Thursday, May 31, 2012

Let's Lose LOST!

Let Freedom Ring banner 2
Shame on me! When I get behind in reading my email notifications I let slip some important ones. One such important email is from Let Freedom Ring Executive Director Alex Cortez alerting the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is  being rammed through the current Democrat controlled Senate. LOST is yet another treaty that yields another chunk of American sovereignty to the United Nations.

The Cortez email briefly lists the evils of LOST and then points Let Freedom Ring President Colin Hanna’s Op-Ed at which goes into greater detail why LOST must not become part of the American rule of law.

Senator Mike Lee from Utah questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about LOST. Colin Hanna hails Senator Lee and claims Hillary was not as informed as Senator Lee. Here is the Lee-Question and Hillary-Answer from Senator Lee’s Senate website. Do you think Hillary is blowing smoke to obfuscate Senate Lee’s questions?

The point of the email and Colin Hanna’s Op-Ed is that the Dems are trying to work LOST under the radar with amazingly some Republican support for it.

Below is the Cortez email followed by the Colin Hanna article on

JRH 5/31/12

Let's Lose LOST!

By Alex Cortez
Sent: 5/29/2012 2:52 PM
Sent by Let Freedom Ring

Dear Friend,

Have you seen Let Freedom Ring President Colin Hanna's op-ed featured on today entitled Congress needs to tell Law of the Sea Treaty to get LOST?

The editorial discusses how The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) empowers international bureaucrats to:

1) Force American energy companies to give money to an international body that can redistribute it to our enemies

2) Force these same companies to share proprietary technology with our economic competitors and military adversaries

3) Impose destructive environmental codes on us

4) Decide lawsuits brought against us by our enemies

Over 10,200 letters from patriots like you have already been sent to Senators asking them to Lose LOST! If you haven't already taken action, go to today and let YOUR Senators know where YOU stand!


Alex Cortes
Executive Director
Congress needs to tell Law of the Sea Treaty to get lost

May 29, 2012

The American political system is still coming to grips with the loss of sovereignty resulting from the START treaty, rammed through the last Congressional lame duck session.

Flush with enthusiasm at how well that worked out, the Senate leadership is now repeating the pattern.

Last Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a one-sided hearing addressing the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or, as it is more commonly known, the "Law of the Sea Treaty" (LOST).

LOST has been around in various forms for decades. When it was first completed in 1982 President Ronald Reagan refused to sign it, citing provisions that were contrary to U.S. long term strategic and economic interests.

After a series of revisions, President Bill Clinton enrolled the U.S. in the treaty in 1994 but the United States Senate has, to date, failed to ratify it as the U.S. Constitution requires.

The Senate now taking the first step down the path toward another attempt at ratification. Led by Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John F. Kerry, it featured testimony from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of whom want the Senate to give its stamp of approval to LOST.

No one who opposes the treaty was invited to appear.

Moreover the ideological single-mindedness on this issue between recently-defeated but still-serving Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Kerry, the chairman, meant the hearing was devoid of balance.

Another legislative ram job seemed about to occur, even though even thought the LOST supporters don’t seem to understand the threat that it poses to American sovereignty. That is, until Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) began to challenge Secretary Clinton on some of the fine points of the treaty.

Clinton came off as flustered and ill-informed, as it became clear to even the casual observer that the freshman Utah Republican had delved quite deeply into the treaty and its sovereignty implications, while she was captive to her talking points.

People are, for example, seemingly unaware that the treaty contains a backdoor tax increase on U.S. businesses that would be used to fund the operations of the international organization charged with overseeing it and could force America into the a Kyoto-style “cap and trade” system that would further damage the nation’s industrial productivity and move U.S. government funds offshore to yet another international body.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe – another treaty opponent – pointed out during the hearing that, according to a “conservative” estimate by the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, the United States would transfer $70 billion to the International Seabed Authority, the organization charged with overseeing LOST.

The politics of the issue are clear.

The internationalists, joined by the environmentalists, many in the business community and those who support the redistribution of global wealth are for it.

Those who see a militarily and economically strong United States as the best guarantor of political freedom and opportunity are against it.

Lee, Inhofe and South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint are showing real leadership in opposing LOST’s ratification along with a handful of their colleagues who have studied what is in the treaty and gone on record against it.

So, too, at least in the only fashion available to it, has the U.S. House of Representatives, which constitutionally has no role in the treaty process but does control the nation’s purse strings. It recently approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 offered by South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan that would ban federal funds from being use to implement the treaty if the Senate chooses to ratify it.

The Duncan-Jordan Amendment is a much needed “shot across the bow” against LOST.
Wanting to secure peace is an admirable sentiment, but not at the expense of U.S. naval superiority.

Ratification of LOST would produce a forceful change in American policy dating back over two centuries that holds that a strong United States Navy is the best guarantor of freedom of the seas.

Under LOST, the responsibility for preserving freedom of the seas would be relegated to a United Nations body whose mission is to resolve conflicts before they become shooting wars.
Let's just say we’ve been down that road before, and it did not lead to peace.

During the period between the First and Second World Wars, the global powers developed a series of treaties intended to prevent war. Beginning with the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, to a series of naval weapons limitation treaties, the United States, Japan, and the European powers placed their hopes for peace on a set of agreements that were supposed to produce a balance of naval power that would virtually guarantee the signatories would not go to war.

As history demonstrates, those efforts were futile.

The democratic states abided by them while the dictatorships in Germany, Italy and Japan did not. They cheated in ways that were fully apparent -- but the world turned a blind eye to their dishonesty. This left the democracies at a distinct disadvantage and ill-prepared when war eventually came.

Peace, as Ronald Reagan famously said, is best secured through strength. Placing our trust in international agreements governed by bureaucratic global bodies whose representatives may not adhere to democratic values is to risk disaster.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, as an effort to police the maritime waterways and establish a code of behavior, harkens back to the agreements that gave cover to those whose belligerence eventually led to the Second World War.

America must rely upon itself, not international bodies under the United Nations.
Is it not foolish to believe, as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta suggests, that Senate ratification of the treaty would produce a change in the behavior of the Chinese or the navy of any other ambitious country seeking to enlarge its power?

As its supporters point out, the terms of the treaty have been in force for nearly a decade, yet the Chinese, who are signatories, are even now behaving in ways that run counter to its restrictions. Why should the U.S. make itself a full party to a treaty the Chinese ignore when it is in their interest to do so?

Sen. Kerry has promised additional hearings will be held at which time LOST’s opponents will be able to make their case. He also suggested that no vote on ratification would come before the November election, which sounds a lot like the health care bill or the newest START treaty all over again.

To assume that LOST would secure “freedom of the seas” better than a strong U.S. Navy, as the Obama administration now seems to be saying in its argument in favor of ratification, is a na├»ve and dangerous proposition, a choice that this former Navy officer thinks the nation should not make.

The Senate should reject the treaty if it comes up for a vote on the Senate floor, whether in the regular or a lame duck session.
Let's Lose LOST!

©2012 Let Freedom Ring, Inc. All rights reserved.


Let Freedom Ring is a non-profit, nonpartisan public policy membership organization, with a three-pronged mission statement.

Our mission is to promote:

v  Constitutional government

§  Original intent of the Framers of the Constitution

§  Limited (Federal) government

§  Separation of powers (Judiciary not legislating, etc.)

v  Economic Freedom

§  Free enterprise and equal opportunity

§  Social Security Reform -- to achieve financial independence, not dependence

§  Profit as an economic incentive

v  Traditional values

§  Family as the basic building block of society

§  Sanctity of life

§  Religious liberty, not restraint of religious speech

About Let Freedom Ring

Let Freedom Ring was formed to counter the attacks of anti-conservative groups on patriotic candidates as well as attacks on the important issues of our day – those that affect the core of our READ MORE
Congress needs to tell Law of the Sea Treaty to get lost

Colin Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring, a Pennsylvania-based public policy organization.

©2012 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

Cowboys and Aliens Oy Vey!

Norma Zager
Norma Zager uses the Sci-Fi Movie “Cowboy & Aliens” to eulogize of Israeli hero Brigadier General Shimon Erem.

JRH 5/31/12
In this film publicity image released by Universal Pictures, a battle scene is shown in "Cowboys & Aliens". (AP Photo/Universal Studios-Dreamworks II Distribution)
Cowboys and Aliens Oy Vey!
Gen Shimon Erem, You Will be Sorely Missed

By Norma Zager
Sent: 5/31/2012 1:30 AM

Gen Shimon Erem at home

The U.S. "must quickly end its indifference before it ceases to be a society of Christian ideals…" Brigadier General Shimon Erem

I watched Cowboys and Aliens the other evening and was taken by one conclusion: perhaps mankind refuses to accept intergalactic life because it would have to focus all its hatred on space aliens instead of on one another.

Let’s face it; somebody always has to be the scapegoat.

It’s human nature to want to feel good about oneself.  Especially today, too many realize this ambition not through feeling good about one’s own accomplishments, or even setting and achieving loftier goals.  But by demeaning others to make themselves appear greater.

Allow me to illustrate.

A study of history will show that man has rarely, if ever, gone without war.   If it wasn’t international, it was between tribes, or even factions in the same country. Or different religions, even in the same country, like Ireland.

It is the nature of the beast.   And perhaps beast is the operative word here.

A great warrior died this week. Brigadier General Shimon Erem was a man of history. Many may know of his great accomplishments as a soldier, Nazi hunter and Israeli hero in the 1948 and 1967 wars for independence and survival.

A soldier, a cowboy, much the same.

What few may know, however, is that Shimon Erem went a step further.

He actually attempted and succeeded in uniting Jews and Christians in the mutual effort to protect and defend Israel.

He was a soldier on the front lines, but he opened a new front by creating the Israel Christian Nexus to unite Jews and Christians for Israel.

He traveled from the heat of battle to carry the torch of peace.

This speaks volumes about the wisdom and courage of General Erem.

Jews and Christians, long a volatile mix indeed, and in many areas of the world remain so, were united in a common cause.  Brought together to ensure Israel’s survival.

He did it well and it has been a great effort.

So what has this to do with aliens?

In the movie, Harrison Ford played a rancher whose dislike for native-Americans was palpable.  Despite his relationship raising a native-American almost-adopted son, he remained cold and distant from his feelings for this boy. Hatred trumped love.

The Indian Chief in the movie also harbored distaste for the “White Man.” 

Only after they were forced to unite to destroy a common enemy and evil that threatened their very existence, could they open their hearts and expel their hatred for one another.

Telling, is it not?

So, in the end, the cowboys and Indians were not really enemies?  No, they were always enemies when they saw each other as such.
In other words, we choose our enemies. We select our hatreds to suit our needs.

If Jewish people are smart, let’s hate them and boycott their accomplishments in order to diminish them in the world’s eyes.  Ah, now that feels better. Now I suddenly feel smarter for lessening Jews.
Yep, this is how it works. Simple really.

There are no natural enemies.

Dogs and cats live together beautifully if they are raised in harmony and surrounded by love.

A mongoose and a snake, well that might take a bit of work, but all things are possible under heaven.

Jews and Christians united for Israel? A successful tribute to the commonality of man and the ability to embrace what is true; and eliminate that which is colored by hatred and misinformation.

If there are visitors from other planets, either in the past or currently, it is only a rumor, save to those who have seen the evidence firsthand.

And of course, since we on earth believe in our infinite egotistical style we are the center of the universe, no one in the billions of stars or planets out there is capable of creating or sustaining life but us.  Sounds so immature and egocentric, does it not?

Yet, this is who we are. The babies of the galaxies.  The spoiled little libido-driven brats of the solar system.

We hate for the sake of hating.

Only man kills for pleasure and not food.  We are the most animalistic of all earthly creatures, and the most hate filled.

If the day comes, and of course it may for all we know, when THEY make themselves known, we cannot predict their demeanor.

Will they be warlike or friends?  Will they come in peace or in war?  These questions remain to be answered.

I do however believe that on earth, man can evolve to a greater self.  Can arise from warrior to peacemaker.  From hater to lover.  From enemy to friend.

Shimon Erem was a soldier who went from building armies to building bridges.  He is a shining example of how mankind can evolve into their highest form.

Do we need to find ourselves at odds with some green men from Mars to evolve?

Or can we do battle with the evil and hatred within ourselves to arise to a higher life form on our own?

I imagine only time will tell which alien we choose to fight:  those from space, or those within ourselves.

Rest in peace, General Erem.  You will be sorely missed.
The series “Postcards from America—Postcards from Israel” by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover and Israelis often ignore.

This point—and often—counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.

Zager and Bussel can be heard on live radio in conversation on the program “Conversations Eye to Eye between Norma and Ari.”

© “Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel,” May 2012

First Published May 30, 2012

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

MSA Misleads – Professor Eisenstein Litigates

John R. Houk
© May 30, 2012

Associated Professor Maurice Eisenstein of the Political Science department at Purdue University noticed that a group of radical Muslims from Nigeria calling themselves Boko Haram (Warning: Link that tells what Radical Islamic Boko Haram is has a video showing just how evil these Muslims are by ritually beheading a Christian Nigerian) slaughtered some fellow Nigerians merely because they were Christians. Eisenstein objected to murder in the name of Islam as taught to do to non-Muslims by Islam’s founder Mohammed. Eisenstein objected in the public forum of Facebook.

A Muslim gal at Purdue commented on Eisenstein’s Facebook page that she was the equivalent of disgusted for insulting Mo the prophet. Evidently because the Muslim gal has tons of Muslim friends on Facebook, Eisenstein’s excellent though not politically correct call went viral among Muslim students at Purdue. And surprise-surprise, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) organized a fire Eisenstein movement on the Purdue campus. Here is a snapshot of the Facebook entry made by Eisenstein courtesy of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Maurice Eisensten Facebook Controversy

In a interview between Eisenstein and Jamie Glazov, Eisenstein said this:

“The entire attack on my free speech began over a post I made to Facebook in November 2011.  I posted a picture with a storyline about an Islamist Muslim group (Boko Haram) killing Christians in Nigeria.  I asked: Where were the moderate Muslims? They must be listening to that idiot Mohammad.

From this, one of my PUC colleagues, a Muslim, told me (on Facebook) that she believed my statement about Mohammad was beyond despicable.  Once she responded to me, then several of her students were able come to my Facebook page to tell me that they also believed that I was out-of-bounds for denigrating Mohammad.  Their essential issue was that I was offending Mohammed and Islam.  In the wake of that incident, the Muslim Student Association became involved and they did a press release saying that no prophet (Jesus, Moses, Mohammad — their argument not mine) should be insulted because offending a religion was not an acceptable use of freedom of speech.

Basically, this whole ordeal started because I insulted Mohammad.  I did insult Mohammad.  I may not have been nice about it, I may have been provocative about it, but quite frankly, I think killing Christians because they are Christian and not Muslim is much more insulting than calling Mohammad an idiot.

From this incident, there emerged an active campaign from the Muslim faculty and students, the Muslim Student Association (acting, as it claimed, on behalf of all Muslims), and their leftist supporters, active collusion to get the University to fire me for offending them.  Because the University could not fire me for Facebook comments, the faculty, students, and the MSA decided that it would then say that I was harassing and discriminating against students in my classroom.  Toward that end, audio tapes of one of my courses from Spring 2011 were then posted on YouTube. It was an Introduction to Judaism course, which I taught from a pro-Jewish and pro-Israel perspective.  Two of the books I used in the course were: Why the Jews? by Praeger and Telushkin as well as The Israel Test by George Gilder.  Anyway, I am very provocative and blunt — I like challenging students, particularly since most of what is taught on campus (irrespective of the discipline) comes from a center left perspective.

Now, there are over 40 to 45 hours of lectures from that class.  Out of those 40 to 45 hours, about 16 minutes were posted on YouTube and, of course, these 16 minutes were selectively edited so that I was portrayed in the worst possible light and without context.  Then, based on these tapes, in conjunction with my Facebook comments, 9 separate harassment and discrimination complaints were filed against me.” (Read Entire Interview)

Eventually the Muslim Student Association is a direct offshoot of the Salafist/Radical Muslim group known as the Muslim Brotherhood. That means the MSA as does the Muslim Brotherhood believes that Christians that refuse to submit to Islamic Supremacism must die. Since MSA is an American group, they will not come outright and say the Mohammed principle of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) must choose between converting to Islam, submitting to the authority of the rules of Sharia-Dhimmitude or die. That would be a public relations disaster for them in America. So the MSA as do many Muslim-American groups that have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood or Saudi Wahhabism obfuscate their beliefs in America to produce the view that Islam is just another religion deserving Religious Freedom.

ACT for America is exposing the nefarious nature of the MSA in sharing about Eisenstein’s effort to sue Purdue for infringing on his Free Speech rights because Purdue considered the possibility of punishment for Eisenstein writing the obvious truth on his Facebook page.

The ACT for America email alert begins with harassment Eisenstein received then finishes the email with a Fox News report.

JRH 5/30/12


Professor files free speech lawsuit

Sent by ACT for America
Sent: May 30, 2012 11:49 AM

When should free speech be limited?

According to the Muslim Students Association (MSA), apparently when it hears speech it deems “anti-Muslim.”

According to the Fox News story below (highlights added), a Purdue University professor who made comments on his Facebook page about Muslims was investigated after complaints by the MSA and other faculty.

The professor then filed a lawsuit alleging the investigation violated his free speech rights.

One of the faculty members expressed concern for the Saudi students on campus. She went so far as to argue that the “anti-Muslim” comments were comparable to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The implication is that the comments put Muslim students in danger and should be prohibited.

Someone needs to remind this professor who complained that we’re not living in Saudi Arabia, where speech deemed offensive to Muslims is prohibited and can put a non-Muslim in serious jeopardy. We still have free speech protections here, whether that speech is offensive to Muslims, Jews or Christians.
Professor sues Purdue after probe of his anti-Muslim Facebook comments

Purdue University Professor Maurice Eisenstein says the school's investigation - which cleared him - still violated his free speech rights.

A Purdue University professor has filed a freedom of speech suit against his school and five co-workers after getting in hot water for inflammatory statements about Muslims on his Facebook page.

Tenured political science professor Maurice Eisenstein was cleared by a university investigation into his Facebook comments, which included a reference to "the idiot Mohammad [sic}, may his name be cursed." But Eisenstein claims the investigation nonetheless damaged his reputation and disputes a finding that he retaliated against other faculty members.

“I was trying to be challenging as a professor, and do what I was trained to do,” Eistenstein, who joined the school's faculty in 1993, told

The flap unfolded late last year, when Eisenstein posted a photo of the aftermath of a massacre of Nigerian Christians, purportedly carried out by African Muslims, on his Facebook page.

"Where are the ‘moderate' Muslims' reaction to this? Oh, I forgot they are still looking at the earth as flat ...,” Eisenstein wrote above the post.

Other members of the faculty, as well as members of the Muslim Student Association, learned of the comments and went to school officials. Eisenstein maintained that the post was on his personal page and in no way reflected on the school. History professor Miriam Joyce, who later filed a harassment complaint against Eisenstein, told the comments could alienate students.

“We have Saudi students," Joyce said. "We have other Muslim students. This is wrong. It creates an unpleasant and unwelcoming atmosphere. “I’m concerned that Muslim students and their parents will get the wrong idea about my school.”

The Muslim Student Association could not be reached for comment.

The school's investigation, led by Chancelor Thomas Keon, cleared Eisenstein in January of violating the college’s free-speech and anti-harassment rules. However, he received a written reprimand for allegedly retaliating against Joyce, as well as a second professor, Saul Lerner.

Eisenstein denied retaliating or harassing his colleagues, but acknowledged a bitter e-mail exchange with Lerner and denies making a callous reference to Joyce’s son, a former hedge fund manager who committed suicide.

Eisenstein said his freedom-of-speech suit is the result of the university’s investigation into his comments about Muslims - even though the probe ostensibly cleared him.

“When you investigate free speech, you chill free speech,” Eisenstein said. “How am I supposed to do my job without free speech. I've changed. Every time I go into a classroom, I look around and wonder who will complain about what I say.”

Eisenstein enlisted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in bringing his suit against the Big Ten school.

"This is not the first time and it won't be the last time we will see a university punish a student or professor for constitutionally protected speech on Facebook," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "Professors at public universities should not have to go to court to defend their free speech rights."
Joyce said freedom of speech shouldn't permit a professor at a public school to gratuitously denigrate the beliefs of others, including students at the school.

“I'm all for free speech. I want it for me and I want it for everyone else, but there’s got to be some judgment used," Joyce said. "You don’t cry fire if there isn’t a fire and then say it was protected by free speech.

“I’m a [history] teacher," she added. "I’d rather be dealing with Bahrain than Eisenstein, anyway.”

Read more:

MSA Misleads – Professor Eisenstein Litigates
John R. Houk
© May 30, 2012
Professor sues Purdue after probe of his anti-Muslim Facebook comments

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