While the Tea Party sweeps America, liberal journalists desperately try to pigeon hole the movement into a pre-Internet mold. They just don't get it: The Tea Party IS American citizens; it's not an old-fashioned political organization with a visible head or a limited number of lead spokesmen.
-- From "Tea party groups choose to stand mute on same-sex marriage ruling" by Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/13/10
While many conservative organizations immediately decried a federal judge's decision last week to invalidate the federal ban on recognizing gay marriages, tea party groups have been conspicuously silent on the issue.
The silence is by design, activists with the loosely affiliated movement said, because it is held together by an exclusive focus on fiscal matters and its avoidance of divisive social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Privately, though, many said they back the decision because it emphasizes the legal philosophy of states' rights.
The large tea party-affiliated organizations, including FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Nation, declined to comment on Tauro's ruling because of their groups' fiscal focus.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
More Filthy Language to Airwaves via Court Ruling
Parental rights advocates, anti-pornography activists and at least one current member of the Federal Communications Commission joined forces Tuesday in condemning a three-judge appeals court panel for declaring unconstitutional the FCC's ban on indecency during prime-time TV hours.
UPDATE 8/27/10: Feds appeal court ruling
-- From "The FCC's decency dilemma" posted at Los Angeles Times 7/14/10
A federal appeals court has delivered another setback to the Federal Communications Commission's six-year crusade against expletives on broadcast television, declaring the commission's latest indecency rule to be unconstitutionally vague. Unless it's overturned on appeal, the ruling will force the FCC to try again to lay out clear boundaries for on-air programming. That's been an exercise in futility for the commission in recent years — not just because it's hard to regulate TV programs without violating the 1st Amendment, but because today's technologies render even constitutionally defensible regulation moot.
The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's procedures last year, leaving the constitutional issues for a later day of reckoning. That day arrived Tuesday, and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion was blistering. The three-judge panel found that the rule has chilled protected speech, including live broadcasts and news programs. Broadcasters have "no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive." More ominously, the court suggested that the way the rules were drawn, the FCC could use the policy to discriminate against programs it didn't like while absolving ones it did.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court Decision Striking Down Broadcast Indecency Ban is ‘Anti-Family,’ Says FCC Commissioner Copps" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor 7/14/10
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps condemned the decision as “anti-family.”
“I am shocked by such an anti-family decision coming out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,” Copps said in a statement. “Sadly, the court focused its energies on the purported chilling effect our indecency policy has on broadcasters of indecent programming, and no time focusing on the chilling effect today’s decision will have on the ability of American parents to safeguard the interests of their children.”
Patrick A. Trueman, former chief of the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, said the decision by the New York-based court seems “foolish on its face.”
“How is the American public to understand that federal judges don’t know that use of the “F-word” is indecent during prime-time television?” Trueman asked.
“This ruling only increases the public’s belief that government is out of touch with the public and out of step with the U.S. Constitution,” he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/27/10: Feds appeal court ruling
-- From "The FCC's decency dilemma" posted at Los Angeles Times 7/14/10
A federal appeals court has delivered another setback to the Federal Communications Commission's six-year crusade against expletives on broadcast television, declaring the commission's latest indecency rule to be unconstitutionally vague. Unless it's overturned on appeal, the ruling will force the FCC to try again to lay out clear boundaries for on-air programming. That's been an exercise in futility for the commission in recent years — not just because it's hard to regulate TV programs without violating the 1st Amendment, but because today's technologies render even constitutionally defensible regulation moot.
The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's procedures last year, leaving the constitutional issues for a later day of reckoning. That day arrived Tuesday, and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion was blistering. The three-judge panel found that the rule has chilled protected speech, including live broadcasts and news programs. Broadcasters have "no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive." More ominously, the court suggested that the way the rules were drawn, the FCC could use the policy to discriminate against programs it didn't like while absolving ones it did.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court Decision Striking Down Broadcast Indecency Ban is ‘Anti-Family,’ Says FCC Commissioner Copps" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor 7/14/10
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps condemned the decision as “anti-family.”
“I am shocked by such an anti-family decision coming out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,” Copps said in a statement. “Sadly, the court focused its energies on the purported chilling effect our indecency policy has on broadcasters of indecent programming, and no time focusing on the chilling effect today’s decision will have on the ability of American parents to safeguard the interests of their children.”
Patrick A. Trueman, former chief of the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, said the decision by the New York-based court seems “foolish on its face.”
“How is the American public to understand that federal judges don’t know that use of the “F-word” is indecent during prime-time television?” Trueman asked.
“This ruling only increases the public’s belief that government is out of touch with the public and out of step with the U.S. Constitution,” he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Commander in Chief Blinding America of Enemy
The Obama administration’s reluctance to acknowledge and confront the religious motivation behind Islamist terrorism is not helping the counter-terror effort, leading experts warn in a new report.
-- From "Critics: US too low-key on Islamic radicalism talk" by Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press 7/12/10
The Obama administration's recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.
Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy [NSS], saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.
The question of how to frame the conflict against al-Qaida and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.
In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."
President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.
In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Experts to Obama: You Can’t Ignore the Islamic Ideology Behind Terrorism" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 7/13/10
[Washington Institute for Near East Policy report authors] J. Scott Carpenter, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Juan Zarate contend that just because ideology is not the only driving force behind violent Islamic terrorism does not mean it can be ignored.
Instead, the administration should recognize Islamism as “the key ideological driver” behind the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups, and prioritize an effort to combat the ideology, they say.
“To be sure, officials need to make very clear that they do not consider Islam itself a danger, only the distorted version of Islam perpetrated by radical extremists. But they – and, in particular, the president – must also come to terms with the fact that individuals implicated in each of the recently exposed plots in the United States were imbued with a common radical ethos.”
The NSS unveiled in May used variations of the phrase “al-Qaeda and its affiliates” repeatedly in identifying the enemy. The word “Islam” appeared twice – the U.S. was not fighting a war against Islam, it said, and “neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.”
(The NSS released by the Bush administration in 2006 stated that “the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” It also called Islam “a proud religion” that “has been twisted and made to serve an evil end.”)
The authors recommend that the administration broaden cooperation with foreign governments, NGOs and others “to empower credible Muslim voices to marginalize” Islamist radicals.
At home and abroad, the government should more effectively identify and support Muslim opinion-leaders who can provide alternative influences to “radicalizers” in their communities.
“Some prominent Muslim American groups have questionable links to banned groups that should disqualify them as trusted government partners in the effort to combat extremism,” the report says. “Others, perhaps less vocal and often active at a more local level, warrant greater institutional recognition and support.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Critics: US too low-key on Islamic radicalism talk" by Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press 7/12/10
The Obama administration's recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.
Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy [NSS], saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.
The question of how to frame the conflict against al-Qaida and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.
In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."
President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.
In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Experts to Obama: You Can’t Ignore the Islamic Ideology Behind Terrorism" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 7/13/10
[Washington Institute for Near East Policy report authors] J. Scott Carpenter, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Juan Zarate contend that just because ideology is not the only driving force behind violent Islamic terrorism does not mean it can be ignored.
Instead, the administration should recognize Islamism as “the key ideological driver” behind the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups, and prioritize an effort to combat the ideology, they say.
“To be sure, officials need to make very clear that they do not consider Islam itself a danger, only the distorted version of Islam perpetrated by radical extremists. But they – and, in particular, the president – must also come to terms with the fact that individuals implicated in each of the recently exposed plots in the United States were imbued with a common radical ethos.”
The NSS unveiled in May used variations of the phrase “al-Qaeda and its affiliates” repeatedly in identifying the enemy. The word “Islam” appeared twice – the U.S. was not fighting a war against Islam, it said, and “neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.”
(The NSS released by the Bush administration in 2006 stated that “the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” It also called Islam “a proud religion” that “has been twisted and made to serve an evil end.”)
The authors recommend that the administration broaden cooperation with foreign governments, NGOs and others “to empower credible Muslim voices to marginalize” Islamist radicals.
At home and abroad, the government should more effectively identify and support Muslim opinion-leaders who can provide alternative influences to “radicalizers” in their communities.
“Some prominent Muslim American groups have questionable links to banned groups that should disqualify them as trusted government partners in the effort to combat extremism,” the report says. “Others, perhaps less vocal and often active at a more local level, warrant greater institutional recognition and support.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Women Choose Homosexuality - Not Genetic: Study
Women are embracing lesbianism in their thirties, according to research indicating that shifts in sexual orientation may be more widespread than previously thought.
-- From "Late-blooming lesbians: women can switch sexualities as they mature" by Matthew Moore, London Telegraph 7/11/10
One study even indicates that as many as two-thirds of women who feel lesbian attractions may have changed their sexual orientation over time.
The findings appear to pose a challenge to the scientific consensus that a person's sexuality is determined more by their genes than environment.
Following interviews with more than 200 married lesbians, [Christan Moran, a researcher at Southern Connecticut State University] concluded that there is “great potential for heterosexual women to experience a first same-sex attraction well into adulthood.”
She added that late-blooming sexuality was often wrongly dismissed as repressed lesbians finally coming to terms with their true feelings.
Most research ignored “the possibility that a heterosexual woman might make a full transition to a singular lesbian identity ... in other words change their sexual orientation.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Late-blooming lesbians: women can switch sexualities as they mature" by Matthew Moore, London Telegraph 7/11/10
One study even indicates that as many as two-thirds of women who feel lesbian attractions may have changed their sexual orientation over time.
The findings appear to pose a challenge to the scientific consensus that a person's sexuality is determined more by their genes than environment.
Following interviews with more than 200 married lesbians, [Christan Moran, a researcher at Southern Connecticut State University] concluded that there is “great potential for heterosexual women to experience a first same-sex attraction well into adulthood.”
She added that late-blooming sexuality was often wrongly dismissed as repressed lesbians finally coming to terms with their true feelings.
Most research ignored “the possibility that a heterosexual woman might make a full transition to a singular lesbian identity ... in other words change their sexual orientation.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Montana Sex Ed Starting at Kindergarten
Following national guidelines, grade school in Helena Montana will start by teaching kindergarteners about genitals, homosexual behavior to first graders, oral sex to pre-pubescent kids . . . and later it gets more explicit.
UPDATE 7/15/10: Latest TV interviews with parents & school superintendent (see below)
-- From "Sex-ed provisions to get public hearing Tuesday" by Alana Listoe, Helena Independent Record 7/11/10
Helena School District administrators and the [revised health enhancement curriculum] document’s creators defend the comprehensive health education document, saying as a whole it will foster a healthier lifestyle for all students as they mature from early childhood into young adults. Opponents say the proposals on human sexuality give too graphic information to children at too young an age.
A committee made up of administrators, teachers, nurses and health and police department officials met for two years [unbeknownst to parents] considering best practices, as well as state and national standards while they developed the 62-page document that encompasses nutrition, relationships, mental health, environmental health and disease prevention.
But the stirring debate in the community has centered on a few pages about human sexuality.
Some of the sticking points are introduction of body parts by their correct names in kindergarten; understanding in first grade that human beings can love people of the same gender; and understanding in fifth grade that sexual intercourse includes, but is not limited to vaginal, oral or anal penetration.
Much of those points being taught at those specific ages coincide with the Guideline for Comprehensive Sexuality Education put out by the National Guidelines Task Force, as well as other national health education standards. The district’s proposal is somewhat conservative on a few points compared to those national guidelines that, for example, say in early elementary school (ages 5 through 8), students should learn that men and women have sperm and egg cells that enable them to reproduce and that vaginal intercourse is when a penis is placed inside the vagina — the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/13/10: Video
UPDATE 7/15/10: Latest TV interviews with parents & school superintendent (see below)
-- From "Sex-ed provisions to get public hearing Tuesday" by Alana Listoe, Helena Independent Record 7/11/10
Helena School District administrators and the [revised health enhancement curriculum] document’s creators defend the comprehensive health education document, saying as a whole it will foster a healthier lifestyle for all students as they mature from early childhood into young adults. Opponents say the proposals on human sexuality give too graphic information to children at too young an age.
A committee made up of administrators, teachers, nurses and health and police department officials met for two years [unbeknownst to parents] considering best practices, as well as state and national standards while they developed the 62-page document that encompasses nutrition, relationships, mental health, environmental health and disease prevention.
But the stirring debate in the community has centered on a few pages about human sexuality.
Some of the sticking points are introduction of body parts by their correct names in kindergarten; understanding in first grade that human beings can love people of the same gender; and understanding in fifth grade that sexual intercourse includes, but is not limited to vaginal, oral or anal penetration.
Much of those points being taught at those specific ages coincide with the Guideline for Comprehensive Sexuality Education put out by the National Guidelines Task Force, as well as other national health education standards. The district’s proposal is somewhat conservative on a few points compared to those national guidelines that, for example, say in early elementary school (ages 5 through 8), students should learn that men and women have sperm and egg cells that enable them to reproduce and that vaginal intercourse is when a penis is placed inside the vagina — the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/13/10: Video
Media Refers to Dead Fetus as "Baby"
In the bizarre world of politically-correct mainstream media, journalists' terminology is perplexing when the unborn are killed outside the abortion clinic. In this article, the Boston Globe refers to the unborn fetus as being "6 months old," and refers to the fetus as having a "life."
-- From "Woman expected to be charged with death of fetus" by Alex Katz, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/12/10
A Wellesley woman is expected to be charged with manslaughter today in the death of a pregnant woman’s fetus after allegedly beating the woman in a Dorchester nail salon in April, according to a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.
On Friday, a grand jury returned indictments charging Ayanna Woodhouse, 25, with manslaughter and aggravated assault and battery in the April 10 incident at Tulip Nail salon. Woodhouse is expected to be arraigned in Suffolk Superior Court, said a statement from Jake Wark, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office.
The woman was later taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where doctors delivered a girl in an emergency caesarean section. The baby did not survive.
The case raises the long-debated question of when a fetus becomes viable.
According to the district attorney’s office, a homicide charge may be brought in the death of a fetus if it was medically viable at the time of the trauma that ended its life.
Medical experts who testified to the grand jury determined that at 6 months old, the fetus was medically viable.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Woman expected to be charged with death of fetus" by Alex Katz, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/12/10
A Wellesley woman is expected to be charged with manslaughter today in the death of a pregnant woman’s fetus after allegedly beating the woman in a Dorchester nail salon in April, according to a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.
On Friday, a grand jury returned indictments charging Ayanna Woodhouse, 25, with manslaughter and aggravated assault and battery in the April 10 incident at Tulip Nail salon. Woodhouse is expected to be arraigned in Suffolk Superior Court, said a statement from Jake Wark, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office.
The woman was later taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where doctors delivered a girl in an emergency caesarean section. The baby did not survive.
The case raises the long-debated question of when a fetus becomes viable.
According to the district attorney’s office, a homicide charge may be brought in the death of a fetus if it was medically viable at the time of the trauma that ended its life.
Medical experts who testified to the grand jury determined that at 6 months old, the fetus was medically viable.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Will Troops Accept a Homosexualized Military?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is urging gays in the military to answer a Pentagon survey on the policy that bans them from serving openly, but advocacy groups worry the poll may be biased against gays or that those who participate could be exposed and expelled.
-- From "Pentagon sends out 'don't ask, don't tell' survey" by Barbara Starr, CNN 7/8/10
The Pentagon on Wednesday began sending out to troops a survey of more than 100 questions seeking their views on the impact of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions prohibiting gays and lesbians from openly serving in the U.S. military.
An administration official confirmed to CNN that the survey is being sent to 200,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops. The official declined to be identified because the survey has not officially been made public.
The survey, which service members can expect to receive via e-mail, asks about such issues as how unit morale or readiness might be affected if a commander is believed to be gay or lesbian; the need to maintain personal standards of conduct; and how repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military.
The survey also asks a number of questions aimed at identifying problems that could occur when troops live and work in close quarters in overseas war zones. For example, the questionnaire asks military members how they would react if they had to share a room, bathrooms, and open-bay showers in a war zone with other service members believed to be gay or lesbian.
There also are several questions about reactions to dealing with same-sex partners in social situations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Legal Group Urges Homosexuals to Boycott Pentagon Survey on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press 7/9/10
"I strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms," Gates said of the poll e-mailed to some 400,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. "We organized this in a way to protect their privacy and the confidentiality of their responses ... and it's important that we hear from them as well as everybody else."
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said earlier Thursday that the Defense Department has not agreed to grant immunity to anyone inadvertently outed during the survey, which is intended to help a special working group decide how repeal of the policy might be implemented and how that could affect the military.
Another group, Servicemembers United, said it was concerned about "unintentional bias" in the wording of survey questions but was satisfied it would not violate the confidentiality of participating gays. The Pentagon is not publicly releasing the survey, but some draft questions the group had learned about were homophobic, director Alexander Nicholson said in an interview. For instance, one asked troops if they would be comfortable sharing bathrooms with gays and lesbians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Pentagon sends out 'don't ask, don't tell' survey" by Barbara Starr, CNN 7/8/10
The Pentagon on Wednesday began sending out to troops a survey of more than 100 questions seeking their views on the impact of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions prohibiting gays and lesbians from openly serving in the U.S. military.
An administration official confirmed to CNN that the survey is being sent to 200,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops. The official declined to be identified because the survey has not officially been made public.
The survey, which service members can expect to receive via e-mail, asks about such issues as how unit morale or readiness might be affected if a commander is believed to be gay or lesbian; the need to maintain personal standards of conduct; and how repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military.
The survey also asks a number of questions aimed at identifying problems that could occur when troops live and work in close quarters in overseas war zones. For example, the questionnaire asks military members how they would react if they had to share a room, bathrooms, and open-bay showers in a war zone with other service members believed to be gay or lesbian.
There also are several questions about reactions to dealing with same-sex partners in social situations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Legal Group Urges Homosexuals to Boycott Pentagon Survey on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press 7/9/10
"I strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms," Gates said of the poll e-mailed to some 400,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. "We organized this in a way to protect their privacy and the confidentiality of their responses ... and it's important that we hear from them as well as everybody else."
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said earlier Thursday that the Defense Department has not agreed to grant immunity to anyone inadvertently outed during the survey, which is intended to help a special working group decide how repeal of the policy might be implemented and how that could affect the military.
Another group, Servicemembers United, said it was concerned about "unintentional bias" in the wording of survey questions but was satisfied it would not violate the confidentiality of participating gays. The Pentagon is not publicly releasing the survey, but some draft questions the group had learned about were homophobic, director Alexander Nicholson said in an interview. For instance, one asked troops if they would be comfortable sharing bathrooms with gays and lesbians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Christian Fired for 'Hate Speech' by Univ. of IL
A professor teaching Catholicism explained Christian beliefs to his students, including the immorality of homosexual behavior. Expounding on such truths was deemed 'hate speech' and he was immediately fired, after a nine-year stint.
UPDATE 7/29/10: Prof. will teach class, but under new University terms
UPDATE 7/22/10: Univ. says professor NOT fired, but rather, he simply has no teaching assignments
UPDATE 7/19/10: Using Britain's template to outlaw Christianity in America (see video below)
UPDATE 7/18/10: Catholic Church involvement is the problem, says Chicago Tribune
UPDATE 7/16/10: Professor's lawyer issues ultimatum to University
UPDATE 7/12/10: Analysis and commentary from the Illinois Family Institute
-- From "U of I fires Catholicism professor" by The Associated Press 7/9/10
The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.
The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.
Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.
"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."
Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he's Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality" CNA/EWTN News 7/9/10
In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.
“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.
“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”
Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.
David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to see the trend:
Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'
Pastors Tell White House 'Hate Crimes' Law Unconstitutional
Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Mass. Court Rules Against Christian Free Speech
Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam
Obama Energy Dept. Boots Conservative Scientist over Homophobia
New York Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'
Christian Grandmother's Letter to City Council a Hate Crime?
UPDATE 7/29/10: Prof. will teach class, but under new University terms
UPDATE 7/22/10: Univ. says professor NOT fired, but rather, he simply has no teaching assignments
UPDATE 7/19/10: Using Britain's template to outlaw Christianity in America (see video below)
UPDATE 7/18/10: Catholic Church involvement is the problem, says Chicago Tribune
UPDATE 7/16/10: Professor's lawyer issues ultimatum to University
UPDATE 7/12/10: Analysis and commentary from the Illinois Family Institute
-- From "U of I fires Catholicism professor" by The Associated Press 7/9/10
The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.
The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.
Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.
"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."
Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he's Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality" CNA/EWTN News 7/9/10
In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.
“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.
“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”
Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.
David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to see the trend:
Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'
Pastors Tell White House 'Hate Crimes' Law Unconstitutional
Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Mass. Court Rules Against Christian Free Speech
Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam
Obama Energy Dept. Boots Conservative Scientist over Homophobia
New York Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'
Christian Grandmother's Letter to City Council a Hate Crime?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Defense of Marriage Ambushed by White House
The Obama administration has promised homosexualists to trash the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), so its Dept. of Justice, while charged with defending DOMA in lawsuits, is setting DOMA up for defeat in the courts.
Meanwhile . . . The New York Times claims that limited-government conservatives also want DOMA defeated.
-- From "Basis of Ruling on Gay Unions Stirs Debate" by Kirk Johnson, New York Times 7/9/10
A judge’s decision on Thursday declaring that a state law allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts should take precedence over a federal definition of marriage has exposed the fractures and fault lines among groups working to bolster states’ rights.
The decision, by Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston, supports and echoes a central tenet of the Tea Party, 9/12 and Tenth Amendment movements, all of which argue that the authority of the states should trump Washington in most matters not explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the federal government.
Congress, the judge said, had infringed on a question that was the province of local voters and legislators.
But in using the argument to support gay marriage in Massachusetts, where the case arose, the judge created an awkward new debating point within the less-government movement about where social goals and government policy intersect, or perhaps collide.
Some people involved in the campaigns to limit Washington’s reach cheered what they said was a states’ rights victory.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama, marriage: 'Saboteur in chief'" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/9/10
An expert on the legal issues of marriage and family is accusing President Obama's administration of knowingly sabotaging marriage in America by ignoring the foundation for the nation's laws and instead citing "politically motivated" claims from special interests.
The accusation comes from Mathew D. Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which advocates for religious and civil rights and traditional American values including those belonging to the Judeo-Christian heritage.
The organization explained that in arguments submitted by the Obama administration in the case, the government "expressly disavowed the purposes set forth by Congress in passing DOMA.
"In particular, the administration stated in a September 2009 memorandum that 'the government does not rely on certain purported interests set forth in the legislative history of DOMA, including the purported interests in 'responsible procreation and child-rearing' – that is, the assertions that (1) the government's interest in 'responsible procreation' justifies limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman and (2) that the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children by both of their biological parents,'" Liberty Counsel said.
"Not only did the administration disavow these important legislative justifications for DOMA, but it relied on various politically motivated statements by medical and social science organizations for the proposition that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents," Liberty Counsel said. "Having disavowed Congress's stated purposes for DOMA, the administration argued that Congress passed DOMA to maintain the status quo."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Obama & Homosexualists Conspire to Defeat Marriage Nationwide
Obama Restates Opposition to Defense of Marriage Act
Obama Pushes Gay Agenda, but Doesn't Want Us to Know It
Obama to Homosexualists: "Welcome to your White House"
Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional (Calif. case)
Meanwhile . . . The New York Times claims that limited-government conservatives also want DOMA defeated.
-- From "Basis of Ruling on Gay Unions Stirs Debate" by Kirk Johnson, New York Times 7/9/10
A judge’s decision on Thursday declaring that a state law allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts should take precedence over a federal definition of marriage has exposed the fractures and fault lines among groups working to bolster states’ rights.
The decision, by Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston, supports and echoes a central tenet of the Tea Party, 9/12 and Tenth Amendment movements, all of which argue that the authority of the states should trump Washington in most matters not explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the federal government.
Congress, the judge said, had infringed on a question that was the province of local voters and legislators.
But in using the argument to support gay marriage in Massachusetts, where the case arose, the judge created an awkward new debating point within the less-government movement about where social goals and government policy intersect, or perhaps collide.
Some people involved in the campaigns to limit Washington’s reach cheered what they said was a states’ rights victory.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama, marriage: 'Saboteur in chief'" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/9/10
An expert on the legal issues of marriage and family is accusing President Obama's administration of knowingly sabotaging marriage in America by ignoring the foundation for the nation's laws and instead citing "politically motivated" claims from special interests.
The accusation comes from Mathew D. Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which advocates for religious and civil rights and traditional American values including those belonging to the Judeo-Christian heritage.
The organization explained that in arguments submitted by the Obama administration in the case, the government "expressly disavowed the purposes set forth by Congress in passing DOMA.
"In particular, the administration stated in a September 2009 memorandum that 'the government does not rely on certain purported interests set forth in the legislative history of DOMA, including the purported interests in 'responsible procreation and child-rearing' – that is, the assertions that (1) the government's interest in 'responsible procreation' justifies limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman and (2) that the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children by both of their biological parents,'" Liberty Counsel said.
"Not only did the administration disavow these important legislative justifications for DOMA, but it relied on various politically motivated statements by medical and social science organizations for the proposition that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents," Liberty Counsel said. "Having disavowed Congress's stated purposes for DOMA, the administration argued that Congress passed DOMA to maintain the status quo."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Obama & Homosexualists Conspire to Defeat Marriage Nationwide
Obama Restates Opposition to Defense of Marriage Act
Obama Pushes Gay Agenda, but Doesn't Want Us to Know It
Obama to Homosexualists: "Welcome to your White House"
Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional (Calif. case)
Pastor Fired for Praying in Jesus' Name
A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.
-- From "Pastor Yanked From Capitol Over 'Jesus' Prayer" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 7/9/10
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
“When I handed [the prayer text] to the [House clerk], I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.C. House leaders consider changes to prayer rules" The Associated Press 7/9/10
"My response to her was I am a Christian, and as a Christian I too can be offended, and I am offended if I cannot pray in the name of Jesus," Baity said.
Baity said he was allowed to give his prayer May 31 but was told that his services weren't needed beyond that.
Lawmakers plan to review procedures for guest chaplains in the state House after one pastor complained that he was asked not to refer to Jesus.
House Speaker Joe Hackney and Minority Leader Paul Stam said they plan to make sure the House rules on prayers are constitutional, multiple media outlets reported.
For many years, the House has requested, but not required, that guest chaplains deliver nonsectarian prayers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Pastor Yanked From Capitol Over 'Jesus' Prayer" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 7/9/10
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
“When I handed [the prayer text] to the [House clerk], I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.C. House leaders consider changes to prayer rules" The Associated Press 7/9/10
"My response to her was I am a Christian, and as a Christian I too can be offended, and I am offended if I cannot pray in the name of Jesus," Baity said.
Baity said he was allowed to give his prayer May 31 but was told that his services weren't needed beyond that.
Lawmakers plan to review procedures for guest chaplains in the state House after one pastor complained that he was asked not to refer to Jesus.
House Speaker Joe Hackney and Minority Leader Paul Stam said they plan to make sure the House rules on prayers are constitutional, multiple media outlets reported.
For many years, the House has requested, but not required, that guest chaplains deliver nonsectarian prayers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Sexually Deviant Pastors OK in Presbyterian Church
The PCUSA convention voted to accept clergy actively involved in homosexual activity, but the votes were split about defining marriage as "two people."
UPDATE 5/10/11: Presbyterians Vote Yea on Gay 'Clergy'
-- From "Presbyterians continue to be divided over gays" by Patrick Condon, Associated Press 7/9/10
Delegates to the Presbyterian church's convention in Minneapolis voted Thursday for a more liberal policy on gay clergy but decided not to redefine marriage in their church constitution to include same-sex couples. Approval of both measures could have made the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one of the most gay-friendly major Christian churches in the U.S.
Even the more liberal stance on gay clergy faces more debate before it can become church policy. A majority of the church's 173 U.S. presbyteries must approve it. Two years ago — after years of efforts by supporters — a similar measure was sent out to presbyteries but died when 94 of them voted against it.
Both of Thursday's votes were close. Fifty-one percent of delegates voted to shelve the proposal to redefine marriage as being between "two people" instead of between "a man and a woman," just hours after 53 percent of them voted to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy.
On Friday, delegates voted down a motion to reconsider the marriage vote. It needed a two-thirds majority to come back to the floor and got just 40 percent. Gay rights supporters must wait two years until the next general assembly for another shot.
Several major Christian denominations have voted in recent years to allow non-celibate gays to serve as clergy if they are in committed relationships. Among them are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the U.S. Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.
Fewer major U.S. denominations have taken the step of fully endorsing gay marriage. Only two, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, have explicitly allowed it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Presbyterian leaders OK gay, lesbian clergy, shelve same-sex marriage proposal" by Jean Hopfensperger and Mary Lynn Smith, Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 7/9/10
The late-night decision to table the proposal [to redefine marriage] and subject it to two more years of study caught many delegates at the denomination's gathering at the Minneapolis Convention Center by surprise, and there was a stunned silence as delegates absorbed the action.
Had the marriage measure passed, it, too would have had to be approved by the presbyteries.
Hours before the surprise shelving of the marriage measure, the assembly approved changing the denomination's ordination policy to make noncelibate gays and lesbians eligible to become clergy. The vote was 373-323.
It was the fourth time the assembly had approved such a change. The previous times, it was rejected by district leaders. Church leaders believe it has a better chance of meeting district approval this time.
Presbyterian ministers currently are permitted to perform ceremonial blessings of same-sex couples, but nothing more.
A group called Presbyterians for Renewal . . . opposed changes. Its website states: "Blurring or obscuring the clear teaching of God's Word in order to keep in step with secular laws and changing personal morals only confuses our witness and causes innumerable problems for the future."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/10/11: Presbyterians Vote Yea on Gay 'Clergy'
-- From "Presbyterians continue to be divided over gays" by Patrick Condon, Associated Press 7/9/10
Delegates to the Presbyterian church's convention in Minneapolis voted Thursday for a more liberal policy on gay clergy but decided not to redefine marriage in their church constitution to include same-sex couples. Approval of both measures could have made the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one of the most gay-friendly major Christian churches in the U.S.
Even the more liberal stance on gay clergy faces more debate before it can become church policy. A majority of the church's 173 U.S. presbyteries must approve it. Two years ago — after years of efforts by supporters — a similar measure was sent out to presbyteries but died when 94 of them voted against it.
Both of Thursday's votes were close. Fifty-one percent of delegates voted to shelve the proposal to redefine marriage as being between "two people" instead of between "a man and a woman," just hours after 53 percent of them voted to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy.
On Friday, delegates voted down a motion to reconsider the marriage vote. It needed a two-thirds majority to come back to the floor and got just 40 percent. Gay rights supporters must wait two years until the next general assembly for another shot.
Several major Christian denominations have voted in recent years to allow non-celibate gays to serve as clergy if they are in committed relationships. Among them are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the U.S. Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.
Fewer major U.S. denominations have taken the step of fully endorsing gay marriage. Only two, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, have explicitly allowed it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Presbyterian leaders OK gay, lesbian clergy, shelve same-sex marriage proposal" by Jean Hopfensperger and Mary Lynn Smith, Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 7/9/10
The late-night decision to table the proposal [to redefine marriage] and subject it to two more years of study caught many delegates at the denomination's gathering at the Minneapolis Convention Center by surprise, and there was a stunned silence as delegates absorbed the action.
Had the marriage measure passed, it, too would have had to be approved by the presbyteries.
Hours before the surprise shelving of the marriage measure, the assembly approved changing the denomination's ordination policy to make noncelibate gays and lesbians eligible to become clergy. The vote was 373-323.
It was the fourth time the assembly had approved such a change. The previous times, it was rejected by district leaders. Church leaders believe it has a better chance of meeting district approval this time.
Presbyterian ministers currently are permitted to perform ceremonial blessings of same-sex couples, but nothing more.
A group called Presbyterians for Renewal . . . opposed changes. Its website states: "Blurring or obscuring the clear teaching of God's Word in order to keep in step with secular laws and changing personal morals only confuses our witness and causes innumerable problems for the future."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Pro-life Speech Limits Sought by Congress
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have reintroduced legislation to restrict the speech of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers by regulating the advertising they do.
-- From "CPC 'Truth in Advertising' Legislation Introduced" posted at Ms. Magazine 7/1/10
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced a bill yesterday that would regulate the misleading advertising practices of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act would require the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit CPCs' deceptive advertising practices, such as advertising under the term "abortion services." The act expressly defines abortion services to mean "providing surgical and non-surgical procedures to terminate a pregnancy, or providing referrals for such procedures."
Maloney first introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act in 2006. The current bill has 11 co-sponsors in the House. On the state and local levels, similar laws have been referred to as "truth in advertising laws."
Currently, there are an estimated 3,500 CPCs nationwide, most of which are affiliated with one or more national umbrella organizations. CPCs pose as legitimate health centers and offer "free" pregnancy tests. Some CPCs coerce and intimidate women out of considering abortion as an option, and prevent women from receiving neutral and comprehensive medical advice. These clinics are typically run by anti-abortion volunteers who are not licensed medical professionals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rep. Maloney and Sen. Menendez Introduce Bill to Restrict Speech of Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers by Controlling Their Advertising" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 7/9/10
But critics claim the “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Services Act,” first introduced in 2007, is itself deceptive and is designed to limit the access women have to organizations that provide alternatives to abortion, including adoption services and free parenting support, such as housing, job training, and parenting classes.
“This bill is not at all what it sounds like,” said Joe Young, vice president of Heartbeat International, an association of 1,100 pregnancy-help centers, maternity homes, non-profit adoption agencies, medical clinics and abortion recovery programs in 50 countries.
“Pregnancy centers are reducing the number of abortion sales, and this aggravates the abortion industry,” said Young. “A more accurate name for this bill might be ‘Stop Alternatives to Abortion Advertising to Pay Back the Abortion Industry Act.’”
“Without any financial gain, Heartbeat International affiliates offer alternatives to abortion, providing the emotional support and practical help needed to sustain a healthy pregnancy,” Young said in a statement about the proposed law. “The pregnancy help movement is dedicated to protecting women, protecting maternal health and protecting child well-being.”
NARAL and other pro-abortion groups back the Maloney-Menendez bill, which would make federal law a longtime campaign by NARAL and similar groups to discredit pregnancy resource centers and the work they do for women.
The Web site of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America describes the pregnancy resource centers as “fake clinics.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "CPC 'Truth in Advertising' Legislation Introduced" posted at Ms. Magazine 7/1/10
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced a bill yesterday that would regulate the misleading advertising practices of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act would require the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit CPCs' deceptive advertising practices, such as advertising under the term "abortion services." The act expressly defines abortion services to mean "providing surgical and non-surgical procedures to terminate a pregnancy, or providing referrals for such procedures."
Maloney first introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act in 2006. The current bill has 11 co-sponsors in the House. On the state and local levels, similar laws have been referred to as "truth in advertising laws."
Currently, there are an estimated 3,500 CPCs nationwide, most of which are affiliated with one or more national umbrella organizations. CPCs pose as legitimate health centers and offer "free" pregnancy tests. Some CPCs coerce and intimidate women out of considering abortion as an option, and prevent women from receiving neutral and comprehensive medical advice. These clinics are typically run by anti-abortion volunteers who are not licensed medical professionals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rep. Maloney and Sen. Menendez Introduce Bill to Restrict Speech of Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers by Controlling Their Advertising" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 7/9/10
But critics claim the “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Services Act,” first introduced in 2007, is itself deceptive and is designed to limit the access women have to organizations that provide alternatives to abortion, including adoption services and free parenting support, such as housing, job training, and parenting classes.
“This bill is not at all what it sounds like,” said Joe Young, vice president of Heartbeat International, an association of 1,100 pregnancy-help centers, maternity homes, non-profit adoption agencies, medical clinics and abortion recovery programs in 50 countries.
“Pregnancy centers are reducing the number of abortion sales, and this aggravates the abortion industry,” said Young. “A more accurate name for this bill might be ‘Stop Alternatives to Abortion Advertising to Pay Back the Abortion Industry Act.’”
“Without any financial gain, Heartbeat International affiliates offer alternatives to abortion, providing the emotional support and practical help needed to sustain a healthy pregnancy,” Young said in a statement about the proposed law. “The pregnancy help movement is dedicated to protecting women, protecting maternal health and protecting child well-being.”
NARAL and other pro-abortion groups back the Maloney-Menendez bill, which would make federal law a longtime campaign by NARAL and similar groups to discredit pregnancy resource centers and the work they do for women.
The Web site of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America describes the pregnancy resource centers as “fake clinics.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Traditional Marriage Law Unconstitutional: Federal Judge on DOMA
A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.
UPDATE 5/31/12: Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court
-- From "Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional" by Denise Lavoie, Associated Press 7/8/10
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. Judge Finds Defense of Marriage Act Invalid" by Andrew M. Harris, Bloomberg 7/8/10
The marriage-defining act, popularly known as DoMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. As of 2003, it affected 1,138 federal programs in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, the judge said, citing a 2004 report by the federal government.
Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that officials are reviewing the decision.
The state’s case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156, and the couples’ case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 09-cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions" By Abby Goodnough And John Schwartz, New York Times 7/8/10
Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said federal officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal. An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.
. . . Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld, same-sex couples around the country will be eligible for federal benefits that are now granted only to heterosexual married couples.
Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions in the two cases.
“What an amazing set of opinions,” said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this from February 2009: Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional
UPDATE 5/31/12: Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court
-- From "Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional" by Denise Lavoie, Associated Press 7/8/10
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. Judge Finds Defense of Marriage Act Invalid" by Andrew M. Harris, Bloomberg 7/8/10
The marriage-defining act, popularly known as DoMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. As of 2003, it affected 1,138 federal programs in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, the judge said, citing a 2004 report by the federal government.
Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that officials are reviewing the decision.
The state’s case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156, and the couples’ case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 09-cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions" By Abby Goodnough And John Schwartz, New York Times 7/8/10
Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said federal officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal. An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.
. . . Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld, same-sex couples around the country will be eligible for federal benefits that are now granted only to heterosexual married couples.
Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions in the two cases.
“What an amazing set of opinions,” said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this from February 2009: Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional
Evil & the Failure of The Church
"If I were the devil and I wanted to really ruin America, who would I subvert and attack? I would attack the churches, the schools and the news media."
-- From "Kupelian to CBN: Churches 'subverted, dumbed down'" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/7/10
[Author, David Kupelian interview excerpts:]
"The churches have very much fallen down on the job," responded Kupelian, who said they "have been subverted and dumbed down just like everything else: Our schools, our colleges, our major institutions have really been hurt, they've been subverted, they've lost their core message that they had, that really gave the great strength that America has had for all these years."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Kupelian to CBN: Churches 'subverted, dumbed down'" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/7/10
[Author, David Kupelian interview excerpts:]
"The churches have very much fallen down on the job," responded Kupelian, who said they "have been subverted and dumbed down just like everything else: Our schools, our colleges, our major institutions have really been hurt, they've been subverted, they've lost their core message that they had, that really gave the great strength that America has had for all these years."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Obama Advocates Abortion in Kenya with 'Incentives'
A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment passed in 2006 makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries -- and three U.S. lawmakers say they want a federal investigation into the promises made by the administration.
-- From "White House Backs Kenyan Constitution Allowing Abortion" by Tess Civantos, FoxNews.com 7/7/10
The Obama administration is offering incentives to Kenya to approve a controversial new constitution that would legalize abortion for the first time, promising that passage will "allow money to flow" into the nation's coffers, including U.S. aid.
But according to anti-abortion groups in and outside of Kenya, the constitution will cause harm to the nation by overturning its ban on abortion.
Article 26 of the proposed constitution states that abortion is allowed if "in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger or if permitted by any other written law."
The problem for some is how much that provision is left open to interpretation.
In a speech delivered last month in Kenya, Vice President Joe Biden urged the Kenyan people to pass the constitution in a referendum scheduled for Aug. 4.
"If you make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private investment will come in like you've never seen," Biden added.
According to reports, U.S. ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger told Kenyan officials in May that the U.S. has offered $2 million in taxpayer funds for "civic education" to support the process of enacting a new constitution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kenya Doctors, Attorneys Work to Stop Pro-Abortion Provisions in Constitution" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/6/10
A group of doctors and attorneys in Kenya have filed suit in court to get the provisions in the draft Constitution that promote abortion removed. Kenyans head to the polls next month to vote on the constitution and pro-life and church groups are forced to oppose it because it would allow unlimited abortions.
Currently, Kenya is one of the majority of nations in the world that protects women and unborn children from abortions.
The litigants in the new lawsuit say Article 26(4) of the proposed Constitution does not represent the views of the people of Kenya and should be struck from the document before voters go to the polls.
They are also worried the Constitution may be defeated because of the problematic abortion language, even though Kenyans are clamoring for a new constitution for other political reasons.
Although the draft contains language advocating the right to life for unborn children, it contains a section with a health exception that essentially opens the nation to unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Kenyan Christian Church leaders and the National Council of Churches of Kenya have led a campaign against the constitution over the pro-abortion provisions.
A poll conducted March 21–26 by Synovate, formerly known as Steadman, shows the citizens of Kenya are overwhelmingly pro-life.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "White House Backs Kenyan Constitution Allowing Abortion" by Tess Civantos, FoxNews.com 7/7/10
The Obama administration is offering incentives to Kenya to approve a controversial new constitution that would legalize abortion for the first time, promising that passage will "allow money to flow" into the nation's coffers, including U.S. aid.
But according to anti-abortion groups in and outside of Kenya, the constitution will cause harm to the nation by overturning its ban on abortion.
Article 26 of the proposed constitution states that abortion is allowed if "in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger or if permitted by any other written law."
The problem for some is how much that provision is left open to interpretation.
In a speech delivered last month in Kenya, Vice President Joe Biden urged the Kenyan people to pass the constitution in a referendum scheduled for Aug. 4.
"If you make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private investment will come in like you've never seen," Biden added.
According to reports, U.S. ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger told Kenyan officials in May that the U.S. has offered $2 million in taxpayer funds for "civic education" to support the process of enacting a new constitution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kenya Doctors, Attorneys Work to Stop Pro-Abortion Provisions in Constitution" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/6/10
A group of doctors and attorneys in Kenya have filed suit in court to get the provisions in the draft Constitution that promote abortion removed. Kenyans head to the polls next month to vote on the constitution and pro-life and church groups are forced to oppose it because it would allow unlimited abortions.
Currently, Kenya is one of the majority of nations in the world that protects women and unborn children from abortions.
The litigants in the new lawsuit say Article 26(4) of the proposed Constitution does not represent the views of the people of Kenya and should be struck from the document before voters go to the polls.
They are also worried the Constitution may be defeated because of the problematic abortion language, even though Kenyans are clamoring for a new constitution for other political reasons.
Although the draft contains language advocating the right to life for unborn children, it contains a section with a health exception that essentially opens the nation to unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Kenyan Christian Church leaders and the National Council of Churches of Kenya have led a campaign against the constitution over the pro-abortion provisions.
A poll conducted March 21–26 by Synovate, formerly known as Steadman, shows the citizens of Kenya are overwhelmingly pro-life.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Hawaii Governor Vetoes Civil-Unions Bill
After weeks of lobbying and political maneuvering, the governor of the Aloha State vetoed a controversial measure Tuesday that would allow same-sex and unwed heterosexual couples the same protections under the law that married couples have.
-- From "Hawaii Governor Vetoes Civil-Unions Bill" by Suzanne Roig, Time Magazine 7/7/10
. . . Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle delivered the news everyone had been waiting for when she announced she had vetoed the bill, citing a "flawed" legal process by which the measure was approved by state lawmakers 31 to 20 on the last day of the legislative session in April. Lingle, a 57-year-old Republican and Hawaii's first woman governor, said she felt lawmakers had denied the public the right to weigh in on the issue with their 11th-hour voting, and she recommended that the bill go to a national vote. Due to leave office in December after serving her two terms, Lingle had until Tuesday to sign the contentious measure into law, veto it or let it be approved without her signature.
"After months of listening to Hawaii's citizens express to me in writing and in person their deeply held beliefs and heartfelt reasons for supporting or opposing the civil-unions bill, I have made the decision to veto the bill," Lingle said in a press conference at the Capitol building that was streamed live online. "I have been open and consistent to my opposition to same-gender marriage and find that the bill is essentially marriage by another name. My personal opinion is not the basis for my decision ... Neither is my veto based on my religious beliefs ... I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such of societal importance that it deserves to be decided by all the people in Hawaii."
The bill would have given the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union. All couples would have been allowed to enter into a civil union — a legal contract — provided they were 18 or older, not related and not already married.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Hawaii Governor Vetoes Civil-Unions Bill" by Suzanne Roig, Time Magazine 7/7/10
. . . Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle delivered the news everyone had been waiting for when she announced she had vetoed the bill, citing a "flawed" legal process by which the measure was approved by state lawmakers 31 to 20 on the last day of the legislative session in April. Lingle, a 57-year-old Republican and Hawaii's first woman governor, said she felt lawmakers had denied the public the right to weigh in on the issue with their 11th-hour voting, and she recommended that the bill go to a national vote. Due to leave office in December after serving her two terms, Lingle had until Tuesday to sign the contentious measure into law, veto it or let it be approved without her signature.
"After months of listening to Hawaii's citizens express to me in writing and in person their deeply held beliefs and heartfelt reasons for supporting or opposing the civil-unions bill, I have made the decision to veto the bill," Lingle said in a press conference at the Capitol building that was streamed live online. "I have been open and consistent to my opposition to same-gender marriage and find that the bill is essentially marriage by another name. My personal opinion is not the basis for my decision ... Neither is my veto based on my religious beliefs ... I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such of societal importance that it deserves to be decided by all the people in Hawaii."
The bill would have given the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union. All couples would have been allowed to enter into a civil union — a legal contract — provided they were 18 or older, not related and not already married.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Viagra Users Prone to Disease: Study
Study shows older men using erectile dysfunction drugs far more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, due to sexual behavior
-- From "Study links erectile drugs, STD rates in users over 40" by Nicole Ostrow, Bloomberg News 7/6/10
Men age 40 or older who use Pfizer Inc.’s Viagra and Eli Lilly & Co.’s Cialis to boost sexual potency have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, a Harvard study found.
Men who took the impotence pills were almost three times more likely to have a sex disease, particularly HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in the year before and after they started the drugs, according to research published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The higher rate of sexually spread infections could have more to do with the habits or temperament of the men using the erectile drugs than with the medicines enabling them to have more frequent or riskier sex, the authors said.
The findings suggest that users of drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, which also include Bayer AG’s Levitra, could be more likely to engage in unsafe sex than nonusers, said Anupam Jena, the lead author of the study. Although sexual diseases are far more common in young people, infection rates are increasing in those middle-aged and older, the researchers said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Men on ED Drugs Get More STDs" by Katrina Woznicki, WebMD Health News; Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD 7/6/10
An analysis of insurance records of 1.4 million men shows that there may be a population at risk for contracting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases and that this group should be targeted for safe-sex counseling.
There is no cause-and-effect association between erectile dysfunction treatments and sexually transmitted diseases, but the findings do suggest that people who use such treatments could benefit from interventions that emphasize safe-sex practices that reduce risk of infection.
About 40% of men ages 57 to 85 have some erectile dysfunction, researchers cite. The blockbuster impotence drug Viagra, one of the most popular treatments for erectile dysfunction, was approved by the FDA in 1998. As early as 2002 it was estimated that up to 20% of U.S. men over 40 had tried a drug to treat erectile dysfunction. From 1998 to 2003, Viagra use increased from 4.3% to 6.3% among this study sample. Two other ED drugs, Cialis and Levitra, were approved in 2003.
Earlier research has found that people aged 50 and older are one-sixth less likely to use a condom and one-fifth less likely to be tested for HIV compared with people in their 20s.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Study links erectile drugs, STD rates in users over 40" by Nicole Ostrow, Bloomberg News 7/6/10
Men age 40 or older who use Pfizer Inc.’s Viagra and Eli Lilly & Co.’s Cialis to boost sexual potency have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, a Harvard study found.
Men who took the impotence pills were almost three times more likely to have a sex disease, particularly HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in the year before and after they started the drugs, according to research published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The higher rate of sexually spread infections could have more to do with the habits or temperament of the men using the erectile drugs than with the medicines enabling them to have more frequent or riskier sex, the authors said.
The findings suggest that users of drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, which also include Bayer AG’s Levitra, could be more likely to engage in unsafe sex than nonusers, said Anupam Jena, the lead author of the study. Although sexual diseases are far more common in young people, infection rates are increasing in those middle-aged and older, the researchers said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Men on ED Drugs Get More STDs" by Katrina Woznicki, WebMD Health News; Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD 7/6/10
An analysis of insurance records of 1.4 million men shows that there may be a population at risk for contracting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases and that this group should be targeted for safe-sex counseling.
There is no cause-and-effect association between erectile dysfunction treatments and sexually transmitted diseases, but the findings do suggest that people who use such treatments could benefit from interventions that emphasize safe-sex practices that reduce risk of infection.
About 40% of men ages 57 to 85 have some erectile dysfunction, researchers cite. The blockbuster impotence drug Viagra, one of the most popular treatments for erectile dysfunction, was approved by the FDA in 1998. As early as 2002 it was estimated that up to 20% of U.S. men over 40 had tried a drug to treat erectile dysfunction. From 1998 to 2003, Viagra use increased from 4.3% to 6.3% among this study sample. Two other ED drugs, Cialis and Levitra, were approved in 2003.
Earlier research has found that people aged 50 and older are one-sixth less likely to use a condom and one-fifth less likely to be tested for HIV compared with people in their 20s.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Principals Liable for Stifling Christian Students
A federal appeals court refused Thursday to dismiss two Dallas-area elementary school principals from a lawsuit filed after students were told to stop distributing Christian candy cane pens and other religious expressions on campus.
-- From "Principals not dismissed from candy canes lawsuit" by Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writer 7/1/10
Plano school principals Lynn Swanson and Jackie Bomchill had claimed qualified immunity. They also argued the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection does not extend to the distribution of non-curricular materials in public elementary schools.
"They are wrong," the appellate judges [of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans] wrote.
"This should send a strong message to school officials all over the country that if you engage in these kinds of violations against children that you're going to be held liable," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute, which represents the families. "Not just the school district will be on the hook."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Appeals court rules against Plano principals in candy cane case" by Matthew Haag, The Dallas Morning News 7/2/10
Two Plano school principals violated students' constitutional rights if they confiscated Christian-themed materials, including candy cane pens, that students planned to hand out at school, an appeals court has said.
The principals "had fair warning that the suppression of student-to-student distribution of literature on the basis of religious viewpoint is unlawful under the First Amendment," three judges concluded in a sometimes strongly worded decision.
The ruling is the latest round in a complex, years-long legal battle sparked after the two Plano ISD principals confiscated students' pencils, pens and other gifts at school parties beginning in 2001.
The pencils one girl tried to distribute read, "Jesus is the Reason for the Season," and the candy cane pens a student tried to pass out in December 2003 had cards attached to them that explained the Christian origin of the candies.
The case focused on several winter break parties from 2001 to 2004 at Thomas Elementary and Rasor Elementary. Lynn Swanson, the principal at Thomas, stopped a third-grade boy from distributing the candy cane pens with the Christian message that read, in part, "The blood Christ shed for the sins of the world."
A month later, Jackie Bomchill at Rasor prevented a girl from handing out tickets for a Christian drama and from distributing religious-themed pencils. The boy's parents and others whose children were prevented from handing out the materials sued the school district.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Principals not dismissed from candy canes lawsuit" by Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writer 7/1/10
Plano school principals Lynn Swanson and Jackie Bomchill had claimed qualified immunity. They also argued the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection does not extend to the distribution of non-curricular materials in public elementary schools.
"They are wrong," the appellate judges [of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans] wrote.
"This should send a strong message to school officials all over the country that if you engage in these kinds of violations against children that you're going to be held liable," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute, which represents the families. "Not just the school district will be on the hook."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Appeals court rules against Plano principals in candy cane case" by Matthew Haag, The Dallas Morning News 7/2/10
Two Plano school principals violated students' constitutional rights if they confiscated Christian-themed materials, including candy cane pens, that students planned to hand out at school, an appeals court has said.
The principals "had fair warning that the suppression of student-to-student distribution of literature on the basis of religious viewpoint is unlawful under the First Amendment," three judges concluded in a sometimes strongly worded decision.
The ruling is the latest round in a complex, years-long legal battle sparked after the two Plano ISD principals confiscated students' pencils, pens and other gifts at school parties beginning in 2001.
The pencils one girl tried to distribute read, "Jesus is the Reason for the Season," and the candy cane pens a student tried to pass out in December 2003 had cards attached to them that explained the Christian origin of the candies.
The case focused on several winter break parties from 2001 to 2004 at Thomas Elementary and Rasor Elementary. Lynn Swanson, the principal at Thomas, stopped a third-grade boy from distributing the candy cane pens with the Christian message that read, in part, "The blood Christ shed for the sins of the world."
A month later, Jackie Bomchill at Rasor prevented a girl from handing out tickets for a Christian drama and from distributing religious-themed pencils. The boy's parents and others whose children were prevented from handing out the materials sued the school district.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Universal Health Care Leaves Patient Half Man, Half Woman
40 year-old Raymond Harwood had £60,000 of surgery last year but recently the government lacked the £8,000 for surgery for breast implants so he could fully become Miranda Lee, so Raymond/Miranda threatened to sue.
-- From "Transsexual to get legal aid to help fight NHS over breast surgery row" by Andrew Hough, London Telegraph 7/1/10
“They should do top and bottom, not just half. It will cost the NHS more money if they don’t settle out of court,” she said.
Miss Lee, who is unemployed and had her male genitalia removed and her voice altered to make her sound more like a woman.
But when Miss Lee asked for a further £8,000 for cosmetic surgery, to complete what she described as her transition to being a "real woman", it was refused because the trust said there was not enough money.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Even so, no amount of money can change chromosomes.
-- From "Transsexual to get legal aid to help fight NHS over breast surgery row" by Andrew Hough, London Telegraph 7/1/10
“They should do top and bottom, not just half. It will cost the NHS more money if they don’t settle out of court,” she said.
Miss Lee, who is unemployed and had her male genitalia removed and her voice altered to make her sound more like a woman.
But when Miss Lee asked for a further £8,000 for cosmetic surgery, to complete what she described as her transition to being a "real woman", it was refused because the trust said there was not enough money.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Even so, no amount of money can change chromosomes.
'Lord' Stricken from High School Diplomas
One person didn't like the phrase “in the year of our Lord.”
School superintendent: “It’s a religious thing. I’m surprised it took this long for someone to notice it. We certainly don’t want to offend anyone.”
-- From "New Haven high school diplomas drop phrase ‘in the year of our Lord’" by Abbe Smith, New Haven Register Staff 6/23/10
It’s a small change that could easily go unnoticed, but Superintendent of Schools Reginald Mayo feels it was a necessary one.
This will be the first year without the language. For example, diplomas from last year state that the diploma was awarded “this twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand Nine.”
Mayo said the original complaint was made last year by former Alderwoman Ina Silverman, D-25, who had a daughter at Wilbur Cross High School at the time.
While the change to diplomas is relatively minor, school districts across the country are facing challenges to graduation traditions that include any form of or link to religion.
The phrase, “in the year of our Lord,” comes from the Latin “Anno Domini,” which was abbreviated A.D. and traditionally placed at the beginning of a year to indicate the number of years since the birth of Jesus, as in A.D. 2010.
While it is rarely used today, the phrase was commonly used many years ago. One notable instance is in Article VII of the U.S. Constitution, which is dated to “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven,” or Sept. 17, 1787. It also appears in White House proclamations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Connecticut School Removes Lord Reference in High School Diplomas" by Todd Starnes, FOXNews.com 6/23/10
“It removes the bias toward Christianity and puts all New Haven students on an equal plane without religious bias,” Bob Ritter, a staff lawyer with the American Humanist Association, told FOX News Radio.
But the move has outraged a number of people across the city – especially in the Christian community.
Local resident Betsy Claro called the decision “hideous.”
“I do believe that it’s a travesty to keep removing the Lord’s name,” the mother of three told FOX News Radio. “I believe that our nation was founded on the principles of belief in God, and our Founding Fathers made sure it was incorporated into every document that they produced.”
“To base this decision, in part, on the need not to ‘offend anyone,’ is disingenuous – it offends beyond belief the vast majority of Americans,” [said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League].
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
School superintendent: “It’s a religious thing. I’m surprised it took this long for someone to notice it. We certainly don’t want to offend anyone.”
-- From "New Haven high school diplomas drop phrase ‘in the year of our Lord’" by Abbe Smith, New Haven Register Staff 6/23/10
It’s a small change that could easily go unnoticed, but Superintendent of Schools Reginald Mayo feels it was a necessary one.
This will be the first year without the language. For example, diplomas from last year state that the diploma was awarded “this twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand Nine.”
Mayo said the original complaint was made last year by former Alderwoman Ina Silverman, D-25, who had a daughter at Wilbur Cross High School at the time.
While the change to diplomas is relatively minor, school districts across the country are facing challenges to graduation traditions that include any form of or link to religion.
The phrase, “in the year of our Lord,” comes from the Latin “Anno Domini,” which was abbreviated A.D. and traditionally placed at the beginning of a year to indicate the number of years since the birth of Jesus, as in A.D. 2010.
While it is rarely used today, the phrase was commonly used many years ago. One notable instance is in Article VII of the U.S. Constitution, which is dated to “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven,” or Sept. 17, 1787. It also appears in White House proclamations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Connecticut School Removes Lord Reference in High School Diplomas" by Todd Starnes, FOXNews.com 6/23/10
“It removes the bias toward Christianity and puts all New Haven students on an equal plane without religious bias,” Bob Ritter, a staff lawyer with the American Humanist Association, told FOX News Radio.
But the move has outraged a number of people across the city – especially in the Christian community.
Local resident Betsy Claro called the decision “hideous.”
“I do believe that it’s a travesty to keep removing the Lord’s name,” the mother of three told FOX News Radio. “I believe that our nation was founded on the principles of belief in God, and our Founding Fathers made sure it was incorporated into every document that they produced.”
“To base this decision, in part, on the need not to ‘offend anyone,’ is disingenuous – it offends beyond belief the vast majority of Americans,” [said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League].
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Obama, Media Fail to Convince Evangelicals on Immigration
[A] recent nationwide Quinnipiac University poll out showed that just 12 percent of 454 white born-again and evangelical Christians said they backed reform policies that integrate illegal immigrants into American society. Eighty-three percent said they wanted reform to focus on stricter enforcement of illegal immigration laws.
-- From "GOP warned on immigration" by Scott Wong, Politico 7/1/10
President Barack Obama’s allies have been blasting the GOP’s blockade of immigration-reform legislation, making the case that Republicans will alienate a core constituency – conservative Christians – unless they get on board.
Republicans have brushed off that warning, calling it a distraction from the president’s failure to fix the nation’s broken immigration system. In fact, recent polls show there’s little support among white evangelicals for a Democrat-backed plan that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Support for reform is [claimed, by liberal media, to be] growing among evangelicals like the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land and other conservatives including News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch, said Ali Noorani, who heads immigrant advocacy group National Immigration Forum.
Meanwhile, 68 percent [of white born-again and evangelical Christians] said they support Arizona’s tough new immigration law, while 15 percent oppose it. The law, known as SB1070, requires police officers to verify the immigration status of individuals if there is suspicion they are in the country illegally.
. . . many view the path toward legalization as simply “amnesty” for those who have broken the law, a large part of why no Republicans other than [Sen. Lindsey] Graham have endorsed the plan.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "GOP warned on immigration" by Scott Wong, Politico 7/1/10
President Barack Obama’s allies have been blasting the GOP’s blockade of immigration-reform legislation, making the case that Republicans will alienate a core constituency – conservative Christians – unless they get on board.
Republicans have brushed off that warning, calling it a distraction from the president’s failure to fix the nation’s broken immigration system. In fact, recent polls show there’s little support among white evangelicals for a Democrat-backed plan that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Support for reform is [claimed, by liberal media, to be] growing among evangelicals like the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land and other conservatives including News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch, said Ali Noorani, who heads immigrant advocacy group National Immigration Forum.
Meanwhile, 68 percent [of white born-again and evangelical Christians] said they support Arizona’s tough new immigration law, while 15 percent oppose it. The law, known as SB1070, requires police officers to verify the immigration status of individuals if there is suspicion they are in the country illegally.
. . . many view the path toward legalization as simply “amnesty” for those who have broken the law, a large part of why no Republicans other than [Sen. Lindsey] Graham have endorsed the plan.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Immigration Reform = National Same-sex Unions
Illinois congressman to add right for homosexuals to claim foreign spouses to President Obama's comprehensive immigration reform plans
UPDATE 9/30/10: Gay Agenda included in immigration "DREAM Act" for children
UPDATE 7/15/10: "It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah
-- From "Gay U.S. citizens seek to claim residency for foreign spouses" by Alfonso Chardy and Steve Rothaus, Miami Herald 7/1/10
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who last December introduced the first immigration reform bill of the current congressional session, announced in May that he intends to add provisions that would include same-sex couples and their families.
Gutierrez plans to incorporate into his bill language from the Uniting American Families Act, offered by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., a longtime proponent of the measure.
"Our immigration system must reflect the reality of our economy and society and how we treat same-sex couples and families is just one example," Gutierrez said. "Right now, too many same-sex binational couples face an impossible choice: to live apart or break the law to be with their partners, families and children. That's not good for them, and it is not good for the rest of us either."
Such a change would for the first time allow U.S. citizens in gay relationships to claim foreign partners as relatives so they can apply for permanent residency and then citizenship.
Under existing immigration law, a U.S. citizen or resident married to a foreign husband or wife can file what is known as a Petition for Alien Relative, which is not available to gay or unmarried couples.
Proposals would modify immigration law, adding a permanent-partner option. The change would define a permanent partner as an individual 18 or older in a committed, intimate relationship with another adult in which both intend a lifelong commitment. The United States does not recognize same-sex marriages.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 9/30/10: Gay Agenda included in immigration "DREAM Act" for children
UPDATE 7/15/10: "It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah
-- From "Gay U.S. citizens seek to claim residency for foreign spouses" by Alfonso Chardy and Steve Rothaus, Miami Herald 7/1/10
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who last December introduced the first immigration reform bill of the current congressional session, announced in May that he intends to add provisions that would include same-sex couples and their families.
Gutierrez plans to incorporate into his bill language from the Uniting American Families Act, offered by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., a longtime proponent of the measure.
"Our immigration system must reflect the reality of our economy and society and how we treat same-sex couples and families is just one example," Gutierrez said. "Right now, too many same-sex binational couples face an impossible choice: to live apart or break the law to be with their partners, families and children. That's not good for them, and it is not good for the rest of us either."
Such a change would for the first time allow U.S. citizens in gay relationships to claim foreign partners as relatives so they can apply for permanent residency and then citizenship.
Under existing immigration law, a U.S. citizen or resident married to a foreign husband or wife can file what is known as a Petition for Alien Relative, which is not available to gay or unmarried couples.
Proposals would modify immigration law, adding a permanent-partner option. The change would define a permanent partner as an individual 18 or older in a committed, intimate relationship with another adult in which both intend a lifelong commitment. The United States does not recognize same-sex marriages.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Feds Study Sex Lives of Truck Drivers
The federal government has spent $550,496 on a project that involved conducting “focus groups and in-depth interviews” with American long-haul truck drivers to learn about their sex lives in order to assess their risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections.
-- From "U.S. Spent $550,496 on Study That Did 'Focus Groups and In-Depth Interviews' To Learn About the Sex Lives of Truck Drivers" by Adam Cassandra, CNSNews.com 7/1/10
The NIH Web pages for the grant do not say how much federal money was spent on the study, but NIH spokeswoman Charlotte Armstrong told CNSNews.com that $550,496 has been awarded for the research to date. The grant was made by the National Institute of Mental Health, a division of the NIH. The project began in September 2005 and is scheduled to end in August 2010.
“Overall, we have not found really significant numbers of STDs, and we haven’t found any HIV,” Dr. Laura Bachmann, the principal investigator on the project, told CNSNews.com. “Part of the issue is: I moved in the mean time, so that’s why it’s taking awhile to get it done.”
The research is a “preliminary type study,” Dr. Bachmann said, designed to assess the risk level and prevalence of sexual infections through focus groups and in-depth interviews with truck drivers. Screening of truckers has been “episodic,” not ongoing and continuous, she said, and she and her research team have interviewed around 300 truckers since 2005.
CNSNews.com asked Dr. Bachmann if the study was an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
“I think that HIV and STDs are significant public health concerns, and there’s been data from, primarily, other countries, but many other countries--and then some domestic studies--that have suggested that it could be a significant problem,” she said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "U.S. Spent $550,496 on Study That Did 'Focus Groups and In-Depth Interviews' To Learn About the Sex Lives of Truck Drivers" by Adam Cassandra, CNSNews.com 7/1/10
The NIH Web pages for the grant do not say how much federal money was spent on the study, but NIH spokeswoman Charlotte Armstrong told CNSNews.com that $550,496 has been awarded for the research to date. The grant was made by the National Institute of Mental Health, a division of the NIH. The project began in September 2005 and is scheduled to end in August 2010.
“Overall, we have not found really significant numbers of STDs, and we haven’t found any HIV,” Dr. Laura Bachmann, the principal investigator on the project, told CNSNews.com. “Part of the issue is: I moved in the mean time, so that’s why it’s taking awhile to get it done.”
The research is a “preliminary type study,” Dr. Bachmann said, designed to assess the risk level and prevalence of sexual infections through focus groups and in-depth interviews with truck drivers. Screening of truckers has been “episodic,” not ongoing and continuous, she said, and she and her research team have interviewed around 300 truckers since 2005.
CNSNews.com asked Dr. Bachmann if the study was an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
“I think that HIV and STDs are significant public health concerns, and there’s been data from, primarily, other countries, but many other countries--and then some domestic studies--that have suggested that it could be a significant problem,” she said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Kagan Admits Committing Fraud in Clinton White House
Elena Kagan [Obama's Supreme Court nominee] has now admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer in 1997, she fraudulently revised an official medical opinion by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
UPDATE 7/26/10: Former Surgeon General Koop calls Kagan’s alteration of ACOG statement ‘unethical’ and ‘disgraceful’
UPDATE 7/7/10: Extensive details of Kagan's language in ACOG statement on partial-birth abortion
-- From "Kagan Defends Revising Medical Group's Statement on Partial-Birth Abortion" FOXNews.com 6/30/10
In a rare moment of drama in her confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan was forced to defend her revision of an obstetrician group's policy statement on partial-birth abortion while she was an adviser in the Clinton White House.
As a Republican-controlled Congress in the 1990s debated whether to ban the controversial procedure, Kagan wrote a memo in which she expressed concern about a statement that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist was going to release that revealed its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman.
"This, of course, would be a disaster," she wrote.
Kagan revised the language so the final statement in 1997 said that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told Kagan on Wednesday "that's a very different spin and obviously a more politically useful spin."
"Your language played an enormous role in both legal and political fights over banning partial-birth abortion," he said. "The political objective of keeping partial-birth abortion legal appears to have trumped what a medical organization originally wrote and left to its own scientific inquiry and that they had concluded."
Congress passed a ban on the procedure twice in the 1990s but President Clinton vetoed it both times. The procedure was finally banned in 2003 when President Bush signed it into law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban in 2007 in a 5-4 ruling.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Is Elena Kagan Morally Blind?" by James Lewis, American Thinker 7/3/10
Elena Kagan has now admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer in 1997, she fraudulently revised an official medical opinion by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The medical society was going to publicly reveal that "its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the (partial birth abortion) procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman."
In a secret internal memo, she wrote that "This, of course, would be a disaster[.]"
Kagan therefore secretly revised the language so the final statement in 1997 claimed that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
That was a pernicious lie. The medical panel originally said that was false. Kagan substituted her own judgment for a medical consensus.
No wonder eight hundred Jewish rabbis have publicly stated that in their opinion, Elena Kagan [a Jew] is not morally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Her fraudulent actions in 1997 legally authorized the killing of approximately two thousand newborns or almost-newborns each year, according to the pro-abortion Gutmacher Institute.
In 2003, the Republicans passed a ban on partial birth abortion, later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That lead has now been followed by a number of states. But a recent medical article on the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act claims that the law only forced abortion doctors to kill fetuses in the womb. That's not "partial birth," get it? You can do anything to a baby in the womb, no matter how developed it might be. These "abortion providers" are publicly boasting that they are getting around the law by killing near-term babies in the womb. It is astonishing what ideological blindness will do to people.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/26/10: Former Surgeon General Koop calls Kagan’s alteration of ACOG statement ‘unethical’ and ‘disgraceful’
UPDATE 7/7/10: Extensive details of Kagan's language in ACOG statement on partial-birth abortion
-- From "Kagan Defends Revising Medical Group's Statement on Partial-Birth Abortion" FOXNews.com 6/30/10
In a rare moment of drama in her confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan was forced to defend her revision of an obstetrician group's policy statement on partial-birth abortion while she was an adviser in the Clinton White House.
As a Republican-controlled Congress in the 1990s debated whether to ban the controversial procedure, Kagan wrote a memo in which she expressed concern about a statement that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist was going to release that revealed its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman.
"This, of course, would be a disaster," she wrote.
Kagan revised the language so the final statement in 1997 said that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told Kagan on Wednesday "that's a very different spin and obviously a more politically useful spin."
"Your language played an enormous role in both legal and political fights over banning partial-birth abortion," he said. "The political objective of keeping partial-birth abortion legal appears to have trumped what a medical organization originally wrote and left to its own scientific inquiry and that they had concluded."
Congress passed a ban on the procedure twice in the 1990s but President Clinton vetoed it both times. The procedure was finally banned in 2003 when President Bush signed it into law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban in 2007 in a 5-4 ruling.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Is Elena Kagan Morally Blind?" by James Lewis, American Thinker 7/3/10
Elena Kagan has now admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer in 1997, she fraudulently revised an official medical opinion by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The medical society was going to publicly reveal that "its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the (partial birth abortion) procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman."
In a secret internal memo, she wrote that "This, of course, would be a disaster[.]"
Kagan therefore secretly revised the language so the final statement in 1997 claimed that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
That was a pernicious lie. The medical panel originally said that was false. Kagan substituted her own judgment for a medical consensus.
No wonder eight hundred Jewish rabbis have publicly stated that in their opinion, Elena Kagan [a Jew] is not morally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Her fraudulent actions in 1997 legally authorized the killing of approximately two thousand newborns or almost-newborns each year, according to the pro-abortion Gutmacher Institute.
In 2003, the Republicans passed a ban on partial birth abortion, later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That lead has now been followed by a number of states. But a recent medical article on the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act claims that the law only forced abortion doctors to kill fetuses in the womb. That's not "partial birth," get it? You can do anything to a baby in the womb, no matter how developed it might be. These "abortion providers" are publicly boasting that they are getting around the law by killing near-term babies in the womb. It is astonishing what ideological blindness will do to people.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Judge Rules Christians Arrested, Now Free to Evangelize
Whereas Christians distributing Bibles at the Twin Cities homosexual festival last summer were arrested for distributing Bibles without permission from the homosexualists, this year, a judge protected the rights of the Christians.
-- From "Judge rules evangelist can hand out Bibles at Pride Festival" by Abby Simons, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune 6/25/10
After a week of intense debate that culminated in arguments about the Constitution in a federal courtroom, a judge Friday affirmed a Wisconsin evangelist's right to hand out Bibles at this weekend's Twin Cities Pride festival in Minneapolis' Loring Park.
U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim ruled that the First Amendment gives Brian Johnson the right to evangelize there as long as he's not disruptive.
Tunheim wrote that although organizers paid $36,000 for a permit to use the park, that did not afford them the right to restrict the speech of those in it.
Pride organizers had filed for a temporary restraining order to keep Johnson from handing out materials without a vendor's permit, something they had denied him in the hope of preventing him from diluting their message of tolerance toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Judge rules evangelist can hand out Bibles at Pride Festival" by Abby Simons, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune 6/25/10
After a week of intense debate that culminated in arguments about the Constitution in a federal courtroom, a judge Friday affirmed a Wisconsin evangelist's right to hand out Bibles at this weekend's Twin Cities Pride festival in Minneapolis' Loring Park.
U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim ruled that the First Amendment gives Brian Johnson the right to evangelize there as long as he's not disruptive.
Tunheim wrote that although organizers paid $36,000 for a permit to use the park, that did not afford them the right to restrict the speech of those in it.
Pride organizers had filed for a temporary restraining order to keep Johnson from handing out materials without a vendor's permit, something they had denied him in the hope of preventing him from diluting their message of tolerance toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Florida School Restricts Religious Freedom, Christians Sue
A local Christian organization is suing the Collier County School District for prohibiting Bible distribution on its campuses. (See article below the videos)
Click headlines below to read more about topics mentioned in the above video:
International Religious Freedom not on Obama Radar
Obama Appoints Lesbian to EEOC Opposing Religious Liberty
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Christian Arrested for Casual Conversation about God in Mall
Christians Challenge Obama Hate Crimes Law re: Religious Liberty
ENDA: Next Obamanation of Gay Agenda
-- From "Christian group suing Collier School District for prohibiting Bible distribution on campuses" by Katherine Albers, Naples Daily News 7/1/10
World Changers of Florida filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Fort Myers challenging the district’s decision to prohibit its members from passing out free Bibles on Religious Freedom Day, which is held each Jan. 16.
World Changers of Florida President Jerry Rutherford has handed out Bibles at the schools for two years, after former School Board Attorney Richard Withers said the district must provide access to groups wishing to pass out Bibles, subject to reasonable, nonjudgmental limitations as to the time, space and place for the event to occur.
Rutherford petitioned the Community Request Committee on Nov. 10, 2008, to make Bibles available to high school and to middle school students on Jan. 16, 2009.
Rutherford received a letter from then-Assistant Superintendent John Kelly on Jan. 13, 2009, which said Kelly, the chairman of the committee, had been advised by District Attorney Jon Fishbane that the request could not be considered by the committee.
In the suit, Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a Christian law firm representing the World Changers of Florida, said other nonprofit groups have been allowed to distribute literature on campuses, including military recruiters, Golden Gate American Little League, and the Humane Society of Naples. The lawsuit claims World Changers was denied its distribution request because the district wants to censor its message.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read more about topics mentioned in the above video:
International Religious Freedom not on Obama Radar
Obama Appoints Lesbian to EEOC Opposing Religious Liberty
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Christian Arrested for Casual Conversation about God in Mall
Christians Challenge Obama Hate Crimes Law re: Religious Liberty
ENDA: Next Obamanation of Gay Agenda
-- From "Christian group suing Collier School District for prohibiting Bible distribution on campuses" by Katherine Albers, Naples Daily News 7/1/10
World Changers of Florida filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Fort Myers challenging the district’s decision to prohibit its members from passing out free Bibles on Religious Freedom Day, which is held each Jan. 16.
World Changers of Florida President Jerry Rutherford has handed out Bibles at the schools for two years, after former School Board Attorney Richard Withers said the district must provide access to groups wishing to pass out Bibles, subject to reasonable, nonjudgmental limitations as to the time, space and place for the event to occur.
Rutherford petitioned the Community Request Committee on Nov. 10, 2008, to make Bibles available to high school and to middle school students on Jan. 16, 2009.
Rutherford received a letter from then-Assistant Superintendent John Kelly on Jan. 13, 2009, which said Kelly, the chairman of the committee, had been advised by District Attorney Jon Fishbane that the request could not be considered by the committee.
In the suit, Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a Christian law firm representing the World Changers of Florida, said other nonprofit groups have been allowed to distribute literature on campuses, including military recruiters, Golden Gate American Little League, and the Humane Society of Naples. The lawsuit claims World Changers was denied its distribution request because the district wants to censor its message.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Wisconsin Supremes Uphold Traditional Marriage
The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state's constitutional marriage amendment, approved by 55 percent of voters in 2006, does not violate the state constitution's two-subject ban.
-- From "Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban" by Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press Writer 6/30/10
In a 7-0 ruling, the court on Wednesday ruled that the 2006 constitutional amendment was properly put to voters in a statewide referendum.
The court rejected a lawsuit that claimed the amendment violated a rule that limits referendum questions to a single subject. The lawsuit, filed by a voter opposed to the amendment, argued that gay marriage and civil unions were two different subjects.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Wis. & Hawaii latest marriage battlegrounds" by Michael Foust, assistant editor of Baptist Press 7/1/10
"Both sentences of the marriage amendment relate to marriage and tend to effect or carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman," the court ruled.
The suit was filed by William McConkey, a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor. Wisconsin is among the states whose constitutions prevent amendments that are placed before voters from dealing with more than one subject. Similar lawsuits in Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana have failed. Thirty states have marriage amendments, although not all of them prohibit civil unions.
In Hawaii, Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has until Tuesday, July 6, to make her decision on a bill that would legalize civil unions in the state. She could either sign, veto or let the bill become law without her signature. The bill, H.B. 444, would grant the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban" by Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press Writer 6/30/10
In a 7-0 ruling, the court on Wednesday ruled that the 2006 constitutional amendment was properly put to voters in a statewide referendum.
The court rejected a lawsuit that claimed the amendment violated a rule that limits referendum questions to a single subject. The lawsuit, filed by a voter opposed to the amendment, argued that gay marriage and civil unions were two different subjects.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Wis. & Hawaii latest marriage battlegrounds" by Michael Foust, assistant editor of Baptist Press 7/1/10
"Both sentences of the marriage amendment relate to marriage and tend to effect or carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman," the court ruled.
The suit was filed by William McConkey, a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor. Wisconsin is among the states whose constitutions prevent amendments that are placed before voters from dealing with more than one subject. Similar lawsuits in Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana have failed. Thirty states have marriage amendments, although not all of them prohibit civil unions.
In Hawaii, Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has until Tuesday, July 6, to make her decision on a bill that would legalize civil unions in the state. She could either sign, veto or let the bill become law without her signature. The bill, H.B. 444, would grant the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Homosexualists Cost Philadelphia $860,000 to Boy Scouts
The Boy Scouts' First Amendment rights were violated, a federal jury decided, when the city tried to force an eviction of the BSA from their offices saying that the Scouts' moral convictions against homosexual behavior is discriminatory.
UPDATE 11/17/10: City surrenders - sells building to Scouts cheap
Unrelated to the Philadelphia case is the lawsuit reported below in this ABC News video; sexual abuse of scouts by homosexual leaders has been a problem for decades:
-- From "Jury says Philly can't evict Boy Scouts for anti-gay policy" by Nathan Gorenstein, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer 6/24/10
"We can't be kicked out of the building or evicted, and we don't have to pay any rent," scouts attorney William M. McSwain said after the unanimous verdict by a jury of six women and two men.
The scouts' lawyers expect U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter to issue a permanent injunction that bars eviction because of the policy - set by the national organization - that homosexuals cannot be scouts or troop leaders.
That's not necessarily the end of the dispute, however.
The jury's answers to the 11 questions on the verdict sheet were "inconsistent," City Solicitor Shelley Smith said, "and when verdict sheets have inconsistent answers, the potential exists that the verdict is flawed. We will be exploring our options."
Mayor Nutter said in a statement, "While the good work of the Boy Scouts cannot be disputed, the city remains steadfast in its commitment to prevent its facilities from being used to disadvantage certain groups."
In 2007, the scouts were ordered to vacate the 80-year-old headquarters they had occupied rent-free, or pay $200,000 a year to lease the building from the Fairmount Park Commission.
The scouts can now ask the court to order the city to pay legal fees of about $860,000.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "City, Scouts: How is compromise possible?" by Elmer Smith, Philadelphia Daily News Opinion Columnist 6/25/10
A jury took only five hours to decide against the city and the firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal and Lewis, which donated hundreds of otherwise billable hours to assist the city solicitor.
. . . In 2003, the council agreed to a compromise that would have allowed the city to continue to charge only nominal rent for the headquarters that the Scouts built in 1928 [with organization funds,] on city property at 22nd and Winter streets.
But that agreement quickly unraveled. The Boy Scouts of America cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that private organizations can't be forced to accept homosexuals. It threatened to decertify the local council if it compromised on this point.
The city still maintains that the terms of its original agreement allow it to evict the Scouts without citing a reason. One of the attorneys for the Scouts said as much in his closing argument.
. . . the city is likely to file post-trial motions and may look for a "more global" approach to the eviction that is not specific to the Scouts.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/17/10: City surrenders - sells building to Scouts cheap
Unrelated to the Philadelphia case is the lawsuit reported below in this ABC News video; sexual abuse of scouts by homosexual leaders has been a problem for decades:
-- From "Jury says Philly can't evict Boy Scouts for anti-gay policy" by Nathan Gorenstein, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer 6/24/10
"We can't be kicked out of the building or evicted, and we don't have to pay any rent," scouts attorney William M. McSwain said after the unanimous verdict by a jury of six women and two men.
The scouts' lawyers expect U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter to issue a permanent injunction that bars eviction because of the policy - set by the national organization - that homosexuals cannot be scouts or troop leaders.
That's not necessarily the end of the dispute, however.
The jury's answers to the 11 questions on the verdict sheet were "inconsistent," City Solicitor Shelley Smith said, "and when verdict sheets have inconsistent answers, the potential exists that the verdict is flawed. We will be exploring our options."
Mayor Nutter said in a statement, "While the good work of the Boy Scouts cannot be disputed, the city remains steadfast in its commitment to prevent its facilities from being used to disadvantage certain groups."
In 2007, the scouts were ordered to vacate the 80-year-old headquarters they had occupied rent-free, or pay $200,000 a year to lease the building from the Fairmount Park Commission.
The scouts can now ask the court to order the city to pay legal fees of about $860,000.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "City, Scouts: How is compromise possible?" by Elmer Smith, Philadelphia Daily News Opinion Columnist 6/25/10
A jury took only five hours to decide against the city and the firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal and Lewis, which donated hundreds of otherwise billable hours to assist the city solicitor.
. . . In 2003, the council agreed to a compromise that would have allowed the city to continue to charge only nominal rent for the headquarters that the Scouts built in 1928 [with organization funds,] on city property at 22nd and Winter streets.
But that agreement quickly unraveled. The Boy Scouts of America cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that private organizations can't be forced to accept homosexuals. It threatened to decertify the local council if it compromised on this point.
The city still maintains that the terms of its original agreement allow it to evict the Scouts without citing a reason. One of the attorneys for the Scouts said as much in his closing argument.
. . . the city is likely to file post-trial motions and may look for a "more global" approach to the eviction that is not specific to the Scouts.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)