The fossil named Ida has been called "the final vindication of Darwin's evolutionist theory," but many scientists say it's more media hype than science.
-- From "Seeking a Missing Link, and a Mass Audience" by Tim Arango, New York Times 5/19/09
. . . researchers [have unveiled] a 47-million-year-old fossil they say could revolutionize the understanding of human evolution . . .
The specimen, designated Darwinius masillae, is of a monkeylike creature that is remarkably intact: even the contents of its stomach are preserved. The fossil was bought two years ago in Germany by the University of Oslo, and a team of scientists began work on their research.
But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan “This changes everything” and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years.
All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may. But this campaign is only the latest example of the scientific media blockbuster . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Media blitz: 'We found missing link'" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/19/09
A book, a movie, a press release, news reports, television specials and an interactive website – all launched today – have converged in a multi-media exclamation, set to shout to the world that the "missing link" in man's evolution has supposedly been found.
The Times of London reports that some scientists have joined in criticism of the media coverage, arguing it is wrong for a discovery to receive such heavy publicity before other researchers can evaluate it.
Dr. Jonathan Wells, author and biologist at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, helped WND take a closer look at the science vs. hype debate.
"When you listen to Darwinists, they claim their theory is as well established as gravity," Wells told WND. "If that were really the case, we wouldn't be getting these startling announcements that we finally found the proof that we need. There wouldn't be any controversy. This would be like someone running up and saying, 'Stop the presses. I just saw another apple fall from the tree; Newton was right!' In the evolutionists' own framework, it's nonsense. It demonstrates their theory is not as well established as they claim."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Homosexualists Decry Dating Violence Legislation
Gay rights advocates on Tuesday protested the exclusion of gay and lesbian relationships from a South Carolina bill meant to curb teen dating violence.
-- From "Gay rights advocates protest SC date violence bill" by Seanna Adcox, Associated Press Writer 5/19/09
Limiting dating violence prevention to students in hetereosexual relationships further discriminates against students who are already vulnerable to bullying, depression and self-doubt, the advocates said. They urged senators to remove the reference.
The measure requires school districts to create dating violence prevention policies for sixth- through 12th-graders and print the policies in school handbooks or Web sites by the summer of 2010. South Carolina consistently reports high rates of domestic violence incidents.
Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said he pushed for the change to "preserve traditional values in South Carolina's public schools," and not allow for teaching about same-sex relationships.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Gay rights advocates protest SC date violence bill" by Seanna Adcox, Associated Press Writer 5/19/09
Limiting dating violence prevention to students in hetereosexual relationships further discriminates against students who are already vulnerable to bullying, depression and self-doubt, the advocates said. They urged senators to remove the reference.
The measure requires school districts to create dating violence prevention policies for sixth- through 12th-graders and print the policies in school handbooks or Web sites by the summer of 2010. South Carolina consistently reports high rates of domestic violence incidents.
Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said he pushed for the change to "preserve traditional values in South Carolina's public schools," and not allow for teaching about same-sex relationships.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Washington State Law: Unmarried Folks Now Virtually 'Married'
Gov. Chris Gregoire has approved a measure that gives same-sex domestic partners all the rights and benefits that Washington state offers married couples.
-- From "Gregoire expands same-sex partnerships" by Lornet Turnbull, Seattle Times staff reporter 5/18/09
The law will take effect July 26 unless opponents seeking to repeal it can collect enough signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot.
They will then have about 60 days — until July 25 — to collect 120,577 signatures. If they are successful, the law would be suspended until voters decide the referendum.
As of Monday, there were 5,395 registered domestic partners, representing every county in the state.
The signing comes three years after the state Supreme Court ruled against 11 gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry in Washington and upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
Charlene Strong, a Seattle [lesbian] . . . said while she is thrilled with the advancements, she's eager for the next step: reversal of DOMA.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Gregoire expands same-sex partnerships" by Lornet Turnbull, Seattle Times staff reporter 5/18/09
The law will take effect July 26 unless opponents seeking to repeal it can collect enough signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot.
They will then have about 60 days — until July 25 — to collect 120,577 signatures. If they are successful, the law would be suspended until voters decide the referendum.
As of Monday, there were 5,395 registered domestic partners, representing every county in the state.
The signing comes three years after the state Supreme Court ruled against 11 gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry in Washington and upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
Charlene Strong, a Seattle [lesbian] . . . said while she is thrilled with the advancements, she's eager for the next step: reversal of DOMA.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Obama at Notre Dame: Video the Media Didn't Show You
View the video of the two-mile pro-life demonstration along the main drag leading to campus, and compare it to the liberal media account.
Video courtesy Jill Stanek
-- From "At Notre Dame, Obama Calls for Civil Tone in Abortion Debate" by Peter Baker And Susan Saulny, New York Times 5/18/09
As anti-abortion demonstrators protested outside and a few hecklers shouted inside, Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades. The audience at this Roman Catholic institution cheered his message and drowned out protesters, some of whom called him a “baby killer.”
While several hundred people attended an anti-abortion Mass, about 100 abortion opponents demonstrated against the president’s visit at the edge of campus, shouting back and forth with a smaller number of abortion rights demonstrators.
As Mr. Obama departed, his motorcade passed a few dozen protesters shouting at an intersection and holding signs that showed fetuses and said things like “Notre Dame spiritually sold out.” Others approaching campus for the ceremony were likewise greeted by photographs of mangled fetuses.
With mortarboard in hand, Robert Kessler, 22, a graduating senior, wandered among the protesters and shook his head. “Some of these pictures are grotesque, and I don’t want them to be part of my graduation,” Mr. Kessler said. “If these groups wanted to make a difference, they could have better used their money on homes for unwed mothers.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Video courtesy Jill Stanek
-- From "At Notre Dame, Obama Calls for Civil Tone in Abortion Debate" by Peter Baker And Susan Saulny, New York Times 5/18/09
As anti-abortion demonstrators protested outside and a few hecklers shouted inside, Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades. The audience at this Roman Catholic institution cheered his message and drowned out protesters, some of whom called him a “baby killer.”
While several hundred people attended an anti-abortion Mass, about 100 abortion opponents demonstrated against the president’s visit at the edge of campus, shouting back and forth with a smaller number of abortion rights demonstrators.
As Mr. Obama departed, his motorcade passed a few dozen protesters shouting at an intersection and holding signs that showed fetuses and said things like “Notre Dame spiritually sold out.” Others approaching campus for the ceremony were likewise greeted by photographs of mangled fetuses.
With mortarboard in hand, Robert Kessler, 22, a graduating senior, wandered among the protesters and shook his head. “Some of these pictures are grotesque, and I don’t want them to be part of my graduation,” Mr. Kessler said. “If these groups wanted to make a difference, they could have better used their money on homes for unwed mothers.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, May 18, 2009
CA School Plans Kindergarten Homosexual Indoctrination Curriculum
Program threatened by hundreds of parents flooding Alameda school board meetings -- homosexualists furious that board would consider opinions of parents
In states where same-sex 'marriage' is the law of the land, parents are powerless in this regard, as judges have ruled (and the Supreme Court has let stand) that since homosexuals are legally married, public schools are right to mandate teaching homosexuality as normal, and forbidding any "opt out."
UPDATE 7/14/11: New California law requires teaching "gay history" at all levels in public school
-- From "Uproar in Alameda over lessons about gays" Jill Tucker, San Fran. Chronicle Staff Writer 5/16/09
Alameda school officials had high hopes the new elementary school curriculum would teach respect and help reduce bullying related to gay and lesbian individuals and families.
The controversy revolves around six 45-minute lessons, one each year from kindergarten through fifth grade, with year one addressing the harm in teasing and the fifth-grade topic focusing on sexual-orientation stereotypes.
Alameda Unified's attorneys say parents would not be allowed to keep their children from taking the courses because the lessons don't include health or sexual education, a position opponents say is absurd.
The board is expected to vote on the proposed curriculum on May 26.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Action Alert: Homosexual Curriculum Meeting in Alameda" posted on Capitol Resource Institute 5/8/09
Elementary students are being targeted with proposed curriculum on homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in Alameda Unified School District.
This multisexual curriculum is part of AUSD’s “school safety” initiative. All students should be safe at school, but promoting safety and promoting multisexuality are not actually the same thing. Unfortunately, the social agenda first seen in San Francisco and Los Angeles continues to spread.
In kindergarten, being “welcoming” to all classmates is equated with supporting multisexuality. The first grade lesson plan trains children “to identify what makes a family” and teaches about same-sex couples. Third grade vocabulary includes “two moms” and “two dads.” Fifth graders are required “to identify stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”
In one document, AUSD lists 12 multisexuality-focused organizations as community resources. These include the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education (glsen.org), Gay-Straight Alliance Network (gsanetwork.org), and Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center (lyric.org).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Below is the first paragraph from a lengthy argument in favor of the homosexual indoctrination program written by the local mainline church lesbian 'pastor' published in the local newspaper.
From "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" by Rev. Laura Rose 5/7/09
As the pastor of First Congregational Church Alameda, United Church of Christ, I am grateful to the Alameda Unified School District for actively responding to our teachers' requests for a curriculum that would give them the tools and resources they need to foster respect for all the people in our neighborhood by putting a face on same-gender parented families who have been invisible in K-5 curriculum until now.
If you've never read the typical homosexualist's interpretation of the Bible, click here to read the lesbian's entire writing. This 'pastor' not only performs same-sex weddings in her 'church,' she also was a lesbian bride last year:
From "Making History: Couples Wed While They Can" by Dennis Evanosky and Julia Park Tracey, Alameda Sun 10/30/08
. . . the Rev. Laura Rose, is personally a beneficiary of the [California] Supreme Court decision; she married her life partner in mid-August. "We were the first legal same-gender wedding at our church," she said, noting that there have been more since then.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
And, one more article on this indoctrination curriculum
Further reading: 'Gay marriage' squashes parental rights & religious liberty, experts say by Michael Foust, posted at Baptist Press
In states where same-sex 'marriage' is the law of the land, parents are powerless in this regard, as judges have ruled (and the Supreme Court has let stand) that since homosexuals are legally married, public schools are right to mandate teaching homosexuality as normal, and forbidding any "opt out."
UPDATE 7/14/11: New California law requires teaching "gay history" at all levels in public school
-- From "Uproar in Alameda over lessons about gays" Jill Tucker, San Fran. Chronicle Staff Writer 5/16/09
Alameda school officials had high hopes the new elementary school curriculum would teach respect and help reduce bullying related to gay and lesbian individuals and families.
The controversy revolves around six 45-minute lessons, one each year from kindergarten through fifth grade, with year one addressing the harm in teasing and the fifth-grade topic focusing on sexual-orientation stereotypes.
Alameda Unified's attorneys say parents would not be allowed to keep their children from taking the courses because the lessons don't include health or sexual education, a position opponents say is absurd.
The board is expected to vote on the proposed curriculum on May 26.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Action Alert: Homosexual Curriculum Meeting in Alameda" posted on Capitol Resource Institute 5/8/09
Elementary students are being targeted with proposed curriculum on homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in Alameda Unified School District.
This multisexual curriculum is part of AUSD’s “school safety” initiative. All students should be safe at school, but promoting safety and promoting multisexuality are not actually the same thing. Unfortunately, the social agenda first seen in San Francisco and Los Angeles continues to spread.
In kindergarten, being “welcoming” to all classmates is equated with supporting multisexuality. The first grade lesson plan trains children “to identify what makes a family” and teaches about same-sex couples. Third grade vocabulary includes “two moms” and “two dads.” Fifth graders are required “to identify stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”
In one document, AUSD lists 12 multisexuality-focused organizations as community resources. These include the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education (glsen.org), Gay-Straight Alliance Network (gsanetwork.org), and Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center (lyric.org).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Below is the first paragraph from a lengthy argument in favor of the homosexual indoctrination program written by the local mainline church lesbian 'pastor' published in the local newspaper.
From "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" by Rev. Laura Rose 5/7/09
As the pastor of First Congregational Church Alameda, United Church of Christ, I am grateful to the Alameda Unified School District for actively responding to our teachers' requests for a curriculum that would give them the tools and resources they need to foster respect for all the people in our neighborhood by putting a face on same-gender parented families who have been invisible in K-5 curriculum until now.
If you've never read the typical homosexualist's interpretation of the Bible, click here to read the lesbian's entire writing. This 'pastor' not only performs same-sex weddings in her 'church,' she also was a lesbian bride last year:
From "Making History: Couples Wed While They Can" by Dennis Evanosky and Julia Park Tracey, Alameda Sun 10/30/08
. . . the Rev. Laura Rose, is personally a beneficiary of the [California] Supreme Court decision; she married her life partner in mid-August. "We were the first legal same-gender wedding at our church," she said, noting that there have been more since then.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
And, one more article on this indoctrination curriculum
Further reading: 'Gay marriage' squashes parental rights & religious liberty, experts say by Michael Foust, posted at Baptist Press
Sunday, May 17, 2009
UK-funded Adoption Agency Calls Christians 'Retarded Homophobes'
The British Association for Adoption and Fostering told would-be gay adopters to not worry about society - 'any critics are retarded homophobes' . . . [the] attack was published in a BAAF guide to adoption for homosexual couples.
-- From "Critics of gay parenting are branded 'retarded homophobes'" by Steve Doughty, UK Daily Mail 5/14/09
Its insulting description angered senior MPs and former Cabinet Ministers, Roman Catholic and Church of England leaders.
It also offended disability campaigners, who have been trying to discourage the use of the word 'retarded' for years. Whitehall has banned the word for civil servants.
Author Patricia Morgan, who has published a study of gay adoption, said: "It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption. They just go in for abuse. They do not appear interested in evidence about the outcomes for children. And it is a disgusting phrase to use."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Critics of gay parenting are branded 'retarded homophobes'" by Steve Doughty, UK Daily Mail 5/14/09
Its insulting description angered senior MPs and former Cabinet Ministers, Roman Catholic and Church of England leaders.
It also offended disability campaigners, who have been trying to discourage the use of the word 'retarded' for years. Whitehall has banned the word for civil servants.
Author Patricia Morgan, who has published a study of gay adoption, said: "It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption. They just go in for abuse. They do not appear interested in evidence about the outcomes for children. And it is a disgusting phrase to use."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Females Victims of Sex-selection Abortion
Vietnam seeing boom in male births; fewer females born in China; Sweden approves sex-selection abortion
-- From "Sex selection brings Vietnamese boy boom" posted at New Scientist 5/15/09
Christophe Guilmoto of Descartes University in Paris, France, and his colleagues analysed population data collected by the General Statistics Office of Vietnam since 2000, plus two surveys which assessed birth rates in 2006 and 2007.
In 2001, the sex ratio in Vietnam was close to the biological norm of 105 male births per 100 female births, but this reached 111 to 100 by 2007.
Guilmoto also analysed statistics of access to prenatal ultrasounds, and found that there had been a tenfold increase in availability between 1998 and 2007.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Sex selection brings Vietnamese boy boom" posted at New Scientist 5/15/09
Christophe Guilmoto of Descartes University in Paris, France, and his colleagues analysed population data collected by the General Statistics Office of Vietnam since 2000, plus two surveys which assessed birth rates in 2006 and 2007.
In 2001, the sex ratio in Vietnam was close to the biological norm of 105 male births per 100 female births, but this reached 111 to 100 by 2007.
Guilmoto also analysed statistics of access to prenatal ultrasounds, and found that there had been a tenfold increase in availability between 1998 and 2007.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
"Performing Oral Sex is Not Without Risks"
Oral sex and open-mouthed "French" kissing increase the risk of acquiring oral infections of human papillomavirus, or HPV, a study shows.
-- From "'French' kissing ups risk of oral HPV infection" Reuters 5/12/09
It is associated with gonorrheal pharyngitis - a sexually transmitted infection of the tonsils and back of the throat that immediately causes symptoms, she noted, and now is associated with mouth HPV infections that are silent "yet may lead to oral cancer 10 to 20 years later."
[Dr. Maura L.] Gillison from The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues explored whether sexual behaviors were associated with the odds of oral HPV infection in 332 adults and in 210 college-aged men. They found that 4.8 percent of the adults and 2.9 percent of college-aged men had oral HPV infection.
Among adults, the odds of oral HPV infection were significantly elevated among current tobacco smokers and among individuals who reported having either more than 10 oral or more than 25 vaginal sex partners during their lifetime.
Similar risk factors applied to the college-aged men. For them, having at least six recent oral sex or open-mouthed kissing partners were independently associated with increased odds of developing oral HPV infection.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "'French' kissing ups risk of oral HPV infection" Reuters 5/12/09
It is associated with gonorrheal pharyngitis - a sexually transmitted infection of the tonsils and back of the throat that immediately causes symptoms, she noted, and now is associated with mouth HPV infections that are silent "yet may lead to oral cancer 10 to 20 years later."
[Dr. Maura L.] Gillison from The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues explored whether sexual behaviors were associated with the odds of oral HPV infection in 332 adults and in 210 college-aged men. They found that 4.8 percent of the adults and 2.9 percent of college-aged men had oral HPV infection.
Among adults, the odds of oral HPV infection were significantly elevated among current tobacco smokers and among individuals who reported having either more than 10 oral or more than 25 vaginal sex partners during their lifetime.
Similar risk factors applied to the college-aged men. For them, having at least six recent oral sex or open-mouthed kissing partners were independently associated with increased odds of developing oral HPV infection.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Florida Court Adoption Ruling also a Path to Challenge Marriage
Activist judges' ruling in favor of recognizing out-of-state homosexual adoption may result in overturning the will of voters for Florida's constitutional amendment passed last year, and possibly point toward nullification of the federal Defense of Marriage Act
-- From "Court: Fla. must recognize states' gay adoptions" Associated Press 5/13/09
Florida must recognize gay couples' adoptions that were granted in other states even though its laws bar granting such adoptions, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
A trial court erred when it wouldn't recognize a former lesbian couple's adoptions that had been completed when the women lived in Washington state, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously. Florida is the only state that prohibits all gays from adopting, but the judges said the U.S. Constitution requires it to give "full faith and credit" to the actions of other states.
While living as a couple in Seattle, Kimberly Ryan and Lara Embry each gave birth to one child. Each then adopted the other's child as the second parent. They moved to Sarasota and then split up, originally agreeing to share custody.
Ryan then became engaged to a man and cut off contact between her biological child and Embry, saying that under her new Christian beliefs she didn't think the relationship was good for the child. Embry sued for custody.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian mommies, why not wives?" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/16/09
The appellate court in Florida cited the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause" – which requires states to honor public acts, records and court decisions from other states – to rule that despite Florida's ban on same-sex couple adoptions, a Christian resident must share custody of her biological daughter with her former lesbian partner, because the child was legally adopted in a state that permits same-sex couple adoption.
"We have a specific federal Defense of Marriage Act that says the Full Faith and Credit Clause will not apply to same-sex marriage," [Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel] said, "but the question that comes up is, what about something that is significant to the essence of marriage or family, like adoption?
"Florida has a constitutional amendment that says same-sex marriage will not be recognized," Staver continued, "and the question is, does that apply down to adoption? If not, then can [homosexual advocates] avoid a frontal attack on marriage, but still piecemeal the underlying essence of marriage and bring it in through the back door?"
"Once you use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to mandate enforcing adoption, you can then enforce child custody, child support, visitation – you are treated just like a spouse," Staver told WND. "Once you recognize parental rights of a same-sex person or parties, then you have the same kind of spousal recognition you have within the context of marriage."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Court: Fla. must recognize states' gay adoptions" Associated Press 5/13/09
Florida must recognize gay couples' adoptions that were granted in other states even though its laws bar granting such adoptions, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
A trial court erred when it wouldn't recognize a former lesbian couple's adoptions that had been completed when the women lived in Washington state, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously. Florida is the only state that prohibits all gays from adopting, but the judges said the U.S. Constitution requires it to give "full faith and credit" to the actions of other states.
While living as a couple in Seattle, Kimberly Ryan and Lara Embry each gave birth to one child. Each then adopted the other's child as the second parent. They moved to Sarasota and then split up, originally agreeing to share custody.
Ryan then became engaged to a man and cut off contact between her biological child and Embry, saying that under her new Christian beliefs she didn't think the relationship was good for the child. Embry sued for custody.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian mommies, why not wives?" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/16/09
The appellate court in Florida cited the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause" – which requires states to honor public acts, records and court decisions from other states – to rule that despite Florida's ban on same-sex couple adoptions, a Christian resident must share custody of her biological daughter with her former lesbian partner, because the child was legally adopted in a state that permits same-sex couple adoption.
"We have a specific federal Defense of Marriage Act that says the Full Faith and Credit Clause will not apply to same-sex marriage," [Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel] said, "but the question that comes up is, what about something that is significant to the essence of marriage or family, like adoption?
"Florida has a constitutional amendment that says same-sex marriage will not be recognized," Staver continued, "and the question is, does that apply down to adoption? If not, then can [homosexual advocates] avoid a frontal attack on marriage, but still piecemeal the underlying essence of marriage and bring it in through the back door?"
"Once you use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to mandate enforcing adoption, you can then enforce child custody, child support, visitation – you are treated just like a spouse," Staver told WND. "Once you recognize parental rights of a same-sex person or parties, then you have the same kind of spousal recognition you have within the context of marriage."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Gallup Poll: Most Americans 'Pro-life'
51% of Americans now say they are pro-life, compared to 42% pro-choice -- essentially a full-shift reversal from just three years ago.
-- From "Most Americans 'pro-life'" by Foon Rhee, Boston Globe Deputy National Political Editor 5/15/09
While the poll itself didn't ask about the impact of Obama, anti-abortion groups jumped on the results, pointing out that pollsters said, "It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."
Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement: "These polling results confirm a long trend: Americans are increasingly identifying with the position of protecting human life. It’s not shocking that we’re seeing stronger pro-life opinions. This trend has been steady since the early ‘90s. What is interesting is American’s shift in self-labeling to a majority ‘pro-life’ identification. Americans are now seeing through the PR-generated label, ‘pro-choice.’ Sonograms and real-life experience have deemed this label hollow. President Obama and the pro-abortion majority in Congress are in a collision course with public opinion on abortion policy. What we’re debating right now – taxpayer funding for abortion – dramatically outstrips public opinion.”
The Gallup survey gave respondents three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal and found that about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23 percent) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22 percent). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also, read the poll and analysis by Gallup.
-- From "Most Americans 'pro-life'" by Foon Rhee, Boston Globe Deputy National Political Editor 5/15/09
While the poll itself didn't ask about the impact of Obama, anti-abortion groups jumped on the results, pointing out that pollsters said, "It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."
Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement: "These polling results confirm a long trend: Americans are increasingly identifying with the position of protecting human life. It’s not shocking that we’re seeing stronger pro-life opinions. This trend has been steady since the early ‘90s. What is interesting is American’s shift in self-labeling to a majority ‘pro-life’ identification. Americans are now seeing through the PR-generated label, ‘pro-choice.’ Sonograms and real-life experience have deemed this label hollow. President Obama and the pro-abortion majority in Congress are in a collision course with public opinion on abortion policy. What we’re debating right now – taxpayer funding for abortion – dramatically outstrips public opinion.”
The Gallup survey gave respondents three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal and found that about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23 percent) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22 percent). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also, read the poll and analysis by Gallup.
Airline Maps Omit Israel
The maps were tailored to the airline's predominantly Muslim passengers, and also highlighted Islamic holy sites including Mecca.
-- From "British airline 'sorry' for deleting Israel from map" posted at The Telegraph UK 4/30/09
Most Israeli cities were not marked on screens showing flight maps to passengers on two [British] BMI-owned Airbus A320 aeroplanes. Only Haifa was identified - by its Arab name, Khefa.
BMI, which runs flights from London to Tel Aviv twice daily, apologised for the omission on Thursday and denied that there was any political agenda behind the exclusion.
The two aeroplanes were acquired from British Mediterranean Airways (BMED), a now-defunct airline that flew to several Arab countries in the Middle East, Phil Shepherd, a company spokesman, told The Jerusalem Post.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "British airline 'sorry' for deleting Israel from map" posted at The Telegraph UK 4/30/09
Most Israeli cities were not marked on screens showing flight maps to passengers on two [British] BMI-owned Airbus A320 aeroplanes. Only Haifa was identified - by its Arab name, Khefa.
BMI, which runs flights from London to Tel Aviv twice daily, apologised for the omission on Thursday and denied that there was any political agenda behind the exclusion.
The two aeroplanes were acquired from British Mediterranean Airways (BMED), a now-defunct airline that flew to several Arab countries in the Middle East, Phil Shepherd, a company spokesman, told The Jerusalem Post.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Sweden Approves Sex-selection Abortion
Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare. . . . it is illegal to deny a woman an abortion up to her 18th week of pregnancy even if her request is based on a sex preference.
-- From "Sex-based abortions" posted at the Washington Times 5/13/09
The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.
Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.
The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Sex-based abortions" posted at the Washington Times 5/13/09
The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.
Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.
The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
U.S. Military Destroys Soldier's Bibles in Afghanistan
Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytizing, a military spokeswoman said.
-- From "U.S. military says Afghan bibles have been destroyed" Reuters 5/5/09
The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class on a base with a stack of bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.
U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty -- including all those based in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from trying to convert people to another religion.
Military officials have said the bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. The soldier brought them to the bible study class where they were filmed.
Trying to convert Muslims to another faith is a crime in Afghanistan. An Afghan man who converted to Christianity was sentenced to death for apostasy in 2006 but was allowed to leave the country after an international uproar.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "U.S. military says Afghan bibles have been destroyed" Reuters 5/5/09
The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class on a base with a stack of bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.
U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty -- including all those based in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from trying to convert people to another religion.
Military officials have said the bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. The soldier brought them to the bible study class where they were filmed.
Trying to convert Muslims to another faith is a crime in Afghanistan. An Afghan man who converted to Christianity was sentenced to death for apostasy in 2006 but was allowed to leave the country after an international uproar.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
IRS Ruling Ensures Clergy Freedom to Preach on Election Matters
"The IRS has unequivocally affirmed the right of pastors nationwide to come together as spokesmen for the Word of God, to interact with political leaders, historians and scholars in discussing the moral issues under debate within our culture and to assert their biblical responsibility to address such issues from their pulpits."
-- From "IRS says pastors who backed Perry didn't break law with closed-door conferences" by Wayne Slater, The Dallas Morning News 5/13/09
The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that a foundation funded by financial backers of [Texas] Gov. Rick Perry did not violate the law by mobilizing evangelical Christians in advance of his 2006 re-election.
The IRS ruled that church congregations were "told to vote their values," but not for a specific candidate.
"This liberal attempt to intimidate pastors has backfired," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represented event organizers. "Not only do pastors and churches have freedom, but now they know about it."
Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that advocates on church-state issues and filed the complaint, said the ruling will "further embolden wealthy special interests who funnel campaign money through nonprofits that want to drag churches into partisan campaigns."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pastors win challenge to political involvement" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/12/09
In a decision that holds ramifications for churches around the country, the Internal Revenue Service found that a non-profit organization that gathered pastors to a series of public policy conferences did not violate the political entanglement laws governing its tax-exempt status.
Prompted by a complaint filed by the Texas Freedom Network, which calls itself "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right," the IRS investigated the Houston-based Niemoller Foundation for organizing during the 2006 election season six pastors briefings, which included speeches from prominent politicians and training for pastors on urging and registering their congregations to vote.
Despite charges that the foundation had therefore engaged in political partisan activity in violation of its tax exempt status, the IRS investigation found "no evidence of political intervention."
. . . said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represented event organizers: "There is now a clear IRS statement outlining these pastors' events and approving them as valid under the law."
Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Institute, further explained to WND the ramifications the ruling holds for churches.
"The Niemoller Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, just like a church," Sasser explained. "So by the Niemoller activities being granted as lawful, then any church that engages in the same kind of voter education combined with voter registration drives on the moral issues of the day is perfectly fine with the IRS regulations, according to the IRS itself."
Sasser reiterated, "The whole point was to educate everyone about the important social issues and get them to go vote and register others to vote, and the IRS said this was perfectly okay."
"Be careful what you hear from these liberal organizations," Shackelford said in a statement.
"They sound very confident and file many complaints, yet none are found valid even by the IRS."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also, read this related article from 2008.
If people tell you that churches can "get in trouble" with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit for speaking up during election periods, please share the following by Mathew D. Staver, Esq. of Liberty Counsel:
-- From "IRS says pastors who backed Perry didn't break law with closed-door conferences" by Wayne Slater, The Dallas Morning News 5/13/09
The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that a foundation funded by financial backers of [Texas] Gov. Rick Perry did not violate the law by mobilizing evangelical Christians in advance of his 2006 re-election.
The IRS ruled that church congregations were "told to vote their values," but not for a specific candidate.
"This liberal attempt to intimidate pastors has backfired," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represented event organizers. "Not only do pastors and churches have freedom, but now they know about it."
Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that advocates on church-state issues and filed the complaint, said the ruling will "further embolden wealthy special interests who funnel campaign money through nonprofits that want to drag churches into partisan campaigns."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pastors win challenge to political involvement" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/12/09
In a decision that holds ramifications for churches around the country, the Internal Revenue Service found that a non-profit organization that gathered pastors to a series of public policy conferences did not violate the political entanglement laws governing its tax-exempt status.
Prompted by a complaint filed by the Texas Freedom Network, which calls itself "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right," the IRS investigated the Houston-based Niemoller Foundation for organizing during the 2006 election season six pastors briefings, which included speeches from prominent politicians and training for pastors on urging and registering their congregations to vote.
Despite charges that the foundation had therefore engaged in political partisan activity in violation of its tax exempt status, the IRS investigation found "no evidence of political intervention."
. . . said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represented event organizers: "There is now a clear IRS statement outlining these pastors' events and approving them as valid under the law."
Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Institute, further explained to WND the ramifications the ruling holds for churches.
"The Niemoller Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, just like a church," Sasser explained. "So by the Niemoller activities being granted as lawful, then any church that engages in the same kind of voter education combined with voter registration drives on the moral issues of the day is perfectly fine with the IRS regulations, according to the IRS itself."
Sasser reiterated, "The whole point was to educate everyone about the important social issues and get them to go vote and register others to vote, and the IRS said this was perfectly okay."
"Be careful what you hear from these liberal organizations," Shackelford said in a statement.
"They sound very confident and file many complaints, yet none are found valid even by the IRS."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also, read this related article from 2008.
If people tell you that churches can "get in trouble" with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit for speaking up during election periods, please share the following by Mathew D. Staver, Esq. of Liberty Counsel:
". . . from 1954 to the present, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for endorsing or opposing political candidates. This history alone should alleviate unfounded fear."
Churches may also distribute objective voter guides that address the candidates’ views on a broad range of issues.
Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Pastors can urge the congregation to become involved in the political process, urge them to register and vote.
In summary, while liberal groups seek to silence pastors and churches, I would encourage pastors to throw off their muzzle and pick up a megaphone. It’s time pastors and churches became the moral conscience of the community.
ACLU Abandons Principles to Favor 'Hate Crimes' Bill
"Is there no non-politically correct ACLU lawyer or other staff worker or anyone in the ACLU affiliates around the country or any dues-paying member outraged enough to demand of the ACLU's ruling circle to at last disavow this corruption of the Constitution?"
-- From "'Thought Crimes' Bill Advances" by Nat Hentoff, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute 5/11/09
Why is the press remaining mostly silent about the so-called "hate crimes law" that passed in the House on April 29? The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in a 249-175 vote (17 Republicans joined with 231 Democrats). These Democrats should have been tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment, equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment), and the prohibition of double jeopardy (no American can be prosecuted twice for the same crime or offense). If they had been, they would have known that this proposal, now headed for a Senate vote, violates all these constitutional provisions.
. . . [Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry Jr. says, regarding a Colorado "hate crime" law,] - like the newly expanded House of Representatives federal bill - "does not apply equally" (as the 14th Amendment requires), essentially instead "criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against politically incorrect victim categories."
. . . This legislation, certain to be passed by the Senate, will come to the Supreme Court. I hope the Justices will look up at the carving as they go into the building.
. . . What also appalls me, as the new federal bill races toward a presidential signature, is that for years, and now, the American Civil Liberties Union approves "hate crimes" prosecutions!
To read the entire commentary, CLICK HERE.
-- From "'Thought Crimes' Bill Advances" by Nat Hentoff, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute 5/11/09
Why is the press remaining mostly silent about the so-called "hate crimes law" that passed in the House on April 29? The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in a 249-175 vote (17 Republicans joined with 231 Democrats). These Democrats should have been tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment, equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment), and the prohibition of double jeopardy (no American can be prosecuted twice for the same crime or offense). If they had been, they would have known that this proposal, now headed for a Senate vote, violates all these constitutional provisions.
. . . [Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry Jr. says, regarding a Colorado "hate crime" law,] - like the newly expanded House of Representatives federal bill - "does not apply equally" (as the 14th Amendment requires), essentially instead "criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against politically incorrect victim categories."
. . . This legislation, certain to be passed by the Senate, will come to the Supreme Court. I hope the Justices will look up at the carving as they go into the building.
. . . What also appalls me, as the new federal bill races toward a presidential signature, is that for years, and now, the American Civil Liberties Union approves "hate crimes" prosecutions!
To read the entire commentary, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Archbishop Slams Obama For Anti-Life, Anti-Family Agenda
Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court in the Roman Catholic Church . . . [said] that no matter what good positions a politician may hold on other issues it is never justified to vote for him if he supports abortion, euthanasia or same-sex marriage.
-- From "Archbishop slams Obama for anti-life, anti-family agenda, also slams Sebelius and Notre Dame" by Bill Dalton, Kansas City Star 5/8/09
The American bishop who heads the Vatican’s supreme court slammed President Obama today for pursuing an “anti-life and anti-family agenda” and called the University of Notre Dame’s plans to honor him this month “the greatest scandal.”
At the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday, Burke garnered frequent applause for castigating Notre Dame, Obama, and Catholics who stray from the church’s social teachings.
Dozens of Catholic bishops have criticized Notre Dame, the nation’s top Catholic university, for inviting Obama to deliver its commencement address on May 17, and planning to grant him the degree customarily given to graduation speakers.
Burke also denounced a number of early moves by the White House, including . . . research on certain types of embryonic stem cells, as well as preparing to roll back some conscience protections for health care workers.
Burke also criticized Catholics who support or work for the Obama administration, particularly new cabinet member Kathleen Sebelius.
Sebelius did not attend the annual Catholic prayer breakfast, nor did Vice President Joe Biden, who is Catholic, or any Catholic member of Obama’s cabinet.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia also delivered remarks on Friday, and urged fellow Catholics not to be ashamed of their theological beliefs amid a largely secular culture.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "No Other Issues Can Justify Voting for Pro-Abortion, Pro-Euthanasia, or Pro-Same-Sex Marriage Politicians, Says Vatican’s Top Judicial Official" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief CNSNews.com 5/11/09
“In a nation set so firmly on a path of violation of the most fundamental moral norms, Catholics and others who adhere to the natural moral law are pressured to think that their religious commitment to the moral law as the way of seeking the good of all is a merely confessional matter which cannot have any application in public life,” Burke told a crowd gathered at the Hilton Washington.
“Apparently, a number of Catholics in public life have been so convinced,” he continued.
“How often do we hear Catholic legislators who vote in favor of anti-life and anti-family legislation claim that they are personally opposed to what the legislation protects and fosters, but that they as public officials may not allow religious beliefs to affect their support of such legislation?” he asked.
“How often do we hear fellow Catholics supporting candidates for office, who are anti-life and anti-family, because of political-party loyalties or for reasons of other policies and programs supported by the candidate, which they deem to be good?” he continued.
To read the full text of Archbishop Burke's keynote address, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Archbishop slams Obama for anti-life, anti-family agenda, also slams Sebelius and Notre Dame" by Bill Dalton, Kansas City Star 5/8/09
The American bishop who heads the Vatican’s supreme court slammed President Obama today for pursuing an “anti-life and anti-family agenda” and called the University of Notre Dame’s plans to honor him this month “the greatest scandal.”
At the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday, Burke garnered frequent applause for castigating Notre Dame, Obama, and Catholics who stray from the church’s social teachings.
Dozens of Catholic bishops have criticized Notre Dame, the nation’s top Catholic university, for inviting Obama to deliver its commencement address on May 17, and planning to grant him the degree customarily given to graduation speakers.
Burke also denounced a number of early moves by the White House, including . . . research on certain types of embryonic stem cells, as well as preparing to roll back some conscience protections for health care workers.
Burke also criticized Catholics who support or work for the Obama administration, particularly new cabinet member Kathleen Sebelius.
Sebelius did not attend the annual Catholic prayer breakfast, nor did Vice President Joe Biden, who is Catholic, or any Catholic member of Obama’s cabinet.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia also delivered remarks on Friday, and urged fellow Catholics not to be ashamed of their theological beliefs amid a largely secular culture.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "No Other Issues Can Justify Voting for Pro-Abortion, Pro-Euthanasia, or Pro-Same-Sex Marriage Politicians, Says Vatican’s Top Judicial Official" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief CNSNews.com 5/11/09
“In a nation set so firmly on a path of violation of the most fundamental moral norms, Catholics and others who adhere to the natural moral law are pressured to think that their religious commitment to the moral law as the way of seeking the good of all is a merely confessional matter which cannot have any application in public life,” Burke told a crowd gathered at the Hilton Washington.
“Apparently, a number of Catholics in public life have been so convinced,” he continued.
“How often do we hear Catholic legislators who vote in favor of anti-life and anti-family legislation claim that they are personally opposed to what the legislation protects and fosters, but that they as public officials may not allow religious beliefs to affect their support of such legislation?” he asked.
“How often do we hear fellow Catholics supporting candidates for office, who are anti-life and anti-family, because of political-party loyalties or for reasons of other policies and programs supported by the candidate, which they deem to be good?” he continued.
To read the full text of Archbishop Burke's keynote address, CLICK HERE.
Mainstream Media Confirms Priest Sex Abuse Rooted in Homosexuality
U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation.
-- From "Former Catholic head of Milwaukee admits he's gay" by Rachel Zoll, The Associated Press 5/12/09
A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man describes his struggles with being gay in an upcoming memoir about his decades serving the church.
Archbishop Rembert Weakland, former head of the Milwaukee archdiocese, said in an interview Monday that he wrote about his sexual orientation because he wanted to be candid about "how this came to life in my own self, how I suppressed it, how it resurrected again."
Called "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop," the book is set to be released in June.
Weakland stepped down soon after Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, revealed in May 2002 that he was paid $450,000 to settle a sexual assault claim he made against the archbishop more than two decades earlier. The money came from the archdiocese.
The revelations rocked the Milwaukee archdiocese, which Weakland had led since 1977. He was a hero for liberal Catholics nationwide because of his work on social justice and other issues . . .
Weakland, a Benedictine monk, served in Rome as leader of the International Benedictine Confederation and also worked on a liturgy commission for the Second Vatican Council, which made reforms in the 1960s meant to modernize the church.
U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation. Estimates vary from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research on the issue by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Weakland said Christians needed to speak more openly about gays in the priesthood without the "hysteria" that often characterizes the debate.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Former Catholic head of Milwaukee admits he's gay" by Rachel Zoll, The Associated Press 5/12/09
A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man describes his struggles with being gay in an upcoming memoir about his decades serving the church.
Archbishop Rembert Weakland, former head of the Milwaukee archdiocese, said in an interview Monday that he wrote about his sexual orientation because he wanted to be candid about "how this came to life in my own self, how I suppressed it, how it resurrected again."
Called "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop," the book is set to be released in June.
Weakland stepped down soon after Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, revealed in May 2002 that he was paid $450,000 to settle a sexual assault claim he made against the archbishop more than two decades earlier. The money came from the archdiocese.
The revelations rocked the Milwaukee archdiocese, which Weakland had led since 1977. He was a hero for liberal Catholics nationwide because of his work on social justice and other issues . . .
Weakland, a Benedictine monk, served in Rome as leader of the International Benedictine Confederation and also worked on a liturgy commission for the Second Vatican Council, which made reforms in the 1960s meant to modernize the church.
U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation. Estimates vary from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research on the issue by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Weakland said Christians needed to speak more openly about gays in the priesthood without the "hysteria" that often characterizes the debate.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Mainstream Media Paints Conservatives at White Supremacists
. . . white supremacist hate groups . . . have an outsized effect based on the way they have been able to mainstream their propaganda and conspiracy theories . . . [via] conservative politicians' and pundits' . . . claims that Obama is a socialist.
Note that the source for these accusations is the Boston Globe, owned by the New York Times, and nearly bankrupt (of both money and integrity).
-- From "Obama election spurs wave of hate group violence" by Joseph Williams, Boston Globe Staff 5/11/09
While the inauguration of the first black president has lessened racial tensions for most Americans, it has set off a wave of violence on the white supremacist fringe, with anti-hate groups attributing six recent killings - including the ambush last month of three Pittsburgh police officers and the fatal shootings last month of two Florida sheriff's deputies - in part to anger over President Obama's election.
Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Movement, said the number of white extremist groups in the United States has increased by about 50 percent since 2000, and activity has sharply increased in recent months. The day after Obama won the presidency, he said, activity on the two most popular white supremacist websites overwhelmed computer servers.
Such groups, they said, tend to feed on racial resentment, economic deprivation, and anger toward government, but they have focused their wrath on Obama.
White extremists seem particularly upset at the belief Obama will curb their access to assault weapons; gun shops nationwide have reported a huge increase in sales of handguns and rapid-fire, large-capacity rifles, and the FBI reports that applications for required background checks for gun owners have soared compared with last year. Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, has said that the administration will try to reinstitute the ban on military-style assault rifles that expired in 2004 during the Bush presidency.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Question: How many Americans buying guns would it take to cause "a huge increase in sales" of guns? A "white supremacist fringe" element certainly couldn't create a blip in gun sales; thus, the Boston Globe is obviously implying that most gun buyers are part of their definition of the "white supremacist fringe."
Note that the source for these accusations is the Boston Globe, owned by the New York Times, and nearly bankrupt (of both money and integrity).
-- From "Obama election spurs wave of hate group violence" by Joseph Williams, Boston Globe Staff 5/11/09
While the inauguration of the first black president has lessened racial tensions for most Americans, it has set off a wave of violence on the white supremacist fringe, with anti-hate groups attributing six recent killings - including the ambush last month of three Pittsburgh police officers and the fatal shootings last month of two Florida sheriff's deputies - in part to anger over President Obama's election.
Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Movement, said the number of white extremist groups in the United States has increased by about 50 percent since 2000, and activity has sharply increased in recent months. The day after Obama won the presidency, he said, activity on the two most popular white supremacist websites overwhelmed computer servers.
Such groups, they said, tend to feed on racial resentment, economic deprivation, and anger toward government, but they have focused their wrath on Obama.
White extremists seem particularly upset at the belief Obama will curb their access to assault weapons; gun shops nationwide have reported a huge increase in sales of handguns and rapid-fire, large-capacity rifles, and the FBI reports that applications for required background checks for gun owners have soared compared with last year. Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, has said that the administration will try to reinstitute the ban on military-style assault rifles that expired in 2004 during the Bush presidency.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Question: How many Americans buying guns would it take to cause "a huge increase in sales" of guns? A "white supremacist fringe" element certainly couldn't create a blip in gun sales; thus, the Boston Globe is obviously implying that most gun buyers are part of their definition of the "white supremacist fringe."
National Same-sex Marriage Expected by 2020
Says ACLU's openly gay head: "Clearly, the momentum is on our side . . . It's just a matter of time." As for President Obama's endorsement: "We will push him."
-- From "ACLU chief: Same-sex marriage 'a sure thing'" by Gail Shister, Inquirer reporter 5/11/09
Just last week, Maine's legislature voted to legalize gay marriage, New Hampshire passed a law that awaits the governor's signature, and the District of Columbia voted to recognize out-of-state unions.
Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, and Connecticut allow gays to marry. In California, the state Supreme Court will rule on the repeal of Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage.
In New Jersey, Gov. Corzine says he will sign a same-sex marriage bill if one reaches his desk.
Same-sex marriage is nothing new to the 550,000-member ACLU. Its first challenge to a state law restricting matrimony to opposite-sex couples was filed in 1970 on behalf of a male duo in Minnesota. They lost.
Gay marriage remains a top priority for the ACLU, behind only national-security issues, says [ACLU head, Anthony] Romero, who began his tenure four days before 9/11.
Marriage is the key word in the debate, advocates say, because it confers consistent - and transferable - federal rights. Civil-union benefits vary by state and apply only to their state of origin.
G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College, predicts gay marriage will be legal nationally within a decade.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "ACLU chief: Same-sex marriage 'a sure thing'" by Gail Shister, Inquirer reporter 5/11/09
Just last week, Maine's legislature voted to legalize gay marriage, New Hampshire passed a law that awaits the governor's signature, and the District of Columbia voted to recognize out-of-state unions.
Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, and Connecticut allow gays to marry. In California, the state Supreme Court will rule on the repeal of Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage.
In New Jersey, Gov. Corzine says he will sign a same-sex marriage bill if one reaches his desk.
Same-sex marriage is nothing new to the 550,000-member ACLU. Its first challenge to a state law restricting matrimony to opposite-sex couples was filed in 1970 on behalf of a male duo in Minnesota. They lost.
Gay marriage remains a top priority for the ACLU, behind only national-security issues, says [ACLU head, Anthony] Romero, who began his tenure four days before 9/11.
Marriage is the key word in the debate, advocates say, because it confers consistent - and transferable - federal rights. Civil-union benefits vary by state and apply only to their state of origin.
G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College, predicts gay marriage will be legal nationally within a decade.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Liberal Media Portray Christians as Anti-science
In this MSNBC interview (see video) with Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana), "Hardball" host Chris Matthews says that Bible-believing Christians are against science because they question "evolutionary fact . . . taught . . . in our biology books."
Planned Parenthood Exploits Mother's Day
Judy Blume [author] sparked a firestorm this week when she wrote a letter on behalf of Planned Parenthood, describing a donation to the group as a "gift any mother will appreciate."
-- From "Judy Blume embroiled in Planned Parenthood controversy" by Colleen Mastony, Chicago Tribune staff reporter 5/9/09
Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights, sent the letter Tuesday as part of a Mother's Day fundraising push, distributing it to more than 200,000 people who had signed up to receive e-mails from the organization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pro-Lifers Call Out Planned Parenthood's Hypocrisy in Mother's Day Appeal" by Audrey Barrick, Christian Post Reporter 5/9/09
In a letter requesting support, Blume writes: "There is no organization that I know of that supports motherhood and all that it means more than Planned Parenthood. That's why I'm honoring moms everywhere with my gift to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund today."
The Action Fund is the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Recent reports revealed that Planned Parenthood clinics across the country were performing more abortions this year than previous years. Clinics in Illinois performed an all-time high number of abortions in January, according to The Associated Press. Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in the Chicago Area, said many of the abortions were motivated by economic worries.
Blume writes to potential donors, "It's not easy to be a mother these days. And right now – with more and more women seeking care from Planned Parenthood health centers – we need to do all we can to support them.
"By honoring a mother in your life with a gift to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, you'll be making a gift that protects and advocates for the health of millions of mothers and families."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Judy Blume embroiled in Planned Parenthood controversy" by Colleen Mastony, Chicago Tribune staff reporter 5/9/09
Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights, sent the letter Tuesday as part of a Mother's Day fundraising push, distributing it to more than 200,000 people who had signed up to receive e-mails from the organization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pro-Lifers Call Out Planned Parenthood's Hypocrisy in Mother's Day Appeal" by Audrey Barrick, Christian Post Reporter 5/9/09
In a letter requesting support, Blume writes: "There is no organization that I know of that supports motherhood and all that it means more than Planned Parenthood. That's why I'm honoring moms everywhere with my gift to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund today."
The Action Fund is the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Recent reports revealed that Planned Parenthood clinics across the country were performing more abortions this year than previous years. Clinics in Illinois performed an all-time high number of abortions in January, according to The Associated Press. Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in the Chicago Area, said many of the abortions were motivated by economic worries.
Blume writes to potential donors, "It's not easy to be a mother these days. And right now – with more and more women seeking care from Planned Parenthood health centers – we need to do all we can to support them.
"By honoring a mother in your life with a gift to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, you'll be making a gift that protects and advocates for the health of millions of mothers and families."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Obama Thankful for Freedom to Not Worship
President Obama's proclamation – as required by federal law – marking the National Day of Prayer, which barely mentions the Almighty, praises a secular America.
Contrasting Lincoln's and Obama's proclamations . . .
-- From "Obama’s National Day of Prayer Proclamation Mentions God Only Once" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer, CNSNews.com 5/7/09
On March 30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the proclamation beginning with the words:
“Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.”
In today’s proclamation, Obama opened the document with these words:
“Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer. In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer. Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance.”
In Lincoln’s proclamation, God is mentioned five times and emphasizes God’s dominion over the nation, the need for people to repent, and the divine nature of the Bible.
“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord,” Lincoln wrote.
Obama’s proclamation mentions God once – “I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God’s continued guidance, grace and protection for this land that we love” – and also refers to people who don’t believe in God, which is tied to a reference to the U.S. military.
“On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces,” Obama wrote. “We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.”
To read the entire proclamations by both presidents, CLICK HERE.
Contrasting Lincoln's and Obama's proclamations . . .
-- From "Obama’s National Day of Prayer Proclamation Mentions God Only Once" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer, CNSNews.com 5/7/09
On March 30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the proclamation beginning with the words:
“Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.”
In today’s proclamation, Obama opened the document with these words:
“Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer. In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer. Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance.”
In Lincoln’s proclamation, God is mentioned five times and emphasizes God’s dominion over the nation, the need for people to repent, and the divine nature of the Bible.
“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord,” Lincoln wrote.
Obama’s proclamation mentions God once – “I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God’s continued guidance, grace and protection for this land that we love” – and also refers to people who don’t believe in God, which is tied to a reference to the U.S. military.
“On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces,” Obama wrote. “We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.”
To read the entire proclamations by both presidents, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Homosexualists Demand More from Obama
President Obama's recent endorsement of special rights for sexual deviancy via the Hate Crimes bill isn't enough -- Gay America now!
UPDATE 5/28/09: Obama ensures Senate will pass 'hate crimes' law
UPDATE 5/22/09: LA Times concerned Obama putting Gays on back burner
-- From "As Gay Issues Arise, Obama Is Pressed to Engage" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, News York Times 5/7/09
President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.
Two of Mr. Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine — and a new flare-up in the District of Columbia could ultimately put the controversy in the lap of the president.
Mr. Obama’s new global health initiative has infuriated activists who say he is not financing AIDS programs generously enough. And while the president has urged Congress to pass a hate crimes bill, a high priority for gay groups, he has delayed action on one of his key campaign promises, repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule.
. . . gay activists . . . are unsettled by what they see as the president’s cautious approach.
In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are beginning to wonder, “How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?”
The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Some say change is inevitable, not only for Mr. Obama but also for other Democratic politicians who have embraced civil unions but rejected same-sex marriage. Now that the Iowa ruling has pushed the battle into the nation’s heartland, the issue will inevitably come up during the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential campaign.
“We’ve elected probably the most pro-gay president in history; he’s very good on the issues but he is not good on gay marriage,” said Steven Elmendorf, a gay Democratic lobbyist.
Mr. Obama has chosen a number of openly gay people for prominent jobs, including Fred P. Hochberg as chairman of the Export-Import Bank and John Berry to run the Office of Personnel Management. And he is the first president to set aside tickets for gay families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll.
But on legislation, allies of Mr. Obama’s are not surprised that he is charting a careful course. In addition to calling for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military, Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Where's Our 'Fierce Advocate'?" by Richard Socarides, Washington Post 5/2/09
In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.
. . . recent victories on gay marriage, a youth-driven paradigm shift in public opinion and the election of our first African American president make this a uniquely opportune moment to act.
. . . Where is our New Deal?
. . . President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.
. . . We have waited long enough.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Obamanomics: Abstinence Funding Out, Taxpayer Abortion In
President Obama worldview apparent in proposed 2010 budget
UPDATE 5/11/09: Conservatives vow to fight elimination of abstinence-only prgrams
-- From "President Obama's budget cuts funding for abstinence-only sex education programs" by Michael Mcauliff, Daily News Washington Bureau 5/8/09
The White House wants to get out of the business of telling youngsters "Just Say No to Sex."
President Obama is putting his own ideological stamp on federal spending in his proposed 2010 budget by cutting cash for abstinence-only sex ed programs.
He's taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.
Dumping the say-no-to-sex programs were a tiny fraction of the $17 billion Team Obama trimmed from its $3.4 trillion funding budget request.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Wants Tax Money To Fund DC Abortions" by Joe Murray, The Bulletin [Philadelphia] 5/8/09
President Barack Obama urged the Democratic-controlled House and Senate to repeal the ban on taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia as one of his budgetary recommendations earlier this week.
The $3.4 trillion budget Mr. Obama submitted to Congress suggested the repeal of the ban, often referred to as the Dornan amendment, which prevents taxpayer-funded abortions in the District. First passed in 1988, the ban was in place until 1993 when it was briefly repealed under the Clinton administration.
By 1996, the ban was re-enacted and remains law. The budget proposal to repeal the Dornan Amendment has a number of political observers crying foul.
“Some wide-eyed journalists and various political shills for the Obama administration continue to write fairy tales about how President Obama wants to pursue policies that would reduce abortions,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
“That is a political scam. In reality, President Obama is pursuing a step-by-step strategy to expand access to abortion, and today’s step is to urge Congress to authorize the funding of abortion on demand in the nation’s capital, with funds appropriated by Congress.”
Abortion has been a tricky issue for Mr. Obama since he entered the presidential campaign. While on the trail, Mr. Obama dodged questions pertaining to his pro-choice voting record in Illinois and famously told Pastor Rick Warren the topic of abortion was above his “pay grade.”
. . . Mr. Obama’s rhetoric, pro-lifers say, does not match reality.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/11/09: Conservatives vow to fight elimination of abstinence-only prgrams
-- From "President Obama's budget cuts funding for abstinence-only sex education programs" by Michael Mcauliff, Daily News Washington Bureau 5/8/09
The White House wants to get out of the business of telling youngsters "Just Say No to Sex."
President Obama is putting his own ideological stamp on federal spending in his proposed 2010 budget by cutting cash for abstinence-only sex ed programs.
He's taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.
Dumping the say-no-to-sex programs were a tiny fraction of the $17 billion Team Obama trimmed from its $3.4 trillion funding budget request.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Wants Tax Money To Fund DC Abortions" by Joe Murray, The Bulletin [Philadelphia] 5/8/09
President Barack Obama urged the Democratic-controlled House and Senate to repeal the ban on taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia as one of his budgetary recommendations earlier this week.
The $3.4 trillion budget Mr. Obama submitted to Congress suggested the repeal of the ban, often referred to as the Dornan amendment, which prevents taxpayer-funded abortions in the District. First passed in 1988, the ban was in place until 1993 when it was briefly repealed under the Clinton administration.
By 1996, the ban was re-enacted and remains law. The budget proposal to repeal the Dornan Amendment has a number of political observers crying foul.
“Some wide-eyed journalists and various political shills for the Obama administration continue to write fairy tales about how President Obama wants to pursue policies that would reduce abortions,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
“That is a political scam. In reality, President Obama is pursuing a step-by-step strategy to expand access to abortion, and today’s step is to urge Congress to authorize the funding of abortion on demand in the nation’s capital, with funds appropriated by Congress.”
Abortion has been a tricky issue for Mr. Obama since he entered the presidential campaign. While on the trail, Mr. Obama dodged questions pertaining to his pro-choice voting record in Illinois and famously told Pastor Rick Warren the topic of abortion was above his “pay grade.”
. . . Mr. Obama’s rhetoric, pro-lifers say, does not match reality.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, May 08, 2009
School Stonewalls Parents on 'Lesbian Minister' Guest Speaker
Parents sue California public high school for information on lesbian's presentation to math and science classes speaking about her "coming out to God" - District invokes "clergy-penitent privilege"
No, you couldn't make this stuff up!
-- From "Parents Complain After Lesbian Minister Speaks at High School" by Pacific Justice Institute 5/7/09
More than twenty parents filed suit yesterday against the Castro Valley Unified School District, after the District refused to comply with a public records request. The parents are represented by staff attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute.
The parents sought more information after learning from their children that a lesbian minister had been invited by the school to speak to math and science classes at Castro Valley High School. According to students, the minister spoke about her lesbian wedding and the process of "coming out" to God, self and family. Pacific Justice Institute sent a public records request to the school on the parents' behalf, seeking all records related to the minister's presentations, as well as any records demonstrating the connection between the minister's talk and the math and science curriculum.
In response, the school district flatly refused to provide the records. To the bewilderment of PJI attorneys, the District invoked the clergy-penitent privilege-ordinarily used to shield ministers from testifying in court about confessions made to them in private. PJI filed a writ petition yesterday in Alameda Superior Court to compel release of the records.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
No, you couldn't make this stuff up!
-- From "Parents Complain After Lesbian Minister Speaks at High School" by Pacific Justice Institute 5/7/09
More than twenty parents filed suit yesterday against the Castro Valley Unified School District, after the District refused to comply with a public records request. The parents are represented by staff attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute.
The parents sought more information after learning from their children that a lesbian minister had been invited by the school to speak to math and science classes at Castro Valley High School. According to students, the minister spoke about her lesbian wedding and the process of "coming out" to God, self and family. Pacific Justice Institute sent a public records request to the school on the parents' behalf, seeking all records related to the minister's presentations, as well as any records demonstrating the connection between the minister's talk and the math and science curriculum.
In response, the school district flatly refused to provide the records. To the bewilderment of PJI attorneys, the District invoked the clergy-penitent privilege-ordinarily used to shield ministers from testifying in court about confessions made to them in private. PJI filed a writ petition yesterday in Alameda Superior Court to compel release of the records.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Vote on New Maine Same-sex 'Marriage' Law Likely
Maine's constitution provides a "people's veto" referendum opportunity to nullify the legislature's "gay marriage" bill signed by Gov. John Baldacci
UPDATE 9/21/09: Fierce advertising battle shaping up for referendum
UPDATE 9/2/09: Maine citizens to vote on same-sex marriage in November
-- From "Opponents challenging new Maine gay marriage law" by Glenn Adams, Associated Press 5/7/09
Activists on both sides Thursday started working up strategies for campaigns leading up to a possible November referendum under a state constitutional provision known as the people's veto.
The deadline for opponents to collect at least 55,087 signatures will probably fall in mid-September, about the time the gay marriage law is due to take effect.
However, the law would be stayed as soon as the signatures are submitted for review by election officials. And the timing of when petitions are turned in will determine whether the referendum can be scheduled for this November or June 2010.
The National Association of Marriage Enhancement — which helped drive successful referendums in Arizona, California and Florida to pass laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman — said it is looking for ways to help out.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 9/21/09: Fierce advertising battle shaping up for referendum
UPDATE 9/2/09: Maine citizens to vote on same-sex marriage in November
-- From "Opponents challenging new Maine gay marriage law" by Glenn Adams, Associated Press 5/7/09
Activists on both sides Thursday started working up strategies for campaigns leading up to a possible November referendum under a state constitutional provision known as the people's veto.
The deadline for opponents to collect at least 55,087 signatures will probably fall in mid-September, about the time the gay marriage law is due to take effect.
However, the law would be stayed as soon as the signatures are submitted for review by election officials. And the timing of when petitions are turned in will determine whether the referendum can be scheduled for this November or June 2010.
The National Association of Marriage Enhancement — which helped drive successful referendums in Arizona, California and Florida to pass laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman — said it is looking for ways to help out.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Miss California Topless Photos Shoved in Christians' Faces
Politically Incorrect Enemy No. 1, Carrie Prejean, has been targeted by mainstream media and homosexualists worldwide for total annihilation because of her support of traditional marriage.
-- From "Miss California: I’ll fight on despite racy photos" by Mike Celizic, NBC News TODAYShow.com contributor 5/5/09
With partially nude photos of her popping up on Web sites questioning her Christian credentials, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has fired back, claiming the racy pictures are just modeling shots and vowing to continue her battle against same-sex marriage.
“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” Prejean said in a statement released overnight to the media. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”
But Alicia Jacobs, a judge at the April 19 Miss USA pageant during which Prejean made her highly publicized statement opposing same-sex marriage, said the pictures go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate.
The images may also hurt her status as a spokeswoman for conservative causes. “She can continue to advocate for causes, but I don’t think these causes are going to advocate for her,” Ken Baker of E! News told NBC.
The Web site thedirty.com claimed that it had six pictures of Prejean. As of Tuesday morning, it had posted one on its site. The picture shows Prejean wearing nothing but a pair of revealing pink panties and smiling over her shoulder at the camera. Her breasts are covered by her arm.
Although Prejean said the pictures were taken when she was 17, others have alleged that they seem to have been taken after she underwent breast-enhancement surgery six weeks prior to the Miss USA pageant. That surgery was paid for by the Miss California pageant.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Calif pageant eyes Prejean for contract violations" by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer 5/5/09
The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to gay marriage and by posing semi-nude when she was a teenage model.
Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday that it appears Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that all prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the November state contest.
The detailed document prohibits the titular Miss California from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials. In the last 10 days, Prejean has made televised appearances at her San Diego church and on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage.
The contact also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." As an example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Miss California: I’ll fight on despite racy photos" by Mike Celizic, NBC News TODAYShow.com contributor 5/5/09
With partially nude photos of her popping up on Web sites questioning her Christian credentials, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has fired back, claiming the racy pictures are just modeling shots and vowing to continue her battle against same-sex marriage.
“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” Prejean said in a statement released overnight to the media. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”
But Alicia Jacobs, a judge at the April 19 Miss USA pageant during which Prejean made her highly publicized statement opposing same-sex marriage, said the pictures go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate.
The images may also hurt her status as a spokeswoman for conservative causes. “She can continue to advocate for causes, but I don’t think these causes are going to advocate for her,” Ken Baker of E! News told NBC.
The Web site thedirty.com claimed that it had six pictures of Prejean. As of Tuesday morning, it had posted one on its site. The picture shows Prejean wearing nothing but a pair of revealing pink panties and smiling over her shoulder at the camera. Her breasts are covered by her arm.
Although Prejean said the pictures were taken when she was 17, others have alleged that they seem to have been taken after she underwent breast-enhancement surgery six weeks prior to the Miss USA pageant. That surgery was paid for by the Miss California pageant.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Calif pageant eyes Prejean for contract violations" by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer 5/5/09
The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to gay marriage and by posing semi-nude when she was a teenage model.
Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday that it appears Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that all prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the November state contest.
The detailed document prohibits the titular Miss California from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials. In the last 10 days, Prejean has made televised appearances at her San Diego church and on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage.
The contact also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." As an example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Marriage Death by a Thousand Cuts
Remember that President Obama said during his campaign, and posted officially on the White House website, that same-sex couples should have "all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage" (click for Obama video).
UPDATE 7/15/09: Huffington Post writer mirrors this Blog's discernment
-- From "States grant more rights to gay couples" by Carol J. Williams, posted at the Chicago Tribune 5/6/09
. . . referring to rights incrementally accorded gay couples that have led to virtual equality between same-sex and heterosexual unions in states where gay marriage remains banned, a growing trend . . .
These rights are expanding as legally married gay couples relocate to states that don't allow gay marriage, forcing courts, legislatures and employers to deal with a new wrinkle on issues of custody, divorce, inheritance and end-of-life decisions.
In New York, which does not allow gay marriage but recognizes those conducted elsewhere, recent court decisions have granted a divorce to two gay men and surviving-spouse benefits to another. In California, federal judges have twice overruled decisions by the federal government to deny health-care coverage to gay employees' legal spouses, teeing up a constitutional challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal benefits to same-sex couples.
Rights advocates predict the tide eventually will sweep into some of the 30-plus states that have passed laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"A body of law is emerging because it has no choice. Cases have been filed, and they have to be decided one way or another," said Joseph Milizio, a Long Island, N.Y., lawyer specializing in gay and lesbian representation.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
(Shhh . . . the church is sleeping)
UPDATE 7/15/09: Huffington Post writer mirrors this Blog's discernment
-- From "States grant more rights to gay couples" by Carol J. Williams, posted at the Chicago Tribune 5/6/09
. . . referring to rights incrementally accorded gay couples that have led to virtual equality between same-sex and heterosexual unions in states where gay marriage remains banned, a growing trend . . .
These rights are expanding as legally married gay couples relocate to states that don't allow gay marriage, forcing courts, legislatures and employers to deal with a new wrinkle on issues of custody, divorce, inheritance and end-of-life decisions.
In New York, which does not allow gay marriage but recognizes those conducted elsewhere, recent court decisions have granted a divorce to two gay men and surviving-spouse benefits to another. In California, federal judges have twice overruled decisions by the federal government to deny health-care coverage to gay employees' legal spouses, teeing up a constitutional challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal benefits to same-sex couples.
Rights advocates predict the tide eventually will sweep into some of the 30-plus states that have passed laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"A body of law is emerging because it has no choice. Cases have been filed, and they have to be decided one way or another," said Joseph Milizio, a Long Island, N.Y., lawyer specializing in gay and lesbian representation.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
(Shhh . . . the church is sleeping)
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Teacher Calling Genesis 'Superstitious Nonsense' Loses in Court
In what apparently is a first-of-its-kind decision, a federal court has ruled that a California teacher violated the rights of a student by making fun of Christianity. "The Supreme Court's comments with regard to government promotion of religion apply with equal force where the government disapproves of religion," the court ruling said.
UPDATE 8/22/11: A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of (teacher) Corbett - for another account of the ruling, CLICK HERE
UPDATE 10/23/09: Student may have won case, but must pay $20K legal fees
-- From "Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism 'Superstitious Nonsense'" Associated Press 5/4/09
U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.
The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.
. . . Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.
Farnan's family would . . . like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Teacher's rant on Christians draws court rebuke" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/4/09
Teacher James Corbett of Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo already had a reputation for dissing the faithful when Chad Farnan began taking an Advanced Placement European history class from him two years ago.
"We hope that the impact of this will be that teachers will begin to consider whether their comments express disapproval toward religion or hostility toward religion," [said Jennifer Monk] with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a national non-profit legal organization whose aim is to protect religious liberty in the courts.
The law firm said the court decided to allow many of Corbett's comments, including his statement, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."
The case alleged Corbett "spends an extended period of time at the beginning of each class discussing topics that are not only irrelevant to history but also inflammatory and often altogether inappropriate for high school students."
It alleged that Corbett's diatribes caused "students to hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/22/11: A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of (teacher) Corbett - for another account of the ruling, CLICK HERE
UPDATE 10/23/09: Student may have won case, but must pay $20K legal fees
-- From "Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism 'Superstitious Nonsense'" Associated Press 5/4/09
U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.
The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.
. . . Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.
Farnan's family would . . . like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Teacher's rant on Christians draws court rebuke" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/4/09
Teacher James Corbett of Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo already had a reputation for dissing the faithful when Chad Farnan began taking an Advanced Placement European history class from him two years ago.
"We hope that the impact of this will be that teachers will begin to consider whether their comments express disapproval toward religion or hostility toward religion," [said Jennifer Monk] with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a national non-profit legal organization whose aim is to protect religious liberty in the courts.
The law firm said the court decided to allow many of Corbett's comments, including his statement, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."
The case alleged Corbett "spends an extended period of time at the beginning of each class discussing topics that are not only irrelevant to history but also inflammatory and often altogether inappropriate for high school students."
It alleged that Corbett's diatribes caused "students to hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Murderers, Terrorists, 'Right-wing Christians' Barred from UK
Among the list of sixteen people banned from entering the UK include radio talk show host Michael Savage.
-- From "Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK" by Beverley Rouse, Press Association, posted on The Independent 5/5/09
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.
The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far-right US talk show host.
The list of the 16 "least wanted" includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner.
"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.
Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe are also on the list released today.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK" by Beverley Rouse, Press Association, posted on The Independent 5/5/09
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.
The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far-right US talk show host.
The list of the 16 "least wanted" includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner.
"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.
Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe are also on the list released today.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Gov. Palin Backs Citizens' Vote on Abortion Restrictions
Voters, not lawmakers, would decide if doctors had to tell a parent of a girl younger than 18.
-- From "Governor supports abortion initiative" by Sean Cockerham, Anchorage Daily News 5/3/09
The initiative sponsors, including former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman, applied last week to start gathering signatures. The measure would generally forbid a girl under 18 from getting an abortion unless the doctor informed at least one of her parents beforehand.
Palin said she plans to be the first in line to sign up. The governor said she even considered sponsoring the initiative herself, but decided otherwise after checking with the state's lawyers.
The prime sponsors of the "parental involvement" initiative are former lieutenant governor Leman, recent Anchorage school board candidate Mia Costello, and Kim Hummer-Minnery, whose husband is president of the Alaska Family Council, a Christian pro-family, anti-abortion group that is supporting the effort.
The abortion rights group Planned Parenthood will oppose the initiative.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Governor supports abortion initiative" by Sean Cockerham, Anchorage Daily News 5/3/09
The initiative sponsors, including former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman, applied last week to start gathering signatures. The measure would generally forbid a girl under 18 from getting an abortion unless the doctor informed at least one of her parents beforehand.
Palin said she plans to be the first in line to sign up. The governor said she even considered sponsoring the initiative herself, but decided otherwise after checking with the state's lawyers.
The prime sponsors of the "parental involvement" initiative are former lieutenant governor Leman, recent Anchorage school board candidate Mia Costello, and Kim Hummer-Minnery, whose husband is president of the Alaska Family Council, a Christian pro-family, anti-abortion group that is supporting the effort.
The abortion rights group Planned Parenthood will oppose the initiative.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Same-sex Marriage Support Mandatory for NE Democrats
Two New England governors are facing a choice between their principles and their party as same-sex-marriage bills move nearer to landing on their desks.
Homosexual advocates are concentrating on the destruction of marriage in all of New England by 2012.
-- From "Gay-marriage bills corner 2 governors" by Valerie Richardson, Washington Times 5/4/09
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch and Maine Gov. John Baldacci had staked out clear positions against gay marriage before this year's legislative sessions. Then bills to extend marriage to same-sex couples began moving faster than expected through the Maine and New Hampshire legislatures.
The bills' supporters and detractors have been divided largely along party lines, with Democratic legislators overwhelmingly in favor. The problem for Mr. Baldacci and Mr. Lynch is that they are Democrats, and New England Democrats who oppose gay marriage are increasingly rare.
"If you read the blogs, it's almost like it's become a litmus test for Democrats here, like abortion," said Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research-Action in Manchester, N.H., which opposes same-sex marriage.
Mr. Lynch likely will confront the issue first. Both houses of the New Hampshire legislature have passed same-sex-marriage legislation, although lawmakers still must reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions before sending a bill to the governor.
In Maine, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage passed the Senate on Thursday by a vote of 21-14 and now goes to the House, where a vote is expected Tuesday. Most observers agree that House passage is likely.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Homosexual advocates are concentrating on the destruction of marriage in all of New England by 2012.
-- From "Gay-marriage bills corner 2 governors" by Valerie Richardson, Washington Times 5/4/09
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch and Maine Gov. John Baldacci had staked out clear positions against gay marriage before this year's legislative sessions. Then bills to extend marriage to same-sex couples began moving faster than expected through the Maine and New Hampshire legislatures.
The bills' supporters and detractors have been divided largely along party lines, with Democratic legislators overwhelmingly in favor. The problem for Mr. Baldacci and Mr. Lynch is that they are Democrats, and New England Democrats who oppose gay marriage are increasingly rare.
"If you read the blogs, it's almost like it's become a litmus test for Democrats here, like abortion," said Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research-Action in Manchester, N.H., which opposes same-sex marriage.
Mr. Lynch likely will confront the issue first. Both houses of the New Hampshire legislature have passed same-sex-marriage legislation, although lawmakers still must reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions before sending a bill to the governor.
In Maine, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage passed the Senate on Thursday by a vote of 21-14 and now goes to the House, where a vote is expected Tuesday. Most observers agree that House passage is likely.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Same-sex 'Marriage' Advocates Encourage Harassment of Arkansas Voters
Personal identity information of all 84,000 Arkansas residents who signed the traditional marriage petition has been published in a permanent, searchable database for worldwide viewing.
-- From "Love thy neighbor?" posted at Arkansas Times 4/28/09
KnowThyNeighbor.org, the Pro-Gay Advocacy Group which made headlines in 2005 by posting the names of signers of anti-gay petitions in Massachusetts and later in Florida is now focusing its attention on voters in Arkansas.
KnowThyNeighbor states on its website that the information which is now available on 90,000 Arkansas voters is “public data taken from actual petition sheets supplied by the Secretary of State of Arkansas.” Tom Lang, a gay, married man and Director of KnowThyNeighbor, based in Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA, says that he uses the strategy of exposing the signers of anti-gay initiatives in order to generate the dialogue between both sides of this issue. “We believe at KnowThyNeighbor that if you truly feel that it is necessary to change laws and state constitutions to exclude gay people from the American experience then you should be proud to tell us who you are. And in like manner, if you are an LGBT person and you see someone that you know on this list, if you are related to this person or do business with this person that it is your responsibility to stand up and speak up for yourself, “ says Lang.
Read documentation of the ruthless tactics of homosexualists, including in Massachusetts and California.
To read the entire posting, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Love thy neighbor?" posted at Arkansas Times 4/28/09
KnowThyNeighbor.org, the Pro-Gay Advocacy Group which made headlines in 2005 by posting the names of signers of anti-gay petitions in Massachusetts and later in Florida is now focusing its attention on voters in Arkansas.
KnowThyNeighbor states on its website that the information which is now available on 90,000 Arkansas voters is “public data taken from actual petition sheets supplied by the Secretary of State of Arkansas.” Tom Lang, a gay, married man and Director of KnowThyNeighbor, based in Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA, says that he uses the strategy of exposing the signers of anti-gay initiatives in order to generate the dialogue between both sides of this issue. “We believe at KnowThyNeighbor that if you truly feel that it is necessary to change laws and state constitutions to exclude gay people from the American experience then you should be proud to tell us who you are. And in like manner, if you are an LGBT person and you see someone that you know on this list, if you are related to this person or do business with this person that it is your responsibility to stand up and speak up for yourself, “ says Lang.
Read documentation of the ruthless tactics of homosexualists, including in Massachusetts and California.
To read the entire posting, CLICK HERE.
Planned Parenthood Fuming over Public Funds in Orange County Calif.
Under threat of lawsuit, Orange County supervisors reversed their previous ban on funding of Planned Parenthood, but instituted new policies to radically limit any future funding to organizations that perform abortion.
-- From "Orange County restores Planned Parenthood sex ed funding" by Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times 4/29/09
In March, supervisors said they could not tolerate funding an organization that performs abortions and voted unanimously to suspend a grant worth nearly $300,000 in tobacco settlement revenue, money earmarked for sex education.
Following the advice of county lawyers, supervisors Tuesday reinstated the grant, with Supervisor John Moorlach, who first brought up the issue, and Supervisor Bill Campbell voting no.
Supervisors then voted unanimously for the county Health Care Agency to adopt policies restricting the use of tobacco settlement revenue at community clinics to direct health services, rather than health education.
In addition to eliminating health education, the new rules say services can't be provided in the same place where abortions are performed.
"Clearly this is an effort to target Planned Parenthood," said Jon Dunn, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Orange and San Bernardino Counties . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "County yanks future funding from abortionists" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/2/09
. . . the policy requires clinics that offer counseling and family planning services where abortion is discussed to account for the grant money separately, ensuring none of the money is spent on abortion counseling or referrals.
Attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund have offered to defend the Orange County Board of Supervisors pro bono in the event Planned Parenthood or similar pro-abortion groups challenge the new policy in court.
"Local governments are not required to provide bailout money to the abortion industry," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden in a statement. "Taxpayers should not be required to foot the bill for the activities of groups which perform or promote abortions. The Orange County policy is perfectly consistent with similar federal restrictions and does not violate any state or federal laws."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Orange County restores Planned Parenthood sex ed funding" by Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times 4/29/09
In March, supervisors said they could not tolerate funding an organization that performs abortions and voted unanimously to suspend a grant worth nearly $300,000 in tobacco settlement revenue, money earmarked for sex education.
Following the advice of county lawyers, supervisors Tuesday reinstated the grant, with Supervisor John Moorlach, who first brought up the issue, and Supervisor Bill Campbell voting no.
Supervisors then voted unanimously for the county Health Care Agency to adopt policies restricting the use of tobacco settlement revenue at community clinics to direct health services, rather than health education.
In addition to eliminating health education, the new rules say services can't be provided in the same place where abortions are performed.
"Clearly this is an effort to target Planned Parenthood," said Jon Dunn, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Orange and San Bernardino Counties . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "County yanks future funding from abortionists" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 5/2/09
. . . the policy requires clinics that offer counseling and family planning services where abortion is discussed to account for the grant money separately, ensuring none of the money is spent on abortion counseling or referrals.
Attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund have offered to defend the Orange County Board of Supervisors pro bono in the event Planned Parenthood or similar pro-abortion groups challenge the new policy in court.
"Local governments are not required to provide bailout money to the abortion industry," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden in a statement. "Taxpayers should not be required to foot the bill for the activities of groups which perform or promote abortions. The Orange County policy is perfectly consistent with similar federal restrictions and does not violate any state or federal laws."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Obama: 100 Days of Change for the Family
Watch this video to get the full report on the first 100 Days of the Obama presidency. This report will take you beyond the media and Administration spin to what the First 100 days of "change" really means for the family.
Principal Warns Teacher About Bullying Students for being Conservative
A Michigan high school is investigating allegations that one of its teachers berated and belittled a student for taking part in what the teacher considered an unacceptable activity: reading FOXNews.com.
-- From "Student Says Teacher Scolded Him for Viewing FOXNews.com" posted at FOX News, 5/1/09
The teacher of [the student's] video production class saw what he was looking at and "proceeded to give me a 10-minute lecture on why I can't read FOX News ... and that I can only listen to BBC and other news venues," the student said.
James Feil, superintendent of Traverse City Area Public Schools, told FOXNews.com that any attempts to pressure students politically would go against his schools' policies.
. . . school officials said the student hadn't violated any computer-use rules in his class.
But the school has a strict policy against bullying, which it says "may in circumstances be a violation of federal or state law" and goes against its commitment to provide a safe learning environment.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Student Says Teacher Scolded Him for Viewing FOXNews.com" posted at FOX News, 5/1/09
The teacher of [the student's] video production class saw what he was looking at and "proceeded to give me a 10-minute lecture on why I can't read FOX News ... and that I can only listen to BBC and other news venues," the student said.
James Feil, superintendent of Traverse City Area Public Schools, told FOXNews.com that any attempts to pressure students politically would go against his schools' policies.
. . . school officials said the student hadn't violated any computer-use rules in his class.
But the school has a strict policy against bullying, which it says "may in circumstances be a violation of federal or state law" and goes against its commitment to provide a safe learning environment.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
World-wide Anti-family Forces Seek Obama's Support
A global children’s rights treaty, ratified by every U.N. member except the United States and Somalia, has so alarmed its American critics that some are pushing to add a parental rights amendment to the Constitution as a buffer.
-- From "Children’s rights treaty stirs debate" by David Crary, Associated Press 5/2/09
. . . a long-running saga over the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The nearly 20-year-old treaty has ardent supporters and opponents in the United States, and both sides agree that its chances of ratification — while still uncertain — are better under the Obama administration than at any point in the past.
Opponents of the treaty contend it would enable government officials and a Geneva-based U.N. committee of experts to interfere with parental authority. Its supporters view the treaty as a valuable guidepost for children’s basic rights — including education, health care and protection from abuse — and say its global goals are undermined by the refusal of the world’s lone superpower to ratify it.
[Treaty advocates] ranging from Amnesty International to the Girl Scouts of the USA [have] learned to be patient, and hope an all-out push for Senate ratification will be mounted by the third year of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs a Foreign Relations subcommittee handling human rights issues, has declared her strong support for ratifying the children’s rights treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as first lady back in 1995, also advocated on behalf of the treaty, while Obama, during his election campaign, suggested that U.S. failure to ratify was “embarrassing” and promised to review the treaty.
The treaty’s opponents say they will be ready to fight back, and the proposed parental rights amendment is a key part of their strategy.
Introduced this spring by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the amendment now has 80 of his fellow Republicans as co-sponsors in the House. The amendment also has been introduced in the Senate by Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who hasn’t yet announced co-sponsors.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Parents' Rights Amendment Reaches 80 Co-Sponsors" posted at American Chronicle 5/1/09
A Constitutional Amendment to protect the parent-child relationship introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland [MI], has reached 80 co-sponsors in the House.
"The grassroots movement behind the Parents´ Rights Amendment continues to generate support throughout the United States," Hoekstra said. "It is encouraging to see so many Americans concerned about preventing government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship."
-- From "Children’s rights treaty stirs debate" by David Crary, Associated Press 5/2/09
. . . a long-running saga over the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The nearly 20-year-old treaty has ardent supporters and opponents in the United States, and both sides agree that its chances of ratification — while still uncertain — are better under the Obama administration than at any point in the past.
Opponents of the treaty contend it would enable government officials and a Geneva-based U.N. committee of experts to interfere with parental authority. Its supporters view the treaty as a valuable guidepost for children’s basic rights — including education, health care and protection from abuse — and say its global goals are undermined by the refusal of the world’s lone superpower to ratify it.
[Treaty advocates] ranging from Amnesty International to the Girl Scouts of the USA [have] learned to be patient, and hope an all-out push for Senate ratification will be mounted by the third year of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs a Foreign Relations subcommittee handling human rights issues, has declared her strong support for ratifying the children’s rights treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as first lady back in 1995, also advocated on behalf of the treaty, while Obama, during his election campaign, suggested that U.S. failure to ratify was “embarrassing” and promised to review the treaty.
The treaty’s opponents say they will be ready to fight back, and the proposed parental rights amendment is a key part of their strategy.
Introduced this spring by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the amendment now has 80 of his fellow Republicans as co-sponsors in the House. The amendment also has been introduced in the Senate by Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who hasn’t yet announced co-sponsors.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Parents' Rights Amendment Reaches 80 Co-Sponsors" posted at American Chronicle 5/1/09
A Constitutional Amendment to protect the parent-child relationship introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland [MI], has reached 80 co-sponsors in the House.
"The grassroots movement behind the Parents´ Rights Amendment continues to generate support throughout the United States," Hoekstra said. "It is encouraging to see so many Americans concerned about preventing government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship."
Friday, May 01, 2009
Christian Programing Banned from National Public Radio
Since Barack Obama became president, the anti-choice trend is undeniable: Make Christianity on the airwaves rare
UPDATE 6/17/09: PBS confirms ban on airing new religious TV programs
-- From "NPR axes Christian radio programs" by Pete Chagnon, OneNewsNow 4/30/2009
In 1985, National Public Radio (NPR) adopted a policy stating that member stations had to provide "nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial" educational programming. But in February 2009, the wording was changed to say: "NPR Member Stations shall provide ONLY [emphasis added] nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial educational content on all broadcast channel(s) and related media distribution platforms such as member partners that use the NPR member brands."
The rule, which takes effect May 1, means that any NPR stations carrying religious programming must cease and desist that programming as of that date. In explaining its decision in a similar matter, PBS -- another federally funded media outlet -- says it "places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view." Allowing such programming, it continues, "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/17/09: PBS confirms ban on airing new religious TV programs
-- From "NPR axes Christian radio programs" by Pete Chagnon, OneNewsNow 4/30/2009
In 1985, National Public Radio (NPR) adopted a policy stating that member stations had to provide "nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial" educational programming. But in February 2009, the wording was changed to say: "NPR Member Stations shall provide ONLY [emphasis added] nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial educational content on all broadcast channel(s) and related media distribution platforms such as member partners that use the NPR member brands."
The rule, which takes effect May 1, means that any NPR stations carrying religious programming must cease and desist that programming as of that date. In explaining its decision in a similar matter, PBS -- another federally funded media outlet -- says it "places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view." Allowing such programming, it continues, "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Calif. Private Schools OK to Expel 'Homosexuals'
The California Supreme Court let stand a lower-court ruling saying that private schools are not covered by California civil rights law.
-- From "Court lets private schools expel lesbians" by Bob Egelko, San Fran. Chronicle Staff Writer, 4/30/09
Over Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar's dissent, the court denied review of an appeal by parents of two girls who were expelled from a high school in Riverside County. A lawyer for the parents said the ruling, which is binding on trial courts statewide, would allow private schools to discriminate against students on any basis they chose, including sex and religion.
The girls were juniors at California Lutheran High School in the town of Wildomar when the principal, Gregory Bork, called them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation, after another student reported postings on their MySpace pages.
Bork suspended the girls based on their answers, and the school's directors expelled them a month later.
In January, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said the school is not a business but instead a social organization entitled to follow its principles.
Although California courts have defined such organizations as a Boys Club and the Rotary Club as businesses covered by the Unruh Act, the appeals court cited a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists. Like the Boy Scouts, the appellate panel said, a private religious school exists mainly to instill its values in young people.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Court lets private schools expel lesbians" by Bob Egelko, San Fran. Chronicle Staff Writer, 4/30/09
Over Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar's dissent, the court denied review of an appeal by parents of two girls who were expelled from a high school in Riverside County. A lawyer for the parents said the ruling, which is binding on trial courts statewide, would allow private schools to discriminate against students on any basis they chose, including sex and religion.
The girls were juniors at California Lutheran High School in the town of Wildomar when the principal, Gregory Bork, called them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation, after another student reported postings on their MySpace pages.
Bork suspended the girls based on their answers, and the school's directors expelled them a month later.
In January, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said the school is not a business but instead a social organization entitled to follow its principles.
Although California courts have defined such organizations as a Boys Club and the Rotary Club as businesses covered by the Unruh Act, the appeals court cited a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists. Like the Boy Scouts, the appellate panel said, a private religious school exists mainly to instill its values in young people.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
