BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #80 04/14/2006

Click on an article to view OR just scroll through the Articles:

1. What the news Media isn’t telling you about Illegal Immigration

2. The ugly realities of favoring illegal immigration

3. Current Legal and illegal Immigration Numbers

4. High Cost of an Illegal Alien Amnesty

5. China's President Hu Comes Calling - Christianity is spreading rapidly in China

6. Senators encouraged to work on real lobby reform When They Come back their districts must be

7. A Judas' deal, 2,000 years later Still about the Money

8. One and only Shot Heard Round the World

9. Abortuary ‘Buffer Zone’ Violates Free Speech Law: Federal Judge

10. Straight Talk from the Pope on Good Friday about the Biotech Century

11. American Scientists Announce Intent to Clone Humans for Research

12. Pacific Justice Institute Speaks out against Day of Silence Homosexual protest in Public School

13. Federal Judge Creates New Protections for Child Rapists

14. Four Major TV Networks Sue the FCC so they can Be as Nasty as They please

15. Are you watching the Same Television programs as us Senator Stevens?

16. AFA Poll: Should we replace the birth of Christ to date time

17. Texas School District Caves to Parents' Call to Shut Down Bible Club

18. Taxes in Texas: Why Governor Perry's Latest Tax Shift Needs Revision

19. State-Wide Petition Opposing Sharp Margin Tax Proposal

20. “Gay” Subculture Left Woman Scarred from Childhood in Homosexual Home

21. Ongoing Battle to Pass the Marriage Protection Amendment is being Waged by a diverse Coalition

22. Many Gays Crash Children's Whitehouse Easter Egg Roll

23. Liberty Counsel, PFOX Join Forces to Spread Truth about Homosexuality

24. Shareholder's Proposal Urges Ford to Stop Pushing Homosexual 'Marriage'

25. Ford Motor Company to Sponsor Homosexual 'Marriage' at Motor City Pride Event

26. Bureaucratic redefinitions of the right to keep and bear arms

27. From Underground Tehran’s Shadow Grows

28. Breaking News: Immigration Agents Nab Execs, Employees in Illegal Worker Raids

 

What the news Media isn’t telling you about Illegal Immigration

April 20 2006 congress.org
With a 9 Trillion Dollar Debt, We Can Not Afford these people we must stop importing workers to take more American Jobs!

Capital Hill is missing the point. Middle-class America is feeling the pain of paying for illegal immigrants with lower wages and higher entitlement costs. This is not about race, it’s about money.

WITH A 9 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT WE CAN NOT AFFORD THESE PEOPLE.

Why do we have to take on 12 - 20 million largely uneducated people who won’t make enough money under our tax code to pay anything in Federal or State taxes when we don't have to? We do have the option of sending them home or getting them to go home. What ever that would cost it would pale in comparison to the expected 1 trillion dollars they will cost the Middle Class taxpayer each decade they are in our country through, wage depression, wealth transfer of U.S. taxpayer dollars by means of the earned income tax credit & child tax credit, and massive over use of social services should they gain legal status. (The 1995 findings of Harvard economist George Borjas [George Borjas, “The Economic Benefits from Immigration,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 1995] confirmed by the National Research Council’s 1997 report The New Americans: )

THE DIRTY SECRET OF IMMIGRATION IS THAT IT TRANSFERS WEALTH TO BUSINESSES & THE OWNERS OF CAPITAL ie THE RICH

The key variable: the rate at which native-born wages fall as the total number of workers rises—the so-called “price elasticity” of labor. Borjas estimates that each 10% increase in immigrant workers reduces native wages by about 3.5%. About 14% of employed workers in 2002 were immigrants. So the reduction in native wages attributable to immigrants that year was approximately 4.9% (35% of 14%).

Immigrants don’t do work Americans won’t do—they just do it for less.
But, more importantly, immigrants do one dirty job: they make it easier for Americans to exploit each other. On the basis of the latest government data for 2002 this is how it works:

• Net economic gain from the immigrant presence to native-born Americans, before transfer payments: just 0.2 percent of GDP (that is, two-tenth of one percent!) in today’s 10.4 trillion economy ―that comes to a mere $84 per native-born American.

• Native-born capital-owners’ gain as a result of immigration: about 3.1% of GDP, or $323.8 billion. This goes to employers and, for example, upper-income owners of stocks and employers of servants.

• NATIVE-BORN WORKERS’ LOSS as a result of immigration: about 2.9% of GDP —$302.9 billion in a $10.4 trillion economy, or a remarkable $2,578 FOR EACH NATIVE- BORN WORKER EVERY YEAR.

Remember, these are averages. Unskilled native workers lose far more than the 4.9% average wage loss. Black Americans in particular are big losers. But recent research shows that even college graduates, once thought immune to immigrant competition, face wage reductions. [See: George Borjas, “The Labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration in the Labor Market,” NBER, June 2003.]

There are far fewer owners of capital than there are workers in the U.S. The economic benefits of immigration are concentrated in the elite. The losses widely dispersed among ordinary Americans.

That’s just the effect on the economy as a whole. This does not address the cost to the American taxpayer. Currently the American worker pays taxes on a sliding scale upwards into the 30th percentile on the bulk of their income. The holders of wealth, corporations & businesses pay the bulk of their taxes as capital gains which are taxed at 15%. The American worker takes the largest economic hit for the cost of subsidizing the very workers who are already undermining their income. Each legal immigrant family uses $5,430 more in services each year than they pay in (National Research Council 1997). Why add more people to the entitlement trough when we don’t have to

NO GUEST WORKER PROGRAM!! NOT NOW - NOT EVER!! NO MORE INCREASES IN LEGAL IMMIGRATION!! STOP GIVING OUT 195,000 HB-1 VISA'S FOR TECHNICAL WORKERS EACH YEAR.

Why is our government issuing 195,000 HB-1 visas this year up from 125,000 last year when the number is supposed to be capped at 65,000? Is it because Bill Gates has been lobbying for the cap to be removed for two years? I’d call this a guest worker program, wouldn’t you? Now the government says we need 400,000 more guest workers each year. My husband is an engineer. His wages have dropped by 50% in the last 5 years. He is one of the lucky ones. Most of the people he knows are chronically unemployed or have had to move out of the country. My nephew who is 27 and a computer programmer made $40,000 right out of college. Now with 6 years of experience he makes $25,000. Why? HB-1 visas.

In San Antonio, TX where I live they ran two TV news stories about a month apart. The first one was called something like “1500 ANY CO. Workers Laid – Off a Year Ago. Where Are They Now? It turns out they where all still looking for work, but were hopeful something would turn up. Then the station ran this story “The Changing Face of ANY CO.” It turns out ANY CO. had 1500 new employees from India. How wonderful.

For a company to hire someone with a HB-1 visa they have to prove they were unable to find a qualified U.S. worker. And yet, in San Antonio, not only were there 1500 qualified unemployed U.S. workers, but they were already trained for the very positions the HB-1 workers were brought in to fill. To take it one step further. The San Antonio workers were most likely homeowners and middle-class taxpayers. So they paid property taxes into the school system and had been making enough money they would have actually paid Federal income Tax.

The workers brought in from India make 30% -40% less than American workers or there really would have been no reason for ANY CO. to go though all the trouble of laying off the American workers, waiting six months and then replacing them with workers imported from India. The workers from India, the story tells us brought along their spouses and children. Anyone familiar with the federal tax code knows that these families would have to make over $40K before they would pay one penny in federal taxes. As new arrivals they also do not pay any property tax, but they do have children the American taxpayer will now have to pay to educate. So for ANY CO. to increase its bottom line, 1500 American workers lost their jobs and the American Taxpayer got fleeced


All these extra immigrants are not good for society as a whole. They diminish the quality of life for every U.S citizen. In time this country will come to look a lot like the countries these immigrants left.


In a 1995 study, Tulane University demographer Leon Bouvier and Scipio Garling of the
Federation for American Immigration Reform looked at life in selected cities with less than 7 percent immigrants, and compared them with same-sized cities with populations that were more than 25 percent immigrant. The findings were startling.
Even though they had the same population as the low-immigration cities, the cities with high immigration

• had a 30 percent longer commuting time,
• had 40 percent more people living in poverty,
• had 60 percent more high school dropouts,
• had twice as many violent crimes,
• had twice the level of unemployment,
• had more than twice the welfare dependency,
• had more than seven times as much crowded housing.

That was a decade ago when the immigrant population was much, much smaller.

If American Businesses want to leave the country to find cheap labor; let them leave. The American Taxpayer can not afford to pick -up the tab so Big Business can import cheap labor and not pay for any of the costs associated with it. Trust me any savings associated with cheap labor imported into the USA is not passed along to the consumer. It is passed along to the stockholders and CEOs If American Big Business wants to do business in America, they should use American workers.

The following CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message from RightMarch.com

ALL of the national polls are VERY CLEAR: Americans want to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws, and REJECT any AMNESTY bills, no matter WHAT form they take to try to fool us.

According to the Washington Times, a new Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80% of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration.

A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62% oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72% in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses).

Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75% favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70% believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57% would use military force at the Mexican-American border.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59% opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71% would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.

An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92% saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.

Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73% of Republican and 77% of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation!

Have these people lost their minds? They are on exactly the WRONG side of this issue, OPPOSITE of the vast majority of the American people!

Is there anything we can do to STOP these Senators from passing a "guest worker" amnesty bill?

YES. As we've pointed out, our members are already doing a LOT -- with great effect -- but now it's time to "crank up the heat." Please write and email your Senators and the president Today!

Back

The ugly realities of favoring illegal immigration

Apr 18, 2006 Thomas Sowell Townhall.com

Thank heaven for the massive marches across the country by those favoring illegal immigrants. These marches revealed the ugly truth behind the fog of pious words and clever political spin from the media and from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.

Guest workers? Did any of the strident speakers, with their in-your-face bombast in Spanish, sound like guests? Did they sound like people who wanted to become Americans?

Were they even asking for amnesty? They didn't sound like they were asking for anything. They sounded like they were telling. Demanding, Threatening.

Somebody must have told them that their Mexican flags that dominated the earlier marches were not making a good impression on television, so they started flying American flags. But such cosmetic changes did not keep the ugly reality from coming through in their hostile speeches.

These were not the speeches of people who wanted to join American society but people who wanted their own turf on American soil -- in disregard and defiance of what American citizens want.

Europe has already been through this "guest worker" policy that we are being urged to follow. They have learned the hard way what it means to have a growing foreign population in their midst -- a population that insists on remaining foreign and hostile to the culture, values and people around them.

Some European countries have learned this lesson at the cost of riots and bloodshed in the streets and lives lost in terrorist attacks. Others have only had to contend with national polarization -- thus far -- but polarization is not a small thing.

In this country, however, there are still people who refuse to learn any lesson at all. Some business interests see only an opportunity to get cheap labor. Some intellectuals see only abstract principles about abstract people crossing an abstract border.

Some tell us loftily that: earlier generations of immigrants who were once thought not able to assimilate, turned out over time to become as American as anyone else and patriotic citizens.

That might well be true of immigrants from Mexico, both legal and illegal, if the circumstances of today were the same as the circumstances during an earlier era of immigration from Europe. But circumstances are not the same -- and those circumstances are not going to become the same by pretending that they are.

The ugly display of grievance-mongering bombast at the illegal immigrant marches is just one of those circumstances that are not the same as in an earlier era.

When people came here from Europe, they came here to become Americans. There was no prouder title for them.

American generals of German ancestry led the fight against Germany in both World Wars. The Irish "Fighting 69th" earned its fame on the battlefields of the First World War and Japanese American fighting units were among the most highly decorated in World War II. They proved they were Americans.

The underlying tragedy of the present situation is that it is doubtful whether the activist loudmouths, who were too contemptuous of this country to even speak its language while demanding its benefits, represent most immigrants from Mexico.

Both legal and illegal immigrants have come here primarily to work and make a better life for themselves and their families. But a country requires more than workers. It requires people who are citizens not only in name but in commitment.

Americanization did not happen automatically in earlier times and it will not happen automatically today. Immigrants in an earlier era had leaders and organizations actively working to transform them into Americans -- the Catholic Church with the Irish and numerous organizations among the Jews, for example.

Today's immigrant activists and the politicians who bow for them have just the opposite agenda, to keep foreigners, foreign and to make other Americans accept and adjust to that. It will be a national tragedy if they succeed.

Just what problem will amnesty solve? Illegal aliens will benefit and politicians will benefit by sweeping the illegality under the rug by making it legal. But how will American citizens benefit? America wcan lose big time.

Thomas Sowell: syndicated columnist and prolific author of books such as Applied Economics.

Back

Current Legal and illegal Immigration Numbers

April 19 2006 Center for Immigration Studies http://www.cis.org/topics/currentnumbers.html

Click here for publications on this topic

During the 1990s, an average of more than 1.3 million immigrants — legal and illegal — settled in the United States each year.   Between January 2000 and March 2002, 3.3 million additional immigrants have arrived.  In less than 50 years, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will cause the population of the United States to increase from its present 288 million to more than 400 million.

The foreign-born population of the United States is currently 33.1 million, equal to 11.5 percent of the U.S. population.  Of this total, the Census Bureau estimates 8-9 million are illegal immigrants.  Other estimates indicate a considerably higher number of illegal immigrants.

Approximately 1 million people receive permanent residency annually. In addition, the Census Bureau estimates a net increase of 500,000 illegal immigrants annually.

The present level of immigration is significantly higher than the average historical level of immigration.  This flow may be attributed, in part, to the extraordinary broadening of U.S. immigration policy in 1965. Since 1970, more than 30 million legal and illegal immigrants have settled in the U.S., representing more than one-third of all people ever to come to America's shores.

At the peak of the Great Wave of immigration in 1910, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. was less than half of what it is today, though the percentage of the population was slightly higher. The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor— or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth.

The Tucson sector Border Patrol union local 2544 on the number of illegal aliens in our nation: "There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you - don't believe them for a second)". (Visit the local's website).

Back

High Cost of an Illegal Alien Amnesty

April 11, 2006 Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

FAIR Projects a $61.5 Billion a Year Local Price Tag by 2010

Washington, D.C.—If an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program similar to the one being contemplated by the United States Senate and supported by President Bush were enacted, the cost burden to state and local governments would be staggering, projects an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR estimates that state and local costs associated with illegal immigration for public education, health care and incarceration, now about $36 billion a year, would balloon to $61.5 billion by 2010 a 70 percent increase and increase to $106.3 billion by 2020.

As a result of an amnesty and a vastly expanded guest worker program, millions of current illegal aliens would gain legal access to government programs and services. Moreover, newly legalized aliens would be allowed to bring their dependents to this country, adding to the burdens on schools and public health care. Similarly, state and local governments would have to provide for the education and health care of the dependents of the 400,000 new guest workers called for in the Senate proposal.

Contrary to claims by proponents of amnesty, the tax contributions of newly legalized illegal aliens would not offset the additional costs. The estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. are overwhelmingly poorly educated and low skilled. Even with legalization, their earning potential would be very limited. With the ability to legitimately claim dependents on their returns, their tax contributions would be negligible at best, and with programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, many will actually get more back than they pay in.

“From every possible angle, an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program would be a fiscal and administrative nightmare,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “Never mind the fact that an illegal alien amnesty is a moral betrayal of the American public and immigrants who played by the rules. It would be an unfunded federal mandate that will bankrupt states, counties and cities all across the United States.”

None of the federal or local costs associated with an illegal alien amnesty or a massive guest worker program has even been considered as part of the Senate’s deliberations. When asked point blank about the ramifications of their proposed legislation, Senate amnesty and guest worker supporters admitted that they have not been worked out. “The devil is in the details,” said the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

“‘The devil is in the details’ is an utterly reckless and irresponsible way to conduct public policy,” responded Stein. “The fiscal, social, environmental and demographic consequences of what the Senate is proposing would be staggering. In an effort to respond to special interest pressure, the Senate and the Bush Administration seem prepared to rush forward without any rational assessment of what it would mean for the future of the nation. We have seen where the ‘devil is in the details’ approach has gotten us in Iraq. The president and others pushing amnesty and guest workers have an obligation to think this one all the way through before acting,” Stein concluded.

A breakdown of the calculation of amnesty costs and a state by state impact analysis can be found at FAIR's web site.

Back

China's President Hu Comes Calling - Christianity is spreading rapidly in China

April 19 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

China's President Hu Jintao was toasted last night in Bill Gates' $100 million home in Washington State. Microsoft pioneer Gates said he was encouraged by Hu's willingness to discuss "intellectual property rights." Rights will be on the agenda when Hu meets President Bush at the White House - but we want to make sure that religious liberty is high on the list of American concerns raised with the Communist leader. China is vitally important as a potential ally of the U.S. But their human rights record is deeply troubling. China Aid, an organization devoted to persecuted Christians in China, yesterday released photos and disturbing reports including those from Pastor Chen Jingmao after he was released with wounds due to torture and abuse.

Activists of the Falun Gong religious movement paraded in Washington's Chinatown yesterday, charging Beijing with horrific crimes against humanity. They claim the government there routinely throws Falun Gong practitioners in prison and takes the organs of condemned prisoners. Still, in his book, Jesus in Beijing, former TIME magazine Asian Bureau Chief, David Aikman, sees Christianity transforming China. Even in the face of fierce public oppression of the church, he believes a Christian underground is spreading rapidly in China--even into the inner ranks of the Chinese Communist Party! We pray for China.

But we also need to press our government to apply pressure to Beijing to respect human rights, including freedom of religion.

Back

Senators must be encouraged to work on real lobby reform When They Come back their districts

April 19 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

When Congress returns next week, at the top of the to-do list is lobby reform. The Senate has already passed a bill that allowed Senators to politically posture as "anti-Abramoff." And the bill does tackle some legitimate reform issues. However, the Senate bill contains restrictions on grassroots lobbying that would seriously infringe on our--and your--constitutionally-protected freedoms to communicate about pending Congressional action.

The right of petition is fundamental. The House members have been listening to our concern. The House Judiciary Committee held off a similar provision to regulate grassroots communications. However, when the House considers the measure in the weeks ahead, similar amendments could be offered. Imposing impractical, time-consuming new regulations on communications with constituents - with you - places an onerous burden on us and does not address the great abuses of the Abramoff scandal.

It only gives the appearance of having done something about the problem of corruption. Members of Congress are in their districts now. It's a good time to encourage them to do real lobby reform.

Back

A Judas' deal, 2,000 years later Still about the Money

April 13 2006 the LA Times

THERE WAS THIS ANTIQUITIES DEALER: Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos coming off like an angel on the National Geographic Channel's special TV program on the Gospel of Judas. "I think I was chosen by Judas to rehabilitate him," says Tchacos, who bought the 1,700-year-old papyrus. "Judas was asking me to do something for him."

Tchacos was doing something for herself as well. She had paid $300,000 for the papyrus and — despite concerns that it might have been looted and thus had illegally entered the shadowy world of private antiquities dealing — resold it to her lawyer for $1.5 million plus half the proceeds from any future use. National Geographic didn't tell that part of Tchacos' story.

Nor did National Geographic inform viewers that it paid $1 million for the right to publicize the papyrus, and that a portion of the proceeds from the show and two related books would go to the lawyer and, through him, to Tchacos, whose past includes a suspended sentence for possession of looted antiquities.

The Gospel of Judas tells a riveting story that many people find new. It says that Jesus asked Judas to betray him, thus setting the Passion into motion. But the gospel's provenance shows that some things don't change in a couple of millenniums — except for inflation. Thirty pieces of silver then, or $1.5 million now: It's still about money.

There are laws against trafficking in antiquities whose legal ownership cannot be documented. So Tchacos' lawyer, Mario Jean Roberty, could not sell the actual papyrus. Instead, he came up with the thoroughly modern concept of selling the content instead, and he found a taker in National Geographic.

Ordinarily, the discovery of something like the Judas gospel would be announced in a scholarly publication as a probable addition to the Gnostic Gospels — early Christian writings that were rejected by the church hierarchy. Instead, National Geographic gave it a public splash that rang more of commercial zing than scholarly thoughtfulness, with a glitzy TV special, two books and an exhibit timed for the week before Easter.

The papyrus was breathlessly described as possibly turning Christianity on its head. And the codex is an exciting archeological find. But the concept of Judas playing out a role that he perceives as Jesus' desire isn't particularly new, as anyone who ever watched "Jesus Christ Superstar" can attest.

The National Geographic Society's involvement did help restore the papyrus and bring it to public light — and back to Egypt. But the society's willingness to cut deals over a discovery: whose legality is unclear, without being forthright about its role, its associates or the money involved, adds a legitimate sheen to the shady world of illegal antiquities dealing and helps sustain that unsavory market.

Back

One and only Shot Heard Round the World

April 19 2006 Christian Law Association

April 19 is one of the most important historic anniversaries in American history, but we are guessing most Americans no longer know why. It was on April 19, 1775 that British soldiers first fired on the colonial Minutemen outside their church in Lexington, Massachusetts. 

Most Americans, including most Christians, have never been taught about the key role that Christians and their pastors played in America’s struggle for independence. Because of the color of their robes, patriotic clergy were known as the Black Regiment. In fact, it was the churches that were the source of groups of church members called Minutemen who were organized by their pastors and trained to protect their towns and property from the British. 

The Minutemen involved in the first battle of the Revolution were from the Lexington Church in Massachusetts where Pastor Jonas Clark, a member of the Black Regiment, was their leader. 

Throughout the night of April 18, Paul Revere made his famous midnight ride, warning, “The British are coming! The British are coming!” The Redcoats were marching to the sleepy little village of Lexington because two of the greatest early patriots of liberty were there on that date - Samuel Adams and John Hancock. These two men were visiting in the home of Rev. Clark.  Lexington, at that time was a small town with a population of about seven hundred. The British were also interested in that area because they were planning to seize a cache of gunpowder being stored in the neighboring town of Concord. 

In the wee hours of the morning of April 19, the Minutemen, who had regularly drilled on the village green in front of their church, began to assemble at that same location. Their captain, John Parker, ordered every one to load their weapons, but to take care not to be the first to fire.

When the two parties – the well-disciplined British Army and the ragtag assembly of church men – encountered each other, it became very clear that the Americans were hopelessly outnumbered, so Captain Parker commanded his men to depart. But before they could do so, the first shot was fired and the battle began. 

In the melee that followed, one sixth of those church members fighting on the Lexington green were killed or wounded. The British, who lost far more men in this first battle, then marched on to Concord. 

The following year, on the anniversary of this battle, while the Revolutionary War was still raging and its outcome was uncertain, Rev. Jonas Clark preached a sermon in which he said: 

“From the nineteenth of April, 1775, we may venture to predict, will be dated, in future history, the liberty or slavery of the American world according as a sovereign God shall see fit to smile or frown upon the cause in which we are engaged.”

The same sovereign God continues to rule and guide in the current affairs of this nation. The ministry of the Christian Law Association is honored to stand with today’s pastors playing the same role as the Black Regiment in ensuring God's continued blessing on America.

Back

Abortuary ‘Buffer Zone’ Violates Free Speech Law: Federal Judge

April 19 2006 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida, April 19 2006 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a 20-foot buffer zone imposed by a lower court against pro-life abortion protesters violates their free speech rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled April 11 that the buffer-zone ordinance, passed in October, is too restrictive. “Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees,” Middlebrooks stated in his written decision, as reported by the Associated Press. “Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected.”

Three women who frequently protest outside the Presidential Women’s Center abortuary challenged the ordinance in federal court. Their attorney, Michael DePrimo, emphasized that “The ordinance was designed to suppress the speech of pro-life demonstrations.”

Back

Straight Talk from the Pope on Good Friday about the Biotech Century

April 17 2006 Nigel M. de S. Cameron Christianity Today

The "anti-Genesis" of those who play God: why the biotech business needs to take ethics seriously.
 

How many churches got the kind of plain speaking on "playing God" that the pope shared in his Good Friday meditation?

Listen to this report in the secular press—from the London Sunday Times:

The Pope has launched a devastating attack on scientists meddling with genetics to create designer babies.

Benedict XVI accused them of eliminating the family and poured scorn on a society he condemned as "satanic, narcissistic and filthy".

In a strongly worded message during the traditional Good Friday Stations of the Cross service in Rome, he attacked modern values as a "slick campaign of propaganda" which was spreading an "inane apologia of evil, a senseless cult of Satan".

He spoke of the "filth around us" and how "entertainment has become a drug", calling on God to "free us from our decadent narcissism"—and he was scathing about attempts to clone "virgin birth" embryos with no father.

"Surely God is deeply pained by the attack on the family," he said.

"Today we seem to be witnessing a kind of anti-Genesis, a counter-plan, a diabolical pride aimed at eliminating the family.

"There is a move to reinvent mankind, to modify the very grammar of life as planned and willed by God."

But, to take God's place, without being God, is insane arrogance, a risky and dangerous venture.

Back

American Scientists Announce Intent to Clone Humans for Research

April 19, 2006 Mark Adams culture-of-life.org via LifeSiteNew.com

Scientists from Harvard and California announced at a recent conference their intent to clone human embryos and destroy them for their stem cells and are hoping to succeed where disgraced South Korean scientist Woo-Suk Hwang dramatically failed. Hwang, who claimed to be the first in the world to successfully clone humans, was discredited in January after it was revealed he had fabricated almost all of his data.

     The scientists' announcement came at a conference in Cambridge, Mass. held in early April according to a report from the Bloomberg news service. According to the report the scientists acknowledged Hwang's failure and even admitted to falling for the hoax. Kevin Eggan, a Harvard researcher said he visited Hwang's laboratory last year to learn his techniques for cloning. "I would have trusted him with my wallet," Eggan said of Hwang. "He projected this air of expertise and trustworthiness that exists with few people."

     Human cloning for the purpose of extracting embryonic stem cells is one of the most ethically controversial aspects of the entire field of stem cell research not only because it requires the killing of human life but also for the concerns it raises that women will exploited for their eggs. The scientists acknowledged that obtaining egg donations remains a practical and ethical challenge to their work. Massachusetts law forbids payment for human eggs for cloning purposes and the process for donating eggs is long, arduous and painful. One of the scientists argues that payment is owed to the women who participate. "I personally feel uncomfortable about someone going through such a painful procedure with no compensation for time," said Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology Inc., a biotechnology firm in Worcester, Mass.

     The research being conducted at Harvard is done by scientists at a secret location in a basement laboratory because the school fears protesters yet the scientists appear unable to understand why destroying human embryos for scientific research might be morally questionable. "There's nothing about the research I do that should be done behind closed doors," a Harvard scientist said. "It's perfectly ethical and has an honorable goal."

     Research using embryonic stem cells has been widely hailed in the media as a likely source of cures for numerous diseases including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Despite these claims embryonic stem cells have contributed no cures to any human diseases. In eight years of attempts at human cloning there have been no successes despite three false claims to the contrary. Pro-life advocates have long celebrated the successes of adult stem cells which have successfully treated more than 60 diseases.

Back

Pacific Justice Institute
Speaks out against Day of Silence Homosexual protest in Public School

April 18 2006 Pacific Justice Institute

Sacramento, CA—In a few days, on April 26, schools across the country will fall silent as students and some school officials turn their attention from academics to protesting alleged bias against homosexuality.

The “Day of Silence” is being heavily promoted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and its allies as a way to draw attention to alleged discrimination against homosexuals. The goal is to have students go the entire school day, if possible, without speaking. Instead, students are encouraged to wear clothing and pass out cards which state that their silence is “protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies in schools … which was caused by harassment, prejudice and discrimination.” GLSEN claims that 500,000 students and 4,000 schools will participate this year.

Surprisingly, this event is being welcomed with open arms by some school officials. In Sacramento, school board members of the Sacramento City Unified School District are considering a resolution honoring the Day of Silence. Pacific Justice Institute is joining forces with other religious defense and pro-family groups to oppose official endorsement of this student protest. PJI is advising parents and community leaders as to how they can effectively communicate their concerns to elected officials, and a PJI attorney is planning to address the school board at this week’s public meeting to remind officials of their obligations to serve their constituents, not special interest groups. Additionally, PJI cautions that teachers who openly support or participate in the Day of Silence may be in danger of losing their teaching credentials for improper political advocacy.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “School officials should not allow themselves be intimidated into endorsing student protests designed to undermine traditional values and sexual norms. We urge administrators and school board members to listen to parents and stand up to radical pro-homosexual activists.” School officials or parents who have legal questions about the Day of Silence may contact Pacific Justice Institute for free assistance.

In response to the Day of Silence, a Day of Truth will be held at many school campuses to warn students of the dangers of promiscuous sexual activity. To find out more, visit www.dayoftruth.org.

Please visit our website, www.pacificjustice.org
to respond to our poll question: Should school officials support the Day of Silence?

Back

Federal Judge Creates New Protections for Child Rapists

April 19 2006 Christian Newswire

Ruling nullifies mandatory aspects of KS child rape reporting law

WICHITA, Kansas, Federal Court Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled yesterday that the reporting of sexual activity in girls aged 15 and under should be discretionary, and prohibited enforcement of the mandatory aspects of a Kansas child rape reporting law.

The 39-page ruling came in the Aid for Women v. Foulston case brought by Kansas abortionists and other pro-abortion social workers and health providers asking for exemption from reporting child sexual abuse in underage girls, in the interest of protecting their “privacy.”

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline sparked the suit when he issued an opinion at the request of a state legislator that all sexual activity in girls under 16 is inherently injurious and must be reported to law enforcement personnel for investigation. Kline has emphasized repeatedly that not every incident of sexual conduct will be prosecuted, but all should be investigated to insure that young girls are not being coerced and victimized.

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman blasted the decision. “This case sets a dangerous precedent that information given by minors can be hidden not only from the authorities, but also from the parents. It creates a climate of secrecy that can only profit the abortionist and benefit the abuser.”

“Judge Marten should have been more concerned about getting child rapists off the streets and protecting young girls from victimization by these predators, rather than the invention of new privacy considerations for children,” said Newman. “He is another liberal activist judge legislating from the bench – and it is our daughters that are put at risk as a result.

In Kansas, abortionists must report the ages of their patients. While some abortion patients as young as 10 years old have been reported, there have been no reports of suspected child rape by Kansas abortionists, according to the Attorney General’s office.

Kline has stated that he expected an adverse ruling from Judge Marten, but has higher hopes for a favorable ruling on appeal.

Back

Four Major TV Networks Sue the FCC so they can Be as Nasty as They please

April 17 2006 Citizen Link

 Foul words that begin with the letters "F" and "S" are not indecent, at least according to court challenges filed by four broadcast television networks.

 The Associated Press reports that ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox, along with their affiliate stations plus the Hearst-Argyle Television group, filed notices of appeal on Thursday and Friday in various federal courts, including those in Washington, D.C., and New York.

 The networks are challenging the FCC's determination that profane language was used on The Early Show on CBS in 2004, plus the Billboard Music Awards shows broadcast by Fox in 2002 and 2003 and episodes of ABC's NYPD Blue in 2003.

 The FCC did not issue fines in those cases because the incidents occurred before a 2004 ruling that virtually any use of certain expletives would be considered profane and indecent.

 While none of the cases involved NBC, the network filed a petition to intervene on behalf of the other networks and stations.

 The networks and affiliate groups issued a rare joint statement calling the FCC ruling "unconstitutional" and inconsistent with two decades of previous FCC decisions. They also claimed the FCC "overstepped its authority" and acted arbitrarily.

 Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, called the networks' action "utterly shameless" and pointed out that the broadcast airwaves do not belong to the broadcasters, but to the American people.

 "The broadcast networks are spitting in the faces of millions of Americans by saying they should be allowed to air the F-word and S-word on television," he said. "It's beyond preposterous that the networks would even propose that airing the F-word and S-word on television is not indecent. The networks' principles have now been unmasked for everyone to see. Their actions today are indecent in and of themselves."

 Daniel Weiss, senior analyst, media and sexuality, at Focus on the Family Action, said the move makes clear that, short of crucial updates to federal law, the broadcast industry will continue to pollute the nation's airwaves.

A license to broadcast doesn’t give anyone – not even super-rich Big-Media conglomerates – the right to broadcast indecent language between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The four major broadcasters want the courts to approve the indiscriminate use of words for excretory and explicit sexual conduct.

“All four broadcast networks last week announced their decision to continue their assault on the FCC's authority to regulate the airwaves against profanity and sexual content,” said Lanier Swann, CWA’s Director of Government Relations. “The action illustrates how out of touch television moguls are with American families.

“75 percent of Americans believe the FCC should, in fact, have more ability to regulate our television content. The networks choose to ignore and abuse the millions of Americans who want the ability to turn on their televisions without fear that they and their children will be confronted with what the industry claims is merely ‘fleeting, isolated -- and in some cases unintentional’ vulgarity and overt sexual conduct. This is a bold-faced attempt by the networks to have free reign to say they whatever they please.

"This suit proves that the TV industry is more concerned with expanding its lawless broadcasting practices than serving the viewing public," he said. "There isn't a national clamor for more F-words on network TV, but there is a growing outcry about the increasingly course, profane and indecent programming pumped into American living rooms.

Also see: the article on Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in last weeks Watchman Report.

 TAKE ACTION:
Let your legislators knows that you support the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. You can learn more in our new Action Center. Make sure to read the directions on getting properly registered on the home page, then look for the link under "Current Issues" concerning the bill.

April 18 2006 Center for Reclaiming America for Christ
Your timely response is requested

Last week, as millions of Americans were attending Good Friday services and contemplating the highest ideals of self-sacrifice and love, the four major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) were busy filing federal lawsuits aimed at abolishing existing FCC decency standards. Specifically, these out-of-touch media elites are claiming that the First Amendment should allow them to use the "F-word" and the "S-word" during primetime or "family hour" programming.

These are public airwaves! They are to be used for the public good. How can vulgar and offensive language during "family hour" programming serve in the public's best interests?

Sign our petition to the FCC.

http://www.crmail.org/public/lib.aspx?lid=3112

Back

Are you watching the Same Television programs as us Senator Stevens?

April 17 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) just last week bragged that the TV networks are doing a great job of policing themselves. The chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee seemed to claim credit for cleaning up the airwaves.

Not so fast, senator! Now, we find ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX going into federal court. They are demanding a First Amendment right to use the f*** word and the s*** word in--of all things--the family hour. "The broadcast of fleeting, isolated--and in some cases unintentional--words rendered these programs indecent," the network suits complained, saying that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulings were unfairly inhibiting them and violating their free speech rights.

They claim parents can prevent broadcast indecency from coming into the home by use of the V-chip, among other things. Let me get this straight: Would the same networks say it was OK for corporate polluters to dump mercury in the town reservoir and claim that parents are responsible for filtering at the kitchen faucet?

The Senate needs to strengthen the FCC's enforcement powers by passing broadcast indecency legislation when it returns from its Easter recess.

Take Action Now
Senators: Support H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005

Back

AFA Poll: Should we replace the birth of Christ to date time

April 16, 2006 American Family Foundation

Should we replace the birth of Christ to date time (BC/AD) with a secular dating method (BCE/CE)? Read the information below and then vote!

The Kentucky Board of Education has voted to take the first step in redefining how America dates time. The board voted to include a new secular system of dating the calendar, BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era), and added it to the BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord") method.

The new secular system of time dating will appear in the curriculum and other materials used by Kentucky educators. This new system is already being included in textbooks across the nation.

The new method will replace the birth of Christ as the dividing point in history. For example, the new system would change 2006 AD (Anno Domini) to 2006 CE (Common Era).

It also opens the door for the ACLU to find a liberal activist judge who will forcefully remove the use of BC and AD. The ACLU types will claim that the use of BC and AD are a violation of the First Amendment because it dates history based on the birth of Christ.

Take Action: Results of the poll will be shared with members of Congress.

Should Congress pass a law making BC/AD the official method of dating time? Cast your vote. Give us your opinion!

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Back

 

Texas School District Caves to Parents' Call to Shut Down Bible Club

April 17, 2006 Allie Martin Agape Press

Legal Group Says It Is Shocked by District's 'Strong-Arm Tactic'

A Christian student group may have to sue a public school district in Texas over a dispute regarding use of school facilities.

The Grapevine/Colleyville Independent School District (GCISD) recently told Students Standing Strong, a student-led Bible study club, that it would have to pay fees to hold a previously approved club meeting on school grounds, sign a rental agreement, and obtain a one-million-dollar insurance policy. Administrators also informed the club it would be banned as a non-curricular student group. Notice of these requirements was given to the club on the Friday before a Monday meeting (April 10) of the club.

Liberty Legal Institute, located in nearby Plano, says the district's demands that the club sign a rental agreement and relinquish there status as a student club are in direct violation of the Equal Access Act. Liberty Legal brought that fact to the district's attention in a demand letter that outlined the club's constitutional rights and sought to resolve the matter quickly and without litigation.

The letter may have had the desired effect -- in part, at least. Kelly Shackelford, Liberty Legal's chief counsel, says although the club was allowed to use school facilities without charge on that Monday, the issue has not been settled -- and a lawsuit is still possible if the discriminatory practices continue, he says.

"We know this is going to be a long-term problem," the attorney says, "because what we have here is a district that is doing everything in its power to discriminate against these kids because they're meeting for good reasons and doing good things."

According to the Liberty Legal spokesman, the district does not impose fees and rental agreements on other student clubs. But because Students Standing Strong is a religious group, he says, the district is "just hunting and looking for some way to throw hurdles in their way."

Shackelford says it is "sad" what the district is doing to the club. "These are good kids," he says, noting that the group became an issue with administrators after several parents complained about the Christian club.

"The small group of parents is complaining because this group is so successful and it's a Christian group," he explains. "And they're asking the school district to stop them, which is against the law."

But instead of standing up to the parents and explaining that the district does not discriminate against any clubs, Christian or not, Shackelford says GCISD is "going along and trying to figure out ways to discriminate."

"And if they do it again," he warns, "we'll go to court, if necessary, to protect these kids' rights to meet, to encourage one another in their faith, to sing, and to do things that they're doing that the school should be happy that they're doing."

Shackelford says it is unfortunate, but apparently district officials are more worried about a small group of parents than they are about protecting the rights of the student-led club.

Back

Taxes in Texas: Why Governor Perry's Latest Tax Shift Needs Revision

April 18 2006 Texas Freedom Works

Recently released recommendations of the Texas Tax Reform Commission, endorsed by Gov. Rick Perry, were met with ire and praise from politicians and pundits alike. Tax reform has been such a key priority for the legislature that Gov. Perry convened two special sessions to address the issue, both ending in gridlock.

This time around, Gov. Perry promises his tax plan to be a panacea to the woes facing taxpayers and public schools. Pushed as a political compromise that aims to satisfy everybody (businesses, taxpayers, and the courts), the latest proposal is more of a mixed bag that benefits one group at the expense of another. Sold as a tax cut, Gov. Perry’s plan is in reality a tax shift.

A Brief Background of the Politics of Taxation in Texas

In Texas, taxes hold a particularly divisive role in electoral politics. It’s impossible to understand the tax system in Texas without knowledge of its economic and constitutional constraints. Creating an equitable and pro-growth tax system is inextricably tied to the burden of financing local school districts. This is, in part, due to several constitutional provisions:

 The Texas Constitution forbids a personal state income tax.

 The Texas Constitution forbids a statewide ad valorem tax – i.e.: a statewide tax on property.

 The Texas Constitution requires "the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools."

For quite some time now, local schools were financed primarily through that school district’s local property taxes. But beginning in 1989, there was a string of several court cases that ruled the pre-1989 system unconstitutional since it did not maintain an efficient system of free public schools. In other words, since the old system led to inequality between schools in low-income districts and those in wealthier districts, it was ruled unconstitutional.

In response to this ruling, starting in 1990 the Texas legislature adopted various forms of the “Robin Hood” school finance plan. Roughly stated, Robin Hood, as its name suggests, forced wealthy school districts to subsidize poorer school districts through local school property taxes. Robin Hood set a statewide maximum rate for local property taxes at $1.50 for every $100 of property value. At the time, many politicians thought that Robin Hood would end the school finance problem for good.

But they were wrong, for Robin Hood, as with many coercive government cross-subsidization schemes, had several devastating unintended consequences.

First, property taxes skyrocketed. Many school districts could increase spending without feeling the pinch, since they weren’t paying for it anyway. From 1990 to 2000, per-student spending, adjusted for inflation, increased by 20 percent. From 1997 to 2005, administrative costs grew faster than the rate of classroom spending. Operating expenses increased 57 percent, administrators increased 32 percent and central office administrators increased 35 percent. In the meanwhile, while student enrollment rose by only 13 percent. Only a very few school districts did not increase spending in excess of enrollment growth and inflation. Some school districts even used their Robin Hood spoils to finance football stadiums and Jumbo Trons.

As district school spending rose, school districts raised property tax rates repeatedly. By 2003, nearly 690 school districts were at or near the statutory maximum tax rate of $1.50 for every $100 of property value. By 2004, Robin Hood confiscated $1.2 billion per year from 134 school districts.

The endless round of property tax hikes had other consequences. As Harvard University researchers Caroline M. Hoxby and Ilyana Kuziemko report, Robin Hood "destroyed about $27,000 per pupil in property wealth." Robin Hood effectively severed the link between property taxes and quality of school. People who paid exorbitant property taxes never saw that money in their districts. As a result, the value of property declined, which meant lower property tax revenues. Virginia Postrel explains, "Lowering the threshold further depresses home values. A death spiral sets in." That’s a classic example of an anti-growth tax.

Back

State-Wide Petition Opposing Sharp Margin Tax Proposal

April 17 2006 Christian Newswire

Fund Schools with $8 Billion Surplus, Not on the Backs of Small Business

HOUSTON, Today, TEXANS for NO new TAXE$ (TNT) —formed specifically to oppose the Sharp Business Tax proposal, and a project of Conservative Republicans of Texas, PAC,— launched a statewide petition calling on Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and the state legislature to oppose the so-called margin tax proposal introduced by Democrat John Sharp.

“Small- and medium-sized businesses are the engines that drive our state’s economy, and this tax scheme would deliver a crippling blow to every sector of that economy,” said Steven F. Hotze, M.D., TNT co- chairman and founder of several small business enterprises. “If this proposal is adopted, it will exponentially raise the operating costs of businesses, putting thousands of Texans out of work and effectively becoming a ‘hidden tax’ on consumers, invariably raising the cost of the goods and services that are purchased.”

“Over-taxation is wrong, no matter whom the politicians have in their crosshairs. It doesn’t matter if it is an undue burden on homeowners or Texas- based businesses, it’s just not right,” observed Norman Adams, TNT co-chairman and president of Adams Insurance Service, in response to Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn’s announcement today that the state has an $8.2 billion surplus. “But the Sharp proposal appears all the more inane when viewed in light of the news that over $8 billion of taxpayer money is sitting in the government coffers while the average Texan is struggling to meet their property taxes.”

Based on a five percent profit margin, the Sharp proposal would tax every business between $5,000 and $7,000 for every $50,000 of profit a company generates. This effectively works out to be a 10 -15 percent income tax on businesses, and every business must pay the Sharp Business Tax whether or not it makes a profit.

“The commonsense fix to this problem is to return the surplus to citizens by lowering the school districts’ tax rates. This fulfills the requirements outlined by the Texas Supreme Court and avoids further taxation,” stated Bruce Hotze, TNT executive director and CEO of Compressor Engineering Corporation (CECO). “It is time for the legislature to exert fiscal discipline by cutting the fat out of the bloated state government bureaucracies, instead of treating the taxpayer like an endless well by which they can finance their whims.”

Steven F. Hotze, M.D., Norman Adams and Bruce Hotze are scheduled to testify to the state legislature on behalf of small businesses on Wednesday, April 19, 2006. The petition can be viewed online at www.TEXANSforNOnewTAXES.org.

Back

“Gay” Subculture Left Woman Scarred from Childhood in Homosexual Home

April 19 2006 Hilary White LifeSiteNews.com

BOSTON, The Massachusetts government heard testimony last week from a young Canadian woman, Dawn C. Stefanowicz who had been raised from infancy by her homosexual father and his various “partners” in a “gay” household. She told the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee that her life submerged in the homosexual subculture had left her scarred psychologically and morally.

Stefanowicz made her statement during hearings, held April 11 by the Massachusetts government to consider establishing an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Describing her father’s homosexual lifestyle as a culture without “boundaries and principles of morality and monogamy,” Stefanowicz said her upbringing was characterized by confusion and lack of affection, domestic violence and sexual abuse.

In her father’s world which he made hers, she said, “transsexualism, and transient and anonymous multiple partners were common…By age ten, for example, I was exposed to a gay nude beach, a sex shop, and a gay cruising park.”

In April, 2005, Ms. Stefanowicz read a statement at a Marriage Rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. In that statement, Stefanowicz said because of the sexual molestation she endured at an early age, she was at a high risk for sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Her father and several of his former partners died of the disease.

In her Massachusetts testimony, Stefanowicz also delineated the legal and societal risks of adopting homosexual marriage and hate crimes laws. She warned US legislators that since the institution of such laws in Canada, essential political freedoms have been severely undermined or even curtailed. The homosexual lobby has used the courts and extra-judicial Human Rights Tribunals to silence opposition to their program of social change.

She said, “Freedom of speech and democracy are eroded by hate crime and same-sex marriage legislation, and by judicial activism. Human Rights Tribunals in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their expressed opposition to homosexuality.”

“May what is happening in Canada serve as a warning to Massachusetts. Where can the children find safety if legislation is in place legitimizing homosexual marriage?” she said.

The Protection of Marriage Amendment now awaits a vote by the Massachusetts legislature during the state Constitution Convention scheduled for May 10, 2006. If approved by 50 legislators this year and next year, the Protection of Marriage Amendment will appear on the November 2008 ballot for a statewide vote.

Read Stefanowicz’s testimony:
http://voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#dawn

Back

Ongoing Battle to Pass the Marriage Protection Amendment is being Waged by a diverse Coalition

April 18 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link

Conservatives Not Alone in Fighting for Marriage

The proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage from radical redefinition by the courts will come to a vote in June in Congress -- and it's not just social conservatives who are working hard for its passage.

Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said support for traditional marriage cuts across racial, ethnic and religious boundaries -- and so does the coalition of those who support the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA).

"The problem we face is that Washington needs to catch up with the rest of America," Daniels told Citizen Link. "Our momentum outside the Beltway is enormous. It is momentum that crosses party lines and racial lines; you see it in red states, you see it in blue states. It's driven by a deep consensus in this country that kids do best with a mom and a dad."

 Though homosexual activists try to argue that the amendment is "discriminatory," defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not at all a divisive issue outside the gay community, Daniels maintained.

 "This is an issue that unifies Americans -- black, brown, white and yellow -- around this dream of more children being raised with a mother and a father," he said. "And that dream has power and momentum behind it because it is rooted in people's hearts -- and in their aspirations for their kids."

 Veteran civil-rights movement leader Roy Innis, who heads the Congress of Racial Equality agreed. Innis is one of the amendment's biggest supporters.

 "The Congress on Racial Equality has fought against invidious discrimination and prejudice for over 60 years," Innis said. "We take it very seriously. We support the marriage amendment because it is designed to protect the family, which is the basic unit of society that protects children."

 Special rights for homosexuals, he added, "are not the moral equivalent of racial, religious, and ethnic protection. It is not for (gay activists) to mandate to the rest of us and to change our basic institution. Marriage is that basic institution."

Rabbi Yitzhak Sladowski of the Queens Council of Rabbis, in Queens, N.Y., said Orthodox rabbis stand firm behind the MPA.

"Marriage as the union of male and female has been part of the common currency of humanity for millennia," he explained. "This is because marriage has unique and irreplaceable benefits to both children and society."

Daniel DeLeon of the Allianza de Ministerios Evangélicos Nacionales said man-woman marriage is one of the fundamentals in our highly diverse world.

"It is worthy of constitutional protection," he said, "and for this reason, my community is proud to stand with this broad coalition."

Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the momentum is definitely on the side of the amendment's passage.

"It's obvious that the Marriage Protection Amendment has broad support that cuts across just about every sector in America," she said. "Now it's up to us pro-family Americans to convince our members of Congress to defend the institution of marriage through the MPA."

TAKE ACTION

Please use the CitizenLink Action Center to e-mail or call your senators, urging them to support the MPA. We've not only made it easy for you to send a message via e-mail form, we've also given you talking points you can use in your conversation should you choose to call. Simply select which method of communication -- e-mail or phone -- you'd like to use when you visit the Action Center.

Additionally, a campaign is currently under way to get pastors to mobilize their congregations to send 1 million postcards to Congress in support of MPA.

Pastors who want to order postcard sheets can do so by calling (866) 655-4545 or you may download and print as many as you like on your home computer through our new Citizen Link Action Center.

Back

Many Gays Crash Children's Whitehouse Easter Egg Roll

 April 17 2006 Citizen Link

Gay activists, as promised, made a political statement at today's White House Easter egg Roll.

The radical homosexual-rights movement continues its aggressive campaign to force the American people to accept same-sex “marriage.”

 About 100 homosexual men and women donned rainbow-colored leis to attend the event, an Easter tradition since the mid-19th century. Their intention, they said, was to make a point about the legitimacy of families headed by same-sex parents.

 "We just wanted to come out to be visible and present and to let people see we are families, too," Alisa Surkis, 42, of Brooklyn, N.Y., told The Associated Press. She brought along her 3-year-old-daughter, Ella, and her partner.

 Family advocates said the egg roll, attended by more than 16,000 people, is no place to push for the normalization of homosexuality.

 "What a pity that the homosexual lobby had to tarnish a great tradition with this in-your-face political propaganda," said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth. "Turning the Easter Egg Roll into gay propaganda represents a new low in the movement."

Back

Liberty Counsel, PFOX Join Forces to Spread Truth about Homosexuality

April 18 2006 Allie Martin Agape Press

A Christian law firm is teaming up with a national organization to help public school students proclaim the truth about homosexuality and the hopeful message that change is possible for those struggling with same-sex attractions.

On the eve of the "Day of Silence" -- a nationwide pro-homosexual observance scheduled for April 26 -- the Orlando, Florida-based legal group Liberty Counsel and the national advocacy group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) are conducting a joint effort called the "Change is Possible Campaign." This outreach focuses on public schools, which the two groups believe have been targeted by homosexual activists eager to promote their lifestyle to school children.

As part of this effort, students will be encouraged to take a "Tolerance Test" and to distribute literature and put up posters spreading the message that ex-homosexuals do exist. The students are also being encouraged to report to Liberty Counsel the results of their "Change is Possible Campaign" activities.

Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, says public schools across America have become ground zero for homosexual activists and their efforts to indoctrinate young people into their lifestyle. Advocates of same-sex activity may encourage young people to experiment while downplaying the dangers of such premature and aberrant sexual initiations.

"Unfortunately," Staver notes, "when youths as young as kindergarteners or in second grade on up get indoctrinated with the view that they ought to engage in homosexual activity to determine their sexual identity -- that it's normal, it's natural, and everyone's doing it -- they ultimately, when they go down that path, can become emotionally and physically damaged because they don't know the full story."

That "full story" is rarely heard in America's public schools, the head of Liberty Counsel, points out. Instead, he asserts, tolerance is promoted there, but it is not practiced when it comes to students that want to openly proclaim the truth about homosexuality.

"I think it's important for youth in America to get the full message," Staver says, "to get the other side of the message instead of being discriminated against because they have a moral and Christian or pro-family view -- instead of being discriminated against because they're saying that you can in fact change."

Young people who hold these views have many times faced intimidation and censorship at school and have too often gone without support, the pro-family attorney observes. "We want to give that backing to them, from both a Liberty Council and a PFOX perspective," he says, "and so we're launching this 'Change is Possible' campaign all across the country."

Staver says students participating in the "Change is Possible Campaign" will be provided with a "Students' Rights" brochure, sample graphics to use to create their own literature, relevant health statistics, and a list of groups that affirm an individual's decision to leave homosexuality. These youth will also be encouraged to start "Gay to Straight Clubs" at their schools, he adds.

Back

Shareholder's Proposal Urges Ford to Stop Pushing Homosexual 'Marriage'

April 18 2006 Allie Martin Agape Press

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has refused a request by the Ford Motor Company to keep a homosexual issue off their stockholders' meeting agenda -- a resolution designed to bar the auto manufacturer from promoting same-sex "marriage."

Late last year, a retired doctor from Alton, Illinois, named Robert Hurley penned a letter to Ford Motor Company's corporate secretary. In the letter Hurley informed company officials that he, as a Ford stockholder, intended to introduce a resolution at the annual shareholders' meeting that would forbid the automotive industry giant to promote homosexual marriage.

Ford, fearing homosexuals might boycott the company, asked the SEC to omit the resolution. However, the government agency denied the request. Therefore, the author of the resolution asserts, Ford officials will now be forced to deal with the issue.

"I think the more it can be discussed in the company and outside, the better because I think it's a significant issue," Hurley contends. "And it isn't just with Ford," he notes. "There are others who have similar written policies which really need to be streamlined and made non-preferential to any group's activities."

Ford's 2006 Annual Stockholder Meeting takes place May 11 in Wilmington, Delaware. Members of the company's Board of Directors are recommending a vote against the proposal, Hurley notes, "because they believe they need a diverse workforce, free of discrimination."

But the hiring of homosexuals as members of the Ford workforce is not the issue, the concerned stockholder insists. The real issue, he suggests, is the company's overtly pro-homosexual policy and its efforts to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.

"I'm talking about a written policy that singles out specific activities for specific mention and listing; I just don't think that's appropriate," Hurley says. "And I think it makes the company look as though, in this case, they may be promoting activities that have significant public health consequences."

The American Family Association has, along with a coalition of other pro-family groups, called for a year-long boycott of Ford because of its support for homosexual marriage. Hurley hopes his resolution at next month's shareholder meeting will further encourage the auto company to stop promoting same-sex marriage and other homosexual activist causes.

Back

Ford Motor Company to Sponsor Homosexual 'Marriage' at Motor City Pride Event

April 18 2006 American Family Foundation

Showing contempt for the concerns of traditional families, Ford has agreed to sponsor the "Family Area" at the Motor City Pride Event June 2-4 which will feature a homosexual marriage "commitment ceremony." The purpose of the ceremony is to "make a political statement."

According to the Motor City Pride website, "Metropolitan Community (homosexual) Church of Detroit and Triangle Foundation are looking for Same-Gender couples willing to make a political statement by celebrating their love in a commitment ceremony to be held in the City of Ferdale on June 4, 2006."

When one clicks on the "Family" section of the website, the caption reads: "The Family Area (which includes the 'marriage' ceremony) is generously sponsored by: Ford Motor Company Fund." Ford Motor Company Fund gets its funding from Ford Motor Company.

Since the boycott began, Ford stock has fallen 7% and Associated Press stated that Ford sales were down 5% in March. Many financial consultants believe that Ford is headed for bankruptcy.

It appears that Ford is more willing to face bankruptcy than ending their support of homosexual groups and causes.

Take Action: sign the Boycott Ford Pledge by clicking the link below

Call your local dealer and ask why Ford is sponsoring this "marriage ceremony." Click here to find the phone number and email address of your Ford Motor Company dealers (Click on Ford, Jaugar, Land Rover, Mazda, Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo icons at the top of the page).

Back

Bureaucratic redefinitions of the right to keep and bear arms

April 18 2006 Larry Pratt CNSNews.com Commentary

A