Requiring Employees To Work During Shutdown Violates Law, Lawsuit Charges

/PRNewswire/ -- Ordering federal employees to work during a government shutdown violates the U.S. Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the nation's largest federal employee union.

The American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry are named as defendants.

The lawsuit contends that the Obama administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and Thirteenth Amendment by requiring federal civilian employees to work without pay during a period of lapsed federal appropriations.

"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to work during a shutdown, and there's no guarantee that Congress will keep the administration's promise to pay those employees once the shutdown is over," AFGE National President John Gage said.

Section 1341 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal and D.C. government workers from spending or obligating funds that have not already been appropriated by Congress.

The administration claims that it can require certain employees to work during a shutdown under Section 1342 of Title 31, which includes a clause covering "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."

However, AFGE's lawsuit contends that this section of U.S. Code is not a valid exception to the prohibition on incurring debts during a shutdown because it is not an appropriations law and does not empower federal agencies to force Congress to pay for debts incurred during a shutdown.

"The Constitution requires an appropriation by Congress before federal dollars can be spent, no exceptions," Gage said. "Without an appropriation, the agencies simply can't spend money or incur debts by forcing employees to work."

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 625,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.

-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP

Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department to Obtain All Communications with ACLU Regarding Obama Administration Lawsuit Challenging Arizona's SB 1070

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) for information regarding the DOJ's decision to file a lawsuit against Arizona over the state's tough new illegal immigration law, SB 1070. Judicial Watch seeks documents pertaining to the Obama administration's contacts with third party organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in making the decision to file the lawsuit.

Judicial Watch specifically seeks the following documents through its FOIA request originally filed on June 17, 2010:

Any and all communications between the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), concerning, regarding, or relating to Arizona's "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," also referred to as "Arizona SB 1070."

Judicial Watch also seeks "any and all communications between the Department of Justice and any third parties," related to the SB 1070 lawsuit.

On May 17, 2010, a coalition of "civil rights groups," including the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070. According to the ACLU's press release announcing the lawsuit, this coalition included: "…the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice."

"The American people ought to know if the Obama Justice Department is being run by radical leftist organizations such as the ACLU. I suspect that the Obama Justice Department is making decisions on behalf of its leftist allies, instead of in the public interest," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This is a simple request for information. The Obama administration should stop stonewalling and release these basic documents on its decision to attack Arizona over its get-tough illegal immigration law."

Judicial Watch represents Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, in the Obama administration's lawsuit challenging the Arizona law. Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to access Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit against the Obama Justice Department.

-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP

Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Documents Detailing White House Involvement in Black Panther Case Dismissal

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today announced that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v Department of Justice (CV 10-01606)) against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records related to meetings between Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli and White House officials regarding DOJ's decision to dismiss its voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). Judicial Watch seeks the following documents through its FOIA request sent on January 19, 2010:

"Any and all records of Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli concerning meetings with the White House on the Justice Department's voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. The time frame for this request is from January 20, 2009 to June 15, 2009."

On March 26, 2010, the DOJ informed Judicial Watch that it had conducted a search for documents, but found "no records responsive to your request." Judicial Watch appealed the decision on March 31, 2010, based on "various media accounts in which it was reported that Associate Attorney General Perrelli visited the White House on nine occasions between March 25, 2009, and May 27, 2009, to discuss Defendant's voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party."

The DOJ was required to make a determination on Judicial Watch's appeal within 20 working days, or by May 3, 2010. To date, no such determination has been made.

On September 20, Judicial Watch released a draft Vaughn index from the DOJ pursuant to a separate lawsuit indicating that Perrelli and other top political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss the Black Panther case despite sworn testimony of Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, to the contrary.

The Vaughn index (privilege log) produced to Judicial Watch describes documents that continue to be withheld by the Justice Department. The index details 122 documents (totaling at least 611 pages) that the Obama DOJ is withholding from the public in their entirety. A federal court hearing in the matter is scheduled on October 5, 2010, in Washington, DC, before U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton.

"Why should anyone believe the Justice Department's story regarding these records? We now know Justice officials falsely stated that no political appointees were involved in the Black Panther decision. The Justice Department continues to withhold hundreds of pages of records that could shed light on this scandal. And despite multiple press reports documenting Perrelli's White House meetings, the Justice Department cannot find a single record related to these meetings. We're tired of getting the run-around and that's why we sued," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The DOJ filed its lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party following an incident that took place outside of a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008. A video of the incident, showing a member of the New Black Panther Party brandishing police-style baton weapon, was widely distributed on the Internet. According to multiple witnesses, members of the New Black Panthers blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters and hurled racial epithets. Nonetheless, the DOJ ultimately overruled the recommendations of its own staff and dismissed the majority of its charges.

-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter:  @GAFrontPage

Attorney General Holder, Secretary Salazar Announce Settlement of Cobell Lawsuit on Indian Trust Management

/PRNewswire/ -- Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced a settlement of the long-running and highly contentious Cobell class-action lawsuit regarding the U.S. government's trust management and accounting of over three hundred thousand individual American Indian trust accounts. Also speaking at the press conference today were Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli and Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes.

"Over the past thirteen years, the parties have tried to settle this case many, many times, each time unsuccessfully," said Attorney General Holder. "But today we turn the page. This settlement is fair to the plaintiffs, responsible for the United States, and provides a path forward for the future."

"This is an historic, positive development for Indian country and a major step on the road to reconciliation following years of acrimonious litigation between trust beneficiaries and the United States," Secretary Salazar said. "Resolving this issue has been a top priority of President Obama, and this administration has worked in good faith to reach a settlement that is both honorable and responsible. This historic step will allow Interior to move forward and address the educational, law enforcement, and economic development challenges we face in Indian Country."

Under the negotiated agreement, litigation will end regarding the Department of the Interior's performance of an historical accounting for trust accounts maintained by the United States on behalf of more than 300,000 individual Indians. A fund totaling $1.4 billion will be distributed to class members to compensate them for their historical accounting claims, and to resolve potential claims that prior U.S. officials mismanaged the administration of trust assets.

In addition, in order to address the continued proliferation of thousands of new trust accounts caused by the "fractionation" of land interests through succeeding generations, the settlement establishes a $2 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land interests. The land consolidation program will provide individual Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for divided land interests and free up the land for the benefit of tribal communities.

By reducing the number of individual trust accounts that the U.S. must maintain, the program will greatly reduce on-going administrative expenses and future accounting-related disputes. In order to provide owners with an additional incentive to sell their fractionated interests, the settlement authorizes the Interior Department to set aside up to 5 percent of the value of the interests into a college and vocational school scholarship fund for American Indian students.

The settlement has been negotiated with the involvement of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It will not become final until it is formally endorsed by the court. Also, Congress must enact legislation to authorize implementation of the settlement. Because it is a settlement of a litigation matter, the Judgment Fund maintained by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Treasury will fund the settlement.

"While we have made significant progress in improving and strengthening the management of Indian trust assets, our work is not over," said Salazar, who also announced he is establishing a national commission to evaluate ongoing trust reform efforts and make recommendations for the future management of individual trust account assets in light of a congressional sunset provision for the Office of Special Trustee, which was established by Congress in 1994 to reform financial management of the trust system.

The class action case, which involves several hundred thousand plaintiffs, was filed by Elouise Cobell in 1996 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has included hundreds of motions, dozens of rulings and appeals, and several trials over the past 13 years. The settlement funds will be administered by the trust department of a bank approved by the district court and distributed to individual Indians by a claims administrator in accordance with court orders and the settlement agreement.

Interior currently manages about 56 million acres of Indian trust land, administering more than 100,000 leases and about $3.5 billion in trust funds. For fiscal year 2009, funds from leases, use permits, land sales and income from financial assets, totaling about $298 million were collected for more than 384,000 open Individual Indian Money accounts and $566 million was collected for about 2,700 tribal accounts for more than 250 tribes. Since 1996, the U.S. Government has collected over $10.4 billion from individual and tribal trust assets and disbursed more than $9.5 billion to individual account holders and tribal governments.

The land consolidation fund addresses a legacy of the General Allotment Act of 1887 (the "Dawes Act"), which divided tribal lands into parcels between 40 and 160 acres in size, allotted them to individual Indians and sold off all remaining unallotted Indian lands. As the original holders died, their intestate heirs received an equal, undivided interest in the lands as tenants in common. In successive generations, smaller undivided interests descended to the next generation.

Today, it is common to have hundreds -- even thousands -- of Indian owners for one parcel of land. Such highly fractionated ownership makes it extremely difficult to use the land productively or to provide beneficial use for any individual. Absent serious corrective action, an estimated 4 million acres of land will continue to be held in such small ownership interests that very few individual owners will ever derive any meaningful financial benefit from that ownership.

Additional Information is available at the following sites: www.cobellsettlement.com. The Department of the Interior website: www.doi.gov. The Office of the Special Trustee website: www.ost.doi.gov.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Planned Parenthood and ACLU Obstruct People's Rights with Lawsuit against Personhood Nevada

/Standard Newswire/ -- Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have filed a lawsuit against the sponsors of a Nevada ballot initiative defining the term "person."

The simple, one-sentence amendment states, "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being."

Blogger Emmily Bristol, the woman participating in the lawsuit, seems to admit on her blog that the measure is easy to understand. She claims, "It is designed to leave voters scratching their heads and saying, 'Well, duh, a person is a person.' "

"Exactly," answered Keith Mason of Personhood USA. "It's simple, easy to understand, and if even the folks behind the lawsuit can see that it's that simple, the voters shouldn't have any trouble. Every human being is a person. Period."

"Children in the womb today have fewer rights than dogs or cats," continued Mason. "Planned
Parenthood, the ACLU, and Emmily Bristol are seeking to keep it that way."

Nevada's personhood amendment was filed on October 21, 2009. An amendment much like this one was introduced in Colorado and was found to be a single-subject issue. In 2007, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU teamed up to try to defeat the Colorado Personhood Amendment, but failed even up to the Colorado Supreme Court.

"This is clearly a single subject issue, easy to understand, and simply recognizes the rights of every human being," stated Keith Mason, of Personhood USA. "Planned Parenthood's lawsuit is not only stifling the people's right to a ballot initiative, but it appears desperate. Once personhood is properly recognized, Planned Parenthood stands to lose over a billion dollars in annual profit."

"This is now the third time that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have ganged up to silence the voice of the people, and their right to ballot initiatives," concluded Mason. "In Colorado, they failed. They are trying to silence us, and to keep the vote away from the people. The citizens have a right to ballot initiatives, and human beings have a right to live."

Personhood USA is a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts
across America to create protection for every child by love and by law. Personhood USA is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through raising awareness of the personhood of the pre-born.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Massachusetts Becomes First State to Challenge Legality of DOMA

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v United States

This past July, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA). While there have been several legal challenges against DOMA, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v United States is the first suit filed by a state.

The lawsuit specifically alleges that the federal definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional and that DOMA has interfered with the state's "sovereign authority" to define and regulate marriage. The complaint also alleges that DOMA has resulted in a denial of rights and benefits to same-sex couples in Massachusetts, including employment and retirement benefits, social security payments and health insurance coverage.

Massachusetts became the first state to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry in 2004. Since that time, the state has granted approximately 16,000 same-sex marriages.

Currently, only three other states recognize and grant same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. New Hampshire will begin recognizing and granting same-sex marriages in January 2010. Maine may soon join the group as well, depending on the outcome of a November vote. New York and Washington, D.C. also recognize same-sex marriages from other states, but at present do not grant them.

The Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA)

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. The Act served two purposes:

-- It provided a legal definition of "marriage" under federal laws as a union between one man and one woman and defined "spouse" as a husband or wife of the opposite sex

-- It provided that states did not have to give recognition to same-sex marriages granted by other states

DOMA was introduced into Congress following a 1993 decision by Hawaii's Supreme Court that held the state's decision to ban same-sex marriages might be a violation of the Hawaiian Constitution. Other states feared that if Hawaii legalized same-sex marriages, they would be forced to recognize those marriages in their own states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to give "credit" to the laws and judicial decisions of other states. For example, the federal government has held that this clause requires states to enforce protection orders and support orders issued by other states.

There also was a fear that if same-sex marriages became legalized in one state, other states and the federal government would have to provide the same type of protections and benefits to same-sex spouses as they currently do to traditional married couples, including Social Security benefits and income tax credits.

In order to prevent these outcomes from occurring, DOMA was quickly pushed through Congress and signed into federal law. Following the law's passage, many states adopted "mini DOMAs" that defined marriage as between a man and woman and explicitly stated that the state would not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Currently, 37 states have mini DOMA laws in place.

Challenges to DOMA

The Massachusetts lawsuit against the federal government is only the first of many recent attacks on DOMA. In fact, the constitutionality of DOMA has been questioned since its passage. The law has been attacked as a denial of equal protection and due process rights under the federal and state constitutions. It has been argued that the federal government does not have a rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples and that the distinction between same-sex and heterosexual couples is arbitrary and discriminatory.

DOMA also has been attacked as an invasion of state rights by the federal government. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution leaves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the state governments. Traditionally, this has included legal decisions regarding family law issues and eligibility for federal entitlement benefits.

In February 2009, a 9th Circuit judge ruled that DOMA's prohibition of federal recognition of same-sex spouses legally married under state law was unconstitutional. In the Matter of Brad Levenson, the federal appellate court ruled that a court employee's same-sex spouse was entitled to be a named beneficiary on the employee's health insurance and other benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA).

In addition to the 9th Circuit case, there was another case filed in California challenging Section 2 of the Act, which permits states to disregard same-sex marriages granted by other states. In Smelt v United States, same-sex couple Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer argued that their marriage should be recognized in other states. Their case was dismissed in August due to a filing error, but is likely to be re-filed in federal court.

There is also another case out of Massachusetts challenging the federal definition of marriage under DOMA. Gill v Office of Personnel Management et al was filed last March and the government's response to the case is expected in mid to late September.

The federal government's reply to the criticisms and legal challenges against DOMA has been mixed. President Obama has long been critical of the federal law, but the Department of Justice has continued to defend any legal challenges against the Act. Some political commentators believe that the only way DOMA can be reversed is through the court system because of the potential political implications for any president who took direct action to repeal the federal law.

Whether or not Massachusetts' current challenge to DOMA will be successful has yet to be seen. Regardless of the outcome, it is unlikely that the legal challenges against DOMA will stop anytime soon.

Article provided by David M. Gabriel & Associates

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit against HUD to Obtain ACORN Documents Seeks Records Related to HUD's Taxpayer Support

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit against HUD to Obtain ACORN Documents
Seeks Records Related to HUD's Taxpayer Support of Controversial Community Organization


/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain records related to federal grants provided to the controversial "community organization" Association for Community Reform Now (ACORN).

Judicial Watch filed its original Freedom of Information Act request on July 17. HUD acknowledged receipt of the request by letter on August 4th and granted itself additional time to process the request. However, HUD has not abided by its own extended deadline and has failed to provide Judicial Watch with a specific date by which it would respond, even after Judicial Watch agreed to limit the scope of the request to just seven states. (These states are California, Texas, Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Louisiana.) By law, HUD had 20 days to respond to Judicial Watch's request. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit on September 23, 2009.

Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

1. Any and all documents concerning money given to the ACORN and/or any of its affiliates (since January, 2000).

2. Any and all documents concerning any actions and/or disbarments against ACORN, for reasons including but not limited to abuse of grant money, misconduct, etc. (since January, 2000).

Over the last two weeks, the U.S. Senate has voted to deny ACORN access to housing funds, while the House of Representatives voted to deny ACORN all federal funds. The U.S. Census Bureau, meanwhile, has severed its partnership with the organization for the 2010 U.S. Census. The IRS also just severed a program relationship with ACORN. These actions were taken after videos surfaced depicting ACORN workers attempting to advise undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration and child prostitution laws. Most relevant to the lawsuit against HUD, are the videos depicting ACORN workers providing advice on purchasing a house to run as a brothel for underage, illegal alien girls.

"The Obama administration needs to come clean to the American people about its relationship with this disgraced organization, especially in light of President Obama's personal connections to ACORN," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Given ACORN's scandalous record, the federal government has no business supporting the organization with taxpayer dollars. It is troubling, given President Obama's promises of transparency, we have had to sue to try to gain access to the ACORN documents."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

President Barack Obama Signs Legislation to Establish Anniversary of 9/11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- President Barack Obama today signed into law the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which for the first time includes federal authorization to establish September 11 as an annually recognized National Day of Service and Remembrance.

"Today President Barack Obama created a historic, enduring and compassionate legacy that truly honors the 9/11 victims and their families, first responders and rescue and recovery workers, the soldiers who have take up arms to defend our freedom and safety, and the many volunteers who spontaneously contributed their efforts in the immediate aftermath of 9/11," said David Paine, founder and president of MyGoodDeed.org, the nonprofit group that led a seven-year campaign to formally establish 9/11 as an annually recognized day of service and remembrance. "There isn't a better or more fitting way to remember 9/11 than for all of us as Americans to voluntarily set aside time on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks to help others in need."

"As a 9/11 family member, I cannot think of more inspiring, appropriate and constructive tribute to my late brother and all those who perished, were injured or rose in service - to rekindle at least for one day each year the remarkable spirit of compassion and service that unified our country," said MyGoodDeed.org co-founder and vice president Jay S. Winuk, whose younger brother Glenn J. Winuk, an attorney, volunteer firefighter and EMT, died in the line of duty in the collapse of the World Trade Center. "This groundbreaking national service legislation will greatly benefit the nation in so many meaningful ways as we face these challenging times."

Paine and Winuk were among a select group of service sector leaders, government officials and other dignitaries who attended today's ceremony at the SEED School in Washington, D.C. to witness President Obama signing into law the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.

A New Catalyst for Volunteerism

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and U. S. Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island) both worked closely with the sponsors of the Serve America Act in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to draft and include language to establish 9/11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance.

"I could not be more proud to work to pass this important provision," said U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who joined with U.S. Representative Peter King (R-Long Island) in first proposing to Congress back in 2004 that 9/11 should be designated a national day of service. "September 11 should not only be a day for mourning - it should be a day to think about our neighbors, our community and our country. We can take a tragic day in our nation's history and turn it into a force for good."

"I have been active in seeking a service day for years," said Rep. King. "America came together in the aftermath of 9/11, reminding us what it truly means to be part of this great nation. By making 9/11 a national day of service, that same spirit of giving will continue in a day of remembrance, unity and selflessness."

"We greatly appreciate Senator Schumer's, Congressman King's and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's tireless dedication to this cause, as well as the support we received from Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Representatives George Miller (D-Calif.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-Calif.) and Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), all of whom joined together to include the 9/11 Day of Service in this important national service legislation," Winuk said.

Under the new law, the anniversary of 9/11 would be observed annually in ways somewhat similar to Martin Luther King Jr. Day, although it intentionally will not be a federal holiday. "We do not wish to see it ever become a state or federally designated day off," said Paine. "Instead, we hope that individuals, businesses and organizations will be inspired on their own to voluntarily engage in community service, perform good deeds of any nature, and participate in other private and organized activities in remembrance of the events of 9/11."

To support this observance, the new legislation authorizes the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees federal national service programs, to make grants and provide other assistance to community nonprofits and other groups that want to organize 9/11 service and remembrance activities.

"Our hope is to organize the single largest day of service in U.S. history on the 10th anniversary of 9/11," said Paine, referring to September 11, 2011, just two and a half years away. "Though millions of people already support the MyGoodDeed.org initiative by engaging in charitable service each 9/11, we realize it will take some time to build widespread awareness of this formal observance. We are very are confident, however, that the 9/11 National Day of Service and Remembrance will ultimately play a very significant role in energizing volunteerism in America, while also bringing a sense of national healing to one of the worst human tragedies in U.S. history."

MyGoodDeed.org is a 501c(3) charitable organization based in New York. Each year MyGoodDeed.org organizes activities that encourage individuals and organizations to set aside time on the anniversary of 9/11 to perform simple acts of good deeds and service that help others in need. Since the initiative began as a grassroots movement, more than one million people have visited the MyGoodDeed.org Web site, from all 50 states and 170 countries, with many posting their plans to perform good deeds and service projects on 9/11.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

DPIC: New Mexico's Legislature Votes to Abolish Death Penalty - Part of National Trend Away from Capital Punishment

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The New Mexico Senate today joined the House in voting to replace the state's death penalty with the sentence of life without parole. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has indicated he is open to signing the bill. If signed into law, New Mexico would become the 15th state to abandon capital punishment and the 3rd in the last 2 years.

Murder victims' families were among the strongest advocates of the repeal bill. Cathy Ansheles of Santa Fe and a member of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, reacted to the bill's passage, "It's a great relief to know that families will no longer be put through the turmoil of the death penalty. Finally, resources can be directed to where they will really do the most good."

Representative Gail Chasey, the bill's sponsor, said the death penalty offered "false hope for victims." She told fellow legislators about former New Mexico police officer Maurice Moya, who spoke against the death penalty after tragically losing his daughter-in-law in 2006. Moya said he knew the death penalty did not work and would not bring "closure to his family." Representative Eleanor Chavez testified that when her cousin was murdered, "nobody in my family wanted the death penalty for that person."

The high costs of the death penalty were also cited as a reason for repeal. Rep. Chasey said, "People will say we can't put a price on justice, but in fact, we do put a price on justice when we are not able to give our district attorneys, our police departments, our attorney general the funding they need." Supporters of the measure are encouraging New Mexico's lawmakers to use the savings gained from ending the death penalty to provide reparation to children of murder victims and other services for families. A statewide poll in 2008 showed that 64% of New Mexicans supported replacing the death penalty with life without parole and restitution to victims' families.

Many legislators were concerned about the possibility of executing the innocent. Nationally, 130 people have been exonerated and freed from death row since 1973, including four from New Mexico.

There are other signs that the country is moving away from the death penalty:

-- New Jersey's legislature voted to abolish the death penalty in 2007.
-- New York's death penalty law was declared unconstitutional in 2004.
Since then the legislature has repeatedly rejected all attempts to
reinstate capital punishment.
-- Death sentences in the United States have dropped by 60% since 1999.
Even in Texas, death sentences have declined significantly during the
past decade.
-- Last year, there were 37 executions, the lowest in 14 years; 95% of
them were in the South.


"This vote demonstrates the growing concerns that the public has about the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "The problems of the death penalty are not unique to New Mexico. Widespread frustration with capital punishment has led to a sharp decline in its use."

Facing tough choices on how to save money, other states are considering death penalty repeal. Republican state Senator Carolyn McGinn sponsored Kansas' bill to end the death penalty, urging fellow legislators to ask "whether the death penalty is worth the higher costs," given that no execution has been carried out there in 40 years. Colorado has introduced a similar repeal bill based on cost, which allocates all of the savings gained by repealing the death penalty toward solving its backlog of cold cases.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Attempt To Overturn Nader Ballot Access Case

/PRNewswire/ -- In a significant move for open-election laws, the U.S. Supreme Court today rejected an attempt to overturn a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the state of Arizona could not require independent presidential candidates to register earlier than candidates affiliated with major political parties.

Arizona's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court had been closely watched after 13 other states supported Arizona's bid to have the High Court hear the case. The federal civil rights case, originally filed in Arizona federal district court, stems from Nader's 2004 presidency bid.

Ralph Nader had challenged the deadline, contending it violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and political association. Lead Attorney Robert Barnes of the Bernhoft Law Firm represented Nader before the Ninth Circuit, which overturned the district court and unanimously declared the Arizona law unconstitutional. Nader's Bernhoft Law legal team successfully argued that requiring independent candidates to register by June was unfair when the two major political parties did not hold their conventions until the fall.

"By letting that decision stand, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that American democracy hinges on giving people a voice and a choice," says Robert Bernhoft, founding partner of Bernhoft Law. "Today's decision is not only a victory for Ralph Nader, but a seminal victory for all who care about free speech, free and open elections, and a more participatory democracy."

In addition to the earlier deadline for independent candidates, the Arizona law also required that petition circulators be registered to vote in the state. "What makes this case unusually significant is that it involved two distinct, important issues, and liberalized ballot access prevailed on both," says Richard Winger, editor of the influential Ballot Access News. Winger also noted that this development could have "immediate repercussions," since ballot access cases are currently pending in 15 other states.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Treasury Secretary to Stop AIG Bailout Financing of Terrorist Activities

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A federal lawsuit was filed December 15 against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. ("AIG"). According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.

The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."

Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country - even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.

The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105101) and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it."

On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against "infidels," attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray - a U.S. Marine - was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.

Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."

In further support of the federal government's endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled "Islamic Financing 101" (http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/-AnnouncementonIslamicFinan ce.pdf) to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.

"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."

The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.

According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.

An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other "infidels" under Islamic law

Continued Thompson, "This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 - whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad."

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.

The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center's attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page