Showing newest 6 of 10 posts from 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008. Show older posts
Showing newest 6 of 10 posts from 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008. Show older posts

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Religious Freedom - How Far Does it Go?

People have recently been asking if freedom of religion (in the USA) protects any and all actions that people believe to be religious in nature, or any actions that people believe to be stated in their holy texts as required by their religion.

Freedom of religion in the USA is one of our most precious rights, enshrined in the US Constitution, to be protected forever. But how far does that protection go?

Freedom of religion guarantees that the US government (and through the 14th Amendment included state and local governments) will not form or require a national religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Individuals cannot be required to join a religion. Individuals are guaranteed the right to change their religion whenever they want and for whatever reason they want, and to belong to any religion they want, or no religion if that is their desire. Government money cannot be used to found a religion.

But, let's look at the basic question above. Does Freedom of Religion protect any and all actions that people believe to be religiously motivated? The answer is "No." People's beliefs are protected, but putting those beliefs into action(s) still requires obeying the laws of the land.

For example, some people believe that by killing a doctor who performs abortions, they are fulfilling religious requirements to protect children and to prevent murders. However, any actions to murder a doctor who performs abortions or bomb abortion clinics are violations of criminal law and will almost always result in arrest, trial and a lengthy imprisonment for the believer. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence

Another example: Some people may believe that their holy text or their religion condemns homosexuality, and acting on this belief they may act to assault or murder homosexuals, or bomb gathering places of homosexuals. Again, while the beliefs are protected, the actions are not, since they are a violation of the (secular) law. The believer is likely to land in prison. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_homosexuals

Another example: An Ohio pastor believed that since the Bible says pastors are entitled to a fair recompense, he was entitled to take it from the church's money by embezzling. Again, while his beliefs are protected, his actions were illegal, and he was arrested, tried, found guilty and is now in prison where he will spend many years reflecting on his actions. See: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/04/cleveland_pastor_found_guilty.html

Another example: The Mormon church used to believe in polygamy as a religious doctrine. Some breakaway sects of Mormonism still hold those beliefs. However, state and federal law made polygamy illegal the late 1800's, and the Mormon church subsequently outlawed polygamy in order to keep their members from going to prison. Current day polygamists can be sent to prison. Once again, the belief is protected, but if the actions based on that belief are illegal, then the believer can be prosecuted and end up in prison. See: http://www.mormon-polygamy.org/origins_mormon_polygamy.html

The doctrine that religious beliefs are protected, but religious actions that violate the law are not protected, was set by the US Supreme Court in 1879, and has held for well over a century.

FURTHER INFORMATION :


The United State Constitution addresses the issue of religion in two places: in the First Amendment, and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests as a condition for holding public office. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, through the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Establishment Clause

The First Amendment "establishment clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The Free Exercise Clause

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress can not "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices.

The Supreme Court has consistently held, however, that even though the First Amendment guarantees the right to free exercise, this right is not absolute. For example, in the 1800s, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law barring polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, If you were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect your belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking marijuana.

In 1879, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the free exercise clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said, "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

In 1968, the US Supreme Court ruled, in S. v. Kuch 288 FSup. 439 (1968) "Those who seek constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms that this special sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in anti-social conduct that otherwise stands condemned."

So it has been illegal to claim religious freedom to protect actions that are otherwise considered extreme or anti-social (criminal actions and some civil violations of the law) since 1879, well over a century. This is hardly something new. These actions are not protected under the Constitution.

Under the doctrine of Incorporation, the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. Therefore the states must guarantee the freedom of religion in the same way the federal government must, and the states also have the same limits on actions.

Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret "freedom of religion" as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, democracies interpret "freedom of religion" as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether (atheism).

The important lesson here is that beliefs are protected, but actions (even when they are based on a sincere beliefs that the actions are required by their religion) cannot violate the law, if so they would not be protected. One cannot use religion as a shield for violating the law.

Format Change April 2008

Administrative Notice: All future posts will now be formatted (identified) as:

News: Articles containing newsworthy events and information with mainstream media sources.

Editorial: Opinion pieces (usually including verifiable facts) about the issues of concern to this site.

Research: Articles containing research, and/or conclusions based on research, about the issues of concern to this site.

Update: Updates of news, opinion and/or research where the subject was previously included on this site.

As time allows, we will format existing articles with these classifications. The new formatting should improve our readers' abilities to quickly and easily access the many articles on this site.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Hate Crimes on College Campuses

  • Are you aware of just how many hate crimes happen on college campuses? ... College campuses have become the prime location for hate crimes to take place. ...
    www.albany.edu/~rn2512 - 4k - Cached

  • SVRC Briefing Paper: Hate Crimes on the College Campus ... reluctance of higher education institutions to label a campus crime as a hate ...
    www.svrc.net/Files/Hate CrimesBP.pdf - 227k - View as html

  • 10/1998 - Hate-crimes on College Campuses. - Credit Card required for Free Trial. Get articles from 3,000 newspapers, magazines and journals at HighBeam.com. A...
    www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79379331.html

  • The FBI listed 286 crimes on college campuses in 2001, the most recent year for ... Oregon, Mississippi and Louisiana, listed no hate crimes on any college campuses. ...
    www.tolerance.org/campus/way1-2.jsp - 21k - Cached

  • ... Intergroup Strife on Campus: Guide for College and University Administrators ... Unfortunately, hate crimes and acts continue to plague college campuses today, ...
    www.adl.org/campus/guide/default.asp - 28k - Cached

  • ... who fear that hate crimes on and around college campuses may be growing in ... Hate Crime Alarms College Campuses. Public Radio Versus the Klan. Utah ...
    www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=402 - 39k - Cached

  • Home. About Us. Join Now. Donate. Events. Trainer Center. Resources. Shop. Contact Us ...
    www.stophate.org - 21k - Cached


  • ... anti-Semitism on college and university campuses has remained ... been stalked on campus and harassed by hate-filled E-mail messages. ... Hate Crimes in ...
    www.adl.org/focus_sheets/focus_college.asp - 23k - Cached


  • The prevention of hate crimes on college campuses requires an integrated approach that ... Hate crimes committed on campus, or near campus, strain the ...
    www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/university92003.pdf - 320k - View as html

  • When a hate crime occurs on a. college campus, the ideal of a uni ... Hate crimes on campuses involve. a range of criminal conduct from ...
    www.securityoncampus.org/schools/187249.pdf - 323k - View as html

  • ... indicates that 54% of hate crimes on college campuses were motivated by race, 22 ... and open discussion on hate crimes is essential on a college campus. ...
    www.stateuniversity.com/blog/permalink/College-Hate-Crimes.html - 16k - Cached

  • ... report offering guidance on how to respond to hate crimes at institutions of ... The prevention of hate crimes on college campuses requires an integrated ...
    www.securityoncampus.org/schools/hatecrimes.html - 77k - Cached

  • hate episodes on campus tend to be committed by students residing in the same college ... The prevention of hate crimes on college campuses requires an integrated ...
    www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/university.pdf - 133k - View as html

  • Almost weekly, new reports of hate crimes on college campuses make the headlines. ... almost certainly vastly under-represents the real level of campus hate crimes. ...


    ... prejudice and hate crimes on college and university campuses and describes ... Hate Crimes and Violence on College and University Campuses Journal of College ...
    ... of the 10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus guidebook finds that a full 100% felt ... Every day, a hate crime occurs on a college campus. Outreach includes training ...
    www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=102

    Friday, April 11, 2008

    Fear and Loathing in Florida

    By Contributing Editor Philip Chandler

    Ponce de Leon is a small town in the Northwest Florida Panhandle in Holmes County, not far from the Alabama state line, with a population of roughly 2,200. This town is billed as an idyllic rural enclave located half way between Tallahassee on the east, and Pensacola on the west. This town’s Web site describes Ponce de Leon as retaining “a rustic charm of beauty and tranquility, all its own [sic].” Some people believe that the Spanish explorer, Juan Ponce de Leon, may have searched for the Fountain of Youth in this area. Whether or not this is true is a matter of historical conjecture; what is not a matter of conjecture, however, is the fact that the Holmes County School Board (which has jurisdiction over Ponce de Leon High School) has besmirched one of the core ideals to which Americans claim to aspire.

    Heather Gillman is an eleventh grade student at Ponce de Leon High School. Heather identifies as heterosexual, but is a staunch supporter of her gay friends and acquaintances. She expresses her support for gay Americans by wearing T-shirts carrying slogans such as “Gay? Fine By Me,” “I Support My Gay Friends,” and “God Loves Me Just the Way I Am,” along with stickers bearing rainbows and pink triangles.

    David Davis is the principal of Ponce de Leon High School. High school principals are generally considered to be pillars of the community, alongside sheriffs, bank managers, town clerks, teachers, firefighters, and mayors. Davis, however, appears to have transcended all of these figures by managing to travel backwards in time – quite an accomplishment for a high school principle – to the 1950s.

    With the backing of the Holmes County School Board, Davis prohibited all students from displaying such messages of support. Any student who so much as utters a single word supporting the rights of gay people is subject to suspension. Davis has already suspended several students for wearing gay-themed clothing (including a rainbow-colored belt). Furthermore, Davis interrogated a student (named “Jane Doe” for legal purposes) who told a teacher’s aide that she was a lesbian and that she was being taunted by other students. Davis summoned Doe into his office in September 2007 and instructed Doe “not to be gay” and not to tell anybody that she is gay. Davis also told Doe not to mix with or talk to any of the “middle school” girls, and Davis further opined that “gay pride” was a disgrace to the school; that being gay was “against the Bible;” and that Doe should not “go down that road.” Davis also declared that students who wear gay-supportive T-shirts or other symbols expressing support for the rights of gay people are members of a “secret society” and are members of an “illegal organization.” The school board defined an “illegal organization” as “any attempt to use the school day for activities that are not school related or school sponsored.”

    Heather Gillman defied both Davis and the school board, filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court against Davis and against the school board under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The lawsuit contends that defendants Davis and the school board violated Gillman’s First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association, as made binding upon the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit contends that the defendants’ policy with respect to “illegal organizations” and membership in a “secret society” is unconstitutional, both as applied and on its face. More specifically, the complaint asserts that the policy is void for vagueness, overbroad, and unconstitutional.

    Only in America – in the year 2008 – could such a ludicrous spectacle unfold in a court of law. As other Western nations become increasingly accepting of their gay citizens, and as barriers to equal treatment of gay people fall in nation after nation, the US stubbornly appears to move full tilt backwards with respect to this particular issue.

    There is absolutely no question that both Davis and the school board will lose – big time. Both case law and common sense are firmly on the side of the students, who are being deprived of their right to political expression, as guaranteed them by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. This deprivation occurs under color of state law, thus permitting the plaintiffs to file suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and granting the Federal District Court subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. section 1343(a)(3) (civil rights).

    On June 26, 2003, the US Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), declaring that all state statutes prohibiting people from having gay sex are unconstitutional as applied to private sexual activity between consenting adults for non-commercial purposes. The Court made it clear that gay people are fully entitled to respect for their private lives, and that the state cannot demean the dignity of gay Americans merely because of moral disapproval. In sweeping terms, the Court apologized for an earlier ruling (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) in which the Court had reached the opposite conclusion, thereby permitting the states to criminalize gay people for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes. The Lawrence Court made it clear that it had failed, utterly, to treat gay Americans with the respect that they deserved as members of a legitimate minority within the framework of a representative democracy, and the Court bluntly announced that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”

    The Lawrence Court could have overruled Bowers using an equal protection analysis, and many legal commentators were surprised by the Court’s decision to go further. Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and most legal scholars believed that the Court would limit its analysis, in Lawrence, to the equal protection argument advanced by the gay plaintiffs. However, the Court went much further, holding that laws criminalizing same-sex sexual activity violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    There are no “secret societies” in 21st century America. Furthermore, neither Heather Gillman nor her fellow students attempted to hide their political views from the school authorities; to the contrary, they made it extraordinarily clear that they believed in the right of the lesbian student (and gay students more generally) to receive an education without being subjected to harassment and abuse. There is nothing “illegal” about a group of students protesting such harassment, whether limited to the school context or expanded to embrace broader social goals. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent. Community. School. District., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the US Supreme Court upheld the right of students to wear black armbands as a gesture of protest against the war in Vietnam. Then, as is the case now, the students were not disruptive; in wearing armbands, they were “quiet and passive” and “did not impinge upon the rights of others.” Furthermore, the students in Tinker did not act in a manner that “materially and substantially interfere[d] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” (cited from Burnside v. Byard, 363 F.2d. 744,749 (1966)). The students at Ponce de Leon High School are not acting in a manner that in any way interferes with the administration of appropriate discipline at the school.

    The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which will hear any appeal from a decision handed down by the US District Court, has addressed a very similar issue, in the context of college education. In April 1997, this intermediate appellate court declared unconstitutional, in Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor (docket #96-6143), an Alabama state statute that forbad colleges and universities from using public funds to “sanction, recognize, or support” the activities or existence of any group or organization that “fosters or promotes a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Sections 13A-6-63 to 13A-6-65, inclusive.” The Alabama statute went further, prohibiting colleges and universities that received public funding from permitting or encouraging its members to provide information or materials explaining how such acts may be performed. Sodomy was defined as ‘any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.” Thus, oral sex between unmarried persons was defined by the Alabama criminal code as a form of sodomy. This statute was clearly aimed at the gay and lesbian community, and was intended to prevent colleges and universities that received public funding from supporting the activities of any group or organization that promoted the so-called “homosexual lifestyle.”

    It is well established that the First Amendment protects advocacy to break a law. With respect to such advocacy, this protection is limited in one important respect – in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the US Supreme Court held that the only forms of advocacy or expression that may be criminalized are those forms of advocacy directed to “inciting or producing imminent lawless action and [that are] likely to incite or produce such action” [emphasis added].

    The First Amendment therefore protects the right of any person, gay or heterosexual, to advocate breaking any law that prohibits same-sex or opposite-sex “sodomy” (as defined above). This conservative Court of Appeals held that the Alabama statute discussed and struck down was not capable of a narrowing construction that would have enabled the state to enforce it against speech directed to such incitement and likely to produce such action. The Alabama statute was broad by its very terms (referring to the promotion of a “lifestyle or actions”) – hence, it was not possible to argue that the statute merely impinged upon speech falling outside the protective ambit of the First Amendment, as described by Brandenburg. The appellate court also noted that the Alabama statute constituted viewpoint discrimination – something that is prohibited within the context of a limited public forum (such as those fora created by state universities and colleges). A state university may determine what subjects are appropriate for discussion in such a forum, but may not proscribe the positions that students may choose to take with respect to those subjects (see Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)).

    The appellate court also upheld the district court’s determination that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. A statute is deemed to be unconstitutional on its face if there are no sets of circumstances under which application of the statute in question could ever be found to be constitutional; in other words, a statute is unconstitutional on its face if every application of that statute, in every set of circumstances, would yield an unconstitutional result (see US v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), where this tent of statutory construction was expressed, albeit in dicta). Facial invalidation of a statute is “strong medicine,” and the Court of Appeals made it clear that such invalidation should only occur if the reviewing court is convinced “that the identified overbreadth is incurable and would taint all possible applications of the statute.” Generally, a statute should “be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact.” In First Amendment jurisprudence, a statute that is challenged on its face will be upheld if it is “readily susceptible” to a narrowing construction that would make it constitutional. The key phrase to consider is the phrase “readily susceptible” – a federal court will not rewrite a state statute to conform it to constitutional requirements unless the state statute in question is readily susceptible to the proposed limitation. The District Court held that the Alabama statute was not readily susceptible to a narrowing construction that would render it constitutional, and the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court.

    Note that the above analysis would be applicable were gay sex to be illegal in the State of Florida, as was the case in some 14 states before the US Supreme Court handed down Lawrence (supra). Here, school principal Davis and the Holmes County School Board have attempted to gag a group of students who are in no way advocating the violation of any law. These students are merely attempting to express their support of the right of one of their members to be treated decently and in a manner consistent with the educational mission of the school. Both Davis and the School Board have engaged in the worst form of McCarthyism – declaring that those students who support the rights of gay people are members of an “illegal organization” and members of a “secret society.”

    We are not living in the 1950s, much as many right-wing commentators would like to see a return to the values that defined that era in American political life. Joseph McCarthy – a vicious, thuggish, bullying drunk – died shortly after his disgrace and censure by the US Senate. We live in a diverse, pluralistic society in which gay people have won some measure of acceptance, in both state and federal political spheres. Notwithstanding the rantings of jurists such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the US Supreme Court has declared that gay Americans are entitled to respect for their private lives, and that the constitutional guarantees of substantive fairness and the equal protection of the laws are available to members of this group, just as they are available to members of any other group of law-abiding citizens. Principal Davis and the Holmes County School Board have besmirched the values that are integral to the American political experience. Twelve years ago, another school board and another school principal disregarded these values, causing the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reinstate a lawsuit filed by Jamie Nabozny against the Ashland, Wisconsin School District and against school principal Mary Podlesny; the school authorities literally laughed at Nabozny’s pleas for help after he was repeatedly beaten up, shoved into a urinal, and mock-raped by several homophobic bullies (see Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (1996)). Just as Davis told Jane Doe “not to be gay,” Mary Podlesny told Jamie Nabozny that he should expect such vicious taunts and physical abuse if he “insisted” on being openly gay. Just as three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit expressed their disgust, referring to the defendant’s arguments as “indefensible,” so too will three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit express their disgust when this case reaches them and when they learn about the “secret society” – members of whom comprise somewhere between 4% and 10% of the American population.

    Technorati Tags:http://www.technorati.com/tag/homophobia" rel="tag">homophobia, http://www.technorati.com/tag/equal rights" rel="tag">equal rights, http://www.technorati.com/tag/holmes county school board" rel="tag">holmes county school board, http://www.technorati.com/tag/ponce de leon" rel="tag">ponce de leon
    Generated By http://www.gospelrhys.co.uk/" target="_blank">Technorati Tag Generator

    Thursday, April 10, 2008

    Another Update on Human Trafficker

    ANOTHER UPDATE ON HATEMONGER ARRESTED FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING

    We had previously written about Jeanette Runyon, a virulent hate monger, cyberstalker, and psychiatric patient here, here, and here. We have shown, using her own statements, her persistent and unreasoned hatred towards blacks, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and anyone who had the tenacity to tell her that hatred is wrong. We had even shown her 21 page long criminal history, including violent crimes.

    A previous article had shown that Ms. Runyon was arrested in the Ukraine on November 5th, 2007, for using forged documents in her attempt to illegally buy a baby from a young Ukrainian woman. Human trafficking has long been a major problem in the Ukraine, but a few years ago, the Ukrainian authorities finally agreed to start cracking down on this despicable practice. Funneling money through the Russian mob (that runs the hospital involved in this matter) and an American member of a Baltic terrorist group which is responsible for much of the corruption in the Ukraine, Ms. Runyon had succeeded in buying the baby, and presented a forged birth certificate, claiming that she and her husband were the baby’s biological parents, in an attempt to obtain a passport for the baby at the US Embassy in Kiev. An alert embassy employee spotted the forgery and summoned Ukrainian authorities. Ms. Runyon was arrested, and the baby is now being cared for by the Kiev mayor and his wife. Federal agents in the US executed a search warrant on Ms. Runyon’s home, her bank and her Internet Service Provider, seizing all of her computers, copies of everything on her email accounts, her web comments on numerous sites and her own websites. Federal agents also seized her bank accounts.

    Information from the US State Department, confirmed by a US Department of Justice source, indicates that Ms. Runyon was put on trial in the Ukraine in late February, on charges of trafficking in humans, was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison. Her appeal was heard the same day as her conviction, and the appellate judge (who was the same as her trial judge) upheld the guilty verdict and the sentence.

    In an agreement worked out with the United States, the Ukrainian authorities agreed to the US extradition request. Ms. Runyon will serve her ten year sentence in a US federal prison. She was flown back to the USA, in shackles and handcuffs, in the custody of US Marshalls, on March 1st, 2008, and was temporarily held in the federal prison in Charlotte, NC. She was then transferred to a local, federally-certified jail, and is now home under house arrest, with electronic monitoring and strict conditions, which include no use of a computer, until the federal Bureau of Prisons finds an open “bed” where she can serve her sentence and await the forthcoming US charges. Since the preparation for her attempt to traffic in humans occurred in the US, she will be prosecuted for those crimes (and other federal charges) in US District Court. Double jeopardy does not apply, since different countries are involved and since different elements of the crime are prosecuted in the two countries (the Ukraine and the US).

    The US Attorney is preparing to file US charges against Ms. Runyon, and upon conviction she could serve both sentences concurrently (at the same time.)

    Now we get to a tricky point. Without specifically stating anything that could interfere with the current federal investigation or reveal grand jury testimony, I can perhaps just look at certain sections of US Code (federal law) that may be involved with what Ms. Runyon has been up to. I am not stating any specifics at this point. However, there are certain elements that are related to national security that I cannot even hint at until the indictments are handed down. Ms. Runyon has been into far more trouble than most people realize, and will likely face the possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison.

    Making false statements to US officials: 18 US Code 1001

    Forgery 18 US Code 1001 and 10 US Code 923

    Immigration and Naturalization Fraud: 8 US Code 1324 and 18 US Code 1015

    Cyberstalking: 47 US Code 223

    Conspiracy to Commit Human Trafficking 8 US Code 1324

    Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping 18 US Code 1201

    Bulk Cash Smuggling 31 US Code 5332 and Money Laundering 18 US Code 1956

    Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information 18 US Code 1028

    If convicted of all counts, Ms. Runyon faces life in prison.

    Co-defendants and other information on this matter have been withheld from this article, to keep from interfering with an ongoing investigation. Charges against co-defendants, co-conspirators and accomplices (who assisted Ms. Runyon) are expected.


    Technorati Tags:, , , , , , ,
    Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

    Wednesday, April 09, 2008

    John Tanton and More Money Trails

    FOLLOW UP TO “FOLLOW THE MONEY”


    PART ONE: John Tanton & FAIR

    New SPLC Report: Nation's Most Prominent Anti-Immigration Group has History of Hate, Extremism

    From the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=295

    Dec. 11, 2007 — The country's leading anti-immigration organization — whose leaders have testified repeatedly before Congress and are frequently quoted in the media — has ties to known racists and a long track record of bigotry, according to a new report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

    The group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

    • is the creation of a man who operates a racist publishing company and has compared immigrants to "bacteria;"
    • has employed members of white supremacist groups in key positions;
    • has promoted racist conspiracy theories; and
    • has accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation devoted to eugenics and to proving a connection between race and IQ.

    FAIR and its ties to white supremacy are examined in the latest issue of the SPLC's quarterly Intelligence Report.

    The SPLC today added FAIR to its list of hate groups operating in the United States.

    "FAIR's position on immigration is rooted more in its anti-Latino and anti-Catholic beliefs than in policy concerns," said Mark Potok, the director of the SPLC's project that monitors hate group activity. "Remarkably, it has still managed to infiltrate the mainstream and shape the immigration debate in this country."

    FAIR helped defeat federal immigration reform earlier this year and has played a key role in fueling the fierce, anti-immigrant backlash in the United States. It was founded in 1979 by John Tanton, a man who has compared immigrants to bacteria and warned that high birthrates will allow Latinos to take over America. Still a member of FAIR's board, Tanton also operates The Social Contract Press, listed as a hate group for many years by the SPLC because of its anti-Latino and white supremacist writings.

    "The sad fact is that attempts to reform our immigration system are being sabotaged by organizations fueled by hate," Henry Fernandez, a senior fellow and expert on immigration at the Center for American Progress, told the Intelligence Report.

    The SPLC has documented a 40 percent increase in the number of hate groups since 2000, an increase that SPLC analysts attribute to the anti-immigrant fervor that is sweeping the country. The FBI recently released statistics showing a 35 percent rise in hate crimes against Latinos since 2003. A sampling of some of the most egregious acts of violence against Latinos over the past three years is included in the new issue of the SPLC's Intelligence Report.

    =====================================================================

    PART TWO: John Tanton’s Network


    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72

    The organized anti-immigration "movement" is almost entirely the handiwork of one man, Michigan activist John H. Tanton.

    Here is a list of 13 groups in the loose-knit Tanton network, followed by acronyms if the groups use them, founding dates, and Tanton's role in the groups.

    Those organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk (*).

    In this list, "founded" means a group was founded or co-founded by John Tanton. "Funded" means that U.S. Inc., the funding conduit created and still headed by Tanton, has made grants to the group.


    *American Immigration Control Foundation
    AICF, 1983, funded

    *American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together
    1992, funded

    California Coalition for Immigration Reform
    CCIR, 1994, funded

    Californians for Population Stabilization
    1996, funded (founded separately in 1986)

    Center for Immigration Studies
    CIS, 1985, founded and funded

    Federation for American Immigration Reform
    FAIR, 1979, founded and funded

    NumbersUSA
    1996, founded and funded

    Population-Environment Balance
    1973, joined board in 1980

    Pro English
    1994, founded and funded

    ProjectUSA
    1999, funded

    *The Social Contract Press
    1990, founded and funded

    U.S. English
    1983, founded and funded

    U.S. Inc.
    1982, founded and funded


    Intelligence Report
    Summer 2002

    ============================================================

    PART THREE: Tanton’s Associates and Puppets: Trashing Senator McCain for His Moderate Stance on Immigration and Calls to End Hatred

    · LP: Tom DeLay Slams John McCain

    The Texas Republican went on to say that McCain "betrays conservative principles.” When asked on which issues McCain was not a conservative DeLay did not ...

    · This Man is Not a Republican (re: McCain) [Free Republic]

    Conservatives are convinced that McCain is no longer one of them. And they are right. ..... Later in the interview, though, McCain betrays second thoughts.

    · Hot Air » Blog Archive » New McCain ad: Mitt’s a Reagan-betr...

    MCPain has betrayed people on a host of issues long after Tsongas. ... McCain’s new ad saying “true conservative” is truely a joke. This guy has to go.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59880

    It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain overnight into a Reagan conservative.

    McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

    Ann Coulter: "No, I'm not kidding about backing Hillary. McC...
    McCain
    is still more conservative than Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. ... very low moral standing that betrays good conservative Christian values. ...

    · CColorado Confidential:: James Dobson Bashes John McCain - Ag...

    James Dobson Bashes John McCain - Again. by: Cara DeGette. Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:28 PM MST. Focus on the Family Founder and CEO James Dobson grabbed the

    McCain's victory speech: We must stop the "enemy," but apparently we must not name him (JihadWatch.com by Robert Spencer)

    Below is the portion of John McCain's victory speech that deals with the War on... Terror? From AZCentral: "The work that we face in our time is great, but our opportunities greater still. In a time of war, and the...

    Talk-radio right unites against McCain - Feb 6, 2008

    Now, they can not only bash Hillary, they can bash McCain,” Harrison said. ... Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Hugh Hewitt and Mark Levin.

    ========================================================================

    PART FOUR: Further Info on Tanton:

    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=180

    'WITAN Memo' I
    Read this addition to the Intelligence Report, found exclusively online, that lays out Tanton's plans to further insert FAIR into U.S. politics.
    Read More

    'WITAN Memo' II
    The second 'WITAN' memo reviews FAIR's history and urges FAIR to take on legal — not just illegal — immigrants. Conner's vision for a 'Border Security Project' seems to presage today's controversies involving Ranch Rescue and other groups.
    Read More

    'WITAN Memo' III
    Addressed to attendees of Tanton's exclusive retreats, where colleagues met to discuss the future of immigration, this memo is the most explicit, discussing Latinos and others in derogatory terms.
    Read More

    SPLCenter.org: The Teflon Nativists
    Southern Poverty Law Center: Despite its ugly record, the Federation for American Immigration Reform is still taken seriously by officials and the media

    (1) "The Network," Tolerance.org
    http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=557

    (2) Tanton, John. Tribute to Garrett Hardin by John Tanton. Garrett Hardin Society
    http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/tributes/tr_tanton_2003oct.html

    (3) About Us. The Social Contract
    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/aboutus.html

    (4) Pro-English Board of Directors. Pro-English
    http://www.pro-english.com/board/tanton.html

    (5) FAIR Board of Directors Bios. FAIR
    http://www.fairus.org/About/About.cfm?ID=356&c=21

    (6) John and Mary Lou Tanton's Resumes. Social Contract Press
    www.thesocialcontract.com/tantonresume.html

    (7) "The Puppeteer," Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center, Summer 2002
    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=180

    (8) Hate in the News: The Puppeteer. Tolerance.org. June 18, 2002
    http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_print.jsp?id=554

    (9) Kolankiewicz, Leon and Roy Beck, Forsaking Fundamentals: The Environmental Establishment Abandons U.S. Population Stabilization, Center for Immigration Studies, March 2001
    http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/forsaking/why.html

    (10) Tanton, John. Memo to WITAN IV Attendees from John Tanton, Southern Poverty Law Center
    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=125

    (11) John Tanton, "The Puppeteer Replies," January 22, 2003, The Social Contract Press
    www.thesocialcontract.com/puppeteer.html

    (12) Linda Chavez, An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal (New York: Basic Books, 2002), p. 197-206

    · "Keeping America Empty: How one small-town conservationist launched today’s anti-immigration movement" Christopher Hayes, April 24, 2006, In These Times (Profile of Tanton)

    · Beirich, Heidi (2007-12-17). Where Anti-Immigrant Zealots Like Lou Dobbs Get Their 'Facts'. AlterNet. Retrieved on 2007-12-20.

    Mary Lou and John Tanton: A Journey into American Conservation by John F. Rohe (ISBN 0-9710079-0-X)


    Tolerance.org: Anti-Immigration 'Movement' Courts Congress, Racist ...

    The organized anti-immigration movement, increasingly in bed with racist hate groups, is dominated by one man: John Tanton. Meet the man and explore the ...


    Know Your Sources: The Mainstream Press Keeps Finding Wacky ...

    Most Americans have never heard of John Tanton because he operates behind the scenes, but he is the founder and/or early funder of almost every national ...
    www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/know_your_sources.html


    John Tanton - SourceWatch

    John Tanton M.D. is "publisher of The Social Contract, and served as editor for its first 8 years. He is a retired eye surgeon whose boyhood on a farm made ...
    www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Tanton

    "Keeping America Empty: How one small-town conservationist launched today’s anti-immigration movement" Christopher Hayes, April 24, 2006, In These Times (Profile of Tanton)

    · Beirich, Heidi (2007-12-17). Where Anti-Immigrant Zealots Like Lou Dobbs Get Their 'Facts'. AlterNet. Retrieved on 2007-12-20.

    ========================================================

    PART FIVE: Connections

    The Social Contract Press, owned by John Tanton, is an “anti-immigration and population control through eugenics and forced sterilization” publishing house. Their list of authors promoting the eugenics philosophy previously promoted by Adolf Hitler include:

    Just one of the large number of extremists funded by John Tanton is Glenn Spencer and Spencer’s anti-immigration group – information on this group follows below:

    http://subwaycanaries.blogharbor.com/blog/JohnTanton

    http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com

    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=978

    GLENN SPENCER

    AGE: 67

    COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZ.

    If there were a Paul Revere of the anti-immigration movement, it would be Glenn Spencer, a vitriolic Mexican-basher who may have done more than anyone to spread the myth of a secret Mexican conspiracy to reconquer the Southwest. Glenn Spencer is an acknowledged member of the Jewish Defense League, (which is on the FBI’s list of domestic terrorist organizations.)

    The so-called reconquista, an alleged plot to turn several American states into a Mexican state or some kind of puppet government controlled by Mexico, has been a top concern for Spencer for years. Back in 1999, he put it like this: "The consul general says Mexico is reconquering California. A Mexican intellectual suggests that anyone who doesn't like Mexicans should leave California. What else do you need to hear? RECONQUISTA IS REAL... . EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN IN OUR NATION MUST BE DEPORTED IMMEDIATELY. ... IF WE CAN BOMB THE TV STATION IN BELGRADE [in the former Yugoslavia] WE CAN SHUT DOWN [U.S. Spanish-language stations] TELEMUNDO AND UNIVISION."

    Spencer got involved in the anti-immigration movement in 1992, when he formed Voice of Citizens Together, also known as American Patrol, in California. In 2002, saying the battle was lost in that state, he moved to the "front lines" of the Arizona border, where he formed American Border Patrol. He was one of the first to call for border citizens' patrols and pioneered the use of surveillance technology.

    He also was one of the first well-known anti-immigration activists to more or less openly court white supremacists and anti-Semites. He has attended conferences of American Renaissance magazine, which specializes in racist theories about blacks and others. He interviewed the magazine's editor, Jared Taylor, on his syndicated radio show. Another guest was California State Professor Kevin MacDonald, who is the architect of an elaborate anti-Semitic theory dressed up as evolutionary biology.

    Just this September, Spencer promoted on his Web site a booklet published by Taylor called The Color of Crime. The booklet is a "relentlessly factual" study that alleges that blacks and Hispanics are far more likely than whites to be criminals. It also falsely alleges people of color commit vastly more hate crimes than others.

    Sometimes, Spencer's racial paranoia seems to get the better of him. One night in 2003, thinking he was hearing noises outside his Sierra Vista, Ariz., home, he grabbed a gun and started shooting into the dark. He managed to hit a neighbor's garage, among other things, and was charged with four felonies. But charges like that have a habit of going away in Southeastern Arizona. In Spencer's case, his felony charges were reduced to one misdemeanor. He was fined $2,500 and given a year's probation. His lease was also terminated and he was forced to move away, taking up residence in a trailer in unincorporated Cochise County.

    Additionally, Spencer has a long history of association with the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance. Spencer was one of the keynote speakers at the fifth biennial American Renaissance Conference held February 2002. The theme of the conference was “In Defense of Western Man”, and was advertised as "In all parts of the world, whites are afraid to speak out in their own interests. The costs of 'diversity,' racial differences in IQ, the threat of non-white immigration — politicians and the media are afraid to discuss what these things mean for whites and their civilization." [8] Spencer’s talk was titled “The Second Mexican-American War” in which he warned that Mexican immigration into the Southwest is nothing less than an unarmed invasion to reconquer land lost in the first Mexican-American War. By failing to halt illegal Mexican immigration, the United States is importing poverty, turning California into a Third-World nation, and inviting secession. In effect, Mexico is supporting the ethnic cleansing of the American Southwest.

    Other attendees included a delegation from Stormfront.org, and members of the neo-Nazi group National Alliance. Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a prominent white nationalist / white pride / white supremacist Internet forum founded by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Don Black. The 2002 American Renaissance Conference was heavily promoted on Stormfront.org, with Black himself posting: Several people here, including me, plan to attend the American Renaissance Conference in Herndon, Virginia (suburban D.C.) the weekend of February 22-24. Even with the backing of Stormfont.org the conference was fairly small, with only 258 registered guests.

    Spencer’s Publications:

    • Immigration: Threatening the Bonds of Our Union, Parts I and II (video)
    • Conquest of Aztlan: Threatening the Bonds of Our Union, Parts III (DVD): billed as a documentary that describes how “A fifth column of subversives is plotting to recolonize the United States.” Sold exclusively by WorldNetDaily (owned by David Horowitz).
    =====================================================================


    PART SIX: The Social Contract Press

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract_Press

    Jump to: navigation, search

    The Social Contract Press (SCP) is an American publisher. It is a prominent proponent of immigration reduction and population control. It was founded by John Tanton and is headed by Wayne Lutton.

    It issues a quarterly journal, reprints books, and publishes new works.

    It has been criticized for reprinting Jean Raspail's 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints, which was a best-seller in France when first published, and the original publication in English of which was by Scribners. Due in part to the SCP's publication and endorsement of the novel, it has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [1]
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract_Press"


    http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/09/washington-times-still-wrong.html

    The Washington Times is at it again, pushing anti-immigrant views while citing questionable sources. On today’s front page, Stephan Dinan reports about a new ad campaign by the Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) that calls for fewer immigrant workers. Dinan’s article — which cites no union sources — implies that immigration is bad for the American worker.

    CFAW’s campaign includes an inflammatory TV ad featuring a white couple sitting at a kitchen table with a baby crying in the background. The husband tells his wife he failed to get a job, because “they hired all foreign workers.” CFAW was harshly criticized in 2004 for running racially inflammatory ads in an attempt to influence a Texas congressional campaign.

    Though CFAW portrays itself as a group that represents “the interests of American workers,” not one union participates in its “coalition.” Dinan did not report that, nor did he report that CFAW is, in fact, a front group for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the largest anti-immigration organization and the recipient of more than $1 million in grants from the racist Pioneer Foundation. One of the members of CFAW’s coalition is the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF), which is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. AICF believes that immigrants have “sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America.”

    CFAW’s coalition is incestuous, with several organizations that are founded, financed or led by a tiny handful of anti-immigrant activists. For example, John Tanton founded both FAIR and NumbersUSA. Roy Beck, who runs NumbersUSA and worked for many years for Tanton, heads several of CFAW’s other constituent groups. Dinan also cites Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which was established under FAIR’s nonprofit tax umbrella and whose creation Tanton endorsed in 1986. Krikorian claims in Dinan’s article that immigrants and their children will potentially add 105 million new residents to the U.S. by 2060 — an outlandish number that would require nearly the entire population of Mexico to move to the US.

    The connection to Tanton, who is the founder of America’s modern anti-immigration movement, is particularly problematic given his history of anti-Latino bigotry. Tanton has questioned whether Latinos can be educated to the level of other races and he endorses and publishes the racist novel Camp of the Saints. (For a description of the book’s racism, see here.)

    FAIR has been creating false front groups for years, usually in an attempt to hide the predominantly white face of American’s anti-immigration movement. FAIR bankrolls Choose Black America, which supposedly represents African Americans who want to restrict immigration. In fact, the group is basically one man, Ted Hayes. FAIR also bankrolls You Don’t Speak for Me!, a supposedly Latino group that favors immigration restrictions. As in the case of Choose Black America, the group has only a handful of participants and its media contact, Ira Mehlman, works for FAIR.

    If Dinan really wanted to report on the labor movement’s view of American immigration policies, he could have talked with the AFL-CIO. The group, along with other unions and the American Civil Liberties Union, last week sued the Department of Homeland Security over its plans to force businesses to check Social Security numbers against the department’s records in an attempt to root out undocumented workers. They contend that the policy would lead to harassment against anyone who looks or sounds foreign.

    =============================================================


    PART SEVEN: Obvious Conclusions:

    The following have now been proven to be recipients of financing from White Supremacists, also neo-Nazis, and John Tanton’s mixture of White Supremacism and anti-Immigration fanaticism (aka “nativism”). It is inconceivable that these people are unaware of their financial backers. The evidence speaks for itself in that these people support their backers’ causes of White Supremacism, neo-Nazism, and anti-Immigration.


    Robert Spencer (now we have a better idea of why he was the featured speaker at last year’s neo-Nazi convention in Brussels.)

    Ann Coulter

    Laura Ingraham

    Michelle Malkin

    Sean Hannity (now we know why he keeps hosting virulent neo-Nazis on his show)

    Hugh Hewitt

    Michael Savage

    David Horowitz

    ===================================================================

    PART EIGHT: Further Reading:

    ADL Says Armed Anti-Immigration Groups in Arizona Share Ties to ...Information on JDL Terrorist Glenn Spencer of American Border Patrol

    Glenn Spencer, one of the most shameless anti-Mexican bigots in California, will be moving to Cochise County in Arizona this month to join the vile ...
    www.aztlan.net/spencerterror.htm

    ADL Says Armed Anti-Immigration Groups in Arizona Share Ties to ...

    This virulently anti-Hispanic group, headed by Glenn Spencer, a retired businessman, is based in Sierra Vista, Arizona. Founded in California in 1992 as ...
    www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4255_72.asp


    More on Robert Spencer

    More on Sean Hannity

    More on David Horowitz

    More on Michael Savage


    Technorati Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

    Q

    Related Posts with Thumbnails