A Texas court issued a temporary restraining order against the parents of a teenage girl to stop the killing of their unborn grandchild against the will of both the mother and father.
UPDATE 2/21/13: Another Texas teen saved by judge from forced abortion by parents
-- From "Court: Parents can't force teen to terminate" by Brian Fitzpatrick © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/30/10
The parents of a 16-year-old Texas girl have signed a court order agreeing not to force her to abort her 14-week pregnancy.
Last week, attorneys associated with the Alliance Defense Fund secured a temporary restraining order from a Travis County, Texas, court preventing the parents from ordering their daughter to have an abortion.
Though both the girl and the baby's father want the child, on two separate occasions the girl's parents forced her to go to abortion facilities in the Austin, Texas, area.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Texas Parents Retreat, Won’t Force Daughter to Have Abortion" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 10/29/10
The temporary restraining order the court granted last week prevented the parents from coercing their daughter, but now they have signed a long-term court order prohibiting them from forcing their daughter to have an abortion for the duration of her pregnancy.
The 16-year-old high school student, who is carrying a 14-week-old unborn baby, became more resolute in her decision against having an abortion after she received information from a pro-life prayer worker outside one of the abortion facilities to which her mother took her.
“The right not to have an abortion is protected by law, and this right isn’t relinquished just because someone else considers the child to be an unwanted burden,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “This situation illustrates what a difference it can make when a woman is more fully informed about the true nature of abortion.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Abortion Rates & Teen Pregnancy Drop in Washington
The Washington state health department issued a report . . . saying the abortion rates in the state have dropped to a historic low. At the same time, teen pregnancy rates have dropped.
-- From "Abortion rate continues to drop in Washington" by The Associated Press 10/28/10
The department reported Thursday that the rate of reported abortions for women of childbearing age (15 to 44) was about 17 for every 1,000 women last year, compared with 18 in 2008. The pregnancy rate for the group dropped to 83, from 85 in 2008.
The department says the abortion rate for teens (15-19) hit a new low of about 17 for every 1,000, compared with 19 in 2008. Pregnancy rates for teens are their lowest since 1980 at about 47 per 1,000. The rate peaked in 1989 at 96 pregnancies per 1,000.
The department attributes the declines to abstinence and contraceptives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Washington State Abortion Figures Drop to Historic Low, Teen Rates Down" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 10/28/10
Looking at the overall number of abortions, there were 22,642 abortions in Washington state last year, a decline of 6.7 percent over the previous year. That means there are fewer annual abortions now than at any point since 1985.
The overall abortion ratio, the number of induced abortions per 1,000 live births, dropped 5.7 from 2008-2009 to 254 abortions for every live birth — meaning just over 25 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. . . . The highest was 41.3 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion in 1987.
[Dan Kennedy of Human Life of Washington said,] “The drop in abortions gives further empirical evidence that the culture is shifting to a pro-life position, even in Washington State. As LifeNews.com has reported in the past, national polling indicates a slight majority now consider themselves pro-life. It is the new “normal“.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion rate continues to drop in Washington" by The Associated Press 10/28/10
The department reported Thursday that the rate of reported abortions for women of childbearing age (15 to 44) was about 17 for every 1,000 women last year, compared with 18 in 2008. The pregnancy rate for the group dropped to 83, from 85 in 2008.
The department says the abortion rate for teens (15-19) hit a new low of about 17 for every 1,000, compared with 19 in 2008. Pregnancy rates for teens are their lowest since 1980 at about 47 per 1,000. The rate peaked in 1989 at 96 pregnancies per 1,000.
The department attributes the declines to abstinence and contraceptives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Washington State Abortion Figures Drop to Historic Low, Teen Rates Down" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 10/28/10
Looking at the overall number of abortions, there were 22,642 abortions in Washington state last year, a decline of 6.7 percent over the previous year. That means there are fewer annual abortions now than at any point since 1985.
The overall abortion ratio, the number of induced abortions per 1,000 live births, dropped 5.7 from 2008-2009 to 254 abortions for every live birth — meaning just over 25 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. . . . The highest was 41.3 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion in 1987.
[Dan Kennedy of Human Life of Washington said,] “The drop in abortions gives further empirical evidence that the culture is shifting to a pro-life position, even in Washington State. As LifeNews.com has reported in the past, national polling indicates a slight majority now consider themselves pro-life. It is the new “normal“.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Media Trounce Marriage Defender Candidate in Wisconsin
A Christian candidate for lieutenant governor in Wisconsin explained the peril of perpetual legal redefinition of marriage, but after a barrage from the media, she apologized for seeming insensitive when stating the truth.
UPDATE 11/3/10: Rebecca Kleefisch elected lieutenant governor
-- From "Kleefisch apologizes for gay marriage comment" by The Associated Press 10/28/10
The Republican candidate for Wisconsin lieutenant governor is apologizing for suggesting that extending domestic partner benefits to gay state employees could lead to approving marriage to dogs or furniture.
In a January interview with a Christian radio station, Rebecca Kleefisch asked "at what point are we going to OK marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table, or this, you know, clock? Can we marry dogs?"
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "GOP candidate, Rebecca Kleefisch, in Wisconsin: Sorry for comparing gay marriage to marrying a dog" by Aliyah Shahid, New York Daily News Staff Writer 10/29/10
. . . Rebecca Kleefisch told WVCY, a local Christian station while discussing her opposition to domestic partner benefits for gay state employees . . . "This is a slippery slope in addition to that -- at what point are we going to OK marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table, or this, you know, clock? Can we marry dogs? This is ridiculous."
After being slammed by gay rights organizations and bloggers who recently turned up the interview from earlier in the year, the 35-year-old apologized on Thursday.
"My comments were meant to relay my concern with redefining marriage," Kleefisch said in the statement, according to The Associated Press. "I never intended to sound insensitive, and have the utmost respect for all people. I apologize for my poor choice of words."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/3/10: Rebecca Kleefisch elected lieutenant governor
-- From "Kleefisch apologizes for gay marriage comment" by The Associated Press 10/28/10
The Republican candidate for Wisconsin lieutenant governor is apologizing for suggesting that extending domestic partner benefits to gay state employees could lead to approving marriage to dogs or furniture.
In a January interview with a Christian radio station, Rebecca Kleefisch asked "at what point are we going to OK marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table, or this, you know, clock? Can we marry dogs?"
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "GOP candidate, Rebecca Kleefisch, in Wisconsin: Sorry for comparing gay marriage to marrying a dog" by Aliyah Shahid, New York Daily News Staff Writer 10/29/10
. . . Rebecca Kleefisch told WVCY, a local Christian station while discussing her opposition to domestic partner benefits for gay state employees . . . "This is a slippery slope in addition to that -- at what point are we going to OK marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table, or this, you know, clock? Can we marry dogs? This is ridiculous."
After being slammed by gay rights organizations and bloggers who recently turned up the interview from earlier in the year, the 35-year-old apologized on Thursday.
"My comments were meant to relay my concern with redefining marriage," Kleefisch said in the statement, according to The Associated Press. "I never intended to sound insensitive, and have the utmost respect for all people. I apologize for my poor choice of words."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Planned Parenthood Found Bilking Medicaid
Planned Parenthood has agreed to pay $345,000 of the $629,143 sought by the State of Washington for the organization's collection of undue payments from Medicaid.
-- From "Washington State Medicaid, Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest settle 2009 audit findings" press release by Washington State Department of Social and Health Services 10/29/10
Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest and the State of Washington have settled a 2009 audit that said the organization used incorrect codes and provided insufficient documentation for some claims billed to the Medicaid program.
The Medicaid audit settlement calls for a $345,000 payment by Planned Parenthood to the state. The original audit finding estimated the improper payments at $629,143 over a three-year period.
Those findings were based on 333 procedures performed from March 15, 2004, to Feb. 26, 2007. The Spokane-based family planning organization received more than $7.6 million in payments from Medicaid over that period.
Planned Parenthood appealed the audit findings when they were finalized last year, and the settlement occurred before any hearing took place. The settlement was a compromise without any admission of incorrect billing, documentation or payment.
Medicaid is a state-federal health care coverage that pays the medical bills of low-income residents of Washington state.
CLICK HERE for the press release posting.
From "Planned Parenthood Abortion Business Settles Medicaid Fraud Case" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 10/30/10
The audit by sate officials found Planned Parenthood was routinely overbilling Medicaid for abortions as well as contraception and family planning services.
According to the audit, state health officials found Planned Parenthood of Spokane was “unbundling” abortion claims and falsely billing for doctor visits when customers were picking up prescriptions.
Mary Emanuel, who runs the web site Abortion in Washington, obtained copies of the audit documents from the Department of Social and Health Services.
“The audit did not get into the question of whether the overbilling was part of a systematic fraud scheme, but it also was clear that if this practice continued PPS would lose its Medicaid billing privileges,” she wrote last year.
The Washington state case of overbilling is not an isolated one as overbilling problems also extended to Planned Parenthood centers in New Jersey [and California, for example].
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Washington State Medicaid, Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest settle 2009 audit findings" press release by Washington State Department of Social and Health Services 10/29/10
Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest and the State of Washington have settled a 2009 audit that said the organization used incorrect codes and provided insufficient documentation for some claims billed to the Medicaid program.
The Medicaid audit settlement calls for a $345,000 payment by Planned Parenthood to the state. The original audit finding estimated the improper payments at $629,143 over a three-year period.
Those findings were based on 333 procedures performed from March 15, 2004, to Feb. 26, 2007. The Spokane-based family planning organization received more than $7.6 million in payments from Medicaid over that period.
Planned Parenthood appealed the audit findings when they were finalized last year, and the settlement occurred before any hearing took place. The settlement was a compromise without any admission of incorrect billing, documentation or payment.
Medicaid is a state-federal health care coverage that pays the medical bills of low-income residents of Washington state.
CLICK HERE for the press release posting.
From "Planned Parenthood Abortion Business Settles Medicaid Fraud Case" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 10/30/10
The audit by sate officials found Planned Parenthood was routinely overbilling Medicaid for abortions as well as contraception and family planning services.
According to the audit, state health officials found Planned Parenthood of Spokane was “unbundling” abortion claims and falsely billing for doctor visits when customers were picking up prescriptions.
Mary Emanuel, who runs the web site Abortion in Washington, obtained copies of the audit documents from the Department of Social and Health Services.
“The audit did not get into the question of whether the overbilling was part of a systematic fraud scheme, but it also was clear that if this practice continued PPS would lose its Medicaid billing privileges,” she wrote last year.
The Washington state case of overbilling is not an isolated one as overbilling problems also extended to Planned Parenthood centers in New Jersey [and California, for example].
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Judge Finds Prayer Proclamation NOT Unconstitutional
Denver judge rules against atheists charging Colorado governor proclamation of National Day of Prayer unconstitutional
-- From "Denver judge rejects suit against Day of Prayer" by The Associated Press 10/28/10
District Judge R. Michael Mullins issued a decision today saying that people suing didn’t show that their civil or political rights were violated. He says the governor’s proclamations don’t have the force of law, but simply asserted individuals’ right to practice religion.
The foundation won a similar lawsuit against the federal government earlier this year in Wisconsin. That decision is being appealed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "State judge rejects prayer proclamation challenge" by Mark Barna, The Gazette (Colorado Springs) 10/29/10
In 2008 the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based organization that supports the separation of church and state, sued Gov. Bill Ritter and the state of Colorado, arguing that the governor’s National Day of Prayer proclamations violates the First Amendment.
Colorado governors have issued honorary proclamations on the National Day of Prayer, which occurs annually on the first Thursday of May, since 2004.
Last April, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled in favor of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, writing in her decision that the government has no right to endorse prayer, just as it has no right to “encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "A Madison group that supports the separation of church-and-state loses a court battle in Denver" posted at Pierce County Herald 10/29/10
A district judge said Colorado Governor Bill Ritter did not violate the constitution when he issued a proclamation for the National Day of Prayer. Madison’s Freedom from Religion Foundation challenged the proclamation, saying it amounts to a government endorsement of religion. But Judge Michael Mullins said the proclamations do not have the force of law – and they only re-affirm people’s right to practice religion.
Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said the judge was wrong, and she expects her group to appeal the ruling. . . .
Governors throughout the country have joined the president in proclaiming the National Day of Prayer ever since Congress established it in 1988. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Denver judge rejects suit against Day of Prayer" by The Associated Press 10/28/10
District Judge R. Michael Mullins issued a decision today saying that people suing didn’t show that their civil or political rights were violated. He says the governor’s proclamations don’t have the force of law, but simply asserted individuals’ right to practice religion.
The foundation won a similar lawsuit against the federal government earlier this year in Wisconsin. That decision is being appealed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "State judge rejects prayer proclamation challenge" by Mark Barna, The Gazette (Colorado Springs) 10/29/10
In 2008 the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based organization that supports the separation of church and state, sued Gov. Bill Ritter and the state of Colorado, arguing that the governor’s National Day of Prayer proclamations violates the First Amendment.
Colorado governors have issued honorary proclamations on the National Day of Prayer, which occurs annually on the first Thursday of May, since 2004.
Last April, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled in favor of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, writing in her decision that the government has no right to endorse prayer, just as it has no right to “encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "A Madison group that supports the separation of church-and-state loses a court battle in Denver" posted at Pierce County Herald 10/29/10
A district judge said Colorado Governor Bill Ritter did not violate the constitution when he issued a proclamation for the National Day of Prayer. Madison’s Freedom from Religion Foundation challenged the proclamation, saying it amounts to a government endorsement of religion. But Judge Michael Mullins said the proclamations do not have the force of law – and they only re-affirm people’s right to practice religion.
Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said the judge was wrong, and she expects her group to appeal the ruling. . . .
Governors throughout the country have joined the president in proclaiming the National Day of Prayer ever since Congress established it in 1988. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Fired & Evicted for Being Too Christian
Daniel and Sharon Dixon were fired by The Hallmark Companies from managing an apartment complex and evicted from their apartment for being "too religious," because they displayed, in the rental office, stained glass artwork with flowers and the phrase "Consider the lilies... Matthew 6:28."
UPDATE 12/14/10: 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says "direct evidence of discrimination" warrants trial
-- From "Employees fired for being 'too religious'" posted at Kiowa County Signal 10/28/10
After a number of office visits, one day their supervisor asked if the artwork referred to Scripture. When Mrs. Dixon confirmed that it did, the supervisor asked her to remove it immediately. Mrs. Dixon indicated that she would bring her husband, a co-manager, into the discussion and left briefly to find him. When the Dixons returned minutes later, their supervisor had removed the artwork and told them not to bother looking for it because they were fired for being "too religious." They were ordered to vacate their apartment within seventy-two hours.
The Dixons filed a federal action charging Hallmark with religious discrimination, but a federal district court judge ruled summarily against them . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Firing for being 'too religious' challenged" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/28/10
"I believe we're going to get a reversal [of the district court's dismissal of the case]," [Mathew] Staver [founder of Liberty Counsel told WND after the arguments were completed [at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]. "When opposing counsel [began arguments], the justices peppered him with questions about how should this not go to a jury."
Their claims under Title VII and Title VIII that prohibit discrimination in employment and housing on account of religion were rejected at the trial level, sending the case into today's arguments at the 11th Circuit.
Staver told WND that the company has the right to determine what appears on the walls of its property, but the removal of the artwork with the dismissal for being "too religious" is a symptom of a larger problem at the company.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/14/10: 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says "direct evidence of discrimination" warrants trial
-- From "Employees fired for being 'too religious'" posted at Kiowa County Signal 10/28/10
After a number of office visits, one day their supervisor asked if the artwork referred to Scripture. When Mrs. Dixon confirmed that it did, the supervisor asked her to remove it immediately. Mrs. Dixon indicated that she would bring her husband, a co-manager, into the discussion and left briefly to find him. When the Dixons returned minutes later, their supervisor had removed the artwork and told them not to bother looking for it because they were fired for being "too religious." They were ordered to vacate their apartment within seventy-two hours.
The Dixons filed a federal action charging Hallmark with religious discrimination, but a federal district court judge ruled summarily against them . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Firing for being 'too religious' challenged" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/28/10
"I believe we're going to get a reversal [of the district court's dismissal of the case]," [Mathew] Staver [founder of Liberty Counsel told WND after the arguments were completed [at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]. "When opposing counsel [began arguments], the justices peppered him with questions about how should this not go to a jury."
Their claims under Title VII and Title VIII that prohibit discrimination in employment and housing on account of religion were rejected at the trial level, sending the case into today's arguments at the 11th Circuit.
Staver told WND that the company has the right to determine what appears on the walls of its property, but the removal of the artwork with the dismissal for being "too religious" is a symptom of a larger problem at the company.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Fired Christian Weatherman Challenges NBC TV Station
The ratings were good for the Norfolk, Va. morning TV show that included Jon Cash doing the weather, but he was fired two days after he talked (off air) of a calling to a future of full-time ministry.
-- From "Jon Cash sees a silver lining in firing: God's word" by Mike Gruss, The Virginian-Pilot 10/25/10
In a July 21 e-mail sent from his WAVY [TV station] account, he offered his services to local pastors: “The Lord has called me to give up my television job and plunge into full-time evangelism to more effectively spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the next several years my team is planning city-wide revivals to take our country back for the cause of Christ. I hope your church will take part in this enormous push for the gospel in the future.”
Here is what Cash and his attorney, Gary Byler, say about Aug. 31, the Tuesday Cash was fired.
Cash says that his boss, WAVY General Manager Doug Davis, had sent him an e-mail at 10:03 p.m. Aug. 29, asking to meet that Tuesday.
The e-mail came a few hours after the weatherman had left the pulpit at a church in Isle of Wight. At the revival, Cash had announced that he intended to pursue full-time ministry next summer, if it was God’s will.
Cash arrived at the station Monday, read the e-mail, went on the air for the noon broadcast and then followed the same routine Tuesday. After the show, he walked into Davis’ office and “he fired me,” Cash said.
Davis said Cash’s actions were “bad for business,” according to Byler.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "EEOC probes TV station's firing of Christian weatherman" by Brian Fitzpatrick © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/27/10
The EEOC is pursuing an "active investigation," according to Gary C. Byler, legal counsel for Cash. Once the EEOC has completed its investigation, Cash may pursue civil litigation.
"Before you can sue civilly (in an area under EEOC jurisdiction) you have to give the EEOC an opportunity to investigate," Byler told WND.
"I'm not the suing kind of person," Cash told WND. "I spent a week praying and in the end, what came to mind was, 'If good men do nothing, evil prospers.' God is a god of justice, and the courts are where you seek justice."
Cash had worked as a WAVY weatherman for nearly 21 years while pursuing his preaching, evangelism and missionary work during off hours and vacations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Jon Cash sees a silver lining in firing: God's word" by Mike Gruss, The Virginian-Pilot 10/25/10
In a July 21 e-mail sent from his WAVY [TV station] account, he offered his services to local pastors: “The Lord has called me to give up my television job and plunge into full-time evangelism to more effectively spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the next several years my team is planning city-wide revivals to take our country back for the cause of Christ. I hope your church will take part in this enormous push for the gospel in the future.”
Here is what Cash and his attorney, Gary Byler, say about Aug. 31, the Tuesday Cash was fired.
Cash says that his boss, WAVY General Manager Doug Davis, had sent him an e-mail at 10:03 p.m. Aug. 29, asking to meet that Tuesday.
The e-mail came a few hours after the weatherman had left the pulpit at a church in Isle of Wight. At the revival, Cash had announced that he intended to pursue full-time ministry next summer, if it was God’s will.
Cash arrived at the station Monday, read the e-mail, went on the air for the noon broadcast and then followed the same routine Tuesday. After the show, he walked into Davis’ office and “he fired me,” Cash said.
Davis said Cash’s actions were “bad for business,” according to Byler.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "EEOC probes TV station's firing of Christian weatherman" by Brian Fitzpatrick © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/27/10
The EEOC is pursuing an "active investigation," according to Gary C. Byler, legal counsel for Cash. Once the EEOC has completed its investigation, Cash may pursue civil litigation.
"Before you can sue civilly (in an area under EEOC jurisdiction) you have to give the EEOC an opportunity to investigate," Byler told WND.
"I'm not the suing kind of person," Cash told WND. "I spent a week praying and in the end, what came to mind was, 'If good men do nothing, evil prospers.' God is a god of justice, and the courts are where you seek justice."
Cash had worked as a WAVY weatherman for nearly 21 years while pursuing his preaching, evangelism and missionary work during off hours and vacations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Obama: Gay Agenda for Lame-Duck Congress
To a homosexualist audience this week, President Obama indicated that his ever-shifting position on same-sex "marriage" is evolving, and promised that he has a secret plan for Congress, immediately after the election (before the Dems lose control in January) to force homosexuality onto the military.
-- From "Obama says he's evolving on gay marriage" by Josh Gerstein, Politico 10/27/10
President Barack Obama told a group of liberal bloggers Wednesday . . .
"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine," Obama said in response to a question from Joe Subday of Americablog.
"I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply," Obama continued. "And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today."
Later, Obama seemed to suggest that legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. "The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going," he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama tells bloggers he has a lame-duck strategy to end DADT" By Sam Youngman, The Hill 10/28/10
Meeting with the group of bloggers in the Roosevelt Room, the president said he has been very "deliberate" in working to end the [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] policy as part of a strategy he embarked upon when he took office.
Obama said his "hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year."
The president compared the push for gay rights to African-Americans' fight for civil rights, saying he understands that "things don't automatically get better unless people push to try to get things better."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "White House: Obama Will Push Lame-Duck Congress to Legalize Homosexuality in U.S. Armed Forces" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com 10/19/10
In the lame duck session of Congress, which follows the Nov. 2 elections to when the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011, President Barack Obama will push the Senate to pass a bill that includes an amendment to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow homosexuality in the U.S. armed forces, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The House passed a Defense bill in May that includes an amendment that would repeal most elements of 10 U.S.C. 654 and thereby allow the Defense Department to eliminate the DADT policy. That bill must be passed by the Senate, however, and then signed by the president to become law.
In the lame duck session, members of Congress voted out of office in November can still vote on controversial bills without being accountable to the voters again.
The Pentagon is set to complete a study in December on the issue with suggestions on how to implement the policy without causing disruptions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Republicans Pledge to Oppose Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal" by Matt Cover, CNSNews.com 10/21/10
The Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate have said they will continue to oppose any attempt to repeal the legislative ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
Spokesmen for both Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that their caucuses would continue to oppose efforts by the Obama administration and its Democratic allies to repeal the ban in the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress.
Senate Republicans united in September to defeat an attempt by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to repeal the ban by attaching an amendment to that effect to the 2011 Defense Authorization bill.
. . . there would be little time for another drawn out legislative fight during the relatively short lame-duck session.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Obama 'Blinks' on Homosexuals in Military
White House Reluctantly Supports Marriage
Homosexualists Intend to Control Both GOP & Dems
-- From "Obama says he's evolving on gay marriage" by Josh Gerstein, Politico 10/27/10
President Barack Obama told a group of liberal bloggers Wednesday . . .
"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine," Obama said in response to a question from Joe Subday of Americablog.
"I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply," Obama continued. "And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today."
Later, Obama seemed to suggest that legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. "The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going," he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama tells bloggers he has a lame-duck strategy to end DADT" By Sam Youngman, The Hill 10/28/10
Meeting with the group of bloggers in the Roosevelt Room, the president said he has been very "deliberate" in working to end the [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] policy as part of a strategy he embarked upon when he took office.
Obama said his "hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year."
The president compared the push for gay rights to African-Americans' fight for civil rights, saying he understands that "things don't automatically get better unless people push to try to get things better."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "White House: Obama Will Push Lame-Duck Congress to Legalize Homosexuality in U.S. Armed Forces" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com 10/19/10
In the lame duck session of Congress, which follows the Nov. 2 elections to when the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011, President Barack Obama will push the Senate to pass a bill that includes an amendment to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow homosexuality in the U.S. armed forces, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The House passed a Defense bill in May that includes an amendment that would repeal most elements of 10 U.S.C. 654 and thereby allow the Defense Department to eliminate the DADT policy. That bill must be passed by the Senate, however, and then signed by the president to become law.
In the lame duck session, members of Congress voted out of office in November can still vote on controversial bills without being accountable to the voters again.
The Pentagon is set to complete a study in December on the issue with suggestions on how to implement the policy without causing disruptions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Republicans Pledge to Oppose Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal" by Matt Cover, CNSNews.com 10/21/10
The Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate have said they will continue to oppose any attempt to repeal the legislative ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
Spokesmen for both Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that their caucuses would continue to oppose efforts by the Obama administration and its Democratic allies to repeal the ban in the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress.
Senate Republicans united in September to defeat an attempt by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to repeal the ban by attaching an amendment to that effect to the 2011 Defense Authorization bill.
. . . there would be little time for another drawn out legislative fight during the relatively short lame-duck session.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Obama 'Blinks' on Homosexuals in Military
White House Reluctantly Supports Marriage
Homosexualists Intend to Control Both GOP & Dems
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Archbishop: NY Times is Anti-Christian
New York City Archbishop Anthony Dolan slammed The New York Times for favorable reviews of an offensive art exhibit of a late Cardinal with/as a condom, and an insensitive comedy about nuns.
-- From "NY archbishop: NY Times reviews are insensitive" by The Associated Press 10/22/10
The exhibit is by the AIDS activist group ACT UP. The play is "The Divine Sister."
Archbishop Timothy Dolan tells WCBS-TV that the Times is allowing insensitive references to Catholics that it wouldn't allow for others.
The paper says it covers cultural events, "even if some may disagree with the content."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Archbishop Dolan Slams New York Times for Bias" by Dan Weil, Newsmax 10/23/10
"One of the posters in this 'must see' exhibit is of Cardinal O'Connor, in the form of a condom, referred to as a 'scumbag,'" Dolan points out.
That depiction is particularly loathsome given that O'Connor "spent many evenings caring quietly for AIDS patients" and opened two AIDS units at New York City hospitals, "when everyone else ran from them," Dolan explains in the blog cited by the Post.
As for the play about nuns, the Times was promoting "cheap laughs at the expense of a bigoted view of the most noble women around," Dolan writes. "These are nuns, mocked and held up for snickering."
"If [the NY Times is] going to say, 'Oh, no, we do that all the time,' I'm going to say, 'Show me when you do it to the Islamic community, to the Jewish community, to the African-American community, to the gay community,'" he told CBS News.
"They don't do it because they know that's out of bounds."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "NY archbishop: NY Times reviews are insensitive" by The Associated Press 10/22/10
The exhibit is by the AIDS activist group ACT UP. The play is "The Divine Sister."
Archbishop Timothy Dolan tells WCBS-TV that the Times is allowing insensitive references to Catholics that it wouldn't allow for others.
The paper says it covers cultural events, "even if some may disagree with the content."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Archbishop Dolan Slams New York Times for Bias" by Dan Weil, Newsmax 10/23/10
"One of the posters in this 'must see' exhibit is of Cardinal O'Connor, in the form of a condom, referred to as a 'scumbag,'" Dolan points out.
That depiction is particularly loathsome given that O'Connor "spent many evenings caring quietly for AIDS patients" and opened two AIDS units at New York City hospitals, "when everyone else ran from them," Dolan explains in the blog cited by the Post.
As for the play about nuns, the Times was promoting "cheap laughs at the expense of a bigoted view of the most noble women around," Dolan writes. "These are nuns, mocked and held up for snickering."
"If [the NY Times is] going to say, 'Oh, no, we do that all the time,' I'm going to say, 'Show me when you do it to the Islamic community, to the Jewish community, to the African-American community, to the gay community,'" he told CBS News.
"They don't do it because they know that's out of bounds."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Biblical Preaching Hate Speech Says MN State Prof.
The Professor of Communication Studies shouted down a Christian pastor on campus, then traveled two hours to his church with homosexualist students to disrupt his worship service, charging the pastor with responsibility for "gay suicides."
-- From "Prof, protesters punish pastor for speaking on campus" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/26/10
James Dimock, who is on the faculty of Minnesota State University at Mankato . . . promised to continue shouting down Pastor John Chisham as long he keeps coming to campus to preach.
On Oct. 17, a dozen students marched into Chisham's service and stood silently in front of the congregation. They held up signs that blocked the congregation's view of Chisham as he preached.
Dimock . . . [blames] evangelical Christians for the deaths of homosexuals.
Officials with the university told WND that the professor would not be subject to any discipline.
But as a consequence of the Oct. 17 protest, to which police responded, the tiny Christian and Missionary Alliance congregation now also has been booted out of its rented space at the Marshall Area YMCA, according to members of the church.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Shawn the Baptist' not going to change, but don’t let him off that easy" by James P. Dimock, Assoc. Professor posted at MSU Reporter 9/30/10
. . . [Christian preachers] come here to stir up trouble, to ignite opposition, and to get exactly the reaction they got. . . .
If their strategy was one of conversion, why would they be so BAD at it? Well the truth is they aren't here to spread the word of God, even if they did know it (and talk to them…it is surprising how little they know about the bibles they thump). Their efforts are self-glorification and self-gratification. . . .
So should we ignore them and deny them the attention they crave as some suggested?
No. And here is why. Last week, on Thursday September 23 in Cypress, Texas, a 13-year-old boy named Asher Brown came home from school and shot himself in the head. He had been bullied for years by his classmates. His parents' efforts to get the school to protect their son were ignored. Asher was bullied because he was gay.
Now Shawn and his friends stand up in front of everyone and say they don't hate people. But they do say that kids like Asher are less in the sight of God. Their anti-gay message echoes in the minds of the children who thought that it was OK to bully a child because he was gay. Their anti-gay message echoed in the minds of teachers and principals who refused to stand up for a gay kid. Yeah…they are bullying him, but after all, he is gay so it's OK, right? And their anti-gay message echoed in Asher's mind. In addition to being gay, he was also religious. Ultimately, the fear that things were never going to be OK convinced him that he would be better off dead.
To read the entire letter to the editor above, CLICK HERE.
From "Assaulted at Church" by Pastor John Chisham, River of Life Alliance Church 10/19/10
This past weekend at our weekly church service our congregation was assaulted, God was blasphemed, God was glorified, the Gospel was preached, and the police got involved…
This year, for the third year, I have done a campus tour with Shawn The Baptist in Minnesota and South Dakota. One of our favorite sites is Minnesota State University Mankato, because there is a great central location to preach open air, and the administration is supportive of free speech and the discourse it produces.
When we were at Mankato State this year, a professor, James Dimock, took it upon himself to verbally shout us down and to encourage the students to do the same… During this tour one of the students, who was a homosexual (proudly admitting multiple affairs with men producing children and now in a same sex relationship) asked if she came to our church, would she be welcome? I stated that she would, absolutely…
I was amazed at how she took this invitation as license to do what James Dimock and his students did this past Sunday…
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Prof, protesters punish pastor for speaking on campus" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/26/10
James Dimock, who is on the faculty of Minnesota State University at Mankato . . . promised to continue shouting down Pastor John Chisham as long he keeps coming to campus to preach.
On Oct. 17, a dozen students marched into Chisham's service and stood silently in front of the congregation. They held up signs that blocked the congregation's view of Chisham as he preached.
Dimock . . . [blames] evangelical Christians for the deaths of homosexuals.
Officials with the university told WND that the professor would not be subject to any discipline.
But as a consequence of the Oct. 17 protest, to which police responded, the tiny Christian and Missionary Alliance congregation now also has been booted out of its rented space at the Marshall Area YMCA, according to members of the church.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Shawn the Baptist' not going to change, but don’t let him off that easy" by James P. Dimock, Assoc. Professor posted at MSU Reporter 9/30/10
. . . [Christian preachers] come here to stir up trouble, to ignite opposition, and to get exactly the reaction they got. . . .
If their strategy was one of conversion, why would they be so BAD at it? Well the truth is they aren't here to spread the word of God, even if they did know it (and talk to them…it is surprising how little they know about the bibles they thump). Their efforts are self-glorification and self-gratification. . . .
So should we ignore them and deny them the attention they crave as some suggested?
No. And here is why. Last week, on Thursday September 23 in Cypress, Texas, a 13-year-old boy named Asher Brown came home from school and shot himself in the head. He had been bullied for years by his classmates. His parents' efforts to get the school to protect their son were ignored. Asher was bullied because he was gay.
Now Shawn and his friends stand up in front of everyone and say they don't hate people. But they do say that kids like Asher are less in the sight of God. Their anti-gay message echoes in the minds of the children who thought that it was OK to bully a child because he was gay. Their anti-gay message echoed in the minds of teachers and principals who refused to stand up for a gay kid. Yeah…they are bullying him, but after all, he is gay so it's OK, right? And their anti-gay message echoed in Asher's mind. In addition to being gay, he was also religious. Ultimately, the fear that things were never going to be OK convinced him that he would be better off dead.
To read the entire letter to the editor above, CLICK HERE.
From "Assaulted at Church" by Pastor John Chisham, River of Life Alliance Church 10/19/10
This past weekend at our weekly church service our congregation was assaulted, God was blasphemed, God was glorified, the Gospel was preached, and the police got involved…
This year, for the third year, I have done a campus tour with Shawn The Baptist in Minnesota and South Dakota. One of our favorite sites is Minnesota State University Mankato, because there is a great central location to preach open air, and the administration is supportive of free speech and the discourse it produces.
When we were at Mankato State this year, a professor, James Dimock, took it upon himself to verbally shout us down and to encourage the students to do the same… During this tour one of the students, who was a homosexual (proudly admitting multiple affairs with men producing children and now in a same sex relationship) asked if she came to our church, would she be welcome? I stated that she would, absolutely…
I was amazed at how she took this invitation as license to do what James Dimock and his students did this past Sunday…
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
White House Forces Gay Agenda on Schools
The Obama administration threatened every school in the nation, on behalf of homosexualists, by putting schools on notice that if they don't pursue formal anti-bullying programs that normalize homosexuality, schools will be sued for any bullying incidents.
UPDATE 10/28/10: Christians respond to Dept. of Ed. threat
-- From "Obama administration campaign takes on anti-gay bullying in school" by Nick Anderson, Washington Post Staff Writer 10/26/10
"Our goal here is to provide school districts, colleges and universities with details about when harassment can rise to the level of a civil rights violation and what they should be doing about it," Russlynn H. Ali, assistant education secretary for civil rights, said Monday. Ali wrote the advisory.
As an example, Ali noted in the advisory that a gay student might withdraw from school activities after being subjected to anti-gay slurs and other intimidation. If the school reprimands the perpetrators to stop the bullying, her advisory said, that would not necessarily be enough to ensure that students are free from harassment based on gender stereotypes.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Education Department Cracks Down on Bullying" by Arlette Saenz, ABC News 10/26/10
The Department of Education issued guidance to educators across the country, clarifying that certain forms of bullying, such as harassment of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered students based on gender stereotypes, violate federal education anti-discrimination laws, and in extreme cases, posed the possibility of pulling education funding from schools failing to comply with the department’s standards, which has never been done despite the option existing.
“It is certainly the first time that the Department has made it clear that students that are members of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered community are protected by Title IX if they are bullied or harassed for not conforming to traditional gender roles,” Ali said.
The Department of Education plans to work on the local level to eradicate bullying and the cultures that foster harassment in schools but believes everyone holds a responsibility to fight against the root causes of bullying.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "The White House addresses bullying" by Amanda Greene, Wilmington Star News 10/26/10
[From] the press release from the White House:
“Today, the Department of Education issued guidance to support educators in combating bullying in schools by clarifying when student bullying may violate federal education anti-discrimination laws. The guidance issued today also makes clear that while current laws enforced by the department do not protect against harassment based on religion or sexual orientation, they do include protection against harassment of members of religious groups based on shared ethnic characteristics as well as gender and sexual harassment of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender individuals.
The White House and Department of Education also announced next steps to address bullying and harassment in schools. Early next year, the White House will host a conference to raise awareness and equip young people, parents, educators, coaches and other community leaders with tools to prevent bullying and harassment. This conference will build upon efforts led by the U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies to spark a dialogue on the ways in which communities can come together to prevent bullying and harassment.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read, Exposed: Obama's Gay Agenda for Schools
UPDATE 10/28/10: Christians respond to Dept. of Ed. threat
-- From "Obama administration campaign takes on anti-gay bullying in school" by Nick Anderson, Washington Post Staff Writer 10/26/10
"Our goal here is to provide school districts, colleges and universities with details about when harassment can rise to the level of a civil rights violation and what they should be doing about it," Russlynn H. Ali, assistant education secretary for civil rights, said Monday. Ali wrote the advisory.
As an example, Ali noted in the advisory that a gay student might withdraw from school activities after being subjected to anti-gay slurs and other intimidation. If the school reprimands the perpetrators to stop the bullying, her advisory said, that would not necessarily be enough to ensure that students are free from harassment based on gender stereotypes.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Education Department Cracks Down on Bullying" by Arlette Saenz, ABC News 10/26/10
The Department of Education issued guidance to educators across the country, clarifying that certain forms of bullying, such as harassment of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered students based on gender stereotypes, violate federal education anti-discrimination laws, and in extreme cases, posed the possibility of pulling education funding from schools failing to comply with the department’s standards, which has never been done despite the option existing.
“It is certainly the first time that the Department has made it clear that students that are members of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered community are protected by Title IX if they are bullied or harassed for not conforming to traditional gender roles,” Ali said.
The Department of Education plans to work on the local level to eradicate bullying and the cultures that foster harassment in schools but believes everyone holds a responsibility to fight against the root causes of bullying.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "The White House addresses bullying" by Amanda Greene, Wilmington Star News 10/26/10
[From] the press release from the White House:
“Today, the Department of Education issued guidance to support educators in combating bullying in schools by clarifying when student bullying may violate federal education anti-discrimination laws. The guidance issued today also makes clear that while current laws enforced by the department do not protect against harassment based on religion or sexual orientation, they do include protection against harassment of members of religious groups based on shared ethnic characteristics as well as gender and sexual harassment of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender individuals.
The White House and Department of Education also announced next steps to address bullying and harassment in schools. Early next year, the White House will host a conference to raise awareness and equip young people, parents, educators, coaches and other community leaders with tools to prevent bullying and harassment. This conference will build upon efforts led by the U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies to spark a dialogue on the ways in which communities can come together to prevent bullying and harassment.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read, Exposed: Obama's Gay Agenda for Schools
Christians' Negative Impact on America: Media Spin
A Barna Group survey of Americans' opinion of Christianity is being reported with emphasis on claims that "Christians have incited violence or hatred in the name of Jesus Christ" and saying the "church opposition to same-sex marriage was a negative."
-- From "1 in 4 Americans can't think of recent positive contribution by Christians" by Electa Draper, The Denver Post 10/26/10
One in four Americans said they couldn't think of a single positive societal contribution made by Christians in recent years, according to a nationwide survey released Monday.
Also, one in 10 adults said they couldn't think of a recent positive contribution because Christians hadn't made one, the Barna Group reported.
On the positive side, almost one in five mentioned how U.S. Christians help poor and underprivileged people. Those under the age of 25 were most likely to reference such service.
Among other findings, researchers noted that Evangelical Christians over age 25 and those who said they are "mostly conservative" on socio- political matters were least likely to list serving the poor as an important contribution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
In contrast to the media spin above, below is the actual survey synopsis:
From "Americans Say Serving the Needy is Christianity’s Biggest Contribution to Society" posted at Barna Group 10/25/10
Most Americans believe that the Christian faith has made positive contributions to American society during the past few years. A new nationwide survey from The Barna Group reveals that most of those contributions fall into one of three categories. Surprisingly, the survey also discovered that Americans are even more likely to identify negative contributions to society by Christianity in recent years.
. . . one out of every five adults (19%) mentioned how Christians in the United States have helped poor or underprivileged people to have a better life.
The second most prolific contribution named related to evangelism . . . one out of every six adults (16%) offered this response.
The third most common contribution listed was shaping or protecting the values and morals of the nation. This perspective was given by one out of every seven adults (14%).
Slightly more than one out of every ten adults (11%) said Christianity had not made any positive contributions to the United States. This perspective was most common among people associated with a faith other than Christianity (23%) and Skeptics (27%).
To read the actual survey, CLICK HERE.
-- From "1 in 4 Americans can't think of recent positive contribution by Christians" by Electa Draper, The Denver Post 10/26/10
One in four Americans said they couldn't think of a single positive societal contribution made by Christians in recent years, according to a nationwide survey released Monday.
Also, one in 10 adults said they couldn't think of a recent positive contribution because Christians hadn't made one, the Barna Group reported.
On the positive side, almost one in five mentioned how U.S. Christians help poor and underprivileged people. Those under the age of 25 were most likely to reference such service.
Among other findings, researchers noted that Evangelical Christians over age 25 and those who said they are "mostly conservative" on socio- political matters were least likely to list serving the poor as an important contribution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
In contrast to the media spin above, below is the actual survey synopsis:
From "Americans Say Serving the Needy is Christianity’s Biggest Contribution to Society" posted at Barna Group 10/25/10
Most Americans believe that the Christian faith has made positive contributions to American society during the past few years. A new nationwide survey from The Barna Group reveals that most of those contributions fall into one of three categories. Surprisingly, the survey also discovered that Americans are even more likely to identify negative contributions to society by Christianity in recent years.
. . . one out of every five adults (19%) mentioned how Christians in the United States have helped poor or underprivileged people to have a better life.
The second most prolific contribution named related to evangelism . . . one out of every six adults (16%) offered this response.
The third most common contribution listed was shaping or protecting the values and morals of the nation. This perspective was given by one out of every seven adults (14%).
Slightly more than one out of every ten adults (11%) said Christianity had not made any positive contributions to the United States. This perspective was most common among people associated with a faith other than Christianity (23%) and Skeptics (27%).
To read the actual survey, CLICK HERE.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Media Scorn God's Involvement in Elections
The mainstream media's favorite pastime of making fun of Christians again targets Delaware's U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell and her stated belief that God is in control of America's elections (and everything else, for that matter).
-- From "O'Donnell says prayer may have boosted her polling" by Ben Evans, The Associated Press 10/25/10
Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell says prayer could be boosting support for her Senate campaign.
"The day that we saw a spike in the polls was a day that some people had a prayer meeting for me, that morning, for this campaign, so I believe that prayer plays a direct role in this campaign," O'Donnell said. "I always ask, please pray for the campaign, please pray for our staff, please pray specifically that the eyes of the voters be opened."
O'Donnell has been criticized for her conservative commentary over the years - she once voiced opposition to masturbation in a campaign against premarital sex - and has been ridiculed for saying that she once dabbled in witchcraft. [The AP is in error writing "that she once dabbled in witchcraft."]
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
After quoting O'Donnell, USA TODAY points out that she's trailing in the polls by double digits -- "obviously proving" (in their minds) that prayers to God are ineffective.
It's noteworthy that the mainstream media does NOT quote from this portion of the same interview:
-- From "O'Donnell says prayer may have boosted her polling" by Ben Evans, The Associated Press 10/25/10
Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell says prayer could be boosting support for her Senate campaign.
"The day that we saw a spike in the polls was a day that some people had a prayer meeting for me, that morning, for this campaign, so I believe that prayer plays a direct role in this campaign," O'Donnell said. "I always ask, please pray for the campaign, please pray for our staff, please pray specifically that the eyes of the voters be opened."
O'Donnell has been criticized for her conservative commentary over the years - she once voiced opposition to masturbation in a campaign against premarital sex - and has been ridiculed for saying that she once dabbled in witchcraft. [The AP is in error writing "that she once dabbled in witchcraft."]
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
After quoting O'Donnell, USA TODAY points out that she's trailing in the polls by double digits -- "obviously proving" (in their minds) that prayers to God are ineffective.
It's noteworthy that the mainstream media does NOT quote from this portion of the same interview:
'Catholic Tea Party' Smeared by Liberals
Pressure is on to change the Roman Catholic Church in America, but it's not coming from the usual liberal suspects. A new breed of theological conservatives has taken to blogs and YouTube to say the church isn't Catholic enough.
Read related article, Vatican: Liberal Catholic Candidates Must Repent Publicly
-- From "Catholic bloggers aim to purge dissenters" by Rachel Zoll, The Associated Press 10/25/10
Enraged by dissent that they believe has gone unchecked for decades, and unafraid to say so in the starkest language, these activists are naming names and unsettling the church.
In an episode called "Catholic Tea Party," [Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com and St. Michael's Media] said: "Catholics need to be aware and studied and knowledgeable enough about the faith to recognize a heretical nun or a traitorous priest or bishop when they see one - not so they can vote them out of office, but so they can pray for them, one, and alert as many other Catholics as possible to their treachery, two."
The blog "Bryan Hehir Exposed" is aimed at a top adviser to Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, who is the former head of national Catholic Charities and a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Among the bloggers' claims is that Hehir is a Marxist sympathizer who undermines Catholic teaching on abortion and marriage.
Thomas Peters, who runs the popular "AmericanPapist" blog, said fellow orthodox Catholics have embraced the Web because they feel they finally have a platform that can compete with well-established liberal Catholic publications, such as the National Catholic Reporter. (Some conservative bloggers call the paper "the National Catholic Destroyer.")
. . . The activists also say that since the 1970s, after the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, liberals have filled the bureaucracy of the church, hiding dissent from the bishops they serve.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Read related article, Vatican: Liberal Catholic Candidates Must Repent Publicly
-- From "Catholic bloggers aim to purge dissenters" by Rachel Zoll, The Associated Press 10/25/10
Enraged by dissent that they believe has gone unchecked for decades, and unafraid to say so in the starkest language, these activists are naming names and unsettling the church.
In an episode called "Catholic Tea Party," [Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com and St. Michael's Media] said: "Catholics need to be aware and studied and knowledgeable enough about the faith to recognize a heretical nun or a traitorous priest or bishop when they see one - not so they can vote them out of office, but so they can pray for them, one, and alert as many other Catholics as possible to their treachery, two."
The blog "Bryan Hehir Exposed" is aimed at a top adviser to Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, who is the former head of national Catholic Charities and a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Among the bloggers' claims is that Hehir is a Marxist sympathizer who undermines Catholic teaching on abortion and marriage.
Thomas Peters, who runs the popular "AmericanPapist" blog, said fellow orthodox Catholics have embraced the Web because they feel they finally have a platform that can compete with well-established liberal Catholic publications, such as the National Catholic Reporter. (Some conservative bloggers call the paper "the National Catholic Destroyer.")
. . . The activists also say that since the 1970s, after the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, liberals have filled the bureaucracy of the church, hiding dissent from the bishops they serve.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Media, Liberals Believe Illinois Voters Pro-abortion
Believing it will defeat conservative candidates in Illinois, politicos are "exposing" the conservatives' pro-family/pro-life positions.
-- From "Abortion Rights A Key Issue In Some Illinois Races" The (liberal) Huffington Post 10/22/10
. . . Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady. Far to the right of his opponent Govenor Pat Quinn, Brady is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He has also been deemed the most "anti-woman nominee ever to run for Illinois govenor" by Personal PAC President Terry Cosgrove. Quinn has already released several ads regarding Brady's conservative views, calling him "too extreme for Illinois." This week, Personal PAC "massively expanded its purchase" of television airtime for its ad titled "Jennie's Story." The ad features a rape victim who calls Brady's abortion stance "unthinkable."
In Illinois' 8th Congressional District, incumbent Melissa Bean is facing Republican challenger and Tea Party favorite Joe Walsh. Bean is expected to win the district . . . [and has] released a new ad--calling Walsh "dangerous" for his anti-choice views.
Walsh, who does not have the funding to defend himself in a televised ad, made a video on YouTube, attacking Bean for the content of her ad. He accused Bean of using abortion to "try and scare women," but never denied his staunch anti-choice stance.
Even in the 10th Congressional District--where most residents consider themselves pro-choice--an allegedly pro-choice Republican is being targeted for his links to an anti-choice group.
Democrat Dan Seals' campaign released an ad linking Republican Robert Dold to the Illinois Federation for Right to Life--which opposes abortion in all cases. Though Dold says he does not share that view, the ad calls his campaign tactics "fundamentally dishonest."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Quinn, Brady far apart on social issues" by Rick Pearson, Chicago Tribune reporter 10/15/10
. . . Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and Republican challenger Bill Brady . . . are far apart on social issues such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
Quinn, whose public career has been involved in populist progressive causes, backs abortion rights and supports more gun restrictions, though he stops short of backing same-sex marriage, favoring legalized civil unions instead.
Brady, a 17-year state legislator from Bloomington who has long championed conservative issues, cites his Roman Catholic upbringing in opposing abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. He also proposed a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex civil unions and marriages. In keeping with his central Illinois district, he's an ardent supporter of gun owner rights.
Brady has sought to counter his personal theologically driven views by downplaying any social agenda. Instead, he said the state's fiscal problems are all consuming and that he would largely follow the dictates of the General Assembly on abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
IL Gov. Pushes for Same-sex 'Marriage'
IL GOP Gov. Candidate Supports Marriage Amendment
IL Gov. Candidate OK with 'Teaching Creationism'
-- From "Abortion Rights A Key Issue In Some Illinois Races" The (liberal) Huffington Post 10/22/10
. . . Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady. Far to the right of his opponent Govenor Pat Quinn, Brady is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He has also been deemed the most "anti-woman nominee ever to run for Illinois govenor" by Personal PAC President Terry Cosgrove. Quinn has already released several ads regarding Brady's conservative views, calling him "too extreme for Illinois." This week, Personal PAC "massively expanded its purchase" of television airtime for its ad titled "Jennie's Story." The ad features a rape victim who calls Brady's abortion stance "unthinkable."
In Illinois' 8th Congressional District, incumbent Melissa Bean is facing Republican challenger and Tea Party favorite Joe Walsh. Bean is expected to win the district . . . [and has] released a new ad--calling Walsh "dangerous" for his anti-choice views.
Walsh, who does not have the funding to defend himself in a televised ad, made a video on YouTube, attacking Bean for the content of her ad. He accused Bean of using abortion to "try and scare women," but never denied his staunch anti-choice stance.
Even in the 10th Congressional District--where most residents consider themselves pro-choice--an allegedly pro-choice Republican is being targeted for his links to an anti-choice group.
Democrat Dan Seals' campaign released an ad linking Republican Robert Dold to the Illinois Federation for Right to Life--which opposes abortion in all cases. Though Dold says he does not share that view, the ad calls his campaign tactics "fundamentally dishonest."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Quinn, Brady far apart on social issues" by Rick Pearson, Chicago Tribune reporter 10/15/10
. . . Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and Republican challenger Bill Brady . . . are far apart on social issues such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
Quinn, whose public career has been involved in populist progressive causes, backs abortion rights and supports more gun restrictions, though he stops short of backing same-sex marriage, favoring legalized civil unions instead.
Brady, a 17-year state legislator from Bloomington who has long championed conservative issues, cites his Roman Catholic upbringing in opposing abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. He also proposed a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex civil unions and marriages. In keeping with his central Illinois district, he's an ardent supporter of gun owner rights.
Brady has sought to counter his personal theologically driven views by downplaying any social agenda. Instead, he said the state's fiscal problems are all consuming and that he would largely follow the dictates of the General Assembly on abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
IL Gov. Pushes for Same-sex 'Marriage'
IL GOP Gov. Candidate Supports Marriage Amendment
IL Gov. Candidate OK with 'Teaching Creationism'
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Gay Agenda Counters Freedom of Press
The refusal by [New Hampshire's] largest newspaper to run a wedding announcement from a gay couple has drawn the ire of one of New Hampshire’s Democratic congressmen, among others.
-- From "Largest NH paper won’t print gay marriage notices" by Associated Press 10/23/10
The New Hampshire Union Leader of Manchester says it has a constitutional right to choose what to print. Publisher Joe McQuaid says the paper isn’t "anti-gay," but believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He said the paper is opposed to a recent state law legalizing gay marriage.
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hodes called on the paper to change its policy and respect the state law. He challenged Republican opponent Kelly Ayotte to denounce its decision. An Ayotte spokesman said government officials have no business telling a free press what to do.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Paper taken to task over gay-marriage stance" by Jenna Staul, Keene Sentinel Staff 10/23/10
Hodes said Union Leader Editor Joseph W. McQuaid “should respect the laws of New Hampshire and allow (Tine and Gould) a place in this newspaper along with other couples being married this weekend.
“The Union Leader’s disgraceful policy of exclusion harkens to a different time in this country when people were denied opportunity because of their race, religion and ethnic origin,” Hodes said in the letter.
[McQuaid said,] “This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples. It would be hypocritical of us to do so, given our belief that marriage is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay marriage.”
Gay marriage was legalized in New Hampshire in March 2009.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Largest NH paper won’t print gay marriage notices" by Associated Press 10/23/10
The New Hampshire Union Leader of Manchester says it has a constitutional right to choose what to print. Publisher Joe McQuaid says the paper isn’t "anti-gay," but believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He said the paper is opposed to a recent state law legalizing gay marriage.
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hodes called on the paper to change its policy and respect the state law. He challenged Republican opponent Kelly Ayotte to denounce its decision. An Ayotte spokesman said government officials have no business telling a free press what to do.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Paper taken to task over gay-marriage stance" by Jenna Staul, Keene Sentinel Staff 10/23/10
Hodes said Union Leader Editor Joseph W. McQuaid “should respect the laws of New Hampshire and allow (Tine and Gould) a place in this newspaper along with other couples being married this weekend.
“The Union Leader’s disgraceful policy of exclusion harkens to a different time in this country when people were denied opportunity because of their race, religion and ethnic origin,” Hodes said in the letter.
[McQuaid said,] “This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples. It would be hypocritical of us to do so, given our belief that marriage is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay marriage.”
Gay marriage was legalized in New Hampshire in March 2009.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Father's Abortion Choice Considered Attempted Murder
"He at gunpoint abducted her, at gunpoint got in the car with her, at gunpoint forced her to drive the car to the abortion clinic, at gunpoint threatened her, 'Go in there and carry it out.'"
-- From "Pregnant Girlfriend Forced To Abortion Clinic; 6 Counts For Accused" by Aex Mazer & Donna Willis, NBC4 Columbus, OH 10/19/10
A local man is indicted on six counts after he is accused of kidnapping the mother of his unborn baby [sic] and forcing her to go to an abortion clinic at gunpoint.
Dominic L. Holt-Reid, 28, was indicted on six counts Tuesday, including attempted murder with specification, kidnapping with specification, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, carrying a concealed weapon and having a weapon under disability. That's according to Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien.
Yolanda Burgess, 27, was in her vehicle with Holt-Reid, 28, after dropping off their 5-year-old at school at about 9:45 a.m. Wednesday, according to a Columbus police press release.
Holt-Reid became angry with Burgess because she refused to go through with an abortion that was scheduled for Wednesday morning at The Founders Women's Health Center on East Broad Street, the release said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Questions raised in Ohio gunpoint abortion case" By Andrew Welsh-Huggins, The Associated Press 10/22/10
. . . The question: Can he be charged with attempted murder of her unborn child?
In what may be a precedent-setting case, prosecutors have leveled such a charge against Dominic Holt-Reid under a 1996 Ohio fetal homicide law that says a person can be found guilty of murder for causing the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.
Ohio's law and ones similar to it in dozens of other states have been routinely used to win convictions in auto accidents in which a pregnant woman died, and instances in which a mother-to-be was attacked physically.
But legal experts said they are hard-pressed to find a case similar to Holt-Reid's, and they are split over whether the prosecution is likely to succeed.
At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws increasing penalties for crimes against pregnant women, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The question of whether homicide charges can be brought in connection with the death of a fetus is well-settled across the country.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Pregnant Girlfriend Forced To Abortion Clinic; 6 Counts For Accused" by Aex Mazer & Donna Willis, NBC4 Columbus, OH 10/19/10
A local man is indicted on six counts after he is accused of kidnapping the mother of his unborn baby [sic] and forcing her to go to an abortion clinic at gunpoint.
Dominic L. Holt-Reid, 28, was indicted on six counts Tuesday, including attempted murder with specification, kidnapping with specification, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, carrying a concealed weapon and having a weapon under disability. That's according to Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien.
Yolanda Burgess, 27, was in her vehicle with Holt-Reid, 28, after dropping off their 5-year-old at school at about 9:45 a.m. Wednesday, according to a Columbus police press release.
Holt-Reid became angry with Burgess because she refused to go through with an abortion that was scheduled for Wednesday morning at The Founders Women's Health Center on East Broad Street, the release said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Questions raised in Ohio gunpoint abortion case" By Andrew Welsh-Huggins, The Associated Press 10/22/10
. . . The question: Can he be charged with attempted murder of her unborn child?
In what may be a precedent-setting case, prosecutors have leveled such a charge against Dominic Holt-Reid under a 1996 Ohio fetal homicide law that says a person can be found guilty of murder for causing the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.
Ohio's law and ones similar to it in dozens of other states have been routinely used to win convictions in auto accidents in which a pregnant woman died, and instances in which a mother-to-be was attacked physically.
But legal experts said they are hard-pressed to find a case similar to Holt-Reid's, and they are split over whether the prosecution is likely to succeed.
At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws increasing penalties for crimes against pregnant women, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The question of whether homicide charges can be brought in connection with the death of a fetus is well-settled across the country.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Prayer Ban Increases Prayer at School Football Game
After the atheist Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened a Tennessee high school, and the school acquiesced by banning public prayer at football games, tonight the athletes, students, and fans chose to flood the playing field for corporate prayer.
UPDATE 10/29/10: Atheists threaten Rhea County schools as well (video)
-- From "Tenn. school to cease game prayers" by The Associated Press 10/20/10
The [prayer ban] decision comes after a Madison, Wis.-based group that promotes separation of church and state complained about the practice at Soddy-Daisy High School.
Principal John Maynard told the Chattanooga Times Free Press on Wednesday that he was ordered by Hamilton County Schools Superintendent Jim Scales to end the practice and he will follow Scales' orders.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Group Demands Tennessee School End Prayers Before Football Games" posted at FoxNews.com 10/20/10
Staff attorney Rebecca Markert said the letter to Hamilton County Schools Superintendent Jim Scales was sent last week and objected to Christian prayers uttered over the school's public address system.
The director and co-president of the organization, Annie Laurie Gaylor, told The Tennessean that the Supreme Court found in several cases that prayer before football games is unconstitutional.
"Students are a captive audience, they're required to go to school. When there is a violation like a prayer at a school, they're really vulnerable. It's a violation of their civil rights," she told the paper.
Hamilton County Board of Education member Rhonda Thurman responded to the letter, telling the paper if some people didn't want to hear the prayers, they can "put their fingers in their ears."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Prayer Breaks Out At Soddy Daisy Football Game" posted at Chattanoogan.com 10/22/10
A fan gave this account:
"The stadium announcer made a respectful remark that everyone should be aware of what had taken place in the Hamilton County School system this week and to honor Dr. Jim Scales' wishes they were asking anyone who wished to participate that they could meet on the field with the players of both teams for prayer.
"Both sides of the stadium emptied and joined the teams, bands and cheerleaders for a heart-felt prayer led by a female student from Rhea County High School."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rhea County welcomes Hamilton County student prayer" posted at WRCB TV-3 10/22/10
Most of the Soddy-Daisy students we've been talking to the past couple of days spent Friday in prayerful silence.
They say they are seeking guidance. They have designed pro-prayer t-shirts they'll sell when classes resume Monday.
"People of faith have laid down their lives in the past for their faith. And if it comes to costing possessions or lives, then we need to go by our convictions, not by pressures from the outside," says Jeff Swafford, Rhea County resident.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/29/10: Atheists threaten Rhea County schools as well (video)
-- From "Tenn. school to cease game prayers" by The Associated Press 10/20/10
The [prayer ban] decision comes after a Madison, Wis.-based group that promotes separation of church and state complained about the practice at Soddy-Daisy High School.
Principal John Maynard told the Chattanooga Times Free Press on Wednesday that he was ordered by Hamilton County Schools Superintendent Jim Scales to end the practice and he will follow Scales' orders.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Group Demands Tennessee School End Prayers Before Football Games" posted at FoxNews.com 10/20/10
Staff attorney Rebecca Markert said the letter to Hamilton County Schools Superintendent Jim Scales was sent last week and objected to Christian prayers uttered over the school's public address system.
The director and co-president of the organization, Annie Laurie Gaylor, told The Tennessean that the Supreme Court found in several cases that prayer before football games is unconstitutional.
"Students are a captive audience, they're required to go to school. When there is a violation like a prayer at a school, they're really vulnerable. It's a violation of their civil rights," she told the paper.
Hamilton County Board of Education member Rhonda Thurman responded to the letter, telling the paper if some people didn't want to hear the prayers, they can "put their fingers in their ears."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Prayer Breaks Out At Soddy Daisy Football Game" posted at Chattanoogan.com 10/22/10
A fan gave this account:
"The stadium announcer made a respectful remark that everyone should be aware of what had taken place in the Hamilton County School system this week and to honor Dr. Jim Scales' wishes they were asking anyone who wished to participate that they could meet on the field with the players of both teams for prayer.
"Both sides of the stadium emptied and joined the teams, bands and cheerleaders for a heart-felt prayer led by a female student from Rhea County High School."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rhea County welcomes Hamilton County student prayer" posted at WRCB TV-3 10/22/10
Most of the Soddy-Daisy students we've been talking to the past couple of days spent Friday in prayerful silence.
They say they are seeking guidance. They have designed pro-prayer t-shirts they'll sell when classes resume Monday.
"People of faith have laid down their lives in the past for their faith. And if it comes to costing possessions or lives, then we need to go by our convictions, not by pressures from the outside," says Jeff Swafford, Rhea County resident.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Seeking Christian Roommate Verboten by Michigan
A single, 31-year-old woman in Michigan who posted a note on her church bulletin board seeking a "Christian roommate" to share her residence has been cited by the state for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against those of other faiths.
UPDATE 11/4/10: Government backs down, dismisses complaint
UPDATE 10/25/10 VIDEO:
-- From "Should it be illegal to post ad seeking Christian roommate?" by Meredith Skrzypczak, The Grand Rapids Press 10/22/10
The 31-year-old nursing student was looking to keep her expenses down when she decided to invite someone to share her home.
The advertisement contained the sentence, "I am looking for a Christian roommate," said Joel Oster, senior litigation counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the woman.
Someone saw the ad over the summer and anonymously filed a civil rights complaint with the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. The complaint was then filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the woman was notified at the end of September.
"I think it's a clear violation on its face," said Nancy L. Haynes, executive director of the local Fair Housing Center. "It's an advertisement that clearly violates the Fair Housing Act."
Although the woman might choose a roommate based on religion, say, after interviewing the person over coffee, she cannot publish an ad with that intent, Haynes said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Woman seeks 'Christian roommate,' state cites her for discrimination" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/21/10
"[Tricia] is a single lady looking for a roommate. She is not a landlord. She does not own a management company. She does not run an apartment complex. She is a single person seeking to have a roommate live with her in her house," the [ADF] letter said.
"She is not prohibited by either federal law or state law from seeking a Christian roommate. Neither Title VII of the US Fair Housing Civil Rights Act of 1968 nor the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act No. 453 prevents a woman like [her] from seeking a Christian roommate."
"Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church – an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity," said Oster, a senior legal counsel with the ADF.
"Not content to just lock Christians and their beliefs into the four walls of their church or home, some groups also want to invade those walls and force their own ideas upon them by force of law," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/4/10: Government backs down, dismisses complaint
UPDATE 10/25/10 VIDEO:
-- From "Should it be illegal to post ad seeking Christian roommate?" by Meredith Skrzypczak, The Grand Rapids Press 10/22/10
The 31-year-old nursing student was looking to keep her expenses down when she decided to invite someone to share her home.
The advertisement contained the sentence, "I am looking for a Christian roommate," said Joel Oster, senior litigation counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the woman.
Someone saw the ad over the summer and anonymously filed a civil rights complaint with the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. The complaint was then filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the woman was notified at the end of September.
"I think it's a clear violation on its face," said Nancy L. Haynes, executive director of the local Fair Housing Center. "It's an advertisement that clearly violates the Fair Housing Act."
Although the woman might choose a roommate based on religion, say, after interviewing the person over coffee, she cannot publish an ad with that intent, Haynes said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Woman seeks 'Christian roommate,' state cites her for discrimination" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 10/21/10
"[Tricia] is a single lady looking for a roommate. She is not a landlord. She does not own a management company. She does not run an apartment complex. She is a single person seeking to have a roommate live with her in her house," the [ADF] letter said.
"She is not prohibited by either federal law or state law from seeking a Christian roommate. Neither Title VII of the US Fair Housing Civil Rights Act of 1968 nor the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act No. 453 prevents a woman like [her] from seeking a Christian roommate."
"Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church – an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity," said Oster, a senior legal counsel with the ADF.
"Not content to just lock Christians and their beliefs into the four walls of their church or home, some groups also want to invade those walls and force their own ideas upon them by force of law," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Atheists Force Christian Flag Out, Citizens Respond
Residents of King, North Carolina fight to restore Christian flag to Veteran’s Memorial in Central Park - City council reconsidering its surrender to ACLU et. al.
"Only one King resident has publicly supported the council’s decision [to remove] the flag."
UPDATE 1/20/15: Atheists Defeat King Veterans Memorial — City Gives Up on Lawsuit
UPDATE 11/2/10: City reverses itself; will devise flag-flying plan and hope to avoid ACLU lawsuit
UPDATE 10/24/10 (video) Thousands protest:
-- From "King council may revisit flag decision" by John Hinton, Winston-Salem Journal Reporter 10/21/10
The dispute began Sept. 15 when the council voted 3-1 to take down the flag from the memorial on the advice of City Attorney Walter W. Pitt Jr., who said it violated the First Amendment.
The flag, which has a Latin cross inside a blue rectangle on a white field, flew next to the U.S. flag, the North Carolina state flag, the city’s flag and six others.
In mid-August, the council and Pitt received letters from the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Both groups urged the council to remove the flag.
Officials with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have said that they would consider filing a lawsuit against the city of King if the city council approves letting the flag fly again on city property.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hundreds Expected For Rally In King" by Leslie Bray Evans, The Stokes News, posted at WXII TV-12 10/21/10
King residents are battening down the hatches for the storm of visitors expected to descend upon the city on Saturday. Oct. 23 is the long-awaited day for those who plan to attend “Return America -- Christian Flag March and Rally,” an event to show support for the Christian flag being flown again at the Veterans Memorial at Central Park in King.
Organizers state: “This will be an event that will be remembered far into the future for not only the town of King, but for all people that are concerned for the direction of the country, the threats against our freedoms to display religious images, and the continuing removal of God from our country's historical beginnings.”
Mike Marshall of King has been a visible factor in the fight to put the Christian flag back up at the Memorial. He estimates about 1,500 people will attend the March but says he won’t be surprised if it’s 500 or 15,000.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/27/10 video:
"Only one King resident has publicly supported the council’s decision [to remove] the flag."
UPDATE 1/20/15: Atheists Defeat King Veterans Memorial — City Gives Up on Lawsuit
UPDATE 11/2/10: City reverses itself; will devise flag-flying plan and hope to avoid ACLU lawsuit
UPDATE 10/24/10 (video) Thousands protest:
-- From "King council may revisit flag decision" by John Hinton, Winston-Salem Journal Reporter 10/21/10
The dispute began Sept. 15 when the council voted 3-1 to take down the flag from the memorial on the advice of City Attorney Walter W. Pitt Jr., who said it violated the First Amendment.
The flag, which has a Latin cross inside a blue rectangle on a white field, flew next to the U.S. flag, the North Carolina state flag, the city’s flag and six others.
In mid-August, the council and Pitt received letters from the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Both groups urged the council to remove the flag.
Officials with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have said that they would consider filing a lawsuit against the city of King if the city council approves letting the flag fly again on city property.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hundreds Expected For Rally In King" by Leslie Bray Evans, The Stokes News, posted at WXII TV-12 10/21/10
King residents are battening down the hatches for the storm of visitors expected to descend upon the city on Saturday. Oct. 23 is the long-awaited day for those who plan to attend “Return America -- Christian Flag March and Rally,” an event to show support for the Christian flag being flown again at the Veterans Memorial at Central Park in King.
Organizers state: “This will be an event that will be remembered far into the future for not only the town of King, but for all people that are concerned for the direction of the country, the threats against our freedoms to display religious images, and the continuing removal of God from our country's historical beginnings.”
Mike Marshall of King has been a visible factor in the fight to put the Christian flag back up at the Memorial. He estimates about 1,500 people will attend the March but says he won’t be surprised if it’s 500 or 15,000.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/27/10 video:
Oral Sex no Longer 'Safe'
Doctors say that changing sexual behaviors -- earlier sex, more partners and especially oral sex -- are contributing to a new epidemic of orpharyngeal squamous cell cancers, those of the throat, tonsils and base of the tongue.
For background, read Swedish Study Shows Oral Sex Causes Cancer
UPDATE 6/2/13: Actor Michael Douglas says oral sex caused his cancer
UPDATE 8/16/12: Planned Parenthood's Oral Sex Push Bad: Fed Report
UPDATE 2/20/11: "The rise in oral cancer in the US is predominantly among young white males"
UPDATE 1/29/11: "60 to 70% of all tonsil cancers in the U.S. are HPV-related"
UPDATE 11/4/10: Oral Sex is 'Entry Drug' to Everything-sex
-- From "Oral Sex Linked to Rise in Men's Throat Cancer" by Susan Donaldson James, ABC News 10/20/10
Two decades ago, about 20 percent of all oral cancers were HPV-related, but today that number is more than 50 percent, according to studies published by the American Association for Cancer Research.
Each year, more than 30,000 new cases of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx are diagnosed, and more than 8,000 people die from oral cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
HPV is the most common sexually-transmitted infection. Those who are infected often have no symptoms and pass it on to their partners through genital contact during vaginal and anal sex. It can also be transmitted during oral sex and, more rarely, during deep kissing through saliva.
HPV can also cause cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis and anus, and there is some evidence it is associated with esophageal and lung cancers.
Very little HPV was seen until the 1980s. "It was very rare in our archives," said Cullen. "But each year we looked, it was more prevalent. Why, no one is really sure."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Oral Sex Is the New Goodnight Kiss
Planned Parenthood Says Plan to Get Sexual Disease
"Performing Oral Sex is Not Without Risks"
Swedish Study Shows Oral Sex Causes Cancer
Oral Sex Causes Cancer
Rare Throat Cancer Linked to Oral Sex
For background, read Swedish Study Shows Oral Sex Causes Cancer
UPDATE 6/2/13: Actor Michael Douglas says oral sex caused his cancer
UPDATE 8/16/12: Planned Parenthood's Oral Sex Push Bad: Fed Report
UPDATE 2/20/11: "The rise in oral cancer in the US is predominantly among young white males"
UPDATE 1/29/11: "60 to 70% of all tonsil cancers in the U.S. are HPV-related"
UPDATE 11/4/10: Oral Sex is 'Entry Drug' to Everything-sex
-- From "Oral Sex Linked to Rise in Men's Throat Cancer" by Susan Donaldson James, ABC News 10/20/10
Two decades ago, about 20 percent of all oral cancers were HPV-related, but today that number is more than 50 percent, according to studies published by the American Association for Cancer Research.
Each year, more than 30,000 new cases of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx are diagnosed, and more than 8,000 people die from oral cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
HPV is the most common sexually-transmitted infection. Those who are infected often have no symptoms and pass it on to their partners through genital contact during vaginal and anal sex. It can also be transmitted during oral sex and, more rarely, during deep kissing through saliva.
HPV can also cause cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis and anus, and there is some evidence it is associated with esophageal and lung cancers.
Very little HPV was seen until the 1980s. "It was very rare in our archives," said Cullen. "But each year we looked, it was more prevalent. Why, no one is really sure."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Oral Sex Is the New Goodnight Kiss
Planned Parenthood Says Plan to Get Sexual Disease
"Performing Oral Sex is Not Without Risks"
Swedish Study Shows Oral Sex Causes Cancer
Oral Sex Causes Cancer
Rare Throat Cancer Linked to Oral Sex
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
MN Pastor Takes on IRS, Atheists Pile On
Pastor Brad Brandon of Berean Bible Baptist Church in Hastings [MN] followed through on his recent promise: On Sunday he endorsed a slew of conservative candidates from his pulpit, including Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, in apparent violation of laws governing tax-exempt organizations.
-- From "Hastings pastor endorses Emmer from pulpit" by Andy Birkey, The Minnesota Independent 10/18/10
Brandon’s church is also distributing an endorsement list that includes nine Republican and two Constitution Party candidates in races across the state. He noted that he arrived at his choices based on the candidates posititions on bringing God into the classroom, opposing abortion and homosexuality, and support for Israel.
As the Minnesota Independent first reported, Brandon was one of two Minnesota pastors who planned to endorse candidates from the pulpit in defiance. He announced to his radio listeners last week that he would be endorsing candidates from the pulpit in defiance of IRS tax code. He challenged the “liberal media” to report on it “out of hatred for me.”
At the beginning of Brandon’s hour-and-a-half sermon Sunday he said, “Jesus Christ did not come into this world to convert everyone into being a conservative or a liberal. Jesus Christ did not come into this world to convert people to be a Democrat or a Republican.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Complaint filed with IRS against pastor who endorsed candidates" by Bob Von Sternberg, Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 10/19/10
A nonprofit group that has long advocated church-state separation filed a complaint Monday with the Internal Revenue Service over the Rev. Brad Brandon's endorsement of 11 candidates, most of them Republicans.
The endorsements by Brandon, who heads the Berean Bible Baptist Church amount to a "blatant violation of federal law," according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Although pastors across the country have staged similar protests for years (more than 100 of them this year alone), after investigating the cases, the IRS has dropped them and agency officials have declined to say why they did so.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Hastings pastor endorses Emmer from pulpit" by Andy Birkey, The Minnesota Independent 10/18/10
Brandon’s church is also distributing an endorsement list that includes nine Republican and two Constitution Party candidates in races across the state. He noted that he arrived at his choices based on the candidates posititions on bringing God into the classroom, opposing abortion and homosexuality, and support for Israel.
As the Minnesota Independent first reported, Brandon was one of two Minnesota pastors who planned to endorse candidates from the pulpit in defiance. He announced to his radio listeners last week that he would be endorsing candidates from the pulpit in defiance of IRS tax code. He challenged the “liberal media” to report on it “out of hatred for me.”
At the beginning of Brandon’s hour-and-a-half sermon Sunday he said, “Jesus Christ did not come into this world to convert everyone into being a conservative or a liberal. Jesus Christ did not come into this world to convert people to be a Democrat or a Republican.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Complaint filed with IRS against pastor who endorsed candidates" by Bob Von Sternberg, Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 10/19/10
A nonprofit group that has long advocated church-state separation filed a complaint Monday with the Internal Revenue Service over the Rev. Brad Brandon's endorsement of 11 candidates, most of them Republicans.
The endorsements by Brandon, who heads the Berean Bible Baptist Church amount to a "blatant violation of federal law," according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Although pastors across the country have staged similar protests for years (more than 100 of them this year alone), after investigating the cases, the IRS has dropped them and agency officials have declined to say why they did so.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Obama 'Blinks' on Homosexuals in Military
President Obama has refused to step aside and allow a federal judge to negate the 1993 law (signed by President Clinton) banning homosexuals from military service, despite his State of the Union pledge to the Gay Agenda. The president says he wants Congress to change the law, thus relieving him of a legacy of weakening the world's strongest force for good.
Homosexualists are furious with Obama, because the coming (more conservative) Congress will certainly NOT change the law.
-- From "Federal judge denies DoJ request for stay on injunction of 'Don't ask'" by Roxana Tiron, The Hill 10/20/10
A federal judge on Tuesday refused to suspend the order to halt the ban on openly gay people serving in the military.
The Obama administration is now expected to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an administrative stay on the injunction of the law, commonly known as "Don't ask, don't tell."
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips last week barred the enforcement of the "Don't ask, don't tell" law. Phillips ordered the Department of Defense to halt investigations and discharges of military members stemming from the Clinton-era law. The case that won the nationwide injunction is Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. The federal judge last month issued a final ruling that "Don't ask, don't tell" was unconstitutional.
The Obama administration's decision to challenge the federal judge's decision is rankling gay-rights activists who for months have been pressing for the law’s repeal. President Obama first promised to scrap the ban during his presidential campaign.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Is Obama’s Excuse for Not Repealing ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Legitimate?" by Ben Adler, Newsweek Magazine 10/19/10
President Obama claims he must defend and enforce the ban on gays serving in the military, even though he opposes it. But most experts in constitutional and military law say he has other options.
Since he was elected, President Obama has been dragging his feet on his campaign promise to let gays serve openly in the military—and gay-rights activists have been fuming. . . .
Obama has now repeatedly angered the gay-rights advocates: first by refusing to undo DADT himself, then by vociferously defending the law in court, and now by appealing the ruling and asking for it to be stayed. “Obama has made choices identical to those that would have been made by the Bush administration,” says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University.
But is it true that Obama has to wait for Congress to act? . . .
There are two different arguments for why Obama could choose not to enforce the law. The first one: he could say it was unconstitutional. . . .
Obama’s other option: simply using his executive power to decide how the laws will be, or won’t be, executed. So Obama could simply order the military to stop applying the law, or to use it much more narrowly and infrequently. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Homosexualists are furious with Obama, because the coming (more conservative) Congress will certainly NOT change the law.
-- From "Federal judge denies DoJ request for stay on injunction of 'Don't ask'" by Roxana Tiron, The Hill 10/20/10
A federal judge on Tuesday refused to suspend the order to halt the ban on openly gay people serving in the military.
The Obama administration is now expected to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an administrative stay on the injunction of the law, commonly known as "Don't ask, don't tell."
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips last week barred the enforcement of the "Don't ask, don't tell" law. Phillips ordered the Department of Defense to halt investigations and discharges of military members stemming from the Clinton-era law. The case that won the nationwide injunction is Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. The federal judge last month issued a final ruling that "Don't ask, don't tell" was unconstitutional.
The Obama administration's decision to challenge the federal judge's decision is rankling gay-rights activists who for months have been pressing for the law’s repeal. President Obama first promised to scrap the ban during his presidential campaign.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Is Obama’s Excuse for Not Repealing ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Legitimate?" by Ben Adler, Newsweek Magazine 10/19/10
President Obama claims he must defend and enforce the ban on gays serving in the military, even though he opposes it. But most experts in constitutional and military law say he has other options.
Since he was elected, President Obama has been dragging his feet on his campaign promise to let gays serve openly in the military—and gay-rights activists have been fuming. . . .
Obama has now repeatedly angered the gay-rights advocates: first by refusing to undo DADT himself, then by vociferously defending the law in court, and now by appealing the ruling and asking for it to be stayed. “Obama has made choices identical to those that would have been made by the Bush administration,” says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University.
But is it true that Obama has to wait for Congress to act? . . .
There are two different arguments for why Obama could choose not to enforce the law. The first one: he could say it was unconstitutional. . . .
Obama’s other option: simply using his executive power to decide how the laws will be, or won’t be, executed. So Obama could simply order the military to stop applying the law, or to use it much more narrowly and infrequently. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Mainstream Media Ignorant of First Amendment to Constitution
Fifty years of faulty public education has been exposed by "tea party" candidate Christine O'Donnell running for U.S. Senate in Delaware, as she seemed to be the only person in the debate hall who knew the REAL First Amendment language.
UPDATE 10/21/10 (video): ABC News reports what other media has not on First Amendment debate (begins at time mark 2:10)
-- From "Coons, O’Donnell Debate the Constitution" by Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal 10/19/10
Ms. O’Donnell attacked her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, for insisting that public schools teach evolution but not “intelligent design,” which posits that life forms are too complex to have evolved through natural processes and must have been created by a conscious being such as God. Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, said that public schools could not teach intelligent design or similar theories, like creationism and creation science, because they were “religious doctrine” rather than science.
“That is a blatant violation of our Constitution,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.”
When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”
The audience exploded in laughter.
The moderator moved on, but Ms. O’Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, “So you’re telling me the phrase, ‘the separation of church and state,’ is found in the Constitution.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Mr. Coons claimed the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as his source. It reads:
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
[After the] election of Jefferson . . . a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling . . . Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion" . . .
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression.
. . . in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, [Jefferson] assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/21/10 (video): ABC News reports what other media has not on First Amendment debate (begins at time mark 2:10)
-- From "Coons, O’Donnell Debate the Constitution" by Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal 10/19/10
Ms. O’Donnell attacked her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, for insisting that public schools teach evolution but not “intelligent design,” which posits that life forms are too complex to have evolved through natural processes and must have been created by a conscious being such as God. Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, said that public schools could not teach intelligent design or similar theories, like creationism and creation science, because they were “religious doctrine” rather than science.
“That is a blatant violation of our Constitution,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.”
When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”
The audience exploded in laughter.
The moderator moved on, but Ms. O’Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, “So you’re telling me the phrase, ‘the separation of church and state,’ is found in the Constitution.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Mr. Coons claimed the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as his source. It reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.From "The Separation of Church and State" by David Barton, WallBuilders, January 2001
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
[After the] election of Jefferson . . . a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling . . . Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion" . . .
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression.
. . . in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, [Jefferson] assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
