BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #39 07/08/2005

Quoteworthy------------"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

Washington - Both sides claimed at least some victory in the Supreme Court's split decisions on the Ten Commandments. But some experts are not sure who won. The court created more confusion with its splintered rulings.

Vacancy Starts A Fundraising Race (Thomas Edsall Washington Post July 5, 2005)
Court Nomination Battle Could Rival 2004 Election's Totals

The effort to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has already become a fundraising magnet for both left and right that promises to rival the 2004 presidential campaign for the rate of cash flow, if not total dollars raised.

The prospect of shifting the Supreme Court to the right has fueled a quest for dollars by conservative and liberal interest groups that will halt only if President Bush does the unexpected and nominates someone acceptable to all sides.

The Texas legislature voted, 96-47, to kill the payroll tax, which would have placed a dangerous, new tax on Texas businesses. The tax was reintroduced as an amendment in attempts to fund school finance reform. Governor Perry has instead suggested closing loopholes in the franchise tax and adding $1 to the current cigarette tax, rather than payroll tax.

Victory In Pennsylvania (By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com July 6, 2005)

Tuesday night, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by a vote of 111-87 passed a resolution on behalf of intellectual diversity and academic freedom for all the public universities and colleges in the state. The resolution was squarely based on the Academic Bill of Rights.

The vote on HR 177 was mainly along partisan lines, although a few Democrats and a few

This was a tremendous victory for academic freedom not only in Pennsylvania but for states that are watching these results across the nation. Opposition to the resolution, from the teacher unions – the American Association of University Professors, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, and all their allies in local Pennsylvania media – was fierce, and their defeat is that much more bitter as a result. But in the end, they had an indefensible position: opposition to the pluralism of ideas, the very heart and soul of the American social contract.

The Pennsylvania resolution accelerates a tide that has begun to flow in the direction of academic freedom across the nation.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-OK, introduced a constitutional amendment in the House of Representatives Thursday intended to reverse a recent (June 27) Supreme Court ruling that bars the display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

The Religious Freedom Amendment would "preserve the original balance of the First Amendment, protecting religious expression by Americans while preventing the establishment of any official religion," Istook said.

The Religious Freedom Amendment, which has 107 co-sponsors, would need the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate in order to pass as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states in order to become a part of the Constitution. Istook introduced the same amendment in 1998, where it failed to win the required two-thirds majority in the House.

"Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks," Istook said. "The courts are using the First Amendment to attack religion when they should be using it to protect religion. Unfortunately, only a constitutional amendment can fix this problem."

The text of the Religious Freedom Amendment says: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, argued that Istook's proposed amendment would in fact threaten Americans' religious liberties.

"Istook's scheme is a direct attack on individual freedom," Lynn said. "It would allow government officials to meddle in religion, and it would take away church-state safeguards that have given Americans more religious freedom than any people in history."

Lynn said that public school students already are allowed to pray in school and that Istook's proposed amendment would give politicians free reign to "decorate our public buildings like churches."

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, would have us believe that religious conservatives represent the greatest danger to tranquility and freedom since the Ayatollah Khomeini took over Tehran. Lynn, who is himself an ordained Protestant minister, believes that theocracy linked to a politically active Religious Right is one of American democracy’s biggest threats. Next to evangelical Protestants, Catholics are the biggest concern on Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s agenda.

Americans United was founded 50 years ago by liberal Protestants and secularists opposed to government aid to Catholic institutions, especially parochial schools. Like many other organizations of its kind, it took an even more radical turn during the 1960s, adding abortion rights, gay rights, and a host of other liberal causes to its church-state concerns. Its traditional fear of Catholicism expanded to a fear of all traditional religion, with conservative Catholics and evangelicals as its chief bugaboos.

Before he took the helm at Americans United, Lynn had been a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Before that, he had attended Boston University’s seminary and was ordained a minister of the United Church of Christ (UCC). The most liberal of America’s mainline Protestant denominations, the UCC is perhaps the leading denominational advocate of gay and abortion rights. It has also been one of the fastest-imploding churches, having lost about 35 percent of its membership in 35 years. (From 1965 t0 1999 the UCC declined from more than 2 million members to 1.4 million) Lynn, after briefly pasturing a UCC church in New Hampshire and teaching at a Catholic high school in Boston, worked on the UCC staff.

The mainline Protestant denominations in the United States continue to demonstrate how far some in their leadership have departed from the true "main line" of orthodox Christian teaching and the views of the people in their own pews. The United Church of Christ (UCC) recently declared its independence from biblical morality and natural law by passing a resolution endorsing the redefinition of civil marriage to include homosexual couples.

Ironically, this historic Congregationalist denomination, whose New England churches played a role in the American Revolution, also violated their democratic traditions in the vote of their 884-member General Synod. "If we had put it to a vote of the people in the pews, it would have failed overwhelmingly," declared the Rev. Brett Becker, a spokesman for more conservative churches in the UCC. Although the policy is not binding on the denomination's member congregations, which enjoy autonomy, it nevertheless is likely to contribute even more to the hemorrhaging of members, donations, and local churches that have led the "mainline" churches to become increasingly marginal while conservative churches and denominations are growing.

It’s long past time for Congress to return the budget Social security surplus to taxpayers.
Wait a minute. Surplus? For years now, we’ve heard about "deficits as far as the eye can see." But the feds are still running one important surplus, which Congress continues to squander. It’s the Social Security surplus.

The Social Security trust fund started running a surplus back in 1983, when lawmakers decided to "save" the retirement program by boosting taxes. The extra money collected would supposedly pile up in the Social Security trust fund. Lawmakers assured us this money would keep the program solvent for decades to come.
But the sad reality is that there’s no money in this trust fund. Congress spends the surplus on other projects (an indoor rain forest in Iowa, a heated bus stop in Alaska … you get the picture) and gives Social Security an IOU. Eventually that IOU will have to be repaid with tax money collected from our children and grandchildren.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., recently drafted legislation to stop Congress from dipping into the Social Security till. Their plan would use all Social Security taxes that aren’t spent to pay current benefits to fund individual retirement accounts that workers would own and control.
In its first year, this plan would reserve about $80 billion in excess Social Security tax revenues to pay future benefits. The surplus would be converted into negotiable government bonds and credited to personal accounts controlled by workers -- real assets similar to an IRA or a 401(k). Not only does this approach assure workers that their retirement taxes will be spent on their retirement, it allows them to watch their retirement fund grow over the years.
Critics say we can’t afford to do this, because it would make today’s deficit much larger. But this isn’t true. The actual levels of government spending and government borrowing would remain the same. What would change is how they’re reported. Instead of raiding the trust fund and hiding tens of billions’ worth of general fund borrowing, lawmakers would have to admit just how much of our money they’re actually spending

Political correctness at one preschool in Maryland is now corrupting a beautiful American tradition: Mother's Day. It apparently has become grossly offensive for any acknowledgement of moms on their special day. Why? According to school administrators it may offend children who have two fathers.

It is no longer appropriate to teach young children about the special contribution that their mothers make to their young lives. I suppose the next thing that the class should do away with is the acknowledgement of birthdays. It might hurt the children who don't have a birthday that same day.

Right at the heart of Canada a host of the most influential, wealthy and socially liberal Canadians and world leaders are planning to construct the most powerful propaganda institute the country has yet seen. A giant glass blaze of light with deliberate architectural ties to mother earth and native Indian earth spirituality, the Museum For Human Rights will eventually serve as the temple of Canada’s new state ideology. It will be a ‘sacred’ spot where Canadians can come together and learn to worship Canada’s most destructive political document, the deceptively named ‘Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

This secular temple will be a place for Canadian schoolchildren to be taught to marvel at their country’s ‘achievements’ in advancing what are questionably, if not outrageously, called ‘Human Rights’ since the implementation of the 1982 Charter. Mingling with legitimate exhibits about the internment of the Japanese in WWII and other true human rights violations justly mourned, will be exhibits championing reproductive ‘rights’, sexual ‘rights’, same-sex ‘rights’.

Radicals Lobby U.N. for ‘Sexual Freedom,’ Even for Youth     
(7/1/2005 Lindsey Douthit--Concerned Women for America CWA)
They are willing to sacrifice any youthful innocence.

The June 24-25 "informal interactive hearings" between the U.N. General Assembly and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), civil society and the private sector, held in New York City, became a forum for various issues relevant to the liberal agenda. Radical groups such as Women’s Environment and Development Organization, International Planned Parenthood and MADRE (an "international women’s human rights organization") used their statuses as active speakers to lobby for universal "reproductive freedom" and homosexual rights. One aspect of their demands was the right of young people to have unlimited sexual freedom.

In a disturbing twist, radical groups often shifted the focus of reproductive freedom to youth. "We recommend all aspects of reproductive rights for adolescents," declared Djeneba Diallo, representing Family Care International of Burkina Faso. Her sentiments were echoed by representatives from other groups such as Action Health Incorporated and National Youth Network for Reproductive Rights in Ecuador. They all stated the same thing: The concept of universal "reproductive rights" has no age limit.

According to speakers such as Diallo, the U.N. should not only adopt language to extend "sexual and reproductive rights" to young people, it should also raise awareness and funding for such "rights." Youth should be included in all development goals, they argued, including those advocating "sexual freedom."

What radical groups do not include in their outlandish demands are the horrifying consequences of unlimited sexual freedom. The United States witnessed the ugliness of "sexual liberation" during the 1960s. Since then, the number of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) has more than tripled. In terms of impact on youth, studies show that sexually active adolescents have increasing rates of STD contraction and are more prone to depression, suicidal tendencies, alcoholism, and drug abuse. The idea of "sexual freedom," so enthusiastically touted by radical groups, actually shadows a dark reality of lifelong disease, emotional bondage and even death.

Also beyond the surface notion of allowing children access to contraception and abortion is the issue of suppressed parental rights. Parents would not have the right to know about their children’s sexual activity, as there would be no requirement of parental notification regarding contraception usage or abortion. According to groups like Family Care International, adolescents have as much right to sexual liberation as adults do, and parents should not have jurisdiction in the matter.

Lindsey Douthit is a recent graduate of Baylor University and a Ronald Reagan Memorial Intern with CWA. Thanks to the generosity of CWA donors, she was able to attend the hearings and allow CWA to monitor and communicate the reality of bias at the U. N. mail@cwfa.org

UNFPA Pitches Abortion as a Means To Reduce Child Poverty (LifeSiteNews.com - July 4, 2005)

UNITED NATIONS, July 4, 2005-- In one of its most thinly veiled references to overt population control ever, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has come out advocating abortion as a means for curbing child poverty, improving child education, and improving the sustainability of the environment.

At the UN’s annual Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) meeting running throughout July the UNFPA has been circulating a report, Reducing Poverty and Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Arguments for Investing in Reproductive Health & Rights. The report argues that "sexual and reproductive health services" – a UN euphemism for abortion, contraception and sterilization – are necessary to eradicate child poverty, AIDS, and even to ensure ecological sustainability by calming population growth.

The UNFPA document was launched in time for September’s Millennium Summit+5, expected to be the largest gathering of world leaders in history.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a press release preceding World Population Day, 11 July 2005, praised the ideals of the UNFPA in promoting abortion as a means to curb world poverty:

ACLU Declares Commitment To Polygamy Rights (Benjamin W. Snyder-Culture Facts)

The American Civil Liberties Union has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," according to statements by ACLU President Nadine Strossen in a speech at Yale University earlier this year. Strossen was responding to a question that linked gay "marriage" and polygamy. Rather than denying the connection - as homosexual "marriage" advocates have done in court filings around the country - Strossen embraced it, including polygamy in the list of "fundamental rights" that the ACLU is working to protect.

Apart from showing that homosexual "marriage" advocates have been disingenuous when they claimed that there was no relationship between gay "marriage" and polygamy, the comment also demonstrates what marriage will look like in the future if groups like the ACLU have their way: any combination of any number of people of any sex (or "gender") with deep feelings for each other. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds strangely like the hippy communes of the 1960s - and those didn't work out too well.

"This is a crucial document that reflects the convergence of Russia and China's fundamental positions on key issues in modern world order - our common view for the outlook of the development of humankind," Alexander Yakovenko wrote.

According to Yakovenko, the declaration will affirm the parties' commitment to forming a new fair and rational world order and to increasing the role of the UN in international politics.

Homosexual Marker Slated For Independence Hall (Lifesite.com)
The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) last week held a "secret ceremony" at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia to unveil a homosexual historic marker, which will be officially placed within a few yards of Independence Hall, according to a news release by Repent America.
The marker was unveiled July 1 by Barbara Franco, the executive director of PHMC. The homosexual marker's final location will be at the corner of Chestnut and Sixth Streets, which is "less than a stone's throw" from Independence Hall, Repent America reported.
"It is deeply disturbing that the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission is unveiling a homosexual marker to honor those who celebrate and engage in sexually deviant behavior," said Michael Marcavage, who heads Repent America. "The advancement of the homosexual agenda in the birthplace of America is aggressive and dangerous" he concluded.
The purpose of the homosexual historic marker is to honor homosexual activists who publicly marched in the sixties at Independence Hall for the right to engage in sodomy.
To express your concerns, contact: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 300 North Street, Harrisburg, PA 17120; Telephone: (717) 787-3362 Facsimile: (717) 783-9924. The 2005 commission members include Executive Director Barbara Franco; Chairman Wayne S. Spilove; and members Francis Barnes, ex efficio, secretary of education, Rhonda R. Cohen, Representative Lawrence Curry, Senator Jane Earll, Dr. Gorden A. Haaland, Robert A. Janosov, Janet S. Klein, Representative Stephen Maitland, Cheryl McClenney-Brooker, Dr. Brian C. Mitchell, and Kathleen Pavelko.

Rep. Charlie Norwood's (R-GA) Clear Law Enforcement for Removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens (CLEAR) Act. This bill would greatly enhance the immigration enforcement capability of the Department of Homeland Security by enlisting the assistance and cooperation of local law enforcement agencies.

The crisis of mass illegal immigration is straining local communities and endangering public safety. Recent estimates place the illegal alien population of the U.S. at more than 12 million, with an additional 700,000 new illegal aliens settling permanently each year. Some 400,000 illegal aliens have standing deportation orders but can not be found, and about 3,500 are from countries that sponsor or support terrorist organizations.

This problem demands a coherent and comprehensive law enforcement strategy. The federal government cannot be everywhere, but with the assistance of local law enforcement agencies we can finally mount a meaningful immigration enforcement strategy in the interior of the country.

If passed, the CLEAR Act would act as a force multiplier by providing training and resources for over 600,000 state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration laws during the course of their regular duties. This bill also establishes an accessible data base of criminal aliens, stiffens penalties for violating immigration laws, increases detention space for those apprehended for being in the U.S. illegally, and requires prompt transfer to federal custody of illegal aliens apprehended and detained by local law enforcement. Additionally, it penalizes states and localities with don't ask, don't tell sanctuary policies that shield illegal aliens from detection by withholding federal resources covering the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens.

Right now the radical Left and its allies in Congress are trying to intimidate the president to abandon that promise.
I believe the Left will fail. Would you please take a few moments to encourage President Bush to stand firm as he ponders this momentous decision? Let him know that you are praying for him and praying that he will nominate someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution, seeking to apply only the original intent of our Founding Fathers, not the whims of the latest polls or foreign opinion. You can send an e-mail to president@whitehouse.gov  or you can call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111.

Howard Wilson hwilson@texasmoralaction.org