Zimbabwe's Presidential Elections, 2013

The Dissonances of a Three-Part Zimbabwe Election

‘There is nothing that can be done to make this election free and fair.’ (Rejoice Ngwenya, political analyst, quoted in The Zimbabwean, Vol.9/No.27, July 2013).

The violence that followed the first round of elections in 2008 still looms large in voters’ minds, but that is not the only reason these elections are likely to be a poor example of a democratic process. The voters roll is incomplete and flawed and the registration process was found wanting, electoral institutions and political parties are not ready for an election and the money is not available and no one is prepared to foot the bill. Although some independent election observers are now in place, their numbers are insufficient and their arrival too late.

Violence may have decreased (though not ceased) since 2008, but as the saying goes ‘If you burn down someone’s house, next time all you need is to rattle the matchbox’. Credible reports of intimidation abound. The process of ‘special voting’ for members of the armed forces two weeks ago (14-15 July) was described by the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN) as ‘chaotic’ and casts doubt on whether or not the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) is sufficiently prepared to handle the forthcoming elections. This leaves voting in the main round of elections on 31 July extremely vulnerable to manipulation.

Before an election is held, some activists in civil society believe the electoral roll should be inspected to give the South African Development Community (SADC) confidence that they can ensure and observe a free and fair election. Some civil society organisations have already examined the roll and found gross inadequacies. The recent report by the Zimbabwean NGO Research and Advocacy Unit (RAU) (whose launch was forbidden by the High Court of Zimbabwe) illustrates severe discrepancies which cast doubts over the credibility of the election result.

The report shows for example how 63 of the 210 constituencies had more registered voters than inhabitants (as indicated by the 2012 census). Furthermore, an unlikely number of over 116.000 people aged over 100 are still on the roll. Besides these discrepancies the nearly 2 million voters aged under 30 that are not registered are a further indication that the Voters Roll is not up to date.

The dissolution of the Inclusive Government means that Mugabe is, in practical terms, able to determine policy unilaterally, evinced by the recent appointment of judges. This worries many in civil society. Harassment of journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers and supporters of the former opposition have already been detailed in reports issued by Amnesty International. Marked partiality by security forces continues despite the recent constitution forbidding this. The same constitution also guarantees free and fair elections. There are new claims of possible violence, intimidation and voter rigging being made. Allegedly the number of military personnel listed exceeds the actual number of those employed.

Such concerns of continued violence and intimidation contradict the rhetorical commitments to peace. ZANU-PF have said that they will restrict accreditation of international observers to their allies, acting as though they were the sole occupant of government, instead of one candidate for office. Security forces have declared their allegiance to ZANU-PF and have repeatedly announced that they are not prepared to serve under any other President than President Robert Mugabe. This raises fears of violence in the event that any other party than ZANU-PF wins the elections.

To summarise, despite improvements in Zimbabwe's political and economic situation and the implementation of some reforms, crucial steps have not been taken. This has resulted in a realisation that free and fair elections are not likely in the current Zimbabwe, which in turn has led many to call (and hope) for 'credible' elections. The international community is focusing on what patterns emerge from local, regional, diplomatic and media observations and will make their own assessments on how free and fair the elections have been. Nonetheless, they have stated they will be relying on SADC’s judgement to make the final call on the credibility of the elections.

It remains a concern that the international community in its wish to see Zimbabwe reintegrated into their ranks seems eager to label the elections credible. Although as stated, the government has been dissolved, many analysts expect some similar post-electoral arrangement – a result that SADC and the international community would probably welcome in terms of national and regional stability, but which may not reflect the aspirations and actual experience of Zimbabwe citizens and would-be voters.

In our consultations with civil society in Zimbabwe, calls were made for the following:

· for Zimbabweans to have the right to vote freely for whom they wish without fear or

          favour (without external interference or internal intimidation),

· an accurate and up to date voter roll,

· fair access to and coverage by state controlled media,

· impartiality by institutions of the state,

· domestic election observers and truly independent external election observer

          missions in place well before the election.

SADC additionally asked for:

· media reform,

· equal access to Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (JOMIC) – the monitoring board on implementation of the GPA run by the three main parties,

· upholding of the rule of law,

· deployment of SADC observers and for the election to be delayed until such reforms could be initiated.

Given that none of this now appears likely either (apart from the presence of SADC observers) the credibility of the forthcoming elections is questionable. The following recommendations and actions by SADC and the international community are vital in pushing for credible elections in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe Europe Network recommends that:

· The Zimbabwe government and SADC as guarantor of the GPA ensure that the Government of Zimbabwe respects the rights to freedom of assembly, speech, and opinion as outlined in the constitution, and international and regional conventions such as the SADC electoral protocol that the government has signed.

· The Zimbabwe government should ensure strict and unhindered monitoring and observation of  the electoral process.

· The Zimbabwe government and SADC as guarantor of the GPA ensure the timely announcement of election results (unlike 2008) as called for in the constitution – five days is the time allowed.

· The international community, including the EU and member states, play their part in holding to account/ persuading SADC in ensuring this is as free and fair election as is possible in the context outlined, including systematic reporting of any irregularities and intimidation.

· Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to respond appropriately and promptly to any violation of electoral law or human rights.

· Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) to act with impartiality and to protect all from political violence and investigate impartially all alleged violations, and the judiciary to adhere to the constitution and the (electoral) law.

Zimbabwe Europe Network recommends the following to regional and international observers:

· Report all violations to the relevant authorities and be aware that violations occurring outside polling stations should also be included in any reports. Given that levels of outright violence may well be diminished, there is need to follow up reported incidents of intimidation that could result in a non-free and fair election.

· Observe rural and other hard to reach constituencies, where the most extreme election results and irregularities occurred in 2008.

· Liaise with local independent Church and civil society observers to get as wide a picture as possible and for direct observation of all infringements.

Finally in the wider context we believe that the inclusion of more pro-poor policies by the parties running for office, along with serious plans for implementation, should be high on the agenda in order to contribute to broader transformation in the lives of Zimbabweans. Restoring and consolidating the rule of law, judicial institutions and human rights as well as initiating sustainable economic policies and enterprises are crucial for a democratic state and sustainable, pro-poor economic development to take root.

Update on the Bill in the Lords

The following comes from the Coalition for Marriage whom you can support by donations and by sharing on your social networking page, as well as by word of mouth. Contact them by post at: Coalition for Marriage, 8 Marshalsea Road, London, SE1 1HL or by telephone: 0207 403 7879

Dear marriage supporter,

I thought you would appreciate an update on what has been happening with the same-sex marriage Bill in the House of Lords. There has been lots going on.

The Bill has now completed its Committee Stage. As is usual, there have been no votes during Committee Stage. The Bill now moves to Report Stage, scheduled to take place on 8 and 10 July, when we expect there will be votes on key amendments.

During Committee Stage, many Peers have been pressing for a long list of protections for people who believe in traditional marriage, including:

· Protecting people at work from being disciplined just because they voice support for traditional marriage.

· Stopping local authorities using the Public Sector Equality Duty to ban a church from hiring public facilities just because the church disagrees with same-sex marriage.

· Protecting foster carers from being blacklisted by social workers just because they believe marriage is the union of a man and woman.

· Giving couples the option of marrying according to the real definition of marriage, rather than being forced to marry according to the new genderless definition.

· Protecting the right of teachers to express support for traditional marriage without risking their careers.

· Making clear that freedom of speech about marriage should not be restricted by equality laws.

There have been some passionate and excellent speeches from Peers who support these protections, including from a number of the country’s top legal experts. A former Lord Chancellor and two former senior judges lent their voices to the call for civil liberty safeguards.

The Government has promised to change the criminal law so that criticism of same-sex marriage won’t be, of itself, a hate-crime. We welcome that reassurance, but our primary concern lies with civil, not criminal, law. For example, employment law and discrimination law – where the problems are most likely to arise – are part of civil law. Here, the Government has stubbornly refused to give an inch on safeguarding the freedom of people who believe in traditional marriage.

They even went as far as saying people who work in the private sector – let alone public sector – should be fired if they refuse to provide services for a same-sex wedding. As far as the Government is concerned, there should be no liberty of conscience in those circumstances.

That shows what we’re up against, but we have no intention of backing down. We will be working hard to call for safeguards for people – like you – who support traditional marriage.

This is important work, but we haven’t stopped defending the principle of real marriage. We always said the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and here is just one example: in the official Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill, the Government says:

The terms “husband” and “wife” here refer to a person who is married for the purposes of paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 3. This means that “husband” here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman. In a similar way, “wife” will include a woman married to another woman or a man married to a man. The result is that this section is to be construed as including both male and female same sex marriage. (Read it for yourself, see p29)

In other words, under this Bill, a woman can be a “husband” and a man can be “wife”. It just shows that words lose all meaning when politicians meddle with marriage

'The Dog That Did Not Bark' : Government surveillance and jihad

The National-Security Right Goes Silent
On the NSA, the dog will not bark.
By Andrew C. McCarthyhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/351128/national-security-right-goes-silent-andrew-c-mccarthy

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

The jihad rages on, but the War on Terror is over.

There is no longer a national-security consensus — no longer the political support for wartime defense measures, much less offensive combat operations. While the enemy continues to fight, our will to break the enemy’s will has vanished. After a contentious week, that much is clear. The controversy swirling around shadowy intelligence programs hasn’t gotten to the bottom of those programs, but it tells us everything we need to know about . . . us.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s dog that did not bark is a metaphor worn out by journalists. This week, though, the lack of a bark was loud and clear: The bark of the national-security Right defending the wartime powers of the presidency. For a variety of reasons, many of the protagonists have developed amnesia about how we came to have the programs now provoking all the cavil: the debates over the PATRIOT Act and FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

After a series of attacks through the Nineties, the 9/11 atrocities destroyed the World Trade Center, struck the Pentagon, and killed nearly 3,000 Americans. In the savage clarity, our nation finally realized that what I’ve called “kinetic Islam” — a combination of militant jihadists and their sharia-supremacist enablers — was at war with the United States. The PATRIOT Act was a product of our vigorous and persuasive contention, on the national-security right, that the challenge was an enemy force, not a criminal-justice problem. That challenge demanded a national war-footing, not judicial due process.

It was precisely this contention, moreover, that beat back the Left’s effort to intrude the judiciary into the collection of foreign intelligence — constitutionally, a paradigm executive function — when FISA was overhauled in 2008.

In fits and starts over the years, progressives and libertarians have aligned against the war, for different reasons. Hardwired to find American fault in every dispute, the Left is sympathetic to Islamic supremacism’s indictment against the United States, if not its barbaric methods. Libertarians have been wary because war inexorably enhances the power of the state at the expense of liberty — Big Government is more to be feared than the jihad.

That this fear is overstated does not mean it is frivolous. It is real, and has been stoked to a fare-thee-well by the “War on Terror.” The label itself betrays our cravenness. Unwilling to name the enemy for fear of giving offense, the government framed the challenge not as an aggressor but as an aggressive tactic. It encouraged Americans to go on with their lives as normal (lest “the terrorists win”).

Necessarily, this ensured that the public would notice the war only in the government’s defense measures against the tactic. These were thus certain to become more onerous; after all, that was how politicians too timid to say “Islam” or “jihad” proved they were tough on . . . er . . . “violent extremism.” But these defense measures, erosions of liberty and privacy, could be abided only as long as the public felt profoundly threatened. That feeling would certainly not last, no matter how long we had troops on faraway battlefields, if the public was not (a) invested in victory over our enemies; (b) persuaded that being molested at the airport and similar indignities had something to do with achieving victory; and (c) convinced that the lack of similar-scale attacks in the years after 9/11 was due to the defense measures.

The most compelling claim against the war effort, argued jointly by progressives and libertarians, was that there was no conceivable conclusion to a war of this nature. Wars against traditional enemies end when the enemy — usually, a nation-state — surrenders or strikes a treaty. But how can a war against a tactic end?

Consequently, the argument went, the War on Terror would go on indefinitely, and with it the metastasizing security state. This argument is now muted on the Left. Bush-deranged progressives turn out to be quite comfortable with a security state as long as one of their own is running it. But for libertarians, the argument has grown ever more heated.

Nothing, not even war, happens in a vacuum. Over the last six years, as libertarian angst churned over surveillance, detention, military commissions, and drone attacks, the progressive-lite GOP establishment gave way to hardcore Obama statism. As a result, libertarians, quite appropriately, have become a hugely influential opposition faction. They are a big part of the Tea Party’s energy, and the Tea Party is the dynamo of the Right. Increasingly, as the Right’s ne plus ultra has become stopping Big Government’s advance, conservatives and Republicans have been more willing to overlook libertarian objections to adhesive security measures — sometimes, even to see a good deal of sense in them.

[CONTINUE READING ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE] 

Flaws in the 'Same-Sex Marriage' Bill & the Government's Stance

	The Government is blocking protections
	Dear marriage supporter, The Coalition Government has agreed to change the criminal law to put it beyond doubt that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is not a hate crime. That should send a helpful message to those who throw around the ‘bigot’ label far too freely. However, Government ministers are being advised by officials in the equalities office to block any other protections in the civil law. We think reasonable changes need to be made to employment law and equality law to protect people like you – people who believe in traditional marriage – but the Government is not listening. The House of Lords is currently examining the Bill line by line. The legislation is getting the kind of prolonged scrutiny that the Government did not permit in the Commons. In the Commons the Government guillotined debate and stacked the committee with the Bill’s supporters, but they can’t do that in the Lords. Now that the Bill is under the spotlight in the Lords, gaps are beginning to show. Faithfulness ‘not necessary’ Astonishingly, the Government says fidelity is not a necessary part of any marriage. The exact quote from the Government minister is: “In terms of the law, marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship.” In other words, under the Bill, the Government doesn’t think faithfulness is important in marriage. This is because it wants to avoid the legal problems which would otherwise be created if it introduced laws about adultery or consummation for same-sex marriage. That shatters the argument that this Bill will strengthen marriage. No, it will wreck marriage. Job losses Up until now, officials in the equalities office have been telling Government ministers that the Bill won’t harm the liberty of people who disagree with it. But after pressure in the House of Lords, Government ministers have admitted they want commercial companies to be able to sack staff who refuse to be involved with same-sex marriages. The Government thinks commercial chauffeurs who object to a same-sex marriage should be dismissed. By the same logic, florists, photographers and cake makers would also be in the firing line. We want a reasonable accommodation for such workers, a bit of flexibility which takes account of people’s sincere beliefs. But so far the Government has stubbornly refused. We are also calling for protections for public sector workers like teachers and chaplains; and we want to make sure that local councils can’t penalise organisations who disagree with same-sex marriage. So far, the Government won’t give way. But the Lords are putting the Government on the spot, making life very uncomfortable for them. We are working very hard to defend traditional marriage. We will continue to do so, and we value your ongoing support. Please help us by making a generous donation of £50, £100, £200 or as much as you can afford.  DONATE  Yours sincerely, Colin Hart Campaign Director Coalition for Marriage

US Governments Double-Dealing over Jihadist Groups

Patrick Poole—counterterrorism analyst, investigator, and writer—recently posted a comprehensive exposé of the failed Muslim outreach programs of three presidential administrations.

Poole’s exposé begins with this introduction:

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.

As Poole demonstrates, this faulty outreach program was a bi-partisan effort spanning 20 years, two Democratic presidents and one Republican.

We are studying Poole’s exposé and strongly encourage you to do so as well. It’s eye-opening, to say the least.

You can read it here.

When there are Muslims like Tawfik Hamid, Zuhdi Jasser, and Manda Ervin speaking out against sharia law, jihad, and the Muslim Brotherhood, it is unconscionable that so many of our political and law enforcement leaders continue to cozy up to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and their leaders.

Church of England gives up the fight over same-sex marriage

      We are clearly instructed in Scripture to obey the laws set down by our leaders, unless, that is, they contravene God's laws. Why then, I ask, has the Church of England capitulated over the question of the Redefining of Marriage Bill?
     Bishop of Leicester, who is the Convener of the Lords Spiritual, has said in an official statement that the Church of England will no longer fight the Bill to Redefine Marriage. This is tantamount to the Church of England sanctioning same-sex marriage, a matter which goes directly against God's law. This government has no mandate to put this Bill forward. It was not in the manifesto of any of the political parties, and it faces massive opposition from a huge swathe of the populace. Polls have shown that even many from amongst the homosexual members of the public see no particular reason for the Bill to be put forward. 
     It has been stated by many of the leading voices that there will be far-reaching ramifications if this Bill is passed, ranging from concerns over the ignoring of people's voice of conscience over the matter when it impacts on their employment status to the impact that it will have on pension rights. That it contravenes God's law is of no consequence to this current leadership, for it is made up of atheists and those who claim the name of Christian without the responsibility to act like one.
     Throughout the history of mankind there have been leaders who have opposed God, and history is littered with the tales of their nation's demise. Consider the great empires of the past, empire such as the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, and of course the British Empire. All have now gone. Yes, especially the latter, for the halcyon days of the British Empire are long over, and most people would probably prefer to call this nation the United Kingdom rather than Great Britain, for the simple reason that politicians of all shades have eroded the claims to greatness that the nation once had. Even the term 'United Kingdom' refers to a dubious position, for Wales has already achieved a measure of devolution, Scotland is clamouring for independence, and Ireland is a split nation.
    “Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales.

     “It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape...
      “If this bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace.

     “Our focus during committee and report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement."

You can read the full statement here >
or the report in the Telegraph here >
     This effectively signals the end of the Church of England's official opposition to the Bill.

     Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has stated his support for the Bill in a recent statement on the subject. The Archbishop also approved of the idea of same sex relationships in his speech, contrary to the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. He said: "It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage".

     As the Archbishop is the head of the Anglican Communion this statement will have far-reaching implications for the Church as a whole. Over many years the Anglicans have been dealing with split opinions over many matters, but this current proposed legislation, flying in the face of God as it does, is likely to turn the split into a gaping chasm. No wonder that mainstream churches are empty on a Sunday when the leadership clearly chooses to satisfy man's cravings rather than God's teaching.

Compensate the families of the Mau Mau's victims too!

So the UK Government are to pay out several million pounds in compensation to members of the Mau Mau, the infamous Kenyan terrorist group guilty of the mutilation, maiming, raping and murdering of so many victims in the 1950s. The payouts are because their 'Yuman Rights' were violated by the British Colonial regime. Now, victims are victims, whichever the side they are on, and torture, maiming and the like are totally unacceptable in a civilized society. Those who perpetrate it should be brought to justice. I see no real problem with compensating the victims of such crimes, provided that it is universal, and not restricted to one side of a conflict only. However, what about the Mau Mau compensating their victims as well.

After all, surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Redefinition of Marriage Bill

     Tomorrow, 4th June, the House of Lords will consider the Bill to Redefine Marriage. It's interesting that the government take on this ill-thought out proposal to allow people of the same sex to marry is that it is supported by a majority of people, yet that is not what I, or many others like myself, have found when discussing it with people. Although I have found a few who say that they don't care what happens, the majority of people to whom I have spoken about the bill are firmly opposed to it. I have to draw the conclusion that a poll that was unbiased in its wording would probably reflect that fact that most people do not support the Bill, although probably most people don't care enough to voice their opposition to it as long as it doesn't affect them personally. 
     As with so many other ill-thought out schemes of this and previous governments, should this Bill pass into Law then the problems arising from it will begin to show themselves in a very short space of time. In my opinion, this Bill rides roughshod over God's plan for humanity, and as history has proved in past years, the end result will be catastrophe for every nation which adopts similar measures. It is impossible to defy God and still think that He will bless our nation.

Fort Hood Islamic Terrorist continues to receive US Army pay, despite having killed or injured 45

Awaiting Trial, Maj. Nidal Hasan Paid $278,000
By SCOTT FRIEDMAN
NBCDFW.com
updated 5/20/2013 11:16:42 PM ET
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51947575
The Department of Defense confirms to NBC 5 Investigates that accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan has now been paid more than $278,000 since the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting that left 13 dead 32 injured. The Army said under the Military Code of Justice, Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty.

If Hasan had been a civilian defense department employee, NBC 5 Investigates has learned, the Army could have suspended his pay after just seven days.

Personnel rules for most civilian government workers allow for "indefinite suspensions" in cases "when the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed."

Meanwhile, more than three years later soldiers wounded in the mass shooting are fighting to receive the same pay and medical benefits given to those wounded in combat.

Retired Army Spc. Logan Burnett, a reservist who, in 2009, was soon to be deployed to Iraq, was shot three times when a gunman opened fire inside the Army Deployment Center.

“I honestly thought I was going to die in that building,” said Burnett. “Just blood everywhere and then the thought of -- that's my blood everywhere.”

Burnett nearly died. He's had more than a dozen surgeries since the shooting, and says post-traumatic stress still keeps him up at night.

Burnett is now fighting a new battle; only this one is against the U.S. Army.

The Army has not classified the wounds of the Ft. Hood victims as “combat related” and declines to label the shooting a “terrorist attack”,

The “combat related” designation is an important one, for without it Burnett and other shooting victims are not given combat-related pay, they are not eligible for Purple Heart retirement or medical benefits given to other soldiers wounded either at war or during the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon.

As a result, Burnett, his wife Torey, and the families of other Fort Hood victims miss out on thousands of dollars of potential benefits and pay every year.

To Burnett the shooting felt like combat.

“You take three rounds and lose five good friends and watch seven other people get killed in front of you. Do you have another term that we can classify that as?” asked Burnett.

The Army has categorized the shooting as a case of “workplace violence.”

“Sickens me. Absolutely sickens me. Workplace violence? I don't even know if I have the words to say,” said Burnett.

"They don't need to be treated like this. They don't need to sit and fight every day for this benefit or that,” said Torey Burnett.

As that fight continues, Burnett was stunned to see a letter detailing the more $278,000 Hasan has been paid since his arrest. NBC 5 Investigates received the letter from the Department of Defense in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

"There have been times when my wife and I cannot afford groceries. We cannot afford gas in our car,” Burnett said. “Literally, times where we ate Ramen noodles for weeks on end. This [that Hasan is still earning a paycheck] makes me sick to my stomach,” said Burnett.

Burnett isn’t alone in his outrage.

“We're giving the defendant in this case every benefit of the doubt. But yet we're not giving the benefits to the victims,” said Rep. Thomas Rooney (R) Florida Rooney, a former prosecutor at Fort Hood, recently signed a bi-partisan letter urging defense secretary Chuck Hagel to "...reclassify the victims' deaths and injuries as 'combat related'..."

The letter said the current situation has "...resulted in an embarrassing lack of care and treatment for the victims and their families."

“What happened here is not a case of workplace violence. What happened here was an attack on our military by a terrorist element specifically targeting our military, which just so happened to be in the United States of America,” said Rooney.

[Continue reading full article here]

Obama's Government promotes Radical Islam as being the true "Moderates"

U.S. Gov't: Radical Muslims Approved, Moderates Shunned
Counterterrorism trainers are told that U.S. Brotherhood groups' are not tied to terrorism. Yet the federal gov't has proved they are.
By Ryan Maurohttp://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/us-govt-radical-muslims-approved-moderates-shunned

Hassan Shibly, Nihad Awad, Zair Shakir, Kifah Mustafa and Siraj Wahhaj (clock-wise from left). All are radical Islamists who have been associated with CAIR.

Shockingly, the advisory committee that likely influenced these guidelines includes numerous individuals affiliated with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The document says it is a list of “tips for federal, state and local government and law enforcement officials organizing CVE [Countering Violent Extremism], cultural awareness, counter-radicalization, or counterterrorism training.” It was produced by the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in cooperation with the National Counterterrorism Center.

The DHS suggestions in the document include:

"Don’t use training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. Examples (from the report “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace”) of unsubstantiated theories include:

a. Many mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties.

b. Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations whose true desire is to establish Sharia law in America. Muslim Americans are using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law."

The “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace” report cited depicts concerns about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood as the fabrications of anti-Muslim bigots. Moreover, it defends the Brotherhood, saying it is a moderate group that wouldn’t use front groups in America.

The Federal Government Itself Provides Evidence to the Contrary

In reality, solid evidence exists to the contrary – evidence ironically from the federal government’s own determinations as well as documents from the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood itself including a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood explanatory memorandum that explicitly states: “[O]ur work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

The Brotherhood memorandum lists “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The list includes “mainstream” Muslim-American groups—the very same groups which appear to have influenced these very same Department of Homeland Security guidelines (see below).

Specifically, the federal government designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. Federal prosecutors labeled these three mainstream groups as U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities in 2007. In 2009, the designations were upheld by District Court Judge Solis because of “ample” evidence linking them to Hamas.

The Clarion Project has broken numerous stories about other Islamist groups doing exactly what the DHS dismisses in the current training document as “unsubstantiated theories.”

For example, a Pennsylvania-based group, Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International (SIIASI), tells Muslims to engage in "litigation jihad" to advance Sharia law in America.

A California-based group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which issues authoritative fatwas, or religious declarations, said in a 2007 Arabic paper presented at one of its conferences it recommends that Muslims become judges and use deception to implement sharia law to the best of their ability. To call their rulings unsettling would be a gross understatement.

These are important facts but the DHS guidelines would leave law enforcement personnel ignorant of them.

[CONTINUE READING FULL ARTICLE HERE] 

Flawed White House Guidelines on Terror Training

Jihad experts decry White House terror training guidelines
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/jihad-experts-decry-white-house-terror-training-guidelines/#ixzz2Tw0RrW9D
2:19 AM 05/20/2013

Neil Munro
White House Correspondent
Experts on Islam and terrorism are decrying the Department of Homeland Security’s recently revealed anti-terrorism training guidelines, which pressure cops to ignore Islamic beliefs when investigating terror crimes.

The Boston bombings demonstrated the impact of such training, Andrew McCarthy, a former New York prosecutor, told The Daily Caller.

“The Boston Marathon was bombed by a jihadist who had been investigated by the FBI … [and was confirmed in 2011 to be] an Islamist, which would have been hard not to do since he does not appear to have made any secret of it,” said McCarthy, who persuaded a New York jury in 1995 to convict “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman for his use of Islamic teaching to spur jihad attacks, including the 1993 attack against the Twin Towers.

But before the bombing, “the FBI closed its file [on Tamerlan Tsarnaev] because it found this did not constitute ‘derogatory information,’” McCarthy said.

McCarthy and other security experts, and even members of the American Islamic community, indicate that a culture of excessive concern for the sensibilities of Muslims supremacists is preventing law enforcement agencies from pursuing jihadists.

The 2011 guidelines unveiled Thursday by The Daily Caller are part of this pattern of deferring to Islamist chauvinism. (Related: Homeland Security guidelines advise deference to pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists)

Under the federal guidelines, “agents are admonished to discount the possibility that an Islamist’s constitutionally protected abhorrence of the United States might possibly lead to violence,” McCarthy told TheDC.

Even if FBI officials had learned about Tsarnaev’s 2012 trip to a part of southern Russia that is embroiled in a jihadi war, they would not have restarted their 2011 investigation, a government official told the Washington Post in April.

“The FBI investigation into the individual in question had been closed six months prior to his departure from the United States and more than a year before his return. …Since there was no derogatory information, there was no reason to suggest that additional action was warranted,” the official said in April.

On his six-month trip, starting in January 2012, Tsarnaev visited several militant Islamic leaders and mosques in Dagestan, where jihadis are fighting the Russian government, according to several U.S. and Russian media sources.

“The fiasco regarding Boston is a prime example” of how bad training degrades security, said Robert Spencer, an authority on Islamic doctrine who is heavily criticized by Islamic groups in the United States. He noted that even though FBI agents had interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the FBI was unable to identify Tsarnaev in crowd photographs taken before and after the bomb strike.

After the attack, FBI officials also did not ask the main mosque in Boston for help in identifying the suspects, said Nichole Mossalam, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of Boston.

“We were the ones who reached out to them … on Friday” once the picture were released, Mossalam told TheDC.

Because of the guidelines, it would be “a ‘profiling’ scandal to show the pictures at the mosque just because it was a bombing with … no other evidence of connection to Muslims,” he said.

The guidelines, titled “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Do’s and Don’ts,” don’t merely promote respect for free expression but actively promote extremist views by telling officials to sideline experts who “venture too deep into the weeds of [Islamic] religious doctrines and history. … [T]hese topics are not necessary in order to understand the [Muslim] community.”

The DHS also actively discourages engagement with moderate Muslims. “Don’t use trainers … who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’ … [or who] equate radical thought [or] religious expressions … with criminal activity,” say the training guidelines.

The guidelines also advise cops, “Don’t use a trainer or training that has received repeated external negative feedback … don’t use training that treats the American Muslim community as a problem rather than as a partner … don’t use training that relies on fear [for example, by citing convictions that show] mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties.”

The training guidelines go so far as to urge federal officials to rely on a political report by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), a Los Angeles, California-based Islamic advocacy group with extensive ties to jihadists and Islamist groups, including the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

[CONTINUE READING THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]

What God says about Marriage

In attempting to redefine marriage the UK Coalition Government is being expressly defiant towards God, as though they know best and God should learn to do what they tell Him rather than doing what He tells them. How arrogant can you get!

If marriage is redefined to incorporate same-sex unions then it weakens the whole institution of marriage as laid down in Scripture, and at the same time it devalues it. This is a time to be telling your political leaders that they should leave things as they are. The electorate are, by and large, extremely angered by the proposals, and this anger will be reflected in the Ballot Box ultimately if this ill-thought out attempt at winning a few extra votes is carried through.

We must remember that God is sovereign, not man. The answer will lie in prayer. The following passage of Scripture says it all:

Matthew Chapter 19: verses 3-5
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (4) And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, (5) and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

Coalition in UK Determined to Destroy the Sanctity of Marriage by Redefining it

Marriage Devastation 

Here in the UK, the House of Commons may be on the verge of devastating marriage by 'redefining it' - a move that would have huge consequences for future generations and change the shape of society.

Now is the time to speak and to pray. In God's grace the Bill could still be defeated.

Next Monday and Tuesday will see the critical Report Stage and Third Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. If voted through it is expected to go to the House of Lords in early June. We face a crucial six weeks.

Please contact your MP (even if you have done so before) urging them to vote no next week and / or to back a referendum on marriage. When MPs hear from their constituents it can make a real difference. If this issue will affect how you vote at the next general election, please say so (especially if it means you won't vote for them).

Here are some points you can use in urging them to vote against the Bill:

• Referendum: People have never been given the opportunity to vote on this. It has big social and constitutional consequences yet it wasn't in any of the major parties' manifestos or the coalition agreement and the consultation was a sham. MPs should back a referendum if there is to be any possibility of change in this area. 

• Deafness: The Government has ignored the many concerns raised by MPs during the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Bill, failing to introduce appropriate amendments or abandon the Bill.

• Hostility: This Bill would destroy a common understanding of marriage and set up two rival understandings of marriage. It's the beginning of hostility rather than the end because people will be penalised despite the protections that the Government claims. 

• Honesty: This Bill pretends that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same when they are not. The problems with trying to define consummation and adultery for same sex couples in the Bill demonstrate this.

• Children: This Bill breaks the link with children (not all married couples have children but all children have a biological mother and father - marriage reflects this reality). God's pattern for marriage and family is the best for adults, children and society.

• Unpopular: A recent ComRes poll shows that this policy is unpopular. Amongst those eligible to vote in this month's local elections, it made: 
• 23% of people less likely to vote Conservative; only 7% of people more likely 
• 17% of people less likely to vote Labour; only 6% of people more likely 
• 23% of people less likely to vote Liberal Democrat; only 4% of people more likely

The flaw in American Policy under the Obama Administration

Last year Act for America put out a series of emails describing the purge of any references to radical Islam in federal government counter-terrorism materials.

This didn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of a conscious and deliberate policy decision at the highest levels of the Obama administration.

Please view the short video below, put out by our friends at EMET.

We now know that Russian authorities wire tapped a phone call between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother, in which they discussed “jihad.” This phone call was part of the reason the Russians alerted the FBI about Tsarnaev.

Had John Brennan, now our CIA director, listened in on this phone call, he almost certainly would have dismissed any concerns about Tsarnaev.

Why? Because Brennan has stated publicly he believes the notion that “jihad” is connected to terrorism is false. Brennan believes “jihad” is a “holy tenet” of Islam, because he claims it refers only to personal improvement.

Or what our friend Dr. Walid Phares calls “Islamic yoga.”

This administration refuses to acknowledge any jihadist ideology behind Islamic terrorism. The short video below is a must-see in this regard.

We can only speculate what might have happened when the FBI investigated Tamerlan Tsarnaev if our counterterrorism strategy included identifying jihadist ideology as a prime motivator of jihadist attacks.

But since the FBI can’t consider jihadist ideology when it does such investigations, it’s no wonder it dropped its investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.