BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #76 03/24/2006

 

 

Click on an article to view OR hold Ctrl down and click Or scroll through the document:

1. Holiness, Activism, Involvement in Culture -- Ingredients Necessary for Living Out the Christian Faith

2. Media a Strong Influence on Teens' Sexual Behavior

3. Americans United For the Separation of Church and State: Looks to Intimidate Churches

4. Gambling More Popular Than Ever

5. Your tax dollars are funding Planned Parenthood's effort to defeat South Dakota’s new pro-life law

6. Michigan Seeks to Stop Coercive Abortions

7. Abortion Litigation on the Horizon

8. Pro-Life Groups: Lobbying Reform Bill Would Restrict Citizen Input on Bills

9. Quietly signed Navy rule on prayer ignites a debate

10. San Antonio Faces Lawsuit Threat over Pre-Council Meeting Prayers

11. A Religious Freedom Warning worth Repeating

12. School Decides to Cancel Diversity Day Rather than Include Viewpoint of Christians and Former Homosexuals

13. Committee Republicans Supporting Kennedy Amnesty

14. Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev Threatens Filibuster on Immigration

15. Please Just give me some truth on immigration

16. Carlson Blasts GOP for Putting Interests of Business Ahead of Families

17. Values Issues, Anyone?

18. The FDA: Food and Dangers Administration?

19. Human Egg Farming endangering Women on American Campuses

20. When taxation is obviously theft

21. Afghanistan: Liberated for Islamists who kill Christians?

22. Embassy of Afghanistan: Response to Public Inquiries About Mr. Abdul Rahman

23. Who's Insane Afghan Trial?

24. Islamic Advocacy Group Silent on Afghan Apostasy Trial

25. Canada Refusing to Offer Asylum to Persecuted Christians

26. Group Seeks to Censure Jimmy Carter

27. Current San Francisco City Government Calls Catholics 'Hateful, Discriminatory, Insulting, Ignorant'

 

 

Holiness, Activism, Involvement in Culture -- Ingredients Necessary for Living Out the Christian Faith

Mar. 22 2006 Buddy Smith Agape Press

Guest Commentary

I believe that God is changing the world through the individual and collective witnesses of His people. There is only one answer for the darkness that surrounds and threatens to overpower us, and that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This invading darkness gives us many opportunities to publicly stand for a Christian worldview and thus offer the only real hope for mankind.

However, our responsibility as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ must begin with our call to personally live out our faith before the world, or else we will lose the authenticity of our witness to a watching and waiting world. We must take full advantage of the methods and platforms of standing for Christ, but first comes the all important aspect of personal holiness.

There are a number of safeguards to keep our actions in check with our personal holiness:

First, our actions must be motivated by love. Jesus established His church to both proclaim and to demonstrate the love of God in tangible ways. We must answer the question, am I showing the reality of that love in my relationships?

Second, our actions must be done unto the Lord. Jesus said that when we serve others, we are in reality serving Him. Do my actions reflect the nature of the living God?

Third, our actions should be for the benefit of others. Do my actions intend to benefit my fellow man? Fourth, our actions should be for the glory of God. Jesus said, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32). He was speaking of the Cross but it also applies to our making His glory the aim of our actions.

What could God do with a spiritually awake people? D.L. Moody said, "Give me ten men who love only God and hate only sin, and I will change the world."

Prayer
The power of prayer is too often overlooked or totally underestimated in the life of the individual believer and in the Body of Christ as a whole. We must not allow that oversight to continue. "You can do more than pray, after you have prayed, but you cannot do more than pray until you have prayed," said A. J. Gordon, pastor of Boston's Clarendon St. Church in the late 1800s.

Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall once began a U.S. Senate session with this prayer: "O Lord, forgive us for thinking our prayer is a waste of time, and help us to see that without prayer, our work is a waste of time." Prayer is critical to the success of any endeavor the Christian undertakes to be salt and light in our culture.

Information
After you're knowledgeable on the issues and aware of things going on in our culture, you are in a privileged position to make a difference in your community. In our time, there's no excuse for ignorance. More information is more accessible through more avenues than ever before -- print, the Internet, television, Christian radio. The concerned citizen can learn what's going on.

The deeply concerned and well-informed Christian may also be in a position to motivate others to get involved in the issues of our times. You can urge your church to be involved by addressing the moral issues as they are debated in the public arena. Certainly a church should not endorse or attack a candidate for political office. But as the church brings moral issues to the forefront, its godly influence is enhanced in every other facet of the public forum.

Faithfulness
Finally, we are called not to success measured by man's yardstick, but to faithfulness measured by God's standard. Chuck Colson said, "It is dangerous and misguided policy to measure God's blessing by standards of visible, tangible, material 'success.'"

I am learning that often the evidence of God's blessing will not always be discernable to us at the instant He bestows it upon us. We are called to be people of faith and faithfulness. The book of Job emphasizes that God's blessings may be present even when the world's yardstick says we've failed. The crucifixion of Jesus is the most telling illustration of this truth; as the world and Satan thought God had utterly failed, He was in fact accomplishing the redemption of mankind.

Back

Media a Strong Influence on Teens' Sexual Behavior

Mar. 22 2006 Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor Focus on the Family

New study confirms past research; youth often copy what they see on screen.

A study published in the March edition of the Journal of Adolescent Health found that kids who regularly view sexualized media are more likely to engage in sexual activity than those who are not exposed.

In addition, such exposure can have just as much influence in a teen's life as parental relationships and religious beliefs. If family relationships are weak, media becomes a "sexual super peer."

Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality at Focus on the Family Action, said such studies confirm what common sense has said for years.

"Ideas have consequences," he said. "The last few years have seen a growing body of evidence demonstrating the harm from sexually explicit media. The twisted portrayal of sexuality in mass media is fracturing and distorting our youth in very harmful ways."

Researchers interviewed more than 1,000 children between 12 and 15 years old, asking them to identify specific media — such as magazines, movies, television and music — they commonly viewed. Then they were asked to answer questions about their personal level of sexual activity.

When researchers compared the level of sexual activity to the media the young people normally sought, a direct correlation was identified: The more exposure to sexual behavior, the more likely kids were to act on it in real life.

"The strong relationship between media and adolescents' sexual expression may be due to the media's role as an important source of sexual socialization for teenagers," the study said. "Adolescence is a developmental period that is characterized by intense information seeking, especially about adult roles. Adolescents may turn to the media for information about sexual norms."

Other studies have proven the same to be true. One comprehensive project by psychologist Rebecca Collins published in September 2004 in the online journal Pediatrics found that the more sex-oriented scenes kids viewed, the more likely they were to become sexually active.

"It's social learning. 'Monkey see, monkey do,' " she said. "If everyone's talking about sex or having it, and something bad hardly ever comes out of it, because it doesn't on TV, then they think, 'Hey, the whole world's doing it, and I need to.' "

Dr. Bill Maier, vice president and psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family, said the results of studies like Collins' should be a wake-up call for parents.

"The evidence is clear: Children who regularly view sexually suggestive media are more likely to engage in promiscuous sexual behavior themselves," he said. "What's particularly disturbing about this new research is that it shows that media messages about sex influence kids' attitudes and behaviors just as much, or more so, than their parents.

"Parents who don't understand the power of media or don't take steps to limit their child's exposure to sexually provocative material may very well face the heartbreak of an unplanned pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease."

Parents can't control everything their children see, but, according to Weiss, they can make a difference.

"Parents' first task is to cultivate in their children a hunger for virtue and a desire to seek out what is good and beautiful," he said. "Parents can limit their children's exposure to sexually explicit messages through careful and wise media choices — and those constraints are helpful — but only internal restraints will protect a child outside the home."

Back

Americans United For the Separation of Church and State: Looks to Intimidate Churches

Mar. 22 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

Liberal group wants to keep moral policy issues from being discussed from the pulpit.

The November elections are just a few months away, and one of the first salvos in the battle is from the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU).

The group recently provided a secret recording of a pastors' political strategy meeting in Pennsylvania to The New York Times, hoping to intimidate conservative churches into thinking they must steer clear of anything political — or lose their tax-exempt status.

"We're definitely going to be involved this year," AU spokesman Rob Boston said. "Already we're seeing the signs here — and it's spring — that there will be a big push in some states to draw churches and pastors into political machines. Yes, we're going to be addressing that."

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Dale Schowengerdt said the Internal Revenue Service has issued some new guidelines for this election season and is promising to be more proactive in prosecuting offenders. The agency found 55 instances of churches that crossed the line in 2004.

But that doesn't mean churches have to be silent. Voter-registration drives, nonpartisan voters guides and advocating for issues like marriage and life — even from the pulpit — are still a Christian's First Amendment right, Schowengerdt said.

"The guidelines do not prohibit pastors from speaking about issues that are important to the church," he told Family News in Focus. "The bright line, however, is when that crosses into a candidate. The church may not endorse a particular candidate."

Focus on the Family Action will be encouraging civic participation from faith communities, according to Peter Brandt, the group's senior director of Government and Public Policy.

"These are very much areas where churches can be involved," he noted, "and they should not take this intimidation by groups such as the ACLU."

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt believes that if Christians don't actively involve themselves in the democratic process, our country will soon abandon completely the godly values upon which it was founded. In the Focus on the Family broadcast CD "Voting: Let Your Voice Be Heard," he discusses why it's critical for the future of our nation that Christians make their voices heard.

Back

Gambling More Popular Than Ever

March 21, 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

With growth in casinos comes growth in gambling addiction — and all the personal and societal woes that follow.

Studies show there's been an increase in casinos nationwide, and that can mean just one thing: more addictions.

And with those addictions, according to Ed Looney of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey, come crime and other social ills. Ninety percent of addicted gamblers break the law to support their habit, and gambling addicts have the highest suicide rates in the nation

"So when you're dealing with one addict, you're dealing with 8 to 10 other people that get affected because of the addiction," Looney explained. "We have to look at public policy, the government, the people who are leaders and rely on them to do better public policy when it comes to a very, very addictive product."

Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, told Family News in Focus that America is on a gambling binge fueled by a high cost.

"The price of it is that this is an addictive product that will take everything and lead to addiction, bankruptcy, crime and corruption," he said. "These machines are programmed to beat you. You can play 30 hands of poker a minute, touching a screen that's going to take you down. So, if there is any thrill in losing your money, then knock yourself out, because you've got plenty of opportunities to do that in America ."

Back

Your tax dollars are funding Planned Parenthood's effort to defeat South Dakota’s new pro-life law

Mar 21 2006 Dr. Gary Cass, Center for Reclaiming America for Christ

Please see below for more details and then sign our De-fund Planned Parenthood petition by clicking here:

Your tax dollars are being used to fight South Dakota's new pro-life law, and I need your help to stop this outrage. This is what is happening...

As you know, South Dakota just passed a very strong pro-life law that bans abortion. This is a significant breakthrough for pro-life citizens.

Almost immediately after South Dakota's Governor Mike Rounds signed the bill into law, Planned Parenthood announced plans to defeat the law--either through court action or by statewide ballot initiative. We expect

Planned Parenthood is poised to spend hundreds of thousands-- if not millions--of dollars to defeat this new law.

This is where your tax dollars come in... Over the past three reporting years, Planned Parenthood has received over $760 million in our tax dollars to fund its programs. You and I are funding the nation's largest abortion provider. But it gets even worse...

In those same three years, Planned Parenthood spent over $110 million on public policy expenditures—fighting lawsuits, legislation, and other efforts.

That means our tax dollars are funding Planned Parenthood-- so that Planned Parenthood can fight us in courtrooms and legislatures across this nation! + + Lets stop this outrage!

When pro-life legislation comes under attack we need to respond--especially when that attack is funded by our tax dollars!

Here at the Center we are responding. We are leading the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood and have already rallied over 116,000 citizens to sign our petition. Over the next 7 days, I am calling on concerned

I need Christians across this nation to stand with me for the unborn by rallying an additional 100,000 citizen signers of our petition.

Next week, I will travel to Capitol Hill and plan to present these petitions directly to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, demanding he make the de-funding of Planned Parenthood a top priority this year!

Please sign the petition to keep our tax dollars from funding Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda and attacks on South Dakota’s new pro-life law:

http://cfra.info/133/petition.asp?RID=9106433

Back

Michigan Seeks to Stop Coercive Abortions

March 21, 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

Bill would allow 24-hour waiting period for women forced into killing their pre-born children.

With studies indicating as many as four in 10 women are pressured into abortions by a boyfriend or parent, Michigan is working to become the first state to address the problem legislatively.

The Coercive Abortion Prevention Act (CAPA), which is being opposed by Planned Parenthood, would allow a 24-hour waiting period for a woman if it is determined she was pressured to end her pregnancy. Sen. Michelle McManus, the sponsor of the bill, said she wants abortion clinics to find out why women show up at their door.

"The bill makes it illegal to coerce a female into seeking an abortion," she said. "We grant a woman the right to a civil lawsuit when she's been coerced, and require abortion providers to screen for potential coercion."

And the bill gives a woman 24 hours to reconsider and seek help if she is being forced to end her child's life. McManus said abortion clinics will be required to tell women of their rights before conducting an abortion.

"And once a woman knows what her legal rights are," she told Family News in Focus, "she has the opportunity to then seek prosecution."

Barbara Listing, president of Right to Life of Michigan, said McManus' legislation is pro-woman.

"It does give that woman an avenue, a networking, a way she can talk to someone," she explained. "And if she is in an abusive situation, (she can) get help to get out of that abusive situation. So that extra 24-hour waiting period, I think, will be helpful."

Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, said the plan should get the support of people on both sides of the abortion debate.

"Those who are pro-life and those who say they believe in all choices, whether we agree with them or not," she said, "should all agree on the fact that no woman should have an abortion against her will."

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Abortion's aftermath upon American men has been largely ignored, depriving them of much-needed help to forgive everyone involved in their abortion experience, including themselves. "Men and Abortion: A Path to Healing" will help men express their grief, exchange it for hope and healing and be in a position to help others.

Back

Abortion Litigation on the Horizon

Mar. 20 2006 Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Adam White The Weekly Standard

Although it won't topple Roe v. Wade, Gonzales v. Carhart is this year's abortion case to watch.

The season of abortion litigation is in full bloom. South Dakota's passage of a bill banning all abortions has captured most of the headlines, and Mississippi is considering similar legislation. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has quietly decided two abortion cases this term--the first dealing with the process of invalidating abortion statutes that are unconstitutional in the case of medical emergencies; the second involving whether abortion protesters have violated the RICO Act. More significant, the Court granted certiorari last month in what may be the most momentous abortion case in more than a decade: Gonzales v. Carhart. Gonzales involves a constitutional challenge to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which outlaws partial-birth abortions throughout the country. While Roe v. Wade will survive Gonzales, the issues involved are significant, such that this case may be a harbinger of things to come in the battle over abortion.

TO UNDERSTAND GONZALES V. CARHART, one must begin with the Court's last highly-publicized abortion case, Stenberg v. Carhart. (Yes, the Carhart in both cases is the same person: Nebraska-based abortion doctor Leroy Carhart.) In that 2000 case, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions was unconstitutional. Stenberg was decided against the legal backdrop of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and its 1992 affirmation in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Together, Roe and Casey provide women with the right to an abortion until viability, the point at which a child born prematurely has a chance of survival. Generally speaking, states are free to ban abortions after the point of viability as long as their statutes carve out exceptions for pregnancies that endanger a woman's life or health.

The Court found Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it defined the prohibited surgical techniques so broadly that it imposed on a pregnant woman's right to an abortion prior to viability. Second, it provided no exception allowing partial-birth abortions to preserve the health of the mother after viability.

Stenberg is the precedent against which the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will be judged. Thus, the drafters of the legislation tried to ensure that it would not be found unconstitutional for the same reasons that the Nebraska law was struck down. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines the proscribed procedure with greater specificity than the Nebraska law did. The dispositive point in Stenberg about interference with a woman's right to an abortion before viability shouldn't be an issue here. The real issue is whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will be struck down because, like the Nebraska statute, it lacks an exception allowing for partial-birth abortions to preserve the health of the mother.

The lack of a health exception was no drafting error. Social conservatives worry that, as Justice Thomas wrote in his Stenberg dissent, a health exception "entirely swallows the rule" by allowing sympathetic doctors to make bogus findings of health necessity. In explaining why it includes no health exception, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act itself makes a fairly sophisticated legal argument.

The Act explains that when Stenberg held that partial-birth abortions would be the safest procedure for pregnant women in some instances, the Court was required to defer to the trial court's holdings on the matter unless they were clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." This is a high evidentiary bar to clear--but the Congress is not required to defer to a trial court when undertaking its own findings of fact.

Thus, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act lays out Congress' factual findings, and concludes that "the great weight of evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care." The Act then lists several cases holding that the Supreme Court is required to defer to congressional findings.

IN TRYING TO DETERMINE what the Court will decide in Gonzales v. Carhart, most observers have focused on the probable votes of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. This singular focus may be misplaced, as Justices Breyer and Kennedy--who previously weighed in on partial-birth abortion in the Stenberg case--may have a surprise or two in store.

Although Justice Breyer wrote the Stenberg opinion and is generally regarded as a liberal vote, the present case touches on a legal issue about which he has forcefully written. At the heart of the debate over whether the federal ban is unconstitutional for lack of a health exception is the question of whose fact findings should be trusted: those of the district court in Stenberg, or those of the U.S. Congress? In his 2001 dissent in Board of Trustees v. Garrett, Justice Breyer delivered a vigorous statement in support judicial deference to congressional findings of fact in a different legal context:

There is simply no reason to require Congress, seeking to determine facts relevant to the exercise of its [legislative authority pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment], to adopt rules or presumptions that reflect a court's institutional limitations. Unlike courts, Congress can readily gather facts from across the Nation, assess the magnitude of a problem, and more easily find an appropriate remedy. . . . Unlike courts, Congress directly reflects public attitudes and beliefs, enabling Congress better to understand where, and to what extent, refusals to accommodate a disability amount to behavior that is callous or unreasonable to the point of lacking constitutional justification. Unlike judges, Members of Congress can directly obtain information from constituents who have first-hand experience with discrimination and related issues. Moreover, unlike judges, Members of Congress are elected.

Justice Breyer noted that Congress is not to be bound by the same standards and presumptions applied in the courts. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act makes the same point: Although the Supreme Court was bound by the findings of the trial court, Congress, in crafting policy, is not. Justice Breyer--who recently authored Active Liberty, a book that is in part devoted to defending judicial deference to congressional decision-making--may well agree.

While Justice Breyer may surprise in one direction, Justice Kennedy may surprise in the other. He has played a central role in the Court's abortion jurisprudence, surprising conservatives in Casey by voting to affirm the constitutional right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade. Nonetheless, the practice of partial-birth abortion seems too much for Justice Kennedy. He voted to uphold the Nebraska law at issue in Stenberg in a dissent that vividly details what actually happens in a partial-birth abortion, and describes it as "a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent as to be among the most serious of crimes against human life."

The conventional wisdom is that Justice Kennedy will vote to uphold the federal ban, and while the conventional wisdom is probably correct, the doctrine of stare decisis (which holds that prior decisions should almost always be applied in subsequent cases) creates at least some doubt. Justice Kennedy has established himself as a strong defender of stare decisis, as his decision in Casey constitutes the most vigorous public defense of the doctrine in the past several decades: "The promise of constancy, once given, binds its maker for as long as the power to stand by the decision survives and the understanding of the issue has not changed so fundamentally as to render the commitment obsolete. . . . A willing breach of it would be nothing less than a breach of faith, and no Court that broke its faith with the people could sensibly expect credit for principle in the decision by which it did that."

Beyond Casey, Justice Kennedy has shown particular impatience for congressional attempts to "overrule" the Supreme Court. The Court addressed an instance of this in the 1997 City of Boerne v. Flores case, where it struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Essentially, that act was designed to challenge a prior Court decision that affirmed a criminal ban on peyote, a drug used in certain religious traditions. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion was unambiguous:

When the political branches of the Government act against the background of a judicial interpretation of the Constitution already issued, it must be understood that in later cases and controversies the Court will treat its precedents with the respect due them under settled principles, including stare decisis, and contrary expectations must be disappointed. [I]t is this Court's precedent, not RFRA, which must control.

Gonzales, then, presents Justice Kennedy with two difficult questions: Is Stenberg controlling precedent with respect to the material issues of law and fact now before the Court? If so, can he support a departure from Stenberg?

EVEN IF THE COURT DECIDES THAT the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional without a health exception, its precise ruling is complicated by its largely overlooked decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. There, the Court unanimously held that when an abortion restriction violates a woman's constitutional rights, the courts need not strike down the totality of the statute. Rather, the courts can nullify the portions of the statute that present constitutional problems and leave the remainder in place.

Thus, even if the Court holds that the federal ban unconstitutionally restricts abortions necessary to preserve the health of the mother, it need not nullify the statute in its entirety. The Court could leave the ban effective in all cases except the set where the health or life of the mother is at issue.

BUT THE TWO MOST INTERESTING ISSUES that Gonzales v. Carhart might touch on are not before the Court in this case. One of these issues is, of course, the continuing vitality of Roe v. Wade itself. The Roe line of cases is the foundation on which the challenge to the partial-birth abortion ban has been built. If Roe falls, so too does this challenge. But Roe's legitimacy is not before the Court in this case.

Another issue not presented to the Court is the federalism question: Does Congress actually have power under the Constitution to pass this law in the first place, or is this a state-law concern? While most conservatives will be unsympathetic to the abortion-rights argument in Gonzales, they may have mixed feelings about the federalism challenge.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has carefully scrutinized whether Congress has the constitutional power to enact various laws. The purpose of doing so is to maintain limits on Congress' power to legislate matters more properly regulated by the states. In this case, the partial-birth abortion ban was passed pursuant to Congress' Commerce Clause power. As Glenn Reynolds and Brannon Denning have written, the ban may be vulnerable on federalism grounds: "[I]t would be difficult for Congress to demonstrate how a medical procedure--usually regulated by the states--is 'economic' or 'commercial' in nature or 'substantially affects' interstate commerce. Given the small number of these procedures performed each year, it would be hard to meet the Court's relatively high threshold." While federalism is not before the Court in this case, it may form the basis of future challenges if Gonazles upholds the ban.

GONZALES V. CARHART IS AN IMPORTANT case to watch for those who care about the direction abortion jurisprudence may take. At stake is the future of partial-birth abortion in the United States. But the decision may forecast, at least in part, what the Court will decide in the coming challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Back

Pro-Life Groups: Lobbying Reform Bill Would Restrict Citizen Input on Bills

Mar. 21 2006 Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor

Washington, DC, Every day, tens of thousands of Americans contact their members of Congress to support or oppose legislation making its way through the government. They may be employed as doctors, teachers and business owners. A new lobbying reform bill would change that and refer to them as lobbyists and place restrictions on what they can do.

In the wake of several ethics scandals, Congressional leaders are hurrying legislation through that would tighten up rules on lawmakers and lobbyists.

But two pro-life groups oppose the bill because they say it also restricts the rights of Americans to express their views on issues ranging from abortion to stem cell research.

"Under this legislation, any citizen who sends a communication to her elected representative is defined as having engaged in 'grassroots lobbying,'" National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com.

Johnson's group was one of the first to raise a red flag about the bill, which he says will "regulate activity that merely motivates citizens to communicate with their elected representatives."

"Somebody needs to tell the lawmakers who are pushing this nonsense that a constituent is not a lobbyist," Johnson told LifeNews.com.

Lanier Swann, director of government relations for Concerned Women for America, agrees.

Swann says that grassroots restrictions placed in the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 2128) should be removed because the bill should only focus on the ethics abuses of full-time professionally employed lobbyists, not everyday citizens.

“Haphazardly including grassroots in lobby reform is not going to hurt deep-pocketed K-Street lobbyists," Swann explained. "It will merely muffle the voices of people who lobby for issues because they actually care about them."

The lobbying reform bill is currently stuck in the Senate as lawmakers voted against ending debate on the bill and taking a vote.

Swann said the bill is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment and, if it becomes law, it could be subjected to the another round of lawsuits like the campaign finance reform bill.

Pro-life groups opposed that measure, too, because it placed limits on grassroots groups like pro-life organizations and limited their ability to tell pro-life advocates about upcoming legislation or the views of lawmakers.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your senators and urge opposition to the grassroots lobbying section of S. 2128. You can find contact information at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Back

Quietly signed Navy rule on prayer ignites a debate

Mar. 23 2006 Eric Pfeiffer The Washington Times

A new Navy policy that encourages chaplains to use only "nonsectarian" language outside of divine services has prompted criticism that regulating prayer services violates the chaplains' First Amendment rights.
    Under new rules signed by Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter, chaplains of all faiths in the Navy are asked to consider the views of their audience before invoking specific religious beliefs in prayer.
    "I'm very disappointed with the secretary of the Navy," said Navy chaplain Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt. "He's doing the opposite of what President Bush wants."
    Navy spokesman Lt. William Marks says Lt. Klingenschmitt has exaggerated the policy's reach.
    "The only thing we ask is that chaplains be inclusive of the people in their audience," Lt. Marks said.
    "We've never said they can't invoke Jesus in their prayers. You aren't going to get into trouble for that."
    Lt. Klingenschmitt is urging Mr. Bush to sign an executive order to allow military chaplains to pray according to their individual faith tradition. He said that if the president decides not to sign such an order, he might sue the Navy.
    The Navy policy appears to be similar to that of the Air Force, which reads, "nondenominational, inclusive prayer or a moment of silence may be appropriate for military ceremonies."
    The rule change completes an evolution of the Navy's official policy toward religious language.
    In 1998, former Chief of Navy Chaplains Byron Holderby submitted a "memo of suggestion" that chaplains who wish to use sectarian language withdraw from events such as evening prayer services aboard Navy ships.
    On Feb. 21, Mr. Winter quietly signed the regulation making the suggestion official Navy policy.
    Yesterday, Lt. Klingenschmitt filed a "formal whistleblower complaint" against Mr. Winter and Chief of Navy Chaplains Rear Adm. Louis V. Iasiello.

Back

San Antonio Faces Lawsuit Threat over Pre-Council Meeting Prayers

Mar. 21 2006 Allie Martin Agape Press

The City of San Antonio, Texas, may be facing litigation over its practice of starting its city government sessions with prayer. An organization that specializes in religious liberty cases has offered to defend the city in a lawsuit over its invocations at its City Council meetings.

Recently, a local resident threatened to sue the city, claiming the prayers violate the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States. Upon hearing of the lawsuit threat, Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute offered to represent the city free of charge.

Hiram Sasser, Liberty Legal Institute's director of litigation says the complaint and others like it are "completely unjustified and frivolous." He notes that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that invocation prayers at meetings of government bodies do not violate the Constitution.

Besides, Sasser points out, the way the City Council's invocations have been offered has made them all the more constitutionally defensible. "What's interesting about the situation in San Antonio," he explains, "is that they've had such a wide variety of practitioners -- Muslims, Jewish folks, Native Americans, various Christian denominations -- such that they're completely insulated from attack, having that kind of diverse representation."

The attorney notes that San Antonio is one of many cities across the United States where local government bodies have come under attack for permitting individual expressions of faith in an official forum. "A lot of these cities allow themselves to be bullied by these people demanding a cease of all prayer or religion in public life," he says.

"It's unfortunate," Sasser continues. "But when you stand up to these guys, nine times out of ten they just back down," he asserts, "because they were bluffing, and they knew the law was not on their side."

The constitutional litigation experts at Liberty Legal Institute "are confident the City of San Antonio will stand strong and battle to protect First Amendment rights," Sasser adds. He says the City Council has the right to allow invocations at the beginnings of its meetings, and his organization is ready to aid the Council members in fighting any suit threatening to prohibit this constitutionally-protected practice.

Back

A Religious Freedom Warning worth Repeating

Mar. 21 2006 Gary Bauer American Values

We’ve been following a story in Massachusetts regarding the decision of Catholic Charities to no longer place adoptive children with homosexual couples. As a result, the organization is now prohibited by law from facilitating any adoptions in the state. Governor Romney wants an exemption from the state’s so-called “non-discrimination” law so that Catholic Charities can continue its good work, but his proposal appears dead-on-arrival in the liberal legislature. Catholic Charities organizations across the country are now reevaluating their status to see if they too are running afoul of similar “non-discrimination” laws for believing that children deserve a mother and a father.

On February 26, 2004, I quoted in this report a stark warning from Harvard Professor Mary Ann Glendon about just what our future holds if we cannot draw a bright line in defense of traditional marriage. To some, it sounded like hyperbole, but it is worth repeating today:

“Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.”

Back

School Decides to Cancel Diversity Day Rather than Include Viewpoint of Christians and Former Homosexuals

March 22, 2006 Liberty Counsel

Viroqua, WI - Viroqua High School officials chose to cancel tomorrow's Diversity Day activities after Liberty Counsel presented legal precedent requiring inclusion of the viewpoints of Christians and former homosexuals.

The school scheduled sessions for the students that presented the viewpoints of Hmong, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, African-Americans, homosexuals, Latinos, Buddhists, the physically disadvantaged, and the economically disadvantaged, but not Christians or former homosexuals. Diversity Day would have been held tomorrow, March 23, 2006.

After a school official stated that the viewpoints of Christians and former homosexuals would be excluded, a resident contacted Liberty Counsel on behalf of many other concerned Viroqua residents.

On March 9, Liberty Counsel sent a letter to the District Administrator, explaining that the censorship of the viewpoints of Christians and former homosexuals violated the Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantee. Liberty Counsel sent another letter on March 14 to the District Administrator and Board of Education. Two days later, the District Administrator confirmed in a telephone call that Diversity Day had been cancelled.

In 2004, the Board also cancelled Diversity Day in response to a citizen petition, but then reinstated it after spring elections changed the members on the Board. Unlike 2004, however, this time school officials were confronted with precedent from a federal district court in Michigan that ruled unconstitutional a similar exclusion from a Diversity Day panel.

Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: "We are pleased that the District cancelled Diversity Day instead of censoring the viewpoints of Christians and former homosexuals. One of the Diversity Day organizers labeled the former homosexual's viewpoint as 'non-positive.' This is yet another attempt to indoctrinate our youth with the harmful message that homosexuals cannot change. While touting the message of tolerance, homosexual activists refuse to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Our youth deserve to know the truth about homosexuality - that people can choose to overcome same-sex attractions and that acting on those attractions results in devastating physical, mental, and spiritual consequences."

Back

Committee Republicans Supporting Kennedy Amnesty

Mar.20 2006 Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum

Behind closed doors late last week, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee negotiated a plan to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and import even more foreign workers to take American jobs! Over the past three weeks, the committee has been marking up Senator Specter's bill, the Chairman's Mark, which includes a massive guest worker program among weak border security measures.

Facing pressure from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to pass an immigration bill out of committee before his March 27 deadline and a committee deadlocked on controversial guest worker provisions, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) began negotiating a behind closed doors compromise with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

Under the compromise, Senator Specter announced that Senators Cornyn (R-TX) and Kennedy had agreed to allow workers to stay for two years, go home for one year, and then return for six years, capping the number annually at 400,000, and allowing a path to permanent legal residence for the 12 million illegal aliens currently here.

Even more baffling is that the details of this massive plan will not be worked out in front of the American public in the committee process, but in closed negotiating sessions between Senate staff. Senators will then return for one day of review and then vote the bill out on Monday, March 27.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should not put Sen. Kennedy in charge of immigration reform! The following Republican Judiciary Committee Senators are rumored to be supporting the Kennedy Amnesty: Brownback, Hatch, Cornyn, Kyl, DeWine, Graham.

Back

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev Threatens Filibuster on Immigration

Mar. 23 2006 Elliot Spagat Associated Press Writer

SAN DIEGO - As the Senate prepares to tackle the most sweeping immigration reforms in years, a top Democrat vowed Wednesday to do everything in his power, including filibuster, to thwart Majority Leader Bill Frist's proposed overhaul.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would "use every procedural means at my disposal" to prevent Frist from bypassing the Judiciary Committee. Frist, R-Tenn, has made clear the Senate will take up his proposal next week if the 18-member committee fails to complete a broader bill.

"If Leader Frist brings a bill to the floor that does not have the approval of the Judiciary Committee, it will not get out of the Senate," Reid told reporters at the San Ysidro border crossing, a few steps from Tijuana, Mexico.

Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for Frist, did not immediately respond to a call Wednesday evening.

Reid said the overhaul must include heightened border enforcement, a "guest worker" program and a "path to citizenship" for the estimated 11 million people in the United States illegally. He called legislation by Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., a "good place to start."

President Bush, in a State of the Union address two years ago, urged Congress to create a worker program under which participants could gain legal status for a specific time and then be required to return home. It would not provide an automatic path to citizenship.

Frist unveiled a bill last week that sidesteps the question of temporary work permits. It would tighten borders, punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and provide more visas.

Back

Please Just give me some truth on immigration

Mar. 21 2006 Maggie Gallagher Townhall.com

Twelve million That's the number of illegal immigrants living right now in the United States, according to a just-released study by the Pew Hispanic Center. The majority are from Mexico.

What should we do about illegal immigration? How it looks depends in part on where you stand. Me? I'm an ivy-educated "symbolic analyst" living in a slightly less affluent ZIP code of one of the most affluent U.S. counties. For me, personally, illegal Mexican immigration means that when a foot of snow falls, two nice guys show up and offer to shovel the driveway for $25.

But for my friend "Mary," the whole issue looks different. She cleans houses and baby-sits for a living. Her son paints houses. In both cases, they are competing directly with a new flood of immigrants who don't mind living doubled or quadrupled up (changing the character of neighborhoods) and for whom $10 bucks an hour is a premium wage.

I don't think the fact that she and her family notice (and object) makes them racists. Economic studies suggest that overall immigration is a net wash, or a slight plus, for the American economy. But the pluses and minuses are not evenly distributed over the whole population: Lesser-skilled Americans who compete for jobs that don't require Ivy League credentials take the hit, while people like me enjoy a lot of the benefits. A 2003 Hamilton College poll found that only 12 percent of Americans worry that immigrants might take their job. I suspect these are the folks for whom the fear is quite realistic.

Meanwhile, a nationally representative Quinnipiac poll released March 4 concludes that 88 percent of all Americans see illegal immigration as a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. By 62 percent to 32 percent, voters oppose making it easier for undocumented immigrants to become citizens. More than four in 10 Americans would prefer not to give U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to illegals (a right guaranteed in the Constitution).

"This poll reflects local concerns about immigrants gathering on street corners, waiting for jobs, or packed into illegal housing and the like," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Red state, blue state and purple state voters agree: Illegal immigration is a serious problem."

The thing that bothers me about the immigration issue is how much spin it generates.

Pro-business groups portray President Bush's proposed "guest worker" program as an alleged national security program. But we know, from European experience, that the whole "guest worker" idea is a fraud. It doesn't work. The workers don't go home. The guest worker program is a dishonest way to increase legal immigration. Moreover, it represents a disturbing retreat from the best of America's pro-immigration tradition, which includes inviting and encouraging immigrants to become Americans.

As for the national security implications, the 12 million people who are already in this country are ALREADY HERE. The terrorists among them are unlikely to step forward and identify themselves. The very worst thing for Republicans (trust me on this) is for GOP leaders to start using national security concerns as political cover for other agendas.

What about trying a little truth on immigration for a change? Secure the borders first and foremost. Voters know we can do it if we try. Oh, not completely, but a million people illegally entering the United States is clearly a passive policy choice, not an inevitability.

Secure the borders, because that's a non-negotiable national security issue. And then, if it's true we need and benefit from more hard-working non-native Americans, increase legal immigration.

That at least would be an honest move, which someone once remarked is generally the best policy.

Maggie Gallagher is the author of three books on the marriage movement and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Back

Carlson Blasts GOP for Putting Interests of Business Ahead of Families

March 20 2006 Christian Newswire

ROCKFORD, Ill., In a featured article in the current Weekly Standard, an influential national periodical, Howard Center Executive Director Dr. Allan Carlson blasts the Republican Party for consistently favoring Wall Street over Main Street.

In the March 27th issue of the magazine (“Indentured Families: Social Conservatives and the GOP – Can this Marriage Be Saved?”) Carlson charges, “Where the interests of the proverbial ‘Sam’s Club Republicans’ collide with the interests of the great banks, the Sam’s Club set might as well pile into the family car and go home.”

Carlson notes that the recent federal bankruptcy reform act makes it harder for financially troubled families to file for bankruptcy, but does nothing to curb the predatory practices of lending institutions, which targets these families.

“The Republican Party has done relatively little to help traditional families, and may in fact be contributing to their new indentured status,” Carlson observes. While the inflation-adjusted income of two- income families increased 35% since 1970, for married couples where the wife isn’t in the paid labor force, inflation-adjusted income growth has been stagnant over the past 35 years.

Parents who choose to put their children in day care get tax credits ranging from $1,500 to $2,100 a year. Parents who sacrifice to care for their children at home receive no comparable tax relief. The Republican leadership in Congress has shown little interest in passing the Parents’ Tax Relief Act of 2006 (H.R. 3080) which would provide some equity here.

Carlson does credit the Republicans with increasing the child credit, eliminating the marriage tax penalty, passing a bill to ban partial-birth abortion and appointing conservative, pro-family judges.

However, says Carlson, “When push comes to shove, social conservatives remain second-class citizens under the Republican tent. During the 2004 Republican Convention, they were virtually confined to the party’s attic, kept off the main stage, treated like slightly lunatic children.”

All of this may come back to haunt the Party of Reagan. The Family Research Council just released a poll showing 63% of Values Voters, the core of the party, feel Congress has not kept its promise to act on a pro-family agenda.

To read “Indentured Families” on line, click here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/ Articles/000/000/011/991nmrow.asp or go to www.weekly standard.com.

Back

Values Issues, Anyone?

Mar. 20 2006 Gary Bauer American Values

The Washington Post has a front page story today on a major public policy debate, and this time I agree with the Post! The gist of the article is that Republicans – who control the White House and both houses of Congress – have no identifiable message or agenda that unifies them over the next few months. Here’s a quote from the Post report:

“Anxiety over President Bush's Iraq policy, internal clashes over such divisive issues as immigration, and rising complaints that the party has abandoned conservative principles on spending restraint have all hobbled the effort to devise an election-year message, said several lawmakers involved in the effort.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll dare to say it again – Let’s address values issues! I know there are hardworking members of Congress who share my belief that while confronting America’s budget deficit, we must also seriously address our “virtue deficit,” and there are dozens of great bills pending in Congress that have overwhelming support at the grass roots. These are not “divisive issues” that would alienate voters. Take, for example, the definition of marriage. The citizens of 19 states have passed their own state-level marriage amendments by an average vote of 70%. (Most politicians would love to have an approval rating that high!) But that won’t stop federal courts from redefining marriage. Moreover, there is a serious effort underway to legitimize polygamy now, as seen from a story in today’s edition of Newsweek entitled, “Polygamist, Unite!” It’s a “brave new world” where we are headed, my friends, unless the people demand action.

What I don’t get is why there is so much reticence on the part of our public servants to defend normal marriage beyond an obligatory press release or applause line in a stump speech. The institutions of marriage and family are the bedrock of our society, and, as the state votes have demonstrated, the American people are not confused about the meaning of marriage. This should be a slam dunk for politicians in both parties! But, I hope someone will soon notice that there are issues out there that could unite America’s great silent majority if only there were a serious effort to champion our values.

Back

The FDA: Food and Dangers Administration?

Mar. 20 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

Last fall, FRC expressed concern when Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach was placed at the helm at FDA after his lackluster tenure at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). During his time at NCI Dr. von Eschenbach convened a workshop that was supposed to explore the link that some pro-life researchers say exists between abortion and breast cancer. Dr. Joel Brind, a conference participant, accused von Eschenbach of presiding over a charade that did not give a fair hearing to those who support the theory of a link. FRC said at the time that we were concerned that Dr. von Eschenbach seemed willing to steamroll pro-life proponents of the link theory to arrive at a politically correct conclusion. Now, we see FDA dragging its feet on RU-486. With the deaths of two more women who used this lethal abortifacient drug, it is certainly time to call a halt to its use. The use of other drugs has been halted with less cause than this. The federal government is convening a "workshop" on May 11 to examine the RU-486 septic shock deaths, and I am left to question whether Dr. von Eschenbach is putting together another kangaroo court. IN another move of political correctness, the FDA is reportedly considering dropping or sharply cutting back the ban on male blood donors who have sex with other men. The ban was put in place to protect the blood supply from HIV/AIDS and other diseases commonly spread among homosexuals and bisexuals. We need an FDA that will focus on promoting heath - not political correctness!

Additional Resources
FDA Urged to Pull RU-486 after Two More Reported Deaths

Back

Human Egg Farming endangering Women on American Campuses

Mar. 20 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

"Egg Donors Needed. $10,000" reads an ad in The Daily Californian, the student newspaper at Berkeley. At the U.S. Naval Academy, ads in the Trident promise as much as $35,000. Women who succumb to such enticements take hormone-boosting shots that force them to "super ovulate." The typical yield in one of these operations is 10 to 15 eggs. One woman told USA Today her eggs were "just DNA." They are not really "donors," since the women who sell their eggs in such transactions are reduced to hens. Most industrial nations ban payment for human eggs. But the Supreme Court has not considered importing those foreign laws. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) allows this trafficking to continue virtually unregulated. Some students, bearing a heavy load of debt from college student loans, find this temptation too hard to resist. Current law allows outfits like the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)--the fertility clinics' own trade association--to set the rules. That really is putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

Back

When taxation is obviously theft

Mar. 19 2006 Paul Jacob Townhall.com

It is not exactly unheard of for governments to levy and collect taxes for one purpose, and then use the funds for another. It's a despicable abuse of power, but many citizens are used to it.

But what happens when a business collects taxes and then does what amounts to the same thing? That is, what do you think of a business that adds a tax item onto your bill . . . and then never pays the tax?

If you are shaking your head in some sort of disbelief, right now, I don't blame you. Businesses aren't supposed to get their money from taxes. Isn't that government's sole prerogative?

Well, for starters, businesses have been turned into tax collectors by governments. In states with sales taxes, for instance, every retail seller collects taxes that are then, later, turned over to the government.

Nothing shocking about that. We're used to it.

But when those businesses neglect to pay the taxes collected, then we expect the government to go after them. It becomes theft. Right? The government looks at it as theft from the government. The consumers might tend to look on it as theft from them, too.

Now there is a new wrinkle in the age-old public-private partnership for plundering the masses. This week the New York Times reported on utilities that collect taxes from their clients, but don't pay those taxes to the government.

And get away with it.

Here's the deal: corporations are taxed in America. The states need their money, you know. This even includes regulated utilities.

But businesses are taxed on profits, not general revenue (this only makes sense). And if a big profitable business like an electric utility is liable for taxes, it's no surprise that the government regulators let them charge the consumers directly. That's how these con jobs — I mean, tax ploys — work.

And if one of those big profitable businesses also owns another business that doesn't make a profit, they can wind up not paying the tax.

Somehow, though, the refund checks just never make it to consumers' mailboxes.

Consumer watchdogs and advocates and just plain taxpayers have been outraged by the New York Times report. There's a lot of grumbling about big businesses like Pepco and Xcel Energy who between the two of them, operating in over a dozen states, have collected nearly $1.3 billion from consumers while "during that same period" receiving refunds of $786.4 million "rather than having to pay taxes."

But this isn't just a multi-billion-dollar big business scandal. This is a multi-billion-dollar government scandal. A regulated business does this because regulators are in charge. Rather than being held accountable to a reasonable rule of law, these businesses operate under a regime of haphazard micromanagement, permissions, and "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Even the corporate heads who defend the practice sound like the usual government stooges: Anthony Kamerick, a Pepco vice president, said that with the extra money collected his company could invest in technology that might yield lower rates. Eventually.

Breathe deeply and ask yourself: why would a company be allowed to shift its income tax directly onto customers, anyway?

This was obviously an idea cooked up in some darkly lit back room. (Smoke-free now, though.)

I can understand an excise tax. That's computed at billing time, based on customer usage. But a corporation's income tax is not so computed, and should never, ever have been allowed onto the bill.

There are a lot of old jokes about adding line items to bills: you know, the butcher adds his daughter's braces onto your receipt, the doctor adds his Bahama vacation onto your gall bladder operation. But funny thing is, we don't see such items on butchers' — or even doctors' — bills. But we do on utility bills. Why? Regulators. People think of regulations as something that help them, but a lot of evidence has piled up suggesting that that's not quite the case. Only a regulated company could get away with this sort of systematic theft while the government stands idly by.

And that's how a case of fraud gets thought of as a regulatory problem rather than a simple criminal issue. We've lost sight of the real issue here: justice.

Thankfully, not everyone has been blinded.

It is heartening to note that something can be done, as proved in Oregon, where PGE, an Enron-owned electric company, recently agreed to refund $10 million dollars it had collected from Oregonians without paying the taxing district. The court hasn't dotted the i's or crossed the t's, and won't give even its preliminary ruling for another week, but both parties to the suit have settled.

Hundreds of thousands of notices are set to be mailed in April, about the time for federal income taxes to come due. Of course, individuals and families with reasonable monthly bills will have to be satisfied with rather modest refunds. But according to one of the lawyers who wrote the settlement, the average refund to commercial payers will be $108, the average refund to major industrial companies, $70,000, and some of the biggest refunds will go to state and local government agencies that paid the biggest bills in the period covered by the lawsuit.

Yes, folks, the justice system can work even when the regulators (necessarily) fail us.

Back

Afghanistan: Liberated for Islamists who kill Christians?

Mar. 20 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

The Bush administration assured us late last year that the new Iraqi constitution would not threaten religious liberty. This, despite the provisions saying no law could be passed that was "inconsistent with Islam." Our concern that such promises of religious freedom will be meaningless in light of Islamic law is once again justified by religious persecution in Afghanistan. The Afghan constitution, adopted after America liberated that country from the Taliban, has a provision similar to that of the new Iraqi constitution. Now, we receive a horrifying report of Abdul Rahman, 41, who is on trial for his life in Kabul, Afghanistan. Rahman's crime? He has admitted converting to Christianity. That there should even be such a trial is an outrage. How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians? Such a "trial" is a flagrant violation of Article 18 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights--which the current Afghan government even incorporated into its constitution. Article 18 reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Ric