Where Liberty Dwells, there is My Country

On Wednesday, July 4th, our nation marks it’s 236th birthday. There will be picnics, parades and fireworks. Sadly, only a small percentage of Americans will understand the vision of our founding fathers for freedom the price they paid to achieve it and the alarming rate at which those freedoms have been eroding.

Prior to the Declaration of Independence July 4th, 1776, the tyranny of King George was increasingly oppressive to the people of the American colonies, The colonists were an unorganized mixture of peoples, divided along socio-economic and religious lines. What brought them together? How did they come to understand the principles of a free people? What fanned the flames of revolution? Our historic documents make it clear that the British feared “the black robed regiment” more than any other. This “regiment” was the clergy, who thundered from their pulpits against the oppression of the British Crown, set forth the principles of freedom and called the people to take a stand!

When the British set out from Boston Harbor toward Lexington and Paul Revere made his famous ride crying, “The British are coming!” his destination was the home where Samuel Adams and John Hancock were staying. They were at the home of Jonas Clarke, one of the pastors who had mobilized his church for this hour. The Battle of Lexington took place in the shadow of the Church Meetinghouse and it was the pastor, Jonas Clarke, who had been the primary advocate for raising the militia that engaged the British regulars that fateful morning. The town’s resolve to create the militia resounds with the voice of Pastor Clarke: “We shall be ready to sacrifice our estates and everything dear in life, yea and life itself, in support of the common cause.” His church members proved those words on the morning of April 19,  and the Pastor performed funerals for eight who were killed that day.

The founding fathers felt so strongly about the voice of the church that they crafted the First Amendment to restrict the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion! They exempted churches from taxation, because they knew that what the government taxed, they government could control, and they did not want the voice of the church to be controlled by the state. They knew the preservation of a free people depended on the freedom of religion to speak into the life of the nation!

Over the past several decades, most churches across America have gone silent on issues that are debated as public policy or that are embraced by political candidates. Why? Back in 1954, Congressman Lyndon Johnson was engaged in a tight race for a House seat. There were two non-profit organizations backing his opponent. With the connections he had in the House of Representatives, Johnson was able to get a law passed banning non-profit organizations from speaking out in regard to an election! He later said it never occurred to him that churches would be included in this. But the internal Revenue Service, ever since, has threatened churches with the loss of their tax exempt status if they dare to speak out about the Biblical counsel regarding issues or candidates involved in elections. This muzzling of the church by the state is an outrage. It’s also, experts believe, unconstitutional. It is of interest to note, the Black Church in America is not hindered by this improper interpretation of separation of church and state.

The Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund have taken up this fight. In recent years, they’ve recruited churches to take a stand and, on “Freedom Sunday,” to speak God’s truth from Scripture on issues relevant to the current political situation, so that God’s people may know what He says about these things. Beginning with 33 churches 5 years ago, there were over 500 churches who did so last year. Now the IRS has gone silent. ADF is waiting for the IRS to challenge a church’s right to freely preach God’s Word and stands ready to take the case, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Here’s what we must understand. God gave us freedoms in this country through the courage and sacrifice of patriots. There are those who want to take these freedoms away and, once they’re one, they are gone. Each generation must have the courage to stand and fight for those freedoms, so that the Church may continue to proclaim the truth of God’s Word. By God’s grace, we will do so. Pray for churches of America to wake up and speak up, so that God’s people may know what He says about faith, morality and freedom!

In November we face the most critical election of our time. Let us be informed with knowledge, faith, and then speak with clarity and vote with conviction.

Obamacare Is NOT Constitutional

There is a serious difference between what is deemed legal and what is constitutional.


Obamacare is not constitutional. As a consequence of the court’s ruling, Americans … whether they want it or not, will be complelled to purchase a product – health insurance – or pay a penalty. For those who refuse to bend to the “law,” their plight will be serious fines or even imprisionment.

The American people can correct the Supreme Court’s mistake.
By US Senator Rand Paul  June 28, 2012

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Supreme Court wrongly concluded that Obamacare can stand. But just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. Millions of Americans simply won’t accept it and will act to help overhaul it.

The majority held that this penalty, for constitutional purposes, is also a tax. The dissenting justices concluded that the majority, by its actions today, rewrote what Congress actually intended when it enacted the law: “For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.” The dissent then immediately cited the Stamp Act of 1765.

The Stamp Act was a direct tax imposed on the colonies by King George III. This act inevitably led to the American Revolution.

Just as the Stamp Act did in 1765, Obamacare should act as a wake-up call.

Chief Justice Roberts provides us with a similar call to action in his opinion, which states:
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Political observers have described the 2010 Tea Party wave as an extraordinary assemblage of liberty-minded Americans who rallied around the Constitution in order to reclaim their country. One of the galvanizing forces was the passage of Obamacare — the national government’s takeover of our health care. Millions of Americans were enraged by this and other aspects of the Obama administration’s destructive political agenda, and they were sick and tired of their representatives’ failure to do anything to stop it.

The 2010 wave election was a direct consequence of Obama’s unconstitutional ideals and czar-like power. And now, with the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare, it is my belief that the American people will be motivated to reorder our political priorities as they did in 2010.

Obamacare exists because Obama is in the White House. This decision is a direct consequence of the American people’s political decisions. And much like Obama himself, Obamacare was deceptively sold to the American people.

In 2009, President Obama firmly stated that the individual mandate was not a tax. Here are his exact words: “For us [the government] to say that you [the American people] must take personal responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” After the ruling, Nancy Pelosi was asked if these reforms were a tax. Her response: “Call it what you will — it is a step forward for American families.”

Obamacare has caused up to 20 million Americans to lose their health-insurance policies.

And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health-care-reform law will destroy 800,000 jobs.

An analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation from November 2009 shows that in 2016, three-quarters of the tax imposed by the individual mandate will fall on those making less than $120,000 of income for a family of four or $59,000 for an individual.

Families of four making $72,000 or less and individuals making $35,400 or less will bear nearly half of the mandate tax.

This is a direct tax on the middle class. It is clear that through its proposed $500 billion in tax increases, the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and the individual mandates and regulations, Obamacare will swiftly harm our country.

It is erroneous for Leader Pelosi to even attempt to claim that Obamacare is a step forward for Americans. The administration sold the bill to the American people under false pretenses, and now the middle class will suffer.

Although the Supreme Court declared that the individual mandate should be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, there was a minor victory for the Commerce Clause in that the Court did hold that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This minor victory is not much of a comfort, however, because this ruling essentially grants the federal government the right to legally tax our every breath. And tax they will.

Today the Supreme Court — the ruling body that our Founding Fathers created to protect citizens from tyranny — decided to uphold Obamacare and thus stripped Americans of their personal liberties and freedoms. We have heard the Court’s opinion loud and clear, but now it’s time for them to hear us. It is up to us to reclaim our constitutional rights. It is up to the American people to end President Obama’s political agenda. Obamacare is wrong for Americans and it will destroy our health-care system. This now means that we must fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new president and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.

Obamacare Is Not Constitutional The American People can correct the Supreme Court’s Mistake. By US Senator Rand Paul … June 30, 2012


Valerie Jarrett makes unreported remarks in meeting with media

President Obama’s top aide, Valerie Jarrett, reportedly boasted to the black community that the administration sharply reduced the sentencing disparity for possession of crack cocaine instead of powder.

Jarrett made the remarks at a meeting of black journalists and columnists last weekend clearly aimed at Obama’s re-election efforts. Mainstream media outlets covering the event did not report on her comments regarding crack cocaine.

Ads by Google Indio Drug Defense Lawyer We Fight Drug Charges. Free Consult with Attorney. Call – 760-922-5051 www.californiacriminalattorney.us On Saturday, Jarrett engaged in a wide-ranging interview session with a group of journalists at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in New Orleans.

The Root, a website owned by the Washington Post aimed at the black community, reprinted a blog report by the Maynard Institute’s Richard Prince on Jarrett’s appearance at the convention.

Prince reported that at the meeting Jarrett outlined “what she considered the Obama administration’s successes.”

Continued Prince: “Among them funding for historically black colleges and universities; health care reform, which she said will disproportionately help African-Americans; and reducing disparities between penalties for possession of crack and for powdered cocaine.”

DeWayne Wickham, a writer for USA Today, reported on the event for the Coshocton Tribune.

He wrote Jarrett touted the sentence reduction for crack-cocaine disparity as a way to build a broad Obama re-election coalition, including African-Americans.

“To do this, Obama supporters need to unabashedly trumpet what the president has done for blacks – such as increased funding for education, universal health care and a sharp reduction in the sentencing disparity for possession of crack cocaine instead of powder, all things that Jarrett said have disproportionately benefited them.”

Jarrett’s cocaine remarks were not covered in the few mainstream media reports on the New Orleans event.

Even though the Washington Post-owned Root website reposted Prince’s blog mentioning the comments, the Post’s own article on the event did not touch on the subject. That article was titled “Obama has ‘genuine love for black community,’ senior adviser says.”

Politico covered the event by reporting Jarrett complained that public outbursts against Obama reflect the “coarseness” of society.

Jarrett’s crack cocaine boast was a reference to the Fair Sentencing Act, signed into law by Obama in August 2010. The law eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of crack cocaine and reduced the disparity between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to trigger federal criminal penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to 18:1.

The law essentially eased the penalties for those in possession of crack cocaine. In the decades prior to passage of the law, those arrested for possessing crack cocaine faced much more severe penalties than those arrested for possessing powder cocaine.

Some liberal commentators and nonprofit groups argued the disparity between the drug offenses was racially biased.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Fair Sentencing Act would reduce the prison population by 1,550 per year.

Obama himself has admitted to using cocaine and marijuana in high school and college. One of his first executive pardons as president was for a man convicted for crack cocaine.

With additional reporting by Brenda J. Elliott
A WND Exclusive

The OTHER Eric Holder Scandal

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is in the spotlight after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold him in contempt because he is refusing to provide documents related to the Fast and the Furious scandal. But there’s another scandal you should know about. For over one year, he has refused to hand over documents about the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, confronted Holder about the matter on Thursday, June 21. Rep. Gohmert wants Congress to have access to documents from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. Five Foundation officials were found guilty of funding Hamas and evidence introduced by the federal government shows it was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee” in the U.S.

Three prominent Muslim-American organizations were labeled by the federal government as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial-the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The documents requested by Rep. Gohmert for the past year were provided to the Holy Land Foundation’s defense team, yet are being denied to Congress.

“They are terrorists, and we wanted the documents you gave to the terrorists. We are a year later, and we still don’t have them,” complained Rep. Gohmert. Holder replied that he’d only provide what is already available publicly.

Rep. Gohmert is one of five members of Congress requesting investigations into the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations and individuals in the U.S. government. As I reviewed here, this influence is far-reaching. It is very possible that the documents from the Holy Land trial would be embarrassing to many government officials, not to mention businesses and interfaith groups that have embraced Brotherhood entities. At the very least, they could provide further justification for the labeling of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as “unindicted co-conspirators.”

The documents were originally requested on April 27, 2011 after reporter Patrick Poole broke the blockbuster story at Pajamas Media that Justice Department political appointees blocked the prosecution of one CAIR co-founder and, according to his high-level Justice Department source, other groups and individuals listed as “unindicted co-conspirators.”

Poole learned that Assistant Attorney General David Kris wrote a memo dated March 31, 2010 titled, “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad,” an individual who was present at a Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 to discuss how to support Hamas. The idea to create a new group was put forward at this meeting and Ahmad co-founded CAIR the next year. Ahmad was also personally listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. The given reason to drop the prosecution was potential jury nullification but the source is certain that it was a political decision.

According to Poole’s source, “It was always the plan to initially go after the [HLF] leaders first and then go after the rest of the accomplices in a second round of prosecutions.” The original trial resulted in a mistrial, pushing back the planned prosecutions. The Obama Administration then came into office and they were stopped.

After the report broke, the Administration claimed that its predecessor had decided not to indict CAIR in 2004. Poole explains that this is true but it was because “They decided to get the bigger fish after they convicted the smaller fish.” Rep. Peter King confirmed that FBI officials and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Texas, which prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation, were ready to begin the second round of prosecutions and were outraged at how the political appointees stopped them.

Congressional sources later told Poole that Assistant Attorney General David Kris also dropped the prosecution of several officials involved with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood front, and the SAAR Foundation/SAFA Group, which has disbanded since the federal government raided their offices. They were to be prosecuted on charges related to tax evasion and money laundering because Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader in the U.S., refused to testify and reveal their terrorist connections.

Poole reported that one of these protected officials is Jamal Barzinji. In October 2011, former Virginia Governor and current Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine spoke at an event honoring Barzinji. His ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are very well-documented. FBI documents all the way back from 1987-1988 identify him as a Brotherhood operative. He is also a founder of the radicalDar al-Hijrah mosque, which Treasury Department records say “is a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in the U.S.”

Rep. Gohmert slammed Holder for not prosecuting these groups and individuals when there is a “mountain of evidence” against them. He further revealed that “at least one of which now says it is working inside your [Holder’s] agency to help advise on the purge of counter-terrorism training materials.”

The role of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has already been discovered. MPAC was founded by Brotherhood ideologues and works in tandem with the aforementioned groups, but was not labeled as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. Rep. Gohmert was apparently referring to CAIR, ISNA or NAIT.

On February 8, ISNA was part of an interfaith group that met with the FBI Director about the training materials. A FBI spokesperson said the agency would consider a proposal from the group to create a committee to review the materials. More recently, the White House’s new Director for Community Partnerships, George Selim, said that “There is [sic] hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues.”

Fast and the Furious isn’t the only controversy Holder is refusing to show documents about, but it’s probably the only one you’re hearing about.

This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Ryan Mauro is Family Security Matters’ national security analyst. He is a fellow with RadicalIslam.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com.

Religious Freedom Threatened – It Can Happen Here

These people are militant, see what’s at the end of their rainbows!

On June 26, Eric Metaxas posted a very thoughtful article in his Breakpoint. His carefully crafted article helps Christians understand the real issue of same-sex marriage. He helps us see the issue is no longer simply marriage for those of the same sex, but rather their insistence in forcing those of faith against their convictions while at the same time trampling our second amendment freedom. It is no different than the Obama Administration in its endeavor to force the Catholic Church to violate her own principles and convictions. Here is Metaxas article:

Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex “marriage.” “How does our marriage hurt you?” they ask.

Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.

The handwriting is on the wall in Canada, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, in effect completely changing its true meaning. Since then, as Michael Coren notes in National Review Online, “there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings … against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” Of course he means legal proceedings.

For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.

Canadian churches are also under attack. Coren writes that when Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, sent a letter to churches explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was “charged with a human-rights violation” and “threatened with litigation.”

Churches with theological objections to performing same-sex “wedding” ceremonies are being threatened with the loss of their tax-free status. In British Columbia, the Knights of Columbus agreed to rent its building for a wedding reception before finding out that the couple was lesbian. When they did find out, they apologized to the women and agreed to both find an alternative venue and pay the costs for printing new invitations: But that wasn’t good enough. The women prosecuted, and the Human Rights Commission ordered the Knights of Columbus to pay a fine.

Of course, the lesbians knew perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but they sought out a Catholic-owned building, anyway. As Michael Coren puts it, “it’s becoming obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents”—precedents intended to silence and punish anyone who dares to disagree with so-called gay “marriage.”

If you think this couldn’t happen here, think again. This year we’ve seen ObamaCare attack the autonomy of Catholic churches by attempting to force them, in violation of Catholic teaching, to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for church employees. And just last week, a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital in New York sued the hospital for denying her partner spousal health benefits.

This is what we need to tell our neighbors when they ask us, “How does gay ‘marriage’ hurt us?” It means that those hostile to our beliefs will attempt to bend us to their will to force us to not only accept gay “marriage,” but to condone it as well.

This is why I urge you to join the half-million Christians who have signed the Manhattan Declaration. Please sign it yourself by going to manhattandeclaration.org

You and I must demonstrate love to our gay neighbors, of course, remembering that we are ultimately engaged in spiritual warfare. But we should boldly stand up when our rights as citizens and the demands of our rights as citizens, and the demands of our faith.

America being Raped by Her Leaders

Hillary Tied to New Muslim Brotherhood President. Since the defrocked Anthony Weiner, we have known that radical links have run through secretary of state chief of staff (Hillary Clinton).

Saleha Mahmood Abedin, the mother of Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, reportedly served in the women’s division of the Muslim Brotherhood alongside the wife of Egypt’s new president, the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi.

The connection between Anthony Weiner and Clinton is interesting to say the least. Clinton’s chief of staff is Weiner’s wife and clearly her mother, is a prime mover in what is the equivalent for Muslim women as the Muslim Brotherhood. When you read the rest of this post you will intelligently ask the question, “how can our Secretary of State employ individuals with family members who are embedded in the Muslim Brotherhood and Sisterhood?” Is it reasonable to wonder if inforamtion at the highest level could possible fall into the hands of those who seek our demise?

Go to the following link to the following link to understand just how desperate is our plight

Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood President

Putin Arrives in Israel: Why is he there?

(Washington, D.C., June 25, 2012) — The new Czar of Russia arrived in Israel on Monday morning for a two day trip to the epicenter. The question is: Why is Vladimir Putin there?

Putin refused to come to the U.S. last month for the G-8 summit, yet he decided to visit Israel. Remarkably, Putin is the only Russian leader in history to visit the Jewish state. He first visited seven years ago. His second visit comes at a time when Russia’s alliance with Iran, Syria and other Islamic countries is both troubling and growing. Russia is selling billions of dollars worth of arms to Islamic countries, is sending naval forces at the moment to Syria, and has sold billions of dollars worth of nuclear technology to Iran. Yet at the moment Putin seems determined to show a friendly face to the Israelis. On Tuesday, I hope to post analysis and some insights both into why Putin might have chosen to visit Israel again, and how it all might relate to the prophecies of Ezekiel 38-39 concerning the prophetic “last days” alliance between Russia and Iran against Israel. But for now, here’s a quick snapshot of what’s happening on the Putin visit….[see the rest of this column on the blog]

Obama calls to congratulate Morsy, the New President of Egypt

Morsy was elected by  the people, or was he? Morsy is an absolute disaster, an Islamic Radical who poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and to the people of Egypt, especially the Christians of which there are about 2.5 million in Egypt. Here’s what Mohamed Morsy said at a speech at Cairo University in May: “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.” According to a Russian news service, Morsy also said, “Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia. The Muslim Brothers and the Freedom and Justice Party will be the conductors of these goals.” Those quotes ought to provide insight into just how dangerous Morsy and the Muslim Brotherhood really are. Yet today, President Obama called Morsy and congratulated him on his victory.

To read this story in its entirity, go to : http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/

Conservatives for Shariah – Is this Believable?

Jun 18, 2012
by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

“The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right’s most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online. The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman … caricatured the “bogus” threat of “creeping shariah” as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.”

Steve Chapman

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has caused many Americans to reflect on that group’s stated ambition to impose worldwide the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah. Particularly unsettling is evidence of the group’s goal in America, namely of “destroying Western civilization from within,” as documented in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2008.

But for some prominent conservatives, such facts are not just inconvenient. They – and any who point them out – must be denied, ignored or suppressed.

The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right’s most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online. The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman (http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2012/06/10/the_bogus_threat_from_shariah_law/page/2). He was joined on June 13 by Matthew Schmitz in NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/302280). Both caricatured the “bogus” threat of “creeping shariah” as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.

Schmitz went further, wrongly describing shariah as “not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural, and ethical understandings.” In fact, shariah as practiced by mainstream Islam is, indeed, one very rigid legal system that has simply been enforced to varying degrees around the Muslim world. Its Brotherhood and other adherents are now aggressively seeking to impose conformity with all of its tenets in Egypt, in Iraq, in Indonesia and, in due course, here. Schmitz even went so far as to describe those determined to resist that last prospect as “anti-Muslim bigots” who are “undermin[ing] our national security.”

Specifically, Messrs. Chapman and Schmitz find fault with those of us supporting state-level legislation aimed at countering stealthy civilization jihad in U.S. courts. It is known as American Law for American Courts (ALAC) – a statute already enacted in four states and under consideration in many more. ALAC prevents foreign laws, including but not limited to shariah, from being used in court to deny constitutional rights. Incredibly, the authors contend that such laws are a threat to religious freedom in this country.

Unfortunately, these pundits are not the only conservatives hostile to admonitions about shariah’s advent in America. As documented in a new Center for Security Policy online curriculum entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), some are actually enabling the Brotherhood’s influence operations. This is done through sponsorship of its operatives, facilitating their access to other conservatives and promotion of their agendas.

Sadly, still other conservatives appear determined to remain willfully blind to such behavior. They have engaged in purges from some of the Right’s conclaves. They have also sought to suppress warnings and assiduously deny that the Brotherhood is “inside the wire” – including, in at least one instance, a formal condemnation for raising the alarm.

The good news is that five leading Members of Congress have recently joined theranks of those determined to expose the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence operations and counter their effect on government policy and the danger they pose to our Constitution and freedoms. They are: Rep. Michele Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus; Rep. Louie Gohmert,Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security; Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee; and Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee.

In a joint press release dated June 13, each of these influential legislators made clear their view that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a serious threat here in America. They expressed a determination to establish the nature and extent of the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” inside the United States and to counter it.

To that end, the Members of Congress last week drew on evidence presented in the Center for Security Policy’s course to ask the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Judiciary, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the extent and impact of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of their agencies. They requested that the IGs provide their findings within ninety days.

In addition, Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the House Appropriations State, Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, is pressing the Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the FBI’s stated policy of not dealing in non-investigative contexts with one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most notorious fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). This effort took on even greater urgency in light of the revelation earlier this month by a White House official that the administration had had “hundreds of meetings” with CAIR.

Conservatives and other Republicans face, in short, a time of choosing. Are they going to ignore the real and present danger posed by shariah and its adherents like the Muslim Brotherhood? Will they therefore be recorded by history as having enabled, whether directly or indirectly, such stealthy threats to our republic and its government society?

Or are prominent conservatives going to help our countrymen of all political stripes understand the challenge we face and lead in developing and executing strategies for defeating it?

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.