A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District.
-- From "D.C. judge rules against marriage referendum" by Tim Craig, Washington Post Staff Writer 1/15/10
The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.
In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.
The election board has twice ruled that a referendum on same-sex marriage would violate a city election law prohibiting such a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gays and other minority groups.
Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, appealed that ruling to Superior Court.
. . . Jackson and his attorneys said Thursday that they will appeal Macaluso's ruling. They contend that that the laws in question were written in the late 1970s, long before same-sex marriage was an issue, and should not prevent a referendum.
Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Obama Security Nominee Says Terrorists Include Christians
Erroll Southers, who President Barack Obama has nominated to head the Transportation Security Administration, described groups that were a domestic security threat as being "anti-abortion" and “Christian-identity oriented."
UPDATE 1/21/10: Southers withdraws nomination, blames critics
-- From "Obama’s TSA Nominee Characterized Groups That Were Domestic Security Threats as ‘Anti-Abortion’ and Having ‘Christian Identity’" by Matt Cover, CNSNews Staff Writer 1/14/10
The TSA, an element of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for the security of the nation's transportation systems, including commercial air travel. Southers made the remarks in question in a 2008 video interview with the Videojug.com Web site.
In the interview, Southers was asked whether there were “groups inside the United States that pose a danger to our security?”
“Domestically speaking, a large part, most of the groups we have here in the United States, are white supremacists groups, World Church of the Creator, National Alliance, Aryan Nations. There are some black separatist groups,” said Southers. “What’s interesting about those groups is you find that they are usually either Christian identity groups and/or groups that really have a foothold in our correctional or prison systems in the way of radicalization and recruiting.”
Southers was then asked: “Which home-grown terrorist groups pose the greatest danger to the U.S.?”
“Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government and in most cases anti-abortion,” he said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 1/21/10: Southers withdraws nomination, blames critics
-- From "Obama’s TSA Nominee Characterized Groups That Were Domestic Security Threats as ‘Anti-Abortion’ and Having ‘Christian Identity’" by Matt Cover, CNSNews Staff Writer 1/14/10
The TSA, an element of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for the security of the nation's transportation systems, including commercial air travel. Southers made the remarks in question in a 2008 video interview with the Videojug.com Web site.
In the interview, Southers was asked whether there were “groups inside the United States that pose a danger to our security?”
“Domestically speaking, a large part, most of the groups we have here in the United States, are white supremacists groups, World Church of the Creator, National Alliance, Aryan Nations. There are some black separatist groups,” said Southers. “What’s interesting about those groups is you find that they are usually either Christian identity groups and/or groups that really have a foothold in our correctional or prison systems in the way of radicalization and recruiting.”
Southers was then asked: “Which home-grown terrorist groups pose the greatest danger to the U.S.?”
“Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government and in most cases anti-abortion,” he said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Admitted by Feds
After years of denying any evidence that abortion causes breast cancer, despite numerous prior studies indicating the link, a federal agency has issued a research paper reversing its previous positions.
-- From "Abortion, Birth Control Pills, Raises Breast Cancer Risk" By Pam Stephan, [New York Times'] About.com Guide to Breast Cancer 1/8/10
In 2003, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) sought to reassure women that using birth control pills would not raise their risk for breast cancer. NCI also told women that having an abortion was not a risk factor for breast cancer. Now it turns out that a study published in April 2009 by Jessica Dolle and other researchers of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center shows just the opposite: oral contraception (OCs) is linked with an increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women who are 45 years old and younger. The research paper, "Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years," was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. This research paper features a table of risk factors, which includes induced abortion as one of several "known and suspected risk factors".
As if that news were not alarming enough, a statement by NCI researcher Louise Brinton admits that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. Brinton spearheaded the 2003 NCI workshop about the abortion-breast cancer link (referred to as ABC). That workshop made every effort to assure women that having induced abortions was not linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, and that research did not support an ABC link. Now NCI, usually a trusted institution, is telling us that there is a 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions.
Before I was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2002, I took birth control pills for about 5 years. . . . I just wish agencies like the NCI would get their story straight, so we have as much information as possible, to reduce our risk of breast cancer.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link" by Jill Stanek, © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/13/10
In February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton, the National Cancer Institute's chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, Md., to assess whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk.
At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
But six years later something happened. Dr. Brinton either flipped her lid, flipped ideologies, restudied the evidence and decided to recant, or couldn't sleep at night – and she began righting her wrong.
In April 2009, Brinton co-authored a research paper published in the prestigious journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, which concluded that the risk of a particularly deadly form of breast cancer that attacks women under 40 raises 40 percent if a woman has had an abortion.
Now that the mainstream media's interest has been slightly piqued, NCI and Brinton are on the hot seat.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion, Birth Control Pills, Raises Breast Cancer Risk" By Pam Stephan, [New York Times'] About.com Guide to Breast Cancer 1/8/10
In 2003, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) sought to reassure women that using birth control pills would not raise their risk for breast cancer. NCI also told women that having an abortion was not a risk factor for breast cancer. Now it turns out that a study published in April 2009 by Jessica Dolle and other researchers of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center shows just the opposite: oral contraception (OCs) is linked with an increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women who are 45 years old and younger. The research paper, "Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years," was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. This research paper features a table of risk factors, which includes induced abortion as one of several "known and suspected risk factors".
As if that news were not alarming enough, a statement by NCI researcher Louise Brinton admits that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. Brinton spearheaded the 2003 NCI workshop about the abortion-breast cancer link (referred to as ABC). That workshop made every effort to assure women that having induced abortions was not linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, and that research did not support an ABC link. Now NCI, usually a trusted institution, is telling us that there is a 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions.
Before I was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2002, I took birth control pills for about 5 years. . . . I just wish agencies like the NCI would get their story straight, so we have as much information as possible, to reduce our risk of breast cancer.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link" by Jill Stanek, © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/13/10
In February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton, the National Cancer Institute's chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, Md., to assess whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk.
At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
But six years later something happened. Dr. Brinton either flipped her lid, flipped ideologies, restudied the evidence and decided to recant, or couldn't sleep at night – and she began righting her wrong.
In April 2009, Brinton co-authored a research paper published in the prestigious journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, which concluded that the risk of a particularly deadly form of breast cancer that attacks women under 40 raises 40 percent if a woman has had an abortion.
Now that the mainstream media's interest has been slightly piqued, NCI and Brinton are on the hot seat.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Mass. Senate Race Now an Abortion Battle
The special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat of the late pro-abortion Sen. Ted Kennedy has gotten intense and their battle over abortion is equally fierce.
UPDATE 1/15/10: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room'
-- From "Abortion takes stage in Senate race" by Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff 1/13/10
With the special US Senate election less than a week away, abortion reemerged as a major flashpoint yesterday as Martha Coakley’s campaign sent out several activists to champion the Democrat as a defender of women’s rights and Republican Scott Brown called on his two daughters to respond.
Coakley supporters, appearing at a Boston press conference, bitterly railed against Brown, saying that his political positions were dangerous to women and that he was using "smoke and mirrors" to obscure his true beliefs and previous record. The primary focus of their attack was his sponsorship of a measure that would have allowed hospital personnel, on religious grounds, to deny rape victims emergency contraception.
Brown rebutted such charges with gusto, pointing to a household full of women as evidence that he supports women’s rights. His two daughters headlined a press conference yesterday afternoon to call on Coakley to take down a recent ad that highlighted the emergency contraception amendment he filed in 2005.
The 2005 amendment that Brown sponsored in the state Senate would have allowed a physician, nurse, or any other employee to deny rape victims an emergency contraceptive if it “conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.’’ The facility would have had to have someone else who could administer the contraceptive or refer the victim to another facility at no additional cost to the patient.
The amendment, which did not pass, was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide the contraceptives to rape victims.
Coakley, who is trying to become the first female US senator from Massachusetts, has made women’s issues a strong component of her campaign. Yesterday morning, she had five surrogates hold a press conference at the headquarters of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus. Coakley, however, was not at the event.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Scott Brown's Daughters Defend Him From Martha Coakley's Abortion Attacks" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 1/12/10
During the final debate between the two candidates, Brown defended his record, saying the proposal would have allowed hospitals with “religious preferences” to not be forced to do something against their beliefs.
Coakley has not responded to Brown's daughters but staged her own press conference together with pro-abortion groups today.
They claim Brown is extreme because he has been endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which hails him as a potential 41st vote against the health care bill in Congress that could force taxpayers to fund hundreds of thousands of abortions.
In a recent email to its members, outgoing Emily's List president Ellen Malcolm was hoping to raise $500,000 for pro-abortion Massachusetts special Senate election candidate Martha Coakley.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 1/15/10: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room'
-- From "Abortion takes stage in Senate race" by Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff 1/13/10
With the special US Senate election less than a week away, abortion reemerged as a major flashpoint yesterday as Martha Coakley’s campaign sent out several activists to champion the Democrat as a defender of women’s rights and Republican Scott Brown called on his two daughters to respond.
Coakley supporters, appearing at a Boston press conference, bitterly railed against Brown, saying that his political positions were dangerous to women and that he was using "smoke and mirrors" to obscure his true beliefs and previous record. The primary focus of their attack was his sponsorship of a measure that would have allowed hospital personnel, on religious grounds, to deny rape victims emergency contraception.
Brown rebutted such charges with gusto, pointing to a household full of women as evidence that he supports women’s rights. His two daughters headlined a press conference yesterday afternoon to call on Coakley to take down a recent ad that highlighted the emergency contraception amendment he filed in 2005.
The 2005 amendment that Brown sponsored in the state Senate would have allowed a physician, nurse, or any other employee to deny rape victims an emergency contraceptive if it “conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.’’ The facility would have had to have someone else who could administer the contraceptive or refer the victim to another facility at no additional cost to the patient.
The amendment, which did not pass, was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide the contraceptives to rape victims.
Coakley, who is trying to become the first female US senator from Massachusetts, has made women’s issues a strong component of her campaign. Yesterday morning, she had five surrogates hold a press conference at the headquarters of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus. Coakley, however, was not at the event.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Scott Brown's Daughters Defend Him From Martha Coakley's Abortion Attacks" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 1/12/10
During the final debate between the two candidates, Brown defended his record, saying the proposal would have allowed hospitals with “religious preferences” to not be forced to do something against their beliefs.
Coakley has not responded to Brown's daughters but staged her own press conference together with pro-abortion groups today.
They claim Brown is extreme because he has been endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which hails him as a potential 41st vote against the health care bill in Congress that could force taxpayers to fund hundreds of thousands of abortions.
In a recent email to its members, outgoing Emily's List president Ellen Malcolm was hoping to raise $500,000 for pro-abortion Massachusetts special Senate election candidate Martha Coakley.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Tough Homeschool Regs Considered in New Hampshire
The homeschool community is reacting with alarm to plans for a vote in the New Hampshire legislature as early as this week that could create restrictive new testing and reporting requirements for homeschoolers in the state.
-- From "Home school proposal too strict, parents say" by Karen Langley, Concord Monitor 1/12/10
The home school contingent . . . protesters cited the 14-6 vote of the House Education Committee to kill the bill as evidence that all but a few legislators agree that existing laws suffice.
Changes supported by the six dissenting members would intensify those laws. The change critics most frequently cite would require children each year to both submit a portfolio of their work for review and take a standardized test; families now choose between the two. The amended bill would require parents to submit in writing their intention to educate their child. It would require that instruction in standard academic subjects be "systematic and thorough." And it would require portfolio reviewers to meet with the child and report specific information about themselves and the child's work.
Education Committee Chairwoman Emma Rous said last week that the existing law has holes that allow parents to teach subjects infrequently, bypass the portfolio requirement by opting for standardized tests and, if they are certified teachers, produce reviews of their own children's portfolios.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Judith Day, agreed, saying current law requires too little accountability. Day, a Democrat from North Hampton, said a provision on data collection would allow the state to determine whether students were learning.
A Virginia advocacy group, the Home School Legal Defense Association, has portrayed the legislation as an attempt by Democratic leadership to "sneak through massive changes in New Hampshire homeschool law by manipulating the system," though the amendment specifying the changes was written by Republican Rep. Rick Ladd of Haverhill. Ladd said he supports the changes but no longer considers legislation the right way to enact them.
Critics of the bill say it would make New Hampshire one of the most highly regulated states for home education. Milton Gaither, a historian of education who researches home schooling, said he does not know of any states that require both portfolio reviews and standardized testing. But he said many states have more detailed curriculum requirements.
An Oregon researcher specializing in home education said he has found no correlation between the amount a state regulates home schooling and the academic achievement of home-schooled students.
"The research done by myself and others so far shows zero pattern," said Brian Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute in Salem, Ore. Ray has performed research for the Home School Legal Defense Association.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Democrat assault on homeschoolers looming" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/11/10
Democratic leaders are using a legislative maneuver to prepare to advance the piece, after a bipartisan legislative study committee voted 14-6 against forwarding the new homeschool law, House Bill 368.
Democratic Rep. Barbara Shaw, a retired teacher with 45 years experience, wrote the majority report, suggesting the plan is "inexpedient to legislate," or should be rejected.
"After studying this issue for several years, I've gotten to know homeschoolers, the law, and how the system works, and I'm convinced that it is working fine – there are no changes needed," she said.
HSLDA's analysis said the Democrats are trying to move forward a whole new piece of legislation as an amendment to another proposal. It would allow, among other things, state officials to "terminate" a homeschooling program and report a child to the "appropriate resident district superintendent, who shall, if necessary, take appropriate action to ensure that compulsory attendance requirements are met."
The plan would require new tests for every homeschool student, demand a portfolio review and submit test scores to the state Department of Education, which would be given "sweeping rule-making authority" for homeschoolers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Home school proposal too strict, parents say" by Karen Langley, Concord Monitor 1/12/10
The home school contingent . . . protesters cited the 14-6 vote of the House Education Committee to kill the bill as evidence that all but a few legislators agree that existing laws suffice.
Changes supported by the six dissenting members would intensify those laws. The change critics most frequently cite would require children each year to both submit a portfolio of their work for review and take a standardized test; families now choose between the two. The amended bill would require parents to submit in writing their intention to educate their child. It would require that instruction in standard academic subjects be "systematic and thorough." And it would require portfolio reviewers to meet with the child and report specific information about themselves and the child's work.
Education Committee Chairwoman Emma Rous said last week that the existing law has holes that allow parents to teach subjects infrequently, bypass the portfolio requirement by opting for standardized tests and, if they are certified teachers, produce reviews of their own children's portfolios.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Judith Day, agreed, saying current law requires too little accountability. Day, a Democrat from North Hampton, said a provision on data collection would allow the state to determine whether students were learning.
A Virginia advocacy group, the Home School Legal Defense Association, has portrayed the legislation as an attempt by Democratic leadership to "sneak through massive changes in New Hampshire homeschool law by manipulating the system," though the amendment specifying the changes was written by Republican Rep. Rick Ladd of Haverhill. Ladd said he supports the changes but no longer considers legislation the right way to enact them.
Critics of the bill say it would make New Hampshire one of the most highly regulated states for home education. Milton Gaither, a historian of education who researches home schooling, said he does not know of any states that require both portfolio reviews and standardized testing. But he said many states have more detailed curriculum requirements.
An Oregon researcher specializing in home education said he has found no correlation between the amount a state regulates home schooling and the academic achievement of home-schooled students.
"The research done by myself and others so far shows zero pattern," said Brian Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute in Salem, Ore. Ray has performed research for the Home School Legal Defense Association.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Democrat assault on homeschoolers looming" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/11/10
Democratic leaders are using a legislative maneuver to prepare to advance the piece, after a bipartisan legislative study committee voted 14-6 against forwarding the new homeschool law, House Bill 368.
Democratic Rep. Barbara Shaw, a retired teacher with 45 years experience, wrote the majority report, suggesting the plan is "inexpedient to legislate," or should be rejected.
"After studying this issue for several years, I've gotten to know homeschoolers, the law, and how the system works, and I'm convinced that it is working fine – there are no changes needed," she said.
HSLDA's analysis said the Democrats are trying to move forward a whole new piece of legislation as an amendment to another proposal. It would allow, among other things, state officials to "terminate" a homeschooling program and report a child to the "appropriate resident district superintendent, who shall, if necessary, take appropriate action to ensure that compulsory attendance requirements are met."
The plan would require new tests for every homeschool student, demand a portfolio review and submit test scores to the state Department of Education, which would be given "sweeping rule-making authority" for homeschoolers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Nationwide Campus Prayer Launched - Heal Our Land!
A campaign is being launched to spread prayer to every campus across the United States, and not just for a brief meeting or two but for the entire year of 2010.
"We need to stop thinking small and start thinking big."
-- From "Campaign summons Christians to pray at U.S. colleges" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/1/10
Last year across North Dakota 1,700 students gathered in mostly small groups at every college and university that exists, praying that God would awaken the hearts of unbelievers. At Ohio State, a young woman named Allison decided to invite her friends to experience Jesus and the meetings still are going on. In Indiana, the prayers that started with a single student resulted in a salvation experience for members of one fraternity.
Called Campus America, the program is being promoted by 24-7 Prayer International, which started several years ago and is headquartered in Guildford, England.
It currently is mobilizing prayer events in 100 countries and expanding.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
"We need to stop thinking small and start thinking big."
-- From "Campaign summons Christians to pray at U.S. colleges" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/1/10
Last year across North Dakota 1,700 students gathered in mostly small groups at every college and university that exists, praying that God would awaken the hearts of unbelievers. At Ohio State, a young woman named Allison decided to invite her friends to experience Jesus and the meetings still are going on. In Indiana, the prayers that started with a single student resulted in a salvation experience for members of one fraternity.
Called Campus America, the program is being promoted by 24-7 Prayer International, which started several years ago and is headquartered in Guildford, England.
It currently is mobilizing prayer events in 100 countries and expanding.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Cardinal Says Secularization of Europe has Doomed it to Islamization
"The Muslims definitely have many reasons to be heading [to Europe]. They also have a religious one – to bring the spiritual values of faith in God to the pagan environment of Europe, to its atheistic style of life," the Cardinal said.
The British public are concerned at the rise of Islam in the UK and fear that the country is deeply divided along religious lines, according to a major survey.
-- From "Cardinal says Christian Europe is to blame for Islamisation" by Simon Caldwell, London Telegraph 1/6/10
Czech Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, the Archbishop of Prague, said Muslims were well placed to fill the spiritual void "created as Europeans systematically empty the Christian content of their lives".
"Europe will pay dear for having left its spiritual foundations . . .
"Unless the Christians wake up, life may be Islamised and Christianity will not have the strength to imprint its character on the life of people, not to say society."
He said he did not blame Muslims for the crisis as Europeans had brought it upon themselves by exchanging their Christian culture for an aggressive secularism that embraced atheism.
"Europe has denied its Christian roots from which it has risen and which could give it the strength to fend off the danger that it will be conquered by Muslims, which is actually happening gradually," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Britons are suspicious towards Muslims, study finds" by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent, London Telegraph 1/9/10
More than half the [British] population would be strongly opposed to a mosque being built in their neighbourhood, the study found.
A large proportion of the country believes that the multicultural experiment has failed, with 52 per cent considering that Britain is deeply divided along religious lines and 45 per cent saying that religious diversity has had a negative impact.
Only a quarter of Britons feel positive towards Muslims, while more than a third report feeling “cool” towards them.
The findings, to be published later this month in the respected British Social Attitudes Survey, show that far greater opposition to Islam than to any other faith and reveal that most people are willing to limit freedom of speech in an attempt to silence religious extremists.
“This apparent threat to national identity (or even, some fear, to security) reduces the willingness to accommodate free expression.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The British public are concerned at the rise of Islam in the UK and fear that the country is deeply divided along religious lines, according to a major survey.
-- From "Cardinal says Christian Europe is to blame for Islamisation" by Simon Caldwell, London Telegraph 1/6/10
Czech Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, the Archbishop of Prague, said Muslims were well placed to fill the spiritual void "created as Europeans systematically empty the Christian content of their lives".
"Europe will pay dear for having left its spiritual foundations . . .
"Unless the Christians wake up, life may be Islamised and Christianity will not have the strength to imprint its character on the life of people, not to say society."
He said he did not blame Muslims for the crisis as Europeans had brought it upon themselves by exchanging their Christian culture for an aggressive secularism that embraced atheism.
"Europe has denied its Christian roots from which it has risen and which could give it the strength to fend off the danger that it will be conquered by Muslims, which is actually happening gradually," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Britons are suspicious towards Muslims, study finds" by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent, London Telegraph 1/9/10
More than half the [British] population would be strongly opposed to a mosque being built in their neighbourhood, the study found.
A large proportion of the country believes that the multicultural experiment has failed, with 52 per cent considering that Britain is deeply divided along religious lines and 45 per cent saying that religious diversity has had a negative impact.
Only a quarter of Britons feel positive towards Muslims, while more than a third report feeling “cool” towards them.
The findings, to be published later this month in the respected British Social Attitudes Survey, show that far greater opposition to Islam than to any other faith and reveal that most people are willing to limit freedom of speech in an attempt to silence religious extremists.
“This apparent threat to national identity (or even, some fear, to security) reduces the willingness to accommodate free expression.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Calif. Puts Marriage Trial on YouTube
At issue is whether the California voter initiative that forbids the state from granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
[The trial begins] Monday with only private citizens speaking up for the voter-passed constitutional amendment – because state officials have refused to defend it.
Lawyers defending marriage have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to forbid video coverage for safety concerns of homosexualists' violent retribution.
UPDATE 2/7/10: Judge outed by San Fran. Chronicle as homosexual
UPDATE 1/13/10: Supreme Court cites 'irreparable harm' in broadcasting Prop. 8 trial
UPDATE 1/11/10: Supreme Court Blocks Video Coverage
UPDATE 1/10/10: New York Times - “It’s a trial of the majority of the American people.”
-- From "Gay Marriage Civil Rights Trial to Begin in San Francisco Federal Court Monday" by Ben Hallman, Am Law Litigation Daily 1/9/10
[T]he court challenge to California's Proposition 8 [features] the unlikely pairing of legal superstars (and Bush v. Gore opponents) Theodore Olson and David Boies, who are leading the charge to overturn the amendment.
First, it's important to note that California's attorney general, Jerry Brown, has taken the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the newly amended state constitution. Instead, Brown has taken the side of those who oppose the amendment banning gay marriage, arguing that the state cannot deprive a disfavored group of such a right even through a voter-approved amendment. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also named in the suit, has joined the state AG in refusing to defend Prop 8 at trial.
With the state refusing to appear in court on behalf of the amendment, several anti-gay marriage interest groups have intervened in the case. The leading defender of Prop 8 is a group called Protect Marriage [and] also include lawyers from Washington, D.C.'s Cooper & Kirk, including Michael Kirk.
The Prop 8 defenders' argument is likely to be fairly simple: California voted to amend the state constitution explicitly to prohibit same-sex marriage. "That is the beginning and end of this case," they've previously said.
We asked about the opposition's argument. Shouldn't the will of the California voters be respected? Boies said absolutely not, at least in this instance. "The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to say that no majority, not a 52 percent majority, not a 99 percent majority, can deprive a minority of certain fundamental rights," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Appeal to ban video coverage of gay marriage trial" Assoicated Press posted at San Francisco Chronicle 1/9/10
Earlier this week Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved video coverage of the trial, allowing the proceedings to be streamed live at certain federal courthouses across the country. Video would also be uploaded to YouTube.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lawyers for Prop. 8 file high court appeal to ban YouTube video of trial" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times 1/9/10
They filed an emergency appeal with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and argued that their client's right to a fair trial would be jeopardized if each day's proceedings were put on YouTube.
The trial "has the potential to become a media circus," wrote attorney Charles Cooper. "The record is already replete with evidence showing that any publicizing of support for Prop. 8 has inevitably led to harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence. In this atmosphere, witnesses are understandably quite distressed at the prospect of their testimony being broadcast worldwide on YouTube."
Kennedy asked for a response from the state by noon on Sunday.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is conducting the trial beginning on Monday, agreed to limited TV coverage. The proceedings will be taped and made available to YouTube at the end of the day. He acted based on a recent rule change by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing TV coverage of some civil cases.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay marriage foe wants out of Proposition 8 trial" Associated Press 1/8/10
Hak-Shing William Tam was one of the five official sponsors of Proposition 8 who formally "intervened" in a federal lawsuit challenging the voter-approved ban. The lawsuit officially names the state as the defendant, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend the voter-approved ban.
On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family's safety. In his court filing, Tam's lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Elected officials bail on U.S. marriage law" by Drew Zahn © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/9/10
Much is riding on the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, for the lawsuit is petitioning a federal court to overturn not just a law, but a constitutional amendment passed by the people and affirmed by the state's Supreme Court. A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
And yet, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown are named as defendants in the suit, both have refused to act in defense of the amendment, leaving it up to the people of California to take a stand for their constitution on their own.
In June, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California verified Brown's abandonment of the case and therefore permitted quick-acting attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored the amendment campaign, to intervene in the case and take up defense where Brown refused.
At the time, ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno stated, "This ruling designating us to defend Proposition 8 reflects the unfortunate fact that, if left up to state officials, the will of the people would not be defended at all."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
[The trial begins] Monday with only private citizens speaking up for the voter-passed constitutional amendment – because state officials have refused to defend it.
Lawyers defending marriage have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to forbid video coverage for safety concerns of homosexualists' violent retribution.
UPDATE 2/7/10: Judge outed by San Fran. Chronicle as homosexual
UPDATE 1/13/10: Supreme Court cites 'irreparable harm' in broadcasting Prop. 8 trial
UPDATE 1/11/10: Supreme Court Blocks Video Coverage
UPDATE 1/10/10: New York Times - “It’s a trial of the majority of the American people.”
-- From "Gay Marriage Civil Rights Trial to Begin in San Francisco Federal Court Monday" by Ben Hallman, Am Law Litigation Daily 1/9/10
[T]he court challenge to California's Proposition 8 [features] the unlikely pairing of legal superstars (and Bush v. Gore opponents) Theodore Olson and David Boies, who are leading the charge to overturn the amendment.
First, it's important to note that California's attorney general, Jerry Brown, has taken the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the newly amended state constitution. Instead, Brown has taken the side of those who oppose the amendment banning gay marriage, arguing that the state cannot deprive a disfavored group of such a right even through a voter-approved amendment. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also named in the suit, has joined the state AG in refusing to defend Prop 8 at trial.
With the state refusing to appear in court on behalf of the amendment, several anti-gay marriage interest groups have intervened in the case. The leading defender of Prop 8 is a group called Protect Marriage [and] also include lawyers from Washington, D.C.'s Cooper & Kirk, including Michael Kirk.
The Prop 8 defenders' argument is likely to be fairly simple: California voted to amend the state constitution explicitly to prohibit same-sex marriage. "That is the beginning and end of this case," they've previously said.
We asked about the opposition's argument. Shouldn't the will of the California voters be respected? Boies said absolutely not, at least in this instance. "The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to say that no majority, not a 52 percent majority, not a 99 percent majority, can deprive a minority of certain fundamental rights," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Appeal to ban video coverage of gay marriage trial" Assoicated Press posted at San Francisco Chronicle 1/9/10
Earlier this week Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved video coverage of the trial, allowing the proceedings to be streamed live at certain federal courthouses across the country. Video would also be uploaded to YouTube.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lawyers for Prop. 8 file high court appeal to ban YouTube video of trial" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times 1/9/10
They filed an emergency appeal with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and argued that their client's right to a fair trial would be jeopardized if each day's proceedings were put on YouTube.
The trial "has the potential to become a media circus," wrote attorney Charles Cooper. "The record is already replete with evidence showing that any publicizing of support for Prop. 8 has inevitably led to harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence. In this atmosphere, witnesses are understandably quite distressed at the prospect of their testimony being broadcast worldwide on YouTube."
Kennedy asked for a response from the state by noon on Sunday.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is conducting the trial beginning on Monday, agreed to limited TV coverage. The proceedings will be taped and made available to YouTube at the end of the day. He acted based on a recent rule change by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing TV coverage of some civil cases.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay marriage foe wants out of Proposition 8 trial" Associated Press 1/8/10
Hak-Shing William Tam was one of the five official sponsors of Proposition 8 who formally "intervened" in a federal lawsuit challenging the voter-approved ban. The lawsuit officially names the state as the defendant, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend the voter-approved ban.
On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family's safety. In his court filing, Tam's lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Elected officials bail on U.S. marriage law" by Drew Zahn © 2010 WorldNetDaily 1/9/10
Much is riding on the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, for the lawsuit is petitioning a federal court to overturn not just a law, but a constitutional amendment passed by the people and affirmed by the state's Supreme Court. A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
And yet, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown are named as defendants in the suit, both have refused to act in defense of the amendment, leaving it up to the people of California to take a stand for their constitution on their own.
In June, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California verified Brown's abandonment of the case and therefore permitted quick-acting attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored the amendment campaign, to intervene in the case and take up defense where Brown refused.
At the time, ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno stated, "This ruling designating us to defend Proposition 8 reflects the unfortunate fact that, if left up to state officials, the will of the people would not be defended at all."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Defeated by Voters, N.J. Homosexualists Look to Courts
Gay-rights activists intend to take the fight to allow gay couples to marry in New Jersey directly to the state Supreme Court, advocates said yesterday, one day after the state Senate defeated a bill to allow same-sex marriage.
UPDATE 7/26/10: No same-sex marriage, for now, as N.J. Supremes decline to hear case
-- From "N.J. gay-marriage issue headed for court" by Adrienne Lu, Philadelphia Inquirer Trenton Bureau 1/9/10
The setback for gay-marriage advocates in New Jersey followed last month's in Albany, where the New York Senate defeated a measure to allow gay couples to wed. Nationally, activists will soon turn their attention to California, where a federal court will hear a challenge to the state's gay-marriage ban.
"Our goal is to file something when it's ready and well-prepared, and we think that will be in a matter of weeks," said Leslie Gabel-Brett, director of education and public affairs for Lambda Legal. She declined to discuss specifics about legal strategy, saying it was premature.
The state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state must provide same-sex couples with the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples, but left it to the Legislature to decide what to call the couples' relationships. The Legislature chose to call them civil unions rather than marriages.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/26/10: No same-sex marriage, for now, as N.J. Supremes decline to hear case
-- From "N.J. gay-marriage issue headed for court" by Adrienne Lu, Philadelphia Inquirer Trenton Bureau 1/9/10
The setback for gay-marriage advocates in New Jersey followed last month's in Albany, where the New York Senate defeated a measure to allow gay couples to wed. Nationally, activists will soon turn their attention to California, where a federal court will hear a challenge to the state's gay-marriage ban.
"Our goal is to file something when it's ready and well-prepared, and we think that will be in a matter of weeks," said Leslie Gabel-Brett, director of education and public affairs for Lambda Legal. She declined to discuss specifics about legal strategy, saying it was premature.
The state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state must provide same-sex couples with the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples, but left it to the Legislature to decide what to call the couples' relationships. The Legislature chose to call them civil unions rather than marriages.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Tea Party - Mainstream Media Wake Up
ABC shows recognition of the power of the people in their report that the Tea Party movement is challenging "moderate Republicans," but there are reports of these ad hoc American grassroot gatherings targeting politicians of all stripes.
-- From "Tea Party Activists Gaining Steam Across the Country" by Kate Snow And Kristina Wong, ABC News 1/7/10
A political movement is sweeping the country, and taking politicians down.
The most recent victim of "tea party" activists was Florida Republican Jim Greer, who resigned from as state party chairman this week, in part because of the activists' objections to his alliance with Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, who is running for the U.S. Senate. The activists are vocally supporting Crist's opponent -- a young, outspoken conservative, Marco Rubio -- and some believe the tea party group may bring down Crist, too.
Tea party activists in California may cause the first woman to lead a Fortune 500 company to lose her bid for the U.S. Senate because she's not conservative enough.
And in Kentucky, Rand Paul, the son of a former presidential candidate Ron Paul, is riding the tea party wave.
Next week, Eric Odom, the man most often regarded as the founder of the tea party movement, is taking a crew of tea party followers to Massachusetts, sensing the Democrat running for Ted Kennedy's old seat, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, might be vulnerable.
So-called "tea party patriots" are members of a political movement sweeping America whose core beliefs center around fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.
The majority of supporters are Republicans. But as the number of self-identified Republicans continues to drop, the tea party moniker is also drawing independents.
And there are Democratic converts in the tea party ranks now, too.
"A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones," New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote this week. "Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity."
By one count, there are at least 3,000 tea party organizations all over the country.
To see the video news report and to read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Tea Party Activists Gaining Steam Across the Country" by Kate Snow And Kristina Wong, ABC News 1/7/10
A political movement is sweeping the country, and taking politicians down.
The most recent victim of "tea party" activists was Florida Republican Jim Greer, who resigned from as state party chairman this week, in part because of the activists' objections to his alliance with Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, who is running for the U.S. Senate. The activists are vocally supporting Crist's opponent -- a young, outspoken conservative, Marco Rubio -- and some believe the tea party group may bring down Crist, too.
Tea party activists in California may cause the first woman to lead a Fortune 500 company to lose her bid for the U.S. Senate because she's not conservative enough.
And in Kentucky, Rand Paul, the son of a former presidential candidate Ron Paul, is riding the tea party wave.
Next week, Eric Odom, the man most often regarded as the founder of the tea party movement, is taking a crew of tea party followers to Massachusetts, sensing the Democrat running for Ted Kennedy's old seat, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, might be vulnerable.
So-called "tea party patriots" are members of a political movement sweeping America whose core beliefs center around fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.
The majority of supporters are Republicans. But as the number of self-identified Republicans continues to drop, the tea party moniker is also drawing independents.
And there are Democratic converts in the tea party ranks now, too.
"A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones," New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote this week. "Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity."
By one count, there are at least 3,000 tea party organizations all over the country.
To see the video news report and to read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Abortionist May Lose 'License to Kill' After Mother's Death
A judge Thursday ordered a Southern California obstetrician-gynecologist to immediately stop performing abortions and delivering babies until a formal disciplinary hearing can be held about the death of one of his patients during an abortion.
UPDATE 2/19/10: Judge sustains abortionist's license, allowing killings to resume
Hello? Death occurs in EVERY abortion!
-- From "Southern California doctor ordered to stop performing abortions" by Tony Perry, Los Angeles Time 1/8/10
Administrative Law Judge James Ahler stopped short of granting a request by attorneys for the Medical Board of California to immediately suspend the license of Dr. Andrew Rutland, opting to temporarily limit his practice instead.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Douglas Lee, at a hearing in San Diego, had argued that Rutland "committed repeated negligent acts in his care and treatment" of a 30-year-old woman who came to a clinic in San Gabriel in August seeking an abortion.
The patient, Ying Chen, had a toxic reaction to a drug administered by Rutland, Lee said, and the doctor did not have the proper equipment or personnel in case of an emergency. In a written decision, Ahler said that Rutland's willingness to perform a second-trimester abortion in a facility inadequately equipped for emergencies "casts doubt on his professional judgment."
The judge said Rutland "presents a risk of danger and there is a likelihood of injury to the public" if he is allowed to continue deliveries or surgeries.
. . . At the time of the death, Rutland was on five years' administrative probation stemming from another case in which he surrendered his license amid an investigation into the death of two infants shortly after delivery, according to state records. His license was later reinstated.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 2/19/10: Judge sustains abortionist's license, allowing killings to resume
Hello? Death occurs in EVERY abortion!
-- From "Southern California doctor ordered to stop performing abortions" by Tony Perry, Los Angeles Time 1/8/10
Administrative Law Judge James Ahler stopped short of granting a request by attorneys for the Medical Board of California to immediately suspend the license of Dr. Andrew Rutland, opting to temporarily limit his practice instead.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Douglas Lee, at a hearing in San Diego, had argued that Rutland "committed repeated negligent acts in his care and treatment" of a 30-year-old woman who came to a clinic in San Gabriel in August seeking an abortion.
The patient, Ying Chen, had a toxic reaction to a drug administered by Rutland, Lee said, and the doctor did not have the proper equipment or personnel in case of an emergency. In a written decision, Ahler said that Rutland's willingness to perform a second-trimester abortion in a facility inadequately equipped for emergencies "casts doubt on his professional judgment."
The judge said Rutland "presents a risk of danger and there is a likelihood of injury to the public" if he is allowed to continue deliveries or surgeries.
. . . At the time of the death, Rutland was on five years' administrative probation stemming from another case in which he surrendered his license amid an investigation into the death of two infants shortly after delivery, according to state records. His license was later reinstated.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Pro-life Dem. Threatens to Kill ObamaCare Bill
[Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)] is enduring more hatred than perhaps any other member of Congress, much of it from fellow Democrats. His name has become a slogan: “Stop Stupak!”
-- From "Abortion Foe Defies Party on Health Care Bill" by Jodi Kantor, New York Times 1/7/10
With final negotiations on a health care overhaul beginning this week, complaints about “the evil Stupak amendment” . . . are likely to grow even louder.
Mr. Stupak insists that the final bill include his terms, which he says merely reflect current law. If he prevails, he will have won an audacious, counterintuitive victory, forcing a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass a measure that will be hailed as an anti-abortion triumph. If party members do not accept his terms — and many vow they will not — Mr. Stupak is prepared to block passage of the health care overhaul.
“It’s not the end of the world if it goes down,” he said over dinner. He did not sound downbeat about the prospect of being blamed for blocking the long-sought goal of President Obama and a chain of presidents and legislators before him. “Then you get the message,” he continued. “Fix the abortion language and bring the bill back.”
Mr. Stupak says his stand is a straightforward matter of Roman Catholic faith, but it also seems like the result of a long, slow burn. As dinner progressed, the congressman described years of feeling ignored, slighted or marginalized by his party for his anti-abortion views.
When Republicans ruled Washington, his fellow Democrats had to listen to anti-abortion views, he said. But with Democratic victories, abortion rights supporters felt their time had come.
“You’re never getting a right-to-life amendment,” Mr. Stupak said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, told him during health care negotiations. “We have pro-choice Democrats in the White House. We have majorities in the House and Senate. You’re done.”
He is trying to pass the health care overhaul, he insists, not sabotage it, and predicts that the legislation will ultimately collapse for reasons apart from abortion. But he will be blamed anyway, he is sure.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion Foe Defies Party on Health Care Bill" by Jodi Kantor, New York Times 1/7/10
With final negotiations on a health care overhaul beginning this week, complaints about “the evil Stupak amendment” . . . are likely to grow even louder.
Mr. Stupak insists that the final bill include his terms, which he says merely reflect current law. If he prevails, he will have won an audacious, counterintuitive victory, forcing a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass a measure that will be hailed as an anti-abortion triumph. If party members do not accept his terms — and many vow they will not — Mr. Stupak is prepared to block passage of the health care overhaul.
“It’s not the end of the world if it goes down,” he said over dinner. He did not sound downbeat about the prospect of being blamed for blocking the long-sought goal of President Obama and a chain of presidents and legislators before him. “Then you get the message,” he continued. “Fix the abortion language and bring the bill back.”
Mr. Stupak says his stand is a straightforward matter of Roman Catholic faith, but it also seems like the result of a long, slow burn. As dinner progressed, the congressman described years of feeling ignored, slighted or marginalized by his party for his anti-abortion views.
When Republicans ruled Washington, his fellow Democrats had to listen to anti-abortion views, he said. But with Democratic victories, abortion rights supporters felt their time had come.
“You’re never getting a right-to-life amendment,” Mr. Stupak said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, told him during health care negotiations. “We have pro-choice Democrats in the White House. We have majorities in the House and Senate. You’re done.”
He is trying to pass the health care overhaul, he insists, not sabotage it, and predicts that the legislation will ultimately collapse for reasons apart from abortion. But he will be blamed anyway, he is sure.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tea Party Rallies Against IL GOP Favorite Son Kirk
Chicago south suburban Tea Party, which claims nation's largest 2009 local gathering, organized to defeat Republican leading candidate for Obama's former U.S. Senate seat.
UPDATE 2/12/10: Primary Winner Mark Kirk Backed by John McCain
UPDATE 1/11/10: Mark Kirk loss would "severely shake the foundations of the GOP establishment"
UPDATE 1/9/10: New York Times - Is Kirk too liberal?
UPDATE 1/7/10: Florida Tea Party "turns guns" on GOP leadership
So-called Tea Party groups show opposition to incumbents and career politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, nationwide.
NOTE: Video NOT related to article below
-- From "Tea Party Folks Are your neighbors" by Phil Kadner, Southtown Star Sun-Times Media 1/7/10
"We're here to protect the Constitution," Homer Glen resident Mary Lou Benakovich informed me. "We're pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-tax and oppose RINOs running for office."
"Republicans in name only, RINO," Benakovich explained. "Mark Kirk . . . is a RINO."
This was billed by some as an anti-Kirk rally. Literature distributed at the rally labeled Kirk "pro homosexual," "pro abortion," "a gun grabber" and "tax and spender."
"He's worse than Obama because Obama's a Democrat," Benakovich said. "Kirk claims he's a Republican, but he's a traitor to everything the party is supposed to stand for."
Claris Van Kuiken, 55, of New Lenox, said she joined the movement because she fears politicians are not only attempting to undermine the country but Christian institutions as well, with a vision of a one-world government and occultism.
Stephen J. Balich, the Homer Township clerk and a leader of the Will County Tea Party Alliance, said the group's members are neither Democrats nor Republicans - just voters trying to take their country back.
Every person I spoke with was so bursting with enthusiasm for the cause that I had trouble taking notes.
One man told me he's tired of writing letters to politicians in Washington only to get form letters back saying, "Thank you for writing. Now I'm going to vote the way I want to."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 2/12/10: Primary Winner Mark Kirk Backed by John McCain
UPDATE 1/11/10: Mark Kirk loss would "severely shake the foundations of the GOP establishment"
UPDATE 1/9/10: New York Times - Is Kirk too liberal?
UPDATE 1/7/10: Florida Tea Party "turns guns" on GOP leadership
So-called Tea Party groups show opposition to incumbents and career politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, nationwide.
NOTE: Video NOT related to article below
-- From "Tea Party Folks Are your neighbors" by Phil Kadner, Southtown Star Sun-Times Media 1/7/10
"We're here to protect the Constitution," Homer Glen resident Mary Lou Benakovich informed me. "We're pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-tax and oppose RINOs running for office."
"Republicans in name only, RINO," Benakovich explained. "Mark Kirk . . . is a RINO."
This was billed by some as an anti-Kirk rally. Literature distributed at the rally labeled Kirk "pro homosexual," "pro abortion," "a gun grabber" and "tax and spender."
"He's worse than Obama because Obama's a Democrat," Benakovich said. "Kirk claims he's a Republican, but he's a traitor to everything the party is supposed to stand for."
Claris Van Kuiken, 55, of New Lenox, said she joined the movement because she fears politicians are not only attempting to undermine the country but Christian institutions as well, with a vision of a one-world government and occultism.
Stephen J. Balich, the Homer Township clerk and a leader of the Will County Tea Party Alliance, said the group's members are neither Democrats nor Republicans - just voters trying to take their country back.
Every person I spoke with was so bursting with enthusiasm for the cause that I had trouble taking notes.
One man told me he's tired of writing letters to politicians in Washington only to get form letters back saying, "Thank you for writing. Now I'm going to vote the way I want to."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
NY Parents Arrested for Improper Homeschooling
A Montgomery County couple has been charged with four counts each of endangering the welfare of a child for allegedly home schooling their children improperly.
-- From "Montgomery Co. parents accused of illegal home schooling" by Staff reports, Little Falls Evening Times 1/6/10
According to Sheriff Michael Amato, Richard W. Cressy, 47, and Margie A. Cressy, 41, of the town of Glen, were arrested as the result of an investigation conducted by his office and the county Department of Child Protective Services.
The investigation, he said, revealed that the Cressys were home schooling their four children, ages 8 to 14, without approval from the school district. Amato said that according to state education law, the curriculum has to be approved by the district superintendent before home schooling can take place.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Parents arrested for failing to register home-schooled kids" WRGB-TV, Albany, New York 1/4/10
The Superintendent of the Fonda-Fultonville Central School District, Richard Hoffman, confirmed the four children, ranging in age from 8 to 14, had not been registered with the school district for the last seven years.
Under state law, parents who choose to home school their children must register their curriculum with the local school district superintendent. The Cressys never submitted one in the seven years they lived in the Fonda-Fultonville Central School District, according to the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, which began investigating the parents after receiving an anonymous tip.
Hoffman said the Cressys have since submitted a home-schooling curriculum, which he has approved.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Montgomery Co. parents accused of illegal home schooling" by Staff reports, Little Falls Evening Times 1/6/10
According to Sheriff Michael Amato, Richard W. Cressy, 47, and Margie A. Cressy, 41, of the town of Glen, were arrested as the result of an investigation conducted by his office and the county Department of Child Protective Services.
The investigation, he said, revealed that the Cressys were home schooling their four children, ages 8 to 14, without approval from the school district. Amato said that according to state education law, the curriculum has to be approved by the district superintendent before home schooling can take place.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Parents arrested for failing to register home-schooled kids" WRGB-TV, Albany, New York 1/4/10
The Superintendent of the Fonda-Fultonville Central School District, Richard Hoffman, confirmed the four children, ranging in age from 8 to 14, had not been registered with the school district for the last seven years.
Under state law, parents who choose to home school their children must register their curriculum with the local school district superintendent. The Cressys never submitted one in the seven years they lived in the Fonda-Fultonville Central School District, according to the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, which began investigating the parents after receiving an anonymous tip.
Hoffman said the Cressys have since submitted a home-schooling curriculum, which he has approved.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Liberal 'christians' Praise Montana Euthanasia Ruling
Montana Supreme Court clears path for third state to allow physician-assisted suicide, to the satisfaction of local 'church' leaders
-- From "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Gets OK in Montana" Associated Press 12/31/09
Patients and doctors had been waiting for the state's high court to step in after a lower court decided a year ago that constitutional rights to privacy and dignity protect the right to die.
The Montana Supreme Court opinion will now give doctors in the state the freedom to prescribe the necessary drugs to mentally competent, terminally ill patients without fear of being prosecuted, advocates said.
Oregon and Washington state allow assisted suicides for terminally ill patients, with Oregon adopting America's first "death with dignity" law in 1997. [Kathryn L. Tucker, the legal affairs director for Compassion and Choices,] said Montana doctors should now feel comfortable adopting procedures that doctors in the other two states use.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Baxter v. Montana: euthanasia finds support among Pro-Right-to-Die Christian Authority Figures" by Mariya Starchevsky, Newark Religious Issues Examiner 1/4/10
The moral stigma of suicide dates back to Christianity’s proliferation through Europe. Although the Bible does not condemn suicide explicitly, the view of “committing” suicide as a legal crime and a moral sin was adopted from St. Augustine and later by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pages 4-5. In history, suicide was a spiritual offense, because it was thought to mess with the Almighty’s plans.
. . . [The case included an amicus brief filed by religious groups and representatives.] Making their plead for a right to die from a religious point of view were Rev. Canon Gary Waddingham (Episcopal Priest) Rev. Steve Oreskovich (Episcopal Priest), Rev. Meg Hatch (M. Div, UCC) Chuck Heath (M. Div. LCPC, Chaplain), Reverend John C. Board (Episcopal Deacon) Rev. Jean Collins, (Episcopal Priest), Rev. John R. Payne, Journey BE (Disciples of Christ) and Dr. L.A. Kemmerer (Professor). These authorities then list approximately 70 other religious figures from the United Church of Christ, the Church of England, the Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations, the Methodist Church, etc., all who support euthanasia when concerning competent, terminally ill adults.
These religious amici stress that end-of-life decisions are deeply personal.
“Those who do not share in the religious beliefs and doctrines of groups opposed to aid in dying see this as an unwanted intrusion into what should be a private decision making process between patient and physician." - Deric Weiss, M.D.,Billings, Montana.
“An overriding theme in the [Bible] is ‘free will.’ That is, the reasonable belief that God granted human beings the ability to distinguish between good and evil and to make choices concerning both. - Rev. John C. Board, Episcopal Deacon.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Gets OK in Montana" Associated Press 12/31/09
Patients and doctors had been waiting for the state's high court to step in after a lower court decided a year ago that constitutional rights to privacy and dignity protect the right to die.
The Montana Supreme Court opinion will now give doctors in the state the freedom to prescribe the necessary drugs to mentally competent, terminally ill patients without fear of being prosecuted, advocates said.
Oregon and Washington state allow assisted suicides for terminally ill patients, with Oregon adopting America's first "death with dignity" law in 1997. [Kathryn L. Tucker, the legal affairs director for Compassion and Choices,] said Montana doctors should now feel comfortable adopting procedures that doctors in the other two states use.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Baxter v. Montana: euthanasia finds support among Pro-Right-to-Die Christian Authority Figures" by Mariya Starchevsky, Newark Religious Issues Examiner 1/4/10
The moral stigma of suicide dates back to Christianity’s proliferation through Europe. Although the Bible does not condemn suicide explicitly, the view of “committing” suicide as a legal crime and a moral sin was adopted from St. Augustine and later by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pages 4-5. In history, suicide was a spiritual offense, because it was thought to mess with the Almighty’s plans.
. . . [The case included an amicus brief filed by religious groups and representatives.] Making their plead for a right to die from a religious point of view were Rev. Canon Gary Waddingham (Episcopal Priest) Rev. Steve Oreskovich (Episcopal Priest), Rev. Meg Hatch (M. Div, UCC) Chuck Heath (M. Div. LCPC, Chaplain), Reverend John C. Board (Episcopal Deacon) Rev. Jean Collins, (Episcopal Priest), Rev. John R. Payne, Journey BE (Disciples of Christ) and Dr. L.A. Kemmerer (Professor). These authorities then list approximately 70 other religious figures from the United Church of Christ, the Church of England, the Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations, the Methodist Church, etc., all who support euthanasia when concerning competent, terminally ill adults.
These religious amici stress that end-of-life decisions are deeply personal.
“Those who do not share in the religious beliefs and doctrines of groups opposed to aid in dying see this as an unwanted intrusion into what should be a private decision making process between patient and physician." - Deric Weiss, M.D.,Billings, Montana.
“An overriding theme in the [Bible] is ‘free will.’ That is, the reasonable belief that God granted human beings the ability to distinguish between good and evil and to make choices concerning both. - Rev. John C. Board, Episcopal Deacon.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Obama Appoints Transgender to Senior Post
He was test pilot Mitchell Simpson, but now she is Amanda Simpson, President Obama's Senior Technical Advisor at the Commerce Department.-- From "President Obama Names Transgender Appointee to Commerce Department" by Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent 1/4/10
The White House had no comment on her appointment.
At Raytheon, Simpson -- a former test pilot who had worked for the company for more than a generation -- transitioned from male to female and was instrumental in convincing the military contractor to add gender identity and expression to its equal employment opportunity policy.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Amanda Simpson, formerly test pilot Mitchell Simpson, gets senior post in Commerce department" by Michael Saul, Daily News Staff Writer 1/4/10
"As one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds," Simpson said in a statement.
In 2004, Simpson became the first openly transgendered candidate to win a primary election in the U.S. in a bid for the Arizona state legislature.
A Democrat, she lost in the general election.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
IL Pro-abortion: GOP Mark Kirk & All Dems. Agree
To fill Obama's former Senate seat, the February Illinois primary election ballot reflects the state's soaring abortion rates. The Democrat ballot favors abortion 100%, while the Republican ballot is headed by the media's favorite (homosexual?) Mark Kirk.
In contrast, GOP candidate Patrick Hughes says he believes that life begins at conception: "I would vote for more restrictions on abortion and help protect the lives of every American, born and unborn."
UPDATE 9/25/10: Only Pro-life Illinois Senate Candidate is Libertarian
UPDATE 6/6/10: Mark Kirk solicits Planned Parenthood support
UPDATE 2/12/10: Primary Winner Mark Kirk Backed by John McCain
-- From "Illinois U.S. Senate election: Abortion issue divides candidates" by Rick Pearson, Chicago Tribune reporter 1/4/10
Responding to a Tribune survey on social issues, contenders for the Feb. 2 Democratic and Republican primary nominations for the U.S. Senate generally spoke of the need to encourage programs to reduce abortion in the country. But they diverged when asked how they would vote on abortion policy.
Democrats Alexi Giannoulias, Cheryle Jackson, David Hoffman, Jacob Meister and Robert Marshall all said they backed a woman's right to have an abortion. Among Republicans, Pat Hughes, John Arrington and Kathleen Thomas expressed support for more restrictive policies on abortion, while Mark Kirk, a five-term congressman, supported abortion rights.
The Republican split reflects the division among GOP voters on abortion, with core conservatives opposing it and social moderates supporting abortion rights to some degree.
A Tribune poll last month of likely Republican primary voters found half believe more restrictions should be placed on abortion, 32 percent said current regulations should remain in place and only 8 percent said fewer restrictions should be imposed. In 2008, the most recent year from which state statistics are available, 47,717 abortions were performed in Illinois.
Thomas, a Springfield researcher at the state's historic preservation agency, said she would "work to remove the abortion issue from the federal realm to the states" for regulation. Arrington, a Harvey resident who is the lone African-American Republican contender, said opposing abortion was "a passion and a priority for me" and contended that the procedure is a "silent genocide" in the black community.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click here for more background on GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk.
In contrast, GOP candidate Patrick Hughes says he believes that life begins at conception: "I would vote for more restrictions on abortion and help protect the lives of every American, born and unborn."
UPDATE 9/25/10: Only Pro-life Illinois Senate Candidate is Libertarian
UPDATE 6/6/10: Mark Kirk solicits Planned Parenthood support
UPDATE 2/12/10: Primary Winner Mark Kirk Backed by John McCain
-- From "Illinois U.S. Senate election: Abortion issue divides candidates" by Rick Pearson, Chicago Tribune reporter 1/4/10
Responding to a Tribune survey on social issues, contenders for the Feb. 2 Democratic and Republican primary nominations for the U.S. Senate generally spoke of the need to encourage programs to reduce abortion in the country. But they diverged when asked how they would vote on abortion policy.
Democrats Alexi Giannoulias, Cheryle Jackson, David Hoffman, Jacob Meister and Robert Marshall all said they backed a woman's right to have an abortion. Among Republicans, Pat Hughes, John Arrington and Kathleen Thomas expressed support for more restrictive policies on abortion, while Mark Kirk, a five-term congressman, supported abortion rights.
The Republican split reflects the division among GOP voters on abortion, with core conservatives opposing it and social moderates supporting abortion rights to some degree.
A Tribune poll last month of likely Republican primary voters found half believe more restrictions should be placed on abortion, 32 percent said current regulations should remain in place and only 8 percent said fewer restrictions should be imposed. In 2008, the most recent year from which state statistics are available, 47,717 abortions were performed in Illinois.
Thomas, a Springfield researcher at the state's historic preservation agency, said she would "work to remove the abortion issue from the federal realm to the states" for regulation. Arrington, a Harvey resident who is the lone African-American Republican contender, said opposing abortion was "a passion and a priority for me" and contended that the procedure is a "silent genocide" in the black community.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click here for more background on GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Sexualized Society = Meaninglessness of Life
Personal and economic freedom of young adults in India has resulted in rampant unmarried sex and abortion, including use of abortifacients.
-- From "As use of morning-after pills rises in India, health workers voice concerns" by Emily Wax, Washington Post Foreign Service 1/2/10
As the nation's economic boom draws growing numbers of young people into the workforce, they are leaving the confines of family, moving to big cities and often declaring their independence through sex.
Doctors report that use of the ["morning after"] I-pill, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, is soaring. But they also worry that young women are misusing the pill by taking it too often or in place of contraceptives.
Many young women report using the emergency contraceptive pills several times a month instead of using condoms, increasing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, gynecologists say. This year, dozens of ads for the I-pill, also known worldwide as the morning-after pill, have flooded Indian TV channels, highway billboards and women's magazines.
Many gynecologists and health workers say that the pills have helped women avoid abortions, which are legal in India but are often performed by untrained workers in unsanitary conditions. Health workers say the pill's availability also empowers women, who face many hurdles in the country's tradition-bound, patriarchal culture.
As many as 7 million abortions are performed in India annually, and more than 20,000 women die of botched abortions each year, according to the Mumbai-based Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India. The group says that the number of deaths is probably higher in reality because many families and health workers are afraid to report them.
Few restrictions have been placed on the pill's availability. In interviews, several high school and college students in New Delhi and Mumbai said they were using I-pills but not informing their parents. More than 70 percent of India's population of 1.16 billion is younger than 35.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "As use of morning-after pills rises in India, health workers voice concerns" by Emily Wax, Washington Post Foreign Service 1/2/10
As the nation's economic boom draws growing numbers of young people into the workforce, they are leaving the confines of family, moving to big cities and often declaring their independence through sex.
Doctors report that use of the ["morning after"] I-pill, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, is soaring. But they also worry that young women are misusing the pill by taking it too often or in place of contraceptives.
Many young women report using the emergency contraceptive pills several times a month instead of using condoms, increasing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, gynecologists say. This year, dozens of ads for the I-pill, also known worldwide as the morning-after pill, have flooded Indian TV channels, highway billboards and women's magazines.
Many gynecologists and health workers say that the pills have helped women avoid abortions, which are legal in India but are often performed by untrained workers in unsanitary conditions. Health workers say the pill's availability also empowers women, who face many hurdles in the country's tradition-bound, patriarchal culture.
As many as 7 million abortions are performed in India annually, and more than 20,000 women die of botched abortions each year, according to the Mumbai-based Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India. The group says that the number of deaths is probably higher in reality because many families and health workers are afraid to report them.
Few restrictions have been placed on the pill's availability. In interviews, several high school and college students in New Delhi and Mumbai said they were using I-pills but not informing their parents. More than 70 percent of India's population of 1.16 billion is younger than 35.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Daytime TV Homosexual Behavior on ABC
Viewer complaints caused ABC to regret their recent airing of the homosexual/sadomasochistic music video; it's time for more complaining!
Click here to comment at the ABC website
-- From "'One Life to Live' airs daytime TV's first gay sex scene" by Nicole Carter, Staff Writer, New York Daily News 12/31/09
The same network that cancelled Adam Lambert's daytime performances after his same-sex kiss at the American Music Awards aired the first-ever gay sex scene on daytime TV on Wednesday.
ABC's "One Life to Live" aired an on-screen romp between Oliver (Scott Evans [who is openly gay]) and Kyle (Brett Claywell)
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ABC will air gay sex, but not Adam Lambert (video)" by Liz Brown, Examiner 12/31/09
The iconic ABC soap opera One Life to Live aired the first gay sex scene on network daytime television history on Wednesday. One Life to Live characters Oliver and Kyle shared a classic soap opera sex scene replete with champagne, candlelight and a dreamy love song.
Adam Lambert's season of censorship started after his controversial performance at the American Music Awards where he engaged in unscheduled display of simulated oral sex, simulated back-up dancer fingering and real male-on-male kissing during his performance of 'For Your Entertainment'. ABC executives refused to allow The View to rebroadcast portions of Adam Lambert's performance during their "Hot Topics" segment calling the performance "inappropriate for daytime television".
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click here to comment at the ABC website
-- From "'One Life to Live' airs daytime TV's first gay sex scene" by Nicole Carter, Staff Writer, New York Daily News 12/31/09
The same network that cancelled Adam Lambert's daytime performances after his same-sex kiss at the American Music Awards aired the first-ever gay sex scene on daytime TV on Wednesday.
ABC's "One Life to Live" aired an on-screen romp between Oliver (Scott Evans [who is openly gay]) and Kyle (Brett Claywell)
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ABC will air gay sex, but not Adam Lambert (video)" by Liz Brown, Examiner 12/31/09
The iconic ABC soap opera One Life to Live aired the first gay sex scene on network daytime television history on Wednesday. One Life to Live characters Oliver and Kyle shared a classic soap opera sex scene replete with champagne, candlelight and a dreamy love song.
Adam Lambert's season of censorship started after his controversial performance at the American Music Awards where he engaged in unscheduled display of simulated oral sex, simulated back-up dancer fingering and real male-on-male kissing during his performance of 'For Your Entertainment'. ABC executives refused to allow The View to rebroadcast portions of Adam Lambert's performance during their "Hot Topics" segment calling the performance "inappropriate for daytime television".
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Abortions at 10-year high in Illinois
The new abortion mega-mill in Aurora, Illinois explains the dead-baby windfall for Planned Parenthood.
-- From "Abortions at 10-year high in Illinois" by Dave McKinney, Staff Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 1/2/10
The number of abortions performed in Illinois reached a 10-year high in 2008, newly compiled state records show.
The uptick could be due to the state's flagging economy and to the first full year of operation of a new clinic offering abortion services in Aurora, abortion-rights advocates and opponents alike say.
In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, figures from the Illinois Public Health Department show that 47,717 abortions were performed statewide.
That represents a 5 percent increase from 2007. And it's the most abortions in Illinois in a year since 1998, when 49,403 women were reported to have had abortions.
On a percentage basis, the age group with the largest increase in abortions from 2007 to 2008 was those 14 and under. In 2008, 299 girls in that group obtained abortions, up 16 percent from 2007, state records show.
The group with the next-largest percentage increase was women 20 to 24 years old. Abortions for that group reached 13,130 in 2008, up 11 percent from the year before.
Planned Parenthood declined to provide data on abortions provided in 2008 at its clinics in Chicago, Aurora and Champaign.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortions at 10-year high in Illinois" by Dave McKinney, Staff Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 1/2/10
The number of abortions performed in Illinois reached a 10-year high in 2008, newly compiled state records show.
The uptick could be due to the state's flagging economy and to the first full year of operation of a new clinic offering abortion services in Aurora, abortion-rights advocates and opponents alike say.
In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, figures from the Illinois Public Health Department show that 47,717 abortions were performed statewide.
That represents a 5 percent increase from 2007. And it's the most abortions in Illinois in a year since 1998, when 49,403 women were reported to have had abortions.
On a percentage basis, the age group with the largest increase in abortions from 2007 to 2008 was those 14 and under. In 2008, 299 girls in that group obtained abortions, up 16 percent from 2007, state records show.
The group with the next-largest percentage increase was women 20 to 24 years old. Abortions for that group reached 13,130 in 2008, up 11 percent from the year before.
Planned Parenthood declined to provide data on abortions provided in 2008 at its clinics in Chicago, Aurora and Champaign.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
