BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #88 06/16/2006

News Topics of a Particular Interest or Moral Concern

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

Christianity / Religion

Federal Judge Throws Out Lawsuit against “In God We Trust”

More than 500 Doctors from 26 Countries Gather to Present Evidence of Divine Healing

Churches: Just say NO to Church Intimidation

Organization to Keep a Garden Display of the Ten Commandments despite by Washington, D.C. Officials

Floridian Wiccan Group Challenges Tax-Exemption on Christian Religious Material

Democracy / Security

America’s Birthright sale

Guest workers aren't cheap; they're expensive

Family / Social

Marriage Amendment Defeat Shows Weakness in Pro-Family Movement

Southern Baptists Consider Public School Exodus

Utah’s Parents, Teachers, and Legislators Defend Right to Keep Porn out of Their Homes

Poison Reading Material In Our Libraries

Government / Legislation

House Republicans hit Senate Immigration Amnesty bill

Texas Cities, counties put lobbyists to work on taxpayers' dime

Senate Republicans Foil Attempt to Establish 'Native Hawaiian' Government

Life Issues / Behavior

Abortion: the Evil Enterprise of Planned Parenthood

New York Bill Threatens Families' Power to Make Medical Decisions

Supreme Court Justices: OK lethal injection challenges

Parents of Fallen Marine Ask Bush to Federalize Mt. Soledad Memorial Site

Seven-Year-Old Beaten at School for Father's Stand against Homosexual Activism

Media / Internet / Entertainment

Parents Owe it to Kids to be Tech Savvy

Network Neutrality? Welcome to the Stupid Internet

GOP pride or gay pride, Dell still wants your money

Movie: Facing the Giants--In Hollywood

Politics

Planned Parenthood Vows to Help Elect 'Progressive Voices'

South Dakota Ousts Pro-Abortion Lawmakers

World / World Apostasies

U.S. Marines Build Shrine to Islam with plans to build a bigger mosque in 2009

The Church of England Warns New Laws Will Force Church to Bless Gay Unions

Christianity / Religion

Federal Judge Throws Out Lawsuit against “In God We Trust”

June 13 2006 Pacific Justice Institute

Sacramento, CA— a federal judge in Sacramento decided Monday afternoon to dismiss an atheist’s lawsuit against the national motto, “In God We Trust.” In so doing, the judge sided with motions filed by the Pacific Justice Institute and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The lawsuit was filed in late 2005 by atheist Michael Newdow, who has also been fighting for the last several years to have recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional. In the present case, Newdow v. Congress, he argued that having to use money inscribed with the national motto, “In God We Trust,” offended him and was unconstitutional. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Pacific Justice Institute intervened as a co-defendant alongside the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Earlier this spring, lawyers for the DOJ and PJI filed motions to dismiss the case. PJI attorneys had been preparing for a hearing scheduled later this week to argue the motions, but in a surprise move, Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. held that the outcome was obvious without the need for further arguments.

Quoting a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case from 1970, the court noted, “[I]t is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.” Mr. Newdow has already promised to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit in hopes that they will chart a new course and overturn their 1970 decision.

Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “We are of course very pleased that Judge Damrell ruled in our favor and dismissed this assault on our national motto. At the same time, Michael Newdow isn’t going to give up easily, and neither can we. For the sake of our posterity and the preservation of our unique history as a nation, we are committed to defending the national motto as long as it takes. This fight is just too important.”

Back

More than 500 Doctors from 26 Countries Gather to Present Evidence of Divine Healing

June 8 2006 LifeSiteNews.com

CEBU CITY, The Philippines, More than 500 physicians from 26 countries gathered June 1-2 for a conference at the Grand Convention Center, Cebu City, the Philippines, in which medical doctors from around the world presented scientific evidence of divine healing.
 
The theme of the unique gathering was “Spirituality and Medicine” and was held under the auspices of the World Christian Doctors Network (WCDN), founded by Dr. Jaerock Lee, senior pastor of Manmin Joong-ang Church, Seoul, Korea.

“WCDN is an international Christian medical organization that addresses not only urgent questions facing the Christian medical community today, but is also the first of its kind that objectively confirms and examines instances of healing by the power of God,” said a spokesperson for the organization.

Delegates were delighted to hear of a congratulatory message for the conference sent by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines and also from Francisco T. Duque III, M.D., Msc., the country’s Secretary of Health.

Keynote addresses were delivered by the Hon. Antonio Yapha, Jr., M.D., Chairman of the Committee on Health and a member of the Philippines’ House of Representatives, and the Rev. Bishop Romeo Corpuz Sr., President of All Creation Global Network Ministries, Inc.

“The conference emphasized God as ‘the healer’ and an exchange of notes on cases of divine healing through prayer,” said the WCDN spokesperson.

Following the lecture on “Spirituality and Medicine III” by Dr. Joonha Hwang M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the WCDN, real medical data backing claims of divine healing were presented by physicians on maladies such as gastric cancer, quadriplegia, intracerebral hemorrhage, severe disability, thoracic tumor, Celiac disease, infertility, facial burns, tennis elbow tendonitis, liver cirrhosis, and other incurable diseases.

“When the presentations of God's healing were complete, the audience responded with applause and then shared with one another about the grace they had just received,” said the spokesperson. 

Dr. Sven Frederik, a participant from Denmark, remarked that, “If this kind of medical conference could be held in northern Europe, many intellectuals would accept the power of God.”

The website for the World Christian Doctors Network can be found at: http://www.wcdn.org.

Back

Churches: Just say NO to Church Intimidation

June 12 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

A South Dakota newspaper recently ran a story headlined: "IRS tells churches to stay out of abortion politics." That threatening story is WRONG. We need to be very clear and very emphatic here: Churches can certainly take part in referendums. They can speak loudly on the defense of marriage and the sanctity of life. Churches can oppose ballot efforts to expand gambling.

It appears the media is trying to intimidate churches to stay out of important public policy debates. Why the twisted story? This fall, South Dakota voters will decide ballot initiatives on the state's newly enacted abortion law, which is attracting nation attention from pro-abortion organizations. A state marriage amendment and a gambling referendum are also on the ballot.

Every congregation in South Dakota is free to make its views on these important measures known. Pastors and rabbis MUST speak from the pulpit on each of these topics. We must never let the IRS or the media take away that basic American freedom.

Back

Organization to Keep a Garden Display of the Ten Commandments despite by Washington, D.C. Officials

June 13 2006 Christian Newswire

WASHINGTON, Faith and Action will not remove the Ten Commandments which are located on Capitol Hill right across the street from the United States Supreme Court. (See photo of the display.)

This is the only publicly displayed Ten Commandments in the nation’s Capitol with the full text of the Commandments written in English.

The group says the only reason the District of Columbia is targeting them for fines and loss of property is because of the religious nature of the display.

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, and spokesperson for the project states, “It is clear the only reason the City of Washington, D.C. has sent a compliance letter seeking fines and loss of property is because of the religious nature of this display. We have talked with many of our Capitol Hill neighbors who have set up garden displays, without permits, who have not received this kind of harassment and intimidation from the City. We want to make it clear to District of Columbia City officials that we will use every resource and tool available to see this display is not removed and fight against this religious bigotry."

Rev. Rob Schenck President of Faith and Action, comments, “This beautiful display serves as a powerful reminder of the eternal truths that God handed down in the Ten Commandments. It is my hope and prayer that all who view it will be inspired to work for a society in which all are treated with justice and equality. It is very troubling that the City of Washington, D.C. is wasting tax dollars to harass this ministry for simply putting up a garden display of the Ten Commandments.”

For more information or interviews call: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney at 202.547.1735 Cell: 540.538.4741

Back

Floridian Wiccan Group Challenges Tax-Exemption on Christian Religious Material

June 12 2006 Gudrun Schultz LifeSiteNews.com

TALLAHASSEE, Florida, A Wiccan group has challenged Florida state tax-exemption on sales of religious articles and publications, after the organization lost its own tax-exemption status on items for sale.

Tax exemption was withdrawn from the Wiccan Religious Cooperative because it did not own a place of worship, required by the Department of Revenue rules, reported the Orlando Sentinel on Friday. The group then launched a lawsuit on Halloween 2000, claiming the law allowing tax-exemption on religious items is unconstitutional. Heather Morcroft, lawyer for the cooperative, said the exemption violates the First Amendment clause that prohibits state-sponsored religion.

Lawyers for the state and two tax-exempt religious newspapers want the case thrown out, on the grounds that the Wiccan group has no standing to initiate the suit because they are not harmed by the legislation. Kevin Shaughnessy, attorney for The Florida Catholic and The Florida Baptist Witness, and Deputy Solicitor General James McKee also said the exemption is not unconstitutional because some secular publications also receive the same tax break

The case has already been through a lower court and the 1st District Court of Appeal. A lower court trial judge upheld the law, although the ruling said the Wiccan group did have legal standing. The appeals court threw the case out without ruling, saying the Wiccans failed to show the law negatively affected them.

The case is now before the state Supreme Court. Attorney Morcroft wants the court to reverse the appellate court’s decision, and the trial judge’s ruling upholding the law’s constitutionality.

Wicca is a modern _expression of paganistic spirituality, combining elements of many different non-Christian religions into a loosely woven pantheistic spirituality that emphasises nature-worship and the supremacy of the individual.

Back

Democracy / Security

America’s Birthright sale

June 9 2006 Thomas Sowell www.tsowell.com

Many stores held sales over the Memorial Day holidays. In Washington, the Senate immigration bill has been selling our birthright for a message of political pottage.

Far from "controlling the borders" as advertised, this bill reduces our existing control of the borders. Under a provision inserted at the eleventh hour by Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate bill forbids the federal government from building a fence without first consulting with the Mexican government.

In fact, state and local governments are also forbidden by this bill to take any border control actions without first consulting with their Mexican counterparts. In other words, if the city of San Diego wants to put up any sort of barriers, it would have to consult with the municipal authorities in Tijuana before doing so.

This legislation was never about border control. The laws already on the books at this very moment allow us to control the borders, to build any fence we choose, without consulting the government of Mexico.

The laws already on the books allow any illegal alien to be arrested and expelled. Those laws are simply not being enforced. If a Los Angeles policeman arrests an illegal alien and reports him to the federal authorities, it is the Los Angeles cop who will be in big trouble.

Border Patrol agents can knock themselves out capturing people trying to enter the country illegally but nothing happens to most of those people, even the ones organizing the smuggling of people and drugs into this country.

An Associated Press dispatch reports: "The vast majority of people caught smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted for the offense, demoralizing the Border Patrol agents, according to an internal document obtained by the Associated Press." In other words, we have make-believe border control and the current Senate legislation will weaken even that, all the while talking about "tough" enforcement. That "tough" enforcement is a promise but legalizing illegal aliens is immediate and irrevocable and its consequences irreversible and lasting far into the future.

"Border control" is just political cover for legalizing illegal aliens. The two things are put together in a package deal that is like horse-and-rabbit stew, whose ingredients are one horse and one rabbit. Border control is the rabbit. The word games played about "amnesty" deliberately confuse the issue of violations of American law with the issue of acquiring American citizenship.

The fact that the Senate bill has requirements -- described as "tough," like everything else -- for acquiring citizenship is irrelevant to the question of letting the violations of law go unpunished.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, who has over the years done some of the most incisive analysis of census and other statistical data, projects the actual consequences of legalizing the existing illegal alien population in the United States to extend far beyond the 12 million estimated to be here now. These 12 million people are not test tube babies. They have parents and they will have children. Nor are their other family members likely to be kept out after the illegals are made legal.

Over the following 20 years, Dr. Rector projects that the real increase in this population living in the United States to be 103 million, not the 12 million that everyone is talking about.

This is one of the most reckless gambles with the future of this nation ever taken by supposedly responsible members of Congress. The idea that we must consult with Mexico before controlling our own borders is staggering -- and revealing.

The Mexican government has already shown its utter contempt for our laws by publishing booklets advising its citizens how to enter the United States illegally and how to take advantage of American welfare state provisions. Mexican president Vicente Fox has even had the nerve to warn that his "friendship" with the United States is at risk if we pass immigration laws he doesn't like. Consulting with his government is truly putting Vicente Fox in charge of the hen house.

Back

Guest workers aren't cheap; they're expensive

Jun 12 2006 Phyllis Schlafly

George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001 hoping he would be remembered in history books as the education president who raised public school standards with his No Child Left Behind Act. It now looks like his legacy will be "No illegal immigrant left behind."

The White House Web site is currently advertising, in both English and Spanish, Bush's congratulations (applaudo) to the U.S. Senate for passing what president called bipartisan (bipartidista) and comprehensive (integral) immigration reform (reforma). In fact, this Kennedy-McCain (aka Hagel-Martinez) bill might be the worst and the most expensive bill ever passed by the Senate, and it should be an embarrassment to any Republican who voted for it.

The media have reported on the sections that grant illegal residents amnesty (aka path to legalization or earned citizenship). But the media have censored out of their news reports the sections that are 10 to 20 times more costly and far more dishonest than playing games with the word amnesty.

In large print, the 850-page bill announces its "temporary guest worker" plan. Those words are lies because the fine print in the bill converts these workers, who are given H-2C visas, into permanent residents with the right to become citizens after five years.

The plan will start by importing 200,000 H-2C workers in the first year. The H-2Cers can immediately bring in their family members on H-4 visas, without any numeric limits and without being required to have a physical, and they will also get permanent legal residence and citizenship.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would import 7.8 million immigrants, and convert another 11 million current immigrants, legal and illegal, into U.S. citizens over the next decade. The Heritage Foundation estimates that 66 million new citizens will be added to the current population over the next 20 years. The number would accelerate as the racket called family chain migration allows more new residents to bring in more and more relatives.

The bill gives these temporary workers some preferential rights that U.S. workers do not have. These new temporary workers can't be fired from their jobs except for "just cause," they must be paid the prevailing wage, and they can't be arrested for other civil immigration offenses if they are stopped for traffic violations.

The bill assures the preference of in-state college tuition (something that is denied to U.S. citizens in 49 states), and certain types of college financial assistance will be available to illegals at the state's option. As minorities, they might even get affirmative action preferences in jobs, government contracts, and college admissions.

After the so-called temporary workers and their spouses become citizens, they can bring in their parents as permanent residents on the path to citizenship. Although the parents have never paid into Social Security, they will be eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits, and in 46 states they will be eligible for full Medicaid benefits after five years. Siblings and adult children (and their families) will be given preference in future admissions.

The demographics of the so-called temporary workers are expected to be similar to those of the illegal immigrants already in our country. More than half will be high school dropouts, they will work low-paid jobs that require payment of little or no income tax, they are 50 percent more likely to receive taxpayer-funded government benefits than natural-born households, and they have a 42 percent rate of out-of-wedlock births (all of whom, of course, will be granted automatic U.S. citizenship).

Estimates of the cost to the taxpayers of this gargantuan expansion of the welfare state are at least $50 billion a year over the long term. U.S. taxpayers will pay for entitlements to these tens of millions of low-income families, including Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Earned Income Tax Credit (cash handouts of up to $4,400 a year to low-wage households), public schooling and lunches, the WIC program, food stamps, public housing, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

The push is on from the White House to get Senate and House conferees to reach a compromise between the Senate Kennedy bill and the House Sensenbrenner bill. Compromise with the bill sponsored by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., is a non-starter because, in the words of the adage, you can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear.

President Bush just told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that he wants to "shape the future." The Senate bill would, within 20 years, result in about 25 percent of our population being foreign born (most of them non-English-speaking high school dropouts).

Kennedy and McCain's "temporary guest workers" would give America a future like France, which is staggering under the weight of multicultural guest workers who never went home and bloated taxpayer-funded welfare entitlements.

It's time for Americans to reject the artificially concocted Bush-Kennedy-McCain "bipartisanship" and go with the 58 percent of Republican senators who voted against the Kennedy-McCain bill and the 88 percent of Republican House Members who voted for the bill by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.

Back

Family / Social

Marriage Amendment Defeat Shows Weakness in Pro-Family Movement

June 13 2006 Paul M. Weyrich CNSNews.com Commentary

This past week the United States Senate voted down the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which is designed to place in the Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Liberals in both parties voted against consideration of the issue. That is not surprising. Senate leaders knew they didn't have the votes. Some people claim that the exercise was foolish and a waste of time. But pro-family movement leaders wanted the vote because they believe that some Senators up for re-election who have defied the will of the voters might be more vulnerable because of that vote.

The President discussed the issue on his Saturday radio show. Early in the week, he had made a strong statement to a group of movement leaders and following defeat in the Senate he issued a statement indicating that the fight will continue.

There is no anecdotal evidence that the President or the Majority Whip twisted arms on this issue. Therein lays the problem with social issues. Almost all Democrats want nothing to do with social issues. When they were in control of the Congress most such issues never saw the light of day. Republicans, with a few notable exceptions, are not enthusiastic about them either.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was mercilessly dumped on by some of his colleagues when he announced he was bringing up the Marriage Amendment. So he must be given credit for that. And to his credit, he never, ever wavered on the issues, even when doing major Sunday news shows. The Conservative movement has too often been satisfied with rhetoric and too few times has the movement demanded action.

I mentioned this to Dr. Richard Land at the White House. Land represents the Southern Baptists at such events. "My standard is the prescription drug benefit," Land quipped. In that expansion of big government, the President and Congressional leaders twisted arms until the bill was passed.

The leadership in the House, in which the measure had considerable opposition, kept the vote open for over three hours until the leadership had enough votes. The President was on the telephone with Members of the House until he got sufficient commitments to pass the drug benefit bill. I know this to be true because I have spoken with several Members who talked with President Bush on the night of the vote.

Did the Majority Whip in the Senate twist arms until it hurts on the Marriage Amendment? No. Did the President talk with Senators, trading things as he did with the drug benefit? No. Was the Right angry about this? No.

I asked one of the most visible and important leaders of the pro-family movement if he had conscience problems attending the event at the White House, since he and the rest of us were props in a non-effort to pass this Amendment. Without hesitation this major leader said, "Not at all. I felt we had to enforce what little this President did."

Think of a Democratic President, such as William J. Clinton. The partial-birth abortion bill comes to his desk. Clinton makes statements supporting abortion but then signs the bill. The supporters of radical life styles would be out on the streets. Clinton may have betrayed other interest groups, but he never, ever betrayed the pro-aborts.

Clinton knew that the pro-abortion crowd would not accept rhetoric. They demanded action within the Clinton Administration. Twice Congress passed partial-birth abortion bills by overwhelming numbers. Twice Clinton vetoed the bill.

When the Reagan Administration first came into office, James A. Baker III, Chief of Staff to the President, and Howard H. Baker, Jr., the Senate Majority Leader, met and declared that social issues would be on the back burner.

I was on a conference call immediately thereafter with sixteen of the top leaders of what at that time was called the Religious Right. I said if a Democratic Administration had been elected and the Administration and Senate leaders said that civil rights had to be on the back burner Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders would be on the street within 24 hours.

My friend Dr. Jerry Falwell told me to calm down. They totally accepted what the Reagan Administration, represented by the two (unrelated) Bakers, had declared.

President Ronald W. Reagan accomplished a number of things in eight years in office. He started an economic boom, which has continued to this day. He contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. He appointed good federal judges as well. His legacy will revolve around those issues.

But did he do anything on abortion? Did he really tackle social issues? He did advocate a school-prayer amendment but again did nothing to twist arms on the issue. The Right was satisfied with that.

Until the Right learns really to fight its agenda never will be enacted.

In 2004, the pro-family forces, led by Dr. James Dobson, helped to take out Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, of South Dakota, the first time the Majority Leader had been defeated in half a century. They also contributed to the election of several other pro-family Senators.

Yet when it came to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment the pro-family forces gained only one vote. Politicians do not fear the pro-family movement. Until they do pro-family forces will not achieve their objectives.

Members of Congress operate on the pain/pleasure principle. If you inflict pain they want it to stop. They will beg for the pain to stop. At that point you can get a commitment on the Marriage Amendment or any other social issue. That has not happened. The only incumbent defeated was Daschle.

So they see only one scalp hanging in the Capitol. They are not impressed. The other Republican victories came in open seats. That does not impress the liberals.

If the pro-family movement is serious it must get into the States and defeat a whole number of incumbents. Also those Senators who voted no should never be nominated by their party for the Presidency of the United States.

The pro-family movement has real troops. If it wants to get serious it must get tough. It is not clear that the pro-family movement has the stomach for that. Time will tell.

Back

Southern Baptists Consider Public School Exodus

June 14 2006 Prophecy News Watch

As concerns persist about how classrooms are handling subjects such as homosexuality and ''intelligent design,'' some members of the nation's largest Protestant denomination want, the Southern Baptist Convention to consider creating an exit strategy from public schools. 

A committee at the Southern Baptists' annual gathering was scheduled to report Wednesday on a resolution that would urge the denomination to form a strategy for removing Southern Baptist children from public schools in favor of home schooling or education at private schools.

The group takes up the issue a day after it elected a new president, Frank Page. The 53-year-old pastor at First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., was supported primarily by younger pastors and others who felt marginalized by an older generation that led a conservative takeover of the church in the 1970s and 1980s.

Delegates at last year's annual meeting passed a resolution urging parents and churches to "to exercise their rights to investigate diligently the curricula, textbooks, and programs in our community schools."

"We are commanded biblically to train our children in the nurture of the Lord," said Roger Moran of Troy, Mo., who sits on the executive committee and offered the proposal with Texas author Bruce Shortt. "The public schools are no longer allowed ... to even acknowledge the God of the Bible."

Moran, who owns a company that makes construction supplies, is a father of nine children, ages 18 months to 18 years. All have been home-schooled or attended Christian schools, he said.

"Everything that I believe as a Bible-believing Christian is not allowed to be taught in the public schools," he said.

The proposal from Moran and Shortt, author of "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools," complains that curricula teaching that "the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable" are being implemented in public schools. It also criticizes a federal court ruling last year that banned the teaching of "intelligent design" — the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher intelligence — in a Pennsylvania school system.

"Things aren't getting any better in the public schools," Moran said. "They're getting worse."

A similar resolution offered two years ago at the annual meeting did not pass. Past resolutions have affirmed support for home schooling and Christian schools, but the convention has never formally renounced resolutions affirming public education that were passed before the conservative takeover of the denomination.

Back

Utah’s Parents, Teachers, and Legislators Defend Right to Keep Porn out of Their Homes

June 13 2006 Christian Newswire

The Parent Teacher Association and 37 State Legislators File Motion Defending Utah’s Child Protection Registry

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Utah’s Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and 37 state legislators have filed an application of amici curiae in the lawsuit brought by the pornography industry to shut down the state’s Child Protection Registry ( www.kidsregistry.utah.gov). The filing asks the court to allow the PTA and legislators to submit a friend of the court brief supporting the right of Utah’s parents to keep pornographic materials out of their homes.

“The Child Protection Registry is a simple, free, common sense measure to keep out messages that are inappropriate for children,” said Carmen Snow, President of the Utah PTA. “Parents and teachers across the state are committed to stop this attempt by the adult industry to invade our homes and schools.”

The legislators who have signed on to the amicus brief span the political spectrum. “Protecting the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit is not a partisan issue,” said President of the Senate John Valentine. “Utah’s parents have the right to declare their homes off-limits to pornographic solicitations, and the legislature is committed to ensuring they have tools like the Child Protection Registry to do so.”

“Our legislature has a proud record of supporting parents and families,” said Speaker of the House Greg Curtis. “The State of Utah will stand strong against the companies sending this outrageous material to unwilling recipients.”

The suit to shut down the Child Protection Registry was filed in Federal District Court before Judge Dale Kimball by the so-called “Free Speech Coalition,” a lobbying group for the pornography industry. The brief by the PTA and the legislators was authored pro bono by the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a constitutional law firm based in Washington, D.C.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to keep material they find objectionable out of their homes,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The claim by the pornography industry that they have the right to send their offensive material whenever however and to whomever they choose flies in the face of well-established jurisprudence.”

Back

Poison Reading Material In Our Libraries

June 13 2006 Steve Crampton Agape Press

Laurie Taylor is the mother of two school age children. She lives in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Like most parents, she cares about her kids' education. So, when she discovered the school library had a sexually explicit book, Its Perfectly Normal, aimed at elementary age students, she did what any concerned parent would do: she went to the administration and asked that it be removed, along with two other books with similar themes.

At first, school system leaders seemed to agree with Taylor, and placed the books in a "parent library" section with other books geared more to parents than to children. But when Taylor found dozens more books with sexually explicit content, and asked that they not be made available to students without parental approval, the school reneged. It overturned its earlier decision and voted to leave all of the books on the shelves with unrestricted access by the students.

Some of the books include graphic descriptions of incest, homosexuality, masturbation, bestiality, and child molestation. For instance, Push is the story of a young girl who is pregnant with her father's child. The local newspaper, the Northwest Arkansas Times, which opposed the effort to limit access to the book, admitted that it contained "materials that are patently offensive."

Another book is advertised as being "the most controversial young adult novel ever," and describes an adolescent boy's love affair with a teacher, and two teens becoming addicted to heroin. Oh, and by the way, the book won an award as "an outstanding book for children."

Yet another book proudly displayed on the Fayetteville library shelves was once featured in Playboy magazine. Its vile and sexually explicit content is interspersed with dialogue such as this: "Just keep asking yourself: 'What would Jesus not do?'"

Once other parents learned what these books contained, many joined with Taylor in asking the school to take action. The public outcry was great. A parent's rights group was formed "Parents Protecting the Minds of Children," with dozens of parents joining the cause. The local paper wrote that this issue generated more letters to the editor than any issue in recent history. The story of the battle of the books became the paper's story of the year for 2005.

But Fayetteville is a college town, and liberals turned out in droves to cry "censorship" and shout down Laurie Taylor's courageous efforts to protect the children.

In truth, of course, Taylor never asked that the books be banned altogether, even though that might have been appropriate under the circumstances. All Taylor and the other parents asked for was that the books be placed in a restricted access section, thereby allowing parents to exercise their God-given (and constitutionally protected) rights to oversee the moral upbringing of their children.

Arkansas, like almost every state in America, has laws protecting against the distribution of material harmful to minors. However, also like many states, the Arkansas statutes define "harmful to minors" as material that, taken as a whole, "lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors." Some of the books to which the Fayetteville parents object have received awards, making it more difficult to demonstrate that they lack serious literary or artistic value.

Moreover, Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe has said that any determination as to whether these books violate the harmful to minor's law must be left "for a court or properly instructed jury."

The Fayetteville librarians, in accordance with the principles of the American Library Association, testified that they believed in "intellectual freedom" for all students. This sounds very noble on the surface, but what it means in practice is that the librarians do everything possible to obscure the reading habits of students -- who are required by law to attend school -- from any attempt by parents to learn what their children are reading. This is done by virtue of a computerized system for tracking books in circulation that automatically erases all data concerning who checked out what books immediately upon the books being returned to the library. Unless a parent actually finds her child reading an objectionable book, that parent has no way of discovering what the child has been reading.

Not Only in Arkansas

Similar battles are erupting elsewhere in the U.S. In Maine, for example, Orono High School has reaffirmed its commitment to allow the use of the sexually explicit book, Girl Interrupted, as part of the ninth-grade English curriculum.

The novel, written by Susanna Kaysen, is not fit reading for high school students, argued many parents and local residents. "It's a book about an 18-year-old who ends up in a mental asylum and has a number of conversations with mentally disturbed people -- conversations of the most graphic sort, especially sexually," said Michael Heath, head of the Christian Civic League of Maine. "The f-word [appears] 30 times on one page, and this is being given to freshmen in high school as literature. It's absolutely horrifying."

In Overland Park, Kansas, parents are organizing to protest the Blue Valley School District's inclusion in its curriculum of numerous books containing explicit material, according to WorldNetDaily. One parent, Janet Harmon, objected to a book her freshman son was reading, which contained "references to oral sex and homosexuality," she said.

The AFA Center for Law & Policy has agreed to represent Taylor and other Fayetteville parents in a federal lawsuit seeking to protect their constitutional rights to oversee the education of their children.

But it won't be easy. A federal judge in Fayetteville has recently ruled in a similar case that restricting access of library books only to students who have obtained parental permission infringes upon the First Amendment rights of the students.

This adverse ruling means that in all likelihood, in order to prevail in this matter, the case will have to be taken all the way to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- and perhaps to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Websites Provide Help for Parents Dealing with School Libraries

A number of helpful websites have been established for parents and other adults who are concerned about the content of books in their children's school libraries. A few are listed here to help parents get started, but there are a growing number of websites with valuable information. Many of them contain lists of commonly used books and samples of objectionable content, but also ideas for further action if these books are found, and links to other websites. However, visitors to these sites should be cautious, since the content of these books is extremely offensive.

Citizens for Literary Standards in Schools (Overland Park, Kansas)

Parents Against Bad Books in School (Fairfax, Virginia)

What should you do if you find that your school library or your child's reading requirements have begun to include books with explicit content? Parents Against Bad Books in School has some helpful options, including the following questions that a parent can ask a principal or school administrator:

1. What are the course/library objectives?

2. Were any alternative books available and/or considered to achieve the course/library objectives? If so, what were they?

3. What sources were consulted in identifying potential alternative books to achieve the course/library objectives?

4. If other books were available and/or considered, why was this book selected and all other books rejected?

5. If less controversial books were considered and rejected, explain why.

6. What is the name and position of the individual who approved the book for school system use?

Back

 

 

 

 

Government / Legislation

House Republicans hit Senate Immigration Amnesty bill

June 13 2006 Charles Hurt the Washington Times

The Senate's immigration-reform bill grants broad amnesty to illegal aliens and is even worse than previously thought, say House Republicans who have read the 850-page Senate bill and must approve any final legislation that Congress sends President Bush.
    "The more people see of this Senate bill, the less they like it," House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, said of the bill that was largely penned by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and John McCain, Arizona Republican.
    Allowing illegals to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal work, for instance, is "outrageous," said Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    But few provisions of the Senate bill have caused more head-scratching among opponents than a last-minute amendment that requires the U.S. to consult with Mexican officials before commencement of any fence construction along the border.
    "I don't know what they were thinking on that one," Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
    Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, said he met last week with a group of hotel executives from Marriott International Inc. who favor increased immigration to bring them more cheap labor to work as hotel maids. He told them about the consultation requirement.
    "People in the front of the room were saying, 'No. No. That's not possible,' he recounted. "Really," he told them. "I'm not making this up."
    The provision was inserted in the bill moments before it was voted on at the behest of Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat. It says soliciting views "of affected communities lessen tensions and foster greater understanding."
    "It is simply common sense and common courtesy to consult those individuals in our own communities and in affected communities on the other side of the border before constructing a fence," Mr. Dodd said.
    The consultation amendment, he said, would "foster the kind of cooperation that is vital if we are going to once and for all secure our borders."
    But, Mr. Sensenbrenner said, there are far more serious problems with the Senate bill.
    For instance, the bill allows for the discounted in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities for illegal aliens who reside in those states. Meanwhile, legal immigrants and citizens who reside outside that state must still pay the full price.
    And while proponents of the bill cringe whenever people say it grants "amnesty" to illegal aliens, they don't dispute that the bill grants complete amnesty to employers who have illegally hired the millions of aliens and provided the magnet that drew them here in the first place.
    And while aliens will be fined $2,000 before obtaining citizenship, opponents say it's hardly comparable punishment for the array of crimes the illegals have committed while working here. In addition to sneaking across the border, many have counterfeited documentation, committed Social Security fraud and cheated on taxes.
    "An American who commits Social Security fraud ends up going to jail. An American who fails to pay taxes for two years ends up in the federal penitentiary," Mr. Sensenbrenner said. "An illegal alien who does this gets citizenship."
    Mr. Tancredo said he is amazed at how little senators know about illegal entry, considering the importance Americans give it.
    "They'll just trust Ted Kennedy to put this thing together for them," Mr. Tancredo said.
    The president's prime-time speech last month essentially endorsing the Senate plan and arguing that it does not amount to "amnesty" caused Mr. Tancredo to do a double take.
    "It's all so Clintonesque. It was horrible," he said, referring to former President Bill Clinton's penchant for parsing words. "I was listening to President Bush speak on the border, and I'm thinking to myself, 'I'm listening to Bill Clinton reworking every word, reworking every definition.' "

Back

Texas Cities, counties put lobbyists to work on taxpayers' dime

June 10 2006 Christy Hoppe the Dallas Morning News

Exclusive: Officials say it's to protect interests; critics wonder whose

AUSTIN – Dallas has 12 legislators representing its interests in Austin. It also has six private lobbyists and a public interest firm that together are paid about a quarter-million dollars. Taxpayers are footing the bill for all of them.

Public entities in Texas spend between $10 million and $23 million a year on private lobbyists to push projects and defend their interests in Austin, according to a computer-assisted review of lobby registration by The Dallas Morning News. State law does not require reporting of a contract's exact amount, only that, earnings be listed within a range.

The 677 contracts in effect for public entities – cities, counties, school districts and other local governments – at the start of this year amount to almost four lobbyists for every lawmaker.

In addition, about a dozen, education, county and municipal associations, which are largely funded through dues paid by public entities, use their own staff to lobby the Legislature. The estimated cost for their work is well over $1 million. Cities point out that they are often lobbying defensively, to protect their interests against businesses and even other public entities. Plus, they seek to maintain local control on a host of decisions, from zoning to tax rates.

But critics note that the number of jurisdictions represented by private lobbyists keeps growing and that their job is often to make sure cities, counties and others can keep raising taxes.

"The question is just whose interests are they representing?" asked Peggy Venable, who directs the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

School or city officials might want something that is not in the best interest of taxpayers, so Texans should not have to pay for lobbyists whose aim is to cost them more, Ms. Venable said.

"We're not funding government to lobby for more government," she said.

Her group has been raising the question of why constituents should need lobbyists to contact their lawmakers.

And the state leadership is listening.

The lieutenant governor, who leads the Senate, and the House speaker have told committees to examine how much public money cities, counties and school districts are spending to lobby the Legislature, and whether some limits should be imposed when lawmakers meet in January.

House State Affairs Committee Chairman David Swinford said that he is interested in delving into the problem, though he sees it from a different perspective.

"If our government has gotten so complicated and proactive that your have to get yourself a hired gun to protect yourself, there might be too much money in the system – too much special interest – and they're having to counter that," said Mr. Swinford, a Republican from Dumas.

Numbers on the rise

Bill Miller, whose firm HillCo Partners represents the city of Dallas, agreed that special interests are part of the issue. But so are other cities that might be getting special authority out of the Legislature.

"Cities who didn't have lobbyists saw other cities doing and getting things that they weren't getting," Mr. Miller said. "You can get hurt if you're not in the game."

State records show that the number of cities that have hired lobbyists has increased 39 percent in the past six years – from 49 to 68. Many of the cities hire teams of lobbyists – ranging from the 29 registered for the city of Houston – paid between $620,000 and $1.3 million – to the one person for the town of Gunter in Grayson County, who is paid somewhere between nothing and $10,000.

It is not just cities that are turning increasingly to the lobby. The proliferation of municipal utility districts, where residents share the costs of water lines and other infrastructure, has sparked a commensurate growth in lobbying. MUDs this year issued 167 lobbying contracts worth up to $4 million.

Mayors, county judges and other elected officials can't be expected to leave home every week to walk around the Capitol and watch out for their interests, Mr. Miller said.

'Smart business move'

"The voters don't expect them to go to Austin for six months. Therefore, they hire experts to go take care of their business. It's a smart business move," he said.

Larry Casto, an assistant city attorney in Dallas who coordinates the city's lobbying, said that when he began working with the Legislature 13 years ago, his job was primarily to encourage laws that would help large cities avoid urban corrosion.

But now, he said, "the vast majority now is spent opposing bills brought by special interests that have found a way to make money if they can just get the cities out of the way."

Most of the bills that he tracks are to pre-empt local development rules, including zoning, building codes and water safety, Mr. Casto said.

So why aren't the lawmakers who come from Dallas looking out for their city's needs? Because the other guys have lots of lobbyists working to win them over, Mr. Casto said.

"We have no organized group that raises money that picks or supports candidates and facilitates their re-elections. And we're going up against groups that raise substantial amounts of money that oftentimes have interests that are contrary to cities and schools," Mr. Casto said.

"It would be nice if no one had lobbyists. But you can't say one group gets to have them and another doesn't," he said.

Mr. Casto pointed out that of the approximately 5,000 bills filed during a regular session about 1,200 would directly affect cities.

"You can't ask the mayor or council members with a city to run to move down to Austin, forget about city business for five months and negotiate on bills for 12 hours a day," he said.

Lynn Moak, a former Texas Education Agency deputy commissioner and assistant to legendary Comptroller Bob Bullock, now is one of eight lobbyists working for the Dallas school district. Together, the three are paid between $105,000 and $255,000.

Mr. Moak said his specialty is analyzing the often-Byzantine school finance formulas and provisions, and he helps sort it out for the DISD. But others also tap him.

"We're called upon many times by the elected representatives to explain to them what it is that a particular bill does," Mr. Moak said.

A cyclical concern

Mr. Moak, who has worked on school funding issues for 40 years, said the concern about public entities and lobbyists is cyclical. It often crops up after school districts or cities have united to derail a large legislative initiative, he said.

Indeed, the speaker and lieutenant governor announced their desire to study the issue after educators and their lobbyists swarmed the Capitol and helped doom a school-finance overhaul, an embarrassing failure for state leaders. A subsequent special session this year, with a wholly different plan, has resolved many of the issues for now.

Cities and counties also lobbied heavily against measures sought by Gov. Rick Perry to limit how much property appraisals can increase, fearing a big loss in tax revenues. That issue is also expected to come up again next year.

Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, who is on both House committees slated to review the lobbying issue, said that some lawmakers who supported last year's school finance plan were mad about its defeat.

"I don't think that's why it died. If they had no lobbyists walking around here, that plan would have died because it was a bad plan," he said.

Mr. Dutton said he sees nothing wrong with public entities lobbying, and he predicted that little will be done to curtail it.

Ms. Venable and several public interest groups worry that, that might be the case and that the number and costs of lobbyists hired by governments will only increase.

"It's a growth industry," Ms. Venable said.

"And while we taxpayers are busy working and earning a living, lobbyists are being hired to demand more of our tax dollars," she said. "We see more and more. It's a growing trend that needs to stop."

E-mail choppe@dallasnews.com

Back

Senate Republicans Foil Attempt to Establish 'Native Hawaiian' Government

June 12 2006 Chad Groening Agape Press

A military analyst and former officials in the Reagan Defense Department says it's outrageous that the Senate even considered a bill that opponents contend would have allowed the island of Hawaii to create an autonomous, race-based government capable of pulling the state out of the union if it chose.

It is called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, and critics say it would allow Hawaii to establish a race-based government dominated by "native" Hawaiians -- if the Senate passed it, which it did not. Like the Marriage Protection Amendment last week, this measure failed to garner the 60 votes needed to keep it alive, falling four votes short (56-41) on Thursday (June 8). Only this time around, all those voting against the S.R. 147, sponsored by Democratic Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, were Republicans.

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy is among those critical of the legislation. He cites what he sees could have been detrimental impacts on the nation as a whole.

"The effect could be to enable this new race-based government to decide that it wants to opt out of the 50 states of this union, taking with it not only the wonderful tourist sites of Hawaii but also the strategically critical military facilities," says the Center president.

While intended to give indigenous Hawaiians some of the same powers of self-governance enjoyed by American Indians, Gaffney fears that the legislation instead could have encouraged other groups to push for the same kind of autonomy. "I think it's entirely possible you'd see people coming out of the woodwork, saying, 'You know that deal that the native Hawaiians got in S-147? We want that, too. We want to be able to govern ourselves in our own way. And if it involves leaving the Union, so be it,'" he suggests.

Among those groups pushing for similar powers, he says, would be "... people like the Reconquistas, who think they ought to take back part of the United States for Mexico, or Islamists who think they ought to have the right to run their community by a Taliban-style sharia religious code."

Such legislation, he says, also could accelerate the process of unraveling the United States as a nation. "You know, we fought a civil war to keep people from doing this sort of thing," says Gaffney, "and the United States' Senate [by considering S.R. 147] seems at the precipice of saying, 'Okay; you can take Hawaii and go.'"

Despite the backing of the entire Hawaiian delegation to Congress and Republican Governor Linda Lingle, the measure had only partial support of the state's population, according to reports. Supporters had argued that the legislation was needed to redress wrongs that have persisted since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893.

But opponents on Capitol Hill cited their concerns about introducing a race-based division of government control. "I cannot and will not support a bill whose very purpose is to divide Americans based upon race," said Senator John Cornyn of Texas. And through a letter, the White House stated its strong opposition because the bill would reverse the country's melting-pot tradition and "divide people by their race."

Back

Life issues / Behavior

Abortion: the Evil Enterprise of Planned Parenthood

June 12 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

In his book, Aborting America, reformed abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson made reference to what he told his medical students years ago. "There's a fortune in abortion," he wrote. Planned Parenthood's annual report shows this is still true.

This evil enterprise last year reported an income of $882 million and a "profit" of $63 million. One Planned Parenthood affiliate is so awash in cash that it invests on Wall Street--in Victoria's Secret! The world's largest performer and promoter of abortion has received nearly $4 billion in your money from the federal government since 1987, reports American Life League. Last year it was $272.7 million in grants and contracts. These funds help Planned Parenthood's effort to corner the market on death and destruction. As national numbers of abortions are going down, Planned Parenthood's share is going up.

Last year, Planned Parenthood's 800 facilities last year either referred for abortion or directly killed 255,015 unborn children. One way to view Planned Parenthood is as the U.S.'s largest political party. It gets far more than either the Democrats or the Republicans from the federal government. Although it does not run candidates, it controls them--and intimidates them. Its platform is sexual license.

I call upon the leaders of Congress to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Before the members of Congress vote on giving more of your money to this outfit, I appeal to them to read Partial-Birth Abortion on Trial. FRC's Bill Saunders and Cathy Ruse have crafted a powerful indictment of these merchants of death--using their own sworn testimony in federal court.

Back

New York Bill Threatens Families' Power to Make Medical Decisions

June 13 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

Health-care providers could trump end-of-life decisions.

The New York Legislature is considering a bill that pro-life groups say contains serious end-of-life issues.

The title of the bill, the Family Health Care Decisions Act, may sound good, but Chris Fitch, legislative director for New York State Right to Life Committee, said provisions in it would circumvent the right of families to make decisions for loved ones.

"If they want treatment continued or food and water even," he said, "there are all kinds of loopholes in the bill that still allow a health-care provider to override that decision."

Fitch told Family News in Focus his group is proposing amendments to close loopholes such as the "futility policy." The term used to mean a doctor did not have to administer treatment if it would not do the patient any good. But Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, said it has taken on a new meaning.

"The word 'futile' is being applied to patients now when someone decides their life is futile and not of value," she said. "There’s a stark difference there."

Another of the proposed amendments would allow families more options in moving their loved ones to another facility should a hospital decide to terminate care. Most hospitals give a few days notice, but Fitch says families need time and more say in the matter.

"We have to keep health-care providers out of the quality decision making," he said. "That is just wrong."

Back

Supreme Court Justices: OK lethal injection challenges

Jun 12 2006 GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press

The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for death row inmates to contest the lethal injections used across the country for executions and to get DNA evidence before judges in a pair of rulings that hinted at fresh caution on capital punishment.

The decisions, both written by moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, ease the rules for longtime prisoners to get their cases back into court and could add years to their appeals.

"Today's decisions are further evidence of the Supreme Court's increasing discomfort with many aspects of the death penalty system," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The vote was unanimous in allowing condemned inmates to make special federal court claims that the chemicals used in executions are too painful — and therefore amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

It was a slap to the Bush administration and 25 states, which supported Florida in arguing that allowing new appeals would jeopardize finality and justice for victims' families.

"A series of court rulings have created so many chances for appeal that whether we have the death penalty or not is almost becoming moot when people are spending all of their natural lives on death row rather than having the sentence be complete," Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday.

The winner in the case was death row inmate Clarence Hill, who was strapped to a gurney with lines running into his arms to deliver the drugs in January when Kennedy, acting on behalf of the court, intervened and blocked the execution. Hill is on death row for the 1982 killing of Pensacola, Fla., Police Officer Stephen Taylor.

Following the court's intervention in the Hill case, executions were stopped in California, Maryland and Missouri. Another state, North Carolina, began using a brain wave monitor in executions to assure a federal judge that inmates would not suffer pain.

In the other case, justices ruled 5-3 that Tennessee death row inmate Paul Gregory House can use new evidence to try to get his conviction overturned in the 1985 murder of a neighbor. DNA testing revealed that semen found on Carolyn Muncey's nightgown and underwear belonged to her husband, not House.

"House has cast considerable doubt on his guilt," Kennedy wrote.

The ruling lowers the bar for inmates who want to get a new hearing on evidence that was not used at their trials. "Although the issue is close, we conclude that this is the rare case where — had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony — it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt," Kennedy wrote.

In a strongly worded dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said Kennedy ignored evidence in the case and a trial judge's determination that House and several of his witnesses were unreliable.

"Witnesses do not testify in our courtroom, and it is not our role to make credibility findings and construct theories of the possible ways in which Mrs. Muncey's blood could have been spattered and wiped on House's jeans," Roberts wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case because it was argued in January before he was confirmed.

Justices took up the lethal injection case this spring in a spirited debate about the drug combination used in most states. During oral arguments, Justice John Paul Stevens told Florida's lawyer that their drugs would be banned for use to euthanize cats and dogs.

Kennedy particularly seemed concerned in April about the amount of pain involved. "Doesn't the state have some minimal obligation under the Eighth Amendment to do the necessary research to assure that this is the most humane method possible?" he asked a government lawyer.

The federal government and 37 of the 38 states allowing capital punishment use lethal injection because it is considered more humane than hanging, gas chambers, electric chairs and firing squads. Nebraska still has the electric chair, although that, too, is being contested.

Lethal injection has become more contested, in part after a 2005 study published in the Lancet medical journal questioned whether a painkiller administered at the start of an execution can wear off before a prisoner dies.

Florida, like most states, uses three chemicals: a pain killer, a drug that paralyzes the inmate and a third that causes a fatal heart attack.

Kennedy, writing for the court, said that while Hill and other inmates can file special appeals under a federal civil rights law after exhausting regular appeals, they will not always be entitled to delays in their executions.

"Both the state and the victims of crime have an important interest in the timely enforcement of a sentence," he wrote.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, predicted that more inmates will win stays. He said he did not expect states to stop using lethal injection, only make changes in their processes to satisfy judges.

Back

Parents of Fallen Marine
Ask Bush to Federalize Mt. Soledad Memorial Site

June 12 2006 James L. Lambert Agape Press

Request, If Granted, Could Save Historic Cross from Being Moved

The parents of a Marine who died in Iraq last November say that they would like the National Park Service to take over the Mt. Soledad war memorial site in La Jolla, a suburb of San Diego, California.

Robert and Sybil Martino are requesting that two military veterans currently in Congress -- Senator John McCain and Representative Duncan Hunter -- approach President Bush on this matter. The war memorial site, constructed in 1954, includes a 29-foot cross which is the center of a 17-year legal dispute involving an atheist, his lawyer James McElory, and the City of San Diego.

The Martino's son, Captain Michael Martino, 32, was killed in action in Iraq when his Cobra helicopter was shot down by a Russian shoulder-mounted SA-16 surface-to-air missile. According to the Martinos, their "son's Camp Pendleton [Oceanside, California] unit, which recently returned from Iraq, dedicated a plaque at Mt. Soledad to honor [their] son ...." They both have expressed "the feelings of honor [they] felt at having their son memorialized for all time under the cross at Mt. Soledad" -- and add that "there is no better place on the West Coast to honor our fallen heroes than under that cross overlooking the country they fought and died to preserve ...."

Mr. Marino states that "this cross has been in existence [in one form or another] since 1913" and, in response to an atheist's lawyer who wants the cross removed, the elder Martino said that the Soledad cross "is no more an affront to personal beliefs than the thousands of crosses at Arlington [National Cemetery]."

Since his death, Captain Martino was posthumously awarded a Purple Heart and promoted to the rank of Marine Major. His mother says "Michael always had a fascination with flying," and his father characterizes his son "as a determined young man who was focused and always gave it his all." The young Martino graduated from the University of California, San Diego before enlisting in the Marine Corps.

According to Marine Major Thomas Dolan, Michael Martino "routinely demonstrated valor and poise despite the chaos of [war] .... He did a lot of dangerous work yet ... [Captain Martino] always played down what he did."

Colonel Weidley, Martino's commanding officer, said in a letter to his parents that their son "performed his duties above expectations .... He was always in the books, studying his aircraft, weapon systems and the enemy. [He was] one of the smartest pilots we have .... Sacrifice, selfless service, and uncommon valor are the staples of this generation of American service members, to which Mike was a part. We miss him terribly. He will never be forgotten."

On May 10, 300 of his comrades from Camp Pendleton commemorated Major Martino's legacy atop Mt. Soledad. Without media coverage, a plaque was dedicated to his memory. The Martinos see this site as a fitting tribute to their son. Yet they are disturbed that one atheist would be allowed by the courts to dismantle a cross that is a significant part of the historical San Diego war memorial.

In a letter to Senator John McCain, the Martinos asked: "Is it fair to the majority and to those who have served or have fallen in the service for our nation who wish to keep the cross to appease a few who look to strip all religion from our country under a false interpretation of the separation of church and state? Our son died with a strong belief that he was fighting to preserve the freedom of all Americans."

Robert and Sybil Martino are asking Congressman Hunter, Senator McCain, and newly elected Representative Brian Bilbray to help persuade the White House to federalize the site, thus making it a national war memorial. "Please let us have our freedom from activist judges and their personal interpretation of our Constitution," they plead in conclusion.

Back

Seven-Year-Old Beaten at School
for Father's Stand against Homosexual Activism

June 14 2006 John-Henry Westen and John Jalsevac LifeSiteNews.com

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts, On May 17—the two-year anniversary of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts—the first-grade son of a prominent pro-family advocate was dragged and beaten behind the Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington during recess, receiving multiple blows to the chest, stomach, and genital area.

Jacob Parker, the 7-year-old who was attacked, is the son of David Parker.  LifeSiteNews.com readers will recall that David Parker objected to homosexual curriculum in his son's kindergarten class.  At a meeting with the principal of the school last year Parker requested that the school inform him of when homosexual discussions would take place, so he could exclude his son from the activity. The principal refused and Parker said he would not leave until his request was granted. School administration called the police and had Parker charged with trespassing. (See coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05042910.html)

The school system has since continued to refuse to notify parents of such material being presented in class. On April 27, 2006, Parker, his wife, and another family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the school system.

According to Mr. Parker, school authorities determined from an investigation into the assault that the beating was indeed planned and premeditated.

Mr. Parker described the incident at the school saying:

"During the recess period, a group of 8-10 kids suddenly surrounded Jacob and grabbed him. He was taken around the corner of the school building out of sight of the patrolling aides, with the taunting and encouragement of other kids. Jacob was then positioned against the wall for what appeared to be a well planned and coordinated assault.”

According to Parker, his son related that one student in particular performed the actual physical assault while, “many children stood, watched silently, and did nothing as the beating commenced.”

"The group of kids surrounded Jacob and he was beaten and punched. Then, as he fell to the ground, another child was heard saying to the group of children, 'Now you all can finish him off,' and as he was down on his hands and knees, the beating continued on his back. Then, fortunately, one little girl ran to contact the oblivious playground aides to stop it.

"Four of the attackers were from Jacob's first-grade class; the others were from other classes at Estabrook.

"The teachers' aide apparently determined that since she could not see external bleeding, and since Jacob apparently was not hit in the face, she did not send him to she school nurse." The family was immediately notified of the incident.

Speaking to LifeSiteNews, Parker speculated that the cause of the attack is most likely what he called “displaced aggression.” “If children hear venomous things from their parents, the children do internalize this,” he said.

“I certainly don’t want to vilify the children in this,” he said. “We understand that skirmishes happen on the playground. It’s taking the child around out of view of the aides, and the number of children that stood around watching that concerns us.”

Parker noted that his conflict with the school over homosexuality is well known among the students.  "We are aware that the school administration sent notices home with all the young children concerning the Parker arrest, the 'King and King' incident and the federal lawsuit," he said. “They must know that the children read them.”

He pointed out that the date of the attack--the two year anniversary of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts--cannot be a coincidence.

The topic of Parker's beliefs has become so widespread among the students that Jacob says he overheard his fellow classmates ruminating that perhaps their current principle—who has resigned her position to take up a job elsewhere—was leaving the job because of Jacob’s father. Members of the community itself have organized public demonstrations specifically against Parker, in which their children have taken part. One of these demonstrations is pictured on the right. While prominently displayed in the student library are the back issues of the Lexington Minuteman that specifically deal with Parker’s case, for the children to read.

“We’re trying to be patient and tolerant," said Parker when asked if he was considering pulling his son out of the school. "We’re trying to hang on to the notion that the schools are for every child and for everyone. I don’t feel that we should have to leave for an injustice.”

But he added that “There are limits to how much patience we can have. I certainly understand why more and more parents are pulling their children out of public schools.”

Ironically, the school prides itself on its long-time involvement in various "Safe School" programs, which are geared to creating school environments "safe" for students who are homosexual.

Parker asked, "Isn't the school supposed to be addressing safety and preventing bullying and violence? Or are such programs only focused on children with homosexual parents? You can be certain that if this happened to a child with homosexual parents more would be made of this and that 'lessons' teaching tolerance and diversity of homosexual behavior normalization would be forced upon the young children."

The school and larger community are deeply divided over the Parker's stand against pro-homosexual indoctrination.  A group has been formed in Lexington to counter Parker's efforts.  The 'Lexington Cares' group maintains an anti-Parker website and has conducted anti-Parker letter writing campaigns and demonstrations. 

Calls to Estabrook school were not returned by press time.

To express your concern to Estabrook school contact:

Estabrook School
117 Grove Street
Lexington, MA
02420 USA

Phone: (781)861-2520 
Fax: (781)862-5610 

Back

Media / Internet / Entertainment

Parents Owe it to Kids to be Tech Savvy

June 14 2006 Bobby Eberle

Technologies such as the Internet and the World Wide Web are no longer novelties, but mainstream means of communication, advertising, commerce, and social interaction. Children are growing up around this technology, and parents need to make sure they know what their children are doing and what sites they are visiting on the Internet. If parents are not watching their children, they should know that others out there on the Internet are… and that’s the danger.

As noted in the story Creeps Crash Online Hangouts, one of the newest uses of the Web is “social networking,” which can be defined as “a cyber combination of a yearbook, personal diary and social club.”

However, what started out as a way for students to share conversation and information has turned into a central hub for sexual predators and other criminals who prey on children.

For some social networking site users, their frequent activity on the sites is becoming an invitation to crime and, in some cases, a death trap. Some are posting personal information such as their full names, school names, cell phone numbers and addresses, making themselves easy prey for sexual predators. In a sense, teens are baiting their own hooks, trolling for friends but attracting sharks.

In particular, the story highlights the web site MySpace.com, which today has “about 70 million registered users, the majority consisting of Gen Y-ers, those born between 1976 and 2001.”

According to USA Today, MySpace is “a universe of hundreds of thousands of personal Web pages [some of which are laced with profanity, pornography and sexually explicit dialogue] created by its users … to express their interests and display their personality.”

Parents should be aware of the potential problems of web sites such as these and monitor their children’s activities on the Internet. The story cites Justice Department information which states that “one in five children online is solicited sexually.”

While it’s next to impossible to know how many pedophiles are online, there is more than enough evidence to know they are out there waiting for their next vulnerable target. After all, Connecticut Detective Frank Dannehey says a full name and a photo are the only essentials needed by any online predator.

The story goes on to quote incidents from a WorldNetDaily.com report which notes the following regarding MySpace.com:

• In February, a 14-year-old New Jersey girl was found dead in a dumpster after arranging a meeting with a stranger on MySpace.

• Hartford, Connecticut, officials are investigating eight sexual assault cases after teenage girls met men on MySpace.

• In Lafayette, Louisiana, four teen girls were sexually assaulted by a local pervert who found them on MySpace.

• In another Louisiana case, a predator lay in wait for a teen girl in the parking lot of her place of employment, which he had found on her profile page.

• ATTORNEY GENERAL ABBOTT’S CYBER CRIMES UNIT ARRESTS TWO MEN FOR TARGETING TEENS ONLINE; OBTAINS INDICTMENT AGAINST ANOTHER MAN FOR CHILD PORN

• Hallettsville Texas suspect allegedly brought wine coolers to meet 14-year-old girl for sex

With these dangers in mind, parents need to be armed with the latest information, and be ever-mindful of what their children are doing on the Internet. In our household, the computer set up for the kids is in a central location which allows for fun and games, but not private discussions. In addition, parents should investigate the latest software which allows certain sites to be blocked from even appearing on their children’s web browsers.

We teach our children to watch out for strangers when they are out in public. Now, we need to educate them on the dangers which exist in our own homes. It’s a sad comment on society that there is a segment of the population that preys on children, and it’s even [more] sad when such predators are continually given light sentences, allowed to roam the streets, and given breaks even after repeat offenses. This must change now! In the mean time, parents must take an active role in not only what their children are viewing on TV but also what they are doing