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.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
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.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Australia’s New Prime Minister is an Atheist
Julia Gillard told ABC radio in Melbourne . . . "I am, of course, a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they are not my beliefs."
-- From "'I don't believe in God,' says Australia's first female PM" by (UK) Daily Mail, Foreign Service 6/30/10
[The Prime Minister said,] "For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay them is to respect their genuinely-held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."
Ms Gillard’s views are in contrast with those of former prime minister Kevin Rudd, who was a regular at Canberra church services and opposition leader Tony Abbot, who is a devout Catholic.
Ms Gillard, who was born in the Welsh town of Barry, revealed she had been raised as a Baptist, before converting to Atheism.
The Australian Christian Lobby has since warned Australia’s first female Prime Minister that she may have turned off some of her Christian voters with her comments.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "'I don't believe in God,' says Australia's first female PM" by (UK) Daily Mail, Foreign Service 6/30/10
[The Prime Minister said,] "For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay them is to respect their genuinely-held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."
Ms Gillard’s views are in contrast with those of former prime minister Kevin Rudd, who was a regular at Canberra church services and opposition leader Tony Abbot, who is a devout Catholic.
Ms Gillard, who was born in the Welsh town of Barry, revealed she had been raised as a Baptist, before converting to Atheism.
The Australian Christian Lobby has since warned Australia’s first female Prime Minister that she may have turned off some of her Christian voters with her comments.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
How Elena Kagan Helped 'Queer' Harvard Law School
While the liberal mainstream media claim ignorance of Supreme Court nominee Kagan's documented career (see CNN report below), other sources have been exposing her flaming radical liberal past, such as the Mass Resistance report below.
-- From "Kagan: Will she be a reliable liberal on the bench?" by Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer 6/27/10
Ideology is hard to characterize, particularly in judicial candidates who presumably are not disposed to view the law with a strictly political lens. The term "reliably conservative" or "reliably liberal" may be the best a president can hope for when considering candidates for the Supreme Court.
Elena Kagan has no judicial record that conservatives or liberals can easily fall back on when debating what kind of justice she would be.
As a White House lawyer and policy wonk in the mid- and late-1990s, she was involved in a number of hot-button issues such as late-term abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, and tobacco regulation. Memos from her government service reveal a politically pragmatic, cautious lawyer, whose views for the most part mirrored the president's. She comes across as a mainstream liberal, with little desire to passionately argue strong positions on contentious issues.
Kagan "is someone who was well known in the Obama White House," said Thomas Goldstein, a top Washington lawyer and founder of scotusblog.com.
. . . Unlike most past presidents, Obama has called upon his experience as a constitutional law professor to spell out the kind of justice he'd like to see, using "empathy" as a key barometer.
As for Kagan, some left-leaning groups are worried she could prove to be not as advertised. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "How Elena Kagan helped 'queer' Harvard Law School" MassResistance report on Kagan's extensive radical activities as Dean of Law School 6/28/10
Elena Kagan's extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) regarding the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism has been largely untouched and ignored. Until now.
MassResistance has uncovered Kagan's record of bizarre and disturbing activities during that period, which we've compiled in a report, "How Elena Kagan 'queered' Harvard Law School. During that time it was clear that Kagan was committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as "civil rights." - and changing the mindsets of generation of Harvard lawyers to embrace those views. Will she do the same to America?
Among the things we've uncovered (which are elaborated on in the report):
-- From "Kagan: Will she be a reliable liberal on the bench?" by Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer 6/27/10
Ideology is hard to characterize, particularly in judicial candidates who presumably are not disposed to view the law with a strictly political lens. The term "reliably conservative" or "reliably liberal" may be the best a president can hope for when considering candidates for the Supreme Court.
Elena Kagan has no judicial record that conservatives or liberals can easily fall back on when debating what kind of justice she would be.
As a White House lawyer and policy wonk in the mid- and late-1990s, she was involved in a number of hot-button issues such as late-term abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, and tobacco regulation. Memos from her government service reveal a politically pragmatic, cautious lawyer, whose views for the most part mirrored the president's. She comes across as a mainstream liberal, with little desire to passionately argue strong positions on contentious issues.
Kagan "is someone who was well known in the Obama White House," said Thomas Goldstein, a top Washington lawyer and founder of scotusblog.com.
. . . Unlike most past presidents, Obama has called upon his experience as a constitutional law professor to spell out the kind of justice he'd like to see, using "empathy" as a key barometer.
As for Kagan, some left-leaning groups are worried she could prove to be not as advertised. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "How Elena Kagan helped 'queer' Harvard Law School" MassResistance report on Kagan's extensive radical activities as Dean of Law School 6/28/10
Elena Kagan's extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) regarding the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism has been largely untouched and ignored. Until now.
MassResistance has uncovered Kagan's record of bizarre and disturbing activities during that period, which we've compiled in a report, "How Elena Kagan 'queered' Harvard Law School. During that time it was clear that Kagan was committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as "civil rights." - and changing the mindsets of generation of Harvard lawyers to embrace those views. Will she do the same to America?
Among the things we've uncovered (which are elaborated on in the report):
Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT "rights" concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger university community.To read the entire report above, CLICK HERE.
Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work.
Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein to teach "queer" legal theory.
Kagan promoted and facilitated the "transgender" legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard.
Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals.
Kagan followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations -- within a month of meeting with a Harvard GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus.
Radical "trans" activism at Harvard: Kagan's active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment that was becoming so "tolerant" of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign during her tenure to make the campus "trans inclusive" -- using Harvard's "gender identity" nondiscrimination policy (in place since 2006).
Young Student Opposes School Indoctrination
A Beverly Hills elementary student takes on the teacher and administration who taught the kids that the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) means that "Right-wing Nazis are taking office all over the place."
-- From "A Conservative Kid Tries to Survive in California School" by Sam Besserman, posted at American Thinker 6/27/10
My name is Sam Besserman, I'm eleven years old, I live in Beverly Hills, California, and ever since I can remember I have been subjected to political bias in school. The first time I noticed the bias was actually in preschool, where the teacher was reading a book about the importance of mothers and the inferiority of fathers. I tried to tell the teacher that dads might be just as important. The teacher responded in a sing-song, "No, listen to me, I'm the teacher." Of course, the girls loved the book and most of the boys hated it, except for a few who liked it and also wanted to become mothers some day. I was three years old and royally pissed off.
I had to listen to such feminist ideas every day, and at times, I actually bought into them. Months later, I still didn't know whether mothers were really more important than fathers. Once I even felt like going into the bathroom and trying to pull off my penis. It wasn't that I wanted to be a woman -- I had just lost my enthusiasm for my embattled gender.
The only male teacher I had might as well have been castrated. His voice was soft, his gestures were feminine, he didn't know how to run a class, and he had to rely on female assistant teachers to control the children. . . .
. . . It wasn't until the Democratic primaries ended in 2008 that things started getting really bad. Liberals everywhere -- but especially at school -- seemed empowered by the prospect of a black man becoming president, if for no other reason than the color of his skin. One day, during a game of dodgeball, the old assistant P.E. teacher yelled to the other students to "Get the Republican, get the Republican!" meaning me.
. . . This past year, however, I seem to have been subjected to the ultimate in ideological bigotry. My social studies and English teacher should win an award. After Scott Brown won the third big election since Obama became president, she told the class, "Right-wing Nazis are taking office all over the place." She also told us, "Racist bigots from the south are refusing to shake Barack Obama's hand." She lectured us about Mao Tse-Tung and failed to mention that he killed 70 million people. She also told us that Russia was better off under communism and that under communism, people could rely on each other. To her, the only problem with communism is that it hasn't been done right yet.
In an effort to stop her politicization of the classroom, I circulated a petition. . . .
To read all of this student's writing, CLICK HERE.
-- From "A Conservative Kid Tries to Survive in California School" by Sam Besserman, posted at American Thinker 6/27/10
My name is Sam Besserman, I'm eleven years old, I live in Beverly Hills, California, and ever since I can remember I have been subjected to political bias in school. The first time I noticed the bias was actually in preschool, where the teacher was reading a book about the importance of mothers and the inferiority of fathers. I tried to tell the teacher that dads might be just as important. The teacher responded in a sing-song, "No, listen to me, I'm the teacher." Of course, the girls loved the book and most of the boys hated it, except for a few who liked it and also wanted to become mothers some day. I was three years old and royally pissed off.
I had to listen to such feminist ideas every day, and at times, I actually bought into them. Months later, I still didn't know whether mothers were really more important than fathers. Once I even felt like going into the bathroom and trying to pull off my penis. It wasn't that I wanted to be a woman -- I had just lost my enthusiasm for my embattled gender.
The only male teacher I had might as well have been castrated. His voice was soft, his gestures were feminine, he didn't know how to run a class, and he had to rely on female assistant teachers to control the children. . . .
. . . It wasn't until the Democratic primaries ended in 2008 that things started getting really bad. Liberals everywhere -- but especially at school -- seemed empowered by the prospect of a black man becoming president, if for no other reason than the color of his skin. One day, during a game of dodgeball, the old assistant P.E. teacher yelled to the other students to "Get the Republican, get the Republican!" meaning me.
. . . This past year, however, I seem to have been subjected to the ultimate in ideological bigotry. My social studies and English teacher should win an award. After Scott Brown won the third big election since Obama became president, she told the class, "Right-wing Nazis are taking office all over the place." She also told us, "Racist bigots from the south are refusing to shake Barack Obama's hand." She lectured us about Mao Tse-Tung and failed to mention that he killed 70 million people. She also told us that Russia was better off under communism and that under communism, people could rely on each other. To her, the only problem with communism is that it hasn't been done right yet.
In an effort to stop her politicization of the classroom, I circulated a petition. . . .
To read all of this student's writing, CLICK HERE.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that colleges are free to force Christian student groups to accept atheists or homosexualists in leadership positions, even if the intent of the dissidents is to destroy the organization.
UPDATE 3/23/12: Supreme Court Forces Atheists into Christian Clubs
UPDATE 6/16/14: Intolerance of Christian Clubs Now Rampant on College Campuses
UPDATE 6/29/10: Conservative Groups Blast Supreme Court’s Erosion of Religious Liberty
For background, read Christian College Clubs Must Accept Atheists?
-- From "Supreme Court rules against UC student group that excluded gays" by Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times 6/28/10
A University of California law school's refusal to give official student group status to a Christian society that excluded gays was a reasonable application of the school's nondiscrimination policy, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a 5-4 ruling.
The Christian Legal Society chapter had sued UC Hastings College of Law, arguing that denial of school recognition and of access to state funding and facilities violated the group's 1st and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association and the free exercise of religion.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent that the majority ruling amounted to "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."
Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted that Hastings has more than 60 registered student groups and that in its entire history has denied registration to "exactly one: the Christian Legal Society." Alito said the majority gave public educational institutions "a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Martinez Ruling a 'Serious Setback for Freedom of Expression'" by Chuck Donovan, posted at The Heritage Foundation 6/28/10
CLS v. Martinez case is narrow in a number of respects, but its thrust is worrisome for many reasons. The case involves a decision by a public law school, the Hastings College of the Law, to deny official recognition and potential funding to a student organization, the local chapter of the Christian Legal Society. The Supreme Court ruled that Hastings did not violate the free speech rights of CLS by refusing to recognize it on the grounds that it requires its members and officers to sign a Statement of Faith and affirm a Christian standard of sexual conduct.
. . . The very idea of expressive association – of clusters of students coming together to advance their particular legal views, social ideas, or religious commitments – would be a nullity if law school administrations could insist that every group must be equally open to those who share its beliefs and those who oppose them. Smaller organizations would be particularly vulnerable to being overwhelmed by a majority of dissident students if an organization were prohibited from having a mission and bonding its members to that mission.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/23/12: Supreme Court Forces Atheists into Christian Clubs
UPDATE 6/16/14: Intolerance of Christian Clubs Now Rampant on College Campuses
UPDATE 6/29/10: Conservative Groups Blast Supreme Court’s Erosion of Religious Liberty
For background, read Christian College Clubs Must Accept Atheists?
-- From "Supreme Court rules against UC student group that excluded gays" by Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times 6/28/10
A University of California law school's refusal to give official student group status to a Christian society that excluded gays was a reasonable application of the school's nondiscrimination policy, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a 5-4 ruling.
The Christian Legal Society chapter had sued UC Hastings College of Law, arguing that denial of school recognition and of access to state funding and facilities violated the group's 1st and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association and the free exercise of religion.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent that the majority ruling amounted to "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."
Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted that Hastings has more than 60 registered student groups and that in its entire history has denied registration to "exactly one: the Christian Legal Society." Alito said the majority gave public educational institutions "a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Martinez Ruling a 'Serious Setback for Freedom of Expression'" by Chuck Donovan, posted at The Heritage Foundation 6/28/10
CLS v. Martinez case is narrow in a number of respects, but its thrust is worrisome for many reasons. The case involves a decision by a public law school, the Hastings College of the Law, to deny official recognition and potential funding to a student organization, the local chapter of the Christian Legal Society. The Supreme Court ruled that Hastings did not violate the free speech rights of CLS by refusing to recognize it on the grounds that it requires its members and officers to sign a Statement of Faith and affirm a Christian standard of sexual conduct.
. . . The very idea of expressive association – of clusters of students coming together to advance their particular legal views, social ideas, or religious commitments – would be a nullity if law school administrations could insist that every group must be equally open to those who share its beliefs and those who oppose them. Smaller organizations would be particularly vulnerable to being overwhelmed by a majority of dissident students if an organization were prohibited from having a mission and bonding its members to that mission.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Adult Stem Cell Success - No Embryo Killing Necessary
Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells--a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday.
-- From "New England Journal of Medicine: Blindness Reversed in Dozens of Patients By Adult—Not Embryonic—Stem Cell Therapy" by Alicia Chang, Associated Press 6/23/10
The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision.
“This is a roaring success,” said ophthalmologist Dr. Ivan Schwab of the University of California, Davis, who had no role in the study--the longest and largest of its kind.
In the study, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took a small number of stem cells from a patient's healthy eye, multiplied them in the lab and placed them into the burned eye, where they were able to grow new corneal tissue to replace what had been damaged. Since the stem cells are from their own bodies, the patients do not need to take anti-rejection drugs.
Adult stem cells have been used for decades to cure blood cancers such as leukemia and diseases like sickle cell anemia. But fixing a problem like damaged eyes is a relatively new use. Researchers have been studying cell therapy for a host of other diseases, including diabetes and heart failure, with limited success.
Adult stem cells, which are found around the body, are different from embryonic stem cells, which come from human embryos and have stirred ethical concerns because removing the cells requires destroying the embryos.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "New England Journal of Medicine: Blindness Reversed in Dozens of Patients By Adult—Not Embryonic—Stem Cell Therapy" by Alicia Chang, Associated Press 6/23/10
The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision.
“This is a roaring success,” said ophthalmologist Dr. Ivan Schwab of the University of California, Davis, who had no role in the study--the longest and largest of its kind.
In the study, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took a small number of stem cells from a patient's healthy eye, multiplied them in the lab and placed them into the burned eye, where they were able to grow new corneal tissue to replace what had been damaged. Since the stem cells are from their own bodies, the patients do not need to take anti-rejection drugs.
Adult stem cells have been used for decades to cure blood cancers such as leukemia and diseases like sickle cell anemia. But fixing a problem like damaged eyes is a relatively new use. Researchers have been studying cell therapy for a host of other diseases, including diabetes and heart failure, with limited success.
Adult stem cells, which are found around the body, are different from embryonic stem cells, which come from human embryos and have stirred ethical concerns because removing the cells requires destroying the embryos.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Methodist Seminary Trains Pluralistic Clergy
Saying that not all Muslims – or Christians or Jews for that matter – believe their faith is the only way to God, the United Methodist Church's Claremont School of Theology has launched a program to train leaders for the often-conflicting faiths together.
-- From "Seminary introduces program of religious collaboration" by Michael Carl © 2010 WorldNetDaily 6/25/10
The unorthodox program was announced on the website for the school, and detailed in a statement released by school media-relations officer Claudia Pearce.
"Christians, Muslims and Jews will now have the opportunity to take classes together to learn about each other's religious traditions, to study topics that deal specifically with interfaith issues and to build bridges through coursework that assists them, our society’s future religious leaders, to act collaboratively in response to the various issues that face our society and world," the statement said.
. . . Christian cultural commentator and Cross Talk America radio host Ingrid Schlueter says the Claremont program is a clear compromise of the truth of the Gospel.
"Their new spiritual-blender approach to Christian theological education is to 'teach students to recognize the legitimacy and integrity' of other religious traditions. This, by definition, cannot be Christianity," Schlueter said.
"The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, declared himself to be the exclusive way to heaven in John 14:6. The founder of Christianity further described the spiritual way to eternal life as 'narrow' in Matthew 7:14," Schlueter explained.
"Clearly Claremont is still teaching theology. It is not, however, Christian theology. It is the new, popular brand of universalism that rejects outright the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ in Holy Scripture and ventures into rank spiritual rebellion in the name of tolerance and cooperation. God's unchanging Word tells us that it is at the name of Jesus that every knee will bow and confess His Lordship. Not Buddha, not Krishna, not Allah or some other god cobbled together in human imagination," Schlueter said.
Schlueter said Claremont is not representative of the doctrine taught by Methodism's founder John Wesley.
"If John Wesley were alive today to see what his heirs were teaching, one could only imagine his anger and grief. Claremont is setting the stage for persecution of biblical Christians who refuse this apostasy. They are casting themselves as Christians, but theirs is a faith that is alien to everything Christians have lived and died for in the last 2,000 years," Schlueter said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Seminary introduces program of religious collaboration" by Michael Carl © 2010 WorldNetDaily 6/25/10
The unorthodox program was announced on the website for the school, and detailed in a statement released by school media-relations officer Claudia Pearce.
"Christians, Muslims and Jews will now have the opportunity to take classes together to learn about each other's religious traditions, to study topics that deal specifically with interfaith issues and to build bridges through coursework that assists them, our society’s future religious leaders, to act collaboratively in response to the various issues that face our society and world," the statement said.
. . . Christian cultural commentator and Cross Talk America radio host Ingrid Schlueter says the Claremont program is a clear compromise of the truth of the Gospel.
"Their new spiritual-blender approach to Christian theological education is to 'teach students to recognize the legitimacy and integrity' of other religious traditions. This, by definition, cannot be Christianity," Schlueter said.
"The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, declared himself to be the exclusive way to heaven in John 14:6. The founder of Christianity further described the spiritual way to eternal life as 'narrow' in Matthew 7:14," Schlueter explained.
"Clearly Claremont is still teaching theology. It is not, however, Christian theology. It is the new, popular brand of universalism that rejects outright the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ in Holy Scripture and ventures into rank spiritual rebellion in the name of tolerance and cooperation. God's unchanging Word tells us that it is at the name of Jesus that every knee will bow and confess His Lordship. Not Buddha, not Krishna, not Allah or some other god cobbled together in human imagination," Schlueter said.
Schlueter said Claremont is not representative of the doctrine taught by Methodism's founder John Wesley.
"If John Wesley were alive today to see what his heirs were teaching, one could only imagine his anger and grief. Claremont is setting the stage for persecution of biblical Christians who refuse this apostasy. They are casting themselves as Christians, but theirs is a faith that is alien to everything Christians have lived and died for in the last 2,000 years," Schlueter said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)