Jay Sekulow & ACLJ Release Letter From American in Iranian Jail

The Washington based, The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) released a letter today from American Pastor Saeed Abedini– a U.S. citizen facing a lengthy prison sentence in Iran because of his Christian faith –in which he says he’s facing “horrific pressures,” acknowledging continuing physical and psychological abuse – including troubling “death threats.

In his first letter since his conviction and sentence in January, the 32-year-old Pastor Saeed says the conditions inside Evin Prison are “so very difficult that my eyes get blurry, my body does not have the strength to walk, and my steps become very weak and shaky.” Pastor Saeed also says he is facing significant pressure to recant his Christian faith. “The torture, the beatings, the death threats never end,” said Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, which represents Pastor Saeed’s wife and children who reside in the U.S. “The Iranians continue to do everything they can to break Pastor Saeed – both physically and psychologically. The abuse he continues to face is nothing less than brutal. It’s our hope that this latest communication only intensifies efforts in this country and abroad to pressure Iran to release this U.S. citizen.”

Led by ECLJ and ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

In the letter, posted here, Pastor Saeed said he knows that “he’s not been forgotten” but also provides astonishing details about the abuse he faces: “Various (bullying) groups, the psychological warfare, a year of not seeing my family, physical violence, actions committed to humiliate me, insults, being mocked, being confronted with extremists in the prison who create another prison within the prison walls, and the death threats…”

Naghmeh, who has been prohibited from speaking with her husband by phone, knows that what her husband calls the “dark house of Evin Prison” is taking a significant toll on him. “Our primary concern is for his health and well-being with each passing day. We know that while he is very weak physically, Saeed is strong in his faith. His situation is dire and with the continued abuse and death threats, we are not sure how long Saeed will survive these horrendous conditions in prison.”

Pastor Saeed said he continues to live out his faith in prison and despite facing what he calls “horrific pressures” that are sometimes “unbearable” – he offers encouragement to others who face difficult challenges. “Maybe you are also in such a situation, so pray and seek God that He would use you and direct you in the pressures and difficulties of your lives,” Pastor Saeed wrote.

Also last week, more than 80 members of Congress – in a strong bi-partisan move – sent a letter to Secretary of State Kerry urging him to “exhaust every possible option to secure Mr. Abedini’s immediate release.” The letter stated that “[a]s a U.S. citizen, Mr. Abedini deserves nothing less than the exercising of every diplomatic tool of the U.S. government to defend his basic human rights.”

“This new letter from Pastor Saeed could not be more clear or direct – he continues to face life-threatening abuse simply because of his religious beliefs,” said ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow. “The letter also underscores the need to move quickly. A U.S. citizen is in failing health from beatings and abuse – a menacing scenario that should command the full attention and engagement of the U.S. government. It’s our hope that Secretary Kerry will act without delay – doing all that can be done by the State Department to save this U.S. citizen.” As Pastor Saeed’s wife, Naghmeh put it: “The most important thing we can do is pray, continue to raise awareness of his case and continue to work for his freedom.” The ACLJ is working with the U.S. government, the United Nations, and the European Union to secure Pastor Saeed’s freedom.

The ACLJ’s #SaveSaeed campaign continues to gather momentum – as thousands upon thousands of people all over the world are tweeting, Facebooking, and signing our petition, which focuses on bringing additional international pressure on the Iranian government.


SOURCE http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/jay-sekulow-aclj-release-letter-from-american-in-iranian-jail

Chuck Hagel is ‘willfully blind’ about Iran

On March 2, 2007, Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered a speech at Rutgers University that has attracted more than its share of controversy. First, Hagel allegedly accused the State Department of being controlled by the Israeli Foreign Ministry in the Q&A after the speech (he disavows and does not recall those remarks). Next, the Daily Caller reported that Hagel was invited by Hooshang Amirahmadi, a candidate for the Iranian presidency approved by Iran’s radical Guardian Council.

While the source of the invitation and the allegations regarding the unrecorded question- and-answer session are certainly interesting, they’re less interesting than the text of the speech itself, which demonstrates that Hagel is simply wrong about Iran. He’s worse than wrong. To borrow a phrase from my friend Andrew McCarthy, he’s willfully blind.

In the speech, in which he supposedly demonstrates his grasp on the “complexities” of the Middle East, he says the following:

Iran has cooperated with the United States on Afghanistan to help the Afghans establish a new government after the Taliban was ousted. Iran continues to invest heavily in the reconstruction of western Afghanistan.

On Afghanistan, the United States and Iran found common interests: defeating the Taliban and Islamic radicals, stabilizing Afghanistan, stopping the opium production and the flow of opium coming into Iran. From these common interests emerged common actions working toward a common purpose.

This expression of “common interests” and cooperation is staggering – especially considering the timing. Not two months before he delivered the speech, Iran’s Quds Force, a paramilitary terrorist arm of the Iranian government, engineered a raid on an American base in Karbala, Iraq.  Four American soldiers were kidnapped and summarily and brutally executed.

In short, Hagel delivered his speech, a speech lauding Iran’s cooperation, not two months after an overt act of war against this nation. To be sure, Hagel did pay lip service to Iran’s hostile acts, saying “Iran has not helped stabilize the current chaos in Iraq and is responsible for weapons and explosives being used against U.S. and Iraqi military forces in Iraq.”  Yet this language is almost comically deceptive.

“Not helped stabilize” is dramatic understatement when Iran is responsible for launching direct attacks against American soldiers. “[R]esponsible for weapons and explosives being used” minimizes the direct supply chain set up between Iran and hostile Shiite missiles in Iraq. In fact, the single deadliest weapon against Americans in Iraq, the “explosively formed penetrator” (EFP) comes directly from Iran and was used against American troops on Iranian orders. A Feb. 16, 2007, Fox News report – two weeks before Hagel’s speech – outlines the role of the Quds Force in supplying Shiite militaries with EFPs.

But what about Afghanistan? Hagel made the claim that Iran had been helpful, as if it was compartmentalizing its attacks on Americans to one theater of operations. How breathtakingly naïve. In fact, in April 2007 – one month after Hagel’s speech – British soldiers intercepted Iranian arms shipments in Afghanistan.  As early as February 2007, al-Jazeera was reporting on the presence of EFPs in Afghanistan.

Make no mistake, Iran’s war of aggression against American soldiers continues. In 2011, just as American soldiers were preparing to leave Iraq, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps supplied allied militias with new and dangerous weapons. In February of that year, British forces even intercepted an Iranian shipment of 122-mm. rockets with a range of 13 miles – rockets that would dramatically increase Taliban striking power.

In July 2011, respected Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg surveyed the evidence of Iran’s recent aggression and declared: “[This] means that Iran is waging war against the United States of America.”

“Waging war.”

Given this longstanding reality, how can Hagel possibly justify his remarks at Rutgers?  How can we trust him to join the National Command Authority and become the second-in-command of the American military? Administration efforts to minimize his policy-making role ring hollow. He will be, after all, Obama’s senior defense adviser.

Now is not the time for Republican senators to go wobbly. They can and should block the nomination of a man so willfully blind that he can’t even see Iran’s war against the U.S.

Jay Sekulow is the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice


SOURCE http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/21/chuck-hagel-is-willfully-blind-about-iran

Robert Bork and Jay Sekulow are advising Romney on SCOTUS picks

Want to know how far Mitt Romney is willing to go in order to kowtow to the extreme right?  Just look at two of the guys who would advise a President Romney on whom to pick for the Supreme Court--Robert Bork and Jay Sekulow.

Bork has been co-chairman of Romney's advisory committee on the judiciary since August.  His retrograde views on civil rights need no elaboration for most of us, so I'll simply direct you to an excellent report People for the American Way put together on Bork's sordid history called "Borking America."  I will say, though, that it says a lot about Romney that he's taking advice from a guy who thinks desegregation by law is "unsurpassed ugliness," opposes the right to privacy and supports the death penalty for juveniles.

While Bork is the known quantity, most people don't know about Sekulow's role.  However, Sekulow's involvement in the Romney campaign was apparently enough to sway David Barton.  On yesterday's episode of Wallbuilders Live, Barton said that he's supporting Romney because Sekulow will all but assure a President Romney will appoint more Samuel Alito clones to the Court.  PFAW has the audio.  Never mind that there is documented proof Sekulow uses his American Center for Law and Justice as his own piggybank.

So let's see if we've got this right.  Romney is taking advice on prospective justices from one of the most reactionary jurists of modern times, and a guy who is guilty at the very least of inurement.  Yep--more proof that Mittens will do anything and say anything to get elected--and spare no expense in doing so.


SOURCE http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/25/1086232/-Robert-Bork-and-Jay-Sekulow-are-advising-Romney-on-SCOTUS-picks

Jay Sekulow says defending religious liberty is ‘personal’

Jay Sekulow, the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), is well known among top political and legal observers. After all, he has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, and TIME Magazine even named him one of the “25 Most Influential Evangelicals” in America. But I suspect few observers know where Sekulow’s passion for defending liberty was birthed.

“My grandfather faced that persecution at the time of the Russian Revolution, as a lot of Jewish people did in 1914, ’15, ’16 and ’17,” he told me. “I have this statue in my office which is a model of Ellis Island because my grandfather came through Ellis Island.”

During a recent conversation, Sekulow and I discussed his calling to defend religious liberty, as well as his experiences arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

“I always think about that,” he said, recalling his grandfather. “Here I am, Mr. Sekulow, the grandson of a Russian immigrant who came through Ellis Island, and his grandson is arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. So I think both as it relates to this whole idea of religious freedom, but liberty and freedom generally, I take very personally.”

If you’re interested in learning more about Sekulow, religious liberty, or the ACLJ, you can listen to our full conversation here — or read the full transcript below:

Interview with Jay Sekulow

Matt Lewis: We’re happy to have with us today Jay Sekulow. He is the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay Sekulow, welcome to the podcast.

Jay Sekulow: Hey, Matt. Thanks for having me. It’s great to be with you.

Matt Lewis: So a lot of folks may have heard of the ACLJ; some people maybe haven’t; but if you would, tell us what is the group about? What is the mission?

Jay Sekulow: Well, you know, it’s interesting because we’ve been around, you’re right, a long time. I actually started this work doing religious liberty work back in the 1980s. The ACLJ was formed in 1990, and we had some other organizations that are a part of it that pre-existed all this. So the idea initially was to serve as a kind of counterweight to the ACLU, primarily at that time, in the early days, if you look at it, dealing with the religious liberties issues. The school issues were the really big ones.

Probably the most significant case of the last 30 years at that point, I’d say certainly—probably the last 40 years, was a case involving students who wanted to have a Bible club in high school. Now in today’s world, we think of that as a non-issue. They want to have a Bible club or religious club, what’s the problem? There are political clubs; you’re allowed to do these things. But back in the ‘80s, that wasn’t the case; and it actually took an act of Congress to authorize the law, and then that law was challenged in court. It ended up at the Supreme Court of the United States, and I argued that case in 1990s. But even before that case, we had cases involving free speech; so I had a series of Supreme Court cases; and as I said, the focus was primarily religious liberties in the early days, but it quickly expanded into the pro-life arena as well. By the late ‘80s/early 1990s, we were representing Operation Rescue. We had a series of major cases that were big news back in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, and we had a series of cases at the Supreme Court dealing with that.

Matt Lewis: Now you are the grandson of Russian immigrants, and I’m wondering how that might have influenced you to go into this calling because, you know, you can make a lot of money as a lawyer representing corporations or whatever. Was there something about being the grandson of an immigrant?

Jay Sekulow: Yes, I think it’s not just being the grandson of an immigrant; it was the grandson of an immigrant who left Russia because of religious persecution. My grandfather faced that persecution at the time of the Russian Revolution, as a lot of Jewish people did in 1914, ’15, ’16 and ’17; and he came to the United States as a 14 year old. When he came here, I have this statue in my office which is a model of Ellis Island because my grandfather came through Ellis Island. Actually, my son, Logan, found his immigration papers online, signed by my grandfather, who was naturalized in 1930 as a U.S. citizen. But he came here through Ellis Island, and I do think—I do this from a personal standpoint. When I argue those cases at the Supreme Court of the United States—and I say this with deep admiration for living in this country—when they call my name and they say, “Mr. Sekulow, we will now hear from you,” (which they’ve done over a dozen times now and I’ve had a lot of cases up there, obviously), I always think about that. Here I am, Mr. Sekulow, the grandson of a Russian immigrant who came through Ellis Island, and his grandson is arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. So I think both as it relates to this whole idea of religious freedom, but liberty and freedom generally, I take very personally.

I have not only a deep affinity and affection for our country, but a desire to preserve and protect and defend it in the courtrooms, and within the context of the vision the Founding Fathers intended. That’s the motivating force for me in all of these cases that we’ve done, including the campaign finance cases, the religion cases, the statutory cases, that’s been a big part of who I am. I take that charge—you said it right, Matt—as the grandson of a Russian immigrant very seriously.

Matt Lewis: I want to talk about some of the cases—your Supreme Court cases—but before I do, you know, it’s got to be intimidating to go before the Supreme Court. Could you just tell me what is it like? What was it like the first time? How intimidating is it? Just what does it feel like?

Jay Sekulow: Well, the first time, I will tell you the truth, I went to the Supreme Court and I saw an argument three weeks before I did my first argument at the Supreme Court. And the first appellate argument I ever did was the Jews for Jesus case at the Supreme Court. I had never argued an appeal before; I did trial work. My first appellate argument was before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an intimidating factor in one sense because it’s the whole formality of the occasion; but it’s also, as nervous as any lawyer is your first time, it’s an awe-inspiring event—the majesty of the law, the grandeur of our system of justice. It had a real impact on me.

And the intensity level of preparation, it never changed since the first case I argued. I prepare. It becomes my life for a long number of months leading up to the Supreme Court arguments. Usually from start to finish when your case is granted review, you’ve got briefing that goes for about three months and then you have oral argument preparation, which is another three months. Basically, for that six months, that’s your life.

It was an incredible experience, and I will tell you something about it from a little bit of a different perspective, I recently participated in an event at the International Criminal Court in the Hague on a very complex international law matter. I came back and the first thing I said to my partners and associates and friends was the fact that you really learn to appreciate our system of justice when you go overseas (and I litigate around the world), how great this system is. With all its problems, with all the parties disagreeing with your position, it’s still the greatest system in the world.

The nervous factor is there, but that evaporates when you make oral arguments in seconds because then you’re just engaged. I don’t actually think it gets easier each time you do it; because I think as you become more of a repeat lawyer or “regular-?” as it’s called, the expectations are high. The answer is “yes” or “no”; it’s not “I don’t know.” “I don’t know” is not a good answer at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Matt Lewis: So, your first case before the Supreme Court in 1987, Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, tell us, if you would, about that case.

Jay Sekulow: Well, it was a straightforward case. The City of Los Angeles, in light of the 1988 Olympic Games, passed a resolution prohibiting free speech activities at the airport. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld our position. The concern was that the Supreme Court took the case to reverse. Rather than arguing it as a religion case, we presented the case as a classic free speech case. We received wide support from political parties, labor unions, civil liberties groups, and others. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favor, and Justice O’Connor wrote that there was no conceivable governmental interest justifying such a sweeping prohibition of free speech.

One of the news articles described my oral argument initially as very aggressive and obnoxious. When the decision came out unanimously, another legal periodical described that in my oral argument, I remained undeterred during intense questioning. But it was a big case because it utilized the free speech perspective in a case involving religious speech, and that was a big deal at the time.

Matt Lewis: You are now operating in a lot of different countries. America is an important country and there’s a lot of work to be done here. What was it that led you to decide that this needed to be done internationally as well?

Jay Sekulow: Well, starting in 1997, so it’s been a long time, we were invited to speak with some lawyers in Europe and I realized very quickly that what was happening in Europe on critical issues involving life, involving religious freedom, were really at stake there. I was also concerned that I saw this growing phenomenon and this idea that they were going to take international law, because it had already started creeping in, and apply it to the U.S. Constitution despite the fact that Europe does not have a constitution. We thought it would be in our interest to litigate in Europe on issues of life and liberty and religious freedom with a clear understanding that the law determined there involves Europe and should not be placed on the United States even though the same principles were at stake. I thought that was dangerous. So I said, well, if establish a full office and operation—we initially opened in Strasbourg, France, which is where the European Court of Human Rights sits. Look, we know that there’s importance regarding law in Europe, but we also know this—we have an office over there—we don’t take European law which is not based on a constitution and apply it to the United States. Now that’s coming from lawyers who litigate in Europe and have offices in Europe with European lawyers running them. So, the idea was to address a lot of the same issues that were in a strictly European context and not mix the two.That’s what we really focused on. So, our first international office was there in Strasbourg, France.

Matt Lewis: And so, going back to America, I wanted to get the sense; you know, I guess starting in like, you know, the ‘60s, liberalism and sort of the radicalized (culture), and you had these “you can’t have prayer in school” and these different things, and obviously Roe v. Wade in 1973. So, do you have a sense though that things are getting better or worse or staying the same in terms of where we’re going with religious liberty?

Jay Sekulow: Well, I think our religious liberty has actually gotten better. I think you saw, you’re right, in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, it was pretty awful; and now you have a very different situation and that is, if you look starting in about 1985/middle ‘80s, you started seeing what we call “equal access doctrine”—this idea to allow a broad array of speakers into the public fora, you can’t discriminate against the religious speaker simply because they’re religious.

We actually had an oral argument, a case involving Lamb’s Chapel Church, where the State of New York argued that religious advocacy served no benefit to the general community. And Justice Scalia, in the oral argument, asked the attorney for the State of New York, he said, “Is that still a position of New York that religious advocacy is not beneficial to the general community?” and the lawyer said, indeed, it was their position currently. And Justice Scalia then retorted and said, “Well, you know, it used to be thought that a person who was religious was less likely to mug me or rape my sister.” That’s what Justice Scalia said to the lawyer from the other side on this. We had a unanimous decision in that one as well.

So, what happened was the Court—conservative and liberal—quickly understood that we’re dealing with a situation where (and I think this is important to note), a situation where the Court came to grips with the idea that you cannot treat religious people and religious practices, as Justice Brennan said, as if they’re subversive to the American Republic. You started seeing that in the ‘80s, so in a very real way, Matt, I think we are a lot better off now than we were then. I will say that we’re hanging on by a thread, though. These cases are very close now. We used to win 6-3, 9-0; now they’re 5-4. So the ideological shift on the Court’s been significant. We’re hanging in there, but these are tough cases.

I’ve got one pending right now that may be granted review, and I’m looking at it and saying, “Well, if we win, we’re going to win by a vote; if we lose, we’ll probably lose by a vote.”

Matt Lewis: Wow, okay, are you allowed to talk about that?

Jay Sekulow: Yes, it involves a judge who had a rule of law displayed in his courtroom. It included The Ten Commandments but a lot of other documents as well, and he called it “Moral Absolutes.” The ACLU challenged it. They tried to get him held in contempt once for a previous case. We won the contempt. They then filed suit again. The court said that the ACLU individuals involved had standing and secondly (and this is what was so interesting here), that it violated the Constitution. This case is now pending, and we think the standing issue—can you simply, “I don’t like to see something, therefore I get to file a lawsuit” is what needs to be addressed. I think if the Court grants review—and I’m hopeful they will; it’s always an uphill battle—it will be because of that.

Matt Lewis: Now obviously, the ACLU, their mission at least sounds noble; and I think we all believe in, you know, liberty and free expression. And every once in a while they do come down sort of on the right side of something.

Jay Sekulow: Yep.

Matt Lewis: Sometimes they come down on a really weird side—the wrong side—but sort of like a weird principled stance. Do you think, are they just sort of misguided or do you think they’re like openly hostile to religious liberty?

Jay Sekulow: Well, talking about and I’m not so sure about this. “Hostile” is a strong word, only in the sense that I think they really believe this. Their view of church-state relations is very different than ours. They believe in a strict Separation Of Church And State; and because of that, it’s not the hostility, it’s just who they are. They really believe this stuff.

On free speech, there are a lot of cases where they back me up. I’ve had cases where they’ve joined with us on protest cases, but sometimes they’ll take a skewed position on that as well. So, you hope that it’s not ideologically driven; but what I’ve found is that they sincerely believe their position. I just believe a lot of these are sincerely wrong.

Matt Lewis: Gotcha.

Jay Sekulow: There are other groups, quite frankly, that take it to a much higher level of extreme. The Freedom From Religion Foundation. The American Atheists Association. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is Mikey Weinstein. They take it to a whole different level.

Matt Lewis: Let me ask you, if you would talk about something. You’ve got a lot of these Supreme Court trials. We can’t talk about all of them, but say Operation Rescue v. NOW; Locke v. Davey; Elkwood Unified School District v. Newdow. If there’s one that you think would be of interest to the audience, I’d love to hear more about it because these are like Supreme Court cases and even a Supreme Court, the average person doesn’t really, you know, come in contact with them. You don’t hear it a lot of times on FOX News or MSNBC or USA Today even.

Jay Sekulow: Right. You know, it’s hard to pick the ones that really made a difference. Obviously, the one I mentioned earlier, the Bible club case, had a huge impact. The one I really enjoyed arguing was the campaign finance case [McConnell v. FEC]. There was a provision in what was called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act that was McCain-Feingold that prohibited minors from participating in these elections. If a student, a 17 year old, wanted to give $5 to a Sunday School teacher who was running for Congress, it would be, you know, a crime. And we challenged that and, actually, I argued that at the Supreme Court of the United States, that while they upheld most of the Campaign Finance Act, the provision that we challenged was declared unconstitutional unanimously. That was a fun case. I had a very short time for oral argument; I think it was 10 or 15 minutes, and it was very intense.

Matt Lewis: What was that practice called? Specifically, this notion that if you gave money to your Sunday School teacher who was running for office that was illegal.

Jay Sekulow: They actually had in the law, in the Bipartisan Campaign Act, saying that minors were prohibited from contributing to elections.

Matt Lewis: Okay.

Jay Sekulow: And the idea was that you had to be 18 years old to vote; and you could say that if you have to be 18 years old to vote, well then if you’re not 18, you shouldn’t be able to give to a campaign. My retort to that was that women, before they had suffrage, weren’t entitled to vote; but they funded a lot of campaigns on the streets and in political environments to make sure they got the right to vote. So, you know, it didn’t quite work out that way, and the First Amendment wasn’t based on that kind of context. Again, unanimously, the Court all agreed. So, that was a really fun case and an important case on precedent. It kind of re-established student rights and that these students do have free speech rights which became important.

You know, some of the most intense cases were clearly the Operation Rescue cases, just by their nature. There was a situation where you had the case at the Supreme Court when all the controversies were going on, and you had them in the lower courts as well. So it began an all-consuming event, as you can imagine.

Matt Lewis: Indeed. Well, Jay, I really appreciate you coming on. How do people find out more about you and what you do?

Jay Sekulow: The best way to do it is ACLJ.org. Matt, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Matt Lewis: My pleasure. Jay Sekulow. He is the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay, thanks for coming on the show.

Jay Sekulow: Thanks, Matt.


SOURCE: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/31/jay-sekulow-says-defending-religious-liberty-is-personal/

ACLJ Says Obama Trying to 'Fool' Americans With Contraceptive Mandate

The American Center for Law & Justice has warned that people will not be "fooled" by the President Barack Obama-backed HHS mandate, which forces religious employers to offer insurance coverage that includes birth control to employees.

"The fight against the HHS abortion pill mandate is intensifying," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow says in a letter. His organization has filed two new "friend-of-the-court" briefs against the HHS mandate, arguing that the plaintiffs are being denied injunctive relief from compliance with the mandate.

Earlier this month, the White House administration came up with a "compromise" that sought to alleviate some of the religious lawsuits filed against the Obamacare provision, promising further exemptions for religious employers.

A number of conservative organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which has been on the forefront of leading objections against the mandate, have said that the proposed compromise does not address real religious concerns.

"It appears that the government would require all employees in our 'accommodated' ministries to have the illicit coverage – they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children – under a separate policy," Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York commented about some of the problems the bishops found with the proposal.

Sekulow added that the mandate still forces people of faith to pay for abortion pills, and the accommodations do nothing to protect the religious liberty of Americans.


"We will not be fooled. President Obama is using the unlimited resources of his Justice Department to entrench his pro-abortion agenda deep within our health care system," the organization added.

One of the briefs the ACLJ filed in the Sixth Circuit appeal concerned Autocam Corporation and Autocam Medical, two manufacturing companies with more than 600 full-time employees that have cited religious objections to the mandate and refused to pay coverage for contraceptive methods. The other brief involves chains Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel, an arts and crafts store and bookstore, respectively.

"If the plaintiffs in these two cases do not comply with the mandate, they face significant penalties," the ACLJ explain in a statement. "The Autocam plaintiffs would incur about $19 million per year in penalties, and the Hobby Lobby plaintiffs would incur almost $500 million per year in penalties for non-compliance."

Currently over 70,000 people have signed a petition for the briefs, which the ACLJ says is in support of the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.


SOURCE http://global.christianpost.com/news/aclj-says-obama-trying-to-fool-americans-with-contraceptive-mandate-90297/

Will abortion derail the healthcare bill?

Jay Sekulow is an attorney that pursues cases that protect and define civil rights for Christians. Sekulow hosts a talk radio show and serves as Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a conservative religious organization.

Sekulow shared with his audience two months ago that the downfall of the healthcare bill will be the issue of abortion. It was interesting why he made that statement since none of the network or cable news shows had spoke a word of the issue of abortion causing strife. The argument was pointed at the public option and the cost.

However, the news is now covering the abortion argument with great detail. Sekulow stated that there is growing support among the Democratic Party for anti-abortion views. Including abortion in the healthcare package is a line many of the democratic lawmakers are unwilling to cross. According to CBN news, more than 40 democratic senators are opposing the government-funded abortion option.

SOURCE http://www.examiner.com/article/will-abortion-derail-the-healthcare-bill

Atheist group takes shot at Pledge of Allegiance and loses.....again

Once again, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in New Hampshire public schools.

According to the law, the New Hampshire School Patriot Act, students are permitted to voluntarily recite the Pledge in school.

The law doesn't set well with the FFRF, and they claimed that the recitation of the pledge in N.H. public schools violates the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process Clause of the Constitution as well as the New Hampshire Constitution and federal and state law. Whew! With all those possibilities, remote as they are, FFRF must have figured something just might stick.

Background

After a federal district court upheld the constitutionality of the state law, the FFRF appealed to the First Circuit.
Wouldn't it be a pity if "Under God" was considered a prayer in the Pledge of Allegiance and that it, too, was eliminated from schools.
Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance

In its decision just last November, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge stating:

"It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect."

The appeals court also rejected claims that the recitation of the Pledge is an endorsement of religion:

"The Pledge's affirmation that ours is a 'nation, under God' is not a mere reference to the fact that many Americans believe in a deity, nor to the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of our nation. As the Supreme Court recognized in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), to recite the Pledge is to 'declare a belief' and 'affirm[] . . . an attitude of mind.' Id. at 631, 633. In reciting the Pledge, a student affirms a belief in its description of the nation."

"We hold that the New Hampshire School Patriot Act and the voluntary, teacher-led recitation of the Pledge by the state's public school students do not violate the Constitution. We affirm the order and judgment of the district court dismissing FFRF's complaint."

After the court dismissed the complaint, FFRF asked them to please reconsider and come to a different conclusion, one based on their distorted view of the Constitution. The appeals court rejected the request.

The ruling:

Opinion, FFRF vs Hanover School District, click here.

ACLJ amicus brief, click here.

Chief Judge Sandra Lynch:

"In reciting the Pledge, students promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church. The New Hampshire School Patriot Act's primary effect is not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism through a pledge to the flag as a symbol of the nation."

The American Center for Law and Justice, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, praised the ruling. In the words of Jay Sekulow,

"This appeals court reached a significant and sound decision that underscores what most Americans understand -- that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance embraces patriotism, not religion."

Michael Newdow, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, had his own statement,

"Once again, we have federal judges doing what is politically popular as opposed to upholding the Constitution." He said the case isn't about "whether you believe in God or don't believe in God. It's whether you believe in the government respecting us all equally or the government favoring your religious views."

FFRF wants the same outcome in ruling as Newdow, but they don't discount that it's about the number of believers vs non-believers as shown by Gaylor's statement:

“It shouldn’t be OK to exclude nearly a third of the state’s population in a daily school ritual that turns nonbelievers into political outsiders."

Not over yet

FFRF may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have 90 days to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at the high court.

If they do indeed file the petition, ACLJ promises to immediately file an amicus brief asking the court not to waste judicial resources on the same flawed arguments put forth by the FFRF. ACLJ will urge the high court to keep the appeals court decision intact by rejecting the request to have the case heard yet again.

Previous similar FFRF case

This decision by the First Circuit comes just weeks after a federal district court in Wisconsin rejected another flawed legal challenge by the FFRF, one where they complained about engravings of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C., which is "the entrance for the thousands of tourists who visit the Capitol every day."

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint believes the engravings are necessary because otherwise the Center failed to recognize the integral role of religion in our federal government. They would correct the historical whitewash of the original design, welcome God back into the Center, and highlight the "all important relationship between faith and freedom in America."

U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa added that without the engravings of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance, the Visitor Center would reflect an effort "to scrub references to America's Christian heritage" and to eradicate "the role of Christianity in America."

In that challenge against the engravings by FFRF, the ACLJ represented 50 members of Congress in an amicus brief asking the court to reject the suit.

A federal judge threw out the lawsuit.

-------------

Additional Source

Yakima/Washington state law: RCW 28A.230.140 says that school boards "shall cause appropriate flag exercises to be held." Student participation is voluntary.

WSSDA Terry Bergeson, state superintendent of public instruction: "Our mission in school is to help build citizens for the future, and the pledge is at the heart of citizenship. It is a statement of support for the ideals of this country."


SOURCE http://www.examiner.com/article/atheist-group-takes-shot-at-pledge-of-allegiance-and-loses-again

Jay Sekulow: Help Us Tell the Story of American Pastor Saeed, Imprisoned in Iran

One of the most important things we can do is keep the story of Pastor Saeed Abedini in the spotlight. This U.S. citizen is facing eight years in a deadly Iranian prison, convicted for his Christian faith.

We know that the situation he faces gets worse day by day. He remains cut-off from speaking with his wife and two young children who live in Idaho. Prior to his conviction and sentence, he was able periodically to talk with them over the phone. Now, that is prohibited. The fact is Naghmeh, along with their young son and daughter; do not know when, or even if, they will ever hear his voice again.

During a recent visit with his family in Iran, Pastor Saeed expressed apprehension and concern about his fate, openly questioning whether efforts are still underway to secure his freedom.  It appears the Iranian prison guards continue their lies – pushing propaganda to try and convince Pastor Saeed that he has been forgotten.

Pastor Saeed’s wife, Naghmeh, told us, “When I heard this from my husband, I cried. It broke my heart. Behind those walls he feels helpless and relies on us to be his voice. It is so easy to feel forgotten in the walls of the prison. Please help me make sure he is never forgotten.”

The ACLJ remains committed to working to free Pastor Saeed – mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide to put more pressure on the U.S. government and international agencies to do all they can to secure Pastor Saeed’s freedom.

In fact, we have produced a new video, which is available here, that tells the story of Pastor Saeed. Please share it with family and friends.

We’ve also launched a new website, SaveSaeed.org, another way to share his story and to generate support for his release. If you haven’t done so already, please add your name to our petition.

And, as always, please keep Pastor Saeed and his family in prayer.

Jay Sekulow


Original post published at http://blog.beliefnet.com/faithandjustice/2013/02/jay-sekulow-help-tell-the-story-of-american-pastor-imprisoned-in-iran.html

Opposing view: Reconsider 9/11 memorial, Mayor Bloomberg

Sept. 11th revealed terrible and great truths. The terrible was obvious: Evil is real, and evil men can inflict great harm. But the greatness gives us strength to this day. There is a deep well of courage in the American spirit — courage displayed at Ground Zero, at the Pentagon, and in the air over Pennsylvania. There's also a deep well of faith — faith displayed even as the smoke still poured from the World Trade Center site.
Sponsored Links

    OUR VIEW: Respect families' wishes at Ground Zero ceremony

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's decision not to invite clergy of any faith to commemorate the anniversary Sunday at Ground Zero is a mistake. The move is deeply offensive to the many Americans who find solace and healing in prayer. For many, 9/11 is not a distant memory. It's still very real. Many face day-to-day struggles to cope with the loss of loved ones.

In the days following 9/11, prayer was an integral part of the grieving process. Thousands attended the "Prayer for America" event at Yankee Stadium, where representatives of many faiths offered prayers. It was an event that united, not divided, Americans.

The nation has a long and cherished history of prayer, from the first prayer in Congress in 1774 to the National Day of Prayer celebrated each year. Even the Supreme Court acknowledges our religious heritage. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it this way: "It is unsurprising that a nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths."

There's a growing chorus of Americans — religious and non-religious alike — calling on Mayor Bloomberg to reconsider his decision. And in the past week, we have heard from thousands of Americans who have signed our letter urging Mayor Bloomberg to change his mind. He still has time to act. He should clear the way for clergy and religious leaders to participate — to pray for our nation, and to pray for those who are still suffering from the pain and loss of Sept. 11, 2001.

Jay Sekulow is chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which defends religious and constitutional freedoms.


SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-09-05/Opposing-view-Reconsider-911-memorial-Mayor-Bloomberg/50266460/1

Sarah Palin Asks Followers to #SaveSaeed

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has stayed largely out of the limelight in the past few months, but her social media presence is still going strong.

Now the onetime GOP vice presidential nominee, who has almost 3.5 million likes on Facebook, is appealing to her followers on behalf of an American pastor from Idaho held prisoner in Iran.

Less than two weeks ago, an Iranian court sentenced Saeed Abedini to eight years in prison for his religious beliefs after a brief trial that he was not allowed to attend, according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

“We condemn Iran’s continued violation of the universal right of freedom of religion, and we call on the Iranian authorities to release Mr. Abedini,” Carney said during a press briefing on Jan. 28. “We obviously have a variety of means, including this podium, to express our views on matters like this, and we are very concerned about this and very concerned about the process that led to this.

The State Department remains in close contact with Abedini’s family, said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland  in a news briefing two days later.

At his confirmation hearing, Secretary of State John Kerry, in a written statement, called on Iranian authorities to release Abedini,  an Idaho television station reported.

But one group is reaching beyond U.S. officials to try to get help for Abedini. The American Center for Law and Justice, a Christian activist organization run by conservative radio host Jay Sekulow, has launched a campaign called #SaveSaeed, promoting a petition it plans to bring to international authorities.

Palin first tweeted about Abedini’s case in late December, before the court handed down its ruling.

For more than a month, Palin was silent on social media about #SaveSaeed. Then Friday morning, Palin’s daughter, former “Dancing With the Stars”  competitor Bristol Palin, wrote a blog post urging readers to sign a petition to have Abedini freed, and tweet using the hashtag and pray for him and his family.

The former Alaska governor later linked to her daughter’s post on both Facebook and Twitter.

 The #SaveSaeed website claimed to have more than 170,000 signatures as of 4 p.m. Friday. Videos promoting the petition say the group’s goal is to reach 300,000 signatures before it presents the petition to the  United Nation and the European Commission of Human Rights.

Other celebrities have flocked to the cause, including Christian singer-songwriters Steven Curtis Chapman and TobyMac.

A Twitter account claiming to be Naghmeh Abedini, the pastor’s wife, tweeted her thanks to those who had signed the petition Friday.


SOURCE http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/sarah-palin-asks-followers-to-savesaeed/

The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America

The Almighty's Attorney-at-Law

If God is heading to an appeals court, Jay Sekulow is likely to be sitting at the counsel table. His Washington-based American Center for Law & Justice has argued and won several high-profile religious-freedom cases, including Supreme Court decisions that allowed Bible-study clubs on public-school campuses and that protected the right of antiabortion demonstrators to rally outside abortion clinics.

Sekulow, 48, who was raised Jewish but converted to Christianity in college and now considers himself a "Messianic Jew," formed the law center with a group of other conservative litigators in 1990. Today the 700,000-member center has become, with a budget of $30 million, a powerful counterweight to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union.

The group's latest battles are supporting the congressional ban on partial-birth abortions and pushing, in an unusually bold and public way, for President Bush's judicial appointments. "The President has shown the kind of nominees he likes for the courts," explains Sekulow, "and I'm very comfortable with that."

SOURCE http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1993235_1993243_1993317,00.html

Stop Voter Intimidation: Keep UN Monitors Out of US Polling Places

It's an election issue that's been under the radar. Not much attention has been given to what can only be described as a troubling attempt to intimidate voters and poll works on Election Day.

A United Nations-affiliated group called the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has announced it is sending dozens of monitors from around the world to monitor the Presidential and Congressional elections in the United States.

That's right. The United Nations will have people looking over the shoulder of poll workers and voters as they go to the polls next week.

If that's not disturbing enough, consider the fact that many liberal organizations are actually encouraging this group to set-up shop and monitor the election in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Texas and Wisconsin - states that could determine the outcome of the Presidential race.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott quickly put this international group on notice warning that "groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas." He was even more direct with a promise to criminally prosecute those U.N. "monitors" who come within 100 feet of a polling place.

And, now officials in Iowa are taking action as well. They are warning these so-called election "monitors" to comply with Iowa state law - don't come within 300 feet of a polling place’s entrance - or face arrest. "Iowa law is very specific about who is permitted at polling places, and there is no exception for members of this group," said Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz.

We applaud Texas and Iowa for their efforts to reject this intimidation tactic. It's absolutely appropriate to put these "monitors" on notice: they are not above the law - and they will face arrest and prosecution if state election laws are violated.

What's astonishing is the fact that this U.N. organization is actually offended by the promise to enforce state election laws. The head of that group called "the threat of criminal sanctions" against their observers "unacceptable" and actually claimed the United States has an "obligation" to invite these observers in to monitor the election.

Absolutely absurd.

The fact is this U.N. organization has no business monitoring the U.S. election. Period.

We're urging every state Attorney General in America to follow the lead of Texas and Iowa: tell this international group they are not welcomed at our polling places and that if they don't respect election law, they will face the legal consequences. Add your name now to our Petition to Stop U.N. Monitors and Voter Intimidation.

Jay Sekulow


Orginal post published at http://aclj.org/Writers/jay-sekulow

Opposition Growing to UN Monitors; Thousands Reject Election Day Intimidation Tactic

It's absurd. We've been reporting on plans by a United Nations-affiliated group called the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to show up at U.S. polling places on Election Day - especially in the swing states where the outcome of the Presidential race could very well be determined - to "monitor" our election.

On my radio show today, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott made it clear these U.N. "monitors" are not above the law and will be prosecuted if they come within 100 feet of a polling place. The good news is that other states are following the lead - Iowa and Georgia - planning to strictly enforce state voting laws.

What's especially troubling here is that liberal political organizations are the center of this intimidation tactic. They have encouraged OSCE to come to our polling places and set-up shop. The groups call the work of this international monitoring organization "valuable" and stated that "we believe it is particularly important that safeguards, including election monitoring, are in place in key areas around the country, and believe your presence would be particularly critical in districts in Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin."

What's even more incredible, now countries like Belarus - a dictatorship - are expressing their concern about the integrity of our elections. It's unbelievable - criticizing our electoral system. This from a dictatorship.

Give me a break.

As I told Megyn Kelly on FOX News today, these U.N. "monitors" have absolutely no authority here. And if they do show up and violate election laws, they should be promptly arrested and prosecuted.

Let's not forget this U.N. organization has called the "threat of criminal sanctions" against their observers "unacceptable" and actually claimed the United States has an "obligation" to invite these observers in to monitor the election.

Here's the encouraging news. Nearly 40,000 Americans have signed on to our Petition to Stop UN Monitors and Voter Intimidation. We are sending a powerful message to the nation's 50 State Attorneys General: The United Nations has no business monitoring elections in the United States. They are not welcome at our polling places and they are not above our laws. You can read our letter here. If you haven't signed on the our petition yet, you can do so here.

Jay Sekulow


Original post published at http://aclj.org/Writers/jay-sekulow