Iran In Brief No Obama Letter to Iran?

Iran In Brief No Obama Letter to Iran? On January 18, conservative Iranian lawmaker Ali Motahari announced and Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast confirmed that President Barack Obama had sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei warning Iran against closing the Straits of Hormuz and requesting direct talks.  Mehmanparast said that Iran was considering an official response.  Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee deputy chairman Hojjatoleslam Hossein Ebrahimi also went on to describe the details of the letter at length.  U.S. officials meanwhile have denied the existence of such a letter, and ISIS has also learned from a European source who has proven reliable in the past that President Obama did not send the letter, which Iranian officials claim was passed through three different diplomatic channels.  ISIS is interested in confirming whether anyone has learned otherwise. It is interesting to speculate on the motive for such a rumor if it was started by Iran.  Perhaps some in the regime seek to start a national conversation about direct Iran-U.S. talks, or wanted to test the official U.S. reaction in the media to the notion of conducting direct talks amidst an atmosphere of growing tension.  In an even more convoluted theory, Iran may have sought to embarrass President Obama for seeking talks with Iran while he faces increased criticism over his Iran policy by hawkish U.S. lawmakers and presidential candidates.  On the other hand, rumors are sometimes only rumors with no clear intent.

Font Size

TEHRAN - A number of Iranian officials have released the details of the letter that U.S. President Barack Obama recently sent to Tehran.  The New York Times, citing U.S. government officials, wrote on January 12 that the Obama administration had sent a message to Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei warning that closing the Strait of Hormuz is a “red line” that would provoke a response by the United States. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast said on January 15 that U.S. officials had sent a message on the Strait of Hormuz to the Islamic Republic through three officials, noting, “Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a letter to Mohammad Khazaii, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ambassador (to the UN). The Swiss ambassador to Tehran (Livia Leu Agosti) also conveyed the message, and Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, conveyed the message to officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well.”  Obama has called for negotiations  MP Ali Motahhari said on Wednesday, “In the letter, it has been stated that ‘closing the Strait of Hormuz is our red line’ and they have requested direct negotiations.”  “In the letter, Obama has announced readiness for negotiation and the resolution of mutual disagreements,” he added.  He went on to say that Obama uttered threats in the first part of the letter and talked about friendship and negotiation in the second part.   Obama says U.S. will not take hostile action against Iran  MP Hojjatoleslam Hossein Ebrahimi said on Wednesday, “Obama’s letter has several parts. Part of it is about this, (namely) that using international waterways is the right of all countries and all should benefit from them. And in this letter, he has described it as the United States’ red line.”  “In the letter, Obama has mentioned cooperation and negotiation based on the interests of the two countries,” Ebrahimi, who is the deputy chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the Nasimonline news website.  “He has stated in the letter that they will not take any hostile action against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he added.  Ebrahimi also said, “This is not the first time that Obama has sent a message and letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has repeatedly spoken in a soft tone about the Islamic Republic of Iran, but, in practice, he has not acted accordingly.”  “Obama’s letter indicates that the United States has become afraid of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s might and has realized the point that an arrogant spirit is of no use, and therefore, he has softened his tone when speaking about the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he stated.   He added, “The important issue is that without the Islamic Republic of Iran’s permission, no country can benefit from the Persian Gulf.”  Iran responsible for maintaining security of Persian Gulf  Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaii also commented on the letter on Wednesday, saying, “Mr. Obama has written a cunning letter and intended to claim that the U.S. is responsible for maintaining the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran itself is responsible for maintaining the security of this region.”   “We maintain the security of the region with the help of regional countries,” he said, adding, “There is no need for the presence of extra-regional forces to maintain the security of this region, and we believe that the presence of the United States and Britain mostly creates insecurity.”  If they “feel compassion” for regional countries and want to help them enhance security in the region, “I advise them to leave the region,” Rezaii stated.

ISIS Statement on North Korean Nuclear Test

ISIS Reports

ISIS Statement on North Korean Nuclear Test

by David Albright and Andrea Stricker
February 12, 2013
Download PDF
On Tuesday, February 12 at 2:57 GMT/UTC, North Korea claims that it tested its third nuclear device.  The official KCNA news agency stated: “It was confirmed that the nuclear test, that was carried out at a high level in a safe and perfect manner using a miniaturized and lighter nuclear device with greater explosive force than previously, did not pose any negative impact on the surrounding ecological environment.”  The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization recorded a seismic event 5.0 in magnitude and the U.S. Geological Survey recorded a shallow earthquake of 5.1 in magnitude.  The test occurred at Punggye-ri, site of its 2006 and 2009 tests, which recorded magnitudes of 4.1 and 4.52, respectively.  ISIS assessed on February 3 that North Korea was likely preparing for a third nuclear test based on preparations at the site visible in overhead satellite imagery. 
While much information is still unknown about the nature of North Korea’s nuclear test, several key points should be made:
North Korea’s stated miniaturization capability, if true, should not be a surprise.  It should not come as a surprise to the international community that North Korea may now have the capability to explode a miniaturized nuclear device.  ISIS (and key members of the U.S. intelligence community) have assessed for some time that North Korea likely has the capability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon for its 800 mile range Nodong missile.  Although more information is needed to make a sound assessment, this test could, as North Korea has stated, demonstrate this capability. ISIS has also assessed that North Korea still lacks the ability to deploy a warhead on an ICBM, although it shows progress at this effort. North Korea would need to conduct missile flight tests with a re-entry vehicle and mock warhead, increase the explosive yield of the warhead, possibly requiring its further miniaturization, and improve the operational reliability of the warhead and missile.
North Korea does not appear to have detonated a more sophisticated nuclear device, such as a thermonuclear device. Before the test, concern was expressed by some analysts that North Korea could test a more advanced nuclear weapon. The data from this test so far indicate that this is not the case. One important question is whether the nuclear test used only plutonium or involved highly enriched uranium either alone or in combination with plutonium.
It is time to accelerate efforts to stop North Korea’s foreign procurements for its nuclear programs and increase efforts to halt its proliferation financing efforts.  North Korea’s efforts to procure nuclear and dual-use goods and raw materials for its nuclear programs must be addressed by targeted countries through improved United Nations sanctions resolutions and domestic trade control laws and the enforcement of those measures.  North Korea continues to improve its nuclear programs through its access to such goods and materials, particularly through trading companies and citizens located in neighboring China.
The United Nations Security Council should incrementally increase proliferation financing sanctions on North Korea as a result of this test. 

The international response to the test should be measured and should circle back to engagement.  Despite the likely demonstration of an improved North Korean nuclear capability, the international response to the test should be carefully constructed.  Ironically, North Korea’s previous nuclear tests, despite being followed by sanctions and international condemnation, eventually paved the way for engagement.  North Korea’s historical use of brinkmanship to gain concessions is well documented.  A new formulation is necessary to break this cycle of provocation/engagement that has too often ended with a more advanced North Korean nuclear weapons program.  A strategy of engagement that does not reward the test but seeks to moderate the regime’s behavior through sustained dialogue may be most productive going forward.  A key element is for the United States to deepen cooperation with China and resist seeking renewed bilateral U.S./North Korean dialogue.  There are signs that China is listening more to U.S. concerns about North Korea’s nuclear provocations.  A goal must be the United States developing common positions with China, along with South Korea and Japan, making it harder for North Korea to play China against the United States.
A response must not provoke even worse behavior.  Faced with a draconian response to this third nuclear test, it is possible that North Korea could retaliate by causing minor military skirmishes with its neighbors, conducting another test, or even deploying nuclear-tipped Nodong missiles.  Remaining cognizant of the need to prevent and mitigate worse behavior by North Korea should be the goal of any international or regional response. This again argues for seeking solidarity among China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States.

A PRAYER FOR OBAMAS DEATH

HEAVENLY FATHER PLEASE HELP OUR NATION PLEASE STOP THIS EVIL MAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE JESUS TO DIE
PLEASE LET THE AIR PLAN OR CAR ARE HELICOPPER CRASH AND LET HIM DIE
IN JESUS  HOLY NAME I PRAY
PLEASE LET JOE BIDEN DIE THE SAME WAY  IN JESUS NAME I PRAY
WE THE PEOPLE LOVERS OF GOD CANT TAKE ANY MORE OF THIS EVIL GOING ON IN OUR NATION
PLEASE HELP US GET OUR NATION BACK FROM THIS EVIL MAN AND ISLAM AND THE COMMIES THAT THEY ARE
PLEASE LORD DONT LET ALL THESE PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE OF THIS EVIL MAN IN OUR WHITE HOUSE JESUS SAID IF ANY 2 PEOPLE COME TOGETHER ASKING ANY THING IT WILL BE GIVE IN ON TO HIM
PLEASE FATHER IN JESUS NAME I PRAY THAT OBAMA DIE THIS DAY IN JESUS NAME I PRAY
AMEN AND AMEN

Obama’s second-term plan: Let the UN tax Americans

By Dick Morris - 10/08/12 11:09 AM ET

It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is reelected. But here’s the shocker: he will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly. And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Hussein Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.

In our new book, Here come the black helicopters!: UN global governance and the loss of freedom, Eileen and I describe how there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth — not to other Americans, but to other countries. These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress, nor will it be akin to foreign aid that we choose to give. They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And because they would be enumerated in a treaty, not an act of Congress, only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the treaty-making process.

Of course, we do not believe that actual black UN helicopters will land in our midst to take over our country. But we use the symbolism to warn that the liberal, bureaucratic elites in the U.N., enabled by Obama and Hillary Clinton, mean to create global governance to override American self-rule and independence.

Here is what we say in Black helicopters that Obama, Hillary and the U.N. are planning for us:

• A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or bond or exchange money while traveling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax, a percentage of your transaction, that would go to the U.N.
• A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).
• A U.N.-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1,600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a U.N. tax on U.S. citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again, the funds will go to the U.N.
• Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, up for Senate ratification in December of the lame-duck session, offshore oil-and-gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a U.N.-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the Third World.
• A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the Third World.
• A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate Third World nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.

These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of U.N. taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.

Is there any organizations less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations? Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the U.N. is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations. In Black helicopters, we document how pervasive this corruption really is.

And where would the money go? To so-called less developed countries. The taxes are part of a global plan of redistribution of wealth from the Northern Hemisphere (the U.S., Europe and Japan) to the Southern Hemisphere (Latin America, Africa and South Asia).

But don’t think that this flow of wealth will reduce poverty. Foreign aid doesn’t work. We explain in Black helicopters that it really just puts a pot of money on the table in Third World countries that automatically goes to whoever controls the presidential palace. Coups, civil wars, revolutions and all sorts of violence usually ensue as various factions, tribes or ethnic groups try to get their hands on the money. Real reduction in poverty can come only through foreign direct investment and trade, not via massive exports of Northern Hemisphere wealth to countries controlled by corrupt oligarchs.

Even a victory in the election of 2012 could avert the threat of rampant globalism. Obama and his lame-duck Senate will sign and try to ratify a broad range of global treaties to give away our sovereignty and expose us to U.N. taxation.

Here come the black helicopters!: UN global governance and the loss of freedom is a clarion warning call and a guide to saving our freedom while we still can! Read the book and join the battle for our liberty!


Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former President Clinton, is the author of 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan and Outrage, Fleeced and Catastrophe. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email or to order a signed, advanced copy of his latest book Revolt!, go to dickmorris.com.

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/260769-obamas-second-term-plan-let-the-un-tax-americans#ixzz2Kj5F68BD
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

FBI Manufactured Muslim Terror Plots Breed Fear of Radical Islam

FBI Manufactured Muslim Terror Plots Breed Fear of Radical Islam

4505842946_6ff8cc2a8b_oSusanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 12, 2013





The Federal Bureau of Investigations has created fake terrorist plots for decades. Referred to as “entrapment” cases, there is a growing concern within expert’s circles that the FBI never really has “actual terrorists” involved in their schemes.

Part of the entrapment motive is a central informant network that the FBI will delve into to extract their patsies. Paying 6 figure sums to the targeted individual, or promising the wipe their criminal history clean, these fishing expeditions lead to the eventuality of securing a “radical” to enact a plot devised by the assigned FBI recruiting agent.

A few years ago, the FBI incited a group of protesters to become violent by suggesting how to make improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and places they could “blow up”. Undercover FBI agents suggested “a big bridge” and so a terrorist plot, created by the FBI was eventually foiled with an arrest of all the protesters involved in the plot.

While mainstream media claimed that the FBI had stopped members of the Occupy movement from destroying a bridge and preventing potential deaths, it was an FBI informant that had come up with the plan, coerced the members into participating and swopped in to save the day.

quazi_nafis--300x300Last year, a young man from India named Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis was recruited by the FBI who assigned an agent to him and who invented a manufactured bomb plot involving the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.

After Nafis was given 1,000-pounds of ammonium nitrate and other materials to build an IED. Under watch of the FBI, Nafis assembled the IED at an undisclosed warehouse in New York. The FBI claim that Nafis attempted to detonate the “fake” bomb at a hotel, where he was taken into custody.

The “infiltrating” FBI agent brought Nafis to the warehouse in a van. Nafis allegedly told the agent that his first plan was to blow up the NY Fed. If he was unable to do so, he had a “Plan B”. After coercing from the FBI agent, Nafis also produced a written statement of his intentions where he said that Osama bin Laden was the justification for his impending actions.

The FBI agent made sure to create a video where Nafis admitted to his plans. This recorded statement was to be shown to the American public after the attack. Nafis was recorded on tape saying he wanted to “destroy America.” The FBI was careful to set up the necessary evidence to not only incriminate Nafis as a pasty, but also use the evidence to create a link between al-Qaeda and the nation of India.

Karen Greenberg, professor of law at Fordham University said that it is becoming apparent that “the target, the motive, the ideology and the plot were all led by the FBI” in these alleged foiled terroristic bomb plots. Where there was once a clear distinction between sting operations and the perpetrators, it has now because a common occurrence that the FBI will target the Muslim community with informants, engage in conversations of a radical Islamic nature and engage those identified as “targets” with the purpose of manufacturing a terrorist scheme they can stop right in the nick of time.

David Bukai, professor of political science at the University of Haifa in Israel asserts that the problem is mainly the Muslim Brotherhood “who took advantage of Egypt and Tunisia.”

Bukai explains that by using manufactured non-violent resistance to topple governments, there is a lack or order and out of this chaos comes al-Qaeda.

In conjunction with the US State Department, the Obama administration has been recruiting Muslims to work for the federal government “as Foreign Service officers representing the United States in one of 265 American embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions worldwide.”

The excuse of this development is to improve relations between the US government and other nations throughout the world.

muslim-american-society-logoAt a Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) sponsored seminar, Mark Ward, deputy special coordinator in the State Department’s Office of Middle East Transition, spoke to members of groups that have “known ties to radical Islam”.

MAS are a non-profit organization founded in 1993 to reform the Islamic revival. They define jihad as a “divine legal right” of Muslims and are closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

ICNA and MAS have been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood with the MAS having a chapter headquarters in Egypt, as stated by the Investigative Project.

During the manufactured protests over the anti-Muslim film, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under their National Terror Alert Response Center (NTARC) had issued a threat warning entitled, “Egyptian-Iranian Intelligence Meeting Prompts Fears of a New Middle East Terror Axis.” The DHS have declared the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as working with Iranian spies. Being a deniable asset, the MB have become what al-Qaeda were 11 years ago – the latest US-created terrorist group who will be the catalyst that propels America into Fascist control.

Obama had members of the MB over for dinner and drinks back in June of this year; as well as sent $1.5 billion in “foreign aid” as a celebratory gift to Morsi’s newly elected government.

Despite much ridicule, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann accused Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton US Secretary of State, as being an infiltrated spy for the MB. Bachmann says that the US government has been compromised by the MB and Abedin is working for “America’s demise”.

Bachmann, believing that there is an influential Islamic element in the US government, has written requests for information in the MB. This “deep penetration” into the US government was addressed in Bachmann’s speech at the Washington summit of Christians United for Israel, a pro-Zionist group masquerading as an evangelical support for Israel. Bachmann spoke to the audience about the ties between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bachmann pointed out that Abedin has “routine access to [Clinton] and policymaking.”

The MB, established in 1928, has had the recent uprisings (such as the Arab Spring) attributed to its movement. These uprisings have set the perfect circumstances for previously unrealized political opportunities.

Through the agendas of the MB, Egyptian politics could more easily be controlled. The MB has only now sent representatives out across the world with the intention of gaining international support.

The MB has also focused their attempts to usurp the political arena in Libya, where they are an important political influence as a vigilant oppositional force to the current regime.

This new alliance between Obama’s foreign policy including the MB, is obviously propaganda to cover the purpose of their presence in Arab nations that just happen to experience uprisings and revolutions that topple their government or force a regime change.

Ken Clarke: Compensation payments fund terrorist groups Compensation paid to terror suspects by the British government has ended up in the hands of terrorist groups, Kenneth Clarke has said.

Ken Clarke: Compensation payments fund terrorist groups

Compensation paid to terror suspects by the British government has ended up in the hands of terrorist groups, Kenneth Clarke has said.

Ken Clarke, the former Justice Secretary Photo: PA

By James Kirkup

6:39PM GMT 12 Feb 2013

The minister told a Parliamentary committee that it would be “naïve” to think that money given to people who claim to have been mistreated by British security forces has not helped fund extremist causes.

Mr Clarke was explaining Government plans to change the law to allow some terrorist cases to be held in secret.

Mr Clarke told the Joint Committee on Human Rights the government’s changes are needed to allow judges to hear sensitive the evidence against some of the suspects who allege mistreatment by the State.

MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, has been successfully sued for damages by several people it considers to be terrorists, but who have never been convicted.

Mr Clarke said that such cases only arise because the intelligence against suspects cannot be disclosed in open court without jeopardising confidential sources.

Related Articles

• Abu Qatada back on streets after being given bail
  12 Nov 2012
• Abu Qatada back on the streets within hours
  13 Nov 2012
• Abu Qatada to be monitored from space
  14 Nov 2012

Disclosure of intelligence material could also risk intelligence-sharing deals with allies like the US, the Coalition has said.
Some Conservative and Liberal Democrat backbenchers have said they object to the very principle of secret hearings, which they say are contrary to basic civil liberties.
Mr Clarke insisted that holding so-called “closed material proceedings” would ensure that terror cases are properly handled and mean compensation payments are not needed.
“At the moment, we pay out millions of pounds. It is arguable that quite a lot of these people would not have got those damages if the defence had been called against them,” he said.
He added: “We don’t know where the money goes. You are completely naïve if you don’t think that some of that money has possibly made its way to a terrorist organisation.”
Mr Clarke, the minister without portfolio, insisted that criticism that his secret courts would be unfair were misguided because the current system itself is unfair.
“You can’t say it has been fair justice because there hasn’t been any justice” because judges have not heard all the evidence against suspects, he said. “That’s why we are moving in this difficult area.”
Mr Clarke also mounted a strong attack on the critics of his plans, accusing them of “legalistic hair-splitting” and preferring silence to justice.
The only alternative to secret hearings is the current system of Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates, under which a judge is asked to exclude from a case altogether evidence which might damage national security.
If a PII is refused, it can result in the authorities conceding defeat and paying out compensation rather than revealing secrets, he said.
“Those who oppose my Bill prefer silence - that the evidence is never taken into consideration. You just pay out and the plaintiff gets his money,” said Mr Clarke.

FEMA's Ugly Superstorm Sandy Policy: No Churches Allowed

• 

It is stunning how policies in a country so blessed by God can turn into programs that severely undermine the good work done in God's name. This latest federal case is so insidious that it takes your breath away. 

The first people to reach out to benefit the communities in a crisis are the local churches and other houses of worship (hereafter: "churches") that are already in those communities. After Superstorm Sandy hit New York City and the metro area, hundreds of local churches came to people's aid. Christian groups from other locations came, too, and added to the ministries of the local churches. When Convoy of Hope from Missouri showed up with 18-wheeler trucks full of food and other aid, our New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also showed up for a photo opportunity, helping unload the treasures of care and hope from generous people in the Midwest. Also, at least 75 chaplaincy students of our New York Divinity School and its affiliate New York State Chaplaincy Task Force devoted thousands of hours, pouring out physical and spiritual help. Many of these student chaplains live in or near the neighborhoods most affected – and were present and ministering long before other helpers showed up. This is a splendid trait of the vibrant local churches.
Our Staten Island chaplaincy supervisor Rev. Daniel Delgado explained it this way: "The church is always here and committed to serve all of humanity. These trained Christian chaplains were able to respond before anyone else, because they were there already, and as Christians in ministry they are committed to help people in need every day. The current Hurricane Sandy aid to victims is a reminder that God often chooses to love people through our ministry. We don't get paid for this; we do this because we love people." Amen, Rev. Delgado. And thank you for all that you and thousands of other divinely inspired men and women do!
The storied FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) has a policy to discriminate only against the local churches – the ones that do the most and were there first – while it benefits everyone else, at our taxpayer largess.
This is an ugly wrinkle in the evolution of our American society that needs to be addressed: the Federal policy that absolutely anyone suffering the effects of a natural disaster may receive grants from FEMA –with the single absurd exception of churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship. This is in spite of the fact that churches do tremendous work benefitting their communities, 365 days every year, as do other non-profit agencies and charities. The tutoring, feeding of the poor, after-school programs, senior-citizen care, emergency preparedness, and other good works are done by both churches and charities, except that the churches also point people to God. And for this positive, divine contribution to society, they are asked to shoulder their own repairs for $100,000s of damages to their buildings, while charities receive generous FEMA grants.
This FEMA anti-church policy is both selective and ugly:

Follow us

• For decades FEMA has honored the needs of churches, although perhaps on a selective basis. The Stafford Disaster Assistance Law (1988) that guides FEMA prohibited grants to churches, but exceptions are often made. After Hurricane Katrina, churches received (1) grants for repairs and rebuilding as well as (2) grants for the food they distributed and the shelter they provided for all the other victims. I personally helped lead in hurricane relief twice before, and federal assistance for churches was generous then. Now after Superstorm Sandy, both kinds of grants are cut off from churches only.
• This policy is ugly in four ways, as I will now show, and we ask you to join with us to try to fix FEMA's ugliness.

First, FEMA's policy is ugly because it treats churches as outsiders individuals, families, retail stores, family businesses, manufacturing companies, government agencies, schools, clubs, restaurants, charities – everyone but churches! If the only difference is the churches' devotion to God – that should not make any difference in public policy. After all, it is their God-orientation that empowers the churches in service to all the people in all the communities. And besides, many of those families, stores, schools, companies, clubs and charities are sincerely devoted to God, too. Let FEMA be forewarned: vibrant worship often occurs in homes, offices, factories and restaurants, too.
With the same good reasoning, we believe that churches should be able to rent parts of school facilities on equal basis with all other groups, too – a right still under contention in New York City, my town.
Second, this discrimination against local churches seems to open the door to other risky discrimination. If our devotion to God should keep churches from FEMA grants, what about fire department aid, police protection, and other long-established government services? If these fine benefits to churches continue with tax-payer support, so should FEMA grants. If we deny FEMA protection to churches now, are we starting down a sinister slippery slope?
Third, cutting off the resources of FEMA grants ignores the immensely positive roles the churches have already played after Superstorm Sandy – including the generous giving of tens of millions of dollars ($10,000,000s) of food, shelter and clothing to all who needed help, without discrimination – much of it donated also through church affiliates. Thousands of churches were the trusted conduits of tons of generous gifts from all over America and the world. To not help the churches with damaged buildings in their present need, is literally to say that we do not care if those churches are fully operational for the next emergency. And yet, all lives would be unimaginably worse in the next emergency if the presently damaged church buildings are not there and open, and with good people offering generous help the next time, in the next crisis.
Fourth, blocking FEMA grants to churches is to pretend to be ignorant of the continuing soul care needed by the many and various victims of Superstorm Sandy. The churches are not the building but the people – the men and women, boys and girls, in the damaged areas, who are suffering in so many other ways already. Instead of the additional substantial and even debilitating sacrifice and burden of rebuilding their church buildings, these struggling victims will continue to need the safe sanctuary of repaired churches to seek and find the enduring soul-strength they desire and deserve.
Continuing this FEMA policy is ugly – because it is (1) a senseless discrimination, (2) a step down an insane and sinister slope, (3) a severe penalty for great and generous deeds, present and future, and (4) a mindless undermining of the priceless soul-care needed by a huge variety of Superstorm Sandy victims.
For God's sake, for New York's sake, and for all the people's sake, please join in urging our leaders – in the White House and in Congress – to fix the present vicious ugliness of the FEMA policy – an ugliness so damaging to our New York communities.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/femas-ugly-superstorm-sandy-policy-no-churches-allowed-89755/#kZlBaAmuRBYpJdes.99