BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #64 12/30/2005 BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #64 12/30/2005
Click on an article to view OR scroll through the document:
Americans to Celebrate the Sanctity of Human Life in January
U.S. Students to Learn About and Celebrate Religious Liberty
Court asked to Rehear Case Over Calif. Schools' 'Becoming Muslim' Exercise
Members of U.S. House Speak Out for Embattled Military Chaplain
Parents Television Council Statistic of the Week Dec. 22 2005
U.S. House Subcommittee Investigates RU-486 'The Abortion Pill'
School Board's Pro-Homosexual Appointments Have Maryland Citizen Activists Concerned
Costco Replies to Numerous Complaints Regarding Fired Knight of Columbus
Palestinian Authority Claims old City of David's Western Wall is Moslem Property
Commentary: The High cost of cheap politicians
Dec. 29 2005 Focus on the Family
Focus on the Family Offers ways to Observe Sanctity of Human Life Week
Colorado Springs - Scientific advances trigger moral dilemmas that often question the sanctity of human life. As biological science surges, will we be in moral trim? Or will science trim our morals? Focus on the Family joins other organizations, denominations, publishers and bookstores to encourage Americans to respect human life at all stages during Sanctity of Human Life Week, Jan. 21-28.
Each year, thousands of churches dedicate a Sunday in January as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It is observed in January to mark the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions to legalize abortion. Since then, the scope of the issue has broadened as stem cell research, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and chemical and partial-birth abortion have become part of the discussion.
Unfortunately, once the boundaries for preserving life are removed, anything and everything is possible. Unspeakable procedures of a few years ago — euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, stem cell research and genetic cloning — are now gaining credibility in states across the country.
Oregon is the only state where physician-assisted suicide is legal. Derek Humphry, co-founder of the Hemlock Society and a driving force behind the legalization of the procedure, said that it is a "way of handling the dilemma of those with degenerative diseases, or what I call 'terminal old age.' " As disrespect for life continues, the elderly and handicapped face increasing threats just to stay alive.
"The Sanctity of Human Life Week exists to emphasize the importance of the sanctity of life: that all human life is sacred," says Julie Parton, manager of Focus on the Family's Crisis Pregnancy Ministry. "Everyone who participates, benefits because it's calling them back to what's important to God." Sanctity of Human Life events, emphasize the need to value life from conception until natural death.
Focus on the Family offers a Sanctity of Human Life Quick Reference Guide, as well as a 6-minute video titled Life is Sacred, to give churches and individuals more ideas on how to get involved. These guides and other pro-life resources are available through Focus on the Family at (800) A-FAMILY (232-6459).
January 15-22 is Sanctity of Human Life Week. Now is the time to start thinking of bulletin inserts and other ideas to promote life. For a free promotional kit, click here.
Dec 16, 2005 John Cornyn Human Events online
For generations, Christmas trees, nativity scenes, Menorahs and other traditional holiday items have been displayed in places of business and public squares, largely without objection. Groups could sing carols, schools could hold pageants, children could exchange Christmas cards, and towns across America could place Christmas trees and menorahs in front of courthouses.Mr. Cornyn (R.-Tex.) is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He served previously as attorney general of Texas and as a state Supreme Court justice.
Dec. 20, 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU's contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The county display the ACLU sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the national motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice.
Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."
The court said a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display appreciates "the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions."
Francis J. Manion, counsel for the ACLJ, argued the case before both the 6th Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
"This is a big victory for the people of Mercer County and Kentucky generally," Manion said. "For too long they have been lectured like children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people's Constitution really means. What the 6th Circuit has said is that the people have a better grasp on the real meaning of the Constitution; the court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions."
Religious Freedom Day is Jan. 16, acknowledging the basis for the freedom to worship in America.
Jan. 16 marks the anniversary of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, legislation drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1786. Designed to protect the civil rights of people to express their religious beliefs without discrimination, Jefferson
considered it one of his greatest achievements.
Eric Buehrer, president of Gateways to Better Education, points out that Religious Freedom Day falls on the anniversary of Jefferson's original proclamation, which may have inspired the First Amendment.
"Thomas Jefferson starts out this legislation with that phrase, 'Because God made our minds free, we should be free to worship God as our conscience dictates,' " Buehrer said. "He called it sinful and tyrannical to impose upon people a religion that is not their own. And the neat thing about that legislation is that it really reflects a thoroughly biblical world view."
President Clinton declared the first nationwide observance in 1994 and encouraged Americans to "reaffirm their devotion to the principles of religious freedom."
Bueher wants people to know that despite the rhetoric of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, schools do not have to eradicate all mention of faith. With Clinton's proclamation came the expectation that educators would become more knowledgeable about the subject of religious liberty.
"Richard Riley, the secretary of education at the time, issued guidelines on students' religious liberties from the Department of Education," Buehrer said. "He put with that a letter that said, 'We urge you to give wide distribution to this so that parents and teachers and administrators and school-board members — everybody — understands what students' religious liberties are.' "
Unfortunately, he said, schools commonly don't know what is allowable and often choose to restrict students' protected speech.
"Some of these playground supervisors who see a child praying over lunch somehow feel like they must be the guardians of civilization," Buehrer said. "Democracy as we know it will crumble because that child is saying a 30-second prayer over their lunch."
Kids and teachers have a lot more leeway than most people think, he said. In many instances students don't feel that their faith is welcome in the classroom, but that shouldn't be the case.
"A teacher should affirm the right of the family to hold their beliefs and to express their beliefs," he said. "A child should never come home from school feeling somehow their faith is odd or taboo because of what the teacher has said or because of any kind of non-verbal expression the teacher has given."
Buehrer said not only do kids have the legal right to include their faith in their homework and in their artwork, they can express it through prayer and to their classmates.
"It's a free-speech issue, is really what it is," he said. "They can pray, they can pray in groups, they can distribute religious literature to their classmates, they can bring their Bible and read it in class as long as it is during free-reading time or lunch time — you are free to read your own Bible."
The Department of Education has deemed such activity legal, he said.
"Religious Freedom Day is promoting the concept that students have the right to express themselves in school about their faith," he added. "Our slogan is 'Let Freedom Ring.' "
Educators are often hesitant to even pursue the topic of Religious Freedom Day in schools, fearing it will open up a Pandora's Box of debate.
"I was meeting with some school administrators recently and I could tell there was a little bit of that hesitancy, 'Oh no, we're going to have everybody and their brother knocking on our door, wanting access to the school,' " Buehrer said. "And I said, 'This is not religious-diversity day. This is not parading every religion from large to small through your school. This is really about our civil liberties. This is really about the students' freedoms to express themselves in their homework, their artwork, their oral presentations, their personal interactions with other classmates.' "
Administrators would rather avoid potential trouble, he said, and this could be seen as another problem. On the contrary, Religious Freedom Day should be seen as a solution.
"It should help clarify it, so that when that child does something in class, (the administrators) don't get phone calls from parents, 'How dare you allow a child to read the Bible or mention their church activity,' " he said. "Now everybody understands what they can do."
Getting the word out, he said, is important so that religious freedom is honored in every classroom. But it's not just for schools.
"I think it would be a great exercise for churches and pastors to help their congregations see how Biblical worldview has impacted our country in something like the Jefferson proclamation," Buehrer said. "January 15 is a Sunday this year, so, for instance, a church could make a special acknowledgement of religious freedom in America."
Buehrer's Web site contains a paraphrase of Jefferson's original statute as well as copies of each annual declaration.
"Imagine a church reading that from the pulpit or in a Sunday school class or materials given to every student, kindergarten through 12th grade, in Sunday school class," he said. "With all the hundreds of thousands of churches in America, if they were getting information out to their congregation as to what the freedoms are in this country — and specifically what their freedoms are in schools — it could be revolutionary."
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To learn more about how you can incorporate appropriate events and activities in homes, schools and places of worship, please visit the Religious Freedom Day Web site .
Dec. 28, 2005 Jim Brown and Jenni Parker Agape Press
A federal appeals court is being asked to reconsider its ruling that allows public schools to teach junior high students how to "become Muslims."
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is asking the entire Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on what can be done in public schools with regard to teaching Islam and other religions.
Several parents sued California's Byron Union School District for requiring their 7th-grade children to participate in a three-week class activity in which they not only had to study important Islamic figures and wear traditional Muslim attire, but were also required to observe the "five pillars" of the Islamic faith, adopt Muslim names, recite a portion of a Muslim prayer, and even stage their own "jihad" or "holy war." The plaintiffs' attorney, the Thomas More Law Center's Ed White, believes the school district violated the parents' and children's constitutional rights to free exercise of religion.
Earlier, White had asked a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit to overturn a previous San Francisco federal district court's ruling that the Byron Union School District did not violate the U.S. Constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit panel of judges upheld the lower court's determination in a brief, unpublished memorandum decision.
In that ruling, however, the panel overlooked and failed to rule on the plaintiff's claims that their free exercise and parental rights had been violated. The Thomas More Law Center has asked the three-judge panel to reconsider their decision and to issue a ruling on the claims not previously addressed. The Law Center has also asked all 24 active judges on the Ninth Circuit to consider and rule on the case.
White says the Byron Union School District never informed the parents about an exercise that would be grading their children on how well they observed the tenets of Islam. In fact, he points out, "The parents were never told that there was even a way to opt their child out of such an activity."
Actually, the only way the parents found out about the schools Islamic exercise, the attorney points out, was virtually by accident. He says a Byron Union District mom was "looking through her son's book bag and asked, 'Hey, what's all this stuff?' and the kid said, 'Oh, we're doing this in school now.' So the parents objected, but it was after the class [activity] was over."
So it was after the fact that parents learned how, for three weeks in 2001, their children were told they would "become Muslims" and had worn identification tags bearing their new Muslim names along with the Star and Crescent Moon symbols of Islam. The children received materials telling them to "Remember Allah always so that you may prosper," and they made banners to hang in the classroom, inscribing them with the Basmala, a phrase from the Koran used in Muslim prayers that is translated, "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate."
Richard Thompson, chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, was disappointed by the San Francisco district court's ruling and the Ninth Circuit panel's decision to uphold it. He commented that if students had been instructed on Christianity in the same manner as they were on Islam in this case, the court would most likely have found a constitutional violation.
Ed White agrees. The parents' lawyer says the courts should not be allowing this apparent double standard on the teaching of religion in public schools. When the Byron Union School District's teachers taught the children other religions in the seventh grade," he asserts, "they didn't go into any of these activities. When they taught Buddhism or Christianity, they didn't engage in these simulations [of Islamic observances]. They didn't have to practice the faith, memorize various parts of the Bible, et cetera."
White has filed a petition for a rehearing of the case before the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Chief counsel Richard Thompson says the appellate court needs to clarify in a published opinion just how far public schools can go in teaching about religion.
Dec. 26 2005 David Brody CWNews
In the United States this week more than 160,000 signatures on a petition are being delivered to the White House. It's an effort to get President Bush to issue an Executive Order so that military Chaplains can pray according to their faith.
Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt is on a mission. He's come to Capitol Hill to plead his case to lawmakers. He's a Christian, but he's been told by the Navy that he can't pray ‘in Jesus Name.’
Chaplain Klingenschmitt said, "There is suppression of religious liberty in the military and I'm concerned about this."
In a memo obtained by CBN News, the Chief of Navy Chaplains says that any Chaplain’s continued insistence on ending public prayers "in Jesus' name" in all situations, without using discretion or regarding the venue or the audience, “could reasonably tend to denigrate those with different forms of faith.”
Chaplain Klingenscmitt has challenged that. Now there's a move to kick him out of the military.
Klingenschmitt explained, "I'll be out on the street without a job, my family will be evicted from military housing and I'll have no retirement after 14 years of glowing fitness reports, suddenly terminated from the Navy because I pray in Jesus name."
That's where lawmakers on Capitol Hill come in. At a news conference on Wednesday, with petitions in hand, they pressed the White House to do something.
Representative Trent Franks (R-Arizona) said, "I truly believe that the President of the United States, if he fully understood the realities that are present in this circumstance, would respond in an effective and decisive manner."
Dozens of House members have sent a letter to President Bush asking him to issue an Executive Order that would allow all military Chaplains to pray in the name of their God.
Congressman Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) said, meaning the president, "He oversees the military as Commander-in-Chief and he can say to the Department of Defense, ‘I want the Chaplains in this military to have the right to pray as they see fit based on their religion.’"
Jones says this should not be taken lightly. It is widespread. There have been hundreds of complaints.
In fact, Congressman Jones added, "David, I've got letters, I have emails I have telephone calls, it is a serious problem."
The Congressmen behind this effort see this as a First Amendment issue. But whether the White House will step in to this matter is unclear.
Jones’ staff says the White House has told them that they may address the issue, but gave no promises of an Executive Order.
Dec. 19, 2005 Amelia Wigton Concerned Women for America
Members of the U.S. House are speaking out on behalf of a military chaplain who will lose his job next month for ending his prayers in the name of Jesus and using certain “offensive” verses in sermons and funeral services that point to Christ as the only way to heaven.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona) have come out in the chaplain’s support. "I truly believe the President of the United States -- if he understands the realities of this situation -- will respond in a decisive manner," said Rep. Franks .
The case of Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, chaplain and priest from the Evangelical Episcopal Church, illustrates that restrictions on chaplains in the military have gone too far. Military chaplains have been criticized for “religious insensitivity” for preaching in the name of Jesus, for preaching the Gospel message, and for saying that there is only one way to heaven.Klingenschmitt has become a reluctant whistleblower for religious freedom violations within the Navy. He was reprimanded for not applying standards of “pluralism” set by his superiors.
The American Center for Law and Justice, led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, has circulated a “Petition to Protect Military Prayer.” The petition calls on President Bush to sign an Executive Order to protect the preaching and proselytizing of military Chaplains. More than 72,000 people have signed the petition, and the number continues to increase.
“It is truly tragic that the chaplains who minister to those fighting for our freedom are themselves having to do battle for their own freedom to state their beliefs,” said Lanier Swann, Concerned Women for America’s Director of Government Relations. “Chaplains fill a vital and historic position in the military, and the idea that they would come under attack is outrageous. These ministers should be commended for their brave work, not condemned.”
“We are thankful that key representatives in Washington are paying attention to this issue, and that necessary means will be used to support military chaplains.”
Dec. 21, 2005 Citizen Link
The battle over the Supreme Court nominee heats up.
Organizations on the far-left have formed something of an alliance dedicated to portraying Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito as a radical who is out of the mainstream.
The alliance is called the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, but it's really a front for extreme liberals who want the Alito nomination scuttled.
Curt Levey, general counsel for the Committee for Justice, said the coalition is a "who's who" of the left.
"Their members include gay-rights groups, abortion activists, environmentalists, powerful labor unions, feminists and war activists, racial minorities and anti-religion activists," he said.
Levey said the fight is critical to the far-left because they depend on the courts to accomplish what they can't convince legislatures to do.
"In other words, the success of their agenda depends on a liberal activist judiciary that is willing to legislate from the bench and create new rights."
Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Family News in Focus the left is employing the old strategy of claiming that "conservative" really means "extreme."
"This mode of attack is the left's standard method of operation," he said. "It's the main play in a not-very-long, not-very-sophisticated playbook."
Capital Research Center President Terry Scanlon said these groups are well-funded and, come January, will be spending millions to defeat the nomination.
"They have a total of $155 million in annual revenues and $212 million in assets," he said.
At the moment, the consensus appears to be that Alito will be confirmed, but not without a battle.
Dec. 22 2005 Citizen Link
The debate over Samuel Alito's nomination will center on how the Constitution should be interpreted.
As the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito begin January 9 2006, there will be a lot of discussion of "originalism" and whether he is a "strict constructionist." Generally, the terms refer to interpreting the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended -- as opposed to a modern-day political goal.
That stands in stark contrast to liberal judges who legislate from the bench and even cite laws from other nations to support the political agenda in their decisions.
Adam Ciongoli, a corporate attorney and former clerk for Judge Alito, said the wisdom in our founding documents should not be tossed aside for political goals.
"For a long time there's been this increasing sense that the Supreme Court is a political institution that makes political judgments," he said. "I think that the American people are getting to a point where they are of an understanding that has implications that they don't necessarily like."
Mark Smith, author of "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy," told Family News in Focus that the political interpretations of the past should be replaced with decisions that stick to the original intent of the Constitution.
"Originalism stops judges from making it up as they go along because it constrains judges to applying the Constitution to cases where the Constitution means what it says and what it was intended for," he said. "And that's what originalism tries to stop: Judges making it up as they go along."
Ciongoli said he believes Alito will help return the Supreme Court to properly interpreting the Constitution.
"They are probably better off leaving political decisions to political institutions and allowing judges to apply the law faithfully and fairly," he said. "Judges like Chief Justice (John) Roberts, like Judge Alito, will continue to move the Court in that direction -- out of politics."
Dec. 27, 2005 Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor
A conservative advocacy group is urging its supporters to protest an upcoming NBC television series that portrays a "completely dysfunctional family" as models of the Christian faith.
NBC's "The Book of Daniel" is scheduled to premiere on Jan. 6, and even before the public sees it, the American Family Association is complaining about the series.
The main character, Daniel Webster, "is a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis," the AFA said in a message to its supporters.
"Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus," AFA said, adding that the Webster family also includes "a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is overly promiscuous with the bishop's daughter, other characters include Webster's lesbian secretary and sister-in-law."
AFA noted that the series is written by Jack Kenny, a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being "in Catholic recovery," and who is quoted as saying that he doesn't know if "all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true."
Various media reports have noted the adult nature of the program, which is expected to air in the 10 p.m. time slot.
According to the American Family Association, NBC considers "The Book of Daniel" to be a positive portrayal of Christ and Christians.
On its website, NBC describes the Reverend Daniel Webster as "an unconventional Episcopalian minister who not only believes in Jesus -- he actually sees him and discusses life with him. Webster is challenged on many levels as he struggles to be a good husband, father and minister, while trying to control a nagging addiction to prescription painkillers, and an often rocky relationship with the church hierarchy..."
NBC says the Jesus character's "frequent chats with Daniel serve to remind him of his strengths and weaknesses."
In a press release issued Tuesday, AFA urged concerned citizens to call their local NBC affiliate and ask that the program not be aired.
AFA is also urging Christians to spread the word about the series through announcements from the pulpit and in church bulletins and newsletters.
Please take action now! Here is what you can do:
1. Call your local NBC affiliate and ask them not to air the program. You can find their contact information in your local phone book or by Clicking Here .
While the movie industry produced nearly 12 times more R-rated films than G-rated from 1989 - 2003 (1,533 and 123 respectively), the average G-rated film produced 11 times greater profit than its R-rated counterpart ($78,982 and $6,939 respectively). G-rated films also produced an average rate of return on investment (ROI) three times greater than R-rated films. (94.5% vs. 28.7%) Between 2000 and 2003, Hollywood produced nearly four times as many PG-13 films as PG. (75 vs. 21). During that same time, the average PG film produced $33 million greater profit than a PG-13 film ($78.8 million vs. $45.6 million). (Profitability Study of MPAA-Rated Movies commissioned by the Dove Foundation, released May 2005)
Dec. 22 Christian Wire Service
FRONT ROYAL, Va., A House subcommittee chaired by Rep. Mark Souder (R.-Ind.) has begun a major investigation into the safety of RU-486 (mifepristone), the use of which has so far killed at least four American women. Mifepristone (sold under the brand name Mifeprex) induces abortion medically, and is used as an alternative to surgical abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.
A December 21 letter to FDA Acting Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach contains a detailed list of questions regarding the FDA's own investigations into RU-486's safety record. The letter seeks physician, autopsy, and other records so that the subcommittee can conduct its own review, and asks about the off-label regimens often used with mifepristone (off-label uses are legal but not approved by the FDA). Souder also wants to know why it took so long for the drug's maker, Danco Laboratories, to add the risk of bacterial infection to the drug's warning label. All four American women who died from taking RU-486 had dangerous bacterial infections. Souder chairs the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the U.S. House's Committee on Government Reform.
The investigation comes soon after the New England Journal of Medicine published an article suggesting that RU-486 abortions may be ten times more likely to cause the death of the mother than surgical abortions performed at the same point in pregnancy.
"It's about time that RU-486 got more scrutiny, and it's heartening to see Congressman Souder and the New England Journal of Medicine providing it," said Steve Mosher, President of PRI. "This drug not only kills unborn children, but sometimes their mothers as well. It should be withdrawn from the U.S. market immediately."
Dec. 22, 2005 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com
AMARILLO, Texas – Priests for Life’s new Society of Apostolic Life, the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, has received official approval from its bishop.
On December 12, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, Bishop John Yanta of Amarillo, Texas, signed the approval for the Society that will train priests, deacons, and lay missionaries to devote their lives to the unborn. Priests of the Society make special promises related to the defense of human life, and are at the disposal of the Society to travel throughout the United States to do the pro-life work that is required.
“What this means is that this morning, the new Society actually became a canonical reality in the Church,” said Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. “Up to now it was a project, an idea, a movement that we have all indeed been involved in and working toward!”
“But now, by God’s grace, we can say that there exists – for the first time in Church history – a Society of Apostolic Life that will train priests, deacons, and lay missionaries to work full time to end abortion in America and worldwide! Please praise the Lord together with me at this historic moment.”
Fr. Pavone requests that men interested in becoming a priest or deacon for the society consider participating in a discernment retreat to be held January 6-8 in Amarillo. Those interested can contact Priests for Life at vocations@priestsforlife.org.
“It has been a dream of mine for over a decade to form a community that can accept seminarians who want to devote their entire ministry to the defense of the unborn,” said Fr. Pavone in March when he formed the society. “While there are religious communities that give special emphasis to the right to life, the Church has no ‘institutional’ society of men whose exclusive focus is to protect innocent human life from the tragedy of abortion and euthanasia. It is time for such a community. I am grateful to Bishop Yanta for allowing me the opportunity to make this dream a reality.”
Fr. Pavone credits Pope John Paul II with the inspiration for the Society, saying that the community’s mandate will be modeled after the former Holy Father’s encyclical, The Gospel of Life. “Our efforts move forward as a living memorial of this great Pope, and we dedicate this new initiative to him, the Pope of Life.”
Dec. 27, 2005 the Washington Post
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota, those on both sides of the abortion debate agree, has become one of the hardest states in the country in which to obtain an abortion. One of three states in the country to have only one abortion provider -- North Dakota and Mississippi
are the others -- South Dakota, largely because of a strong antiabortion lobby, is also becoming a leading national laboratory for testing the limits of state laws restricting abortion, both opponents and advocates of abortion rights say.
In 2005, the South Dakota legislature passed five laws restricting abortion, after a bill to ban abortion outright had failed by one vote in 2004. And new laws are virtually assured for the coming year. A 17-member abortion task force, made up largely of staunch abortion opponents, issued recommendations to the legislature earlier this month that included some of the most restrictive requirements for abortion in the country.
The report states that science defines life as beginning at conception and recommends a law that gives fetuses the same protection that children get after birth, thus banning abortion. Until such a ban, the task force recommends requiring that a woman watch an ultrasound of her fetus that doctors warn women about the psychological and physical dangers of abortion, and that women receive psychological counseling before the abortion, among other measures.
As national leaders on both sides of the abortion debate focus on the upcoming Supreme Court nomination hearings of Samuel A. Alito Jr., they are watching states such as South Dakota pass more and more restrictions that might be upheld by a newly constituted, more conservative Supreme Court.
"Samuel Alito wrote the blueprint 20 years ago on how to dismantle and eventually overturn Roe," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, referring to a memo Alito wrote in 1985 in which he mentioned passing restrictions on abortion as a way to mitigate the effects of Roe v. Wade. "If he is confirmed, Alito could cast the decisive vote that allows additional attacks on women's reproductive freedom from the states to stand."
But Mary Spaulding Balch, director of the state legislation department of the National Right to Life campaign, said South Dakota is one of many states that have had success in passing laws the organization has been espousing for more than 30 years.
"Working within the fact that the Supreme Court said that it's legal to kill unborn children," she said, "it makes sense that you do your best to save whatever lives you can."
Each week, 15 to 20 or so women from across South Dakota find their way to the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood for an abortion, no easy feat for many of them. South Dakota is home to some of the poorest counties in the country, including the poorest, Buffalo County, seat of the Crow Creek Sioux reservation. State law forbids any public funding for the $450 procedure, even in the case of rape or incest. Beyond cost, there is the distance. It's a long slog here from places like Rapid City, about 350 miles away in the western part of the state
A Ms. Looby, whose father is an obstetrician-gynecologist, said she has talked to many doctors in South Dakota who say they have no personal objection to performing abortions but cannot risk their careers and community standing by offering the procedure.
When the Planned Parenthood clinic was built six years ago, architects factored in the hostility that clinics faced. It has no windows in the front of the building, so abortion protesters cannot look in, and the parking lot is in the back, on private property safe from picketers. The glass in the encased reception area is bulletproof. Doors are kept locked, and visitors must present identification to be buzzed inside.
But the loud protests anticipated in the building design have not materialized. Instead, abortion opponents have attempted to get laws passed restricting both abortion providers and those seeking the abortions.
One law passed in South Dakota this year is an informed-consent measure that requires doctors to tell women in writing and in person two hours before an abortion of the medical risks of the procedure and that an abortion ends the life of "a whole, separate, unique living human being." Enforcement of the law has been blocked by a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood.
Another measure is a "trigger law" that automatically bans all abortions in the state should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
Dec. 19, 2005 Jim Brown Agape Press
A Maryland
school board is under fire for placing members of three pro-homosexual groups on its new Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (CAC). Among the groups represented on the committee are the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), and Teach the Facts, a homosexual advocacy group whose founder has close ties to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Members of a conservative parents group called Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) are criticizing the Montgomery County Public Schools ((MCPS) for the pro-homosexual appointments to its advisory committee. Also, CRC says a settlement agreement they reached with the school board guarantees them a chair on the committee, yet the board is not allowing the group to designate its own representative.
Michelle Turner, a spokesperson for CRC, says the Montgomery County Board of Education has apparently not learned its lesson from a recent lawsuit that led to the demise of its biased sex-ed curriculum. "We don't quite understand why the school system is going back to having these representatives on this advisory committee, which is supposed to be representative of the community," she notes.
Last May, a federal judge blocked implementation of a sex-ed curriculum approved by MCPS for 8th-grade students -- a program intended for use in discussing homosexuality, transgenderism, and bisexuality. The temporary restraining order issued by the judge was the culmination of a lawsuit filed in federal court by CRC along with the Virginia-based Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), a group that offers support for people struggling with unwanted homosexuality. In their lawsuit, CRC and PFOX charged that Montgomery County's sex-ed curriculum presented a one-sided view of homosexuality and that the program showed favoritism towards certain religious groups' views of homosexuals.
After the federal judge issued the order blocking the curriculum, MCPS school officials suspended the pilot sex-ed program, and the parties on both sides of the case agreed to work together to try to settle the matter out of court. According to an MCPS press release, the Montgomery County Board of Education approved a settlement on June 27 in which the school system agreed to a number of changes in the controversial sex-ed curriculum.
Among the various amendments the settlement stipulated was one stating that references to specific religious denominations with regard to sexual orientation cannot be noted in the revised curriculum. Also, the agreement provided for both a CRC and a PFOX representative on the newly established Citizens Advisory Council.
The CAC is scheduled to have its first meeting today. Turner says Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum plans to continue monitoring the situation to ensure that the terms of the settlement agreement are met. In particular, she notes, "We want to make sure that the Board of Education develops a parent permission form that is easy to read by any parent who is receiving one from their student that specifically spells out exactly what their child will be exposed to in the classroom."
Dec. 21, 2005 Citizen Link
Both sides are waiting for a court decision to be announced.
The Washington State Supreme Court could announce soon whether it will redefine 
marriage to include same-sex couples.
Equal Rights Washington, the state's largest gay-rights group, is preparing a checklist so couples are set to get married the minute the three-day waiting period expires.
Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University, called the rush to have same-sex couples marry a political ploy to thwart efforts to pass an amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman.
"It certainly does make it a little more difficult to persuade people because the argument will be asserted, 'Well, you're taking away rights that the court gave us,' " he said.
Joe Fuiten, senior pastor of the Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell, Wash., said he expects the ploy to backfire.
"There wanting to make a show of it," he said. "Personally I think it's going to hurt them a little bit, because I hope to gear up to amend the constitution in this state to prevent that."
How gay activists react to a potential court victory may have a bearing on how the amendment fares. Glenn Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family, said the celebration could hurt their cause.
"Just like we saw in San Francisco with many, many people rushing to the altar, and in some ways — large ways — making just a circus out of the event," he said. "People saw what this was all about. It wasn't about taking marriage seriously. It was more of a circus atmosphere."
December 21, 2005 Stuart Shepard Citizen Link
Sen. Biden's people attempt to fake out our readers.
Many of you responded to our Action Alert on Tuesday titled "Urge Sen. Biden to Stop Blocking the Trafficking Bill." By all accounts, his phone lines were jammed for the afternoon -- thanks to your efforts -- and he definitely got the message.
However, we then we began getting e-mail back from you expressing confusion over what Sen. Joe Biden's people had told you over the phone:
"I called the number and the secretary told me I was misinformed and that Biden was not adding pro-abortion language and was supporting the Human Trafficking Bill."
"Sen. Biden's office is saying that he is not blocking the trafficking bill but is offering an amendment offering humanitarian aid, and that the aid would not include abortion as using funds for abortion is illegal. Are they telling the truth?"
"The Washington, D.C., number informed me that I have it all wrong. They told me to read his bill S.559 and see for myself."
Welcome to the linguistics of abortion and politics.
The truth is simply this: The people who were answering the phones in the Delaware democrat's office were apparently engaging in the time-honored political tradition of telling you something that, while technically true, leads you to a conclusion that is false.
Rule Number One: The title of a bill is not necessarily a reflection of all that it contains.
Biden is attempting to attach S. 559, the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act, to the Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act.
A closer look at the language in the bill will definitely catch the eye of anyone who has been involved in the fight over abortion.
Troubling phrases include "women's needs for specialized health services," "manage the consequences of sexual violence" and "integrate women's health services."
Which leads us immediately to Rule Number Two: People in favor of abortion-on-demand never, ever want to use the word "abortion."
But if you watch a "pro-choice" rally you'll notice the applause lines always include a "woman's right to choose" and "women's access to health services."
To them, abortion is a health service for women.
To us, abortion means a funeral service for the pre born baby.
Such phrases are meant to sound innocuous and nice, and even allow staffers in senators' offices to be able to say, "There's no mention of 'abortion' in this at all. See for yourself."
But whenever a pro-abortion politician begins to speak in terms of "women's health" and "women's needs for specialized health services" with no further description, rest assured the hidden goal is to sweep abortion in along with everything else.
But, you might ask, Biden's people said he's not blocking the bill, that he supports it.
Rule Number Three: The beauty of political semantics: "I'm not stopping it I'm just keeping it from going."
The situation is this: Biden is not using parliamentary maneuvers to formally block the bill, as is sometimes the case. Hence his staffers claim that he's not blocking it -- which is technically true, but obviously was meant to lead our readers who made the calls to a false conclusion.
Biden's efforts to tack pro-abortion language to a popular and otherwise non controversial bill are keeping it from moving forward.
You make the call: If someone is keeping something from moving forward, is it being blocked?
The answer is, "Yes."
And that leads us to my favorite rule of all in the linguistics of politics — Rule Number Four: Claim the opposition is guilty of doing what you are actually doing at that moment.
Now that we've dealt with the truth behind the earlier claims, you can see the irony of Biden's staffers claiming that it was us who had misled you, that we had it all wrong.
Translated, that means: "You Christian right-wingers caught us again and we are really, seriously irritated about that." That dear reader is a badge of honor. Wear it with pride.
And know this: You did the right thing. We're proud of you. And we got their attention.
Dec. 21, 2005 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com
PORT COQUITLAM, BC, Costco has received numerous complaints after LifeSiteNews.com broke a story about a Knight of Columbus fired from Costco for denying a co-worker a hall for her same-sex wedding (see story:
Although before publishing the story LifeSiteNews.com made repeated calls to Costco, with ample time to respond to the calls given, no response was received. In addition, calls put in to Costco’s lawyer were not returned. After the fact, Costco, of course, denied former employee David Hauser’s claim that he was discriminated against because of his involvement with denying his co-worker, lesbian Tracey Smith, access to the hall.
“The article regarding our former employee in Canada repeats a false accusation against our company,” Costco’s unsigned e-mail reply states. The e-mail claims that the reason for not disclosing their “real reason” for firing Hauser is because they honour “the confidentiality of our employee relationships.”
They add, “We can state categorically that we would never terminate any employee for reasons not directly related to his or her workplace performance or employment, and would never be influenced in that decision by any unrelated activity outside the course of employment. We cannot be more specific without violating our own confidentiality rules which protect our current and former employees.”
LifeSiteNews.com investigated Costco for its record on family and life issues.
According to the web site unmarriedamerica.org, for example, “About 80 of the [sic] Fortune 500 companies adopted benefits programs for domestic partners. Twenty-eight of those companies have plans that are open to same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples.” Costco is included among the list of 28 companies that offer same-sex benefits to their employees.
In addition, Costco co-founders Jeffrey Brotman and James Sinegal, chairman and chief executive officer respectively, were staunch backers of pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Sinegal, 68, was also the only CEO to donate money to independent political groups formed with the sole purpose of ousting US President George W. Bush, according to Internal Revenue Service records.
According to Boston.com, the IRS disclosure records revealed that Sinegal and Brotman gave $95,000 each to America Coming Together (ACT), an anti-Bush group, as well as the Media Fund, which ran anti-Bush ads during the 2004 election campaign. ACT’s web site claims, “In 2005, we will continue to lead the fight against George Bush’s radical right-wing agenda by continuing our work in 7-9 battleground states with key elections in 2005, 2006 and 2008.” Billionaire George Soros, known as one of the world’s foremost funders of abortion, homosexuality, contraception, feminism, euthanasia, and legalized soft-drug use, also supported ACT to the tune of $10 million. (See additional coverage at:
Brotman and Sinegal also gave $95,000 each to the Joint Victory Campaign, another company supported by Soros, who added $12 million to their anti-Bush campaign coffers.
Costco, meanwhile, has been given a “thumbs up” by America’s largest abortionist, Planned Parenthood, for its decision to sell the abortifacient “Plan B” so-called emergency contraception. Costco is listed among Planned Parenthood’s “five best places to get your birth control prescriptions filled,” according to their web site.
The unnamed Costco representative who typed the e-mail response concluded that “In short, we believe that you can continue to shop with us in complete confidence that we do not tolerate or condone discrimination of any kind.”
Although the general principal for the store as stated may be true, the specific case involving David Hauser has caused serious questions about the validity of the company’s response to letter writers.
Dec. 21 2005 Prophecy Watch
Europe's federalist leaders yesterday celebrated the last days of
Britain
's EU presidency and announced that the "time is ripe" for reviving their most cherished project: the EU constitution.
With Britain's presidency - seen in Brussels as a time of miserable stagnation - expiring this month, the baton is already passing to the next holders, Austria.
Ursula Plassnik, the Austrian foreign minister, flew to Brussels yesterday to hail the constitution as holding the answers to key questions about Europe.
Austria would re-launch the debate on the future of Europe at a June 2006 summit, Mrs Plassnik said.
It was time to ask France and Holland what they intended to do about their No votes, she suggested, as 14 countries had now ratified the treaty. "We need to look at what we want, how we want to live in Europe, in our re-unified Europe, which is coming closer together.
"An answer will best come, perhaps, if we look at the Constitutional Treaty, because I think it's a fascinating document, that sets out our objectives as a community of values.
"The time is ripening now. This is the feeling I get, in my many conversations with colleagues around the table."
In Berlin, a spokesman for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said its government, which will hold the rotating presidency of the EU in the first half of 2007, "has the clear intention of reviving the European Constitution".
In theory, the constitution should have been finished off by the No votes in French and Dutch referendums during the summer.
As a treaty, it has to be ratified by all 25 EU nations, without exception, however, the founders of the EU have never allowed No votes to put them off.
Officially, the draft constitution is undergoing a "pause for reflection", that began in June, days after the Dutch No vote.
When that pause was agreed by EU leaders, they called for it to be reviewed a year later, at the June 2006 summit of EU leaders that marks the end of the Austrian presidency.
At the time, Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian prime minister, told his fellow leaders the treaty was not dead, but deep frozen.
Mrs. Plassnik did not conceal her eagerness to begin thawing the treaty out. "We need to achieve a better, more positive mood than the mood we've had with us the last couple of months," she said, in a swipe at Britain.
Even the most federalist politicians admit there is little sense asking the French or Dutch publics to vote again until they have new governments. Both countries are holding elections in 2007.
On Saturday, President Jacques Chirac of
France
signaled his desire for "institutional reform" of the EU, though he did not mention the constitution by name.
In a statement to mark the end of the budget summit chaired by Tony Blair, Mr. Chirac said that creating more efficient and democratic EU institutions would be "the great ambition of the Austrian presidency".
He pledged that during the June 2006 summit
Austria
would hold on the subject: "I will have the chance to make ambitious proposals for the
Europe
of tomorrow."
Dec. 28, 2005 David Keyes FrontPageMagazine.com
The Israeli Ministry of Defense recently reported that in the wake of disengagement from Gaza, al-Qaeda members infiltrated the evacuated areas from
Egypt . This is not the first time al-Qaeda has been spotted in Gaza. There is, in fact, increasing evidence of al-Qaeda influence and infiltration in Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Back in 2003, Israeli forces arrested Hamas terrorists after they returned from al-Qaeda training facilities in Afghanistan. That same year, two al-Qaeda operatives were recruited into Hamas in order to execute the Mike’s Place suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.
More recently, according to the Palestinian Authority, a new al-Qaeda group called “Jundallah” (Allah’s Brigades) has formed in Gaza . In May 2005, this group executed its first attack against Israelis. Al-Qaeda’s presence in Gaza has also been confirmed by one of Hamas’ leading spokesmen, Mahmoud az-Zahar. Lastly, leaflets in Khan Yunis have been distributed by al-Qaeda’s “Palestine Branch.”
These are just a few of the recent developments regarding al-Qaeda in Gaza. As you can imagine, this does not portend well for the future of global counter-terrorism efforts. It is important to emphasize that this is not a danger to Israel alone. Rather, America and the entire free world are also threatened by the growing al-Qaeda presence in Gaza.
Due to their global ambitions and uncompromising ideology, there is no safe place to hide from groups such as al-Qaeda. Nor is there a reasonable policy that will satisfy these fascists. Appeasement will only invite more terror and carnage. It is—quite literally—a fight to the death. New York , London, Madrid , Casablanca, Amman , Bali… this is only the beginning.
It would serve us well to remember that the deadly machinations of 9/11 were hatched largely in remote regions of Afghanistan, a far distance from America or Western civilization. It is in this context that the threat of al-Qaeda in Gaza should be viewed. Al-Qaeda has always sought security vacuums from which to operate, from Afghanistan in the 1980s to Somalia in the 1990s to the Waziristan provinces near the Pakistani border today.
After the 2001 U.S.-led military intervention in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda dispersed, in large part toward the Kurdish regions of Iraq. Many al-Qaeda members fled to Iran as well. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, two-thirds of al-Qaeda’s senior leadership have been killed or captured.
It is likely that al-Qaeda now believes it can capitalize on the disarray in Gaza. At a time when it needs all the help it can get, assistance from groups like Hamas, would be welcomed with open arms. Even a small number of al-Qaeda operatives in chaos-ridden Gaza posses a serious threat—especially if it continues unchecked and is allowed to metastasize.
A former Chief of Staff of the I.D.F. recently remarked to me that the precise number of al-Qaeda members in Gaza is largely unimportant. Rather, their infectious ideology coupled with the dogged persistence of a few dedicated terrorists can wreak havoc upon the world.
Dec. 21 2005 Prophecy Watch
The Palestinian Authorities official website, echoing the claims of its Religious Affairs office, also attempts to negate Jewish ownership of the Western Wall.
The PA office claims Moslem ownership of the Western Wall by referring to the wall on its website as the Al-Boraq Wall. According to Moselm legend, the wall is the place where Mohammed tied his horse, named Boraq, before ascending to heaven.
Moslem tradition holds that Mohammed rose to heaven from the Temple
Mount , though that idea is not mentioned anywhere in the Koran, the central text of the Moslem faith.
Rabbi Chaim Richman, Director of the International Department of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem, said that the PAs claims: of Moslem ownership of the Western Wall has far reaching implications for Israel.
Richman said that the PAs denial of the Jewish Temple's existence is part of a campaign to totally eradicate, erase, and destroy all Jewish connection to the Temple
Mount , Jerusalem, and the land of Israel.
Richman said that Islam has for many years been waging a campaign to destroy any evidence of a Jewish presence on the
Temple Mount. He cited efforts by the PA and the Moslem Wakf (religious trust) to carry out excavations on the Temple
Mount for the purpose of destroying artifacts relating to the First and Second Temples . He said that thousands of tons of archeological material have already been deliberately destroyed by the wakf.
By destroying the remnants of the Jewish temples, Richman said that the PA believes that it is strengthening its hand in the final status negotiations with Israel over the status of Jerusalem, the Temple
Mount and the Western Wall.
If we have no connection to the
Temple Mount, then we have no connection to Jerusalem, and no right to anywhere in the land of Israel, he added.
In an attempt to revise recent history, the PA claims that during the time of the British mandate over the
Land of Israel (1917-1948), the Jews began exceeding earlier arrangements and claimed ownership of the Wall.
Moreover, the PA website states that after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, the Moslems had mercy on the Jews and let them cry at a place near that wall. The number of Jews at that time was very small, and the plaza they stood on was only four meters wide.
The PA attributes the infamous Arab riots of 1929 to Jewish efforts to claim ownership of the Western Wall. Hundreds of Jewish civilians were killed in those riots, which were initiated by the Mufti of Jerusalem, and are in many ways similar to the Arab intifadas of 1987 and 2000.
The current intifada which began in 2000 is called the Al-Aksa Intifada. Al-Aksa is the name of the large mosque on the southern section of the Temple
Mount .
Many in the PA claim that the intifada was sparked by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to the
Temple Mount. However, it is widely known that plans for the current intifada, also known by many as the Oslo War, were well in place prior to
Sharon 's Temple Mount visit. Some PA officials concede that the PA used Sharon's visit as a convenient pretext for launching the war.
Prior to Sharon's visit, negotiations in August, 2000 at Camp David between then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA leader Yasser Arafat broke down when PA negotiators refused to recognize that the Jewish people have any connection to the Temple Mount. Senior PA negotiator Saeb Erekat asserted at the talks that the Jews never had a
Temple at the site, calling it a fabrication of history.
Richman explained that despite the efforts of the PA and the Moslem Wakf, Jerusalem and the Temple
Mount can never have the same significance for Moslems as for Jews. He pointed out that Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, and not once in the whole Koran, the Moslem holy book.
Today, Jews are allowed to visit the Temple Mount only at very specific hours and in small numbers, and must be accompanied by Israeli Police as well as a representative of the Wakf, the Moslem body currently responsible for activity on the Temple Mount. In addition, Jewish visitors are not allowed to bow or pray anywhere on the Mount itself, and may not even bring books with Hebrew writing.
Dec. 21 2005 Prophecy Watch
Syria
has signed a pledge to store Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles .
The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that
Iran
and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.
Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon. Five Syrian officers have been questioned by the UN regarding the Hariri assassination, Middle East Newsline reported.
"The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis," Jane's said.
The accord also obligated
Syria
to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah with weapons, ammunition and communications.
Iran has been the leading weapons supplier to Hizbullah, with about 15,000 missiles and rockets along the Israeli-Lebanese border.
The accord, negotiations of which began in 2004, was signed on Nov. 14 and meant to prepare for economic sanctions imposed on either Iran or Syria. Under the accord, Jane's said, Iran would relay financial aid to Syria in an effort to ease Western sanctions in wake of the UN determination that
Damascus
was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Iran also pledged to supply a range of military aid to
Syria
. Jane's cited technology for weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms, ammunition and training of Syrian military.
Teheran would seek to upgrade Syrian ballistic missiles and chemical weapons systems. Under the accord,
Iran would also be prepared to operate "advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation." Jane's said.
"The new strategic accord is based on the existing military MoUs, with the addition of the sensitive chapter dealing with cooperation in times of international sanctions or military conflict," Jane's reported.
Dec 27, 2005 Commentary by Thomas Sowell
I don't make a million dollars a year but I think every member of Congress should be paid at least that much. It's not because they deserve it. It's because we deserve a lot better people than we have in Congress.
The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get them selves re-elected. You could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year for a century for less money than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
There is no point complaining about the ineptness, deception or corruption of government while refusing to do anything to change the incentives and constraints which lead to ineptness, deception and corruption.
You are not going to get the most highly skilled or intelligent people in the country, people with real-world experience, while offering them one-tenth or less of what such people can earn in the private sector.
A professor of economics at a leading university earns more than a member of Congress or a justice of the Supreme Court -- and a surgeon earns at least twice as much as an economics professor, though still only about a tenth of what a successful corporate executive can make.
How many people in the top layer of their respective professions are going to sacrifice the future of their families -- the ability to give their children the best education, the ability to have something to fall back on in case of illness or tragedy, the ability to retire in comfort and with peace of mind -- in order to go into politics?
A few people here and there may be willing to make such sacrifices for the good of the country but, by and large, you get what you pay for. What we are getting as cheap politicians are often a disgrace -- and enormously costly as reckless spenders of the taxpayers' money in order to keep themselves getting re-elected.
Whatever the problems faced by the country, the number one priority of elected officials is to get re-elected. Nothing does that better than handing out money from the public treasury. Cheap politicians are expensive politicians, currently costing the taxpayers more than a trillion dollars a year.
If you have trouble visualizing what a trillion is, just remember that a trillion seconds ago, no one on this planet could read or write. A trillion seconds is thousands of years. That's the kind of money our cheap politicians are spending in order to keep getting re-elected.
Since re-election is the key, term limits are effective only in so far as they get rid of re-election. If the limit is three terms, then two of those three terms will be spent trying to get re-elected -- and the third term will be spent trying to get elected to some other office.
What term limits need to do is make it nearly impossible to spend a whole career in politics. One term per office and some period of years outside of politics before running again would be a good principle.
Many people today marvel when looking back at the leaders who created the United States of America . Most of the founders of this country had day jobs for years. They were not career politicians.
George Washington, who took pride in his self-control, lost his temper completely when someone told him that a decision he was going to make could cost him re-election as President. He blew up at the suggestion that he wanted to be President, rather than serving as a duty when he would rather be back home.
Power is such a dangerous thing that ideally it should be wielded by people who don't want to use power, who would rather be doing something else, but who are willing to serve a certain number of years as a one-time duty, preferably at the end of a career doing something else.
What about all the experience we would lose? Most of that is experience in creating appearances, posturing, rhetoric, and spin -- in a word, deception. We need leaders with experience in the real world, not experience in the phony world of politics.
and
Blessed New Year
of the
BMA of
Howard Wilson: hwilson@texasmoralaction.org