A completely secular society...another milestone this adminstration is moving towards...all in the Alinski playbook that Obama has memorized

If we don't remove this anti-American, anti-Christian Marxist from the White House soon, our country will be irretrievable.  

 

MEMBER DIARY

Could Christian Chaplains Be Silenced Under Pentagon Rules?

Military Policy Bans Religious Proselytizing

By: toddstarnes (Diary)  |  April 30th, 2013 at 03:13 PM  |  4

RESIZE: AAA

Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing.

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein told Fox News. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” Perkins said. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops “and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.”

Pentagon officials met with Weinstein and his group were to discuss a policy called “Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,” published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Weinstein said it’s time for the Air Force to enforce the regulation – with zeal.

“If a member of the military is proselytizing in a manner that violates the law, well then of course they can be prosecuted,” he said. “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”

He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith – but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

“When those people are in uniform and they believe there is no time, place or manner in which they can be restricted from proselytizing, they are creating tyranny, oppression, degradation, humiliation and horrible, horrible pain upon members of the military,” he said.

Perkins said the military regulations have “Weinstein’s fingerprints all over it.”

“It threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state,” he said, referring to a Washington Post article highlighting Weinstein’s meeting with Pentagon officials. “Non-compliance, the Pentagon suggests, even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.”

The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that Christian evangelism is against regulations.

“Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense, LCDR Nate Christensen said in a written statement. He declined to say if any chaplains or service members had been prosecuted for such an offense.

“Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases,” he said.

Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, warns that the Air Force policy would “significantly impact the religious liberties of Air Force personnel.”

“Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children,” Crews said. “I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech, and I certainly hope that it is willing to listen to the numerous individuals and groups who protect military religious liberty without demonizing service members.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, Weinstein called proselytizing a “national security threat.”

“And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason,” he told the newspaper. “It should be punished.”

Perkins said it was troubling the Obama Administration would place so much trust in someone like Weinstein.

“Unfortunately, it appears our military is on a forced march away from the very freedoms they are sworn to protect,” he said. “This language from Weinstein that Christians who share their faith or offer comfort to others from their faith in Jesus Christ is “sedition and treason” is a treasonous statement in and of itself.”

But Weinstein said they count thousands of Protestants among their ranks – and said they are simply going after fundamentalists.

“As soon as we find a fundamentalist Muslim, atheist, Jewish person or anybody else, we will be happy to fight them – but so far they have been few and far between,” he said.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, an executive vice president with the Family Research Council, told Fox News that he’s deeply concerned by what he call a pattern of attacks on Christianity within the military.

“Mickey Weinstein has a very visceral hated of Christianity and those who are Christians,” he said. “He’d like to see it eliminated from the military entirely.”

If the Air Force policy is implemented, Boykin said Christians who speak of their faith “could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state.”

“This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military,” Boykin said.

In the meantime, Weinstein and his group said they will continue to push for the Pentagon to fully implement its ban on proselytizing.

“There is a time, place and manner in which proselytizing is not only allowed, but it’s something we support among our Christian clients,” Weinstein said. “However, you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater and you can’t scream Jesus in a crowded theater at certain times, places, and in certain manners.”

Obama and Clinton - complicit in the deaths of four brave Americans

Benghazi Report: Deliberate Deception

April 30, 2013 | By Daily Witness Staff

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

That was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s angry response to a question about the State Department’s account of the attack on the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2012.

Her response was cheered by leftist commentators on MSNBC. Righteous indignation is so attractive.

But of course it makes a difference. Hillary Clinton is leading in polls for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and general election. It’s always legitimate to examine the performance of a front-runner for the presidency. And of the president himself.

You can find such an examination in the Interim Progress Report that five House Republican committee chairmen released last Wednesday.

Democrats complain that this is a partisan effort. Sure, but Democrats are free to present their own view of the facts. My sense is that they would rather squelch critical examination of Benghazi and the Obama administration’s response, as they did with the help of most of the press during the 2012 presidential campaign.

The interim report sets out copious evidence of the rash of security threats in Libya during 2012. There were more than 200 “security incidents” between June 2011 and July 2012 in Libya, 50 of them in Benghazi, it reports.

Britain and international agencies withdrew personnel from Benghazi. The United States reduced security forces despite a plea for increases from then-Ambassador Gene Cretz in March 2012.

“In a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012,” the Interim Report reads, “the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets in the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi.”

Later requests from Stevens after he replaced Cretz in May were also denied.

That contradicts Clinton’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013. She said the cable traffic never made its way to her.

If so, why was her name appended to a response? Maybe there’s an explanation in the internal processes of the State Department. And, it should be said, high officials often make decisions that with hindsight seem obvious mistakes. But she has given us just an exclamation, not an explanation.

And, as the Interim Report goes on to explain, the accounts given by the Obama administration at the time were misleading — deliberately so.

It noted that State immediately reported the attack to the White House Situation Room and two hours later noted an al-Qaida affiliate’s claim of responsibility. There was no mention of a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video.

Yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and press secretary Jay Carney spoke repeatedly for days later of a video and a protest. Clinton assured one victim’s family member that the video-maker was being prosecuted.

In the meantime, a CIA draft of talking points for the House intelligence committee was edited at the behest of State Department officials. Omitted were references to previous Benghazi attacks, the al-Qaida affiliate in Benghazi and intelligence estimates of threats in Libya. Also struck, the Interim Report says, were “any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region.”

These changes were made, the chairmen conclude, not to protect classified information — reviews of the draft were circulated on unsecure email systems — and not to protect the investigation by the FBI.

“This process to alter the talking points,” concludes the Interim Report, “can only be construed as a deliberate effort to mislead the American people.”

The resulting talking points were delivered to Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for her five Sunday talk show appearances on Sept. 16, in which she denounced the “hateful video.”

Who might have ordered this “deliberate effort”? The Interim Report mentions Barack Obama only twice as recipient of letters of inquiry, but this comment seems aimed clearly at him and his first secretary of state.

We know that Obama was informed of the attack while it was occurring, that he ordered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to respond to it (as he was already doing) and did not confer later with officials that evening. The next morning he jetted off to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

Benghazi threatened to undermine a central element of Obama’s appeal, that his presidency would reduce the threat of Islamist terrorism. He managed to obfuscate that during the rest of the campaign. But maybe not forever.

Michael Barone is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics and a contributor to Fox News.

This article originally appeared in RealClearPolitics.com

I guess you should have read it BEFORE you passed it, eh Pelosi?

Why Dems Think Obamacare Will Collapse

April 30, 2013 | By Daily Witness Staff | 

 

In recent weeks, there have been increasing expressions of concern from surprising quarters about the implementation of ObamaCare. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, called it a “train wreck.” A Democratic colleague, West Virginia’s Sen. Jay Rockefeller, described the massive Affordable Care Act as “beyond comprehension.” Henry Chao, the government’s chief technical officer in charge of putting in place the insurance exchanges mandated by the law, was quoted in the Congressional Quarterly as saying “I’m pretty nervous . . . Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.”

These individuals are worried for good reason. The unpopular health-care law’s rollout is going to be rough. It will also administer several price (and other) shocks to tens of millions of Americans.

Start with people who have individual and small-group health insurance. These policies are most affected by ObamaCare’s community-rating regulations, which require insurers to accept everyone but limit or ban them from varying premiums based on age or health. The law also mandates “essential” benefits that are far more generous than those currently offered.

According to consultants from Oliver Wyman (who wrote on the issue in the January issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries), around six million of the 19 million people with individual health policies are going to have to pay more—and this even after accounting for the government subsidies offered under the law. For example, single adults age 21-29 earning 300% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be hit with an increase of 46% even after premium assistance from tax credits.

Determining the number of individuals who will be harmed by changes to the small-group insurance market is harder. According to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, around 30 million Americans work in firms with fewer than 50 employees, and so are potentially affected by the small-group “reforms” imposed by ObamaCare.

Around nine million of these people, plus six million family members, are covered by employers who do not self-insure. The premium increases for this group will be less on average than those for people in the individual market but will still be substantial. According to analyses conducted by the insurer WellPoint for 11 states, small-group premiums are expected to increase by 13%-23% on average.

This average masks big differences. While some firms (primarily those that employ older or sicker workers) will see premium decreases due to community rating, firms with younger, healthier workers will see very large increases: 89% in Missouri, 91% in Indiana and 101% in Nevada.

Because the government subsidies to purchasers of health insurance in the small-group market are significantly smaller than those in the individual market, I estimate that another 10 million people, the approximately two-thirds of the market that is low- or average-risk, will see higher insurance bills for 2014.

Higher premiums are just the beginning, because virtually all existing policies in the individual market and the vast majority in the small-group market do not cover all of the “essential” benefits mandated by the law. Policies without premium increases will have to change, probably by shifting to more restrictive networks of doctors and hospitals. Even if only one third of these policies are affected, this amounts to more than five million people.

In addition, according to Congressional Budget Office projections in July and September 2012, three million people will lose their insurance altogether in 2014 due to the law, and six million will have to pay the individual-mandate tax penalty in 2016 because they don’t want or won’t be able to afford coverage, even with the subsidies.

None of this counts the people whose employment opportunities will suffer because of disincentives under ObamaCare. Some, whose employers have to pay a tax penalty because their policies do not carry sufficiently generous insurance, will see their wages fall. Others will lose their jobs or see their hours reduced.

Anecdotal evidence already suggests that these disincentives will really matter in the job market, as full-time jobs are converted to part time. Why would employers do this? Because they aren’t subject to a tax penalty for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

There is some debate over how large these effects will be, and how long they will take to manifest. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on a category of workers who will almost surely be involuntarily underemployed as a result of health reform: the 10 million part-timers who now work 30-34 hours per week.

These workers are particularly vulnerable. Reducing their hours to 29 avoids the employer tax penalty, with relatively little disruption to the workplace. Fewer than one million of them, according to calculations based on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, get covered by ObamaCare-compliant insurance from their employer.

In total, it appears that there will be 30 million to 40 million people damaged in some fashion by the Affordable Care Act—more than one in 10 Americans. When that reality becomes clearer, the law is going to start losing its friends in the media, who are inclined to support the president and his initiatives. We’ll hear about innocent victims who saw their premiums skyrocket, who were barred from seeing their usual doctor, who had their hours cut or lost their insurance entirely—all thanks to the faceless bureaucracy administering a federal law.

The allure of the David-versus-Goliath narrative is likely to prove irresistible to the media, raising the pressure on Washington to repeal or dramatically modify the law. With the implementation of ObamaCare beginning to take full force at the end of the year, there will be plenty of time before the 2014 midterm elections for Congress to consider its options.

For those like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told a gathering a few weeks ago at the Harvard School of Public Health that she has been “surprised” by the political wrangling caused so far by ObamaCare, there are likely to be plenty of surprises ahead.

Mr. Kessler is a professor of business and law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

http://dailywitness.com/why-dems-think-obamacare-will-collapse/?utm_source=email_marketing_system&utm_medium=email&utm_content=18523877&utm_campaign=Why%2520Dems%2520Think%2520Obamacare%2520Will%2520Collapse

Remember Benghazi! The new battle cry that will ulitimately culminate in the downfall of ObamaNation and the end of Hillary Clinton's Presidential aspirations

At least I can dream and pray. 

Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi, lawyer says

By James Rosen

Published April 29, 2013

FoxNews.com

At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

“I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.

“It's frightening, and they're doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we're going to kill you,’ or not ‘we're going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”

Federal law provides explicit protections for federal government employees who are identified as “whistle-blowers.” The laws aim to ensure these individuals will not face repercussions from their superiors, or from other quarters, in retaliation for their provision of information about corruption or other forms of wrongdoing to Congress, or to an agency’s inspector-general.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday to complain that the department has not provided a process by which attorneys like Toensing can receive the security clearances necessary for them to review classified documents and other key evidence.

“It is unavoidable that Department employees identifying themselves as witnesses in the Committee’s investigation will apply for a security clearance to allow their personal attorneys to handle sensitive or classified material,” Issa wrote. “The Department’s unwillingness to make the process for clearing an attorney more transparent appears to be an effort to interfere with the rights of employees to furnish information to Congress.”

The Obama administration maintains that it has been more than forthcoming on Benghazi and that it is time for the State Department to move on. At a recent hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry noted that administration officials have testified at eight hearings on Benghazi, provided 20 briefings on the subject and turned over to Congress some 25,000 documents related to the killings.

“So if you have additional questions or you think there's some document that somehow you need, I'll work with you to try to get it and see if we can provide that to you,” Kerry told committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., on April 17. But Kerry added: “I do not want to spend the next year coming up here talking about Benghazi.”

Asked about Issa’s complaints about attorneys not receiving security clearances, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell on Monday indicated that – far from threatening anyone – the administration hasn’t been presented with any such cases. “I'm not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or -- or anything to that regard,” Ventrell told reporters. “I'm not aware of whistle-blowers one way or another.”

Ventrell cited the work of the FBI – whose probe of the attacks continues almost eight months later and without any known instances of perpetrators being brought to justice – and the Accountability Review Board. The board was an internal State Department review panel led by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. An unclassified version of the board’s final report that was released to the public contained no conclusions that suggested administration officials had willfully endangered their colleagues in Benghazi or had misled the public or Congress.

“And that should be enough,” Ventrell said at Monday’s press briefing. “Congress has its own prerogatives, but we've had a very thorough, independent investigation, which we completed and [which was] transparent and shared. And there are many folks who are, in a political manner, trying to sort of use this for their own political means, or ends.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/obama-administration-officials-have-threatened-whistle-blowers-on-benghazi/#ixzz2RuIknaaC

The most leisure-addicted President ever

Imagine how much destruction he could cause our country if he were working a full work week every week.  Scary. 

Report: Obama Spent Twice as Much Time on Vacation/Golf as Economy

Breitbart) – According to a new report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute (GAI), President Barack Obama has spent over twice as many hours on vacation and golf (976 hours) as he has in economic meetings of any kind (474.4 hours).

The report, “Presidential Calendar: A Time-Based Analysis,” used the official White House calendar, Politico’s comprehensive presidential calendar, and media reports through March 31, 2013 to calculate its results.

GAI’s findings may actually understate Obama’s recreational hours.

Last year, Obama told CBS News that playing golf is “the only time that for six hours, I’m outside.” But instead of six hours, GAI counted a round of golf as taking just four hours. Likewise, for presidential vacation hours, researchers attributed just six hours of any day of vacation to leisure activity.

“Like most people, presidents still do work while on vacation,” said GAI President Peter Schweizer. “So we really went out of our way to fairly and accurately reflect how the president spends his time.”

The study applied a similarly generous assessment to Obama’s time spent in economic meetings by counting anything on the official White House calendar even remotely related to the economy as an economic meeting. For example, “Obama meets with Cabinet secretaries” and “Obama has lunch with four CEOs” counted as economic meetings.

GAI’s new report dovetails with its presidential calendar analysis last July that found Obama devotes little time to economic meetings.

Asked whether the latest numbers paint a negative portrait of presidential economic leadership, Schweizer says that is for others to decide.

“People understand that presidents have the most stressful job in the world and need a break from time to time,” said Schweizer. “There will be some who will be encouraged by the numbers and some who will wish the president spent more time in economic meetings. As a government watchdog group, we just tabulate the numbers and let others decide how to interpret them.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/28/REPORT-Obama-Spent-Twice-As-Much-Time-On-Vacation-Golf-As-On-Economy

The Lame Stream Media, Obama Administration and Planned Parenthood...perfect together...I hope there is a little corner in Hell reserved for the whole lot

WND EXCLUSIVE

Sex-ed cartoons 'too graphic' for N.Y. Times

Newspaper shies from material Planned Parenthood gives ... to kids

By Dave Tombers

While Americans debate how to best keep school children safe from violence, at least one group is asking why the media won’t help pressure the education system into keeping kids safe from another child predator the group dubs “Sex Incorporated” – also known as Planned Parenthood.

The American Life League, or ALL, issued a statement questioning why major news outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post have declined their recent request to run ads highlighting the methods Planned Parenthood uses to target young kids.

ALL claims the content of the ads came straight out of Planned Parenthood publications ALL says are used to “hook kids on sex.”

“This week, both the New York Times and Washington Post rejected a full-page advertisement from American Life League as ‘too graphic’ and ‘shocking’ for their adult readers,” says an ALL report.

Judie Brown, president and co-founder of ALL, agrees that the images are shocking, but says that the images come directly from Planned Parenthood materials funded by American taxpayers and aimed at those taxpayers’ own children.

“Parents tax dollars are being used to turn their own children into Planned Parenthood’s future sex customers,” says Brown. “Their abortion business is based on exploiting young minds and filling those minds with all manner of sex instruction.

“It is a grisly trail, but it leads from sex instruction to contraception to abortion when contraception fails,” she says. “That is the Planned Parenthood recipe, and the media likes it.”
ALL tells WND it simply wants the world to know what Planned Parenthood has planned for American school children.

“To raise public awareness about Planned Parenthood’s controversial sex education –more accurately described as sexual indoctrination – ALL planned a series of advertisements revealing what and how children are really taught in [Planned Parenthood's] so-called ‘comprehensive sex education,’” ALL says.

“These are programs that are already in many schools and will reach all public schools as currently mandated in Obamacare.”

ALL also wonders why so much federal money makes its way to Planned Parenthood, especially with so many cuts in so many other areas.

Why is the Obama administration funneling $350 million [to Planned Parenthood] to push this filth into classrooms, while at the same time telling us we don’t have money for White House tours, TSA agents or border security?” asks Brown.

“Starting in kindergarten, funded with our tax dollars, [Planned Parenthood] uses graphic cartoons to saturate children with sexual imagery that encourages them to focus on sexuality, engage in sex and accept dangerous aberrant sexual acts as perfectly normal,” Brown explains.

Those cartoon images were rejected by the newspapers’ advertising departments and now have left ALL scratching its head.

“If [the cartoons] are too graphic for adults reading the Washington Post,” Brown says, “then they certainly should not be in elementary school classrooms.”

The rejected ads contain graphic images ALL says was aimed at children as young as 10. One image features a little girl in a baseball uniform with the words, “Clittle League” across her chest. She’s smiling and pointing at a giant, private body part.

“A stranger would be arrested, but your tax dollars pay Planned Parenthood to show these images to your child,” the ad says.

Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, is touting the federal tax dollars it received through Obamacare and awards received from the Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Kathleen Sebelius.

Planned Parenthood blasts federal support for abstinence only programs as “ineffective” and, according to their own statements, is organizing community activists to help do away with the practice: “Unfortunately, the health-care reform bill also included a renewal of $50 million per year funding of Title V abstinence-only education for states until 2014. Planned Parenthood is continuing our work with our supporters, youth activists and policymakers to put an end to this ineffective program.”

At the same time Planned Parenthood praises the federal government for funding even more targeted sexual exposure to America’s young.

“Planned Parenthood is working with the federal and state governments to ensure access to sex-education programs that give young people the reliable, accurate information they need to make responsible decisions and stay healthy,” says the Planned Parenthood website.

To the tune of “over $375 million dollars through Obamacare alone,” says ALL.

“For the past 40 years we have faced a media hostile to telling the truth about Planned Parenthood and specifically about the manner in which they literally rape the minds of our children,” Brown told WND.

Brown claims that a cooperative media seemingly runs interference for abortion proponents like Planned Parenthood by refusing to show the world exactly the kind of material Planned Parenthood pours into young minds.

“Our rejected ads did not provide material that is any different than the smut a child is exposed to during a Planned Parenthood-sponsored sex-instruction class,” she tells WND. “That is the tragic fact.”

Messages to the New York Times for comment were not returned.

ALL maintains a website called StopPlannedParenthood.com, with which they hope to raise the awareness of the danger lurking in their child’s classroom:

While most Americans associate Planned Parenthood with abortion, this organization is also in the business of promoting a deviate and dangerous sexual agenda that in the long run will benefit the abortion giant’s bottom line, while creating a destructive and broken society for the rest of us.

Planned Parenthood has proven that it is a sex business that self-perpetuates itself by first developing obscene sex education materials that promote indiscriminate and risky sexual behavior to our youth through America’s public schools, families and community organizations.
The second step kicks in once the organization has created an environment of sexual risk-taking behavior among youth. It then markets and promotes contraceptive products and programs that have proven to be ineffective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Once the ineffective contraceptives fail, Planned Parenthood completes the cycle selling abortions to the teens it has sucked into its deadly cyclone. Tax-paying Americans who work diligently to contribute to strengthening our country are unwittingly funding the absolutely pornographic and child sexual abuse agenda that Planned Parenthood pushes on our society.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/sex-ed-cartoons-too-graphic-for-n-y-times/#oj3otCSowuEKVGz4.99

I pray for the day when we Mirandize Holder for Fast & Furious (and that's just for starters)

I can think of maybe a dozen reasons why the Obama Administration would want to shut up Tsarnaev and none are favorable for Americans

Holder Defends Mirandizing Boston Bombing Suspect

Saturday, 27 Apr 2013 09:10 PM

By Todd Beamon

 

Attorney General Eric Holder on Saturday defended the decision to read the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon terror bombings his Miranda rights.

Holder said the decision was “totally consistent with the laws that we have.”

He also pointed to the federal magistrate on the case.

“The decision to Mirandize was one that the magistrate made,” Holder told CNN as he arrived at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in Washington.

Early on Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler showed up at the hospital unannounced with a federal prosecutor and public defender while the suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was being questioned by the FBI.

He was under interrogation for about 16 hours when Bowler read him his Miranda rights, according to news reports. The FBI thought it had 36 to 48 hours to question Tsarnaev under the pre-Miranda public-safety exemption.

The 19-year-old suspect was arrested four days after the April 15 blasts and was transferred on Friday to Federal Medical Center Devens, an all-male prison outside Boston.

Tsarnaev is being treated for gunshot wounds to the neck and leg sustained in a fierce shootout with police earlier on April 19 that killed his 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan.

“We had a two-day period under where authorities questioned him under the public-safety exception,” Holder told CNN on Saturday, referring to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. “Everything was done appropriately, and we got good leads.”

The attorney general also declined to comment on reports that Russian authorities secretly recorded a telephone conversation in 2011 in which Tamerlan vaguely discussed jihad with his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva.

She also was recorded talking to someone in southern Russia who is under FBI investigation in an unrelated case, officials told The Associated Press on Saturday.

The conversations are significant because, had they been revealed earlier, the FBI might have had enough evidence to initiate a more thorough investigation of the Tsarnaev family.

The Tsarnaevs are ethnic Chechens who emigrated from southern Russia to the Boston area over the past 11 years.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Holder-Defends-Mirandizing-Suspect/2013/04/27/id/501655#ixzz2RlYd1t8l

Obama to Planned Parenthood, "God bless you." Wonder why he didn't ask Alah to bless the baby killers.

I'm just so proud of our President...purveyor of infanticide...but quite predictable...the Alinksi method dictates that achieving the end justifies any means that work

Obama Tells Planned Parenthood: God Bless You

Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

During a speech Friday President Obama told Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider with a long track record of covering up sexual abuse and rape, "God bless you."

Obama's comments come as Planned Parenthood sits back and refuses to condemn the gruesome actions of late term abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

“President Obama touts Planned Parenthood as a trusted friend and health care provider to women and girls, but this could not be further from the truth.  Planned Parenthood last week admitted to knowing about the conditions inside Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic yet chose not to act to help end the killing of newborn babies and butchering of women," Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. 

“President Obama blatantly ignored this inconvenient truth about the abortion industry’s horrific lack of oversight, and disparaged the pro-life advocates who wake up each morning with the goal of saving the lives of unborn children and women from the pain of abortion. It seems that nothing – not even eyewitness accounts of Gosnell-style conditions in their own clinics – is enough to make President Obama reconsider his unyielding support for Planned Parenthood, which in a single year performed more than 333,000 abortions and received half a billion dollars in taxpayer money. It is no wonder that in introducing him, the first thing Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards did was to lavish praise on President Obama for supporting the abortion giant to the point of willingness to shut down the entire government during the continuing resolutions battle.”

Again as a reminder, Obama's views of abortion don't stray far from Gosnell's actions. Obama's record shows he is a supporter of infanticide, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection act four times and referred to a baby as a "fetus outside of the womb" during his time in Illinois.

Obamacare looking more like an ObamaBust...even the Democrats are distancing themselves from this humongous debacle

RS EDITOR OF REDSTATE

You Mean Fought Like Hell to Pass?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)

(Click here)  Note the stunning tip-toeing around the facts here:

Democratic senators, at a caucus meeting with White House officials, expressed concerns on Thursday about how the Obama administration was carrying out the health care law they adopted three years ago.
Yes, it is factually true. But like so much of the bias in the media, it is the word choice that matters. The Democrats did not just adopt legislation. They wrote it, they campaigned for it, they pushed it through the Congress in a unified effort, and the President signed it into law.

It was not an adoption. It was a legislative fight that they embraced.

Adopted sounds so less significant than what the Democrats did, but now it is blowing up in their faces and the word choice becomes less sharp. In fact, you could read the entire rest of the article and, should you be unaware of what happened, not realize the Democrats actually had pushed as hard as they did to get it passed. Heck, you could be left with the impression that they were just implementing something George Bush had done.

No doubt soon they will be blaming George Bush for this.

The walk back has begun for the Democrats. It is another reason the GOP should avoid at all costs every effort to fix Obamacare. Let the Democrats suffer through their own handiwork.

If you are still under the impression it was something other than a fight, just listen to this bit of Marx Madness.

IMPEACH OBAMA! ARREST CLINTON, PANETTA, RICE, BRENNAN FOR PERJURY! FIRE PATRICK KENNEDY, CHARLENE LAMB, MIKE MORREL and call it all just a good start.

GOP charges Obama officials lied on talking points

White House statements scrubbed terrorism, al-Qaida from Benghazi attack

JERUSALEM – Did CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell mislead lawmakers when he told senators in a briefing that references to terrorism and al-Qaida were removed from the White House’s Benghazi talking points in order to “prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation?”

The claim of scrubbing terrorism from White House talking points for security reasons was also made to the news media by other officials within the CIA and by the office of the Director for National Intelligence.

In perhaps one of the most damning but until now unreported sections of the report, lawmakers who penned the investigation wrote they were given access to classified emails and other communications that prove the talking points were not edited to protect classified information but instead to protect the State Department’s reputation.

“Contrary to administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information,” states the Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi.

“Evidence rebuts administration claims that the talking points were modified to protect classified information or to protect an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),” the report continues.

The report charges that the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department.”

States the report: “To protect the State Department, the administration deliberately removed references to al-Qaida-linked groups and previous attacks in Benghazi in the talking points used by [United Nations] Ambassador [Susan] Rice, thereby perpetuating the deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a demonstration caused by a YouTube video.”

Intelligence officials’ claims

The tale of the talking points began when U.S. intelligence officials testified behind closed doors in early November 2012 and were reportedly asked point blank whether they had altered the talking points on which Rice based her comments about the Benghazi attacks.

On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, Rice had appeared on five morning television programs to discuss the White House response to the Benghazi attacks. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”

Other Obama administration officials made similar claims.

Two congressional sources who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity said Morell, then acting CIA director, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen each testified behind closed doors that they did not alter the talking points.

On Nov. 16, 2012, former CIA director David Petraeus testified before the same congressional intelligence committees and also replied no to the question of whether he had changed the talking points, three congressional sources told Reuters.

Then on Nov. 27 the CIA reportedly told lawmakers that it had in fact changed the wording of the unclassified talking points to delete a reference to al-Qaida, according to senators who met with Morell that day.

That Nov. 27 meeting was between Morell, Rice and Republican Sens John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte.

A statement by McCain, Graham and Ayotte specifically stated that Morell told the senators during the meeting that the FBI had removed references to al-Qaida from the talking points “and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation” of the attack on the U.S. mission.

The senators’ joint statement specifically reads: “Around 10:00 this morning in a meeting requested by Ambassador Rice, accompanied by acting CIA Director Mike Morell, we asked Mr. Morell who changed the unclassified talking points to remove references to al-Qaida.

“In response, Mr. Morell said the FBI removed the references and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation. We were surprised by this revelation and the reasoning behind it.”

Morell’s claim of changing the talking points for security reasons is now contradicted by the new Republican probe.

Further, on Nov. 28, 2012, CBS News reported the CIA then told the news agency that the edits to the talking points were made “so as not to tip off al-Qaida as to what the U.S. knew, and to protect sources and methods.”

That same report quoted a source from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence who told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan that the source’s office made the edits as part of the interagency process because the links to al-Qaida were deemed too “tenuous” to make public.

Meanwhile, a few hours after his meeting with the senators, Morell’s office reportedly contacted Graham and stated that Morell “misspoke” in the earlier meeting and that it was, in fact, the CIA, not the FBI, that deleted the al-Qaida references.

“They were unable to give a reason as to why,” stated Graham.

“CIA officials contacted us and indicated that Acting Director Morell misspoke in our earlier meeting. The CIA now says that it deleted the al-Qaida references, not the FBI. They were unable to give a reason as to why,” said in a statement.

“This was an honest mistake and it was corrected as soon as it was realized. There is nothing more to this,” an intelligence official said about Morell’s briefing to the senators.

Graham at the time went so far as to suggest he would hold up the nomination of Morell if Obama had nominated him to be the CIA director, a position ultimately filled by John Brennon.

Georgia Sen. Clarence Saxby Chambliss defended Morell’s statements.

“Mike was actually not the director when this (the attack on Benghazi) took place. And he’s kind of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again,” Chambliss told the media, calling Morell a “smart, straightforward guy.”

A U.S. intelligence official further told CBS News there was “absolutely no intent to misinform.”

The official says the talking points “were never meant to be definitive and, in fact, noted that the assessment may change. The points clearly reflect the early indications of extremist involvement in a direct result. It wasn’t until after they were used in public that analysts reconciled contradictory information about how the assault began.”

However, the intelligence community clearly at first portrayed the edited White House talking points as a bid to protect classified information.

Timeline of altered talking points

According to the interim House report on Benghazi, after a White House deputies meeting on Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012, the administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks.

The administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

Charged the report: “Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.”

The report authors said that they went through email exchanges of the interagency process to scrub the talking points. They wrote the emails do not reveal any concern with protecting classified information.

“Additionally, the bureau itself approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested. Thus, the claim that the State Department’s edits were made solely to protect that investigation is not credible.”

In a particularly stinging accusation, the report states that when draft talking points were sent to officials throughout the executive branch, senior State Department officials requested the talking points be changed “to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi.”

“Specifically, State Department emails reveal senior officials had ‘serious concerns’ about the talking points, because members of Congress might attack the State Department for ‘not paying attention to agency warnings’ about the growing threat in Benghazi.  [And who wants Hillary for President in 2016?]

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/gop-charges-obama-officials-lied-on-talking-points/#hwAOE4U4qZ4Et6QY.99

Best case scenario - Impeachment for Obama and Clinton's political career kaput; better case scenario - at least one of the two

House Benghazi Report: Obama Lied

April 25, 2013 | By Daily Witness Staff 

 

House Republicans have concluded that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies bear no blame for failing to halt the terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, releasing a report Tuesday that said President Obama and the State Department set up the military for failure.

The report also found that plenty of intelligence presaged the attack, but the White House and State Department — including the secretary at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton — failed to heed the warnings.

In the most damning conclusion, House Republicans said Mr. Obama’s team lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation.

“This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks,” the GOP investigation concluded in its 46-page report.

The White House dismissed the report as a rehash of questions the administration has answered, and said it has provided extraordinary cooperation.

The report was released after rank-and-file Republicans feared the pressure to get answers on the Benghazi attacks was subsiding.

Some House Republicans want to create a Watergate-style special committee to investigate the attacks, but leaders have resisted, saying the existing investigative, defense, foreign affairs, intelligence and judiciary committees can handle it. Tuesday’s interim report is the result.

The report also could dog Mrs. Clinton if she returns to politics.

The Sept. 11 attacks on the consulate in Benghazi left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

The GOP report said the White House was responsible for prohibiting the mention of terrorism, and the report said administration officials were trying to shield themselves from criticism that they had been too lax in security.

“It is clear that the State Department expressed concerns — and was backed by the White House — that the information be removed to avoid criticism for ignoring the general threat environment in Benghazi,” the report said.

Democrats on the five committees fired off a letter Tuesday saying they were left out of the report-writing entirely, and that the end result was biased.

“You are sacrificing accuracy in favor of partisanship,” the ranking Democrats on each committee said in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the report goes over old ground and that some of the conclusions conflict with the State Department’s internal review.

“The State Department’s Accountability Review Board — the independent body charged with reviewing the attacks and evaluating the interagency response — released its report which specifically found that the interagency response was ‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans,’ while also making important recommendations to improve security that we are in the process of implementing,” she said.

She said the administration has cooperated with the House committees’ efforts to investigate.

But House Republicans said the State Department’s review fell short. The GOP report said blame for lax security extended all the way to Mrs. Clinton.

The State Department didn’t comment on the report, but Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who took over for Mrs. Clinton this year, told House lawmakers last week that he would appoint a special liaison to try to dispel lingering questions. Still, he dismissed the core of the GOP’s charge.

“I don’t think anybody lied to anybody,” he said.

The Benghazi attacks played a major role in last year’s presidential campaign, with Republican nominee Mitt Romney arguing Mr. Obama was slow in recognizing it was a terrorist assault.

In a major turning point in the presidential debates, Mr. Obama retorted that he had mentioned terrorism in his first remarks on the attacks in a speech from the White House Rose Garden.

By Stephen Dinan

This article originally appeared in the Washington Times.

The only surprising news bite from this story is that CBS actually gave air time to the Interim Progress Report authored by the Members of the House Republican Conference that places the blame for Benghazi squarely on Clinton and Obama (though a host of others played significant roles as well...especially Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb)

This is a continuation of previous post http://stoptheobamanationnow.blogspot.com/2013/04/i-would-like-to-see-obama-and-clinton.html

NBC, ABC Ignore a Blistering House Report Placing Blame for Benghazi on Obama, Clinton

Published: 4/24/2013 12:46 PM ET

By Scott Whitlock

NBC and ABC completely skipped a scathing new report that singles out Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for blame after the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. CBS, in contrast, offered full reports on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Evening News anchor Scott Pelley announced, "House Republicans fired off a blistering report today criticizing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

On CBS This Morning, Norah O'Donnell trumpeted, "House Republicans issued a scathing report on the Benghazi attack. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed last September." Yet, the ABC programs World News, Nightline and Good Morning America ignored the development. GMA, however, found time to promote important topics, such as "dancing babies" and the "secrets" behind America's favorite game shows. NBC's Nightly News and the Today show also avoided the subject.

On the Evening News, Nancy Cordes highlighted a cable from April 2012, five months prior to the attacks. Cordes alerted, "Republicans who viewed the cable say it bears Secretary Clinton's signature which they claim contradicts this assertion she made in a hearing this January."

The reporter did make sure to mention that "House Democrats complained they were cut out of this investigation." But she also noted that the White House did "not issue a flat-out denial."
On CBS This Morning, Margaret Brennan offered more details on the report:

MARGARET BRENNAN (voice-over): Hillary Clinton is under fire again for the fatal September 11th attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. House Republicans charge that newly-released White House e-mails show that 'repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department'. Secretary Clinton, they claim, personally gave approval to 'systematically withdraw security personnel' from Libya, despite a high-threat environment. They cite a classified cable, sent five months before the assault, that bears her signature. Clinton testified that she had not seen any requests for security.

In a bid to beat the Today show in the ratings, Good Morning America has become increasingly superficial. But, perhaps, a terrorist attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans is more important than dancing babies?

Stephanopoulos is such a liberal tool

A transcript of the April 23 CBS Evening News segment, which aired at 6:41pm ET, is below:

SCOTT PELLEY: House Republicans fired off a blistering report today criticizing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The issue is the attack last year on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. That attack killed the ambassador and three other Americans. No Democrats joined in today's report. Our congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has had a look at it.

NANCY CORDES: The congressional report cites a State Department cable from April 2012; five months before the Benghazi attacks. The cable acknowledges the U.S. ambassador's request for additional security, but instead according to the report, "Articulated a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission." Republicans who viewed the cable say it bears Secretary Clinton's signature which they claim contradicts this assertion she made in a hearing this January.

HILLARY CLINTON: I didn't see those requests. They didn't come to me. I didn't approve them. I didn't deny them.

NANCY CORDES: The report also concludes that, "The administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative," editing, "Talking points about the attacks not at the direction of the CIA," as the White House has claimed but, "to insulate the State Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi." The report cites fragments of State Department e-mails expressing concern in the days after the attacks that the original talking points could imply that they were, "Not paying attention to Agency warnings." Even after changes were made, a senior State Department official wrote that "the edits still did not resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership." Two days later after still more changes, those talking points were used by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, on five Sunday talk shows.

SUSAN RICE (FACE THE NATION): We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NANCY CORDES: House Democrats complained they were cut out of this investigation and we were not able to view the State Department e-mails to confirm that the quotes were accurate or that they were taken out of context. The White House did not issue a flat-out denial, Scott, but they did tell CBS News that the report, quote, "Appears to raise questions that have already been asked and answered in great detail."

-- Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

When will we get serious about the threat from RADICAL ISLAM! I guess not until we remove the Muslim from the Whitehouse

The following USA Today article was sent to me by ACT! For America of which I am a proud member. 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Please consider supporting this organization.  The work they do benefits us all.

ACT for America

P.O. Box 12765

Pensacola, FL 32591

www.actforamerica.org

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/23/boston-mosque-radicals/2101411/

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 6:06 a.m. EDT April 24, 2013

Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.

Story Highlights

Cambridge mosque was founded in 1982 by students at MIT, Harvard and other Boston-area schools

Affiliated with Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors call an "overt arm" of Muslim Brotherhood

More than half of the $15.5 million used to found the Boston mosque came from Saudi sources

BOSTON — The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon double bombing has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.

Several people who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque's first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince.

Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.

The head of the group is among critics who say the two mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.

"We don't know where these boys were radicalized, but this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there," said the head of the group, Charles Jacobs.

Yusufi Vali, executive director at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, insists his mosque does not spread radical ideology and cannot be blamed for the acts of a few worshipers.

"If there were really any worry about us being extreme," Vali said, U.S. law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would not partner with the Muslim American Society and the Boston mosque in conducting monthly meetings that have been ongoing for four years, he said, in an apparent reference to U.S. government outreach programs in the Muslim community.

The Cambridge and Boston mosques, separated by the Charles River, are owned by the same entity but managed individually. The imam of the Cambridge mosque, Sheik Basyouny Nehela, is on the board of directors of the Boston mosque.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, attended the Cambridge mosque for services and are accused of setting two bombs that killed three people and injured at least 264 others at the April 15

Boston Marathon.

The FBI has not indicated that either mosque was involved in any criminal activity, but mosque attendees and officials have been implicated in terrorist activity:

• Alamoudi, who signed the articles of incorporation as the Cambridge mosque's president, was sentenced to 23 years in federal court in Alexandria, Va., in 2004 for his role as a facilitator in what federal prosecutors called a Libyan assassination plot against then-crown prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Abdullah is now the Saudi king.
• Aafia Siddiqui, who occasionally prayed at the Cambridge mosque, was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 while in possession of cyanide canisters and plans for a chemical attack in New York City. She tried to grab a rifle while in detention and shot at military officers and FBI agents, for which she was convicted in New York in 2010 and is serving an 86-year sentence.
• Tarek Mehanna, who worshiped at the Cambridge mosque, was sentenced in 2012 to 17 years in prison for conspiring to aid al-Qaeda. Mehanna had traveled to Yemen to seek terrorist training and plotted to use automatic weapons to shoot up a mall in the Boston suburbs, federal investigators in Boston alleged.
• Ahmad Abousamra, the son of a former vice president of the Muslim American Society Boston Abdul-Badi Abousamra, was identified by the FBI as Mehanna's co-conspirator. He fled to Syria and is wanted by the FBI on charges of providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill Americans in a foreign country.
• Jamal Badawi of Canada, a former trustee of the Islamic Society of Boston Trust, which owns both mosques, was named as a non-indicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial in Texas over the funneling of money to Hamas, which is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What both mosques have in common is an affiliation with the Muslim American Society, an organization founded in 1993 that describes itself as an American Islamic revival movement. It has also been described by federal prosecutors in court as the "overt arm" of the Muslim Brotherhood, which calls for Islamic law and is the parent organization of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Critics say the Muslim American Society promotes a fraught relationship with the United States, expressed in part by the pattern discussed by Americans for Progress and Tolerance in which adherents are made to feel cut off from their home country and to identify with a global Islamist political community rather than with America.

Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said the radical teachings often follow a theme of recitation of grievances that Islam has with the West, advocacy against U.S. foreign policy and terrorism prosecutions, and efforts "to evangelize Islam in order to improve Western society that is secularized," he says.

Jasser, a veteran of the U.S. Navy and author of the 2012 book A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot Fights to Save His Faith, says the teachings make some followers feel "like their national identity is completely absent and hollow, and that vacuum can be filled by (radical) Islamic ideology, which is supremacist and looks upon the West as evil."

The Cambridge mosque was founded in 1982 by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and several other Boston-area schools, according to a profile by the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. Its members founded the sister mosque in Boston in 2009.

The leadership of the two mosques is intertwined, and the ideology they teach is the same, Jacobs said. Ilya Feoktistov, director of research at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said much of the money to create the Boston mosque came not from local Muslims but from foreign sources.

More than half of the $15.5 million used to found the Boston mosque came from Saudi sources, Feoktistov said, who cites financial documents that Jacobs' group obtained when the mosque sued it for defamation.

The lawsuit was later dropped.

Vali said that the vast majority of total donors were in the United States and that "no donations were accepted if the donor wanted to have any decision-making influence (even if benign)."

Vali characterized Americans for Peace and Tolerance and its founder, Jacobs, as anti-Muslim activists who spread "lies and half-truths in order to attack and marginalize much of the local Muslim community and many of its institutions."

"It's the new McCarthyism in full swing," he said.

Sheik Basyouny Nehela, the imam of the Cambridge mosque, which is located across the Charles River from Boston, is on the board of directors for the Muslim American Society of Boston, which runs the Boston mosque. The Tsarnaevs attended the Cambridge mosque.

A statement issued by the Cambridge mosque said the Tsarnaev brothers were "occasional visitors." The mosque's office manager, Nichole Mossalam, said neither brother expressed radical views. "They never exhibited any violent sentiments or behaviors. Otherwise, they would have been reported," Mossalam said.

The Cambridge mosque said Tsarnaev, 26, who died Thursday night in a shootout with police, "disagreed with the moderate American-Islamic theology" of the mosque. Tsarnaev challenged an imam who said in his sermon that it was appropriate to celebrate U.S. national holidays and was told to stop such outbursts, the mosque said in a statement.

Talal Eid, a Muslim chaplain at Brandeis University, said focusing on individual radicals that prayed in a building is unfair.

"In 2011, the two brothers were right under the nose of the FBI and they didn't find anything," Eid said, who never met the Tsarnaevs. "How do you want me as an imam to know enough to tell them they are not welcome here? How can I figure out those people have that kind of criminal intent?"

The Muslim American Society says on its website that it is independent of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, early Brotherhood literature is considered "the foundational texts for the intellectual component for Islamic work in America," the website states.

Jacobs says claims of moderate Islam do not square with the mosque's classic jihadi texts in its library and its hosting of radical speakers.

Jacobs said Ahmed Mansour, his co-director at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, found writings by Syed Qutb, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and other jihadi texts at the Cambridge mosque's library when Mansour went there in 2003. Qutb pioneered the radical violent ideology espoused by al-Qaeda.

Yusuf al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who espouses radical views in videos collected by Jacobs' group, was listed as a trustee on the Cambridge mosque's IRS filings until 2000, and on the mosque's website until 2003, when he addressed congregants via recorded video message to raise money for the Boston mosque, according to a screenshot of the announcement that Feoktistov provided.

Vali said Qaradawi was listed as an honorary trustee years ago only because his scholarship and high esteem in Muslim circles would help with fundraising.

Yasir Qadhi, who lectured at the Boston mosque in April 2009, has advocated replacing U.S. democracy with Islamic rule and called Christians "filthy" polytheists whose "life and prosperity … holds no value in the state of Jihad," according to a video obtained by Jacobs' group.

Vali said Qadhi was a guest of a non-profit organization that was renting space at the Boston mosque and has changed his views since that video was made.

Jacobs and others say it is not only renters who express sympathetic views for terrorists. Leaders of the Boston and Cambridge mosques, and invited guests, have advocated on behalf of convicted terrorists, urging followers to seek their release or lenient sentences.

Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, sometimes a spokesman for the Boston mosque, used Siddiqui's case to speak against the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed under the George W. Bush administration. "After they're done with (Siddiqui), they are going to come to your door if they feel like it," he said, according to a video obtained by Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

Anwar Kazmi, a member of the Cambridge mosque's board of trustees, called for leniency for Mehanna and Siddiqui at a Boston rally in February 2012, in a video posted to YouTube. He characterized Siddiqui's 86-year sentence as excessive.

In an interview with USA TODAY, Kazmi insisted that the Cambridge mosque is moderate and condemns the marathon bombings. On Monday, the mosque e-mailed members to caution them that the FBI may question them and that they may want to seek representation.

"This kind of violence, terrorism, it's just completely contrary to the spirit of Islam," Kasmi said. "The words in the Quran say if anybody kills even a single human being without just cause, it's as if you've killed all of humanity."