BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #85 05/26/2006
Click on an article to view OR just scroll through the Articles:
1. Sunday, June 4th has been designated as Marriage Protection Sunday
2. Liberty Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Stop Partial-Birth Abortion
3. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, Whose Bill Is This?
4. Senate's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act adds 66 million immigrants is 20 years
5. Senators Take Position in Advance of Marriage Amendment Vote
6. The US Senate is more Concerned about getting Reelected, Not Securing Our Borders
7. U.S. Border agents Dismiss the Bush Border Security Plan
9. Is President Bush pushing U.S. towards a North American Union?
10. Judge Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief in United States Supreme Court Arguing Law Banning Partial-Birth Abortion is Constitutional Because Abortion is Not a Constitutional Right
11. After two Years the U.S. Senate Passes Broadcast Decency Enforcement Bill
12. California’s Ninth Circuit Court OKs Government to Educate School Children in Islam, but not Christianity!
13. Arnold Schwarzenegger Pledges to Veto One of the Transsexual-Bisexual-Homosexual school Curriculum Bills
14. Activist Judge Strikes Down Ban on Homosexual Marriage, Overruling 76% of Georgia Voters
15. Same-Sex Benefits Will Be Allowed in Utah
16. British Moslem spends $200 million backing "The Da Vinci Code" movie
17. Fighting for the "Contract" and the Constitution: The Pledge Protection Act
18. Software Company Offers Exciting New Bible Champions(TM) Computer Game to Churches for Vacation Bible School
19. Drug 'Reverses' Vegetative State; Terri Schindler Schiavo's Family Comments
20. Effective Fatherhood Requires Marriage
21. US Officials fume as Iraq backs Israel boycott
22. Veterans Personal Data Is Stolen Burglary Leaves Millions at Risk of Identity Theft
23. Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is a Hawaiian Punch to E Pluribus Unum
24. Keller school district officials express regret omitting the words "In God We Trust" from a nickel
25. States are more addicted to gambling revenue than ever as 48 states raking in gambling proceeds
26. Federal judge strikes down Okla. gay adoption law
27. Southern Baptist Church Turns to the Internet to Save Souls and Increase Salt and Light Ministries
Sunday, June 4th has been designated as Marriage Protection Sunday
May 22 2006 Gary Bauer American values
I
n preparation of the Senate debate on a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment to the United States Constitution, Sunday, June 4th has been designated as “Marriage Protection Sunday.” Pastors across the nation are being asked to speak up in defense of traditional marriage and the traditional family, and men and women of faith will be urged to contact their elected representatives in Congress to support the amendment.
Slowly but surely, the Church is waking up to the danger same-sex “marriage” poses to society as it begins to grasp the correlation between the preservation of traditional marriage and religious liberty. As I have reported before, legal experts have issued stark warnings about the future of religious freedom should homosexual “marriage” become the law of the land. Catholic Charities of Massachusetts, for example, has been forced to suspend adoption services because it believes children deserve mothers and fathers. But now that men can legally “marry” other men in Massachusetts, such quaint views are frowned upon as “bigotry” and “discrimination.”
Unfortunately, the radical effort to redefine marriage is likely to make significant gains in the days ahead. Lawsuits seeking a “right” to same-sex “marriage” are pending before the liberal state supreme courts of New Jersey, New York and Washington. Unless the people’s representatives act decisively and act quickly, unelected judges will fundamentally alter the meaning of marriage in a manner contrary to thousands of years of accepted societal values, and to the detriment of religious freedom and future generations of children. The American people do not want same-sex “marriage” imposed upon them by judicial fiat. But only one thing will prevent it – a federal marriage protection amendment.
Back
Liberty Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Stop Partial-Birth Abortion
May 22, 2006 Liberty Counsel News Release
W
ashington, D.C. - Today, Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the federal ban on "partial-birth abortion," arguing that babies who are only inches away from birth must be granted the same inalienable right to life as all other Americans. The so-called "partial-birth abortion" procedure is actually infanticide, in that a baby is brutally killed during the birth process with only its head inside the mother.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is only part of a continuum of protection enacted by Congress to protect the unborn, partially-born and newly-born children, including the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and "Laci and Connor's Law," which provides that a person who kills an unborn baby, along with the mother, is guilty of two crimes.
Liberty Counsel filed its amicus brief on behalf of Illinois nurse Jill Stanek in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which challenged the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003. Mrs. Stanek testified at the hearings on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, offering Congress her first-hand accounts of watching babies born alive and then left to die. This prominent pro-life advocate helped bring this disturbing practice to Congress's attention.
Nebraska abortion doctor LeRoy Carhart, who successfully challenged a similar partial-birth abortion ban enacted by the Nebraska legislature, also brought this challenge to the federal law. Two similar cases were brought in New York and California. In all three cases, the appellate courts found the Act unconstitutional because it lacked a "health" exception. The other two cases are on hold while the Carhart case is decided by the Supreme Court.
Liberty Counsel's brief argues that Congress correctly determined that babies who are inches from birth must be afforded the inalienable right to life granted to children who complete the birth process, and that the right should not be interfered with by a claim that the "health" of the mother somehow justifies killing the child.
Erik Stanley, Chief Counsel for Liberty Counsel, a national public interest law firm, commented: "The partial-birth abortion procedure is gruesome and barbaric, and if performed on a convicted criminal would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Federal law imposes fines and criminal punishment for anyone who takes and destroys bald eagle eggs, but does not protect babies just inches from birth. Partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect the health of the mother. Abortion doctors use the health exception, which contains no standards, to justify the procedure. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Babies who are inches from birth deserve the same protections under our laws as all other citizens."
Back
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, Whose Bill Is This?
May 22 2006 Gary Bauer American Values
A
s the Senate heads into the final stages of debate over immigration reform, conservative columnist Kate O’Beirne made an interesting observation: This immigration bill is not a Republican bill. Sure President Bush supports it, but the legislation is being crafted over the objections of most Senate Republicans.
Just over a dozen renegade Republicans have joined with Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to kill any meaningful amendments that would bring the Senate’s bill in line with the conservative “enforcement first” bill passed by the House of Representatives.
O’Beirne notes, “The majority of Senate Republicans have now voted against two of the principle reform provisions favored by the president. So it appears that only a minority of congressional Republicans support the ‘comprehensive’ approach…” If most Republicans oppose key elements of the bill, that might explain why Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter fully support it, and why Ted Kennedy is praising President Bush for his “courage.”
Back
Senate's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act adds 66 million immigrants is 20 years
May 20 2006 Robert Rector the Heritage Foundation
M
ost discussion of the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (generally referred to as the Hagel-Martinez bill), centers on the fact that it would grant amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants. But this is a mere drop in the bucket.
If enacted, Hagel-Martinez would represent the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. If enacted in its original form, S. 2611 would have resulted in an estimated 103 million immigrants entering the U.S. or achieving legal status over the next 20 years. All of these would have had the right to become citizens. Early last week, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.) forced through an amendment to the bill (opposed by the bill’s authors) to reduce one of the major categories of proposed immigrant inflow.
Transforming America
Even with the Bingaman amendment, the bill would allow an estimated 66 million people to immigrate legally to the United States in the next 20 years. Annual legal immigration to the U.S. would more than double if Hagel-Martinez becomes law, from one million per year to 2.5 million. Under current law, 19 million immigrants would enter the United States legally in the next 20 years; Hagel-Martinez would add 47 million to this total.
Today, legal immigrants are here on 1) temporary status, in which they can stay only for a designated period of time, 2) near-permanent convertible status, in which they are given the right to “adjust” or convert to legal permanent residence after a few years, or 3) legal permanent residence (LPR) status, in which they can remain in the United States for the rest of their lives and seek full citizenship after five years.
The bill proposed by Senators Chuck Hagel (R.-Neb.) and Mel Martinez (R.-Fla.) would give most immigrants now identified as “temporary” a “convertible” status with virtually unrestricted opportunity to become legal permanent residents and then citizens.
Moreover, under Hagel-Martinez and current immigration law, immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Spouses and dependent children will be granted permanent residence along with the primary immigrant and also may become citizens. In addition, after naturalizing, an immigrant can bring his parents into the United States as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship.
No Limits!
There are no limits on the number of spouses, dependent children and parents of naturalized citizens who can be brought into country under Hagel-Martinez. Siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents get preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.
Four key provisions of Hagel-Martinez would result in an explosive increase in legal immigration: First, illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for five years or more—60 % of all illegals—would be granted immediate amnesty. Illegals here two to five years (another 25%) would travel to one of 16 “ports of entry,” where they would receive amnesty and work permits. After receiving amnesty, illegal immigrants would spend six years in a provisional status, then become legal permanent residents. Five years later, they could become U.S. citizens. Moreover, all who receive amnesty could bring their spouses and dependent children into the country, and none of these individuals would count against any cap or limit in immigration law.
Hagel-Martinez also creates a new “temporary guest-worker” program, but there is nothing temporary about it. Nearly all “guest workers” would have the option to become permanent residents and then citizens. Foreign workers would have to have a job offer from a U.S. employer to enter the country. But intermediate employment firms that specialize in recruiting foreign labor for U.S. employers likely would emerge to handle this for nearly everyone who wanted in.
Guest workers could remain in the United States for six years, and in the fourth of those six years, request and receive LPR status if they have learned English or enrolled in an English class. And again, there are no limits on the number of guest workers who could move to LPR status, stay in the country permanently and become U.S. citizens. And, again, their spouses and minor children also would be permitted to immigrate to the United States with them and gain LPR status with them. And again, those who become citizens then could bring in their parents as legal permanent residents.
The amended bill does limit the number of guest workers who can enter each year to 200,000 per year. Within 20 years, millions of guest workers would have entered the United States, and none would be required to leave.
Today, the permanent entry of non-immediate relatives, such as brothers, sisters and adult children, is capped at 480,000 per year minus the number of immediate relatives—parents, spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens—admitted the previous year. Hagel-Martinez eliminates the deduction for immediate relatives from the cap, which effectively increases the number of non-immediate relatives who could attain LPR status by 254,000 per year or about 5 million over 20 years.
The United States now issues about 140,000 employment-based visas per year. Under Hagel-Martinez, it would issue 450,000 per year till 2016, then 290,000 per year after that. Moreover, spouses and children of workers with employment-based visas do not count against the cap. Given that 1.2 dependent relatives enter the United States for each worker under employment-based immigration programs, this means that nearly 1 million people per year would receive LPR status until 2016 and 638,000 per year after that.
How is the figure of 66 million reached?
Today, 950,000 people per year receive permanent residence visas under current law. Over 20 years, that adds up to 19 million. The provision granting amnesty to illegal immigrants living in the United States would add another 10 million.
Today, when secondary family members, such as brothers and sisters, enter, they are counted against the 480,000 people per year allowed in because they are relatives of those already here under employment or guest-worker programs. Ceasing to count them against the 480,000, as Hagel-Martinez would do, adds 254,000 per year. That’s 5 million over 20 years.
Growing the employment-based green card program from 140,000 workers per year to 450,000—plus the estimated 540,000 relatives they are allowed to bring with them—would account for another 13.5 million people over 20 years.
The new guest-worker program would allow in 200,000 people each year. That would yield another 4 million people over 20 years. Spouses and dependent children of illegal immigrants already here who would receive amnesty under Hagel-Martinez and parents of naturalized citizens joining their families in the United States make up the rest.
Unforseen Consequences
A recent piece on HumanEventsOnline.com by Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute stated that I performed a cheap trick by predicting that immigration under S. 2611 would reach 200 million over 20 years. As Mr. Reynolds should be well aware, I never predicted 200 million immigrants under S. 2611 and provided that number only to illustrate that my own estimates fell far below the law’s maximum legal flow. I did estimate that the inflow under S. 2611’s original uncapped “guest-worker” program could reach two million per year by 2027. I regard that estimate as perfectly reasonable given the original provisions in the legislation. Immigration law for the last 40 years has been a
parable of unforeseen consequences—creating new, essentially unlimited, categories of immigration is an invitation for remarkable surprises that are unlikely to be undone once underway. For example, the immigration act of 1965 was not advertised as a decisive increase in immigration at the time of its passage, but it resulted in a near tripling of immigration within 30 years.
The Hagel-Martinez bill would yield similar outcomes. Today, about one million immigrants enter the United States each year legally. Under Hagel-Martinez, that number would more than double. Likewise, today, 12% of our population is foreign-born. If Hagel-Martinez passes, nearly a quarter (22%) of the population would be foreign-born within 20 years. That level of immigration is unprecedented in American history, far above the previous peak of 15% foreign born in the early 1900s. (Moreover, this analysis of Hagel-Martinez concerns only future legal immigration. It is likely the heavy illegal migration would continue under the bill as well.)
The Hagel-Martinez bill would transform the United States socially, economically and politically in ways we can’t now imagine. What we can know is that, if this passes, within two decades, the character of the nation would be fundamentally different from what exists today.
Back
Senators Take Position in Advance of Marriage Amendment Vote
May 23 2006 Maggie Gallagher
T
he week of June 5, the Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment on marriage. The text reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
On Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain announced: "I will vote against it because I believe very strongly, first of all, in the sanctity of union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions."
Leave marriage to the people in the states? We'd love to, senator, but at this point the judges won't let us. From Oregon to Louisiana, wherever the American people have had a chance to vote, strong majorities have voted to keep marriage as a union of husband and wife. It is the courts that are redefining common sense as bigotry and hate-mongering. Judges in one state have already imposed gay marriage (Massachusetts). Judges in two states (Nebraska and Georgia) have already struck down state marriage amendments. Courts in eight states will soon rule on gay marriage as a civil right.
By opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment, McCain leaves himself with a position on gay marriage that is virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's. McCain says that makes him one special guy: "I've found in my life that when I do what I think is right -- for example, on the marriage amendment -- it always turns out in the end OK," he told Fox News. "When I do things for political expediency, which I have from time to time, it's always turned out poorly."
I'm betting the good senator has miscalculated. In the first place, he is likely to find burnishing his mainstream media halo futile now that he's the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president. Meanwhile, the latest Gallup poll released this week finds 79 percent of Republicans oppose gay marriage (as do 45 percent of Democrats); two-thirds of Republicans support a federal marriage amendment. As Gallup notes: There has been no appreciable change over the past two years [in] Americans attitudes, about legal recognition for same-sex marriage.
Opposition to gay marriage is holding, in spite of the vitriol of its advocates (or maybe because of it?). First lady Laura Bush recently told Fox News Sunday: "I don't think (gay marriage) should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue -- a lot of sensitivity."
Of course, she's right. Could someone send the Human Rights Campaign a memo?
When Boston Catholic Charities reluctantly decided it must pull out of the adoption business because Catholic institutions cannot conscientiously allow same-sex couple adoption, HRC president Joe Solmonese had this to say about the leaders of the Catholic Church: "What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith." At a news conference this week, an ad hoc group called the Clergy for Fairness offered similar thundering moral denunciations. Rev. Paul Simmons, director of the Center for Ethics at the University of Louisville, proclaimed: "The Federal Marriage Amendment has the smell and feel of Salem." Its supporters, he said "use religious liberty as a way to camouflage bigotry in the name of God."
Memo to McCain: Decisions in New Jersey and California could come at any time, raising voters' concerns about out-of-control courts bent on declaring their faith-based view of marriage a form of bigotry.
Are you sure you want to side with Hillary on this one?
Back
The US Senate is more Concerned about getting Reelected, Not Securing Our Borders
May 23 2006 Christian Newswire
W
ASHINGTON, - President Bush’s so- called “plan” to close the border between the United States and Mexico is nothing but a great American Scam. First of all putting 6,000 troops on the border sounds good, but these troops will not be allowed to patrol the border, to watch for Illegal Aliens, to arrest Illegal Aliens or to report Illegal Aliens.
This so-called “plan” is a lot of noise which in reality means nothing is being done. The Department of Homeland Security has said that sending 6,000 troops to the border will free up only about 500 border guards.
Mike Huckabee, the Governor of Arkansas agreed that the current plan does not secure our borders. Talking about the President’s latest plan Huckabee said, “We are going to have to close our borders at sometime in the future.” Why not now?
As you may remember there is an approved plan to add about 2,000 border guards each year which has never been put into effect. The new Senate Bill, approved yesterday, now does not even MENTION the idea of going after EMPLOYERS who hire Illegal Aliens.
“When will America wake up to the fact that our elected officials in Washington DC are only concerned about how to get re-elected,” said Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America’s Values. “America is being sold out by our elected officials. Why don’t they do their job and protect the citizens of America,” Swarthout said.
Watching the pro-immigration marches and we saw thousands of people waving the Mexican Flag, we saw them holding up signs which read TODAY WE MARCH, TOMORROW WE VOTE, we heard people chanting “Hell no, we won’t go,” and we saw signs which read, WE DIDN’T CROSS THE BORDER, THE BORDER CROSSED US.
This should give us some idea about the fact that Illegal Aliens believe they have a right to be here.
“When will America wake up to the fact that our nation is being invaded by Illegal Aliens and that our nation is being stolen from us... right from under our noses,” Swarthout said.
Back
U.S. Border agents Dismiss the Bush Border Security Plan
May 23 2006 Jerry Seper the Washington Times
P
resident Bush's guest-worker program is a "Trojan horse" that fails to address the problem of securing America's borders and is an open invitation to millions of people who want to enter the United States illegally, say U.S. Border Patrol agents in Arizona.
"Every day that President Bush and the Senate hold real border security hostage to their misguided amnesty program, thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens continue to flood into the country," said the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) Local 2544 in Arizona. "Make no mistake most of them get by us. We are losing this war, and it's not even close."
The Tucson chapter is the NBPC's largest. The union represents the agency's 10,000 non-supervisory agents. More than half of the 1.15 million illegal aliens apprehended last year by the agency were detained in the Tucson sector.
"President Bush and the Senate do not 'get it' ... The American people 'get it': Shut the border down to illegal crossings, then start hammering the greedy employers who hire them," the local said on its Web page, www.local2544.org. "Start deporting, we repeat, deporting, the illegal aliens who are here in violation of law.
"It may take years, but you don't build a house overnight. Promising more amnesty is not going to dissuade anyone from coming here. Rewarding the lawbreakers with amnesty is not going to solve anything. It just demonstrates that there are rewards for breaking our laws."
A flood of illegal aliens into the United States has impacted and, in many cases, overwhelmed schools, health care, the environment and the criminal justice system, veteran Border Patrol agents and supervisors in Arizona told The Washington Times.
They called the Bush guest-worker program an amnesty for aliens similar to a 1986 program by the Reagan administration, which they described as a "disgraceful mess."
NBPC President T.J. Bonner, a 27-year Border Patrol veteran, has vigorously opposed amnesty for illegal aliens now in the U.S., saying that rewarding lawbreakers only encourages more lawlessness. He said a guest-worker program sends a "clear message" that America is not serious about enforcing immigration laws. He said the number of illegal aliens will increase again.
"This is not conjecture. It happened after the passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and will undoubtedly happen again," he said.
Polls show Americans do not trust the federal government to secure the border and overwhelmingly want Congress and the White House to stem the flow of illegal aliens before tackling other aspects of immigration reform.
Mr. Bonner said that although most politicians know that the availability of jobs is the "magnet" that lures people to enter this country illegally few have embraced legislation addressing the problem. He said the House-passed bill and one being debated in the Senate will not "effectively reduce the employment magnet."
"Even the allegedly tough immigration-enforcement bill passed by the House last year fails miserably in that regard," he said, adding that employers should be required to ensure the eligibility and identity of those they hire. "This can only be achieved if employers are held accountable for checking to ensure that each prospective employee is eligible to work in this country.
"Such a system will require the use of a single counterfeit-proof document that establishes both identity and employment eligibility."
The Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2005 offered by Rep. David Dreier, California Republican and chairman of the House Rules Committee, creates biometric, machine-readable and fraud-resistant Social Security cards and sets harsher penalties for those who hire illegals.
Known as the "Bonner bill," it was introduced in 2004 and is pending before a House subcommittee. It would require cards with an encrypted electronic identification strip unique to that person that would allow employers to access an eligibility database at Homeland Security for information on the applicant's true identity and legal status.
Back
Amnesty: Bordering on fraud / 31 crimes related to illegal immigration to be wiped clean
May 25 2006 Thomas Sowell Townhall.com / Pt. 2 J. William Lauderback
S
ome people are worried that amnesty will give illegal aliens the same rights that American citizens have. In reality, it will give the illegals more rights than the average American citizen.
Since most of the illegals are Mexican, that makes them a minority. Under affirmative action, combined with amnesty, they would have preferences in jobs and other benefits.
Those who set up their own businesses would be entitled to preferences in getting government contracts. Their children would be able to get into college ahead of the children of American citizens with better academic qualifications.
Illegals who graduate from a high school in California can already attend the
University of California, paying lower tuition that an American citizen from neighboring Oregon.
Under the supposedly "tough" immigration bill in the U.S. Senate, illegals don't have to pay all the back taxes they owe. An American citizen gets no such break from the government and can end up in federal prison, like Al Capone.
If an American citizen gets stopped by the police for a traffic violation and the cops discover that he is wanted for some other violation of the law, they can arrest him for whatever else he has done.
But if an illegal alien gets stopped for going through a red light and the police discovers that he is in the country illegally, in many communities the cop is forbidden to arrest him for that -- or even to report him to the feds.
If an American citizen forges a Social Security card in order to get a job, he can be arrested. Under a provision recently passed by the Senate, illegal aliens who forged Social Security cards not only get a pass, they get to collect Social Security benefits.
The great majority of Senators who voted for that provision were Democrats, and they prevailed because they were joined by a small minority of Republicans, led by -- surprise! -- Senator John McCain. After similar defections on judges and free speech, Senator McCain may give opportunism a bad name.
What the immigration bill in the Senate has become is just another attempt to pander to another special interest, in disregard of how that affects the country as a whole.
Much is made of the fact that there are supposedly 12 million illegals in the country already. The last time illegal aliens were given amnesty, back in 1986 that led to even more illegal aliens coming in afterwards.
Do we want 20 million or 30 million more illegal aliens in the future? Do we want to change the very composition of the American population and with it the values of the country?
There was a time when immigrants came here to become Americans. But there are powerful pressure groups in this country, extending far beyond the immigrant community, doing their best to keep foreigners foreign and force Americans to accommodate their foreign language and culture in the name of "multiculturalism."
We have seen what havoc such notions and practices have created after mass immigration under "guest worker" programs in Europe, especially after the Muslim riots in France. Do we want that in the United States?
Most of the first generation of immigrants may want nothing more than a chance to work and will be happy to be here instead of in Mexico. But second generations born in this country compare their situation not with the situation in Mexico but with what other Americans around them have.
There are plenty of people, both inside and outside the immigrant community, who will fan their sense of grievance and exploit their resentments. This is not peculiar to people from Mexico. Europe has already experienced this.
Both the facts of the past and the dangers of the future are being ignored in the rush to give immediate benefits to illegal aliens, washed down with much talk about border control but no requirement that the border actually be controlled before these benefits go into effect.
The political strategy of this package deal legislation is to give immediate and irrevocable special benefits to some and make pious promises about the future to get all this past the others.
And Did You Hear What Arlen Specter Said? J. William Lauderback Executive Vice President American Conservative Union
Senator Arlen Specter -- who must be suffering from what can only be explained as a surreal case of denial -- said: "The legislation we are considering is not amnesty. That is a pejorative term, really a smear term used to denigrate the efforts at comprehensive immigration reform. This is not amnesty because amnesty means a pardon of those who have broken the law."
Let's forget -- for just a moment -- the rather obvious point, that sneaking across the border ILLEGALLY IS AGAINST THE LAW; what is even more surreal is that The Washington Times reports that attorneys for Specter's own Senate Judiciary Committee "have scoured the bill and come up with a list of 31 crimes related to illegal immigration that would be wiped clean."
Among the crimes that the Senate amnesty bill would "wipe clean" include: The faking or "borrowing" of Social Security numbers -- a crime that millions of illegal aliens commit just that to secure work in the United States illegally -- the Senate bill would pardon those who broke that law.
(One has to wonder how Specter would feel if his Social Security number were "borrowed" by an illegal alien trying to obtain work or credit in the United States?)
Entering the country illegally, which can be punished by six months in prison and a $250,000 fine; the Senate bill would pardon those who broke that law.
(Ask Vicente Fox what he does to people entering Mexico illegally?)
Making false statements on federal income tax forms; each count can be punished by up to a five-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.
(What would happen to you or me for falsifying that kind of information under current law?)
Of course the Senate amnesty legislation does offer ONE special privilege to American citizens...
The Senate bill has a provision tucked away in its 600-pages that gives amnesty to employers who have flouted the law by hiring illegal aliens.
A section titled "Employer Protections" reads: "Employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status under this section shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien."
In other words, if you have knowingly employed illegal aliens and neglected to pay their Social Security as required by statute, this bill would give you -- in Senator Specter's words -- "a pardon of those who have broken the law."
Isn't it nice to know that Senator Specter is looking out for the average American?
But none of these special privileges -- or as Senator Specter says, "Comprehensive Immigration Reforms" -- are as bad as the most incredible, outrageous provision of this bill mentioned earlier.
Namely the REJECTION of an amendment that would have prohibited illegal aliens from collecting Social Security benefits that were accrued while in the country ILLEGALLY using FRAUDULENT Social Security numbers.
Time and time again we've been told that the future of Social Security is imperiled.
Yet the U.S. Senate wants to put million and millions of illegal aliens -- who entered the system in direct violation of the law -- on the Social Security rolls.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform? I call it "national suicide."
The American people will not tolerate the OUTRIGHT BETRAYAL of this great nation. You can start by telling your Senators are appalled by their repeated attempts to grant amnesty and SPECIAL PRIVILEGES to millions and millions of illegal aliens.
We can win this fight for secure borders and no amnesty!
Two weeks ago, Senate leaders proclaimed that they had more than 70 votes in favor of passing this amnesty bill.
But because of direct action by patriotic Americans like you; support for this amnesty bill is steadily eroding.
In fact, Robert Novak -- acknowledged for years as a Washington insider -- wrote: "While killer amendments to the bill have fallen short, the cause of liberalized immigration has lost rather than gained support..."
Even if the Senate votes in favor of granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, there is still hope, because your direct actions have also strengthened the resolve of House leaders who oppose granting blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
And if these House leaders stand firm, you can kill the amnesty provisions of the bill when it goes to conference committee.
That's why we MUST continue fighting. If we can't STOP this bill in the Senate, we MUST stand behind the House leaders who WANT to make a final stand!
If we stand firm NOW, we can win this battle for secure borders and no amnesty!
Back
Is President Bush pushing U.S. towards a North American Union?
May 22 2006 Prophecy News Watch
T
he idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.
A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced formation of an initial entity called, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a "trilateral partnership" that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:
We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.
A working agenda was established:
We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.
Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled "Building a North American Community." We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.
The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed.
NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power will continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.
This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.
Robert Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report "Building a North American Union."
Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that "a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law." The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from "irritating" and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.
Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.
Pastor's 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor's thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the "Amero," a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.
If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the "Amero," we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.
Back
Judge Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief in United States Supreme Court Arguing Law Banning Partial-Birth Abortion is Constitutional Because Abortion is Not a Constitutional Right
May 20 2006 Christian Newswire
M
ONTGOMERY, Ala., - Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law filed an amicus curiae brief today asking the United States Supreme Court to rule in Gonzales v. Carhart that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional because there is no “right to abortion” in the United States Constitution. Congress passed the ban on partial-birth abortion, in which a fully developed
baby is killed, but a federal court in Nebraska agreed with Leroy Carhart, who performs partial-birth abortions, holding that the Act was unconstitutional as an “undue burden” on a woman’s so-called “right to abortion.”
Judge Roy Moore observed, “Once again our federal courts have intruded into a jurisdiction they simply do not have; the power over life and death of a ‘person’ protected by the 14th Amendment! The courts have a duty to preserve life—not take it.”
Judge Moore and the Foundation argue that the Supreme Court should decide this case, and every case, based upon the text of the Constitution. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Congress has the authority to protect life, including the lives of human beings that are not yet outside their mother’s womb. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a “right to abortion.” Roe v. Wade and other abortion decisions should be overruled and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act should be upheld.
For too long, the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Constitution to allow the murder of millions of unborn children in this country. The Foundation for Moral Law believes that, as the Declaration of Independence says, we are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to life, and it is the government’s duty to protect that right.
Back
After two Years the U.S. Senate Passes Broadcast Decency Enforcement Bill
May 19 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link
Majority leader bypasses roadblock to bring Brownback legislation up for a vote.
Pro-family groups scored a huge victory Thursday night when the Senate, by unanimous consent, finally passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act - S. 193.
"We're very pleased," said Daniel Weiss, senior analyst, media and sexuality, at Focus on the Family Action. "We've been fighting for this for more than two years. It is great news that the Senate finally moved on indecency legislation. We are looking forward to a time when the Federal Communications Commission finally has the ability to take effective action against unacceptable content on the airwaves."
If it becomes law, the legislation would increase fines for violations of federal broadcast-indecency standards tenfold -- raising the maximum penalty to $325,000 per violation.
Lanier Swann, director of government relations at Concerned Women for America, called the vote "a tremendous triumph for the American family."
"We thank Senator Sam Brownback for introducing this legislation," she said, "and applaud Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for taking the lead and pushing for a speedy, unanimous vote,"
Swann also thanked the thousands of people who, she said, "have put their heart and soul into calling, e-mailing and lobbying senators on this valuable legislation. This is truly your victory!"
Brownback, meanwhile, was jubilant his bill got the Senate's OK.
"It's time that broadcast-indecency fines represent a real economic penalty and not just a slap on the wrist," the Kansas Republican said. "Radio and television waves are public property, and the companies who profit from using the public airwaves should face meaningful fines for broadcasting indecent material."
Frist, R-Tenn., clearly made good on his promise to bring the bill to the floor for a vote before Congress recesses for Memorial Day -- even though the legislation had been bottled up at the committee level by the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Ted Stevens R-Alaska.
"The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act has been pending, in essence, for the last two years," Frist told CitizenLink today. "That is wrong, and when it was brought to my attention, I took it to the floor, had to work through a number of potential problems and within the last 24 hours, we were able to deliver on a very important bill."
Pat Trueman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, explained that Frist used a maneuver called "hot-lining" to bypass Stevens' committee.
Hot-lining means a bill is adopted by unanimous consent.
"For a unanimous-consent vote, no single senator can object," Trueman said. "So, Senators Frist and Brownback worked something out with Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to assure there would be no negative votes. Then they voted without a roll call."
In fact, the majority leader said unanimous consent came only after he had worked to overcome what he called "a lot" of initial opposition.
"But we had the opportunity to talk one by one to each individual," Frist said, "and made the point that broadcast TV has unfortunately pushed the envelope of decency and good taste time and time again. And though it's not our job as legislators to censor the broadcaster, it is our job to ensure that the FCC guidelines are enforced."
The House version of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., was passed in 2005.
Upton's bill has higher fines -- $500,000 per incident -- and would allow the FCC to take away the licenses of broadcasters who had been convicted of more than three indecency violations.
Because the Senate and House have passed different bills, they now must reconcile the two versions. Two years ago, in a similar situation, a compromise could not be reached and the bill did not become law.
But Frist suggested an alternate path for this time.
"We have the opportunity to ask the House to pass the same bill that we actually passed," he said, "in which case that bill can be sent directly to the president."
Trueman said the fact of the matter is that the Senate is unlikely to agree to give the FCC free rein to revoke licenses -- so House passage of the Senate version would be the best chance for it to become law.
"I know the House is talking about it," he said, "and if they would do that, they would still end up with a very tough bill."
TAKE ACTION:
Please take a moment to thank Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and bill sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback for advancing S. 193, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.
Back
California’s Ninth Circuit Court OKs Government to
Educate School Children in Islam, but not Christianity!
May 19 2006 Investors Business Daily
E
ducation: In our brave new schools, Johnny can't say the pledge, but he can recite the Quran. Yup, the same court that found the phrase "under God" unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school.
In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:
Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, - Most Merciful."
Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: ‘Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger.’
Chanting "Praise be to Allah," in response to teacher prompts.
Professing as true, the Muslim belief that The Holy Quran is God's word.
Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, - ‘the Muslim holy month of fasting.’
Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.
Parents of seventh-graders, who after 9-11 were taught the pro-Islamic lessons as part of California's world history curriculum, sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment. They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam.
But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told them in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another "culture."
So the parents appealed. Unfortunately, the most left-wing court in the land got their case. The 9th Circuit, which previously ruled in favor of an atheist who filed suit against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, upheld the lower court ruling.
The decision is a major victory for the multiculturalists and Islamic apologists in California and across the country who've never met a culture or religion they didn't like — with the exception of Western civilization and Christianity. They are legally in the clear to indoctrinate kids into the "peaceful" and "tolerant" religion of Islam, while continuing to denigrate Judeo-Christian values.
In the California course on world religions, Christianity is not presented equally. It's covered in just two days and doesn't involve kids in any role-playing activities. But kids do get a good dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other peoples. In contrast, Islam gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation," and not holy war.
The ed consultant's name is Susan L. Douglass. No, she's not a Christian scholar. She's a devout Muslim activist on the Saudi government payroll, according to an investigation by Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington." He found that for years Douglass taught social studies at the Islamic Saudi Academy just outside Washington, D.C. Her husband still teaches there.
So what? By infiltrating our public school system, the Saudis hope to make Islam more widely accepted while converting impressionable American youth to their radical cause. Recall that John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," was a product of the California school system. What’s next, school field trips to Mecca?
This case is critical not just to our culture but our national security. It should be brought before the Supreme Court, which has outlawed prayer in school. Let's see what it says about practicing Islam in class. It will be a good test for the bench's two new conservative justices.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said: The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected Christian parents' protests against student "role playing" activities. A California elementary school taught students to fight a "jihad" against Christian crusaders and "praise Allah" for their victories. The Ninth Circus approved such activities, affirming a lower court ruling that said they did not constitute an establishment of religion. It's a bizarre time to be in grade school in the Golden State.
Back
Arnold Schwarzenegger Pledges to Veto
One of the Transsexual-Bisexual-Homosexual school Curriculum Bills
May 25 2006 Christian Newswire
CCF calls upon California Governor to announce he will veto two remaining bills
S
ACRAMENTO, - According to today’s Sacramento Bee, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised to veto SB 1437, one of three transsexual-bisexual-homosexual “education” bills in the California Legislature.
The newspaper, which contacted Campaign for Children and Families for response late Wednesday, wrote in Thursday’s edition that, according to the Governor’s communications office, Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto SB 1437 if it reaches his desk.
“We’re very pleased that Schwarzenegger is listening to the concerns of parents,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading California-based pro-family organization that strongly opposes SB 1437. “Now the Governor needs to pledge to veto the two remaining sexual indoctrination bills, AB 606 and AB 1056. Parents and grandparents are demanding it.”
All three bills rely upon the strange definition of “gender” in Penal Code, Section 422.56, reading: “Gender” means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. “This terrible trio of bills would promote cross-dressing and sex- change operations to children as young as kindergarten,” said Thomasson. “Schools should be about academics, not about promoting alternative sexual lifestyles to impressionable schoolchildren.”
SB 1437 would prohibit textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities from “reflecting adversely” on transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality; it requires positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles in curriculum in all grades in all public schools. Consequently, schools would have to promote “same-sex marriages” and even sex-change procedures. STATUS: Assembly Education Committee, no hearing scheduled.
AB 606 would authorize the California Superintendent of Public Instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds (around 2/3rds of a school district’s budget) from any district that does not adequately promote transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality in its school policies. AB 606 repeals the current state law prohibiting transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual curriculum from being forced upon local schools, and authorizes the state Superintendent to develop new curriculum that affirms transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality in all its forms. STATUS: June 21 hearing scheduled in the Senate Education Committee.
AB 1056 would spend $250,000 in taxpayer dollars to promote transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual lifestyles under the banner of “tolerance education.” STATUS: On “suspense file” in Senate Education Committee.
Back
Activist Judge Strikes Down Ban on Homosexual Marriage, Overruling 76% of Georgia Voters
May 23 2006 American Family Association
A
liberal activist judge has struck down a constitutional amendment in Georgia which made homosexual marriage illegal! She felt that she knew better than the voters how they should vote and threw out their ballots.
The constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly by 76% of the voters in Georgia, is now null and void.
The homosexuals are determined to win this battle. They know they will never win if the people have an opportunity to vote. So they are turning to liberal activist judges to force their will on the people. They intend to force homosexual marriage down the throats of Americans. They feel our children must be indoctrinated beginning in kindergarten that homosexuality is normal behavior.
On June 6 the U.S. Senate will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Because of a power grab by activist judges like the one in Georgia, the MPA is the only way that the sacred institution of marriage will remain between one man and one woman.
Back
Same-Sex Benefits Will Be Allowed in Utah
May 19 2006 Citizen Link
A
Utah judge declared the state's constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not keep Salt Lake City from offering benefits to same-sex partners, Gay.com reported.
Utah voters approved the amendment in 2004 by 66% of the electorate. It forbids the state from creating "any legal status, rights, benefits or duties that are substantially equivalent to" marriage.
In March, the city began offering unmarried employees the opportunity to include adult members of their households in their benefit plan. The program was challenged by Mayor Rocky Anderson.
District Judge Stephen Roth determined that allowing employment benefits does not create any new rights or new legal status for unmarried couples.
Margaret Plane, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court showed that laws protecting marriage do not keep employers from providing domestic-partner benefits.
Back
British Moslem spends $200 million backing "The Da Vinci Code" movie
May 20 2006 Cathie Adams Texas Eagle Forum
We must keep abreast of what radical Islam is doing to infiltrate and undermine not only our national security, but also the Judeo-Christian faith of our Founding Fathers. Thus, it should not surprise us that a British Moslem invested $200 million backing the current movie that undermines the faith of our Fathers as pointed out in the article below. Moslems do NOT worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Islam since it's beginning around 600 AD has NEVER been a religion of "peace." More than 100 verses in Islam's Koran call for KILLING infidels--Jews, Christians, Hindus and those who hold to any other faith. A new policy in Iran requires that Jews wear YELLOW badges, which is reminiscent of the Nazi policy leading up to the Holocaust. Iranian Christians are required to wear RED badges and Zoroastrians are required to wear BLUE badges.
The ancient "Art of War" by Sun Tzu, teaches that one must know his enemy and himself. Some Christians don't know what they believe or why, which has made them vulnerable to the make-believe message in "The DaVinci Code." The book is a NOVEL, a long invented prose narrative dealing with human experience through a connected sequence of events.
Today's Dallas Morning News religion section tells about a man and his wife from Lewisville who has converted to Islam. At one time, the man had planned to study for the Christian ministry, but instead recanted the faith of his mother who is quoted in the article, and became a Moslem. Obviously, he didn't know himself or the enemy of his mother's faith. The man's wife now works for the Center for American-Islamic Relations, CAIR the main mouthpiece for Islam in our country that denounced President Bush's move to close the Holyland Foundation in Richardson after 9-11 because it was funding terrorism. CAIR also defends Hamas, the Saudi-funded terrorist group that was just elected by Palestinians in their new state within the borders of Israel.
Why does this not surprise me when the movie slams both Christians and Jews!?
Christian Protests Muslim Backing For Da Vinci Code
The chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission says "The Da Vinci Code" is an anti-Christian and anti-Semitic film that was financed by a British Muslim.
Ted Baehr says Mohammed Yusef's Invicta Capital put up most of the estimated 200 million dollars it cost to make the film version of Dan Brown's novel.
Baehr told reporters at a Washington news conference, "I think it's a very serious problem when people start funding movies and books to attack somebody else's religious faith."
He said the financial backing for "The Da Vinci Code" reveals "a terrible double standard" by Muslims w ho erupt in violent protests when they believe their own faith is being attacked.
Austin Ruse, president of Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, speaking at news conference Austin Ruse says he doesn't understand why a reputable actor and director would turn Dan Brown's novel into a movie.
Ted Baehr, chairman of Christian Film and Television Commission, speaking at news conference Ted Baehr says a British Muslim arranged most of the financing for the film version of 'The Da Vinci Code.'
Ted Baehr, chairman of Christian Film and Television Commission, speaking at news conference Ted Baehr says 'The Da Vinci Code' movie was financed by London-based Mohammed Yusef's Invicta Capital.
Back
Fighting for the "Contract" and the Constitution: The Pledge Protection Act
May 22 2006 Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., Eagle Forum National Chairman
T
he Values Voters' Contract with Congress which we introduced in our last "Court Watch Briefing" is on the move. A top priority in the action package proposed by the Contract is Congressional passage of the Pledge Protection Act (or "PPA"). The PPA has been designated as H.R. 2389 and S. 1046. The House bill sponsor is Rep. Akin (MO), with a number of
co-sponsors. The Senate bill sponsor is Sen. Kyl (AZ). Your action is needed, and the justifications for the bill are powerful.
This bill is necessary because of Re-constructionist (activist/liberal) judges who have insisted that "under God" in the Pledge renders unconstitutional the public school recitation of the Pledge (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S.1, 2004). The Pledge was thrown out by the "Nasty Ninth" Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court refused to hear the merits of the case because it found that Michael Newdow, the father protesting his daughter's having to say the Pledge, had no standing to bring the suit. The Pledge was thus reinstated, and the Court's finding that Newdow had no standing was correct. But the vital substantive arguments in favor of the Pledge received
due attention only in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas (Justice Scalia, normally expected to write an incisive opinions in a case such as this, did not participate in Newdow).
Among the most persuasive reasons for passing the PPA and protecting the Pledge are the following:
History amply demonstrates that rejection of "under God" "precipitates 'a war with our national tradition.'" Invalidating the Pledge would foster the invalidation of a mountain of other national documents, observances, utterances, etc. — the Constitution itself and the National Anthem to mention only two. And "history" includes recent history. The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge just fifty years ago — in 1954.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause, relied upon by Michael Newdow to invalidate the Pledge does not cover situations such as the Pledge. As several court opinions recently have explained, what the Clause prohibits is legal coercion. What is unconstitutional is our government's employing force and/or threat of penalty to require attendance at a state church meeting, tithing to support ministers, taxation to build and repair church buildings, etc. The voluntary recitation of the Pledge by public school children does not even approach such legal coercion.
Acknowledgments of God do not per se violate the Constitution, whether they are "religious" or "patriotic" statements. In a 1992 Seventh Circuit opinion upholding the Pledge with "under God" in it, Circuit Judge Manion wrote that "a civic reference to God does not become permissible . . . only when . . . it is sapped of religious significance." "[W]e need not drain the meaning from the reference [to God in the Pledge] to reach this conclusion." Millions of Americans who believe in God must understand this critical fact that civic utterances involving God are constitutional —even though the utterances are religious in nature. We must not be muzzled by Humanist distortions and fierce efforts to stifle our constitutional rights.
The Constitution's Establishment Clause was violated — by the Ninth Circuit judges who threw out the Pledge. As pro-Pledge judges on the Ninth Circuit correctly observed, throwing out he Pledge "conferred a favored status on atheism in our public life . . . . The silence [that the majority commands] is not neutral . . . . The absolute prohibition on any mention of God in our schools creates a bias against religion . . . . "
The inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge in no way suppresses anyone's religious beliefs or threatens the "pluralism" to which the Newdows of America profess such fervent allegiance. The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954. During the half century since then, Americans have been reciting "under God" while simultaneously experiencing the greatest explosion of "diversity and "pluralism" in the nation's history.
The Pledge of Allegiance as currently written by Congress is constitutional. Court decisions declaring the Pledge unconstitutional are wrong.
What Can We Do?
The PPA simply removes from federal court jurisdiction the power to hear attacks on the Pledge. It MUST be passed before the U. S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to rule on the Pledge and possibly throw it out. The PPA passed the House last Congress, but did not pass the Senate. If the Senate now passes the PPA, it will likely pass the House, where it passed last Congress.
Call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) and urge him/her to sign on S. 1046 as a co-sponsor and promote this bill.
Call your Representative (202-225-3121) and urge him/her to support H.R. 2389.
T
he time to act is now. We must not let a handful of activist, liberal, pro-homosexual marriage judges force homosexual marriage on us and our children.
Click Here to Find Phone Numbers for Your Senators!
Back
Software Company Offers Exciting
New Bible Champions(TM) Computer Game to Churches for Vacation Bible School
May 23 2006 Christian Newswire
H
UNTSVILLE, Ala., - Vacation Bible School is almost here and Third Day Games, a faith-based software company, is offering a revolutionary way for churches to supplement their VBS programs with an exciting and economical action PC game that helps kids master Bible knowledge.
It’s called Bible Champions(TM), and for just $100 a church is equipped to supply every child in VBS – or any other church activity – with a new computer game each month – 12 exciting Bible mastery games for them to play on their home PC.
Third Day Games developed Bible Champions(TM) to use kids’ love of video games to connect them with God’s word on a daily basis. “We think Bible Champions(TM) presents a revolutionary opportunity for churches to connect kids to God’s Word at home,” said Bobby Wells, CEO of Third day Games.
Bible Champions(TM) takes some of the most inspirational Bible stories from both the Old and New Testaments and creates a 3D environment that pulls kids actively into the story. Stories include God’s Creation, Joseph and His Brothers, Daniel in the Lion’s Den, and the Birth of Jesus – a new story game each month, along with new challenges and more Bible mastery for kids.
Players solve puzzles and avoid adversaries as they explore the location and events of a particular story. For example, they might bring sick people to Jesus to be healed or help Zacchaeus pay back those he cheated. With three skill settings -- early, middle, and late elementary – every child is empowered to master key Bible knowledge.
“We’ve put together 12 Bible stories that are sequenced to follow the seasons of the Christian calendar,” explained Wells. “And we provide churches with the software that unlocks a new story each month. They can then give the software to ALL the children in their ministry programs so kids can play each story over and over, while anticipating a new story for the upcoming month.”
Added Wells, “VBS is a great opportunity to offer these games as a special treat for kids and to keep them connected to God’s Word throughout the summer. We set the annual licensing fee at only $100 to make the game accessible to any sized church – so they can give the games to every child in their congregation and use this new technology to strengthen their foundation for a lifetime relationship with the Word of God.”
To find out more about Bible Champions and licensing for your church, visit www.biblechampions.com.
Back
