Recent News from ACT! for America

Ashraf ElKholy told the Telegraph that the Muslim Brotherhood offered Egypt a stark choice that it either exercise power or it would assert itself with violence. When the military-backed interim government displaced the Muslim Brotherhood's popularly elected leader, Mohammad Morsi, the organisation opted for confrontation with the state.

"There is no difference with what David Cameron did to deal with the demonstrations here in London," he said. "If the demonstrators don't have any weapons, the police could have reached them and taken them into custody. Nobody would have been hurt. But when the demonstrators have pistols and guns and the police are lined up with guns pointing at them, the authorities have to defend themselves. That is the difference."

Speaking in Egypt's embassy in a Mayfair townhouse, Mr Kholy compared the one-year rule of Mr Morsi to the Islamist takeover of the Iranian state after the 1979 revolution and said that, like Nazism, the Muslim Brotherhood ideology sought to dominate Egyptian society.

"Morsi was elected president and held office for one year but in that time he tried to make everything Muslim Brotherhood controlled. Egyptian culture over 5,000 years is a mix of religions and civilisations in which the Islamic religion is one ingredient of the Egyptian character," he said. "The Muslim Brotherhood are like a Nazi group that demand that everything changes and people everything to their way."

However, Mr Kholy said that the roadmap offered by the interim government for a return to democracy remained in place and that while the Muslim Brotherhood could be banned, its political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party, could contest the polls.

To read more click here

The Telegraph
By: Damien McElroy
August 19, 2013


Jan Helfeld, investigative journalist, asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) if he was against foreign aid:

“No,” Graham said. “Smart foreign aid, I’m against giving money to dictators, but we must invest in the world. Africa, George Bush did a great thing by helping people avoid being decimated by AIDS and malaria. I do believe the 1% of the budget we have in foreign assistance needs to be maintained.”

             “But foreign aid is redistribution of wealth right?” asked Helfeld.

             “No, it’s not,” said Graham. “It’s helping friends and allies at the time you need friends and allies.”

Reuters reported that the U.S. State Department and foreign aid budget escaped devastating cuts in a fiscal 2012 spending plan that Congress has approved, and according to the Huffington Post, the United States recently has continued to pump around $50 billion in aid to other countries each year.

Ironically, those countries who receive the most foreign aid from U.S. taxpayers are the ones who hate America the most.

Here are the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid who harbors anti-American sentiments according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center.

Egypt – $1.5 Billion
Palestinians – $500 Million
Jordan – $600 Million
Pakistan – $1 Billion
Foreign Aid is Redistribution of Wealth

In contrast to Graham’s statement above, South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright told,

“Foreign aid is, in the strictest sense, a form of redistribution of wealth, since it is a transfer of wealth from one group of people to another. As such, it should only be permissible when the action is vital to our national interests. For instance, we should not be in the practice of sending American treasure abroad when the recipients are historically inclined to violent, anti-American action (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood). There needs to be an attitude of "America first" that keeps in mind the consequences of inappropriate foreign entanglements and the buildup of national debt.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) echoes Bright’s statement when recently asked if he is in favor of taxing American citizens in order to give it to foreigners.

“I think there are so many problems with that. And I think a lot of Americans have a problem with that, too.”

Concerned citizens continue to voice their frustration with the U.S. government funding countries with ties to radical Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, while states in the U.S. continue to suffer economically.

To read more click here

Right Side News
By: Joshua Cook
July 29, 2013

On 21st July 2013, a crippled Christian man, Shafaqat Emmanuel, and his wife, Shagufta Kausar, were arrested in Gojra District for allegedly sending blasphemous text messages to local Muslims. Police registered the FIR 407/13 under sections 295-B and 295-C. Complainants Muhmmad Hussain and Anwar Mansoor Goraya, Tehsil Bar Association president, alleged they received the blasphemous text messages from the number registered on Shagufta Kausar’s name.

The Station House Officer (SHO) of Gojra City Police Station, Mr. Muhammad Nasir, said: “The police had verified that the SIM used to send the blasphemous text messages was registered in Shagufta’s name whereas her husband admitted to use  her phone to send the messages to Hussain”

However, Shagufta told the police that they had lost the cell phone a month earlier. She denied the charges but police started 3rd degree torture on Shafaqat Masih, who is crippled and physically challenged. They tortured him in front of his wife and four children. Police forced him to confess to the charges or implicate others. Otherwise, they would start torturing his wife Shagufta. Then Shafaqat admitted that he had sent the messages, whereas when our lawyers visited Shafaqat Emmanuel, he denied the charges and stated:“There is no man who can stand to see his wife being tortured by police, so to save my wife, I confessed.”

He further told the our legal team that: “When we lost the phone and the SIM, I visited the nearby mobile shop many times to block our mobile SIM.”

According to our investigation, police confirmed Shafaqat’s statement with the mobile shop. The shop owner says that he came twice to block his SIM card.

Even after knowing the facts — that the couple had lost their cell phone and SIM card — police still registered an FIR against the crippled man and his uneducated wife.

Shagufta was working in “St. John Cathedral School” as a maid. She was the only working hand in the family, as Shafaqat Emmanuel was in a wheelchair due to a firearm injury that paralyzed his lower body. The couple has four children – Zain (12), Danish (10), Joshua (8), and Sara (6).

To read more:
July 30, 2013




Where “We the People” are sovereign, the press has a responsibility to investigate government, and the people have a duty to know the issues and speak their minds. The Founders did not just see these roles as opportunities, but knew that government by popular will could only succeed if the levers of accountability were maintained and operated by vigilant citizens.

The entire concept of personal sovereignty depends upon robust and vigorous debate on the issues that impact life and liberty, and therefore often inspire the most passion. When government usurps the authority of the people or the press to speak, a commensurate measure of individual autonomy will be compromised.

On the heels of news that the Department of Justice has been surveilling the press — with a level of animus demonstrated against James Rosen that this DOJ is not known for applying to dangerous terror suspects — comes an announcement that federal officials in Tennessee will suggest limits on public speech considered violative of Muslim civil rights. Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division, will be featured speakers at an event billed as “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society.” The event is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.

This meeting has been billed as a forum where “Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.” In press interviews, Killian has responded to questions about his anticipated remarks by saying that “internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.” He also revealed intent to “inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

The centerpiece of Killian’s clampdown is a controversial piece posted on Facebook by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West. West has explained that the picture of a man aiming a double-barreled shotgun with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim,” expressed his “prejudice against anyone who’s trying to tear down this country.”

On first reading, one who knows the history of First Amendment rulings over the last eighty-five years might doubt the reporting on U.S. Attorney Killian’s statements.  The Supreme Court has been increasingly protective of public speech on broad and highly charged policy matters over this period. Yet, when a Politico writer called the DOJ to clarify Killian’s leading statements, the DOJ did not show interest in commenting by time of publication.

Further, Killian’s record confirms his constitutional colors as he issued much the same message at the grand opening of the Chattanooga Islamic Center in 2012. In that setting, the similar veiled warning — via carefully linked statements — was that the Framers of civil rights law did not intend to allow “hypocrites” who choose “hate and prejudice as a value system” to practice their “double standard,” enjoying “liberty and freedom” while denying the “same Constitutional and statutory rights to others.” He cautioned that “the federal statutes apply to everyone and will be enforced equally.”

If the feds plan to just invent a new category of speech crimes for heightened protection of Muslim sensibilities they have to first contend with Supreme Court directives that leave no room for confusion.

The first of these hurdles is the Brandenburg Rule that essentially limits government censorship authority to speech that is a direct threat of imminent lawless action.

The Supreme Court has also opined on the subject of “hurt feelings, offense, or resentment” — even when messages communicate hostility — and has upheld a longstanding tradition of protecting speech that may produce  “an adverse emotional impact.”

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Snyder v. Phelps that “this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled,” although the Westboro Baptist protestors at military funerals were guilty of shouting highly offensive insults.

There is one very important aspect of this discussion that is being overlooked by the very federal government that says it cares so deeply about outreach to Muslims.  This is the reality that there are basically two camps of Muslims living in the United States. Some are radicalized and do incline to, and incite, devastating civilian violence. In the same group — while not choosing confrontational tactics — there are those that work to supplant American legal norms with Islamic Sharia.

Most Muslims are here to participate in the democratic system and are not involved in efforts to subvert American values. America needs to have a serious conversation about how to identify the radical elements in order to distinguish them from the Muslims who are not a threat. This can only be accomplished with freedom to speak openly, including the understanding that such a process will involve some who will not speak eloquently or kindly.

Yes, let the response to any suppression of speech relating to public concerns be adamant and any demonstrations against speech controls be emphatic. Importantly, let the speech on this particular issue be persuasive and reasonable. While outrage over recent terror atrocities is proper, expressing hatred and bigotry will not produce the Muslim reforms needed, nor will it persuade un-engaged citizens of the vital need to protect speech.
June 4,2013


Page 11 of 197

<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>

You are here:   HomeLearnRecent News