Owner says mass e-mail wrongly implies anti-American sentiment.

Kenneth Burkholder is perplexed.

His business, Good's Store Inc., is one of hundreds of Amish and Mennonite stores that do not sell American flags.

Nobody's singling out the other places.

But Good's is under fire.

The sender of a recent mass e-mailing claimed that a young, unnamed Good's sales clerk ''wrinkled her nose'' in disdain when quizzed about flag sales.

''We don't sell those here,'' the clerk supposedly said, ''and we never will.''

It's true that flags aren't in the general store's inventory, said Burkholder, the company president. The families that own the stores are Anabaptists, who view the banner primarily as a symbol of military might.

But, he said, it's false to imply that this faith group, which includes Amish and Mennonites, is anti-American.

Nor could Good's find proof that the supposed testy exchange with an employee ever took place, Burkholder added.

''We researched it. That was my main concern,'' Burkholder emphasized, that the company not appear arrogant.

Burkholder acknowledged that the flag ''means a lot of different things to different people.''

Good's does not condemn people for buying flags, he said. The company pays its taxes, respects differing viewpoints and supports the community.

He said he and his employees are grateful to live in a country that tolerates religious freedom.

But he's still puzzled by the periodic contention over the flag policy.

Anabaptists have embraced nonviolence and distanced themselves from the military, and from iconography, since the 1500s, Burkholder pointed out: ''It's not like we came up with something new here.''

Good's Store in downtown Quarryville, about 50 miles southwest of Allentown, is typically placid.

Potted mums set off the sturdy brick and masonry storefront.

Light traffic proceeds steadily in and out of the parking lot, where a digital sign promotes products in the store.

Inside, customers shop among racks of clothing, household items and hardware.

''We don't know the source'' of the message or what triggered it recently, Burkholder said.

But the tune was familiar, right down to the urged boycott.

Just like they did eight years ago, after the terrorist attacks, some customers complained and vowed to shop elsewhere.

But others jumped to support Good's, which also has central Pennsylvania stores north of Quarryville in East Earl, Ephrata and Schaefferstown.

Detractors say the business operates on American soil and benefits from the sacrifices of American troops, and so should salute their emblem.

''Cowards and hypocrites!'' charged one anonymous critic in an online forum hosted by newspapers in nearby Lancaster. ''They are so quick to condemn the U.S.A. and the military.''

Defenders argue that the store has a right to choose its own merchandise precisely because this is a free land.

''There are lots of people who would sell you a flag who would also be tax cheats, sell you inferior goods, try to charge you unfairly, etc.,'' wrote another. ''With whom would you rather do business? An honest man who's trying to live by his faith, or someone who will do anything for a buck?''

Greg Kerek Sr., 70, of Lancaster took a philosophical view of the debate.

Kerek, who has taken part in a local charity race each spring for the past 25 years, is well-known for carrying a large American flag on a pole to the finish line.

He's also a National Guard veteran who described himself as ''very up on the military.''

As to Good's ban on flag sales, he added, ''I don't like that mindset at all.''

Conversely, he said he'd protect the rights of any ''dyed-in-the-wool pacifist.''

Steve Johnson, who operates an antiques store in downtown Lancaster, said the flare-up over Good's raised some interesting questions.

''It opens up a discussion that can go all over the place,'' he said. ''Is our flag a symbol of our national unity…or is it a military symbol?''

You could write an essay on the topic, Johnson said.

Burkholder said the brouhaha is not going to affect the store's Amish and Mennonite customers.

Nor is it going to compel the 51-year-old business to start stocking American flags.

All the same, he added, he would prefer that people just stop talking -- and writing -- about what's for sale at Good's.

''We've been through this a number of years,'' Burkholder said.

4 Amish bishops charged with not reporting abuse

MARSHFIELD, Mo. — Four Amish leaders in southwest Missouri who chose to "shun" an accused child molester in their community rather than report him to authorities were charged Tuesday with failing to report the sexual abuse.

Webster County prosecutor Danette Padgett said all four are bishops and face one misdemeanor count each of failure to report child abuse as a mandatory reporter.

Under Missouri law, people with "responsibility for the care of children" are required to report suspected child abuse. Examples of mandatory reporters under the statute are doctors, nurses, social workers and teachers and ministers who are not engaged in a "privileged communication."

The bishops were identified as Emmanuel M.S. Eicher, 44, Peter M. Eicher, 59, Jacob P. Schwartz, 79, and Christian J.F. Schwartz, 41, all of rural Webster County.

An attorney for the men, Will Worsham, questioned whether they can be considered mandatory reporters. He said the Amish do not separate government and religion and that a bishop is akin to a mayor or city councilman.

"I'm not convinced `bishop' necessarily implies any type of religious authority in their community. And even if it did, I'm not sure they would qualify as `clergy.' It doesn't appear anywhere in the law."

The four men knew that a member of their community, Johnny A. Schwartz, 36, had been abusing two underage children from June 2007 through June 2008, according to the probable cause statement. Schwartz was charged in mid-October with six counts involving sexual abuse of children.

Authorities would not say how Schwartz and the bishops with the same surname are related. They also would not release the ages of the children or their relationship to Johnny Schwartz.

About 2,200 Amish live in Webster County. Sheriff Roye H. Cole said authorities found out about the alleged abuse from someone who works among the them. That individual, who has not been identified, had heard about Schwartz being shunned by the community and asked why.

Shunning is a form of punishment among the Amish in which a member of the group who fails to follow the rules is ostracized.

"They make the religious argument that they've punished them," Cole said. "They're shunned, and if they confessed their sins and ask forgiveness, they have no moral authority to report it to the law."

"They feel they cannot report a brother that has been forgiven of their sins," he added.

Padgett and Cole said they believe the bishops were told about the alleged abuse by Schwartz's wife, which would make it a nonprivileged communication because she was not "confessing."

But Worsham, who also represents Johnny Schwartz, said prosecutors are using an overly broad definition of the mandatory reporter law.

"In order to hold up charges against these individuals, it could make a lot of people `mandatory reporters' in this state that would be shocked to learn they were defined as such," Worsham said. "If you're a part-time Sunday school teacher, you may suddenly be defined as a `mandatory reporter.' I don't think that's what anyone has contemplated in the past."

JEWISH TERRORIST APPREHENDED FOR ATTACK ON MESSIANIC JEWISH FAMILY: Police have arrested a resident of the West Bank settlement of Shvut Rachel for suspected murder and a role in a string of murder plots, according to details of an investigation revealed Sunday. Yaakov Tytell is accused of involvement in the murder of two Palestinians and the rigging of a bomb that seriously injured a boy from a Messianic Jewish family in Ariel. The police say Tytell has confessed to these acts. He was arrested in the ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof and was in possession of a loaded gun. (Ha’aretz) The Ortiz family of Ariel on Sunday urged law-enforcement authorities to "make an example" of Yaakov Tytell for sending the Messianic Jewish (Christian) family a booby-trapped Purim gift package in March 2008 that left their son Ami critically wounded.  When Ami, then 15, opened the basket, it exploded and he was severely wounded. He has undergone a long and difficult recovery. 

This is from 2008. Did you know about it? How do you feel about it?

Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA
President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.

Described as a "national contingency plan" the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of "public health emergency."

The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly".

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.

Read the full bill here.

One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

"Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes. "The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research."

"The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research."

In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens' Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years.

Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called "DNA Warehouse" from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening.

DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns' DNA is already being collected.

In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law.

Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives:

"I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it."

Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, "S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …"

"Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children," Paul continued.

"In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a 'public health' disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of 'emergency," he concluded.