist stance, was Ellison's celebration speech in Dearborn, Mich.-the hotbed of Hezbollah supporters. He promised allegiance to Allah before a crowd cheering, "Allahu Akbar!" (Allah is great!)-the final words of the 9/11 hijackers before crashing into the Twin Towers.

CAIR's charge that any criticism of Ellison stems from "Islamophobia" is bogus. Had Ellison's past demonstrated a condemnation of terrorists, and exhibited moderation, inclusiveness, and tolerance, perhaps we could have entertained this criticism with some degree of credibility. However, Ellison's extremist history makes CAIR's allegation laughable.

At a time when we are engaged in a global war with radical Islam, it is alarming that citizens of the U.S. have elected someone who appears to be in bed with our enemy. To date, Keith Ellison's alliances have been far from mainstream. But our real war is ideological. We will not achieve victory by appeasing Islamists and ignoring their goals of world domination in the name of political correctness. Freedom, including religious freedom for people of all faiths, is our greatest asset. But when an interpretation of one's private faith crosses the line into a political ideology that conflicts with the freedoms and tolerance of others, we must take heed.

Ellison's insistence on using the Koran at his private ceremony must be seen in the context of the incremental Islamatization of America. Some Muslim extremist groups, posing as mainstream, advocate actions to desensitize citizens to their anti-freedom goals and try to silence those who oppose them. Ellison's swearing-in ceremony is just the beginning. Follow his money, his faith, and the company he keeps. I suspect his votes on the House floor will reflect more of the same-an allegiance to values contrary to the Judeo-Christian Bible, contrary to the goals of freedom and tolerance, and sympathetic to political agenda of CAIR.

Taqiyya and kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism

Taqiyya and kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism
www.ci-ce-ct.com

Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

Taqiyya and kitman or 'holy hypocrisy' has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.'

The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the 'holy water'. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the 'mujahadeen ' to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: 'the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy'.

Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.

" Verily the most honourable of you in the sight of God is the most pious among you; verily, God is knowing, aware!" 49:13

Shi'a interpret the phrase above as "he among you who exercises Taqiyya most"

Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split 'the enemy'. A favored tactic was 'deceptive triangulation'; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.

Sydney NSW Australia: 2 November 2002

Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly, the controversial Grand Mufti of Australia, is enjoying lunch with his trusted assistant Keysar Trad. The journalist writing of the meeting with the Sheik noted:

'Several times, when direct responses to questions about passages in the Koran begged a simple yes or no, both men preferred to avoid the issues by talking about the difficulties of translating passages from Arabic to English.'

Referring to the Sheikhs blithe dismissal of his virulent anti-Semitic remarks in 1998, the journalist reflected:
'I can only muse at the facility of my guest, who has also praised suicide bombers in more recent times, to dismiss his notorious and abominable remarks with such ease and without actual apology. It seems clear that he is considering the way his remarks will be construed by the Sunday Telegraph's huge and influential audience when they are translated into Arabic for Muslims to debate. He's walking a tightrope.'

The skilled journalist should not be puzzled as the Sheik's target audiences were Australians and not Arab readers. Taqiyya, or dissimulation, is a key feature in Islamic public discourse and confuses Western audiences. It is meant to, according to the Koran:

'Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that; they shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution..that ye may guard yourselves'. 3:28

Al Taqiyya is with tongue only; not the heart. A believer can make any statement as long as the 'heart is comfortable'. The 9/11 terrorists lived and visited in the United States for two years before the 9/11 attacks. How did they acculturate? By the use of taqiyya. Meaning: I hate you but I smile at you-in public.

Taqiyya and 'Outwitting' in contemporary political discourse and debates

Outwitting: Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of 'outwitting'. The matter under discussion is not to be debated or discussed; rather the opponent is to 'outwitted' through taqiyya, by diversion of the subject and obfuscation aided at times with a mystical reference to God or Allah.

The claim that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English make communication with non-Arab speakers difficult or impossible, is another form of outwitting. The tactical use of a translator offers considerable advantage.

Role playing as victim: Claiming to be 'the victim' of religious discrimination and intolerance during debate or discussion is another form of distraction and 'outwitting'.

Manipulating ambiguity: Sheik Hilaly of Sydney, Australia is on public record as 'condemning' the 9/11 attacks in ambiguous terms and then praising suicide and martyr operations. However, Islamic spokesmen will rarely condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.

Diversion: For example, questions relating to the 9/11 terrorists attacks will be diverted by a causally irrelevant counter reference to the plight of the Palestinians, the nefarious role of Israel and US foreign policy and support for Israel as 'causes' of terrorism.

Anti-Semitism, a core belief of Islamic fundamentalism is also skillfully diverted by misleading and exaggerated historical references to the alleged status enjoyed by Jews and non-believers under Islamic rule, thereby deflecting critical examination of the virulent contemporary Islamic anti-Semitism.

Demanding 'evidence': Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as 'cognitive denial' by repetitive and extreme requests for 'evidence' and 'proof' of alleged terrorist acts, which they know cannot be disclosed.

Tactical denial: Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a state of affairs can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms. For example, "It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorist' , which is false and 'Islam forbids suicide', which is true, but irrelevant as suicide or martyrdom attacks are not forbidden in the Koran.

Exploiting cognitive dissonance: Islamic spokesman tend to be baffle television interviewers and puzzle viewers as they resort to double talk 'clichés and platitudes' concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance-holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them- is induced in viewers as they attempt to process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion with the dissonant facts of Islamic terrorist acts and operations.

The Islamic 'defence' script: Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable platitudes concerning Islam in London as do Islamic spokesmen in Seattle and often appear to follow a prepared script from "Islam is tolerant and peace loving' to the claim by Islamic spokeswomen invariably claiming that wearing the veil offers them more freedom (women in Muslim countries are therefore 'freer' than women in western countries), thereby precluding further examination into the real status of women under Islamic rule.
Islamic platitudes are also echoed uncritically by Western politicians, for example "A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great religion'. The timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the 'hijacking' of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic 'spokesmen' in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The "Islam has been hijacked' diversionary theme is now a conventional media and political reference deflecting attention from empirical and historical examination of the doctrinal, political and religious continuity of Islamic terrorism. A related theme that a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism is utterly irrelevant as Islamic terrorism is always perpetrated by 'small minorities' or more accurately' small groups'.

Taqiyya as impressions and perceptions management

The tactical use of children: Australia television viewers noted that interviews with terrorist suspects raided by security authorities invariably featured veiled women holding small children or a baby as they protested their husband's innocence and attested to his innate goodness. Trembling fingers pointed to 'damage' to the family residence. In some interviews the suspect / father holds the child, whilst denying involvement or knowledge of terrorism in any sense of the word: an example of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception management.

Taqiyya and the Deceptive use of Jihad: The contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is Jihad of the sword. Egyptian-based Islamic fundamentalists, from whom Bin Laden recruited his key operatives, believe jihad is the fourth pillar of Islam and is a binding belief and integral to the faith. Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state of personal struggle is taqiyya. In contemporary terms, Jihad means - holy war - against unbelievers and it in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals refer to Jihad as 'Holy War'.

The study of taqiyya and kitman is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism ranging from the issuing of false terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al Qaeda in the form of 'intelligence chatter' to the use of taqiyya and kitman by terrorists during interrogation and the use of systematically misleading expressions concerning Islam and terrorism by Muslim 'spokesmen'.

American Congress for Truth

One Muslim in the Congress seems to be one too many for our Jewish pundits.

This with 30 Jewish house members and 13 Jewish senate members.

Proportional representation by sect would yield about 11 Jewish members and about 8 Muslims.

Just because one offers verifiable information to educate those forming opinions and/or taking action without the benefit of having all the pertinent facts, does not make one a Jewish pundit.

Center for Security Policy was founded in 1988 and states that it operates as a non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength. [1]" According to their web site, "The Center specializes in the rapid preparation and real-time dissemination of information, analyses and policy recommendations via e-mail distribution; computerized fax; its exciting, redesigned Web site; published articles; and the electronic media. The principal audience for such materials is the U.S. security policy-making community (the executive and legislative branches, the armed forces and appropriate independent agencies), corresponding organizations in key foreign governments, the press (domestic and international), the global business and financial community and interested individuals in the public at large."


A very influential organization with the Center for Security Policy is the Center's National Security Advisory Council, whose members hold senior positions with the Bush administration.

Center for Security Policy has strong ties with the Republican Party with many members serving senior posts in the Reagan administration and George W. Bush administration. Donald Rumsfeld, currect Secretary of Defense under Bush, is a receipient of the the Center's Keeper of the Flame Award. The Center is not shy in touting its strong ties with the U.S. Government. [2][3]

* Elliott Abrams, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations
* Devon Gaffney Cross, member, Defense Policy Board
* Jack D. Crouch II, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy; nominated January 31, 2005, to be Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor
* Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., former Director of the Office of Management and Budget
* Kenneth deGraffenreid, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Support
* Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
* Douglas J. Feith, former Chairman of the Center's Board of Directors, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
* Evan Galbraith, Secretary of Defense's Representative to Europe
* Robert Joseph, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
* Sven Kraemer, Policy Advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
* Keith Payne, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Policy
* Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board
* Roger W. Robinson, Jr., Commissioner, U.S.-China Security Review Commission
* James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force
* William Schneider, Jr., Chairman of the Defense Science Board
* Wayne Schroeder, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Resource Planning and Management
* Michelle Van Cleave, Assistant Secretary of Defense-designate for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict
* Jose Sorzano, member, Board of Visitors, Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly the School of the Americas)
* Arthur Waldron, Commissioner, U.S.-China Security Review Commission
* Gov. Pete Wilson, member, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
* Dov Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense; Comptroller
* Caroline B. Glick the senior Middle East fellow and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...dvisory_Council

Leadership (FYE 12/2004)

Name Title Compensation % of Expenses

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. President, CEO (The person identified as holding the highest position of management, and therefore who would normally be responsible for carrying out the mission of the charity and leading the organization on a day-to-day basis.) $272,850 14.32%

Mission

The Center for Security Policy has, since its founding in 1988, operated as a non-partisan organization committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength. The Center accomplishes this goal by stimulating and informing national and international policy debates, in particular, those involving regional, defense, economic, financial and technology developments that bear upon the security of the United States. The Center specializes in the rapid preparation and real-time dissemination of information, analyses and policy recommendations to policy makers, corresponding organizations in key foreign governments, the press, the global business and financial community, and individuals in the public at large.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/.../orgid/5444.htm

No, it doesn't.

My bad.

It turns out Ms. Weiss actually works for Frank Gaffney, over at the Center for Security Policy as a professional propagandist.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The Center's own site: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ind...age=warwithiraq

Their charitable report shows an income of about $2 million with nearly $300k to Frank Gaffney.

An individual cannot subjectively select which text constitutes a "Holy Scripture" appropriate for legal oath-taking. Instead, to determine the intent of the framers who wrote the oath requirement in the Constitution, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co....articlevi.html we must look at the meaning their words held at the time they were written. (Click here for text of oath as mandated by statue.) It is clear that the Founding Fathers intended the oath to be made on the Bible, which espoused the value of truth-telling and in which one of God's Ten Commandments was "Thou shalt not bear false witness." They did not contemplate oath-taking on the Koran.

Wow. Won't be happy till you codify it, eh?

Freedom of religion. As long as it's Christianity.

Presidential Oath of Office
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives the precise wording of the oath of office to be taken by every individual who is elected to the presidency (“Presidential Oaths...”). Conspicuously absent from the oath are the closing words so familiar to our ears: “So help me God.” When did these final four words that affirm belief in the God of the Bible begin to be added to the presidential oath of office? The custom began on April 30, 1789 when the very first President sworn into office, George Washington, took it upon himself to add the words. Every President thereafter has followed Washington’s lead by adding the words “so help me God.” The oath mandated for the Vice President (and all other government employees), which is set out in the U.S. Code, actually mandates the phrase “so help me God” (2002, 5USC3331). What’s more, history records that after taking the oath, George Washington then leaned down and kissed the Bible (“President George...,” n.d.)! That tradition was followed by his successors until Benjamin Pierce broke the precedent in 1853, yet all have continued the traditions of placing their hand on the Bible and repeating “so help me God” at the conclusion of the oath (“Inaugurals of Presidents...”). Unconstitutional? Separation of church and state?

Source

Listen goober, I said nothing about atheism, if you're a Mormon you use your holy book, a Catholics use their text, Jews use theirs, Christians use theirs. I don't care what kind of religion you subscribe to, you should feel free to use the book of your choice at the ceremony. But if you are an atheist then you shouldn't have to use any of them.

YOU are the one trying to curtail freedoms. YOU are the one demanding your specific religion's book be used. That is not acceptable. Our country is about religious freedoms, not stifling other faiths. You demand your religion be acknowledged as supreme.

Forget it.

I'm not demanding anything. I posted articles that point out the falicy in believing in oaths by religions that give you an out and why. Very inciteful articles for those with an open mind.

davis is an ex-religious nut. Like some ex-smokers now he's a crusader.

I'm not demanding anything. I posted articles that point out the falicy in believing in oaths by religions that give you an out and why. Very inciteful articles for those with an open mind.

Let me remind you bonehead that if Christianity was so intolerant, Islam would've been squashed at it's inception, Christians hid and protected early followers of Mohammad from persecution and death, and there'd be no religion BUT Christianity in Europe and the Americas which clearly goes against your rant and mantra.

This "Judeo-Christian" cowdoody that the right peddles lately is just that.

If anything, Islam is more tolerant of Christianity and Judaism than either is of the others.