Part 3 is out.  Chuck is on a roll.  In part 1, Mr. Norris discusses how special envoys are being used to partner with the religion of Islam, and in part 2 he talks about Obama's real beliefs.  In this installment, he highlights the preferential treatment given to that of Islam vs. Christianity.

In response to the Pew Research Center poll that indicated one in five Americans think President Obama is a Muslim, a week ago the White House released a rebuttal insisting that the president is "a committed Christian."

Those words remind me of those from President Teddy Roosevelt, who said, "Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big."

Even more apropos, Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ, said we would be able to distinguish authentic Christian leaders from false ones not by what they say but "by their fruit [or actions] you will recognize them."

And Obama's actions are again our focus here in Part 3.

In Part 1, I began to demonstrate how the President is using U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain, his own presidential position and others in his administration to deepen and expand the partnerships between the United States and the religion of Islam.

In Part 2, I detailed Obama's real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth 2004 interview by a religious reporter for a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus.

Now, in Part 3, I will demonstrate how Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity.

Have you watched this?  You should, it's pretty interesting.  Now that you've done that, read the following from WND:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that the U.S. Constitution is Shariah compliant. Let us examine below a few laws of Shariah to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

1. Jihad, defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion," is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (caliph). Muslim caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Shariah and unfit to rule.
2. A caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.
3. A caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
4. A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go toward jihad.
5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
7. The Muslim public must remove the caliph if he rejects Islam.
8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate, 2) an adulterer, and 3) a highway robber – making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
10. A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim but will get it for killing a Muslim.

Breaking News!  The EPA has soundly dismissed the first part of the petition which would ban the use of lead in ammunition.  The second part, pertaining to fishing tackle, is still under review.  There is a link at the bottom where comments can be made specifically for that.  This huge victory is attributed mainly to the NRA, but I'm sure the calls and comments from regular folk didn't hurt.

EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today denied a petition calling for a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA sent a letter to the petitioners explaining the rejection – that letter can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sect21.html

Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, issued the following statement on the agency's decision:

"EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.

Two completely separate stories, but they add up to complete confusion.  First, Homland Security is systematically dropping cases against illegals even if they have prior convictions.  Huh?  So even the fact that it is their job to catch and deport those who have entered the U.S. illegally, they choose not to?  Not even if they are convicted criminals?

In a remarkable move that has stunned the legal profession, the Department of Homeland Security is systematically dismissing pending deportation cases against illegal aliens, even when the offenders have been previously convicted of crimes in the U.S.

The government agency charged with keeping America safe quietly began dropping cases against deportable illegal immigrants about a month ago, according to a story in Texas’s largest newspaper. The effort began in Houston and has baffled local immigration attorneys who say the government dismissed their clients’ deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed. “It was absolutely fantastic,” said one lawyer who had three cases dismissed this week.

But that won't stop government agencies from pushing the boundaries of the Constitution with citizens though.  Apparently it is just fine to bug and track anyone who is foolish enough to park in their own driveway.  Fourth Amendment?  Search warrant?  Who needs 'em.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre - and scary - rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants - with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)

It's all backwards and upside down, I tell you. All backwards and upside down.

In a win for those who favor the life of a child over that of scientific research, a District Court has put a preliminary injuction on the Obama administration's new guidelines because it would violate an existing law banning the use of public money to destroy human embryos.  via Reuters:

(Reuters) - A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

The suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued the NIH policy violated U.S. law and took funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

The U.S. Department of Justice, White House and NIH had no immediate comment.

Key to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress adds to budget legislation every year. It bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

I read this article at RWN and imediately thought of the cross atop Table Rock in Boise, and Lizard Butte in Marsing.  There has been contention here in the past as well, and probably will again in the future.  For now, however, from almost anywhere in the Treasure Valley, you can see these.  I love Idaho.

As the left falls all over itself to claim that building the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque is the perfect chance to “showcase” our “Constitutional freedoms” and our religious tolerance, there is another state where religious tolerance is not as noticeably on display as it is for New York’s Muslims. Naturally, in Vermont, it is the religious freedom of Christians being denied. To be sure, the Old Media is not nearly as interested in this story.

Richard and Joan Downing own a hilltop property in Lyndonville, Vermont and on that property they've built a family chapel where they host weekly Catholic services for all. Next to the chapel they have also erected a 24-foot-tall cross called the Cross of Dozulé, a cross that the State of Vermont is insisting that they remove. (Visit The Chapel of the Holy Family website)

How does the State of Vermont justify its demands that the family pull down the cross? Vermont officials are citing environmental regulations that give it the power to determine what sort of construction violates the "aesthetics" of Vermont's scenery.

Read the whole story

Part 2 of this story.  If you haven't read it already, skip on over and read part 1 first.  via WND.

Last week, the media, White House and nation were in a hullabaloo over a Pew Research Center poll which revealed that one in five Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim.

The poll received so much attention and response that the White House released a rebuttal reiterating that Obama is "a committed Christian."

The fact is, Americans are more baffled now by Obama's personal religion than they were when he first came into office.

John Green, University of Akron politics professor and senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, concluded, "I haven't seen any example, and I've been following polling of presidents for a long time now, of where we've seen increased confusion about religiosity the longer they're in office."

Part of the confusion comes, for example, when Obama doesn't make room to commemorate a National Day of Prayer with prominent Christian leaders or even spend time with the God-centered Boy Scouts of America at their national jamboree (as preceding presidents have), but he doesn't miss hosting the Muslim Iftar Ramadan dinner at the White House or pass up the chance to fight for the rights of Muslims to construct an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero.

At times, Obama has given pointed responses about his faith in Christ. At other times, he comes across ambiguous and even clueless about his faith. Still, at other times, he is downright condescending about the Christian faith.