BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #82 05/05/2006
Click on an article to view OR just scroll through the Articles:
1. What Economic Impact? Boycotts Show Little Impact on the Country's Economy
2. Spanish version of Star-Spangled Banner ‘Nuestro Himno’ hit the airwaves Friday
3. Some of the Victims of Illegal Immigration
4. Reports say that a number of Islamic organizations joined ranks to support May Day
5. Hill Impasse Spurs States to Tackle Illegal Immigration
6. Immigration madness or just Karl Marx teachings taking root?
7. Special Legislative Session: Will Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning Be Funded?
8. The Center Human Dignity Denounces NIH Funding of Genetic Re-Engineering Project for Bioethics
9. Movement in Missouri Advocates of killing embryonic human beings for their Embryonic Stem Cells
10. Judge Rules in Favor of Religious Student Group in Plano ISD Case
11. Texas Supreme Court to hear case of suit against pastor
12. Conservatives Lose Tax Plan Battle but Win Major Consolation Thanks to Two-Thirds Rule
13. Conservative Insurgency Comes to light in Texas
14. Success in Fight to Save Andrea Clark: St. Luke’s Hospital Backs Down
15. Churchgoing Lowest in New England, Highest in South
16. Palm Beach County Proposes to Delete Zoning Restrictions Related to Church Size and Location
17. FBI Technology Blows apart Myth of Church State Separation
19. Family of Terri Schiavo Expresses Alarm at Actions of Judge
20. Three Christian Leaders Peacefully Arrested for Standing in Solidarity with Religious Rights Activist Dr. Wenyi Wang at White House Prayer Vigil
21. Hard for Christians to Get a Fair Shake from Media
22. Outrageous Bill Forcing Pro-Homosexual Message in Public Schools Passes Education Committee
23. Christian Ordered to Do Business with Gay Activists
24. Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Gay Policies
25. Since 666 is Prophetical: June 6th 2006 is a Date Marked with Caution
26. Homeland Security Official Calls For Creation of a "Global ID Management System"
27. Gathering Clouds of War over the Mid-East
What Economic Impact? Boycotts Show Little Impact on the Country's Economy
May 3 2006 Federation for American immigration Reform (FAIR)
Y
esterday's rallies and boycotts by Latino groups and supporters of illegal immigration did little to prove the supposition that illegal aliens are vital to the country's economy. In fact, it may just have proven the opposite. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and their supporters took to the streets again in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles demanding "Amnistia!" But, for the hubbub, there was little bang for the buck. Oscar Mendez who is El Salvadoran and lives in Virginia stayed home from work yesterday told the Washington Post, "We want to show the government that all the work in this country is impossible without us."
Amnesty supporters asked the illegal aliens (who are "just here to make a living") to risk losing their jobs and to keep their children out of school to show the economic power of illegal aliens. The boycott simply put did not cripple the economy-in reality it didn't even skin the knee of the American economy. When confronted with the fact that "the day without illegal aliens" was pretty much like any other day-only with less traffic-organizers of the lackluster boycotts attributed the minimal impact to "last minute" appeals not to boycott for fear of a backlash. Hmmm…sounds like a weak spin, but you decide.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing with several prominent economists regarding the economic impact of illegal and legal immigration. While their opinions of a guest worker amnesty program varied, the economists made several important statements. For example, most agreed that low-skilled immigration, including illegal immigration in general, has a negative effect on the economy. Others stated that "temporary" guest workers are never temporary and that the benefits of a guest worker program are limited. Finally, when asked whether these were jobs Americans won't do, one economist, Richard Freeman, replied that since the majority of workers in all of these industries were still native-born, it is obvious that Americans are doing these jobs.
The Senate last week also voted 59-39 to increase border security funding in the FY06 supplemental appropriations package by $1.9 billion. This money will be directed to several different programs within the Department of Homeland Security to increase the country's border defenses. Some in the Senate have noted that this increase in funding is in part to silence the critics of the guest worker amnesty proposal currently awaiting Round 2 before the Senate.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) plans to shift the Senate's focus as they begin again the debate on immigration reform by bringing up the cost estimate of a guest worker amnesty like the Hagel-Martinez bill by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. The current estimate for the Hagel-Martinez proposal is $8 billion for the first five years and $27 billion over 10 years.
Back
Spanish version of Star-Spangled Banner ‘Nuestro Himno’ hit the airwaves Friday
April 28 2006 David Montgomery the Washington Post
Oh say can you see -- a la luz de la aurora?
The national anthem now faces an extreme artistic translation into Spanish.
T
he new take is scheduled to hit the airwaves today. It's called "Nuestro Himno" -- "Our Anthem" -- and it was recorded over the past week by Latin pop stars including Ivy Queen, Gloria Trevi, Carlos Ponce, Tito "El Bambino," Olga Tañon and the group Aventura. Joining and singing in Spanish is Haitian American artist Wyclef Jean.
The national anthem's familiar melody and structure are preserved, while the rhythms and instrumentation come straight out of Latin pop.
Can "The Star-Spangled Banner," and the republic for which it stands, survive? Outrage over what's being called "The Illegal Alien Anthem" is already building in the blogosphere and among conservative commentators.
Timed to debut the week Congress returned to debate immigration reform, with the country riven by the issue, "Nuestro Himno" is intended to be an anthem of solidarity for the movement that has drawn hundreds of thousands of people to march peacefully for immigrant rights in Washington and cities across the country, says Adam Kidron, president of Urban Box Office, the New York-based entertainment company that launched the project.
"It's the one thing everybody has in common, the aspiration to have a relationship with the United States . . . and also to express gratitude and patriotism to the United States for providing the opportunity," says Kidron.
The song was being prepared for e-mailing as MP3 packages to scores of Latino radio stations and other media last night, and Kidron was calling for stations to play the song simultaneously at 7 Eastern Time this evening.
Rejecting assimilation? "Nuestro Himno" is fraught with controversial cultural messages.
However, the same advance buzz that drew singers to scramble for inclusion in the recording sessions this week in New York, Miami, Texas, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic has also spurred critics who say rendering the song in Spanish is a rejection of assimilation into the United States.
In the Spanish version, the translation of the first stanza is relatively faithful to the spirit of the original, though Kidron says the producers wanted to avoid references to bombs and rockets. Instead, there is "fierce combat." The translation of the more obscure second stanza is almost a rewrite, with phrases such as "we are equal, we are brothers."
An alternate version to be released next month includes a rap in English that never occurred to Francis Scott Key:
Let's not start a war
With all these hard workers
They can't help where they were born
Now the national anthem is being remade again according to the way the air is in America, and the people behind "Nuestro Himno" say the message once more is: We're all Americans. It will be the lead track on an album about the immigrant experience called "Somos Americanos," due for release May 16. One dollar from each sale will go to immigrant rights groups, including the National Capital Immigration Coalition, which organized the march on the Mall on April 10.
But critics including columnist Michelle Malkin, who coined it "The Illegal Alien Anthem" nickname say the rendition crosses the line. Transforming the musical idiom of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is one thing, argue the skeptics, but translating the words sends the opposite message: We are not Americans.
"I'm really appalled. . . . We are not a bilingual nation," said George Taplin, director of the Virginia Chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, part of a national countermovement that emphasizes border control and tougher enforcement, and objects to public funding for day-laborer sites. "When people are talking about becoming a part of this country, they should assimilate to the norm that's already here," Taplin said. "What we're talking about here is a sovereign nation with our ideals and our national identity, and that [anthem] is one of the icons of our nation's identity. I believe it should be in English as it was penned."
Back
Some of the Victims of Illegal Immigration
April 26 2006 Michelle Malkin CNSNews.com Commentary
P
resident Bush accuses those of us who want to secure America's borders and fully enforce our immigration laws of lacking "compassion."
Huh. Well, I have yet to hear an ounce of compassion from President Bush for America's countless casualties of lax immigration enforcement. Where's the sympathy for innocent, law-abiding citizens who have lost their lives at the hands of illegal aliens and their open-borders enablers?
Nope, we haven't heard a word about the victims as the White House pours on its unadulterated pro-illegal alien rhetoric and "undocumented workers do the jobs Americans won't do" propaganda-all in support of a massive, ill-timed, bureaucratic nightmare-inducing amnesty plan that will inevitably increase illegal immigration.
Last week, a notorious illegal alien serial killer who traipsed freely across the U.S.-Mexican border during a 25-year, escalating crime spree popped up in the news again. The case of Angel Resendiz, a convicted death row murderer in President Bush's home state of Texas, is a timely reminder of the deadly costs of our continued homeland security chaos.
Time and again, illegal alien day laborer Resendiz broke the law getting into our country; broke more laws while in the country; and then broke the law repeatedly and brazenly after being released, deported and allowed to return. His most brutal acts included the slayings of 12 people, ranging in age from 16 to 81, which ended in 1999 when Resendiz surrendered to a Texas Ranger in El Paso.
For the last seven years, Resendiz has been perched comfortably on Death Row-eating chocolate cream pies, watching Spanish-language television, whining about depression and selling locks of his hair on Internet auction sites.
His execution, scheduled for May 10, has been delayed pending yet another of his endless appeals claiming to be "insane."
As I recounted in my book "Invasion," Resendiz entered and exited our country at will. From the time he was 14, he racked up arrests and convictions ranging from trespassing, destruction of property, burglary, aggravated battery and grand theft auto to carrying a loaded firearm and false representation of U.S. citizenship. He had at least 25 encounters with U.S. law enforcement between August 1976 and August 1996, when he was arrested and released for trespassing in a Kentucky rail yard.
During that period, he was convicted at least nine times on several serious felony charges. He was deported to Mexico by the feds at least three times and was "voluntarily returned" to Mexico at least four times without formal proceedings.
Throughout 1998, the Border Patrol continued its blind catch-and-release policy-apprehending Resendiz seven times and letting him go on his own recognizance despite his massive criminal record and three prior deportations. Shoddy fingerprint databases, immigration paperwork negligence and unpoliced borders led to:
-- The bludgeoning death of Florida teenager Jesse Howell and the rape and strangulation murder of his fiance, Wendy Von Huben.
-- The bludgeoning death of University of Kentucky student Christopher Maier and the rape and near-murder of his girlfriend, who survived the attack.
-- The murder of Leafie Mason, an elderly Texas woman whom Resendiz hammered to death with a fire iron.
-- The rape, stabbing and bludgeoning death of Baylor College of Medicine researcher Claudia Benton.
-- The sledgehammer bludgeonings of Texas pastor Norman Sirnic and his wife, Karen.
-- The bludgeoning death of Houston teacher Noemi Dominguez.
-- The murder of elderly Texas widow Josephine Konvicka, who was killed with a grubbing hoe.
-- The murders of George Morber, shot in the head, and Carolyn Frederick, clubbed to death.
The last four of Resendiz's victims were murdered after Resendiz had been released by federal immigration officials-even though there were already warrants outstanding for his arrest.
Resendiz made a bloody mockery of our homeland security chaos. Congress and the White House are now preparing to add grave insult to fatal injury by refusing to fix the persistent problems that facilitated Resendiz's crimes.
Campaigning for amnesty this week, President Bush mouthed the open-borders mantra against tough deportation policies and lectured immigration enforcement advocates about their lack of sensitivity.
"I can understand it's emotional," he said, but "we're talking about human beings, decent human beings that need to be treated with respect."
I don't think the victims of "undocumented worker" Angel Resendiz would agree.
(Michelle Malkin is author of the new book "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.")
Back
Reports say that a number of Islamic organizations joined ranks to support May Day
May 2 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council
H
undreds of thousands of people marched yesterday--May Day--in major American cities to protest against legislation being considered by Congress to curb the flood of illegal immigration into the U.S. The demonstrators want to legalize the estimated 12 million illegal aliens who have entered the U.S. Once again we saw large numbers of foreign flags waved by protestors. Potentially eclipsing those concerns are concerns about outside groups who may be manipulating the demonstrators. Reports say that a number of Islamic organizations joined ranks to support May Day. In meetings with pastors in the Southwest recently I was told of an intense recruitment effort by militant Muslims to convert illegal aliens. We already know that such groups are active in our
prisons. We also have new and grave concerns about Mexico's pending legalization of possession of hard drugs, which has been linked to the funding of terrorism. This adds a whole new dimension to border security. Columnist Michelle Malkin, herself the daughter of legal immigrants, has written about one notorious case of a mass murderer who was picked up at least 25 times by U.S. law enforcement (see above article,) but who continued to re-enter this country with fatal consequences over a 20-year period. Angel Resendiz now sits on Texas' death row. FRC will continue to work closely with Hispanic pastors and to welcome pro-family, pro-life Latinos to our coalition, but we join with others in resisting the No Barriers/No Barreras crowd who would undermine America's national security. America has been immeasurably enriched by millions of immigrants. But our first priority should be in security the physical security of America and that starts at our borders, north and south, east and
west.
Back
Hill Impasse Spurs States to Tackle Illegal Immigration
May 3 2006 T.R. Reid Washington Post Staff Writer / CNSNews.com
PHOENIX -- State legislatures around the nation are considering hundreds of proposals dealing with illegal immigration, reflecting the exasperation of many local officials with Congress's failure to contend with the millions of undocumented workers who have entered the nation in recent years.
Here in Arizona, the House has passed a proposal to set fines and other penalties for companies that hire undocumented workers. The bill, which had regularly failed in previous years, is expected to win Senate approval within days and is only one of many plans under consideration.
Others include bills to erect an 80-mile fence and a multimillion-dollar radar system along the Mexican border, designed to slow the nightly flow of migrants across the desert. Another bill would require police to check the citizenship of anyone stopped for a traffic offense. The state House, by a vote of 43 to 12, has passed a resolution calling on Washington to dispatch the U.S. Coast Guard to this landlocked, coast-free state to assist in patrolling the border.
For the most part, the new state measures are designed to get tough on illegal immigrants, on employers who give them jobs and on state officials who give them benefits. In some states, illegal immigrants can buy lottery tickets but cannot collect if they win a significant prize.
At the same time, though, some states are moving in the other direction -- making life easier for immigrants, legal or otherwise. In April, Nebraska's legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto to offer in-state college tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants. Nine other states have formally authorized tuition breaks for undocumented immigrants, and many public universities employ a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for graduates of high schools in the states.
Maryland and Virginia lawmakers considered proposals to crack down on illegal immigrants in their recently concluded legislative sessions, but none passed.
The multi-state approach, with some states at variance with others, threatens to create a maze of laws and regulations at a time when the nation as a whole is struggling with how to contend with an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration.
"We're not going to solve this problem with a patchwork approach at the state level. It's a national problem, and the need is to repair the national system," said Josh Bernstein of the National Immigration Law Center, which works to promote the rights of low-income immigrants. "We're not going to erect barriers between states."
Advocates on both sides said that Monday's economic boycott and rallies will work to their advantage. Opponents of illegal immigration said the protests hardened their resolve, while immigrants' rights activists predicted that the large turnout will sway lawmakers to their side.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has tallied 463 bills introduced this year in 43 states, by far the biggest crop of state immigration proposals ever recorded. Ann Morse, who tracks the issue for the NCSL, said this rush of legislation demonstrates that state legislators are no longer willing to cede this high-profile political concern to Congress.
Morse cited three reasons for the unprecedented interest in immigration at the state level. "First, there's the reaction to 9/11 and the concern that our borders are not safe," she said. "Another factor is the number of immigrants and a general sense that the influx is growing rapidly. And finally, we seem to have a Congress in gridlock on the issue. State legislators feel if they don't act, nobody will."
That last concern has been crucial in the legislature here, noted state Rep. Russell K. Pearce, a Republican who says he is "fed up" with his own party's management of the issue in Washington.
"We had high hopes that Congress would do something this year," Pearce said. "But Washington is ducking its responsibility. Our constituents are outraged about that. So they are demanding -- and I mean demanding -- that we do the job instead."
With opinion surveys showing intense public concern about immigration this year, Congress has been sharply divided. The House passed a tough anti-immigration bill that included stiff criminal measures and costly new efforts in border control. In the Senate, many lawmakers favor a guest-worker program and finding a way to allow some illegal immigrants to seek citizenship. So far, however, the legislation has been mired in committee.
With the two houses seeming to be on divergent paths, state officials are losing hope for federal immigration initiatives this year. "If Congress were able to act, there would be much less activity in the state legislatures," Bernstein said.
The most common approach to immigration at the state level this year, the NCSL tally shows, is criminal legislation to impose sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. More than half the states are considering employment legislation in various forms, and many bills are expected to pass.
On April 17, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) signed a law that imposes fines on employers of undocumented workers and requires any company with a state contract to fire any employee who is not a legal resident. The Georgia law also requires that state offices verify an employee's status before paying unemployment benefits or workers' compensation. Similar provisions are found in pending bills in several other states.
Legislatures in Ohio, South Dakota and Arizona have passed bills this year requiring that state or local police check the immigration status of everybody they encounter, and report suspected illegal immigrants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Several other states have similar bills pending.
Many police chiefs and mayors oppose this approach, fearing that immigrants will be frightened to contact the police when they need help. But proponents say that the initial police contact is the best time to catch somebody who should not be here. As Pearce puts it, "Deportation should start with the traffic stop."
More than a dozen states are considering legislation that would require proof of citizenship or of legal-resident status for anybody seeking a driver's license. Some would simply deny illegal immigrants the right to drive. Other proposals are similar to a bill that passed in Utah last year, offering undocumented applicants only a "driving privilege" certificate that is not supposed to be treated as legal identification. Virginia requires license applicants to offer proof of legal status.
There are also bills pending in several state capitols to help undocumented workers deal with the problems that come with their status. Several states seek to get tough on "notarios," people without a law degree who sell costly "consulting" services to immigrants seeking legal-residence status or citizenship. Some state governments help employers fill out the I-9 form that is required for immigrant workers under federal law.
Polls show that immigration is considered a bigger problem in Arizona than gasoline prices. Republican Sen. Jon Kyl and Jim Pederson, his Democratic challenger, are already saturating the airwaves for the November election -- and the ads deal mainly with immigration.
So far this year, the Republican-controlled legislature has passed several bills designed to crack down on illegal immigration; Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano has vetoed several of them. Pearce, sponsor of the employer-crackdown legislation, said the anti-illegal-immigration majority in the legislature plans to package all the measures into a comprehensive bill. That would set up a new confrontation with the governor.
The bill that seems most likely to become law here this session is Pearce's employer-sanction plan. Napolitano said in January that she would sign an employer-sanction bill. Even business groups concede that approval is likely.
"Our position has been that employment of immigrants is a federal issue, and it deserves a federal response," said Farrell Quinlan of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. "But if the federal government doesn't act, you're going to see the states try to fill the void."
Back
Immigration madness or just Karl Marx teachings taking root?
May 3 2006 Tony Blankley the Washington Times Commentary
A
s I watch our country almost hopelessly divided and wandering off in all sorts of wrong directions, I think of the last verse of John Milton's "Paradise Lost," when Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden: "They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld of Paradise, so late their happy seat, Waved over by that flaming brand, the gate With dreadful faces thronged and fiery arms: Some natural tears they dropped, but wiped them soon; The world was all before them, where to choose Their place of rest, and Providence their guide; They, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow, Through Eden took their solitary way."
Of course, all is not lost. Some years later Milton wrote "Paradise Regained." But what a terrible journey of rediscovery was before Man, once he had foolishly succumbed to temptations that forced him to leave Eden and live amongst Satan and his servants in the outer world.
I know America has not been a Garden of Eden, but for a temporal land, how wonderful it has been. And how casually we are casting off its manifold blessings? And for what future?
It is almost inconceivable that an argument is taken seriously that we don't have the right to secure our borders and determine who shall enter our country. Not only has such lunacy become respectable, but our mainstream media instantly, instinctively embraces such a position. Every radio headline newscast, almost every newspaper and television report willfully refuses to distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. Each report stamps the mark of evil on the forehead of all who would guard our borders.
Even the Republican president of the United States makes the nonest of non sequiturs, when he justifies doing nothing to enforce the border laws by claiming that these are decent humans just looking for a chance in life.
Well, with the exception of the 29 percent of federal prisoners and similar numbers in state prisons, with the exception of those who seek our welfare, rather than a job -- the rest of the wayfarers are indeed far from their native lands for the most decent and best of intentions.
I would guess that of the world's 6 billion or so souls -- probably about 75 percent are good and decent folks who only want the best for their children and the world. It's the same all over -- England, Mexico, America, Africa, throughout the world -- about a quarter of the population are bums, the rest are pretty good.
And most of them would like to live in America. But why stop with 85 million Mexicans. For the open-border crowd -- which apparently includes virtually the entire American political, media, academic and business establishment -- there is no reason to try to keep out anyone who wants to come in. (The Senate and the president have made it quite clear that they have no plans to actually secure the border. Their border-security proposals are charades and calculated pretenses.)
There are still about 700 million Chinese peasants waiting impatiently for a decent job; probably about an equal number of Indians. And most of the African continent could surely live better in Phoenix than they do being butchered in genocidal wars or starving in man-induced famines.
What is the moral basis for discriminating against that part of suffering humanity unlucky enough to find their self not sharing a border with the good old US of A? Perhaps the Dubai port company could start chartering ships to bring the rest of suffering humanity to our shores.
Perhaps we have a moral obligation to tax ourselves to pay to transport to America all 4 billion or so humans who would prefer to live here, rather than where cruel fate has placed them. Surely there must be a Clinton-appointed federal judge somewhere who can provide the constitutional argument for such a mandated tax.
Frankly, that last lunatic idea doesn't sound any more farfetched than the first lunatic idea -- that we have no right to keep anyone out of the country, who goes' to the bother of coming here. You can't do satire in a lunatic asylum or in present-day American politics.
Apparently, the American establishment has finally taken to heart the teaching of Karl Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. America should house and feed and educate and provide health care and employ the whole world according to our ability. And surely the people of the world will provide the need.
And why not! After all, it is just dumb luck that each of us finds ourselves in a God blessed America. Well, if we keep going at this rate we will soon run out of luck. But apparently we will never run out of dumb.
Back
Special Legislative Session: Will Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning Be Funded?
May 3 2006 Texas Alliance for Life
The Texas Legislature is meeting in Austin for a special session to address funding for public education. Other issues may come up if the Legislature finishes its work before the May 17 deadline.
P
lease contact Governor Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and House Speaker Tom Craddick. Ask them to oppose any bill to allow our state taxes to be used for research that destroys human embryos, including research involving human embryonic stems and cloning.
The pro-life movement supports research on stem cells, as long as they are "adult" stem cells. These are taken without harming the donor. Adult stem cells reside in many places in our bodies -- blood, bone marrow, certain nerves, fat, and others, including umbilical cord blood. Research on adult stem cells is ethical and productive. Thousands of people are alive today because they received adult stem cell transplants or therapies.
We oppose research involving human embryonic stem cells and cloning because these require the destruction of human embryos -- human life at its earliest stages. During the two special sessions last summer, the legislature considered several bills that would have created tax-funded research centers in Houston and possibly other locations.
Promising Adult Stem Cell Research in Houston to Treat Brain Injuries in Children
Researchers at The University of Texas Medical School at Houston and Memorial Hermann Children's Hospital have proposed a new treatment for children with brain injuries using non-embryonic stem cells. The treatment will use a child's own stem cells extracted from his/her bone marrow (a form of adult stem cells). No embryonic stem cells will be used, making the research supported by the pro-life community.
"It's exciting to hear about this ethical stem cell research, which does not depend on the destruction of human embryos," said Beverly Nuckols, M.D., board member of Texas Alliance for Life. "These are truly patient-specific stem cells because they came from the patient's own bone marrow. There is no fear of rejection. This exemplifies the advantage of using the patient's own adult stem cells."
Charles Cox, M.D., (left) and James Baumgartner, M.D., have received approval for the study to be conducted this year. According to a news release from the UT Health Science Center, Cox and Baumgartner have permission to recruit 10 head injury patients between the ages of 5 and 14 who meet criteria set for enrollment. After initial treatment and evaluation, a pediatric surgeon will approach the injured child's parents to explain the trial and request permission to enroll the child in the study. If permission is granted, bone marrow will be extracted from the child's hip and then processed to derive non-embryonic stem cells, which are then given intravenously to the injured child. The cells will migrate to the damaged area of the brain and induce brain repair. Because the non-embryonic stem cells come from the child, rejection should not be a problem. The children's brain function will be carefully evaluated after
the procedure for improvement.
The researches are currently recruiting patients. More information can be found at the National Institutes of Health website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00254722?order=1.
The researchers say that, while the project is very promising, more state funds are needed to attract federal dollars for subsequent studies.
Back
The Center Human Dignity Denounces NIH Funding of Genetic Re-Engineering Project for Bioethics and
May 3 2006 Christian Newswire
C
HICAGO, May 3 Christian Newswire The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity strongly denounces the decision by the National Institute of Health (NIH) to fund a project to develop guidelines for the use of human subjects in genetic enhancement research. The grant, totaling almost three-quarters of a million dollars, is being given to Maxwell Mehlman and Case Law School to promote the genetic re-engineering of human beings for non-therapeutic purposes under the rubric of "enhancement."
"This is a violation of the spirit of the NIH-sponsored Human Genome Project," says CBHD Senior Fellow C. Ben Mitchell. "Providing this grant signals a fundamental and dangerous change in the policy of the NIH, resurrecting the mistaken goals of the eugenics programs in the United States and Europe in the early twentieth century."
The project has been charged with "determining the conditions under which it would be ethical to conduct genetic enhancement research using human subjects," implying that scientists, physicians, politicians, ethicists or the public at large, condones such research.
"The project presupposes that it is ethical to reengineer normal human beings," says CBHD President Dr. Andrew Fergusson. "But in a society which correctly decries the use of artificial means, such as steroids to 'enhance' athletic abilities, the presumption of the NIH to pursue the re-engineering of human beings is the height of scientific and social arrogance."
By choosing to pursue an agenda for re-engineering humankind, the NIH has clearly demonstrated an inadequate degree of oversight of its funding activities. The White House and Congress must investigate this blatant misuse of taxpayer funds. CBHD is a strong advocate of research for healing, and is deeply saddened that this incredibly important instrument of good is being used for a course of evil.
Back
Movement in Missouri Advocates of killing embryonic human beings for their Embryonic Stem Cells
May 2 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council
A
dvocates of killing embryonic human beings for their stem cells have qualified a constitutional amendment for the November ballot in Missouri by gathering 288,000 signatures. This presents a serious challenge to pro-life forces, traditionally strong in the "Show Me" state. Those who favor lethal embryonic stem cell experiments typically hype the marvelous cures they anticipate.
Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), however, has come out against the November ballot initiative. FRC had sharply criticized Sen. Talent--who has a strong pro-life voting record--for removing his name as a co-sponsor of Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) bill to ban cloning. Now, we're happy to commend Sen. Talent for opposing the Missouri stem cell initiative. He stands in contrast to former Missouri Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) who has been making the rounds of TV talk shows and homosexual groups stumping for embryonic stem cell initiatives and denouncing Evangelicals in the GOP over the effort to protect one-man, one-woman marriage.
Perhaps Australia can take up the "Show Me" motto, since that nation has now formed the world's first research center dedicated to adult stem cell research. These adult cells pose no ethical issues and have already been used in numerous treatments.
Back
Judge Rules in Favor of Religious Student Group in Plano ISD Case
27 Apr 2006 Free Market Foundation
A
fter battling against Plano Independent School District in court, the religious student club S.W.A.T., Students Witnessing Absolute Truth, will finally be treated equally to other non-curricular clubs.
A federal judge ruled in favor of S.W.A.T., granting them a Preliminary Injunction against Plano ISD. A Preliminary Injunction places a sanction against the district to immediately stop discrimination of the officially recognized, student-led religious group and lasts for the entirety of the lawsuit.
It mandates equal access to resources given to every other student club on campus, including access to the website, a staff sponsor and a school bank account. In the official decision, the federal judge stated, “The issue in this case is not one of sponsorship or the lack thereof, but of the flagrant denial for equal access guaranteed to S.W.A.T. The harm at issue is irreparable because it inhibits the exercise of Plaintiff’s First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion.”
CLICK HERE to read the ruling. Yesterday, S.W.A.T. formally accepted Plano ISD’s offer of settlement; therefore ending the lawsuit and guaranteeing the religious freedom of the student group.
Back
Texas Supreme Court to hear case of suit against pastor
May 2 2006 Associated Press
F
ORT WORTH — The Texas Supreme Court will review a lower court ruling allowing a woman to sue her minister who divulged details from her marriage counseling sessions to his congregation.
The court agreed last week to hear oral arguments in Peggy Penley's defamation suit against the Rev. C.L. "Buddy" Westbrook, pastor of CrossLand Community Bible Church.
The Legal Liberty Institute, a nonprofit organization that defends religious freedoms and First Amendment rights, as well as Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth and Dallas Theological Seminary, are worried that the case may make it easier for church members to sue a pastor with a professional counseling license who talked to them as a religious leader.
"It could open up the floodgates to pastors and churches across the state," said Kelly Shackelford, an attorney for the institute. "The Constitution and the case law say that internal church matters are to be decided by the individuals who make up those organizations."
Penley and her husband went to Westbrook for counseling, and he involved them in group sessions where they talked about marriage in the context of their faith, according to court documents.
In 2000, Penley told Westbrook that she was divorcing her husband, and Westbrook recommended an attorney. She also resigned her church membership because its bylaws set forth procedures allowing the congregation to discipline her and others for inappropriate behavior.
However, Westbrook met with church elders and later distributed a letter about Penley's decision to get a divorce. The letter said she was involved with another man, although it didn't specify the nature of their relationship.
The letter urged church members to shun Penley as part of a "tough love" approach for her to see her errors.
Penley and her husband divorced in 2001, and she married the other man. She then sued, challenging Westbrook's actions as a counselor under the Texas Licensed Professional Counselor Act. She dropped the church and its elders as defendants.
A lower court judge tossed out Penley's case after Westbrook's attorneys argued that she was disciplined within church rules. The 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth disagreed and said Penley had a right to sue.
Darrell Keith, Penley's attorney, said the case is about negligence by a licensed counselor, not about the church.
Wade Birdwell, Westbrook's attorney, said First Amendment protection has been upheld by the courts for more than 100 years.
"It's a large deal because it is an area of overlap between ecclesiastical and secular authorities," he said. "To what extent do you make yourself amenable to state regulators by getting a license? Do you kick the First Amendment out the door when you get a license? It could shut down every one of the (counselor training) programs at these seminaries."
Back
Conservatives Lose Tax Plan Battle but Win Major Consolation Thanks to Two-Thirds Rule
May 2 2006 Mike Hailey Capitol Inside Editor
I
n a dramatic display of legislative irony, conservative forces that have become adamant opponents of the Texas Senate's two-thirds rule capitalized on the tradition Tuesday when they used it to win an agreement on property appraisal caps in their fight against a business tax overhaul in the current special session.
Conservatives lost their fight to kill the new business tax contained in House Bill 3 when Senate leaders after several hours of high-pressure behind-the-scenes negotiations finally secured the support they needed to bring the measure to the chamber floor for a final vote that sent it to Governor Rick Perry's desk. But conservatives scored a major consolation prize with an appraisal caps deal that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Senate leaders cobbled together as a way to get a Republican senator to abandon a blockade he'd help Democrats put up to prevent a vote on HB 3.
As a result, the same conservative forces that have been calling for an end to the two-thirds rule are now within reach of a reduction in appraisal caps - one of their highest priorities - thanks to the tradition that requires senators to have permission from two out of every three Senate members before bringing bills to the floor for debate.
The seed for the deal on property appraisal caps was planted when State Senator Mike Jackson succumbed to pressure from Houston activist Steve Hotze and other conservatives and voted against a motion that would have allowed a final vote on the business tax plan if it had been approved with two-thirds support. Without Jackson's vote to suspend the regular order of business - a procedural requirement before bills can be heard on second and third reading - Senate leaders only had 20 out of the 21 votes they needed with all 32 members present to call for a final vote on HB 3. Eighteen Republicans and two Democrats voted to suspend the rules in order to get the bill back to the floor while Jackson and 10 Democrats were all that was needed to slam the door on further debate on the proposed business tax.
The Senate stood at ease for about four hours before Jackson agreed to drop his opposition to the motion to permit a final vote on the measure after State Senator Steve Ogden, the tax plan's sponsor in the upper chamber, offered to add an amendment that would cap appraisals to a separate piece of legislation that proposes property tax cuts and public school reforms. With Jackson's permission, Ogden was successful in his second attempt to bring HB 3 back to the floor for final passage when the Senate voted 20-10 to suspend the regular order of business. At that point, Republican State Senator Jon Lindsay's absence was insignificant because the tax bill's Democratic opponents no longer had the votes to block debate on the measure whether he was there or not.
The prevailing sentiment was that Jackson's decision to help Democrats block a vote on HB 3 was due more to his interest in a possible congressional bid than a premeditated scheme to manipulate a property appraisal caps agreement with the two-thirds rule. Jackson has expressed an interest in being a replacement candidate that precinct chairs will nominate to take U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's place on the ballot after he resigns his seat in Congress sometime soon. There was speculation that Hotze offered to help Jackson secure the nomination in the congressional contest if he'd vote against bringing the business tax plan to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Moving quickly before the fragile coalition could unravel again, the Senate finally approved the business tax overhaul plan on a vote of 16-14 and forwarded it to the governor for his veto, signature or inaction that would have the same effect as signing it. As the Republican leader who appointed the special commission that drafted the business tax proposal, Perry is expected to sign the measure into law. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he will put his signature on HB 3 until he's assured that the bill to cut property taxes will pass. If lawmakers fail to pass HB 1, Perry and the Legislature will have voted to raise taxes $3.4 billion if he signs the bill that's on his desk tonight but would have no tax cuts to show for their efforts on the other side of the ledger.
Republican State Senators Kevin Eltife of Tyler, Kyle Janek of Houston, Todd Staples of Palestine and Jackson joined 10 Democrats in voting against HB 3 on final passage. Staples - the Republican nominee for agriculture commissioner - had supported the business tax measure Monday when it won tentative approval. Democratic State Senators Ken Armbrister of Victoria and Frank Madla of San Antonio sided with the GOP majority in support of the measure for the second straight day.
Back
Conservative Insurgency Comes to light in Texas
May 3 2006 Phyllis Schlafly
A
new conservative uprising is stirring and no one should be surprised. The Republican Establishment has been drifting leftward, and a backlash had to come against the Big Government spenders in legislatures and against supremacist judges who order the spending.
Witness the conservative complaints against the Texas Republican leadership for trying to railroad through, in a special legislative session, a brand new tax on businesses. This would impose $3 billion in new taxes on the most productive workers in Texas.
Is this justified by a shortfall in the budget? No; Texas has a budget surplus of over $8 billion this year and business is booming.
Contrast that with California, which runs annual multibillion-dollar budget deficits and has a bond rating that ranks as low as hurricane-damaged Louisiana. The major difference is income taxes; California has the highest effective top rate (factoring in lack of deductions), while Texas has no personal or business income tax.
If Texas Republicans think they are helping their state or party by imposing a new tax on business, they are badly misguided. Despite carefully obtaining the blessing of key leaders in both political parties, the grassroots are rising up against higher taxes.
The revolt is a replay of what happened after President Bush lined up bipartisan support for his personal top choice for the Supreme Court, feminist Harriet Miers. Conservatives rallied against her nomination, and Bush replaced her with Sam Alito.
The failed Dubai Ports deal gave us another example of how the conservative natives are getting restless. Despite Bush's threat to veto any legislation to kill the deal, Congress heeded the loud and clear message from the grassroots and did exactly that.
Apparently these lessons were lost on Republican leaders in Miers' home state of Texas. Her chief booster (the one who assured us that Miers is conservative), Texas Justice Nathan Hecht, writing for the state supreme court, ordered the Texas legislature to revamp its public school funding by June first.
Activist judges in other states, notably Kansas and Arizona, have been ordering the state legislatures to appropriate more funding for public schools. The judges have convinced themselves that only judges are wise enough to know how much taxpayers' money is "equitable" or "adequate," and Justice Hecht is apparently infected with that same judicial conceit.
Conservative Texas Supreme Court Justice Scott Brister wasn't fooled by his Court's decision, and he dissented vigorously. The Texas legislature should not be fooled or intimidated because levying taxes and appropriating money are legislative, not judicial, powers.
It is long overdue for state legislatures to educate state judges about the separation of powers and the fact that state courts should defer to elected representatives on taxes and spending.
Instead, Texas Republican legislators are jumping in Pavlovian response to the Court's arbitrary demands and deadline. A lame-duck session of the legislature has convened to try to increase taxes to appease the Court.
The Republicans rallied behind a tax increase recommended by Democrat John Sharp, who said, "I view this as my last shot to do anything significant in government." Is imposing new taxes now a badge of honor?
One business, Braidwood Management, wrote Texas legislators that its taxes will increase tenfold from $5,000 last year to $55,000 under the proposed bill. Is budget-surplus Texas now heading down the road of near-bankrupt California?
The teachers unions, with their overwhelmingly Democratic membership, are tickled pink that Republicans are doing this unpopular work. The unions can blame the tax hike on Republicans and laugh all the way to the bank as they soak up the new revenue.
Enter stage right. Conservative radio personality Dan Patrick declared "I cannot and will not support a tax increase on homeowners or business owners." Patrick just upset the Republican Establishment by winning a landslide victory in the primary for a Texas state senate seat.
Missouri has shown what the real conservative position is on taxes. Thanks to the Hancock Amendment of 1980, a surplus in tax collections must be refunded to the taxpayers, and nearly $1 billion was refunded to individual and corporate taxpayers during 1995 to 1999.
Conservative challenges to tax-and-spend Republicans are gaining around the country. Despite strenuous efforts by the Republican National Committee to prop up U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island for reelection, this tax-and-spend RINO (Republican In Name Only) ran dead last among his major primary and general election opponents in fundraising this past quarter, and his wife has now appealed to Democrats to change their registration to vote for him in the Republican primary.
The politically tone-deaf White House, which is still trying to shove a very unpopular amnesty bill through the Senate, should listen to the grassroots. The sooner there is reconciliation the better off our country, our economy, and the Republican Party will be.
Back
Success in Fight to Save Andrea Clark: St. Luke’s Hospital Backs Down
May 3 2006 Gudrun Schultz LifeSiteNews.com
H
OUSTON, Texas, Andrea Clark’s family is rejoicing today after a new doctor took over the critically ill woman’s care and helped convince St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital to end futility proceedings.
“I’m so happy I don’t know what to think, or say, or do,” Ms. Clark’s sister, Melanie Childers, said in an email to ProLifeBlogs, where updates on the battle to save Andrea were posted almost daily. “Not only is my sister not going to be put to death by St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, but it also looks like she is recovering from her heart surgery, finally.”
Two weeks ago the hospital ethics committee decided to remove Ms. Clark from life-support without her family’s permission, saying further care would be futile, a legal decision under current Texas law. Ms. Clark had suffered severe complications following heart surgery and required a respirator and dialysis machine. The family had 10 days to move Ms. Clark to another facility before the hospital would act.
That decision drew an outcry from her family and from pro-life advocates across the country and beyond, as an informal Internet campaign to raise awareness of the situation swung into action. Mainstream media picked up the story last week.
The family is crediting their success in large part to the participation of concerned pro-lifers.
“[The doctors] underestimated the power of the right to life people…I think we should all be glad that this IS an issue in which such a passionate and large group of people have chosen to wage war,” wrote Ms. Childers. “Once these people get started, they are like a steamroller—they ARE going to run through the opposition.”
Ms. Clark is now in the care of Dr. Matthew Lenz, who has privileges at St. Luke’s. Lawyer for the family Jerri Ward told ProLifeBlogs, “St. Luke’s is doing the right thing in this case now…for the time being, Andrea will continue to receive life-sustaining and appropriate treatment at St. Luke’s.”
Back
Churchgoing Lowest in New England, Highest in South
May 2 2006 Prophecy News Watch
T
he latest Gallup poll found that 42 percent of Americans say they attend church or synagogue once a week or almost every week and among the frequent churchgoers, most are from the South while the New England states have the lowest percentage of church attendance.
Based on a large sample size of more than 68,000 interviews conducted over the past two years, the survey saw as high a percentage as 58 in Alabama while New Hampshire and Vermont showed the lowest attendance rate of 24 percent.
Survey results revealed a wide variation across 48 states, but overall patterns clearly indicated the highest church attendance in the traditionally Southern states. Of the Southern states, Virginia had the lowest reported churchgoer rate with 44 percent, which still lies above the national average. Church attendance is also high in certain Midwestern states, including Nebraska with 53 percent.
At the other end of the spectrum, the New England states show church attendance rates in the 20 to 30 percent range with the highest among those being Connecticut at 37 percent.
The highest most populous states reported the following rates: California, 32 percent; Texas, 49 percent; New York, 33 percent; Florida, 39 percent; and Illinois, 42 percent.
The regional survey follows a Gallup study that showed the highest church attendance rate to be among Evangelicals. Evangelical churchgoers were found to range in the 60 percentile.
Also concluded from church attendance surveys were subgroup patterns. Women are more likely to attend church than men, older Americans are more likely to attend than the younger, and blacks are more likely to attend than whites.
The Gallup poll conducted 68,031 telephone interviews with Americans aged 18 and older from January 2004 through March 2006.
Back
Palm Beach County Proposes to Delete Zoning Restrictions Related to Church Size and Location
May 3 2006 Liberty Council
P
alm Beach County, FL - After an avalanche of public opposition, the Palm Beach County Commission appears to be abandoning a proposed ordinance designed to limit the maximum size of churches to 750 seats in residential areas, with even smaller limitations in suburban (500) and rural neighborhoods (250). The calculation for the total number of seats was to include the sanctuary and the entire church complex.
Last week Liberty Counsel wrote a letter to the Commissioners stating that a proposed zoning ordinance is unconstitutional and subject to legal challenge. In addition to local calls and emails, a nationally broadcast radio interview on Crosstalk generated a flood of calls from locals and tourists around the country asking the Commission to not approve the ordinance. The Commission has now voted to advertise an Amendment to the Unified Land Development Code which deletes the seat limitation on churches. The first reading for these amendments will be on May 25, 2006.
Commenting on this situation, Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, said: “We are pleased that Palm Beach County did the right thing in revising the proposed ordinance to remove the seat limitation on churches without costly litigation. We will continue to closely monitor the ordinance along with the actions of the county officials to ensure that churches are not targeted for discriminatory treatment.
Back
FBI Technology Blows apart Myth of Church State Separation
April 24 2006 Christian Newswire
W
ASHINGTON, Speaking to a group in Danbury, Connecticut, the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of Washington, DC- based Faith and Action and a missionary to government officials on Capitol Hill, pointed to recent FBI analysis of Thomas Jefferson’s infamous “separation of church and state” letter to debunk the mythical “wall” that supposedly divides the two.
Schenck was speaking at a rally on the Danbury Green, not far from the ruins of the 18th century church where the Danbury Association of Baptists met. It was in an 1801 letter to the Association that Jefferson coined the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state.” In 1947 the US Supreme Court incorporated the phrase into its majority opinion in a case called Everson vs. Ewing Township Board of Education. The first two drafts of the Jefferson letter, together with the one sent to Danbury are kept by the Library of Congress. The chief of the library’s manuscript division, Dr. James Hutson, has written extensively on the letter. Several years ago the FBI used classified technology to reveal margin notes and other material in the drafts that had been inked out by Jefferson.
“The results of the FBI analysis are staggering,” said Rev. Schenck, who met with Dr. Hutson to discuss his findings on the notes. “It changes the whole character and meaning behind Jefferson’s words. In my opinion, and I believe Dr. Hutson’s work backs me up, this letter was nothing more than political damage control. It was never meant to represent constitutional theory.”
Schenck pointed out in his Danbury talk that the Supreme Court took political spin and elevated it to constitutional doctrine.
“That is patently absurd,” he said.
Schenck’s talk has taken on added momentum after radio stations in Connecticut and Texas played it in its entirety. He will be taking his message to churches and other venues across the country over the next 18 months and is available for further comment.
Back
Thank Furniture Row Company for sponsoring 'National Day of Prayer' car
April 27 2006 OneMillionDads.com
F
urniture Row, a furniture company based in Denver, Colorado, is using the hood of its #78 Nextel Cup NASCAR race car this weekend to promote the National Day of Prayer coming up on Thursday, May 4.
Chairman Barney Visser and his company, Furniture Row, are the regular sponsors of the car, but decided to forgo the normal paint scheme to bring the message of prayer to millions of fans watching this weekend's NASCAR race at Talladega Speedway on national television.
Furniture Row operates 320 furniture stores in 31 states. Although the company's public relations manager said Chairman Visser prefers to shun the limelight, we thought you would like to thank him for promoting the "National Day of Prayer" on his #78 Nextel Cup NASCAR car.
Please send Furniture Row Chairman Barney Visser an email, letting him know you appreciate his company's promotion of the National Day of Prayer.
Back
Family of Terri Schiavo Expresses Alarm at Actions of Judge
April 28 2006 Christian Newswire
Judge George Greer to Discuss Schiavo Case at University of Pennsylvania Bioethics Conference.
ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, The surviving family of Terri Schiavo, the disabled Florida woman who died in 2005 of marked dehydration, are expressing their alarm at the participation of Circuit George W. Greer at the University of Pennsylvania’s 10th Anniversary Symposium at the Center for Bioethics.
The symposium, titled The Legacy of the Teri Schiavo Case: Why is it so hard to die in America runs April 30th and May 1st with speakers to include Michael Schiavo, Dr. Jay Wolfson, Dr. Ronald Cranford and presiding Florida Circuit Judge George W. Greer.
Bobby Schindler, Terri’s brother and advocate with the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation Center for Health Care Ethics, will be protesting Judge Geer’s presence on the panel, 10:30 am, Monday, May 1 outside of the University of Pennsylvania’s Biomedical Research Building.
"Judge Geer’s presence at the University of Pennsylvania’s bioethics conference is not only outright offensive and inappropriate but it is indicative of his own biases against the disabled, and may well be in violation of Florida’s judicial canons as prescribed by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida," says Schindler.
"We are entitled to a fair and unbiased judiciary. Judge Greer is confirming exactly what my family has maintained from the beginning of Terri’s case – that he has a disposition against the vulnerable people whose cases he controls.
"Judges are duty-bound to be an unbiased, fair finder of fact, not an advocate of the ‘right-to-die’ movement. Judge Geer is not retired. He is a seated judge who still hears guardianship and life/death cases in the probate court. Do you want him sitting in judgment of you or your loved ones’ life?"
About the Schindler Family:
Mary and Robert Schindler as well as Suzanne Schindler Vitadamo and Bobby Schindler now work full time for The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation Center for Health Care Ethics in St. Petersburg, Florida, an organization dedicated to ensuring the rights of disabled, elderly and vulnerable citizens against care rationing, euthanasia and medical killing.
Back
Three Christian Leaders Peacefully Arrested for Standing in Solidarity with Religious Rights Activist Dr. Wenyi Wang at White House Prayer Vigil
May 2 2006 Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, Group is asking that all criminal charges against Dr. Wang be dropped.
D
r. Wang is facing six months in jail for protesting at a White House news conference with President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao.
The activists were arrested while praying for religious freedom and also repeating the phrases Dr. Wang called out at a White House news conference with President Bush and Chinese President Hu.
Those phrases include, "President Bush stop him (President Hu) from killing." And, "President Bush stop him from persecuting Falun Gong."
Organizers say if Dr. Wang is convicted it will dramatically increase persecution of Falun Gong in China, along with other religious groups, and send a worldwide message that the United States is not committed to protecting religious freedom.
Those who were arrested comment below.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states, "Our hope and prayer is that President Bush will honor religious freedom and human rights and ask the Department of Justice to drop charges against Dr. Wang. These federal charges send a horrible message to the worldwide community concerning America's commitment to protecting religious freedom and liberties. Dr. Wang has not engaged in any criminal activity. It is the government of China that has persecuted Falun Gong, and trampled religious rights for other faiths."
Katie Mahoney, Communications Director for the Christian Defense Coalition, comments, "I am willing to stand in solidarity with Dr. Wang and peacefully risk arrest to send a clear a message that our nation must do all within its power to protect religious freedom around the world. If Dr. Wang is convicted it will embolden the Chinese government to intensify its attacks against Falun Gong and all other religious groups in China."
Brandi Swindell, National Director of Generation Life, declares, "As a nation we must do all within our power to ensure human rights are protected here in America and around the world. Dr. Wang is facing six months in jail for simply asking President Bush to help stop the killing of Falun Gong members and bringing a halt to religious persecution in China It would be tragic for Dr. Wang to go to prison for honoring human rights while Chinese President Hu received the red carpet treatment while in America."
For more information or interviews call: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney 202.547.1735 Cell: 540.538.4741
Back
Hard for Christians to Get a Fair Shake from Media
April 28 2006 staff reports Citizen Link
Some of the best comments defending traditional values often end up getting edited out of stories.
W
atching the evening news, you may be surprised at what you're not hearing. Reporters typically sift through interviews looking for useable sound bites that fit their story — and often ones that fit their worldview.
Not surprisingly, Christians may be getting the short end of the stick when it comes to equal time on the airwaves.
In a recent interview on ABC's Nightline, Janet Folger, president of Faith 2 Action, was pitted against two liberals. Even though outnumbered, she knew her arguments were sound. But her best points ended up on the editing-room floor — including her response to the claim that homosexual behavior is not dangerous: "Two-thirds of the cases of AIDS in this country are men engaging in homosexual sex.' Bottom line. That's the facts our government statistics report."
Watching the show later, she realized her response was left out.
"If you're up against not only two against one, but a room full of editors," she said, "I'm not sure how you go up against that."
According to a 2004 Pew Research poll, five times more journalists describe themselves as "liberal" than "conservative," and surveys show they consistently vote Democrat. Conservative strategist Genevieve Wood told Family News in Focus the close relationship between Democrats and media elites gives an unfair advantage to those who lean to the left.
"They get the microphones," she said. "They get the face time, and that's who the media go to."
Folger added that the media have been playing the bias game for too long.
"It's become so commonplace," she said, "that we don't even recognize it anymore."
FOR MORE INFORMATION
What's the real issue underlying media bias? Find out in "It's Not About Bias," a commentary from CitizenLink Editor Gary Schneeberger — who used to be one of the editors slanting the news to the left.
Back
Outrageous Bill Forcing Pro-Homosexual Message in Public Schools Passes Education Committee
May 3 2006 Christian Newswire
S
ACRAMENTO, Calif., Today SB 1437 (Kuel, D-Los Angeles), the most outrageous bill in the California legislature this year, passed from the Senate Education Committee.
SB 1437 requires textbooks to highlight the positive contributions of homosexual and transgender individuals to society and would prevent textbooks, teaching materials, instruction, and “school- sponsored activities” from reflecting adversely upon persons based on their sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender.
“This bill is the most extreme effort thus far to transform our public schools into institutions of indoctrination that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “SB 1437 seeks to eliminate all ‘stereotypes’ of the traditional family so that young children are brainwashed into believing that families with moms and dads are irrelevant.”
SB 1437 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities.
“School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom,” said England. “Under SB 1437 school districts would likely be prohibited from having a ‘prom king and queen’ because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.”
“Under SB 1437 school districts would also likely have to do away with dress codes and would have to accommodate transsexuals on girl-specific or boy- specific sports teams.”
The full effects of SB 1437 are broad and sweeping.
“SB 1437 disregards the religious and moral convictions of parents and students and will result in reverse discrimination,” said England.
CRI is committed to opposing legislation that uses our children as social-experiments and tramples upon long-standing traditional family values.
Read SB 1437
Back
Christian Ordered to Do Business with Gay Activists
April 28 2006 Citizen Link
An Arlington, Va., man who refused to duplicate videos containing homosexual content has been ordered by a government commission to complete the job, World Net Daily reported.
