As the Senate moves forward this week on the Hate Crimes Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill, politicians of both political parties pretend that such a "though crimes" law will not infringe on Christian free speech.
-- From "Does the Hate Crimes Bill Threaten Religious Liberties?" by Dan Gilgoff, God & Country, U.S. News & World Report 7/17/09
After more than a decade-long effort by gay rights advocates, the Senate [Thursday] night adopted a measure to expand the definition of federal hate crimes to include sexual orientation. It was attached as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is expected to pass [this] week.
Conservative Christian groups, who've led the charge against expanding the federal hate crimes law since the mid-1990s, are stepping up warnings that the bill threatens religious liberties, including the freedom of clergy to condemn homosexuality. "What you say from the pulpit could literally become illegal," the Family Research Council wrote in a recent letter to pastors. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund has received more calls and E-mails on what the hate crimes bill means for pastors than on any other issue in recent months.
As religious conservatives mount a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, however, legal experts say the legislation narrowly focuses on violent acts and that pastors' speech remains protected by the First Amendment. And some religious activists acknowledge that they're less concerned about the immediate effects of expanding hate crimes protections than about the broader message it sends. "This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans—that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."
. . . religious conservatives say that all crimes are motivated by hate and that gay victims shouldn't be accorded special status. Religious liberties are a much bigger concern. "When you have pastors being called to testify about what they taught or preached to a person convicted of a hate crime, that's going to send a shock wave through the religious community," says Stanley. "It will lead to a chill on speech and free exercise of religion as it relates to homosexual behavior."
Legal experts note that under the hate crimes bill, a person's religious beliefs about homosexuality become relevant only once he or she is accused of a violent crime against someone from the LGBT community. The bill prohibits a defendant's religious expressions and associations from being introduced as substantive evidence at trial, though the information can be used to help determine whether the defendant was motivated by bias. "Your penalty is being enhanced because of your religious beliefs," says Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School. "But you're being prosecuted for the crime."
Proponents of an expanded hate crimes law say religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny if they lead to violence. "Even the strongest proponents of religious freedom do not claim that religious liberty means the right to beat people up," says Prof. Andrew Koppelman of the Northwestern University School of Law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senate includes homosexuals in hate crimes protection" by Tom Strode, Baptist Press Washington bureau chief 7/17/09
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and others oppose such efforts to expand hate crimes protection based not only on their inclusion of categories defined by sexual behavior or identity but also concerns about the potential impact on religious freedom.
They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible's teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim's "sexual orientation" after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.
The Senate approved in a 78-13 roll call before the cloture vote an amendment by Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., intended to protect the free exercise of religion and other First Amendment rights. Brownback's amendment says such freedoms are not to be infringed on under the hate crimes measure as long as their use is not intended to plan, prepare for or incite physical violence.
"The Brownback amendment offers some needed protections for people of faith who express their faith convictions about homosexuality and certain other aberrant sexual behaviors," said Barrett Duke, the ERLC's vice president for public policy and research. "The amendment protects the pastor as long as his speech or other action was not 'intended' to lead to an act of violence. However, it does not protect a pastor from government scrutiny if a member of his congregation engages in an act of violence against someone in one of these protected groups after he has heard a negative statement from the pastor about the group. So, anyone who speaks against homosexuality or other aberrant sexual behaviors may be presumed guilty of inciting violence and be forced to prove his innocence.
"In addition, the Brownback amendment doesn't resolve other inherent problems in the bill," Duke said. "The bill still elevates homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviors to a specially protected class, and it still creates an opportunity for the prosecution of thought. Consequently, while we appreciate the protection that Senator Brownback gained for people of faith, the hate crimes bill is still inappropriate legislation and should be defeated."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Maine Ruling: Cross-dressing Male Students Allowed in Girl's Room
The Maine Human Rights Commission ruled . . . that the Orono School Department discriminated against a transgender child by denying her [him] access to the girls bathroom.
This radical ruling, and its far-reaching significance, has been ignored by every major news outlet.
-- From "State rules in favor of young transgender" by Abigail Curtis, Bangor Daily News Staff 7/1/09
While the school department’s lawyer warned that schools around the state may not be ready to manage the practical fallout from the decision, civil liberties advocates hailed the ruling as an advancement of human rights.
The discrimination in question first occurred in October 2007 when the child was in the fifth grade at Asa Adams School. Until then, she [he] was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, although she [he] was biologically male. But that fall, the transgender child was followed into the girls room by a male student who had “previously started to harass her by stalking her and calling her ‘faggot,’” according to the Maine Human Rights Commission investigator’s report.
After the second such episode, the boy was suspended and removed from the transgender child’s class. At that point, school officials told the transgender child that she [he] had to use a single-stall faculty bathroom at the other end of the school, and that was when her [his] parents decided to take the matter to the Maine Human Rights Commission.
Paul Melanson, grandfather of the boy accused of harassing the transgender student, also filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, saying that not allowing his grandson to use the girls bathroom or the faculty bathroom as the other child did was a violation of his grandson’s right to public accommodation under the Maine Human Rights Act. Melanson had given his grandson permission to use the girls bathroom as long as the transgender student was doing so, according to the report.
On Monday, the commission found that Asa Adams School did not unlawfully discriminate against Melanson’s grandson “because of his sexual orientation,” which is a heterosexual male.
“Minor Student 2 was disciplined because his biological sex is male and his gender identity is male and he used the girls’ bathroom,” the investigator’s report said.
Patricia Ryan, executive director of the Maine Human Rights Commission, said this decision is among the first to involve schools, sexual orientation provision, gender identity and the issues of bathroom use. She said schools in Maine likely will want to take a look at it.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This radical ruling, and its far-reaching significance, has been ignored by every major news outlet.
-- From "State rules in favor of young transgender" by Abigail Curtis, Bangor Daily News Staff 7/1/09
While the school department’s lawyer warned that schools around the state may not be ready to manage the practical fallout from the decision, civil liberties advocates hailed the ruling as an advancement of human rights.
The discrimination in question first occurred in October 2007 when the child was in the fifth grade at Asa Adams School. Until then, she [he] was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, although she [he] was biologically male. But that fall, the transgender child was followed into the girls room by a male student who had “previously started to harass her by stalking her and calling her ‘faggot,’” according to the Maine Human Rights Commission investigator’s report.
After the second such episode, the boy was suspended and removed from the transgender child’s class. At that point, school officials told the transgender child that she [he] had to use a single-stall faculty bathroom at the other end of the school, and that was when her [his] parents decided to take the matter to the Maine Human Rights Commission.
Paul Melanson, grandfather of the boy accused of harassing the transgender student, also filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, saying that not allowing his grandson to use the girls bathroom or the faculty bathroom as the other child did was a violation of his grandson’s right to public accommodation under the Maine Human Rights Act. Melanson had given his grandson permission to use the girls bathroom as long as the transgender student was doing so, according to the report.
On Monday, the commission found that Asa Adams School did not unlawfully discriminate against Melanson’s grandson “because of his sexual orientation,” which is a heterosexual male.
“Minor Student 2 was disciplined because his biological sex is male and his gender identity is male and he used the girls’ bathroom,” the investigator’s report said.
Patricia Ryan, executive director of the Maine Human Rights Commission, said this decision is among the first to involve schools, sexual orientation provision, gender identity and the issues of bathroom use. She said schools in Maine likely will want to take a look at it.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Poll: Most Americans Believe Intelligent Design over Darwinism
A recent Zogby survey gives Darwinists good reason to fear scientific study of evolution, as most Americans prefer to look at facts, rather than placing blind faith in evolution theory.
-- From "Darwin and unnatural disbelief" posted at the Los Angeles Times 7/1/09
Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.
But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design" by Bob Ellis, Dakotavoice 7/1/09
After 150 years of rapturous embrace by the “scientific” community, decades of one-sided promotion in the public education system, uniform adherence from movie and television media, and still most of the American people just aren’t buying the contention that this incredibly beautiful and fantastically complex universe we see around us just happened to end up this way without an intelligent designer.
That’s what a new Zogby poll finds after sampling 1,053 likely voters on the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
Those surveyed were asked this question:
Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 7/13/09
A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.
. . . respondents were given the two following statements:
Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”
Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
Of those surveyed, 78 percent said Statement B came closest to their own point of view on the issue, representing a 9 percent increase over 2006, the last time the question was asked.
More striking, though, was the finding that 82 percent of Democrats also chose statement B, versus 73 percent of Republicans.
Self-identified liberals showed stronger support than self-identified conservatives, 86 percent to 72 percent. Those who did not identify with any Christian or Jewish denominations supported teaching evidence against Darwinian evolution at a level of 82 percent.
When young adults age 18-24 were posed with the same choice, the poll said no respondents -- 0 percent -- thought only Darwinism and its supporting evidence should be taught.
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge -- drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.
“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious-extremists is afoot,” he said. “But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”
In a press release distributed with the poll West said, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Darwin and unnatural disbelief" posted at the Los Angeles Times 7/1/09
Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.
But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design" by Bob Ellis, Dakotavoice 7/1/09
After 150 years of rapturous embrace by the “scientific” community, decades of one-sided promotion in the public education system, uniform adherence from movie and television media, and still most of the American people just aren’t buying the contention that this incredibly beautiful and fantastically complex universe we see around us just happened to end up this way without an intelligent designer.
That’s what a new Zogby poll finds after sampling 1,053 likely voters on the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
Those surveyed were asked this question:
Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.
Statement A: 33%[From the survey:] Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
Statement B: 52
Neither: 7
Other/Not sure: 8
Strongly agree: 54%To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Somewhat agree: 26%
Strongly disagree: 11%
Not
Sure: 4%
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 7/13/09
A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.
. . . respondents were given the two following statements:
Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”
Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
Of those surveyed, 78 percent said Statement B came closest to their own point of view on the issue, representing a 9 percent increase over 2006, the last time the question was asked.
More striking, though, was the finding that 82 percent of Democrats also chose statement B, versus 73 percent of Republicans.
Self-identified liberals showed stronger support than self-identified conservatives, 86 percent to 72 percent. Those who did not identify with any Christian or Jewish denominations supported teaching evidence against Darwinian evolution at a level of 82 percent.
When young adults age 18-24 were posed with the same choice, the poll said no respondents -- 0 percent -- thought only Darwinism and its supporting evidence should be taught.
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge -- drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.
“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious-extremists is afoot,” he said. “But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”
In a press release distributed with the poll West said, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Congressman Pushes to De-Fund Planned Parenthood
Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence says $350 million from government sources across America is too much money going to Planned Parenthood. He wants the federal government to mirror the trends in states like Tennessee, Texas, and even in California by offering an amendment to the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services.
-- From "Congressman to Offer Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/17/09
The amendment would stop HHS’ Family Planning funding (Title X) from going to Planned Parenthood.
The Pence amendment says “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.”
The amendment does not cut any funding from the family planning program but ensures none of the money goes to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
While the majority of Americans who are pro-life likely support such an amendment, members of the House of Representatives may not get an opportunity to vote on it.
Pence will offer the amendment next week in the House Rules Committee, which has already repeatedly voted to prevent pro-life amendments stopping the direct taxpayer funding of abortions that President Barack Obama wanted in the District of Columbia and overseas.
[Thursday], Democratic leaders manipulated a vote on rules that prevented consideration of an amendment to stop tax-funded abortions in the nation's capital.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Congressman to Offer Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/17/09
The amendment would stop HHS’ Family Planning funding (Title X) from going to Planned Parenthood.
The Pence amendment says “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.”
The amendment does not cut any funding from the family planning program but ensures none of the money goes to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
While the majority of Americans who are pro-life likely support such an amendment, members of the House of Representatives may not get an opportunity to vote on it.
Pence will offer the amendment next week in the House Rules Committee, which has already repeatedly voted to prevent pro-life amendments stopping the direct taxpayer funding of abortions that President Barack Obama wanted in the District of Columbia and overseas.
[Thursday], Democratic leaders manipulated a vote on rules that prevented consideration of an amendment to stop tax-funded abortions in the nation's capital.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Episcopal Church: Ordaining and 'Marrying' Homosexuals
Christian exodus of the ECUSA is expected to increase as the church's trienniel national convention ended with approval to ordain homosexual bishops, and provide for the blessing of same-sex unions and marriages.
-- From "Episcopal Church to Allow Bishops to Bless Same-Sex Unions" by William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/17/09
. . . officials stopped short of creating liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, but approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships. The key portion of the legislation says bishops "may provide generous pastoral response" for such unions.
The vote came three days after the church passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of gay bishops. Both moves have prompted strong reactions among the larger worldwide Anglican Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the preeminent Anglican clergyman, had asked the Episcopalians before the convention not to take up issues that would further divide the church. This week the influential bishop of Durham, England, wrote an essay describing the ongoing crisis as "a slow-moving train crash" and the most recent actions of the Episcopal Church as marking "a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
Meanwhile, gay rights advocates said this week's victories lay the groundwork for future moves. Friday's resolution included a call for bishops to "collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources" on same sex unions to report to the next convention. Three years from now, they may consider creating a standard liturgy for same-sex unions with the eventual goal of including a rite for gay marriage in the church's prayer book.
But some believe the recent moves have come at a cost. A number of parishes and dioceses have left the 2.3 million member Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas branches of the Anglican Communion. Last month, some conservatives who left the Episcopal Church over issues of Scripture and sexuality formed the Anglican Church in North America.
The ECUSA has essentially abandoned Christianity.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Episcopal Church to Allow Bishops to Bless Same-Sex Unions" by William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/17/09
. . . officials stopped short of creating liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, but approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships. The key portion of the legislation says bishops "may provide generous pastoral response" for such unions.
The vote came three days after the church passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of gay bishops. Both moves have prompted strong reactions among the larger worldwide Anglican Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the preeminent Anglican clergyman, had asked the Episcopalians before the convention not to take up issues that would further divide the church. This week the influential bishop of Durham, England, wrote an essay describing the ongoing crisis as "a slow-moving train crash" and the most recent actions of the Episcopal Church as marking "a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
Meanwhile, gay rights advocates said this week's victories lay the groundwork for future moves. Friday's resolution included a call for bishops to "collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources" on same sex unions to report to the next convention. Three years from now, they may consider creating a standard liturgy for same-sex unions with the eventual goal of including a rite for gay marriage in the church's prayer book.
But some believe the recent moves have come at a cost. A number of parishes and dioceses have left the 2.3 million member Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas branches of the Anglican Communion. Last month, some conservatives who left the Episcopal Church over issues of Scripture and sexuality formed the Anglican Church in North America.
The ECUSA has essentially abandoned Christianity.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama's Catholic Surgeon General Nominee Favors Abortionist Training
She "spoke in favor of a vote by the AMA's governing body to 'urge medical schools to expand their curriculum' to teach 'more about abortion,'" LifeNews reported.
-- From "Obama's surgeon general pick will be grilled on 'life issues'" Posted at USA Today 7/14/09
Some Catholic health care voices are delighted with President Obama's pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, but there are already rumbles of concern in the Catholic blogosphere over her stance on life issues.
Benjamin was named just days after Obama's audience with the pope (who gave him a copy of the church's latest statement on bioethics). But Obama has many abortion-rights supporting Catholics in his camp including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who attends Mass weekly.
. . . Benjamin's clinic is not an expressly Catholic institution. Experts questioned by various Catholic media had no comment on where she stood on life issues. And Obama has nominated other Catholics to critical positions who support abortion rights such as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Surgeon general pick: Train new doctors on abortions" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Obama announced his nominee for surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, at the White House Monday. Benjamin, 52, is a family doctor in Alabama who established the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic "to provide health care with dignity to impoverished residents."
She is the first black woman and the first doctor younger than 40 to be elected to the American Medical Association's board of trustees, and in 2002 she became the first black woman to head a state medical society.
On the issue of abortion, Benjamin has advocated more training for doctors on how to terminate pregnancy.
"We are adopting a policy that medical school curriculum provide the legal, ethical, and psychological principles associated with abortion so students can learn all the factors involved," she said, according to the Associated Press.
Benjamin is also a member of the board of directors of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that condemns illegal abortions in many nations across the world. According to LifeNews, the group has used on questionable statistics on mothers' deaths from abortions to call for legalization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Obama's surgeon general pick will be grilled on 'life issues'" Posted at USA Today 7/14/09
Some Catholic health care voices are delighted with President Obama's pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, but there are already rumbles of concern in the Catholic blogosphere over her stance on life issues.
Benjamin was named just days after Obama's audience with the pope (who gave him a copy of the church's latest statement on bioethics). But Obama has many abortion-rights supporting Catholics in his camp including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who attends Mass weekly.
. . . Benjamin's clinic is not an expressly Catholic institution. Experts questioned by various Catholic media had no comment on where she stood on life issues. And Obama has nominated other Catholics to critical positions who support abortion rights such as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Surgeon general pick: Train new doctors on abortions" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Obama announced his nominee for surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, at the White House Monday. Benjamin, 52, is a family doctor in Alabama who established the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic "to provide health care with dignity to impoverished residents."
She is the first black woman and the first doctor younger than 40 to be elected to the American Medical Association's board of trustees, and in 2002 she became the first black woman to head a state medical society.
On the issue of abortion, Benjamin has advocated more training for doctors on how to terminate pregnancy.
"We are adopting a policy that medical school curriculum provide the legal, ethical, and psychological principles associated with abortion so students can learn all the factors involved," she said, according to the Associated Press.
Benjamin is also a member of the board of directors of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that condemns illegal abortions in many nations across the world. According to LifeNews, the group has used on questionable statistics on mothers' deaths from abortions to call for legalization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Teacher's Union Votes for Same-sex 'Marriage' (and more)
Public school focus on Gay Agenda and sexualization of children made crystal clear at annual meeting
-- From "At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion" by Erin Roach, staff writer for Baptist Press 7/6/09
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
[This] has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment [DOMA]. . . . Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion" by Erin Roach, staff writer for Baptist Press 7/6/09
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
[This] has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment [DOMA]. . . . Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Federal Judge Bars College's 'Anti-homophobe Policy'
A California court has ruled in favor of a student who was insulted for defending traditional marriage and has ordered the college to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.
-- From "L.A. Community College District's sexual harassment policy put on hold" by Gale Holland, Los Angeles Time 7/15/09
Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom.
U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
Lopez delivered the speech in the emotional aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
The student said that the professor cut his presentation short, called him a "fascist bastard" and told him to "ask God" for his grade.
The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code.
King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez sued the Los Angeles City College District, the largest community college system in the U.S., with over 135,000 students.
The lawsuit not only targeted the school over the professor's comments, however, but also sought removal of a campus sexual harassment and speech policy that court documents allege "systematically prohibits and punishes political and religious speech by students that is outside the campus political mainstream."
ADF claims the district's policy, which labels speech as sexual harassment whenever it might be "perceived as offensive or unwelcome" – such as Lopez's opinions on sexual morality – opens the door for Christians and defenders of traditional marriage to suffer abuses similar to the type Lopez endured.
Even though college administrators informed ADF that a "progressive discipline" procedure had been started in the case, ADF filed for a preliminary injunction that would require the school to remove the sexual harassment policy from its website.
According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."
Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."
He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"
"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include 'sexist statements ... or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men.' This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "L.A. Community College District's sexual harassment policy put on hold" by Gale Holland, Los Angeles Time 7/15/09
Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom.
U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
Lopez delivered the speech in the emotional aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
The student said that the professor cut his presentation short, called him a "fascist bastard" and told him to "ask God" for his grade.
The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code.
King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez sued the Los Angeles City College District, the largest community college system in the U.S., with over 135,000 students.
The lawsuit not only targeted the school over the professor's comments, however, but also sought removal of a campus sexual harassment and speech policy that court documents allege "systematically prohibits and punishes political and religious speech by students that is outside the campus political mainstream."
ADF claims the district's policy, which labels speech as sexual harassment whenever it might be "perceived as offensive or unwelcome" – such as Lopez's opinions on sexual morality – opens the door for Christians and defenders of traditional marriage to suffer abuses similar to the type Lopez endured.
Even though college administrators informed ADF that a "progressive discipline" procedure had been started in the case, ADF filed for a preliminary injunction that would require the school to remove the sexual harassment policy from its website.
According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."
Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."
He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"
"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include 'sexist statements ... or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men.' This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Senate Hides Hate Crimes Bill in Defense Appropriation
Late Monday, Senate Democrats told their homosexualist base that they'd attempt to sneak the hate crimes bill (S. 909) past the public as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a must-pass measure (S. 1390)
UPDATE 7/17/09: Hate crimes amendment passes in the dark of night with the help of five GOP senators
UPDATE 7/16/09: Sen. Reid anticipates enough GOP support for hate crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/15/09: Sen. McCain Blasts Dems for Hate Crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/14/09 (late): Vote this week, Senator Reid says at press conference
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Burris & Durbin (sponsor of this bill), this takes only a minute, and then click here for their phone numbers.
-- From "Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times 7/13/09
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill. [President Bush promised to veto ANY bill that included hate crimes legislation.]
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would introduce the bill as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is also a prime sponsor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/17/09: Hate crimes amendment passes in the dark of night with the help of five GOP senators
UPDATE 7/16/09: Sen. Reid anticipates enough GOP support for hate crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/15/09: Sen. McCain Blasts Dems for Hate Crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/14/09 (late): Vote this week, Senator Reid says at press conference
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Burris & Durbin (sponsor of this bill), this takes only a minute, and then click here for their phone numbers.
-- From "Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times 7/13/09
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill. [President Bush promised to veto ANY bill that included hate crimes legislation.]
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would introduce the bill as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is also a prime sponsor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Homosexuality and Contracting for Children
Absent natural procreation, homosexual relationships lead to a variety of convoluted "parenting"
Utah court ruling preserving traditional parental rights fuels the politically-correct drive toward same-sex marriage
-- From "Helpless, as ex rips boy away" by Rosemary Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune 7/10/2009
Gena Edvalson tried for years to be a mom. So when her partner of six years, Jana Dickson, became pregnant through artificial insemination and gave birth to a boy in March 2006, nothing brought her "instantly more joy."
And nothing brought Edvalson more pain than a recent court ruling depriving her of a chance to even visit the child.
But the two split up when the boy was 17 months old and last week, after a yearlong legal fight, Edvalson was cut off from any contact with the 3-year-old she loves as a son. A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Such documents did not protect Edvalson, who signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements with Dickson near the time the baby was born.
Her advice for other same-sex couples: Don't have kids unless you have the legal protection of an adoption (something you cannot get in Utah).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
In 2006, Gena-Louise Edvalson entered into a "contract" with her lover, Jana Dickson, to co-parent her partner's newborn son. But after the relationship ended, Edvalson sued Dickson, who is now married to a man, demanding the mother honor the contract and grant her former partner parental standing in the boy's life.
Judge Leon Anthony Dever of Utah's Third District Court, however, voided the contract and dismissed the lawsuit, arguing "parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children."
"The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger," said [Frank D. Mylar, Alliance Defense Fund] in a statement. "The court correctly ruled that this little boy's right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child."
The judge's ruling came in spite of the "parenting plan" for co-guardianship that the two women had signed.
Judge Dever [wrote], "The Utah Supreme Court has held that contracts that offend public policy are void. ... Therefore, while people are generally free to bind themselves to any contract, those contracts which are contrary to public policy are illegal."
Mylar explained, "There has always been a legal concept that certain contracts are illegal and void, where no court will be party to enforcing such an agreement. If a person had a contract, for example, to conduct illegal activity, the contract is void. He or she shouldn't be held to it.
"Since both Utah law and the U.S. Constitution clearly protect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit," Mylar told WND, "it stands that you can't just 'bargain away' those constitutionally protected parental rights, because to be able to do so is not in the best interest of the child."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Utah court ruling preserving traditional parental rights fuels the politically-correct drive toward same-sex marriage
-- From "Helpless, as ex rips boy away" by Rosemary Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune 7/10/2009
Gena Edvalson tried for years to be a mom. So when her partner of six years, Jana Dickson, became pregnant through artificial insemination and gave birth to a boy in March 2006, nothing brought her "instantly more joy."
And nothing brought Edvalson more pain than a recent court ruling depriving her of a chance to even visit the child.
But the two split up when the boy was 17 months old and last week, after a yearlong legal fight, Edvalson was cut off from any contact with the 3-year-old she loves as a son. A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Such documents did not protect Edvalson, who signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements with Dickson near the time the baby was born.
Her advice for other same-sex couples: Don't have kids unless you have the legal protection of an adoption (something you cannot get in Utah).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
In 2006, Gena-Louise Edvalson entered into a "contract" with her lover, Jana Dickson, to co-parent her partner's newborn son. But after the relationship ended, Edvalson sued Dickson, who is now married to a man, demanding the mother honor the contract and grant her former partner parental standing in the boy's life.
Judge Leon Anthony Dever of Utah's Third District Court, however, voided the contract and dismissed the lawsuit, arguing "parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children."
"The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger," said [Frank D. Mylar, Alliance Defense Fund] in a statement. "The court correctly ruled that this little boy's right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child."
The judge's ruling came in spite of the "parenting plan" for co-guardianship that the two women had signed.
Judge Dever [wrote], "The Utah Supreme Court has held that contracts that offend public policy are void. ... Therefore, while people are generally free to bind themselves to any contract, those contracts which are contrary to public policy are illegal."
Mylar explained, "There has always been a legal concept that certain contracts are illegal and void, where no court will be party to enforcing such an agreement. If a person had a contract, for example, to conduct illegal activity, the contract is void. He or she shouldn't be held to it.
"Since both Utah law and the U.S. Constitution clearly protect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit," Mylar told WND, "it stands that you can't just 'bargain away' those constitutionally protected parental rights, because to be able to do so is not in the best interest of the child."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Government Teaches Children to Enjoy Sex - Daily Orgasms Recommended
Europe all the rave?! Consider the UK government/public school track record that tells parents to stop teaching morals to children, distributes abortion pills like candy, mandates Gay Agenda indoctrination, favors homosexual adoption, and thinks that encouraging sex decreases teenage pregnancy.
-- From "NHS tells school children of their 'right' to 'an orgasm a day'" by Roya Nikkhah, The London Telegraph 7/12/09
The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex.
The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex.
Entitled Pleasure, the leaflet has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, but it also being circulated outside the city.
The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "NHS tells school children of their 'right' to 'an orgasm a day'" by Roya Nikkhah, The London Telegraph 7/12/09
The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex.
The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex.
Entitled Pleasure, the leaflet has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, but it also being circulated outside the city.
The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Obama Science Czar Holdren Called for Forced Abortions
President Obama just promised, in the presence of the Pope, that he would do everything possible to reduce abortion, but Obama isn't fooling the Catholic hierarchy, with his pro-abortion appointments, and overt funding of Planned Parenthood and shifting policies away from abstinence, and forcing abortion on all health professionals.
-- From "Obama Science Czar Wrote Book Supporting Forced Abortions, Mass Sterilization And A World Government" posted at KXMD-TV CBS11 7/11/09
. . . John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar,” once wrote a book supporting things such as mass sterilization and forced abortions. Things even staunch members of the liberal Democrat base would probably find objectionable and radical.
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States’ Science Czar.
From "Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."
Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.
"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Obama Science Czar Wrote Book Supporting Forced Abortions, Mass Sterilization And A World Government" posted at KXMD-TV CBS11 7/11/09
. . . John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar,” once wrote a book supporting things such as mass sterilization and forced abortions. Things even staunch members of the liberal Democrat base would probably find objectionable and radical.
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States’ Science Czar.
From "Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."
Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.
"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Church Attacked for Proclaiming Beliefs in Lawn Sign
Those behind a sign posted in front of their northwest Gainesville church, proclaiming in red letters "Islam is of the devil," say it's a way to express their religious beliefs and is a message of "a great act of love."
-- From "Anti-Islam church sign stirs up community outrage" by Lise Fisher & Karen Voyles, Staff Writers Gainesville Florida Sun 7/8/09
Some living near the Dove World Outreach Center, however, are outraged and disappointed with the sign's message, which has sparked protests and acts of vandalism at the church since it was posted over the weekend.
"It's an act of saying there is only one way, and that is actually what Christianity is about. It is about pointing the people in the right direction, and that right direction is Jesus and only Jesus," said the church's senior pastor, Terry Jones. "We feel the sign is an act of giving the people a chance."
Jones acknowledged not everyone has welcomed the sign.
The church has received about 100 calls in the past 24 hours about the sign, Jones said. One was positive, he said Tuesday.
Since the sign went up, it reportedly has been protested by picketers, successfully torn down in another expression of protest late Sunday, quickly re-erected on Monday, and marred by spray paint before it was repainted and back in place Tuesday morning.
Jones said the acts of vandalism will be reported to police and that there are no plans to remove the sign or change what it says.
"We actually posted the sign because there is a tremendous growth in Islam at this time. It is a violent and oppressive religion and does not have anything to do with the truth of the Bible," Jones said. "We are definitely trying to send the message that Jesus Christ is the only way."
The church's first sign won't be its last, Jones said.
In the future, the message on the sign might change to express the church's beliefs against same-sex marriage or abortion, Jones said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Anti-Islam church sign stirs up community outrage" by Lise Fisher & Karen Voyles, Staff Writers Gainesville Florida Sun 7/8/09
Some living near the Dove World Outreach Center, however, are outraged and disappointed with the sign's message, which has sparked protests and acts of vandalism at the church since it was posted over the weekend.
"It's an act of saying there is only one way, and that is actually what Christianity is about. It is about pointing the people in the right direction, and that right direction is Jesus and only Jesus," said the church's senior pastor, Terry Jones. "We feel the sign is an act of giving the people a chance."
Jones acknowledged not everyone has welcomed the sign.
The church has received about 100 calls in the past 24 hours about the sign, Jones said. One was positive, he said Tuesday.
Since the sign went up, it reportedly has been protested by picketers, successfully torn down in another expression of protest late Sunday, quickly re-erected on Monday, and marred by spray paint before it was repainted and back in place Tuesday morning.
Jones said the acts of vandalism will be reported to police and that there are no plans to remove the sign or change what it says.
"We actually posted the sign because there is a tremendous growth in Islam at this time. It is a violent and oppressive religion and does not have anything to do with the truth of the Bible," Jones said. "We are definitely trying to send the message that Jesus Christ is the only way."
The church's first sign won't be its last, Jones said.
In the future, the message on the sign might change to express the church's beliefs against same-sex marriage or abortion, Jones said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
