Focus is on Bush's new strategy

Linda S. Heard

By tomorrow evening, George W. Bush's "New Way Forward" is likely to become public. It is likely to consist of a troop "surge" designed to help quell the insurgency and sectarian conflict within Baghdad and the surrounding area with the help of Iraqi forces.

It is also expected to include programmes to boost jobs and reconstruction. Most experts believe it is too little too late. Some say an anticipated increase of 20,000 US troops would be a provocation resulting in further bloodshed. Others contend they will be sitting ducks.

General Wesley Clarke told the Independent that "US troops have shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be 'held', or even that they are fully 'cleared'."

The policy is a slap in the face for American voters, who made their disillusionment with the war in Iraq crystal clear during the November mid-term elections when the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. The Democrats have made their opposition to a surge known.

At the same time, it is thought the Democrats won't dare to deplete the administration's war chest for fear of being labelled unpatriotic. Yet if they offer tacit agreement to the plan, they risk angering their own anti-war base. Cindy Sheehan and friends are already on the warpath, or rather peace-path, heckling Democrats to stick to their pre-election promises.

Sticking to his guns

It seems likely that Bush will get away with sticking to his guns literally. It doesn't matter that most Americans and Iraqis, according to polls, want closure on this failed enterprise that has cost so much in lives and treasure.

It doesn't matter that a growing number of top generals, think tanks, pundits and even Republican politicians want out. And as for the painstakingly drawn up Iraq Study Report written off as a surrender document by the right-wing media that was a no-go from the get-go.

Bush and his new top commander in Iraq General David H. Petraeus, who unlike his predecessor is a devotee of the surge theory, are in the minority. The "surge" is unpopular with just about everyone, so what could be the president's motives behind his pursuit of this course?

There is a range of theories. The most simplistic is the president's ego is too big and too fragile to admit failure by walking away. It could be that Bush is steeped in denial, neoconservative ideology or messianic musings to the extent failure isn't an option.

In any case, all he has to do is appear to enthusiastically stay the course for the next two years when he can hand the mess over to the successor to clean up. Thus, he may escape a possible place in history as the worst US president ever.

Moreover, as long as the nation is kept at war, the commander-in-chief is unlikely to face impeachment for misleading the country over Iraq's touted WMD and links to 9-11.

The above are cynical analyses, which may or may not hold water. But here's what we do know.

The US is massing a large naval and air force in this region. On Saturday, three Virginia-based amphibious assault ships began their journey to join the USS Dwight Eisenhower, the USS Boxer and the USS John C. Stennis. The ships have little part to play in quelling the Iraqi insurgency, so what are they doing here?

Nuclear bunker busters

A much-quoted article in the Sunday Times may contain a clue. Quoting Israeli defence force sources, the article says Israel is planning to use nuclear bunker busters against Iran's Natanz uranium processing plant and conventional weapons to destroy nuclear facilities at Arak and Isfahan.

Israel was quick to deny these claims even as Israeli military strategists suggest force may be the only way to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

In the event Israel was foolhardy enough to take such an aggressive step, Iran has already vowed to retaliate against both Israel and its ally the US, which could explain the contingent of 20,000 American naval and aviation personnel based on carriers and warships in the neighbourhood.

A planned strike on Iran by either Israel or the US or both could also account for the troop "surge" in Iraq, which in this case would be geared towards taking on pro-Iranian Shiites, such as Moqtada Al Sadr's Mehdi Army or Abdul Aziz Al Hakim's Badr Brigades.

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has already been ordered to purge the police and army of sectarianism and crackdown on Shiite militias. Asked to turn on his own religious Dawa Party supporters, it's no wonder he's in a hurry to quit the job.

Al Maliki and his colleagues are also preparing to hand Iraq's oil over to Western oil companies for a 30-year period under a controversial new law concocted by the US. Once again, the Iraqi people's interests are being sold down the Tigris.

Excuse the cynicism again. But, frankly, Bush's reluctance to walk away from Iraq isn't really surprising when one looks at the big picture. Blood may be thicker than water but obviously it isn't nearly as thick as black gold or as alluring as permanent bases, designed to facilitate America's regional dominance for decades to come.

An open letter from an American citizen

Brian Bloom

From Islam Online

First let me speak to the people in Iran.

There is a large majority of Americans who are terrified by our governments inability to hear our voices. We do not want war. Not with you, not with anyone. We admire your ancient culture and respect your religious beliefs. While our government takes steps toward instigating another illegal war, this time on your great nation, we, the majority of United States citizens, are trying everything that is in our power to prevent this.

We have recently elected new officials in Congress, which we believe and hope will stand up with us in our desires to put an end to our current administration's designs of global occupation. However, we seem to have very little say in these matters anymore. While we may scream at the top of our lungs about how we feel, write letters to our officials, protest in the streets, demand accountability for our leaders' actions, our president ignores us and continues his one-man circus act.

I wish to apologize to the people of Iran now, and assure you that we will do everything in our power to prevent our government leaders from another grave mistake in foreign policy.

Now, the people of Iraq hear me out.

Please understand our sorrow in what our leaders have done to your nation. While most of us believe that Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, we also understand that for many years, our country supported him and only deposed him as the president of Iraq when it was beneficial to our government. Our leaders lied to us about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Most of our citizens at the time were quite fearful over what was happening in the world due to the attacks on September 11, 2001, and our president used that fear to further his personal agenda. It was WRONG. It was not our place to overthrow a dictator; it was yours if you so choose.

However, now your country is in ruins and many people die every day. Our president has just said that this is "unacceptable" to him. As usual, it seems that his words are woefully inadequate. Unacceptable is not a word to use when tens of thousands of people have died, and many more will in the time to come.

We cannot fix this mess. We can only make it worse. The majority of American people want our troops to be drawn down in your country to allow the Iraqi people a chance to help themselves. Please understand that we do not want to just abandon you. We wish to support you with our finances, our expertise in technology, our moral support, anything except more lives.

I know that you have suffered beyond anything that the US has ever suffered. But now is the time to send a message to the world that you do not need the United States to continue to occupy your sovereign nation. On behalf of most American citizens, we are eternally sorry for what we have allowed to be done to you.

To the people of Israel...

I'd like to say we understand.

We recognize your struggles in the world. We understand that for many years you were persecuted. However, that does not give you the right to do to others what has been done to you. I'm not suggesting that you bare all of the responsibility for the struggles in the West Asia, but you're not helping to solve it either.

Your fight is for property. Your fight is for recognition. Your fight is for peace. May I suggest to you that if after 60 years nothing has changed, maybe you're going about it the wrong way? I know that you will illicit images of bombings and terror to reinforce your actions. But please consider, violence in response to violence, only leads to more violence.

There must be a better solution. There is plenty of space to allow two separate and sovereign nations to exist. Israel and Palestine. I understand that there are more issues to discuss here, however, we have to start somewhere.

Do we really want to blame all the ills of life on "the other guys"? This sort of thinking is shortsighted and full of its own bigotry. And please, before dismissing me as just another anti-Semite, look at my name and understand that we share the same heritage.

To the people of the United States...

Are you afraid?

I am. Not of Al-Qaeda, not of Sunni or Shia militias, not of insurgents, not of so-called "Islamofascist", not of dirty bombs, not of having to "fight them here", not of a nuclear Iran, not of planes blowing up, not of anthrax in the mail, not of Hamas, not of Hezbollah, not of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), or of terrorist cells in my backyard.

I am not afraid of any of the things that our government has worked so hard to scare me into believing is at my doorstep. Instead, I am afraid of our government. Can we forget about the lies that we were told over and over again by our leaders? Can we forget about the atrocities committed in our name? Can we forget the way the rest of the world sees this great nation now?
Never.

Can we stand by while legislation such as the Military Commissions Act dissolves our basic civil rights? Can we stand back and let our leaders listen to our phone calls, read our mail, investigate our library cards, or read our e-mails? I sincerely hope not.

Our president has given himself the authority to deem anyone at any place an enemy combatant. With this label, one can be arrested, detained indefinitely in Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) or some other military prison without charges being levied against them, and tortured.

Or, if they are lucky, they will be brought to trial.

Just not allowed to see or confront the evidence against them under the guise of national security.

It could be me for just writing this letter. It could be you for just reading it. Is this our country? Is this what the United States of America has turned into?

No more freedom of speech, lest we anger the president.

No more freedom of assembly, lest we anger the President.

No more right to a trial by a jury of our peers, no more protection against self-incrimination, unless you can withstand the torture.

We are at his mercy. We did the right thing during the November elections by taking steps to put an end to this lunacy. However, it can't stop there. We need to take a step back, Democrat and Republican alike, to examine the horrendous damage that has been done and continues to be done, to us, and in our name.

The Revolutionary War was fought by brave people for a noble cause. This country was founded by people who refused tyranny and oppression. The majority has spoken and now action is necessary.

Stand up for what is right by putting an end to the war in Iraq, the war on the American people, and the instigation of more wars on innocent people. Are we Americans or not?

To the American troops

Please understand that you have our unwavering support. We know that you have your duty and take it very seriously. Rest assured, we will get you home. The majority of your fellow Americans are trying everything they can to end this war. Please know that our hearts break each day when we hear the news of another fallen soldier. Most of us do not support this war, BUT WE WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES.

Mr President, are you listening?

I know that you do not care about my feelings, or that of any other American. Sir, I voted for you the first time. I am deeply ashamed of it and will forever have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on my hands because of it. Almost every person in the world knows you are wrong.

Almost every American citizen knows that you are wrong.

You surround yourself with only people who agree with you, until they agree no more. Don't you dare think that you stand for me or the vast majority of American people. You never have. We are not nearly as ignorant as you would like to believe we are.

So bide your time in office, Mr President. We are not going to allow you to destroy us anymore. Only a coward allows people to die instead of standing up like a man and admitting they were wrong. Know this sir, that legacy that you care for so much will forever be tainted with deception and death.

An Open Letter to the People of Iran and Other Nations of the Middle East and Asia

ddjango

Brothers and Sisters:

As but a single citizen of the United States of America, I raise my voice in sadness and shame at the actions of our government, past, present, and future. I strongly believe that my words and views are shared by a growing majority of American citizens.

Many of us opposed our government's war against Iraq before the first missile was launched and many have joined us since, constituting now a majority of our citizens. At the moment of the attacks in September, 2001, I knew that our President and his administration would opportunistically use the event as justification for all manner of aggressive military action. Although we cannot condone the actions of bin Laden and al Qaeda, we also do not condone our own government's actions. Many of us advocate reconciliation.

Many of us saw the attacks as an opportunity for a national soul-searching and a recognition of decades of imperialistic adventurism, both politically and militarily, which contributed to the conditions provoking these attacks and previous attacks. Many of us have protested the policies and actions of our government consistently, with the understanding that much of our wealth and power has been built by exploiting you and your countries. Unfortunately, many of our citizens remain ignorant, racist, and intolerant. There is still a great division in our society, but more and more of us want peace, cooperation, and friendship. We know that we have been horribly deceived by our government and the forces of capitalism and want no part of it. In short, although we certainly oppose further attacks on our soil and "interests", we understand that we must also change ourselves and our country. We oppose the goals of religious extremists in our society as much as we oppose them in your
societies.

We are aware that we have unjustifiably and illegally all but destroyed Iraq and your people. We are aware that our government is fast preparing for an unprovoked and illegal war against Iran and perhaps Syria. We are aware that we are at war in Somalia. We are aware that our CIA is involved in many other "secret" actions in many other sovereign nations, as it has been since World War II. We are aware that by "exporting democracy", our government really means "exporting capitalism", while our own government descends toward totalitarian fascism. Just yesterday, RINF, an English news service, reported that Russian intelligence analysts say our president has given authority to the military to arrest and detain any citizen who opposes his wars. This is unprecedented. It is widely known that the government is building massive detention camps. Many members of the Bush-Cheney administration have resigned or been fired, military commanders who oppose his policies have been marginalized. Bush has said unequivocally that he will ignore growing opposition from Congress and continue to implement has disastrous agenda - disastrous for us and for you. We know that we will all pay dearly for our sins for many years and in many ways.

Paralyzed by fear of our government, political inertia, ignorance, and the distractions of consumerism and narcissism, we seem powerless to stop our government in its relentless quest to control and exploit the world. Although our Democratic Party, compliant and complicit for the past six years, has recently gained a majority in our Congress, they will actually be ineffective. The congressional leadership has already said that they will not attempt to impeach Bush and others, in spite of the wishes of a growing number of Americans.

In closing, brothers and sisters, please accept my sincere apology for these tragedies and any such future atrocities our government may commit. We respect you, your cultures, your religions, and your sovereignty. Somehow, we must try to regain your respect and trust. Please pray for us as well as yourselves.

TOP 11 REASONS YOU SHOULD FIGHT HATE LAWS

Harmony Grant

From:
National Prayer Network

Unless we resist now, a thought crimes bureaucracy like those regulating Australia, Canada and Europe will soon rule America. In these nations, federal hate laws have destroyed citizens’ rights to free speech. The Anti-Defamation League may reintroduce a federal hate law—the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act —in Congress as early as this week. Punishment of politically incorrect bias is the ultimate goal of this legislation. Democrats support hate laws and their control of Congress means almost certain passage—unless enough Americans protest and back ADL down from even submitting this bill.

A national hate law would shatter Americans’ First Amendment rights, which are now sadly unique among Western democracies. We would lose our precious freedom to express politically incorrect ideas, moral judgments, or whatever personal convictions the reigning thought police deem “hateful.”

Think this can’t happen in America? Think again. Hostile work environment law and campus speech bans already severely curtail free expression in American workplaces and universities. A US federal hate law would follow the examples of Europe, Canada, and Australia where Christian pastors have been indicted simply for quoting politically incorrect Scripture in their sermons. Iceland’s Orwellian hate law, for example, promises two years’ jail if you verbally “insult” a person on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

If a federal hate law were passed, free expression across the political spectrum would be threatened. What would happen to blasphemous art like Piss Christ or South Park, to Ann Coulter or Al Franken, to Christians protesting sodomy or homosexuals attacking the Bible? Every American, from left-leaning feminists to red state Republicans, should protest “anti-hate” legislation. If Rosie O’Donnell were an Icelander, she could have been prosecuted for verbal “assault” for her recent statement that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Political activists in nations with hate laws have already been indicted for criticizing Islam, Zionism, and homosexuality. Hate laws threaten your freedom to speak your mind, no matter what’s on it.

Here are some of the most powerful, bipartisan reasons to fight this legislation.

1. Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.

Hate laws empower the government to enforce the orthodoxy of whoever happens to be in charge. The government can define which biases or “hatreds” are unacceptable and which are okay. For instance, hate laws in our PC age allow women to derogate men but would silence men from legitimate (though possibly hurtful) speech like a discussion of biological gender differences.

In 2004 Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel wrote a hate-filled screed published in a major daily. Her article describes white men as arrogant, sex-obsessed and exploitative, explaining that Rytel just wants to “puke” on them. Stockholm authorities refused to indict Rytel under their hate law, saying it was passed to protect ethnic minorities, not white Swedes. This is one example of speech bans’ uneven enforcement; they are used to punish certain kinds of hate and allow others.

Because almost every exercise of free speech offends someone, government officials would end up enforcing speech bans on the basis of their own bias. Speech bans simply can’t be evenhanded unless everyone is shut up altogether.

In the real world, speech can and does wound. That’s a cost of life. We naturally resent painful realities like economic competition, unfair comments, and hard work. But in each case, the cures we’ve tried were far worse than the sickness. Speech bans might censor some hurtful speech but would empower government to silence minorities and strip the intellectual marketplace of legitimate and needed expression—the kind that creates positive, social change precisely because it is minority and challenges the sins of the group.

2. Hate speech bans don’t work.

Genuine racism and false hatreds exist in this world. Bans on hate speech, however, won’t solve the problem. If you only break off a tick’s body, its head will burrow deep beneath the skin. The only effective response to bad ideas is the truth. We should combat falsehoods with more and freer discussion, not less.

3. Hate laws aren’t necessary.

ADL claims an epidemic of hate sweeps America that can only be fought with stiffened penalties for bias-driven crimes. Yet the FBI’s 2005 Uniform Crime Report shows alleged hate crimes form a tiny 1/15 of 1 percent of all crime in America. Law enforcers’ time would be far better spent fighting the 99.85 percent of crime that’s happening every minute across our nation rather than getting entangled in discerning and testifying against the perceived motivations of a tiny minority of criminals.

Hate laws would require vast government bureaucracies, complicate law enforcement, and distract police and prosecutors from dealing with actual physical crimes. Government and law enforcement should focus on criminal acts, not words or motivations, in a nation where someone is murdered every 22 minutes, raped every 5, robbed every 49 seconds and burgled every 10 seconds. Discerning and prosecuting criminal motivations would only be a good plan if law enforcers had God’s omniscience and time to waste. Ours have neither.

4. Hate speech bans are unconstitutional.

Because the First Amendment underwrites our most precious civil liberty, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against speech bans. In 1972 the Court declared, “[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its contents.” (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92)

Some forms of speech are restricted; these include threats and “fighting words” that incite “an immediate breach of peace.” But these restrictions are (and must remain) extremely narrow and content-neutral—the government is not allowed to censor speech based on the viewpoint it expresses but only on whether it constitutes an immediate threat. Hate laws, however, would punish the viewpoints expressed in speech, in violation of the Constitution.

International use of ADL-designed hate laws shows that the first kinds of speech to be sanctioned are extreme right, white nationalist speech and Holocaust reductionism. The average person is slow to defend such speech. But hate laws quickly broaden to punish forms of expression the average citizen would never dream of stifling. Sweden’s 2002 modified hate law, for example, explicitly exposes Christian sermons to prosecution!

All forms of controversial political and religious speech are potentially vulnerable to prosecution under hate laws. This contradicts Supreme Court Justice Holmes Jr. who said in 1929, “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment [loyal defense] than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”

5. Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect.

Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings of others. But when the government has power to silence expression that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed its protection. Liberals, the champions of unrestrained speech in the 1960s, now vote as a bloc in Congress to support speech restrictions. Yet already in countries such as Canada, England and Australia, leftist critics of Islam have become the victims of hate laws, indicted for religious “hate speech.”

Leftist artists Rowan Atkinson and Salman Rushdie realize hate laws don’t just threaten white nationalists like David Duke but liberals as well— they recently fought for revision of Britain’s hate law because it could be used to outlaw art that blasphemes or criticizes religion. Atkinson and Rushdie are just a few of hate laws’ leftist critics who know that persons of all political persuasions have a stake in defeating this legislation.

6. Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech.

Under the threat of possible indictment, many people will refrain from discussing controversial but important ideas. Speech bans are often broad and vague, leaving citizens unsure what might get them hauled into court.

This is what has happened in American workplaces, where hostile work environment law has left many employees unsure what they can say. Many Americans avoid all controversial speech and voluntarily refrain from exercising First Amendment rights at work. Hate laws would extend this dangerous minefield to the national political scene.

Legal philosopher Edmond Cahn points out that speech bans would leave our bookshelves empty. “[T]he officials could begin by prosecuting anyone who distributes the Christian gospels, because they contain many defamatory statements not only about Jews but also about Christians…Then the officials could ban Greek literature for calling the rest of the world "barbarians." Roman authors could be suppressed because when they were not defaming the Gallic and Teutonic tribes, they were disparaging the Italians…Then there is Shakespeare, who openly affronts the French, the Welsh, the Danes…” (Beyond the Burning Cross, E. Cleary, Random House, 1994)

7. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.

Criminalizing speech that expresses “hate” or “bias” would require us to outlaw history’s most valuable speech, especially the political and religious speech that threatens social stasis and ignites progress.

Aggressive speech is often the only tool available to political, social, or religious minorities whose access to government lobbying and mass media is limited. Those agitating for social change often need to use inflammatory and even “hateful” language to startle the public into hearing their message. Socrates compared himself to a horsefly biting the lazy flanks of his republic. We should certainly know enough by now to prefer the annoyance of stinging speech (even when we don’t see its value) to a tyrannical majority that plods, unchallenged, toward slavery.

Americans are so used to our mudslinging, no-holds-barred political discourse that we find it hard to envision the way freedom of speech could disappear. But the freedom we enjoy is extremely rare in history, and quickly lost. Free expression for intellectuals is the first thing to go when tyrants rise to power; the history of oppressive regimes makes it clear that freedom of political speech is a delicate exception and the overarching tendency is for majorities or elites to get power and silence all opposition.

8. The government’s interest in reducing violent crime does not outweigh our interest in preserving civil liberty.

Hate law advocates including the ADL argue that hateful speech incites violence, and appeal to the government’s interest in reducing violent crime. But it would be unfair to ban, for instance, white racist speech or Christian sermons against homosexuality without also banning the plethora of other speech that might incite crime. Gangsta rap and videogames would be open to censure; we would also have to ban pornography, especially sadomasochistic porn, which certainly inspires violence against women.

Yet bans against these kinds of speech have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional. The government has an interest in lowering violent crime of all stripes but has always found the value of the First Amendment to be greater. It’s unjust to argue that a few kinds of speech must be banned because they possibly incite violence (e.g., criticism of Jewish actions or homosexuality) yet permit huge categories of speech (violent sexual entertainment) that do the same. This would happen, however, under hate laws’ unequal and partial enforcement. The ADL is not truly driven by the desire to reduce violent crime but rather to enforce a social and political orthodoxy.

Instead of passing a hate law that would shatter the First Amendment and impossibly complicate law enforcement, people concerned with hate-driven crimes should focus on improving our existing justice system and making sure hard crimes don’t go unpunished.

9. Speech bans are offensively paternalistic.

They presume we can’t think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves, or deal with the hurt caused by others’ free expression. Are we such children that we need the government to cover our ears? Speech bans especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can’t combat in a free intellectual market.

10. Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do.

Frederic Bastiat’s classic treatise on The Law says government exists only to prevent injustice by defending our basic rights to person, liberty, and property. Government does not exist to guarantee our economic outcomes, redistribute our wealth, or protect our psyches. Speech bans would empower government to silence individuals by force. This is immoral whether it’s one person silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group of dissenters. Human fallibility requires at least enough humility to allow others to question, challenge, and dissent from our ideas. John Stuart Mill explains, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

11. Speech bans deny self-determination and individual freedom by criminalizing self-expression.

By censoring speech, hate laws censor thought and restrict our access to ideas. This is the essence of mind control. They deny the personal growth that comes from sharing ideas—including hateful, prejudiced, or false ideas—and having them challenged in a free intellectual marketplace.

Hate law speech bans have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional and would rend the very foundation of our freedom and democracy. Far from combating hate, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is actually the most hateful and enslaving legislation to ever reach Congress; it would invade states’ rights in law enforcement, enabling a hate crimes bureaucracy to police our thoughts and expression. Government could censor by force all speech that dissents from the reigning orthodoxy. Every American must speak up now in defense of the freedom for which our forefathers gave their very lives.

Act now! Contact your elected officials (both Democrats and Republicans) and demand they vote against any and all “anti-hate” legislation. Visit www.truthtellers.org for a powerful and easy-to-mail brochure that will astonish any political or religious leader or broadcaster who reads it. Our website presents a plan of action that has defeated the federal hate bill before and will work again. Together, we can make sure a hate crimes gestapo never takes over America.

Make your voice heard today or it will be silenced tomorrow.

-###-

Harmony Grant is a staff writer for the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog group.

For a quick education on the dangers of hate laws and the ADL conspiracy to take away freedom, go to video.google.com and watch Ted Pike's 80-minute video, "Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians." For a DVD or VHS copy to show your neighbors, in church, or in your conservative study group, order for $24.90 postpaid at www.truthtellers.org or by calling 503-631-3808.

To read the hate bill for yourself, with commentary in red by Rev. Pike, see Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2005 [S. 1145]).

-###-

2007 Harmony Grant