The Obama Administration's "Brave New World" in Refusing to Defend DOMA

There's a lot of debate on how the Supreme Court will rule on the issue of same-sex marriage. Following two days of oral arguments on the topic, there is one thing that is very clear: the Obama Administration's approach to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a federal law that is being challenged - is unusual and troubling.

After DOMA had been on the books for years, President Obama and Attorney General Holder decided in 2011 that DOMA was unconstitutional. And, while the Obama Administration enforced the measure, it failed to defend it. That's right - the Obama Administration made a determination on which federal laws it will defend - and which it will not.

So, the Attorney General of the United States, who took an oath to faithfully defend our federal laws, failed to do so in the DOMA case. There was no Justice Department representation before the high court defending a measure that President Clinton signed into law in 1996.

In fact, that posturing brought criticism from Justice Antonin Scalia who said the legal system appears to be "living in this brave new world" in which the Justice Department can pick and choose which laws it will defend.  "It's only when the president thinks its unconstitutional?" Scalia asked. "Or could the attorney general, or the solicitor general, impose the same determination?"

As I told Megyn Kelly on FOX News today, the Obama Administration acts like our country is a monarchy, instead of a republic.

Veteran attorney Paul Clement, who defended DOMA before the high court, said the executive branch has "vacated the premises" on the case. In fact, instead of defending the federal law, Justice even filed a motion to dismiss the case in a lower court.

The Obama Administration's actions on this issue prompted Justice Anthony Kennedy to note: "That does give you intellectual whiplash."

Jay Sekulow


SOURCE http://aclj.org/writers/jay-sekulow

Rewarding hate, intolerance, and broken promises – with taxpayer dollars

Just days after President Obama left Israel, we learned that his administration quietly gave the green light to giving  nearly $500 million in taxpayer-funded aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The administration’s memory must be short.

Roughly four months ago, the Palestinian Authority defied the Oslo Accords – and the U.S.  – by seeking and gaining non-member observer state status at the United Nations.

Just weeks ago – right before President Obama’s visit – the Palestinian Authority’s ruling Fatah party met with representatives from Hamas to implement the long-promised Palestinian “unity government” that would render the Palestinian people formally and officially terrorist-led.


Taken together with President Obama’s recent gift of $250 million to Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt, America’s taxpayers are now on the hook for three-quarters of a billion dollars in sequester-era stimulus for radical foreign governments with recent records of defying America and breaking treaties.

It is difficult to overstate the absurdity of these gifts.  The Palestinian Authority’s hostility to Israel stretches back to its founding – and before.  In fact, the PA’s founding father, Yasser Arafat, had a record of terrorism and bloodshed unmatched until Usama bin Laden burst onto the scene in the late 1990s.

Among his many transgressions, Arafat was involved in the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre and the 1973 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sudan, where the U.S. Ambassador was murdered.  His reign of terror against Israel killed more Israeli civilians – on a per capita basis – than were killed during Bin Laden’s 9/11 terrorist attack against the U.S.

Yet President Obama spoke to Palestinians while standing under a banner featuring Arafat’s portrait.

The modern Palestinian Authority certainly became less violent once Israel erected the West Bank fence and militarily crushed its worst terrorist elements during the Second Intifada, but it still celebrates suicide bombers and draws its own maps and monuments without reference to Israel.  Palestinian textbooks are famous for their anti-Semitism, and entire generations of children are brought up to hate Jews.

In other words, they still haven’t given up the dream of destroying Israel.

The pattern of American foreign aid now becoming clear:  We borrow billions from China to subsidize and even prop up regimes that defy us at every turn.

Egypt and the Palestinian Authority defy the U.S., beg for money (with the implicit threat that conditions will grow even worse if aid is withheld), then defy the U.S. again.  That’s not an alliance; that’s a protection racket.

Defy, beg, and defy some more – all while Americans tighten their belts here at home, and we’re led to believe that there’s not enough money even for tours of the White House.

Two weeks ago, Senator Marco Rubio introduced an Amendment requiring that explicit conditions be placed on aid to Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt, and – critically – these conditions required that the government of Egypt take concrete actions, not merely make promises.

Similar conditions should be placed on all U.S. aid, not just aid to Egypt. Let’s sequester terrorists before we sequester Americans.  It makes no sense to continue funding hostile governments.

And, it’s past time for America to call the Palestinian’s bluff.  There should be only one path to American aid – the path to peace.

Twice in the last twenty years the Israeli government has offered to establish a Palestinian homeland with a capital in East Jerusalem, and twice the Palestinians have rejected that deal – once with guns, rockets, and suicide bombs.

Before the Palestinian Authority gets a single dime from American taxpayers, it must give up its dream of destroying Israel – in words and deeds, to the world and – crucially – to its own people.  Stop teaching hate.  Sever all ties with the terrorist thugs of Hamas.  Come to the peace table without preconditions and without even a thought of destroying the nation of Israel.

In other words, act like an ally.  Then, we’ll think about aid.
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.


SOURCE http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/rewarding-hate-intolerance-and-broken-promises-with-taxpayer-dollars/

Pastor Saeed's Wife 'Very Encouraged' After Secretary Kerry Calls for Abedini's Release

Naghmeh, the wife of American Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is imprisoned in Iran because of his Christian faith, said she is "very encouraged" by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's public statement calling for her husband's "immediate" release.

"I am very encouraged by Secretary Kerry's statement demanding Saeed's immediate release," said Naghmeh in a statement released by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) on Friday, which is representing the pastor's family in the U.S.

"I am very happy to read that although Secretary Kerry has asked for medical treatment for Saeed, he does not stop there, and states that the best outcome is Saeed's immediate release," she said. "I hope to see more proactive actions from our government. Saeed and I are both proud to be Americans. I am hopeful that this will put more pressure on the Iranian government to act and free Saeed so he can return to our family in the United States."

John Kerry released the statement late Friday afternoon after the ACLJ released a letter Pastor Abedini sent to his wife describing how he was beaten and denied medical treatment because he was seen as "unclean" due to his faith.

"I am deeply concerned about the fate of U.S. citizen Saeed Abedini, who has been detained for nearly six months and was sentenced to eight years in prison in Iran on charges related to his religious beliefs," Kerry wrote. "I am disturbed by reports that Mr. Abedini has suffered physical and psychological abuse in prison, and that his condition has become increasingly dire. Such mistreatment violates international norms as well as Iran's own laws."

Kerry added he was also troubled by the lack of due process in Abedini's case and "Iran's continued refusal to allow consular access by Swiss authorities," the U.S. protecting power in Iran. "I welcome reports that Mr. Abedini was examined by a physician and expect Iranian authorities to honor their commitment to allow Mr. Abedini to receive treatment for these injuries from a specialist outside the prison. The best outcome for Mr. Abedini is that he be immediately released."

Meanwhile, a petition to "pressure Iran into releasing the imprisoned and tortured American citizen, Pastor Saeed Abedini" has been created on "We the People," a section of the whitehouse.gov website for petitioning the current administration's policy experts. At least 100,000 signatures are needed before April 21 to receive a response. It was created on the day Kerry issued his statement.

Saeed – who grew up in Iran before converting to Christianity at the age of 20 – traveled with his family back and forth between Iran and the U.S. several times in the past few years to meet his family and for Christian work. During one such trip in 2009, he was detained by Iranian officials and interrogated for his conversion. While he was released with a warning against engaging in any more underground church activities, he was once again arrested last July while working on a non-sectarian orphanage project.

In January, Iran's notorious Islamic Revolutionary Court convicted Pastor Abedini of "threatening the national security" by leading house churches years ago, and sentenced him to eight years in Tehran's deadly Evin Prison.

"My hair was shaven, under my eyes were swollen three times what they should have been, my face was swollen, and my beard had grown," Pastor Abedini wrote from the prison. "The nurse would also come to take care of us and provide us with treatment, but she said in front of others 'in our religion we are not supposed to touch you, you are unclean. Baha'i (religion) and Christians are unclean!' She did not treat me and that night I could not sleep from the intense pain I had."

The ACLJ said that the letter was written weeks ago, on margins of scraps of newspaper, and is only the third one he has been allowed to send to his family in Idaho in the nearly 180 days he has spent in prison so far.

Besides Kerry's statement, State Department representatives also met with Naghmeh last week, and the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Thursday directly called for Abedini's release during a meeting in Geneva.

"We're very pleased that Secretary of State Kerry made this bold and public statement calling on Iran to release Pastor Saeed," said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the ACLJ. "By speaking out directly on behalf of Pastor Saeed, Secretary Kerry is taking our government's most aggressive action yet in working to secure the freedom of this U.S. citizen," he said.

"By becoming directly involved in this case, the U.S. sends a powerful message to Iran and our allies – our government will not stand by and abandon one of our own. By engaging the Pastor Saeed case at the highest level, we're hopeful that the State Department will now do everything in its power to secure the release of this U.S. citizen," Sekulow said.

Naghmeh had earlier said she was disappointed with the government. "I'm disappointed that our president and our State Department has not fully engaged in this case," she said after the State Department did not provide a witness for a hearing at which she testified last week. "I'm disappointed that this great country is not doing more to free my husband – a U.S. citizen. Yes, we are both proud to be American citizens. And I expect more from our government."

SOURCE: http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-saeeds-wife-very-encouraged-after-secretary-kerry-calls-for-abedinis-release-92499

Catholic Bishops: Administration Persists With ‘Unjust and Unlawful Mandate’

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed comments with the Department of Health and Human Services on Wednesday stating that the regulation that HHS issued under Obamacare that requires most health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs continues to be an “unjust and unlawful mandate” despite the "accommodations" that the administration proposed last month.

The bishops reiterated their position that "the mandate should rescinded."

"In short," said the bishops' comments, "the Administration continues to propose: (a) un unjust and unlawful mandate; (b) no exemption or 'accommodation' at all for most stakeholders in the health insurance process, such as individual employees and for-profit employers; (c) an unreasonably and unlawfully narrow exemption for some nonprofit religious organizations, mostly houses of worship; and (d) an 'accommodation' that still requires bona fide religious employers that fall outside the narrow government definition of 'religious employer' to fund or facilitate the objectionable coverage."

“The current proposal, like previous ones, would mandate coverage of abortifacient drugs, contraceptives, sterilization procedures for women, and related education and counseling in health plans,” said the comments.

The bishops stressed that the administration’s latest proposed version of the regulation provides no exemption at all to individual Americans, private business owners or non-religious non-profit organizations—whom the administration will still force to purchase coverage for sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs even if it is against their religious or moral convictions.

“Under the current proposal, no exemption or accommodation is available at all for the vast majority of individuals or institutional stakeholders with religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage,” say the comments (noting that the term “contraceptive coverage” here is deemed to include the mandated coverage for sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs).

“Virtually all Americans who enroll in a health plan will ultimately be required to have contraceptive coverage for themselves and their dependents, whether they want it or not,” say the bishops. “Likewise, unless it qualifies as a ‘religious employer,’ every organization that offers a health plan to its employees (including many religious organizations) will be required to fund or facilitate contraceptive coverage, whether or not the employer or its employees object to such coverage. This requirement to fund or facilitate or produces a serious moral problem for these stakeholders.”

The only groups exempted from the mandate are what the Obama administration refers to as “religious employers"--a category the administration restricts to those entities organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for houses of worship. Religious hospitals, schools and charities will not be exempted.

Some religiously affiliated non-profits such as hospitals, schools or charities, however, would be given what the administration calls “accommodations.” Under these “accommodations,” the religious non-profit’s insurance provider would be required to create separate secondary cost-free policies for each of the religious non-profit's employees that would provide those employees and their dependents with sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

If a religious non-profit is self-insured, the “accommodation” would require the third-party administrator of the self-insured plan to recruit an insurance company to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to the religious non-profit's employees and their dependents.

“Such organizations and their employees remain deprived of their right to live and work under a health plan consonant with their explicit religious beliefs and commitments,” say the bishops.

What the Obama administration is undertaking, the bishops say, is a sustained and unprecedented attack on religious liberty.

“The mandate continues to represent an unprecedented (and now sustained) violation of religious liberty by the federal government,” they say.

“As applied to individuals and organizations with a religious objection to contraceptive coverage, the mandate violates the First Amendment,” say the bishops.

Last August, the National Catholic Bioethics Center published an analysis recommending that Catholics who own businesses drop health insurance coverage for their employees by January 2014--nine months from now--rather than comply with the administration’s unjust mandate. “Dropping all coverage appears to be the most morally sound approach,” said these Catholic ethicists.

“The ethicists of The National Catholic Bioethics Center believe that temporary compliance with the mandate,coupled with active opposition by all reasonable and  legal means available, is a morally tolerable option only as a last resort, provided that this compliance ends once the insurance exchanges are available to employees in 2014,” they said.

“Beginning in 2014, employers of conscience would drop all coverage, and those with fifty or more full-time equivalent employees would pay the $2,000 tax per employee for not offering insurance as mandated under the PPACA,” they said.

Previously, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously issued a statement declaring the regulation an "unjust and illegal mandate," and before that many of the nation's Catholic bishops had priests read letters at Sunday Mass declaring: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”


SOURCE http://cnsnews.com/news/article/catholic-bishops-administration-persists-unjust-and-unlawful-mandate

Report Finds "Mistrust" & "Polarization" Inside Justice Department Over Voting Rights

The law protecting the voting rights of Americans should be applied equally and without discrimination. According to the Justice Department's Inspector General, that is not happening inside the Justice Department.

In a 180-page report released this week, the IG said it's lengthy investigation revealed "several incidents in which deep ideological polarization fueled disputes and mistrust that harmed the functioning of the voting section.”

At the same time, the report focused on what many consider to be a systematic problem inside the DOJ - applying voting rights laws unequally - even using race in determining which cases are prosecuted.

Here's an important conclusion from the IG found on page 252 of the report:

"Polarization within the Voting Section has been exacerbated by another factor. In recent years a debate has arisen about whether voting rights laws that were enacted in response to discrimination against Blacks and other minorities also should be used to challenge allegedly improper voting practices that harm White voters. Views on this question among many employees within the Voting Section were sharply divergent and strongly held. Disputes were ignited when the Division’s leadership decided to pursue particular cases or investigations on behalf of White victims, and more recently when Division leadership stated that it would focus on “traditional” civil rights cases on behalf of racial or ethnic minorities who have been the historical victims of discrimination."

As I told Megyn Kelly on FOXNews today, there is a troubling institutional incompatibility about how the voting rights law is applied. The bottom line: the DOJ must apply the law in a neutral manner. Race should not be an issue. You can watch the interview here.

The IG report is getting a lot of attention and as you might expect is raising even more questions in Congress. We will keep you posted if there are further developments.

Jay Sekulow


SOURCE http://aclj.org/us-constitution/jay-sekulow-report-finds-mistrust-polarization-inside-justice-department-over-voting-rights

Pastor Saeed's Wife: 'No Heart to Tell Kids Daddy Might Never Survive'

Naghmeh, the wife of U.S. Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is serving eight years in a deadly prison in Iran for his faith, broke down as she testified on Capitol Hill, saying she has no heart to tell their kids that daddy might never survive if the government fails to protect him.

"Saeed is a husband and amazing father," Naghmeh told a standing-room only crowd at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress on Friday. "The kids and I miss him terribly. Our kids hold onto the hope of seeing their daddy very soon," she said, struggling unsuccessfully to hold back her tears.

Pastor Abedini and Naghmeh have two kids, Rebekka Grace, 6, and Jacob Cyrus, 4. "A day does not go by that they do not ask for their daddy. A day does not go by that they do not long for him. Most nights they cry themselves to sleep, wanting daddy home."

She said her husband has been beaten and suffers internal bleeding. "The truth is we do not know if we will ever speak to him or see him again. Every day is a death sentence for him," she said. "Many mornings they (the kids) wake up and start running around the house and in the yard. I ask them what they are doing and they say very disappointed 'it must have been a dream. We saw daddy was home and he was going to twirl us around.' I hold back my tears as I tell them that it was a dream."

Naghmeh added she still does not have "the heart to tell them that if we don't do anything, that daddy might never survive the horrific Evin prison. I do not have the heart to tell them of the 8 year sentence. I do hope we can work together to bring Saeed home and I will never have to tell my kids of the dire situation their father is in."

The State Department was invited to the hearing, but no official showed up. "The State Department was AWOL today – absent without leave," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing Pastor Abedini's family in the U.S. "The State Department's no-show reflects a stunning lack of concern for an American wrongly imprisoned simply because of his Christian faith," said Sekulow, who also testified.

Naghmeh went on to say that her children could not understand why their father wasn't with them. "They kept saying, 'Does daddy not love us anymore?' ... And I had to tell them that he was in prison because he loved Jesus."

Saeed – who grew up in Iran before converting to Christianity at the age of 20 – traveled with his family back and forth between Iran and the U.S. several times in the past few years to meet his family and for Christian work. During one such trip in 2009, he was detained by Iranian officials and interrogated for his conversion. While he was released with a warning against engaging in any more underground church activities, he was once again arrested last July while working on a non-sectarian orphanage project.

In January, Iran's notorious Islamic Revolutionary Court convicted Pastor Abedini of "threatening the national security" by leading house churches years ago, and sentenced him to eight years in Tehran's deadly Evin Prison.

Despite her grief, Naghmeh said her husband holds to what he believes and "will not give in under any pressure from the Revolutionary Guards." Abedini, she said, is "standing up for religious freedom in a country that has no respect for human rights."

"Are we going to stand with him? Are we going to stand up as country and protect a citizen whose human right of religious freedom is so clearly violated?" she asked. "Americans are not all Christians; but every American – regardless of their beliefs – wants to be reassured and know that our government will take decisive action to protect us if someone uses force to try to make us abandon or change our beliefs."

Naghmeh said she was disappointed with the government. "I'm disappointed that our president and our State Department has not fully engaged in this case," she said. "I'm disappointed that this great country is not doing more to free my husband – a U.S. citizen. Yes, we are both proud to be American citizens. And I expect more from our government."

She recalled when Saeed became a U.S. citizen in 2010, he said "it was one of the best days of his life and he was so proud to be an American. He was so excited, he announced it on his social media and soon after, a flag was sent to him from Senator Carl Levin's office for the occasion of Saeed becoming a citizen. He was so proud!"

Many nations, including the European Union, have highlighted Pastor Abedini's case and called for his release before the U.N. "Our government did not," said Sekulow. "With an opportunity to condemn Iran and demand his freedom on a global stage, the U.S. government never mentioned him at all – ignored the plight of a U.S. citizen imprisoned in Iran," he said, of the UN Human Rights Council's meetings this month in Geneva that directly addressed the human rights crisis in Iran.

"I am hoping that we can bring Saeed home soon," said Naghmeh, also a U.S. citizen.

Source at http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-saeeds-wife-no-heart-to-tell-kids-daddy-might-never-survive-92050/

Will the State Department finally speak out for Pastor Saeed Abedini?

Last Friday’s standing-room only hearing before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission was among the most dramatic I’ve witnessed.  There was outrage – outrage not just from me as I declared the State Department “AWOL” in our quest to free an American Pastor, Saeed Abedini -- a U.S. citizen -- captured by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and now held hostage in Iran’s most brutal prison – but also from the members of the Human Rights Commission.

In his passionately-delivered remarks, Congressman Trent Franks noted that the Obama State Department had issued dozens and dozens of press releases since Pastor Saeed’s arrest and conviction, yet not one called for Pastor Saeed’s release.  To the State Department, posting about “Spring Break for Smart Travelers” was apparently more important than the fate of an American citizen being beaten and abused in an Iranian jail.

But there wasn’t just outrage at that hearing – tears flowed as well.  Unlike many Christians who are persecuted and abused in Iran, Pastor Saeed has an American family here at home, living in Idaho. On Friday, his courageous wife, Naghmeh, became his voice before the Commission.

Naghmeh told the Commission that “every day is a death sentence” for her husband who is subjected to life-threatening beatings and torture.  She told them of not just the terrible toll Pastor Saeed’s captivity was taking on her and their two young children, but also of the strength of Pastor Saeed’s convictions.

He is, truly, in chains for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

By the end of the hearing, Congressman Frank Wolf, the chair of the Human Rights Commission, was visibly moved.  In the packed hearing room, many in the audience were visibly moved.

And the hearing got immediate results.  Congressman Wolf’s office reached out to the State Department in the midst of a hearing and got a pledge that Secretary of State Kerry would call Congressman Wolf to discuss the case.

That’s a start.

Then, following the hearing, I drove immediately to the State Department, with Naghmeh, and with ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow, to meet with State Department officials and demand – in person – that they take action.

While I can’t discuss all the details of the meeting, I forcefully made the same case we presented at the hearing: The State Department needs to fully engage this issue at the highest levels and be pro-active in seeking his release. During the meeting, I discovered there are, in fact, individuals within the State Department who understand the importance of this case and the moral necessity to never leave an American behind in a hostile foreign land.

Will these individuals begin to influence American policy? Only time will tell.  We will be watching.  And, so will many members of Congress.  But the fact is with each passing day, Pastor Saeed’s health worsens – he’s now suffering from internal bleeding.  Time is of the essence.

Last year condemned Iranian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani, was released from prison, after the international community – including the State Department (which issued multiple press releases) and the White House – united to free him.  This year, the international community – including the European Union and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran – have spoken out clearly and directly for Pastor Saeed, but his own adopted nation has done less for him than the EU, less than Australia.  Indeed, the U.S. government has done less for him than it did for Pastor Nadarkhani.

Shouldn’t the United States do at least as much for its own citizen as it did for that brave Iranian pastor?

As the grandson of a Russian immigrant, I understand the powerful bond that forms between this land of opportunity and its newest citizens.  At perhaps the high point of the hearing, Naghmeh pulled out Pastor Saeed’s most prized possession, an American flag that flew over the Capitol on the day he became a U.S. citizen.

To Pastor Saeed that flag is a symbol of the liberty he could never enjoy in Iran – and of the liberty that Iran has even today so brutally taken from him and many others.

May it also be a symbol of our resolve to take care of our citizens, to protect them from injustice and tyranny not just at home, but even when they are held hostage abroad.

Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.


SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/18/will-state-department-finally-speak-out-for-pastor-saeed-abedini