About a dozen members of Congress have written President Obama, strongly suggesting the administration lose Kevin Jennings, a homosexual activist who was appointed to supervise the Education Department's Office of Safe Schools.
-- From "Congress to president: Lose 'safe school' chief" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/10/09
In a letter signed by U.S. Reps. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Steve King of Iowa, Duncan Hunter of California, Darrell Issa of California, Paul Broun of Georgia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and others, the authors point out Jennings "has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools."
"We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your administration," the members wrote. "It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity."
"Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students," the letter said.
"There is more to safe and drug free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda."
The members of Congress also pointed out that troubling was Jennings' "self-described history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child." They cited his reference in his book, "One Teacher in Ten," about a 15-year-old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Jennings response was to ask whether a condom had been used.
"As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes," the members of Congress said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Feminization of Education is Destroying America
A sea change has occurred in the education of American women: young girls often academically out-perform boys, are more likely to succeed in college and have flooded once all-male professional schools, notably law and business.
-- From "The Feminization of American Education – Destroying Western Civilization?" by Robert Weissberg, Family Security Matters 10/2/09
For example, U.S. Census Bureau figures show that while the male and female population is about equal, males comprise some 58 percent of all high school drop-outs. Similarly, the number of females entering college between 1967 and 2000 increased by 20 percent, while the proportion of men declined by 4 percent. The American Council on Education’s statistics revealed that in 2005 women earned 57 percent of all BAs. Among African-Americans in college, females outnumber males by a 2 to 1 ratio, the highest ratio for any racial or ethnic group. In fact, at historically black colleges female graduates out-number males by 10 to 1!
Less visible is how this influx of women has shaped what might be called the “style” of knowledge creation and dissemination, and here the news may be less welcome. To be blunt, burgeoning feminization typically emasculates males and their resulting flight from education is a huge though almost invisible national loss. This is an awkward to discuss phenomenon and statistical evidence sketchy, so explication must be largely anecdotal. Still, the appalling potential consequences of feminization warrant discussion.
To read this extensive analysis in full, CLICK HERE.
-- From "The Feminization of American Education – Destroying Western Civilization?" by Robert Weissberg, Family Security Matters 10/2/09
For example, U.S. Census Bureau figures show that while the male and female population is about equal, males comprise some 58 percent of all high school drop-outs. Similarly, the number of females entering college between 1967 and 2000 increased by 20 percent, while the proportion of men declined by 4 percent. The American Council on Education’s statistics revealed that in 2005 women earned 57 percent of all BAs. Among African-Americans in college, females outnumber males by a 2 to 1 ratio, the highest ratio for any racial or ethnic group. In fact, at historically black colleges female graduates out-number males by 10 to 1!
Less visible is how this influx of women has shaped what might be called the “style” of knowledge creation and dissemination, and here the news may be less welcome. To be blunt, burgeoning feminization typically emasculates males and their resulting flight from education is a huge though almost invisible national loss. This is an awkward to discuss phenomenon and statistical evidence sketchy, so explication must be largely anecdotal. Still, the appalling potential consequences of feminization warrant discussion.
To read this extensive analysis in full, CLICK HERE.
Catholic Bishops Oppose ObamaCare Legislation
One day after the White House contradicted an assertion by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that all current versions of the health-care bill permit funding of abortion, the Catholic bishops declared they would “vigorously” oppose the bill if it was not changed to include language to prohibit abortion funding.
UPDATE 10/12/09: White House says Catholics don't know the law; Catholics point to Obama's pro-abortion promises
-- From "Current health bill unacceptable, Catholic bishops say" CNN 10/8/09
"No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion," the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a letter Thursday to members of Congress.
The letter (.PDF) follows a recent Senate Finance Committee vote that defeated Republican amendments that Democrats said would broaden current restrictions of federal funding for abortion.
The amendments were introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. They sought to explicitly state that the current ban on federal funding for abortions would apply to all aspects of health insurance in the bill and prohibit the government at any level from forcing hospitals, doctors and other health care providers to perform abortions.
The letter is signed by Bishop William F. Murphy, diocese of Rockville Centre, New York; Cardinal Justin Rigali, archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Bishop John Wester, diocese of Salt Lake City, Utah.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Catholic Bishops Declare They Will ‘Vigorously’ Oppose Health Care Bill as It Now Stands" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com Staff Writer 10/8/09
. . . the USCCB sent another letter on Thursday, Oct. 8 (.PDF) , to all 535 members of Congress. In this letter the bishops said that if the bill did not include language “ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion,” they would “have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”
“If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill,” the bishops said.
One of these principles, they wrote, is: “Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.”
To read all of this lengthy article of the chronology of White House statements regarding abortion and ObamaCare, CLICK HERE.
For previous reporting on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/12/09: White House says Catholics don't know the law; Catholics point to Obama's pro-abortion promises
-- From "Current health bill unacceptable, Catholic bishops say" CNN 10/8/09
"No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion," the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a letter Thursday to members of Congress.
The letter (.PDF) follows a recent Senate Finance Committee vote that defeated Republican amendments that Democrats said would broaden current restrictions of federal funding for abortion.
The amendments were introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. They sought to explicitly state that the current ban on federal funding for abortions would apply to all aspects of health insurance in the bill and prohibit the government at any level from forcing hospitals, doctors and other health care providers to perform abortions.
The letter is signed by Bishop William F. Murphy, diocese of Rockville Centre, New York; Cardinal Justin Rigali, archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Bishop John Wester, diocese of Salt Lake City, Utah.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Catholic Bishops Declare They Will ‘Vigorously’ Oppose Health Care Bill as It Now Stands" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com Staff Writer 10/8/09
. . . the USCCB sent another letter on Thursday, Oct. 8 (.PDF) , to all 535 members of Congress. In this letter the bishops said that if the bill did not include language “ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion,” they would “have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”
“If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill,” the bishops said.
One of these principles, they wrote, is: “Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.”
To read all of this lengthy article of the chronology of White House statements regarding abortion and ObamaCare, CLICK HERE.
For previous reporting on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Obama Spokesman Lies on Abortion in Health Care Bill
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs misled reporters today during his afternoon press briefing with a false claim that the Hyde amendment would prohibit taxpayer-funding of abortions in the Congressional health care bills.
UPDATE 10/8/09: More documentation of the lie
-- From "Obama Spokesman Falsely Claims Hyde Amendment Stops Abortion in Health Care" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 10/7/09
CNS News reporter Fred Lucas asked Gibbs, the top spokesman for President Barack Obama, about a letter the Catholic bishops recently sent Congress pointing out that each of the current health care bills includes abortion subsidies.
"In a letter to senators last week the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, I'm quoting, 'So far the health-reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the president's challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion,'" Lucas said. "Is that statement wrong?"
Gibbs replied, "Well, I don't want to get me into trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion. That isn't going to be changed in these health care bills."
"There have been several amendments that would explicitly bar [federal funding for] abortions that were rejected," Lucas responded.
Gibbs replied, "Again, there's a fairly well-documented federal law that prevents it."
However, the fairly well-documented federal law is the Hyde amendment and it only applies to the Medicaid program that provides health care funds for poor Americans.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/8/09: More documentation of the lie
-- From "Obama Spokesman Falsely Claims Hyde Amendment Stops Abortion in Health Care" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 10/7/09
CNS News reporter Fred Lucas asked Gibbs, the top spokesman for President Barack Obama, about a letter the Catholic bishops recently sent Congress pointing out that each of the current health care bills includes abortion subsidies.
"In a letter to senators last week the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, I'm quoting, 'So far the health-reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the president's challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion,'" Lucas said. "Is that statement wrong?"
Gibbs replied, "Well, I don't want to get me into trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion. That isn't going to be changed in these health care bills."
"There have been several amendments that would explicitly bar [federal funding for] abortions that were rejected," Lucas responded.
Gibbs replied, "Again, there's a fairly well-documented federal law that prevents it."
However, the fairly well-documented federal law is the Hyde amendment and it only applies to the Medicaid program that provides health care funds for poor Americans.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
School Superintendent's Gay Agenda Exposed in Lawsuit
Public documents now show the viciousness of a school district scorned in the case of a Chicago suburban mother suing her high school district's vengeful, openly homosexual, Superintendent
UPDATE 5/13/10: Superintendent embroiled again -- Girls Basketball
-- From "Lawsuit against District 113 rekindles debate on sexual tolerance" by Matt Kiefer, Deerfield Review, Sun-Times News Group 10/6/09
In recent weeks, new court filings have brought to light a bitter and long-standing struggle between educators preaching sexual tolerance and conservative activists who deem homosexuality immoral.
Lora Sue Hauser, a vocal critic of the district and its teaching of such works as last year's "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," filed a lawsuit in Cook County Court last month claiming Superintendent George Fornero and DHS technology director Andy Zakszeski spread rumors and false statements about her via e-mail.
The lawsuit includes e-mail exhibits where Fornero allegedly states Hauser's Deerfield home was foreclosed upon, that a picture of Adolf Hitler was later found inside the house, and that she belongs to a hate group. Zakszeski, according to the complaint, wrote a double-entendre involving Hauser and erotic acts.
Between November 2008 and January 2009, e-mail records show Fornero forwarding the message 10 times to 16 different people -- mostly teachers, administrators and School Board members -- with comments such as "FYI," "Enjoy!" and "Check out this e-mail!"
Hauser claims her home was never foreclosed upon, that she did not own a picture of Hitler and is "of Jewish descent."
In reply to another e-mail, Fornero allegedly writes, "While I'd be sympathetic to most anyone having financial difficulties & hate to see him lose his house, this case is different. Perhaps had they spent more time working & paying the mortgage instead of attacking us, they'd still own their home. Also, don't forget they had a picture of Hitler in the basement closet!"
In another e-mail exhibit, dated May 2008, Fornero speculates on School Board politics, writing to an unidentified recipient: "Things have quieted down for now. However, we need to be alert this fall when it's time to slate Board of Education candidates. That would be terrible if one of Lora Sue's group is nominated. I'll keep you posted."
In an April 2009 e-mail exhibit, Fornero writes to an unidentified recipient who is planning to attend a diversity conference: "Be sure to sit in the hate group section. Maybe loira sue [sic] can bring her pic of hitler."
Attorney Nancy Krent, who is representing the employees, said she is confident she can put up a successful defense.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/13/10: Superintendent embroiled again -- Girls Basketball
-- From "Lawsuit against District 113 rekindles debate on sexual tolerance" by Matt Kiefer, Deerfield Review, Sun-Times News Group 10/6/09
In recent weeks, new court filings have brought to light a bitter and long-standing struggle between educators preaching sexual tolerance and conservative activists who deem homosexuality immoral.
Lora Sue Hauser, a vocal critic of the district and its teaching of such works as last year's "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," filed a lawsuit in Cook County Court last month claiming Superintendent George Fornero and DHS technology director Andy Zakszeski spread rumors and false statements about her via e-mail.
The lawsuit includes e-mail exhibits where Fornero allegedly states Hauser's Deerfield home was foreclosed upon, that a picture of Adolf Hitler was later found inside the house, and that she belongs to a hate group. Zakszeski, according to the complaint, wrote a double-entendre involving Hauser and erotic acts.
Between November 2008 and January 2009, e-mail records show Fornero forwarding the message 10 times to 16 different people -- mostly teachers, administrators and School Board members -- with comments such as "FYI," "Enjoy!" and "Check out this e-mail!"
Hauser claims her home was never foreclosed upon, that she did not own a picture of Hitler and is "of Jewish descent."
In reply to another e-mail, Fornero allegedly writes, "While I'd be sympathetic to most anyone having financial difficulties & hate to see him lose his house, this case is different. Perhaps had they spent more time working & paying the mortgage instead of attacking us, they'd still own their home. Also, don't forget they had a picture of Hitler in the basement closet!"
In another e-mail exhibit, dated May 2008, Fornero speculates on School Board politics, writing to an unidentified recipient: "Things have quieted down for now. However, we need to be alert this fall when it's time to slate Board of Education candidates. That would be terrible if one of Lora Sue's group is nominated. I'll keep you posted."
In an April 2009 e-mail exhibit, Fornero writes to an unidentified recipient who is planning to attend a diversity conference: "Be sure to sit in the hate group section. Maybe loira sue [sic] can bring her pic of hitler."
Attorney Nancy Krent, who is representing the employees, said she is confident she can put up a successful defense.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
School Admits Discrimination Against Christians
Lindenhurst School District on Long Island, Central Islip, New York settles lawsuit over civil rights violation of student
-- From "N.Y. School District Agrees to Pay Student $1 for Refusing to Allow Bible Club" FOX News.com 10/6/09
[The] school district will pay a student a paltry $1 in damages after he accused officials of prohibiting him from forming a Bible club.
The district already shelled out $2,500 to the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the student.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "N.Y. School District Agrees to Pay Student $1 for Refusing to Allow Bible Club" FOX News.com 10/6/09
[The] school district will pay a student a paltry $1 in damages after he accused officials of prohibiting him from forming a Bible club.
The district already shelled out $2,500 to the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the student.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Obama Nominee: Homosexual Sex Morally Good & Wonderful
"Gay" sex is morally good and is as "wonderful" as heterosexual relations, according to Chai Feldblum, President Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
UPDATE 12/29/10: Lame-duck Senate confirms Chai Feldblum to EEOC by unanimous consent
UPDATE 3/31/10: Obama places Chai Feldblum as EEOC commissioner via recess appointment
Refer to Washington Post Sep 15th article first announcing this Obama lesbian selection
-- From "'Gay' sex morally good, says Obama pick" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/5/09
Feldblum is an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown law professor. She offered her sex remarks at a UCLA symposium on homosexuality available on YouTube.
Feldblum is not shy about her ideas for "revolutionizing" America's workplace and the country's social mores.
She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she described at the UCLA symposium as a homosexual rights group that aimed to change "the American workplace and revolutionize social mores."
"This is a war that needs to be fought, and it's not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them. It is a war right here at home where we need to convince people that morality demands full equality for gay people," she said at the symposium.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Feldblum: What about 'nonsexual domestic partners'?" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/5/09
Chai Feldblum, Obama's nominee, explained: "There are numerous intimate social arrangements that exist today among individuals for purposes of support and connection which include no sex at all. I call these individuals 'nonsexual domestic partners' (NSDPs)."
"The same moral duty that requires the state to support marriage relationships and non-marital sexual relationships should be extended to support NSDPs," Feldblum wrote.
In her paper ["Gay is good: The moral case for marriage equality and more"], Feldblum expounded on her definition of "nonsexual domestic partners":
"A NSDP can be a daughter caring for a mother, two sisters living together, or four older women retiring together. What these relationships share is intimacy, but it is not the type of intimacy arrived at or maintained through sex."
She used herself as an example, revealing, "I am in a NSDP with three other women."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/29/10: Lame-duck Senate confirms Chai Feldblum to EEOC by unanimous consent
UPDATE 3/31/10: Obama places Chai Feldblum as EEOC commissioner via recess appointment
Refer to Washington Post Sep 15th article first announcing this Obama lesbian selection
-- From "'Gay' sex morally good, says Obama pick" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/5/09
Feldblum is an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown law professor. She offered her sex remarks at a UCLA symposium on homosexuality available on YouTube.
Feldblum is not shy about her ideas for "revolutionizing" America's workplace and the country's social mores.
She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she described at the UCLA symposium as a homosexual rights group that aimed to change "the American workplace and revolutionize social mores."
"This is a war that needs to be fought, and it's not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them. It is a war right here at home where we need to convince people that morality demands full equality for gay people," she said at the symposium.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Feldblum: What about 'nonsexual domestic partners'?" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/5/09
Chai Feldblum, Obama's nominee, explained: "There are numerous intimate social arrangements that exist today among individuals for purposes of support and connection which include no sex at all. I call these individuals 'nonsexual domestic partners' (NSDPs)."
"The same moral duty that requires the state to support marriage relationships and non-marital sexual relationships should be extended to support NSDPs," Feldblum wrote.
In her paper ["Gay is good: The moral case for marriage equality and more"], Feldblum expounded on her definition of "nonsexual domestic partners":
"A NSDP can be a daughter caring for a mother, two sisters living together, or four older women retiring together. What these relationships share is intimacy, but it is not the type of intimacy arrived at or maintained through sex."
She used herself as an example, revealing, "I am in a NSDP with three other women."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Fed Judge Permits 'Under God' in Schools
Federal New Hampshire court tosses lawsuit against school districts alleging improperly coerced children reciting Pledge of Allegiance
-- From "Federal judge keeps ’under God’ in Hanover pledge" by Associated Press 10/3/09
On Friday U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe dismissed claims filed in 2007 by district parents and The Freedom From Religion Foundation against the Hanover School District and the Dresden School District, located in New Hampshire and Vermont.
The groups claimed their children’s constitutional rights were violated by exposing them daily to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge tosses challenge to 'under God'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/2/09
"The court reached the only decision that it could – the lawsuit was dismissed and the court concluded that the New Hampshire statute giving students an opportunity to voluntarily recite the Pledge in school is constitutional and consistent with the First Amendment. We're pleased the court’s decision underscores the arguments made in our amicus brief: the Pledge is a time-honored exercise that embraces patriotism, not religion," [said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ]
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe applied several different Establishment Clause tests and held that the school districts had not violated federal standards.
The case was launched in 2007 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, represented by California lawyer Michael Newdow, who has brought a multitude of lawsuits over the Pledge of Allegiance over the years.
. . . the court decision said the "New Hampshire Pledge statute has a secular legislative purpose. It was enacted to enhance instruction in the nation's history, and foster a sense of patriotism. Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. It does not foster excessive government involvement with religion."
"The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, or coercing one to support or participate in religion, a religious exercise, or prayer. It does not mandate that government refrain from all civic, cultural, and historic references to a God. The line is often difficult to draw, of course, and in some senses the drawn line yet has some mobility," the court said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Federal judge keeps ’under God’ in Hanover pledge" by Associated Press 10/3/09
On Friday U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe dismissed claims filed in 2007 by district parents and The Freedom From Religion Foundation against the Hanover School District and the Dresden School District, located in New Hampshire and Vermont.
The groups claimed their children’s constitutional rights were violated by exposing them daily to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge tosses challenge to 'under God'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/2/09
"The court reached the only decision that it could – the lawsuit was dismissed and the court concluded that the New Hampshire statute giving students an opportunity to voluntarily recite the Pledge in school is constitutional and consistent with the First Amendment. We're pleased the court’s decision underscores the arguments made in our amicus brief: the Pledge is a time-honored exercise that embraces patriotism, not religion," [said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ]
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe applied several different Establishment Clause tests and held that the school districts had not violated federal standards.
The case was launched in 2007 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, represented by California lawyer Michael Newdow, who has brought a multitude of lawsuits over the Pledge of Allegiance over the years.
. . . the court decision said the "New Hampshire Pledge statute has a secular legislative purpose. It was enacted to enhance instruction in the nation's history, and foster a sense of patriotism. Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. It does not foster excessive government involvement with religion."
"The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, or coercing one to support or participate in religion, a religious exercise, or prayer. It does not mandate that government refrain from all civic, cultural, and historic references to a God. The line is often difficult to draw, of course, and in some senses the drawn line yet has some mobility," the court said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Obama to Appease Homosexualists this Weekend, Again
As his public support erodes, and in the face of repeated complaints by homosexualists that Obama isn't advancing the Gay Agenda fast enough, the President will, again, assure the homosexualists that they can pull his strings. Recently, the White House and leading Democrats have said that "gays in the military" is on hold, yet Obama has placed a homosexual along side school children, as well as lesbians, and hate crimes legislation is on its way to his desk. In addition, Congress is advancing the Gay Agenda, including repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which the White House has denounced as discriminatory.
UPDATE 10/8/09: Obama's unprecedented address to homosexualists isn't enough for gay activists
-- From "Obama to Address Gay Rights Organization" by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times 10/5/09
President Obama will speak to a gathering of gay rights activists this weekend, a day before thousands of people are expected to march on Washington [for the National Equality March] in a demonstration calling for greater legal protections for gays, lesbians and transgendered Americans.
Mr. Obama’s appearance on Saturday at the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, represents a significant show of support for gay rights at a time when many prominent gay and lesbian activists have been questioning the president’s commitment to their issues.
Many gay rights activists have become increasingly vocal about their frustration over what they see as tepid support from Mr. Obama. While the president has professed support for overturning the ban on gays in the military and called the law that precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages discriminatory, he has not engaged on gay rights issues as actively as some had hoped.
His appearance will mark only the second time a sitting president has spoken to the Human Rights Campaign. The first time was in 1997 when Bill Clinton spoke to the group. That was the first time a sitting president had ever addressed a gay rights organization.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/8/09: Obama's unprecedented address to homosexualists isn't enough for gay activists
-- From "Obama to Address Gay Rights Organization" by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times 10/5/09
President Obama will speak to a gathering of gay rights activists this weekend, a day before thousands of people are expected to march on Washington [for the National Equality March] in a demonstration calling for greater legal protections for gays, lesbians and transgendered Americans.
Mr. Obama’s appearance on Saturday at the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, represents a significant show of support for gay rights at a time when many prominent gay and lesbian activists have been questioning the president’s commitment to their issues.
Many gay rights activists have become increasingly vocal about their frustration over what they see as tepid support from Mr. Obama. While the president has professed support for overturning the ban on gays in the military and called the law that precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages discriminatory, he has not engaged on gay rights issues as actively as some had hoped.
His appearance will mark only the second time a sitting president has spoken to the Human Rights Campaign. The first time was in 1997 when Bill Clinton spoke to the group. That was the first time a sitting president had ever addressed a gay rights organization.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam
A Christian organization in Maine has filed a lawsuit to challenge a bureaucratic decision to impose a $4,000 fine for its "criticism" of Islam, expressed in a mailing to supporters.
-- From "Maine fines group for criticizing Islam" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/1/09
The issue developed following a Christian Action Network [CAN] fundraising letter several months ago. The letter exposed "how some public schools were promoting Islalm by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran," according to the complaint against the state.
"The [CAN] letter pointed out that some schools have provided a 'prayer room' for Muslims and one textbook that told seventh grade students they 'will become Muslim.' The letter listed Gov. John Baldacci as a person who is over the public schools and someone to whom the recipients of the letter should voice their opinion," the complaint said.
State officials then alleged the letter contained "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message" and used the governor's name without his permission and canceled the group's registration, imposed a $4,000 fine and said it no longer could send out letters.
Christian Action Network officials said the letter was dispatched to expose Islamic advocacy in public schools and ask citizens to sign a petition to their governor opposing the programs.
The accusations then came from the state Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. "The correspondence contained an inflammatory anti-Muslim message," state officials proclaimed.
"The state of Maine believes our letter is offensive to Muslims and they want us to shut up or pay up. They are accusing us of 'hate speech' without directly calling it 'hate speech.' They want to set a legal precedent which other states can follow for suppressing free speech they find offensive," [Martin Mawyer, CAN president] said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Maine fines group for criticizing Islam" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/1/09
The issue developed following a Christian Action Network [CAN] fundraising letter several months ago. The letter exposed "how some public schools were promoting Islalm by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran," according to the complaint against the state.
"The [CAN] letter pointed out that some schools have provided a 'prayer room' for Muslims and one textbook that told seventh grade students they 'will become Muslim.' The letter listed Gov. John Baldacci as a person who is over the public schools and someone to whom the recipients of the letter should voice their opinion," the complaint said.
State officials then alleged the letter contained "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message" and used the governor's name without his permission and canceled the group's registration, imposed a $4,000 fine and said it no longer could send out letters.
Christian Action Network officials said the letter was dispatched to expose Islamic advocacy in public schools and ask citizens to sign a petition to their governor opposing the programs.
The accusations then came from the state Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. "The correspondence contained an inflammatory anti-Muslim message," state officials proclaimed.
"The state of Maine believes our letter is offensive to Muslims and they want us to shut up or pay up. They are accusing us of 'hate speech' without directly calling it 'hate speech.' They want to set a legal precedent which other states can follow for suppressing free speech they find offensive," [Martin Mawyer, CAN president] said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Supreme Court Justices Hear Plea for the Unborn
Roman Catholic cardinal issues plea for rights of unborn at mass this Sunday morning as VP Biden and six Supreme Court members listen
-- From "6 members of Supreme Court attend Catholic Mass" Associated Press 10/4/09
Five of the six Roman Catholics on the high court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito — heard the homily by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo; the sixth, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not attend. Justice Stephen Breyer, who is Jewish, was there as well.
Speaking at the annual Red Mass the day before the opening of the Supreme Court term, DiNardo said that people represented by lawyers are "more than clients. ... In some cases the clients are voiceless for they lack influence; in others they are literally voiceless, not yet with tongues and even without names, and require our most careful attention and radical support."
As DiNardo spoke, protesters opposed to abortion demonstrated in front of the church.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "6 members of Supreme Court attend Catholic Mass" Associated Press 10/4/09
Five of the six Roman Catholics on the high court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito — heard the homily by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo; the sixth, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not attend. Justice Stephen Breyer, who is Jewish, was there as well.
Speaking at the annual Red Mass the day before the opening of the Supreme Court term, DiNardo said that people represented by lawyers are "more than clients. ... In some cases the clients are voiceless for they lack influence; in others they are literally voiceless, not yet with tongues and even without names, and require our most careful attention and radical support."
As DiNardo spoke, protesters opposed to abortion demonstrated in front of the church.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Dem Stands Against Obama & Pelosi on Abortion
Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak, who leads Democrats opposing any healthcare reform bill that doesn't restrict taxpayer funding of abortion, "not very confident" he'll vote with Dem leaders
UPDATE 10/23/09: Dem says he has ‘about 40 likeminded Democrats’ to kill ObamaCare if it funds abortion
UPDATE 10/12/09: House Dem will oppose health care bill if Pelosi doesn't allow pro-life amendment
-- From "Bart Stupak, Leader of Antiabortion Democrats: 'Not Very Confident' on Healthcare" by Dan Gilgoff, God & Country, U.S. News & World Report 10/2/09
[Excerpts of Rep. Stupak's responses to the reporter concerning his discussions with President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi:]
[Obama] urged me to try to work it out . . . basically said we don't need this fight, we're trying to do healthcare and just try to work it out if we can.
I brought up the fact [with the President] that when he spoke to the nation on September 9 he said, "Let me verify one more rumor, that there will be no public funding for abortion." And so I asked him to clarify that because it's sort of the opposite of H.R. 3200 [the House healthcare bill]. And he indicated to me that yes, he understands that and when he talked about that line [in his speech] he said "my plan." But the president has not put forth a plan, so it wasn't really clear.
And so my question was, was he just reading H.R. 3200 and was he not briefed on the Capps Amendment [on abortion coverage] , and he said, "No, no, I know the Capps Amendment."
The president did not get into the argument whether the Capps Amendment covers abortions or not. He never went there. He just said, "We have enough other arguments going on with the bill, let's work this one out."
Unfortunately, I don't see a clear resolution right now. Maybe some language can be drafted that I haven't seen yet that will accommodate everybody. But I'm going to go back to what the president said: no public funding for abortions. And that's the Hyde Amendment [the longstanding ban on federally funded abortions]. So let's have the Hyde Amendment. I'm prepared to go to the Rules Committee and offer the Hyde Amendment. I'm not too sure I'll get very far because no right-to-life amendments have been made to order all year.
The Capps Amendment says at least one plan [participating in a federal health insurance exchange] must provide abortion coverage and must have one that doesn't have it. For the first time ever, federal policy is saying that abortion is a covered service. That's completely opposite of Hyde. Second, if I'm in the public plan, I have to give one dollar per month [to abortion coverage]. I'm a man, and I can't get an abortion, but I have to pay for it. Those are two major differences from Hyde.
They have denied us every right-to-life amendment. There's just a lack of trust there. We don't believe it. How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't get fooled twice.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/23/09: Dem says he has ‘about 40 likeminded Democrats’ to kill ObamaCare if it funds abortion
UPDATE 10/12/09: House Dem will oppose health care bill if Pelosi doesn't allow pro-life amendment
-- From "Bart Stupak, Leader of Antiabortion Democrats: 'Not Very Confident' on Healthcare" by Dan Gilgoff, God & Country, U.S. News & World Report 10/2/09
[Excerpts of Rep. Stupak's responses to the reporter concerning his discussions with President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi:]
[Obama] urged me to try to work it out . . . basically said we don't need this fight, we're trying to do healthcare and just try to work it out if we can.
I brought up the fact [with the President] that when he spoke to the nation on September 9 he said, "Let me verify one more rumor, that there will be no public funding for abortion." And so I asked him to clarify that because it's sort of the opposite of H.R. 3200 [the House healthcare bill]. And he indicated to me that yes, he understands that and when he talked about that line [in his speech] he said "my plan." But the president has not put forth a plan, so it wasn't really clear.
And so my question was, was he just reading H.R. 3200 and was he not briefed on the Capps Amendment [on abortion coverage] , and he said, "No, no, I know the Capps Amendment."
The president did not get into the argument whether the Capps Amendment covers abortions or not. He never went there. He just said, "We have enough other arguments going on with the bill, let's work this one out."
Unfortunately, I don't see a clear resolution right now. Maybe some language can be drafted that I haven't seen yet that will accommodate everybody. But I'm going to go back to what the president said: no public funding for abortions. And that's the Hyde Amendment [the longstanding ban on federally funded abortions]. So let's have the Hyde Amendment. I'm prepared to go to the Rules Committee and offer the Hyde Amendment. I'm not too sure I'll get very far because no right-to-life amendments have been made to order all year.
The Capps Amendment says at least one plan [participating in a federal health insurance exchange] must provide abortion coverage and must have one that doesn't have it. For the first time ever, federal policy is saying that abortion is a covered service. That's completely opposite of Hyde. Second, if I'm in the public plan, I have to give one dollar per month [to abortion coverage]. I'm a man, and I can't get an abortion, but I have to pay for it. Those are two major differences from Hyde.
They have denied us every right-to-life amendment. There's just a lack of trust there. We don't believe it. How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't get fooled twice.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Liberal 'Christians' Want Taxpayer-funded Abortion
Over 1,100 'church' leaders call on Senate to ensure underprivileged and minority women's children may be freely murdered with tax dollars via ObamaCare
For background, read New Episcopal Divinity President Says Abortion is a Blessing
-- From "Over 1,000 Clerics Want Abortion Access in Health Care Bill" by Jennifer Riley, Christian Post Reporter 10/2/09
The Religious Institute released an open letter that maintains that abortion is a “morally justifiable decision” that should be left to women to decide. The letter is a response to amendments in the Senate that would cut abortion coverage in private insurance plans that receive federal funding.
“Already, federal policy unfairly prevents low-income women and federal employees from receiving subsidized reproductive health services, but the new proposals would mean that even more women and families would lose access to these vital services,” said the Rev. Debra W. Haffner, executive director of the Religious Institute.
Haffner added, “Placing restrictions on private insurance plans that make abortion accessible to women represents a serious moral injustice.”
The letter itself contends that the sanctity of human life is “best upheld” when it is made carefully, not when women are “coerced to carry a pregnancy to term.”
Religious denominations that have endorsed the letter include: American Baptist Churches, Church of the Brethren, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Church of Christ, and The United Methodist Church, among others.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
For background, read New Episcopal Divinity President Says Abortion is a Blessing
-- From "Over 1,000 Clerics Want Abortion Access in Health Care Bill" by Jennifer Riley, Christian Post Reporter 10/2/09
The Religious Institute released an open letter that maintains that abortion is a “morally justifiable decision” that should be left to women to decide. The letter is a response to amendments in the Senate that would cut abortion coverage in private insurance plans that receive federal funding.
“Already, federal policy unfairly prevents low-income women and federal employees from receiving subsidized reproductive health services, but the new proposals would mean that even more women and families would lose access to these vital services,” said the Rev. Debra W. Haffner, executive director of the Religious Institute.
Haffner added, “Placing restrictions on private insurance plans that make abortion accessible to women represents a serious moral injustice.”
The letter itself contends that the sanctity of human life is “best upheld” when it is made carefully, not when women are “coerced to carry a pregnancy to term.”
Religious denominations that have endorsed the letter include: American Baptist Churches, Church of the Brethren, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Church of Christ, and The United Methodist Church, among others.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Another Poll Shows Americans' Support for Abortion Dropping
Mirroring the Gallup Poll in May, the Pew Research Center has released a poll showing a shift in American opinion away from abortion on demand.
-- From "Support Appears to Drop for Abortion Rights" by Laurie Goodstein, New York Times 10/1/09
A 2008 poll by Pew researchers had found that those in favor of keeping abortion legal outnumbered opponents, 54 percent to 40 percent. In the new Pew poll, the gap has narrowed: 47 percent of those surveyed said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 45 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases — a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error.
The new survey did not find the reasons for the shift in opinion. But Pew researchers pointed out that the shift has occurred since the election of President Obama, a Democrat who supports abortion rights but has often spoken about the need to reduce the number of abortions. New York Times/CBS News polls, as well as others, found no such shift after Bill Clinton — also a Democrat who supports abortion rights — took office. Pew has no comparable data on the issue dating back that far.
The change found in the new Pew poll happened among many demographic groups, to varying degrees — among women and men; Republicans, Democrats and independents; Protestants, Catholics and Jews; whites and Hispanics. There was no change among blacks and people who have no religious affiliation.
“The size of the shift is modest, but the consistency with which we see it occurring and the implications it has for the overall dynamics of the debate make it significant,” said Gregory Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Asked how Mr. Obama will handle the abortion issue . . . Four in 10 of those polled were unaware of Mr. Obama’s stance on abortion.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Support Appears to Drop for Abortion Rights" by Laurie Goodstein, New York Times 10/1/09
A 2008 poll by Pew researchers had found that those in favor of keeping abortion legal outnumbered opponents, 54 percent to 40 percent. In the new Pew poll, the gap has narrowed: 47 percent of those surveyed said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 45 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases — a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error.
The new survey did not find the reasons for the shift in opinion. But Pew researchers pointed out that the shift has occurred since the election of President Obama, a Democrat who supports abortion rights but has often spoken about the need to reduce the number of abortions. New York Times/CBS News polls, as well as others, found no such shift after Bill Clinton — also a Democrat who supports abortion rights — took office. Pew has no comparable data on the issue dating back that far.
The change found in the new Pew poll happened among many demographic groups, to varying degrees — among women and men; Republicans, Democrats and independents; Protestants, Catholics and Jews; whites and Hispanics. There was no change among blacks and people who have no religious affiliation.
“The size of the shift is modest, but the consistency with which we see it occurring and the implications it has for the overall dynamics of the debate make it significant,” said Gregory Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Asked how Mr. Obama will handle the abortion issue . . . Four in 10 of those polled were unaware of Mr. Obama’s stance on abortion.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Same-sex 'Marriage:' Texas Judge Overrules 75% of Voters
A Dallas judge ruled that the Texas constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.
-- From "Court to hear gay divorce in Texas, despite gay marriage ban" Reuters 10/2/09
A judge in Dallas ruled on Thursday that the state court on which she sits has the jurisdiction to hear a divorce suit by a gay couple who were married outside Texas where same-sex marriages are banned.
Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan said in the ruling that her court "has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction and who meet the residency and other prerequisites required to file for divorce in Dallas County, Texas."
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately said he would appeal the ruling in the latest battle over gay marriage in the United States.
Forty U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriages and the issue, along with abortion rights, is among the most divisive in America.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Dallas Judge Shoots Down Texas’ Ban on Gay Marriage" by Ashby Jones, The Wall Street Journal 10/2/09
Gov. Rick Perry said state lawmakers and voters have repeatedly affirmed marriage as being between a man and a woman. “I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed,” Perry said.
“The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman,” Abbott said in a statement. “Today’s ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition — despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters.” Abbott has argued that because the state doesn’t recognize gay marriage, its courts can’t dissolve one through divorce.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Court to hear gay divorce in Texas, despite gay marriage ban" Reuters 10/2/09
A judge in Dallas ruled on Thursday that the state court on which she sits has the jurisdiction to hear a divorce suit by a gay couple who were married outside Texas where same-sex marriages are banned.
Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan said in the ruling that her court "has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction and who meet the residency and other prerequisites required to file for divorce in Dallas County, Texas."
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately said he would appeal the ruling in the latest battle over gay marriage in the United States.
Forty U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriages and the issue, along with abortion rights, is among the most divisive in America.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Dallas Judge Shoots Down Texas’ Ban on Gay Marriage" by Ashby Jones, The Wall Street Journal 10/2/09
Gov. Rick Perry said state lawmakers and voters have repeatedly affirmed marriage as being between a man and a woman. “I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed,” Perry said.
“The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman,” Abbott said in a statement. “Today’s ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition — despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters.” Abbott has argued that because the state doesn’t recognize gay marriage, its courts can’t dissolve one through divorce.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Same-sex 'Marriage' Bill in Illinois Senate
Although the Illinois House considers same-sex bills virtually every year, yesterday State Senator Heather Steans (D-7th) introduced the first such 'marriage' bill in the Senate: The "Equal Marriage Act" (SB2468)
-- From "Illinois Senate gets first marriage equality bill" by Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, ChicagoNow.com 10/1/09
State Sen. Heather Steans on Thursday filed the Equal Marriage Act, a bill that, if passed, would allow same-sex couples to marry in Illinois and guarantee them the state rights afforded to all married couples, including health care decision-making and hospital visitation rights. The bill also states religious institutions wouldn't be required to perform any marriages inconsistent with their religious practices.
While some gay rights advocates hailed the step, Steans' challenger in next year's election--Jim Madigan, the first openly gay person to run for the Illinois senate--called it a publicity stunt orchestrated because she's "faced with a primary challenger who happens to be gay."
With two weeks left in the legislative session, Madigan said gay rights are best served by helping to pass the civil unions bill already introduced in the state House.
Steans said she has long been a supporter for same-sex marriage and was a chief co-sponsor of a Senate bill last year for civil unions. Introducing equal marriage in the senate is "the right thing to do, period," she said, and would benefit support for civil unions.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Illinois Senate gets first marriage equality bill" by Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, ChicagoNow.com 10/1/09
State Sen. Heather Steans on Thursday filed the Equal Marriage Act, a bill that, if passed, would allow same-sex couples to marry in Illinois and guarantee them the state rights afforded to all married couples, including health care decision-making and hospital visitation rights. The bill also states religious institutions wouldn't be required to perform any marriages inconsistent with their religious practices.
While some gay rights advocates hailed the step, Steans' challenger in next year's election--Jim Madigan, the first openly gay person to run for the Illinois senate--called it a publicity stunt orchestrated because she's "faced with a primary challenger who happens to be gay."
With two weeks left in the legislative session, Madigan said gay rights are best served by helping to pass the civil unions bill already introduced in the state House.
Steans said she has long been a supporter for same-sex marriage and was a chief co-sponsor of a Senate bill last year for civil unions. Introducing equal marriage in the senate is "the right thing to do, period," she said, and would benefit support for civil unions.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Townspeople Oppose School on Cheerleading Ban
[Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia citizens] are rallying around Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School cheerleaders after they were banned from displaying signs with Bible verses urging fans and players to “commit to the Lord” and “take courage and do it.”
UPDATE 10/2/09: ACLU supports students protesting ACLU
-- From "Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire" by Ben Benton, Chattanooga Times Free Press 9/29/09
The banners — the paper ones that football players crash through at the beginning of games — have been common sights in the school’s football stadium since 2003, local officials say.
“The cheerleaders are not trying to push a religious cause, to shove religion down someone’s throat,” said local youth minister Brad Scott, who was LFO High’s class president in 2004. “The cheerleaders are just using Scripture to show motivation and inspiration to the players and the fans.”
Catoosa County Schools spokeswoman Marissa Brower said a Fort Oglethorpe resident lodged a verbal complaint to Superintendent Denia Reese last week, saying that the display of a Bible verse on the football field is a violation of federal law.
A school system statement released Monday said the message constitutes “a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field.”
Fort Oglethorpe Mayor Ronnie Cobb vehemently disagrees with the ban and said he’ll call on the City Council to support the cheerleaders and their signs.
The signs don’t infringe on anyone’s religious rights and are good for school spirit, he said.
Mr. Scott said the “separation of church and state” has nothing to do with cheerleaders who are not “part of the state” and simply want to offer an inspirational message with signs they made on their own time.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/2/09: ACLU supports students protesting ACLU
-- From "Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire" by Ben Benton, Chattanooga Times Free Press 9/29/09
The banners — the paper ones that football players crash through at the beginning of games — have been common sights in the school’s football stadium since 2003, local officials say.
“The cheerleaders are not trying to push a religious cause, to shove religion down someone’s throat,” said local youth minister Brad Scott, who was LFO High’s class president in 2004. “The cheerleaders are just using Scripture to show motivation and inspiration to the players and the fans.”
Catoosa County Schools spokeswoman Marissa Brower said a Fort Oglethorpe resident lodged a verbal complaint to Superintendent Denia Reese last week, saying that the display of a Bible verse on the football field is a violation of federal law.
A school system statement released Monday said the message constitutes “a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field.”
Fort Oglethorpe Mayor Ronnie Cobb vehemently disagrees with the ban and said he’ll call on the City Council to support the cheerleaders and their signs.
The signs don’t infringe on anyone’s religious rights and are good for school spirit, he said.
Mr. Scott said the “separation of church and state” has nothing to do with cheerleaders who are not “part of the state” and simply want to offer an inspirational message with signs they made on their own time.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Chicago City Council Restricts Pro-lifers
Planned Parenthood has successfully lobbied Chicago politicians to discriminate against Christians near abortion clinics by falsely claiming a "significant surge in the size and viciousness" of attacks by pro-lifers.
UPDATE 10/9/09: ACLU sides with pro-lifers against City
UPDATE 10/7/09: Full City Council "seals the deal" against pro-life
-- From "Protection for Abortion Patients: Ordinance" by Susan Ball, NBC TV-5 Chicago 10/1/09
Anti-abortion activists who attempt to dissuade women on their way in to abortion clinics will have to respect an "8-foot bubble" of personal space, the Chicago City Council committee ruled Thursday.
Due to a "significant surge in the size and viciousness" of attacks by anti-abortion activists, employees of Chicago-area hospitals, medical clinics and other health facilities would also be protected within a 50-feet protection zone within the grounds, according to Beth Kanter, a senior vice president with Planned Parenthood, who has called attention to violence at their Near North Health Center facility at Division and LaSalle since May 31 -- the day Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller was shot and killed.
"The local police have been very helpful," Kanter said, "but their hands are tied in what they are able to do without a local ordinance to enforce."
"This is not about safety," said attorney Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, a pro-life law center, "it's about shutting down a means of protest."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Proposal would protect those seeking abortions" by Fran Spielman, City Hall Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 9/30/09
Anti-abortion activist Catherine Mieding said she averages “three saves a Saturday” at the Albany Medical Surgical Center, 5086 N. Elston, talking pregnant women out of having an abortion
“You cannot counsel a girl from 50 feet,” said Mieding, who said she’s been doing this for 15 years. “It is absolutely ridiculous … The closer we are to the person, the more compassion we can give to them … I have had girls get out of the car, cry in my arms and turn around and choose life.
The ordinance is patterned after an even-stricter Colorado law that already has passed muster with the U.S. Supreme Court. In Colorado, the radius is 100 feet.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/9/09: ACLU sides with pro-lifers against City
UPDATE 10/7/09: Full City Council "seals the deal" against pro-life
-- From "Protection for Abortion Patients: Ordinance" by Susan Ball, NBC TV-5 Chicago 10/1/09
Anti-abortion activists who attempt to dissuade women on their way in to abortion clinics will have to respect an "8-foot bubble" of personal space, the Chicago City Council committee ruled Thursday.
Due to a "significant surge in the size and viciousness" of attacks by anti-abortion activists, employees of Chicago-area hospitals, medical clinics and other health facilities would also be protected within a 50-feet protection zone within the grounds, according to Beth Kanter, a senior vice president with Planned Parenthood, who has called attention to violence at their Near North Health Center facility at Division and LaSalle since May 31 -- the day Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller was shot and killed.
"The local police have been very helpful," Kanter said, "but their hands are tied in what they are able to do without a local ordinance to enforce."
"This is not about safety," said attorney Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, a pro-life law center, "it's about shutting down a means of protest."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Proposal would protect those seeking abortions" by Fran Spielman, City Hall Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 9/30/09
Anti-abortion activist Catherine Mieding said she averages “three saves a Saturday” at the Albany Medical Surgical Center, 5086 N. Elston, talking pregnant women out of having an abortion
“You cannot counsel a girl from 50 feet,” said Mieding, who said she’s been doing this for 15 years. “It is absolutely ridiculous … The closer we are to the person, the more compassion we can give to them … I have had girls get out of the car, cry in my arms and turn around and choose life.
The ordinance is patterned after an even-stricter Colorado law that already has passed muster with the U.S. Supreme Court. In Colorado, the radius is 100 feet.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Planned Parenthood Indiana Closes Five Clinics
In announcing the clinic closures, Planned Parenthood claims losing some of its federal grant money, but critics suspect other reasons.
-- From "Planned Parenthood: 5 Ind. clinics will close" Associated Press 9/8/09
The clinics in Anderson, Franklin, Kokomo, Shelbyville and Indianapolis will close over the next six months, Planned Parenthood of Indiana said in a statement provided to The Associated Press . . .
Planned Parenthood expects to lose some of the funding it receives in federal grants administered by the Indiana State Department of Health. The grants were used to help pay some of the costs for patient treatment.
Starting in October, the nonprofit Indiana Family Health Council will take over administering $2 million in grants, some of which previously went to Planned Parenthood. The council will require clinics that receive grants to charge women on a sliding scale depending on their income.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Indiana Planned Parenthood Closes Five Centers After Hiding Abortion-Sex Abuse" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 9/7/09
The centers are closing despite the record amount of money the abortion business received from the federal government in the last fiscal year.
The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million.
Looking at Planned Parenthood data from 1997 to the present, the increase in government funding corresponds with an increase in the number of abortions.
The closings also come after videos showed Planned Parenthood centers in Bloomington and Indianapolis covering up a potential case of sexual abuse and urging a young woman to go out of state for an abortion without her parents knowing.
A prior videotape showing the same thing occurring at a Bloomington, Indiana abortion business led to the firing of the staff member involved.
Such a secret abortion would violate Indiana's parental involvement laws.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Planned Parenthood: 5 Ind. clinics will close" Associated Press 9/8/09
The clinics in Anderson, Franklin, Kokomo, Shelbyville and Indianapolis will close over the next six months, Planned Parenthood of Indiana said in a statement provided to The Associated Press . . .
Planned Parenthood expects to lose some of the funding it receives in federal grants administered by the Indiana State Department of Health. The grants were used to help pay some of the costs for patient treatment.
Starting in October, the nonprofit Indiana Family Health Council will take over administering $2 million in grants, some of which previously went to Planned Parenthood. The council will require clinics that receive grants to charge women on a sliding scale depending on their income.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Indiana Planned Parenthood Closes Five Centers After Hiding Abortion-Sex Abuse" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 9/7/09
The centers are closing despite the record amount of money the abortion business received from the federal government in the last fiscal year.
The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million.
Looking at Planned Parenthood data from 1997 to the present, the increase in government funding corresponds with an increase in the number of abortions.
The closings also come after videos showed Planned Parenthood centers in Bloomington and Indianapolis covering up a potential case of sexual abuse and urging a young woman to go out of state for an abortion without her parents knowing.
A prior videotape showing the same thing occurring at a Bloomington, Indiana abortion business led to the firing of the staff member involved.
Such a secret abortion would violate Indiana's parental involvement laws.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Catholic Prof Ostracized for Publicly Opposing Same-sex Marriage
Boston College Law School professor experiences intolerance at Jesuit-affiliated school as vocal Bible-believing Catholic
-- From "Professor opposes same-sex marriage in ad" by Ana Lopez, The Boston College Heights 9/24/09
The appearance of Scott Fitzgibbons, a professor in the Boston College Law School, in an ad campaign in support of the Maine Marriage Initiative, which seeks to overturn Governor John Baldacci's signature of the same-sex marriage bill, has sparked controversy in the BC Law School. Fitzgibbons did not obtain clearance from the BC Law School before appearing in the advertisement, in which he stated his opposition to gay marriage and identified himself as a BC professor.
In the advertisement, Fitzgibbons said that he is concerned by the detrimental legal consequences that would arise from allowing the legalization of gay marriage. "Unless question one [which overturns the movement to legalize gay marriage] passes, there could be real consequences for Mainers," he said in the advertisement. "Legal experts predict a flood of lawsuits against individuals, small business, and religious groups. Church organizations could lose their tax exemption [and] homosexual marriage would be taught in public schools, whether their parents like it or not."
In the wake of the advertisement's release, it became apparent that Fitzgibbon's public stance on gay marriage was a sensitive reality for many members of the Law School community.
In a letter released last week, Law School Dean John Garvey spoke to the emotions expressed by several members of this community. "Professor Fitzgibbon, as a member of our faculty, is free to express his views … we also have faculty members who hold a contrary view, which they too are free to express publicly," Garvey said. "As I think any of our faculty might have done, he stated his views without prior notice to or clearance from the Law School."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Immediately after Dean Garvey issued the above letter, he signed the following statement, along with 76 other "Individual Faculty and Administrators at Boston College Law School:"
"The undersigned members of the faculty and administration at Boston College Law School feel that it is important to reaffirm our belief in the equality of all of our students. We are proud of the fact that Boston College Law School was one of the first law schools in the country to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination pledge, and we reaffirm our commitment to making our institution a welcome and safe place for all students, including LGBT [a.k.a. homosexual/sexually-deviant/sexually-confused] students."
-- From "Professor opposes same-sex marriage in ad" by Ana Lopez, The Boston College Heights 9/24/09
The appearance of Scott Fitzgibbons, a professor in the Boston College Law School, in an ad campaign in support of the Maine Marriage Initiative, which seeks to overturn Governor John Baldacci's signature of the same-sex marriage bill, has sparked controversy in the BC Law School. Fitzgibbons did not obtain clearance from the BC Law School before appearing in the advertisement, in which he stated his opposition to gay marriage and identified himself as a BC professor.
In the advertisement, Fitzgibbons said that he is concerned by the detrimental legal consequences that would arise from allowing the legalization of gay marriage. "Unless question one [which overturns the movement to legalize gay marriage] passes, there could be real consequences for Mainers," he said in the advertisement. "Legal experts predict a flood of lawsuits against individuals, small business, and religious groups. Church organizations could lose their tax exemption [and] homosexual marriage would be taught in public schools, whether their parents like it or not."
In the wake of the advertisement's release, it became apparent that Fitzgibbon's public stance on gay marriage was a sensitive reality for many members of the Law School community.
In a letter released last week, Law School Dean John Garvey spoke to the emotions expressed by several members of this community. "Professor Fitzgibbon, as a member of our faculty, is free to express his views … we also have faculty members who hold a contrary view, which they too are free to express publicly," Garvey said. "As I think any of our faculty might have done, he stated his views without prior notice to or clearance from the Law School."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Immediately after Dean Garvey issued the above letter, he signed the following statement, along with 76 other "Individual Faculty and Administrators at Boston College Law School:"
"The undersigned members of the faculty and administration at Boston College Law School feel that it is important to reaffirm our belief in the equality of all of our students. We are proud of the fact that Boston College Law School was one of the first law schools in the country to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination pledge, and we reaffirm our commitment to making our institution a welcome and safe place for all students, including LGBT [a.k.a. homosexual/sexually-deviant/sexually-confused] students."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
