BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #78 04/07/2006
Click on an article to view OR just scroll through the Articles:
1. Prayer has played an important role in U.S. history
2. South Texas Sheriffs Tell Congress of War at Border
3. Strike The Colors? America struggles with the debate over immigration
4. It’s Now or Never to Stop Illegal Immigrant Amnesty
5. Mexico's Weapon
6. Amnesty--Waving the Mexican Flag in Your Face
7. Administration gets Tough reaching a deal with China to take back nearly 40,000 illegal
8. Behind The Protests are some of the most extreme anti-American groups in the country
9. Striking the Colors in our own American public schools
10. The Minutemen are rallying Americans to show their patriotic support for our flag
11. Senators said to have sealed immigration deal; Amnesty called a path to citizenship
12. Reports now indicate: The White House is Surrendering on Judges?
13. Author: U.S. Liberals Defending Islam are Supporting Terrorists' Agenda to Islamize America
15. Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Protect Children from Sexually Explicit Library Books
16. Texas Attorney General Abbott joins 46 state AGs in call for IRS to protect private Tax return information
17. Deltona Mayor-Commissioners Reinstate "Silent Invocation"
18. Bill Would Force Schools to Support Homosexuality
19. Is TV Responsible for Coarsening Discourse in America?
20. Nationally and Internationally opposed .xxx Pornography Domain Not Dead Yet
21. Real Insecurity My Democratic Colleagues Don't Shoot Straight.
22. Democrats' impeachment agenda
23. DHS Gets New Faith-Based Office
24. Darwinism Critic Applauds California School District's New Science Policy
25. Bible Literacy Project under Fire for 'Deception, Distortion, and Outright Falsehoods'
26. Ford Praised For Supporting Homosexual Marriage
27. America's Hometown Jihad
28. Immigrating Terror: Congressman's gay agenda eased way for 9/11 hijackers to enter the U.S.
29. US to test 700-ton explosive June1st at the Nevada test range
Prayer has played an important role in U.S. history
March 31 2006 Tony Phyrillas
T
he conflict over separation of church and state has raged for decades in the United States, fueled primarily by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has demonstrated an anti-Christian bias since its founding by atheists and communists.
More recently, activist judges have taken on the cause, arguing that they know better than the Founding Fathers what the Constitution means. These unelected, unaccountable judges believe they have a right to impose their will on the majority.
I received a lengthy letter from a reader disputing my argument in an earlier column that the reason the United States has prospered for so long is because most of its citizens are people of faith. The reader argues that the United States is a secular nation and has succeeded only because religion has been held in check by the government for more than 200 years.
The letter-writer quotes Thomas Jefferson extensively to bolster his argument that the Founding Fathers opposed religious influence on government. The secular left loves to quote Jefferson when it wants to promote the so-called "wall of separation" between church and state.
The problem with their argument is that Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting the Constitution. Jefferson was in France when the document was written and ratified by the states. It doesn't matter what Jefferson had to say. And the secular left can't explain away the fact that the words "wall of separation" appear nowhere in the Constitution. There's no language in the Constitution that would lead anyone to conclude the United States was established as a secular nation.
Even the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Jefferson, makes references to God. The first paragraph refers to "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." The second paragraph refers to unalienable rights "endowed by their Creator." The Declaration ends with a reference to "the protection of Divine Providence."
The Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. They couldn't comprehend a nation where God played no role in the affairs of men, including helping guide the country's elected leadership. The concept of "secularism" was foreign to the Founding Fathers. These were men who believed the United States gained its independence in large measure because of the divine will of God. George Washington, who breathed life into the Constitution as the nation's first president, often mentioned God in carrying out his public duties.
Even the First Amendment, which the secular left often relies as its justification for suppression of religious displays and customs, clearly states that faith has a role to play in public life. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's the entire reference to religion in the Constitution.
Clearly Congress cannot establish a national religion. That doesn't mean religion cannot play a central role in how the nation is governed. The First Amendment gives us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The second half of the sentence — "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" — means government has no authority to suppress the expression of religion as long as other laws are not being broken. Why do liberals insist on questioning the motives of the Founding Fathers?
This nation can trace its Christian heritage to 1620 when the Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth Rock. We're a nation that proclaims "In God We Trust" on our currency. Ours is a nation whose leaders take an oath to uphold the Constitution by placing their hand on the Bible and uttering the words, "So help me God." It's only been in the last 60 years that liberal judges have gone astray from the intention of the Founding Fathers to place arbitrary restrictions on the "free exercise" of religion in the United States.
Men of faith who shared Judeo-Christian principles — a common morality that has guided this nation for more than 230 years — founded the United States and wrote the laws that have helped this country prosper into its third century. If you need a refresher on how faith and prayer formed the United States as we know it today, I recommend, "One Nation Under God: The History of Prayer in America" by James P. Moore Jr.
"I find it sadly odd that so many extensive biographies have been written about famous Americans in which the author barely, if at all, has touched upon the spiritual life of the subject," Moore writes in the book. "Far from being merely sentimental, prayer is an integral vibrant influence, particularly for Americans and within the context of the American experience."
The question facing the United States in the 21st century is whether the nation wants to abandon its tradition of Judeo-Christian values in place of a secular society where the government is the center of everyone's life.
"To dismiss prayer in the life of America is to embark on a fool's errand," Moore writes. "Prayer has been and always will be an integral part of the national character. It is clearly a subject that must be explored in far greater depth if anyone is to understand the people who have made the United States what it is today and what it will be tomorrow."
Tony Phyrillas is a columnist for The Mercury in Pottstown, Pa. E-mail: tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Back
South Texas Sheriffs Tell Congress of War at Border
April 4 2006 Ivy J. Sellers Human Events Online
S
heriffs from counties along the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas say the daily battle with illegal immigrants continues to escalate.
Illegal immigrants trying to get across the border "are getting so bold as to try to run over officers, assaulting officers," said Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth County. "They're definitely out gunning us, out manning us and the sophistication that they're using is beyond our capabilities at this point."
West, along with four other sheriffs and a representative of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition, came to Washington, D.C., to discuss the situation with Congress today. Rep. Michael McCaul (R.-Tex.), who represents their district, actively participated in the discussions. Following the presentation of a video clip documenting the terror along the border, McCaul said he couldn't believe what he had seen.
"Rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine gun fire, many bodies lying in the street -- you'd think you're looking at the streets of Baghdad and yet it's right across from our border in Texas," he said. "This bleeds over into our country and that's why it's so critical to secure our border."
Sheriff Rick Flores of Webb County oversees the city of Laredo, which, he says, "is probably the hottest spot in terms of violence."
"These people pretty much have taken control of the border and they're expanding it to New Mexico and Arizona," Flores said. "They want to take control of the whole border, and they pretty much have control right now."
Flores continued: "Since they already have an infrastructure in place, what we’re concerned about is potential terrorists making their way through Mexico. We’ve already got some intelligence that they’re making their way through Mexico, using Mexico as a jump board as they’re making their way into the United States."
HUMAN EVENTS Asked if any of the men had seen an evidence of al Qaeda-related terrorists entering the U.S. while patrolling the border, Rick Glancey of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition said that information must be kept confidential as ongoing investigations are currently taking place.
"But I will say this to you … [earlier] this year, [Robert] Mueller (director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) made reference to the fact that there were some Iraqis that were intercepted trying to make their way into the United States," Glancey said. "If someone from the federal government in law enforcement is telling you that, then I think all the stories you're hearing from members of Congress, and maybe members of the U.S. Senate, will put you in the right line of what we're having to deal with."
In response to questions about the practicality of a fence, Flores said a physical barrier along the border, such as the one in San Diego, would be helpful only in certain areas of Texas.
"The reason they've got a wall [in California] is that because it's no man's land," he explained. "Well, in Texas it's a little different -- you know the border -- people own land along the border. It's very difficult for you to come in there and say, 'You know what, we're going build a wall,' when these people use the river for irrigation and to water their cattle. They are looking at a virtual wall which is technology and that's worked out really great."
More than anything, the sheriffs would like to see H.R. 4360, the bill passed by the House in December, fully funded.
The bill designates local sheriff's offices as the second line of defense along the border, allowing them to come to the assistance of United States Customs Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But it has yet to be approved for funding.
And, according to Flores, that's what they are waiting on.
"We have to improve our resources -- and I'm talking about local law enforcement and that's the reason why we're here is because we have to assist federal agencies and the thing is that local law enforcement has never received any support and the Texas-Mexican border has been neglected for a very long time," he said.
Back
Strike The Colors? America struggles with the debate over immigration
Mar. 30 2006 Gary Bauer American Values
I
n a bygone era, “striking the colors” – or lowering the flag – was the ultimate sign of surrender. That symbolism has not lost its significance today as America struggles with the debate over immigration reform. In one community in Florida, residents woke up Sunday morning to find the Mexican flag flying atop their flagpole. Yesterday, in Houston, Texas, the principal of Reagan High School had to be ordered by school district officials to take down the Mexican flag he put up in support of the protesting Hispanic students who walked out of their classes. More walkouts are expected and some students are promising to raise the Mexican flag themselves! These are just two examples, but they are not isolated incidents, and these actions suggest we may well have bigger problems on our hands than mere policy disputes. There appears to be a considerable degree of seething
anti-Americanism fueling some of those involved in these mass protests.
My good friend Linda Chavez, with whom I worked in the Reagan Administration and who is pro-immigration, published an editorial in today’s New York Times lamenting this behavior and concluded, “If Latino advocates hope to influence the outcome of the Senate debate on immigration…they would do well to…trade their ancestral flags for the Stars and Stripes.” She is right. But, now we are reaping the harvest of multiculturalism run amok. Contrary to Ronald Reagan’s vision of a “shining city upon a hill,” the radical Left, which has hijacked our educational establishment, sees America as a force for evil in the world. Patriotism, the love of “God and Country,” and assimilation – values that reinforced our American nationality – were all to be discouraged. We replaced the “melting pot” with the “salad bowl.” We rejected “from many one” and embraced “diversity.” I believe this explains a lot of America’s unease with our current immigration mess.
Back
It’s Now or Never to Stop Illegal Immigrant Amnesty
Mar. 31 2006 American Conservative Union
F
or the safety and security of our great nation, please join with me to demand the United States Senate “DEFEAT the MCCAIN/KENNEDY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT AMNESTY” bill.
Over 12 million immigrants already have broken the law and are living in this country illegally. Hundreds-of-thousands of them have taken to the streets in recent days to DEMAND amnesty here in the U.S.
They hope that by their show of force, they can intimidate American citizens and Congress into giving them a “free pass” to stay in the U.S.
The Senate is on the verge of giving into the demands of these illegal aliens...
What can be worse then that? How about their being allowed to receive FREE SCHOOLING, FREE HOUSING and FREE MEDICAL COVERAGE!! Well it’s free for them, but you and I pay the bill!!
Under the compromise that Sen. Specter worked out with Sen. Kennedy (D-MA), they 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.
Every minute we wait, an additional 2 illegal aliens cross our borders. While we can only guess at the number of illegal aliens in the United States the current estimate is that there are more than 11 million people in the country illegally.
A previously released report for Congress pointed out that in 2004 the United States Border Patrol (USBP) apprehended 1,158,802 people attempting to enter the United States illegally. Of those, 75,389 were non-Mexican. However, as of July 11 2005, there were 119,182non-Mexican apprehensions already this year.
The problem is getting worse at an alarming rate. FBI Director Robert Mueller has already warned that hundreds of “special-interest aliens” from terrorist nations may have already used Mexico as a way to enter the United States. And more are planning to do so even now!
Every day we wait, an additional 3,178 illegal aliens cross our borders.
This same report states that “the sheer increase in non-Mexican aliens coming across the border makes it more difficult for the United States Border Patrol (USBP) agents to readily identify and process each OTM (other then Mexican), thereby increasing the chances that a potential terrorist could slip through the system”.
The report goes on to say that “Additionally, there have been reports that terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, have been operating, recruiting members, and may be training terrorists in South American countries including Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay”
And if that does not cause you serious concern as it has me, this most certainly will.
Department of Homeland Security and other Federal officials said in the same report, “The existence and expansion of border smuggling networks specializing in illicitly bringing human beings into the United States can represent a threat to homeland security. These smuggling networks may be opportunistic, as prominent DHS officials have suggested, and the potential exists that they may be used by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to bring terrorists or weapons of mass destruction into the United States.”
Every single American, in every corner of the country, is at risk from our unsecured borders!
These illegal immigrants cost each of us - you, me and every other citizen of the United States - billions of dollars every year. Your tax dollars are paying for welfare, healthcare, education, prison and other costs for illegal aliens. Do we need to wait until we experience another 9-11 for Congress to act?
Even the AFL-CIO is against the so called guest worker program. The day after the MCCAIN/KENNEDY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT AMNESTY billed cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said "Guest worker programs are a bad idea and harm all workers".
Every month we wait, an additional 98,518 illegal aliens cross our borders. Recognize any of these names: Muhammad Atta, Waleed M. al-Shehri, or Salem al-Hamzi? These were some of the 9/11 terrorists. And they were in the U.S. because we did not devote enough resources to keeping our borders secure.
Most people now understand that illegal immigration affects the entire nation. Illegal immigrants are showing up all over the country.
Local governments are being forced to deal with increased social welfare costs, as well as an increase in crime, including violent crime.
For example, several Virginia suburbs have seen an increase in machete crimes, as foreign gangs seem to use this weapon to cut off fingers of rivals.
If the local government must shoulder this increased burden, who suffers?
The answer is you and me. We must again bear the burden of rising taxes.
But if SECURING OUR BORDERS is not the cornerstone of this legislation, no amount of political posturing will come close to solving the problem.
WE MUST SECURE OUR BORDERS AND ENFORCE OUR OWN LAWS!! Our national security is at risk each and every day our borders are not secured.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), called measures like the McCain/Kennedy bill a "pro illegal immigration bill," and said it's possible such a bill could pass because "Congress has insulated itself from the views of the American people on this issue for the last 10 years."
If you believe our borders need to be secured against the onslaught of foreign terrorists and millions of illegal immigrants streaming across our unguarded borders, and...
If you agree that the federal government must protect our borders, then we must act today to protect our country from another 9/11.
Make no mistake; if you and I wait for the U.S. Government to close our borders to illegal crossings... it will be too late. We must DEMAND that they do it NOW!
But still our border is wide open!
Every year we wait, an additional 1,159,970 illegal aliens cross our borders. It is CRITICAL that we ACT TODAY!
If we can FLOOD the offices of the Senator leadership with TENS OF THOUSANDS of petitions, demanding that they REJECT any "guest worker" amnesty bill, we CAN stop Specter and Kennedy's dangerous bill dead in its tracks. But we need YOUR help.
I need your signed “NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS!” petition to show Sen. Specter and Congress that American taxpayers will not stand for this unfair, unsafe, and insulting legislation.
Join me and take a stand and tell congress you will not look the other way while they turn 11 million lawbreakers into legal U.S. citizens.
It’s NOW OR NEVER for us to stand firm against amnesty for illegal aliens and other immigration abuses. But now it’s up to you and me to do our part as well!
Back
Mexico's Weapon
Mar. 31 2006 William R. Hawkins FrontPageMagazine.com
P
rominent on display at demonstrations around the country supporting illegal immigration has been the flag of Mexico. The last time demonstrators waved the flag of a foreign government in American streets on such a scale was during the Vietnam War when New Leftists were championing the cause of North Vietnam against the United States. Those street people were mainly mush-brained college students whose ignorance of world affairs allowed them to be manipulated by their Marxist professors. This time is different. The protesters are not just advocating a foreign cause, they are part of it. Most of the Latino students boycotting classes in California and elsewhere should not be in those classes to begin with, since they have no legal right to even be in the United
States. Indeed, their enrollment has generated a financial drain on state and local budgets across the country.
When the demonstrations started, I was in England. Media coverage there combined the marches in the U.S. with the student protests in France over labor reform. Again, the symbolism harkened back to the chaos of May 1968 when student and labor union violence almost collapsed the government of Charles DeGaulle. Aging radicals on both sides of the Atlantic wish to recapture the dark chaos of the 1960s.
The United Kingdom has its own illegal immigration problems. On March 25, a Chinese gang leader was found guilty of the manslaughter of 21 Chinese illegal immigrants who drowned in Morecambe Bay two years ago while harvesting shellfish at night. I watched with a mixture of amusement and outrage as a self-styled spokesman for the Chinese community claimed that the British Home Secretary should have been the one indicted because immigration laws "forced" illegals to work under hazardous condition because they cannot work in the open. A dapper British businessman then argued for dropping the term "illegal" in favor of "economic immigrant" so that firms could have a ready supply of cheap labor.
T
hese arguments are heard here too. But what may be "cheap" for a company can be very expensive for the society at large. Some 40 percent of the inmates in California prisons are illegal aliens, who saw America as the land of opportunity for criminal pursuits. Our de facto "open borders" policy cannot discriminate between those whose ambitions are honest or dishonest. And no new system can solve this problem if it is still possible to get into America and survive outside the parameters of the law. Truly effective border security is the pre-requisite for any system of legal immigration.
It is the prevention of border security that motivates both the street protests and the Mexican government which is helping to orchestrate them. The timing of the protests is not just connected with legislation in the U.S. Congress, whose deliberations are long and convoluted. The more direct link is to the summit between President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun March 30-31. Mr. Fox has activated his fifth column in America as a diplomatic weapon. He has been aided by a network of Spanish-language radio stations and newspapers, elements in the Catholic Church and the usual variety of left-wing "civil rights" groups like the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU. This movement poses a threat to U.S. security and sovereignty that makes even the risk of terrorist infiltration across the southern border pale in significance.
Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said March 27 that border security could not be the only topic at Cancun. He said all "must share responsibility so that those forced to migrate be regulated by plans that include respecting their dignity." But what has "forced" Mexicans to become illegal immigrants? The answer is the sad fact that Mexico has become a failed state, which hopes to push costs onto its northern neighbor so its corrupt elites can continue in power without having to risk domestic reform.
In a series of newspaper ads in U.S. papers, the Mexican government claimed it could do more to control its side of the border, but would only do so if the U.S. adopts "a far-reaching guest workers scheme" and that "Mexico should participate in its design, management, supervision and evaluation." In other words, Mexico wants a role in writing American laws for its benefit, and will use the pressure of mass migration and fifth column political warfare to pressure Washington into accepting its demands.
The proper response is to tell Mexico that if it is purposely refusing to act as a responsible neighbor along the border, then it will be held accountable for its actions and sanctions will be imposed. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration declared in its 2002 National Security Strategy a policy of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities." This is particularly applicable to Mexico, as it is a restatement of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine as applied to Latin America. "'Chronic wrong doing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation" is how Teddy Roosevelt put it. The Fox regime cannot be allowed to intervene in the U.S. political process or send its agents into American streets with impunity.
At a March 27 naturalization ceremony for new American citizens who attained their coveted status through the lawful process, President Bush said "The first element is securing our border. Our immigration system cannot function if we cannot control the border. Illegal immigration puts a strain on law enforcement and public resources, especially in our border communities. Our nation is also fighting a war on terror, and terrorists crossing the border could create destruction on a massive scale. The responsibility of government is clear: We must enforce the border." It remains to be seen if he adheres to this position at the Cancun summit.
Quoteworthy: ----- "This country has lost control of its borders. No country can do that and survive." —Ronald Reagan
Back
Amnesty--Waving the Mexican Flag in Your Face
April 3 2006 FAIR/Christian Newswire
Americans are waking up to the threat of uncontrolled mass immigration. The illegal i
|
Michlle Marquez (left), a student at Lamar Middle School in Irving, Texas, was accosted for having a U.S. flag during a rally by illegal aliens at Kiest park in Dallas.
|
mmigration lobby has overplayed their hand. They relied upon a sympathetic media to portray mass demonstrations by illegal aliens as a good thing.
There's just one problem with that strategy - not everyone got the message, as you can see. When illegal alien teenagers ditch school for a week, shut down major freeways, and hoist the Mexican flag at their school, people notice. And, they get angry!
"Los Angeles talk show host Tammy Bruce reported that protesters burned American flags and waved placards of the North American continent with America crossed out."
Where was the Border Patrol during these marches? The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents? The same place they'll be if the Bush guest worker amnesty passes - ordered to stand down, watching from the sidelines, unable to help.
Americans are fed up with people who crash the borders, then show up demanding better treatment than our fellow citizens. If there's one common element among these street protests, it's the arrogance and the condescension of the marchers that is turning off Americans who see the reality behind the happy open-borders rhetoric. FAIR
WASHINGTON, The debate over the Senate’s version of the Immigration Bill to stop the flow of Illegal Aliens into our nation is in full swing in Washington DC.
One of the arguments for the new bill is that it will provide a difficult path for Illegal Aliens to gain permanent residency in our country. Since that means that they will end up in America, it sounds like amnesty.
Some of these proposals would include Illegal Aliens registering as a guest worker, paying a fine and working here for 11 years before they become eligible to apply for citizenship.
One of the arguments for passing a bill with such a clause is that we don’t have the resources to round up 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens and deport them. Another argument is that we don’t have the resources or enough jail space to put these Illegal Aliens in jail. Of course a high percentage of Illegal Aliens are already in our prison system.
Don Swarthout, President, of Christians Reviving America’s Values said, “If we do not have the resources to round up these Illegal Aliens, deport them or to put them in jail, how are we going to enforce making them register? What resources are we going to use to make sure that will happen? It really seems like this bill is really all about amnesty.”
“When the protestors were marching in Los Angeles, Atlanta, and in other cities, they carried Mexican Flags. By waving their Mexican flags in our faces the protestors seemed to say, ‘We are Mexicans and we are here to take over your country. We will tell you what to do.’ That is just wrong and it will not be tolerated by the majority of Americans voters. We must close our borders, without any excuses.” Swarthout said.
“If we don’t stop this illegal immigration the cost of welfare, prison system, education and hospitalization for Illegal Aliens will continue to erode away the financial well being of the United States. If we are already out of resources, how can we keep this whole thing going? America may be in trouble already,”
Back
Administration gets Tough reaching a deal with China to take back nearly 40,000 illegal
April 5 2006 Gary Bauer American Values
T
he Department of Homeland Security is on the verge of deporting tens of thousands of illegal aliens. The only reason there has been a delay is that their native country has been refusing to take them back. But yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the administration is very close to reaching a deal with China to take back nearly 40,000 illegal aliens who have been smuggled into the country or overstayed student visas. In the meantime, some are being held in detention centers - at a cost of $95 per day - while most have been released. Some are tracked by electronic monitoring devices and others are reporting in at regular intervals.
The administration should be commended for enforcing our laws in this instance. But how is it that we can track and deport tens of thousands of Chinese yet remain virtually powerless to prevent thousands and thousands of other illegal aliens from entering and remaining in the country?
Back
Behind The Protests are some of the most extreme anti-American groups in the country
April 5 2006 Gary Bauer American Values
S
o-called "immigrant rights" supporters got the nation's attention with the recent marches and protests that brought thousands of foreign flag waving demonstrators into the streets in various cities across the country.
But they're not done yet. More rallies, marches and protests are planned for April 10th. And on May 1st they intend to prove to us just how much we rely on illegal immigrants by staging a nationwide boycott. On that day, amnesty supporters (and presumably massive numbers of illegal immigrants) reportedly will not show up for work, will not go to school, and will not spend their money in shops and businesses.
Who is behind this effort to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens? Some of the most extreme anti-American groups in the country, including ANSWER: the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism coalition. ANSWER's steering committee includes the following organizations: the Free Palestine Alliance, the Muslim Student Association, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the Mexican Solidarity Network, among others. These folks are pacifists, anarchists and socialists. They first organized to protest free trade, but really took off after September 11th. Their "grievance" wasn't the mass murder of thousands of Americans, but rather their fear that we might actually do something about it! If these folks ever succeed in setting the public policy agenda of this country, as they appear to be doing on illegal immigration, our nation will be in deep trouble.
Back
Striking the Colors in our own American public schools
April 5 2006 Gary Bauer American Values
T
he immigration debate is taking a disturbing turn in classrooms around the country. According to recent press reports, while the nation is engaged in this great dialogue, some public school officials in Colorado and California are reacting by banning American flags and other expressions of patriotism, including camouflage pants! Needless to say, parents and students alike are outraged. One eighth grader commented, "It upsets me that we cannot support our troops, the military. We can't support our country. If we're American, I think we should be proud to be an American." School officials ostensibly claim that they are acting in the best interests of the children's safety. The principal of one Colorado middle school said, "Safety is my first concern so I'm going to do things to keep us from getting to the point where anybody is hurt or being suspended for fighting." But
what does it say about the state of our union, and the lack of assimilation, when it is no longer safe for American kids to wear a shirt with the Stars and Stripes in our own public schools?
Back
The Minutemen are rallying Americans to show their patriotic support for our flag
April 5 2006 – Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
As schools ban old Glory, Minutemen extend: 'Take An American Flag To Work Day' to every Thursday in April and May 1st
P
HOENIX, AZ April 5, 2006 today a call by Minutemen for citizens across the country to make every Thursday in April “Take an American Flag To Work Day!” The Minutemen are rallying Americans to culminate their patriotic show of support for our flag on Monday, May 1st—when communist, anarchist and other pro-illegal alien radicals are attempting to stage a nationwide strike promoting amnesty and unsecured borders. The Minutemen call on our nation’s silent majority to publicly carry an American flag to work and everywhere they go, beginning Thursday, April 6, and continuing every Thursday in April through Monday, May 1st.
The extension through May Day of the “Take an American Flag To Work Day” campaign was requested by Minuteman volunteers and supporters who are outraged by the recent desecrations of the American flag by pro-illegal alien mobs. Current reports of the banning of the American flag and patriotic red, white and blue clothing by school districts in San Diego, CA and around the country in reaction to illegal alien student walk-outs have given even greater urgency to the “Take an American Flag To Work Day” initiative of the Minutemen.
As reported by Jerry Seper in The Washington Times on April 4, 2006, the May Day pro-illegal alien and unsecured borders boycott is being organized by the ANSWER coalition, a front group for the communist Workers World Party whose steering committee includes radical anti-American groups such as the Free Palestine Alliance, the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Nicaragua Network, the Korea Truth Commission, the Muslim Student Association, the Mexico Solidarity Network and the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Simcox issued the following statement in support of “Take an American Flag To Work Day”:
“The American flag has been burned, dragged in the streets, thrown in the garbage and hung upside down under the flag of Mexico on U.S. soil by pro-illegal alien protesters. Now Old Glory is being banned by U.S. government-funded schools around the country so as not to offend illegal aliens and their enablers.
“The American people are fed up with this assault on our American flag that our citizen soldiers, our families and forefathers, fought and died for—to keep this country free. The Minutemen are calling on our fellow Americans to defend Old Glory by publicly carrying it and proudly showing the red, white and blue wherever they go on Thursdays in April—work, school, shopping or just walking through the neighborhood.
“President Bush has called for a civil debate on illegal immigration and border security—but there is nothing ‘civil’ about desecrating the Stars and Stripes. He asks for a debate that ‘does not pit neighbor against neighbor’—but good neighbors in America are not trespassers, lawbreakers, or flag desecrators. The Minutemen urge the President to stop making excuses for anarchists, and to speak out in support of the American flag, and the rights AND responsibilities of liberty it so nobly symbolizes. The Minutemen stand in defense of America, honoring the duties and loyalties that secure our responsible self-government and the blessings of our God-given freedom.
“Fundamental respect for Old Glory seems the least the President should ask of the millions of illegal aliens to whom he’s offering amnesty—not only at the expense of the American soldiers, taxpayers and institutions paying in blood and treasure for their illegal presence on our territory, but also at the expense of our national honor, dignity and sovereignty.”
Back
Senators said to have sealed immigration deal; Amnesty called a path to citizenship
April 6 2006 Donna Smith Reuters News service
S
enate leaders announced a breakthrough on Thursday on a long-sought overhaul of immigration law, clearing the way for possible approval of a bill that would give millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters some details had to be worked out, but that they expected the Senate to pass a comprehensive reform package before lawmakers leave for a two-week break, scheduled to begin this weekend.
"We've had a huge breakthrough ... that will lead us to the conclusion of passing a very important bill," Frist said at a news conference with Reid and about a dozen other Republicans and Democrats.
The deal centers on a compromise offered by Republicans that included a temporary worker program backed by President George W. Bush. It also would allow illegal immigrants who have been in the United States more than five years a chance to become citizens if they meet a series of requirements and pay a fine.
Bush, who has been pushing for comprehensive changes, said he was encouraged by the breakthrough and urged quick passage of the legislation that has sparked protests and anger.
"I recognize there are still details to be worked out," Bush said as he prepared to return to Washington after a trip to Charlotte, North Carolina. "I would encourage the members to work hard to get a bill done prior to the upcoming break."
The measure still faced opposition from some Republicans who said the bill would give amnesty to people who broke the law.
"We still have some obstacles," said Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.
REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS
Five Senate Republicans -- Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, both of Georgia -- announced their opposition.
They said, however, that they do not know if they could muster the needed 41 votes in the 100-member Senate to stop the bill with a procedural roadblock.
The Senate compromise would also allow illegal immigrants who had been in the United States less than five years but more than two years to apply for a work visa. But they would have to travel to a U.S. port of entry and step outside the country to get it.
Any Senate bill would have to be merged with legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that focuses only on border security and enforcement of immigration laws. That bill would make it a crime, instead of a civil offense, to be in the country illegally and calls for construction of a fence along parts of the U.S. border with Mexico.
That bill angered Hispanics and their supporters and sparked protests around the country. Nationwide demonstrations also were planned for Monday.
Reid said lawmakers where happy to get a deal that will help millions of people who are living and working in the United States, many in low-paying, hard jobs.
"Even though we all feel good about today, it pales in comparison to the millions and millions of people out there who today feel that they have a chance to participate in the American dream," Reid said.
President Bush praised the lawmakers' efforts, noting the details were unfinished, and encouraged them "to work hard and get the bill done." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he had been assured the president supports the emerging measure.
Not everyone was satisfied.
"I'm not impressed," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who has criticized earlier versions of the measure as too lenient on lawbreakers. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona joined him in criticizing the measure, as did Georgia Republicans Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson.
Beyond the illegal immigrants, there were other thorny issues to be clarified. Senate leaders had yet to publicly unveil draft legislation to make sure that only legal workers were hired in the future, for example.
Nor was it clear what type of assurances, if any, Democrats had received from the White House and Republicans about compromise talks with the Republican-controlled House later this year. The House has approved legislation limited to border security, and while GOP leaders have signaled support for a broader measure, Democrats have expressed concern in recent days that they will be pressured to make unacceptable additional concessions to achieve a final compromise.
QUOTHWORTHY: ----------- "If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)
Back
Reports now indicate: The White House is Surrendering on Judges?
Mar. 31 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council
A
ttention quickly shifted away from judicial confirmations after the Bush administration won victories in the confirmation battles over Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. However, there are still too many vacancies on the federal bench -- 35 district court vacancies and eighteen on the very important U.S. Court of Appeals. Outstanding nominees like Bret Kavanaugh and Terence Boyle have been blocked for years. Henry Saad and Daniel Ryan, two Michigan judges who would have made outstanding federal judges, were left in limbo so long they finally withdrew their names. This is a terrible loss. Worse, reports now indicate the White House is surrendering on judges. Apparently, the administration will give the Democrats one nominee to the federal courts in Michigan for three of the
President's preferred nominees. This bad deal seriously compromises the long-term drive to reform the judiciary. It negotiates away the powers of the Presidency. George W. Bush campaigned hard on this issue in 2002 and 2004. . .and he did not win just three-quarters of the Presidency. The voters supported him against the obstructionists in the Senate. They even removed the obstructionist-in-chief, Tom Daschle (D-SD). Remember, the liberal judges are the ones who find "rights" to abortion and sodomy in the Constitution; they're the ones who want to destroy the Boy Scouts and ban "Under God" from the Pledge. The President was winning on this. So why surrender on judges now?
Additional Resources:
Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution
Back
Author: U.S. Liberals Defending Islam are Supporting Terrorists' Agenda to Islamize America
March 30 2006 Chad Groening and Jenni Parker Agape Press
A best-selling author who once had to escape from Afghanistan says America needs to evaluate seriously the meaning of free speech in light of wartime realities in the contemporary environment of Islamic terrorist aggression.
Dr. Phyllis Chesler is a former college professor and the author of numerous books examining historical and contemporary culture, including About Men (1979); Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism's Holy Site (2002); and The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It (2005). In addition to her teaching and writing, she has been a strong opponent of anti-Semitism and waged several political, legal, religious and human rights campaigns in the U.S., Canada, Europe, the Far East and the Middle East.
In 1961, however, Chesler was only 20 years old when she fell in love and married a man from Afghanistan. And when the American woman accompanied her Afghan husband to Kabul, her U.S. passport was confiscated, and she learned very quickly all about the treatment of women in an Islamic society. Chesler managed to escape and says she literally kissed the ground at the airport when she arrived back home in the States.
But now the retired college professor believes Americans are increasingly unable to recognize the vast difference between a Muslim-dominated society and their own because they are being what she calls "Islamized." She claims the liberal media and the largely liberal academic community in America have turned the U.S. Constitution into a tool to defend anti-American rhetoric and pro-Islamic propaganda against the truth.
"If you have students and professors saying America is to blame for everything and Israel has to be exterminated and is to blame for everything also, and Islam cannot be criticized," Chesler posits, "and you cannot tell the truth about Islam lest you be branded a racist or, worse, a neoconservative, this is the way in which America might be Islamized."
By this means, the retired academic says, liberal college and university campuses are being turned into ideological sanctuaries where radical Islamists can hide behind the Constitution of the United States while they foment their hatred against the America and Israel.
"We have a culture, beginning with the left-wing media and with the largely progressive and left-wing university systems, that wants us to be very sensitive to different cultures and to different religions," Chesler contends. But as liberal students and professors blame the U.S. and Israel for the conflicts in the Middle East and everything else, she says, they close their eyes to any and all criticism of Islam.
In so doing, the best-selling author maintains, the Left in America is playing right into the hands of radical Islam and promoting Muslim extremists' global agenda. As a result, she asserts, "We are now using First Amendment rights and academic freedom rights to protect hate speech and to protect lies."
Back
Hallmark/ABC to Air The Ten Commandments April 9-10
April 6 2006 American Family Association
A
merican Family Association asked Dr. John Oswalt, Old Testament professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, to review the new Hallmark/ABC version of The Ten Commandments scheduled to air on April 9-10 on ABC.
If you are wanting to see a movie which is true to Scripture, then forget this version of The Ten Commandments.
Below are Dr. Oswalt's comments. We felt his review might be of help in making your decision to view or not to view the program.
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association
A review of Hallmark/ABC's The Ten Commandments to air this week
by John N. Oswalt
Research Professor of Old Testament
Wesley Biblical Seminary
Jackson, Mississippi
There is a lot to like about the movie.
In many cases, such as the healing of the water at Marah, or the giving of the manna, or the triumphing over the Egyptian diviners, the movie seems to follow the Bible text closely and presents good visual images of these.
The self-doubt of Moses and his inner struggles, especially in the early going, are probably accurate.
The rag-tag nature of the people and the vicious nature of Moses' opponents is well portrayed. There is no attempt to downplay the miraculous (in most cases).
That being said, I think the movie has a lot of problems.
The unnecessary departures from the Biblical story line:
The Pharaoh did not make a one-time attempt to kill the boy babies because of some silly prophecy. It was his settled policy that the mid-wives should conduct post-birth abortions in order to destroy the Israelites as a people. Aaron came out to meet Moses as directed by God and in confirmation of God's word to Moses. There was no hocus-pocus about Joseph giving them the "I AM" name in advance so that they could identify the deliverer.
Moses knew that he was to take them to Sinai where they would worship God; and they all knew where the Promised Land was.
The Golden Calf is expressly said to have been a molded image which Aaron cast from molten gold. They missed one of the best pieces of ironic humor in the Bible when Aaron whines to Moses, "I put the gold in the fire, and out came this calf!"
The additions to the story (all of which are designed to make the Lord [and Moses] look bad). Menrith, Zipporah’s rejection (which is not what the story implies), and the Hur incident are all used to say that God is harsh and demanding and really doesn’t care what he takes from us.
The omissions (which bother me most of all).
The conflict of the plagues was not between Moses and Pharaoh; it was between God and Pharaoh. This is lost by leaving out God's commands to Moses regarding each of the plagues.
The celebration by the sea recorded in Exodus 15. Moses was not weeping over some half-brother. He was leading the Israelites in exultant praise of God in one of the great hymns in all human history.
The whole point of the Exodus is the Covenant. This was not a "bargain" (the making of which takes about 4 minutes of the 180). The Covenant is a detailed revelation of the character of God, of which the 10 Commandments are a very brief summary. The people were carefully briefed on the nature of what was expected of them, both verbally and in writing. And when they agreed (Exodus 24) it was a very solemn ceremony, where they swore their obedience in blood, calling down curses on themselves if they failed, and culminating with Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and the 70 elders having a meal in the presence of God. Thus, the Golden Calf incident was done in the full knowledge of just what it was they were rejecting.
The conversations between Moses and God in both Exodus 32 and 34, both of which show God's compassion and his willingness to forgive and restore the relationship.
The Tabernacle (!!!), which is the climax of it all – God coming to take up residence in their midst, not in curse, but in blessing.
Probably the reason the Covenant and the Tabernacle are left out is because of the "scholars" the producers say they consulted with. Many scholars today insist that the covenant and Tabernacle are much later additions to the story. But, good grief, if they are going to go part way, why not go all the way? Most OT scholars today, sad to say, not only deny those things, they also deny that there was a Moses or an Exodus. So if you are going to do the story, do it all the way or not at all.
The distortions
The Amalekites were raiders from the far north of the Sinai peninsula. They had no settlements south of Mt. Sinai. Their presence that far south in the peninsula was simply a sign that they saw the rag-tag crowd as "easy pickings" for a lightning aggressive attack. This is why the Bible pronounced a curse on them. They were not protecting their territory; they were slaughtering people they (wrongly) believed were helpless.
It was the Levites who stood with Moses after the Golden Calf incident and they went through their own tribe picking out those who had led the false worship. The total killed (out of the huge group of people) was 3000. There was nothing like the wholesale slaughter depicted in the movie. The incident is only 3 verses long!
Back
Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Protect Children from Sexually Explicit Library Books
April 3 2006 Liberty Council
O
klahoma City, OK – The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill designed to protect children from being exposed to sexually explicit library books. Sponsored by Representative Sally Kern, the bill passed by 60-33, and it now heads to the Senate. Liberty Counsel consulted with Rep. Kern regarding the language of HB 2158.
House Bill 2158 states: “The Oklahoma Department of Libraries Board shall not grant or distribute any state funds that are allocated to libraries on a formula basis to any library, library district, or library system unless the library has taken action to place all children and young adult materials that contain homosexual or sexually explicit subject matter in a special area of the library which is separate and apart from the children and young adult sections of the library and the library has a policy in place to limit distribution of the material to adults only.”
Representative Kern said that children deserve a period of “protected innocence” in which they are shielded from sexually explicit material that turns young people into “sex machines.” Last year Laurie Taylor of Fayetteville, Arkansas, brought to light the problem of sexually explicit library books in the Arkansas public school libraries. Some of the books written for children included shocking material that graphically pictured and described sexual intercourse, rape, sadomasochism, group sex, pedophilia, bestiality, and incest between a father and his young daughter. One story in the book Fade, described a person who, while becoming invisible, sees a classmate’s dad paying another student to perform oral sex.
It is not surprising that the American Library Association (ALA) opposes the bill. The ALA also opposed the Children’s Internet Protection Act passed by Congress. This provides that a library may not receive federal assistance to provide internet access unless it installs software to block images that constitute obscenity or child pornography. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in United States v. American Library Association, Inc.
Liberty Counsel President and General Counsel Mathew D. Staver stated: “Exposing children to graphic sexual material at taxpayer expense is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The content of many books now written for children and easily accessible without the knowledge of their parents is disturbing. Federal, state and local governments are not required to fund libraries that refuse to implement reasonable protections designed to shield children from books that contain obscene or pornographic language or images.”
Back
Texas Attorney General Abbott joins 46 state AGs in call for IRS to protect private Tax return information
April 5 2006 Office of Attorney General Gregg Abbott
Abbott warns unlimited sharing of taxpayers' personal info would raise risk of ID theft
A
USTIN - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has joined 46 other state attorneys general in calling for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to limit the marketing of taxpayers' private tax return information by tax preparers. Abbott signed onto a letter submitted to the IRS by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) expressing the group's concerns about the ramifications of proposed IRS regulations that broaden disclosure rules but impose few obligations on the recipients of such disclosed information to protect the security of the data.
"Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the United States," said Attorney General Abbott. "Tax returns contain a wealth of information that would be a goldmine for identity thieves and could cost taxpayers countless hours and resources trying to clear their names. The proposed IRS guidelines do not go far enough to safeguard that information once a taxpayer has consented to its use. I join my colleagues in supporting the limited use of tax return information and encouraging stronger incentives for third parties to protect taxpayers' confidential information."
Current regulations permit tax preparers to share tax return information with the consent of the taxpayer only for purposes related to tax preparation. For example, some taxpayers opt to have their tax return information used to evaluate their eligibility for certain financial products, such as a refund anticipation loan or a home mortgage.
Under the proposed rules, tax return information can be shared for one year with any third party, including marketing firms and other data brokers, if the taxpayer consents. The IRS draft provides some guidance on format and content of consent to disclose forms to ensure that taxpayer consent is "knowing and voluntary."
In their letter, Attorney General Abbott and other state attorneys general first recommended an outright ban on marketing and non-preparer use of tax return information, noting that allowing such sharing of information undercuts the government's goal of having taxpayers provide full and accurate information to their tax preparers. The state attorneys general also suggested several safeguards to ensure protection of that information, should the IRS proceed with the proposed regulations.
The state attorneys general urged the IRS to ensure that taxpayer consent is in fact "knowing and voluntary" by requiring the use of a mandated document, separate from other tax preparation forms, that meets specific formatting and content requirements in addition to those set out in the proposed regulations. NAAG suggested that the IRS regulations prohibit obtaining consent to multiple uses or multiple disclosures in the same document so that taxpayers do not unintentionally give "blanket consent" and lose control over what happens to their information.
Additionally, NAAG recommended that the consent form should advise the taxpayer that they are not required to disclose tax return information in order to obtain tax preparation or any other services. The proposed regulations should also be modified to prohibit tax preparers from making any service conditional on taxpayers' agreeing to share personal return information.
NAAG also strongly discouraged allowing for the disclosure of entire tax returns, instead suggesting that regulations prohibit a tax preparer from using or disclosing information from a tax return that is not required to obtain a product or service the taxpayer has specifically agreed to. For example, if the taxpayer consented to share tax return information to learn more about retirement accounts, the tax preparer should not be allowed to share the taxpayer's medical information or other information not relevant to the product.
NAAG also recommended that the IRS adopt provisions that would ban the use of lotteries, raffles, and other similar games as a way to entice taxpayers' into sharing their return information.
"Taxpayers entrust their tax return preparers with sensitive information and deserve responsible behavior in return," added Attorney General Abbott. "Proper safeguards can keep identity thieves at bay and give taxpayers secure access to the products and services in which they may be interested."
The IRS met on April 4 to consider the proposed regulations.
Back
Deltona Mayor-Commissioners Reinstate "Silent Invocation"
April 5 2006 Liberty Council
D
eltona, FL - At the city commission meeting held April 3, 2006, the mayor, Dennis Mulder, and commissioners voted to reinstate the "Silent Invocation" as part of the agenda for future city commission meetings. The meeting was attended by many community residents who supported the move and who were upset when Mayor Mulder removed the word “invocation” earlier this year from the regular agenda.
One of the first changes the new mayor of Deltona made, following his recent election to office, was to change the "Silent Invocation" at the beginning of the city commission meetings to a "Moment of Silence," upon the advice of the city attorney, Roland Blossom. Both said they were concerned over "church and state" issues. Mr. Blossom warned that the city could be sued because "Silent Invocation" allegedly promotes religion.
The "Silent Invocation" had been on the agenda and part of the city commission’s meetings since Deltona was incorporated in 1995, along with the Pledge of Allegiance. The first city commissioners and first mayor, John Masiarczyk, initiated the "Silent Invocation" (where no verbal prayer is given), and it had been a tradition for the past ten years.
Mayor Mulder and Mr. Blossom caused even more controversy when they censored the paintings of Lloyd Marcus from a Black History Month display due to their religious content. Liberty Counsel filed suit against the city, and immediately the commissioners convened an emergency session where they voted to override the decision of Mulder and Blossom. Shortly thereafter, emails obtained by a public records request revealed that Mulder had been in communication with the ACLU, of which he is an active member. In one email, Mulder wrote: "The importance of the ACLU is immeasurable to me, my life, and my political philosophy."
Mathew D. Staver, Present and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, commented on the commissioners’ recent vote: "Throughout the history of America, courts, legislatures and local government bodies have opened their sessions with prayer. It was the prayer of Benjamin Franklin in 1787 that, during the Constitutional Convention, healed the splintered factions which then gave birth to the Constitution. The first official act of Congress was the appointment of a clergy to open each session with prayer. Prayer and politics have always been close friends."
Benjamin Franklin ended his prayer on June 28, 1787, with the following words: "I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."
Back
Bill Would Force Schools to Support Homosexuality
April 5 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link
California teachers would be barred from offering opposing view.
G
ender-neutral bathrooms in public schools? Girls running for prom king? Those are just a few of the possibilities which could result if the California Legislature passes SB 1437 which would force schools to adopt an exclusively pro-homosexual message.
Ron Prentice, who heads the California Family Council, a pro-family group based in Riverside, said California lawmakers are being pressured to adopt the bill, which would transform public schools into politically correct bastions.
California
Sen. Sheila James Kuehl
"What this specifically does is reflect negatively upon historic faith perspectives in public education," he said.
Prentice said SB 1437 would prevent textbooks, instructional materials or teaching content that would "adversely affect persons because of their gender — either real or perceived — or sexual orientation."
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, said the main threat this bill poses is that it deals with gender "in such a way as to deny that there are really naturally born boys and girls."
"What it does is adopt a definition of 'gender' that says it can't be 'stereotypically associated with a person's assigned sex at birth,' " he said. "That means that if you think you're a girl, even if you're a boy, you're to be encouraged in that fantasy."
If adopted and implemented in California classrooms, he said the legislation would wreak havoc on children's understanding of themselves and others.
"It opens the door for the entire homosexual/trangendered agenda — which is to confuse people into believing that you can be anything you want to be, that sex itself is arbitrary and that marriage shouldn't be limited to a man and a woman," Knight added.
And the legislation would ban any opinions to the contrary.
"When the bill forces teachers to talk only positively about homosexuality, what it's saying is you have to lie about it," he said. "You can't bring in the negative health data, all the emotional consequences, and the effects on families. They're basically setting educators up to mislead kids directly on this topic. I don't know of any other topics in schools that are treated like this. You have to teach something a certain way, even though it violates millions of people's deeply held beliefs."
Prentice added: "This is all the incremental activity of the homosexual agenda, and it certainly appears that the next step in the public-school education code in California would be hate-speech codes for anything that might adversely affect gender, whether real or perceived."
Knight said the bill is touted as being part of education reform — but it's really about "corrupting education and making it a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement."
The bill is being pushed through the Legislature by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a self-identified lesbian who has been promoting the entire gay educational agenda.
In her earlier life, Kuehl, who worked under the name Sheila James, was an actress best known for portraying the character Zelda Gilroy on the popular '60s TV sitcom, "Dobie Gillis." Her appealing personality coupled with her law-professor's knowledge of the law, has gone far to advance the gay agenda in California, Knight said.
" 'Zelda' is definitely doing some incredibly negative things in this state," Prentice said.
Pro-family activists hope this bill never gets near Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but there is real possibility it might. It has already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"The governor is one of our last stops," Prentice said. "We're certainly hoping that, if this gets to his desk, it would be vetoed. We would encourage people to call the governor's office to make that statement."
Prentice said he also encourages conservative Christians in the state to speak out about this bill with co-workers, church members and friends.
Back
Is TV Responsible for Coarsening Discourse in America?
Mar. 31 2006 Parents TV Council
N
early three-quarters of Americans say they encounter profanity in public frequently or occasionally, according to a new poll by the Associated Press and Ipsos Public Affairs. Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed said they think people swear more than they did 20 years ago and younger people admit to using bad language more often than older people; they also encounter it more and are less bothered by it. The AP-Ipsos poll showed that 62 percent of 18 to 34-year-olds acknowledged swearing in conversation at least a few times a week, compared to 39 percent of those 35 and older.
Could television be the cause? Foul language on television is unquestionably more common -- and more explicit -- now than it was just ten years ago. In 2003, the Parents Television Council released a Special Report documenting a 100% increase in foul language during the first two hours of prime time between 1998 and 2002.
Countless studies have proven that everything from whether or not a teenager is likely to smoke and drink, to when they are likely to become sexually active, to whether or not they will behave violently can be influenced by what they see and hear in films and on television. It's not much of a leap, therefore, to conclude that the coarsening of our daily discourse can be attributed, at least in part, to what they are seeing daily on TV.
According to popular culture expert and Syracuse University professor Robert Thompson, "Once prime-time television decides to absorb something, it becomes a stamp of normalcy. It's no longer controversial. It's no longer a big deal. It makes it a casual, accepted sort of thing."
According to Geoffrey Hughes, author of Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English, "The influence of Hollywood has become a dominant factor [in the shift in attitudes towards swearing], initially for restraint, but subsequently for license."
Judith Martin, author of the nationally syndicated Miss Manners column, told the Associated Press that the problem is that people who are offended aren't speaking up about it. "Everybody is pretending they aren't shocked," Martin says, "and gradually people WON'T be shocked. And then those who want to be offensive will find another way."
Parents Statistic of the Week: There was an overall increase in foul language in every timeslot between 1998 and 2002. Foul language during the Family Hour increased by 94.8% between 1998 and 2002 and by 109.1% during the 9:00 p.m. ET/PT time slot. Ironically, the smallest increase (38.7%) occurred during the last hour of prime time -- the hour when young children are least likely to be in the viewing audience. [From the PTC Special Report.]
Back
Nationally and Internationally opposed .xxx Pornography Domain Not Dead Yet
March 31, 2006 staff reports Citizen Link
Two U.S. Senators are pushing for international agency that regulates Internet to reconsider special domain for porn.
T
he international organization that controls Internet domain names — ICANN — has dropped the idea of a .xxx top-level domain for pornography because several nations, including the U.S., emphatically opposed the idea.
But the decision hasn't stopped two U.S. senators from backing an all-porn domain anyway.
Australia and the European Union joined the U.S. in opposing the .xxx domain because the proposal lacked special protections for children. That decision should have ended the discussion, but Democrats Max Baucus and Mark Pryor say they will push forward with their bill to create a porn domain.
"Our bill will direct the Department of Commerce to open a dialogue with ICANN as a standpoint officially from the United States government to work out some type of alternative adult domain," said Pryor spokesman Michael Teague.
Many conservative organizations, including Concerned Women for America (CWA) and Focus on the Family Action, oppose both the ICANN proposal and the Baucus/Pryor bill.
"If their bill does become law it does not limit pornographers to one domain," explained Jan LaRue, CWA's chief counsel. She added that the bill could double the number of porn sites on the Internet and make them easier for children to find.
Daniel Weiss, senior analyst f
