BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #90 06/30/2006

News Topics of a Particular Interest or Moral Concern

Click on an article to view OR hold Ctrl down and click to view OR just scroll through the Articles:

Some of the titles may have been changed to make the articles content more self-explanatory.

 

Christianity / Religion

Historic Victory for Ten Commandments on Capitol Hill

Christian conservatives take the culture wars to foreign courts overseas

Agreement reached in distribution of religious literature in front of a Texas High School case

New Noah's Ark Discovery

 

Democracy / Security

U.N. Gun Control Summit Attacks Second Amendment and Firearms Worldwide

DHS Reports 45,008 Illegal Aliens Released into US from Terror-Sponsoring Countries

Family / Social

Vatican Cardinal Fears Church Will be Brought before International Court for Defense of Life and Family

More Teens Getting Hooked on Gambling in Europe

School Attempts to Slip Explicit Video Past Parents

 

Government / Legislation

New Bill Would Drop Lawyer Fee Damages in Religious Battles

Congress Takes Up 'American Values Agenda'

American Flag protection Amendment Fails by Single Vote

Schools May Answer in Court for Censoring Students' Christian Messages

Bush Issues Executive Order on Eminent Domain

 

Life Issues / Behavior

Is Warren Buffett: Killing with Kindness?

CWA Lauds US House of Representatives' Proactive Leadership on Values Issues

Attacking the Mount Soledad Cross

 

Media / Internet / Entertainment

U.S. Department of Defense and Ad Council Launch “America Supports You” so you can show your support For our Military

Neutrality Debate Over Internet Equality Is Hardly Neutral

Business leaders: US not prepared for Internet outage

Ford Motor Company Sponsors Homosexual Media Awards, Desperate Housewives

 

Politics

Gambling could be an ace in the hole for two Texas Gubernatorial Candidates

Supreme Court upholds most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

 

World / World Apostasies

Warren Buffett Gives until it Hurts: Hurts Women, Hurts the Developing World and Kills Preborn Children

Seven Canadian Women to Wed . . . Themselves

 

 

Christianity / Religion

Historic Victory for Ten Commandments on Capitol Hill

June 28 2006 Christian Newswire

Washington, D.C. Backs off Assault on the First Amendment and Religious _Expression in the Public Square

WASHINGTON, In a stunning reversal, the Government of the District of Columbia has reversed its order to remove the Ten Commandments from the front garden of the Faith and Action ministry house across the street from the US Supreme Court. Failure to comply subjected Faith and Action to $300 a day fines and possible forced sale of the property.

Rev. Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), an occupant of Faith and Action's clergy residence at 109 2nd St., NE, in Washington, DC said, "We were shocked at how quickly the DC Government agreed to our position on our Ten Commandments display. Our lawyers had just faxed a response to the District Government's order to remove our sculpture. The letter rescinding the order was hand-delivered the next morning."

Another part-time resident of the ministry house, the Reverend Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, said, "We are thankful the city of Washington, D.C. has ended its assault on the First Amendment and expressions of faith in the public square and will allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed across the street from the Supreme Court. We hope our refusal to remove the Ten Commandments, in spite of the threat of thousands of dollars in fines and loss of property, will serve as clear reminder that we must resist religious bigotry and discrimination on every level. This is a victory not only for the faith community but for all Americans who cherish free speech and religious liberty."

Faith and Action's legal team, led by Alabama attorney Phil Jauregui of the Judicial Action Group with backing by the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious liberty public interest law firm, demonstrated to DC officials that the sculpture did not require a permit to "obstruct travel," and that it was protected speech under the First Amendment. DC officials agreed to both claims. ( See letter from Lars Etzkorn of the Government of the District of Columbia, District Department of Transportation.)

“The District’s written admission vindicates Faith and Action’s position throughout this dispute: there is no legal support for the District’s prior attempt to regulate the Ten Commandments garden display. Faith and Action acted appropriately in not only placing the Ten Commandments display in its garden but in having the courage to stand behind it. We hope that this will end the matter; if anything further develops we stand ready to defend Faith and Action.” Phillip L. Jauregui, Judicial Action Group, 800- 439-8867

The 3' x 3' granite sculpture faces the private entrance to the US Supreme Court where the justices arrive and leave each day. Many US senators and their senior level staff members walk past the display on their way to and from nearby US Senate office buildings. Kansas senator Sam Brownback keeps his Capitol Hill residence a few doors away.

A group called "The Beltway Atheists" had previously announced they would file a civil lawsuit if DC officials allowed the Ten Commandments to remain in what DC law deems "public space."

 Back

Christian conservatives take the culture wars to foreign courts overseas

June 14 2006 Scott Michels

When a devout Christian man in England was fired in 2002 for refusing to work on Sundays, his case became something of a cause célèbre among British evangelicals. But the money and part of the legal strategy behind Stephen Copsey's latest court appeal comes not from London but from Scottsdale, Ariz., and the Alliance Defense Fund.

The legal advocacy group founded by Focus on the Family's James Dobson and the late Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ sees Copsey's case as part of an emerging threat to religious freedom in the United States. "If these cases are imported by United States courts as controlling precedent, we basically abandon America as we know it," says Benjamin Bull, chief counsel at ADF.

The fund, which has had recent victories challenging gay marriage in San Francisco and protecting student Christian groups, is part of a growing movement of Christian conservative lawyers who are taking the culture wars overseas. With the Supreme Court citing foreign and international law in recent controversial opinions, court cases across the globe have taken on new urgency for some activists on the right and the left, who see new opportunities to influence what happens in America's courtrooms.

"It's crystal clear to us that unless we get involved in the outcome of foreign law then we're going to be at grave risk," says Bull. Ann Beeson, associate legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, says "We now see regional and international human rights forums as simply another tool in the fight for social justice here in the United States."

Since the mid-1990s, Christian conservatives have grown more influential in the world of international human rights, long the province of the cultural left. American Christian organizations now lobby at the U.N. and provide funding, advice, and friend-of-the-court briefs in abortion, emergency-contraception, and religious-freedom cases from Colombia to Canada, from Australia to Nigeria. Groups such as the ADF, Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty Counsel have developed international networks of Christian lawyers, trained foreign lawyers, and sent their lawyers abroad.

Like most conservatives, though, these groups oppose using foreign law in U.S. court decisions—and ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow and Liberty Counsel's Mathew Staver say they are not trying to influence U.S. law through their international work. "I think that is the wrong approach," says Sekulow. "I don't litigate a case in Europe with the idea that it's going to come back and impact the law in the U.S. We want to help people of faith in those countries."

But more is potentially at stake. The Supreme Court has cited international law going back to the 1800s. But, beginning in the late 1990s, several justices began using foreign sources of law, more controversially, to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Last year, the court said "the opinion of the world community"—evidenced in part by a U.N. convention the United States has not signed—supported its decision to ban the juvenile death penalty. In 2003, the court referred to a European Court of Human Rights decision and an act of British Parliament when it struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2005 cited a Canadian case in its landmark decision legalizing gay marriage.

Still, the importance of foreign and international law to the future of conservative causes in the United States is unclear. Foreign opinions, legal scholars say, so far have reinforced Supreme Court decisions but have been far from decisive. And, says Harvard constitutional law professor Charles Fried, "There's considerable hostility to the use of foreign precedent at all." Nor is there anything resembling an international consensus on either gay marriage or abortion. In fact, much of the world still has more restrictive abortion laws than does the United States.

But as long as U.S. courts are willing to cite foreign and international law, ADF, which has a $17 million annual budget, plans to make influencing foreign law a priority. "We can see which way the wind is blowing," says Bull. "We're not going to sit idly by while our court system changes before our very eyes."

 Back

Agreement reached in distribution of religious literature in front of a Texas High School case

June 18 2006 Joy E. Cressler/Staff Writer Burleson-Crowley Connection.

The Fort Worth grandmother who tried to distribute religious literature in front of Crowley High School last year has prevailed.

Janice Colston and Crowley ISD have settled a lawsuit filed by Colston in December, according a press release issued by the Liberty Legal Institute.

“Crowley ISD worked diligently to find a solution that would allow Ms. Colston and others to exercise their legal rights, while at the same time guarding the safety of its students,” said Janet Wynne, assistant superintendent for school improvement. 

The lawsuit resulted when Crowley ISD stopped Colston from distributing materials immediately after the school day, while students were leaving Crowley High School and attempting to load buses, the release said.

“I am pleased the case is over and that I can resume my calling to share my faith with others,” Colston said. “I will be able to resume when school begins this fall.”

Colston and Crowley ISD have agreed to a distribution location in front of Crowley High School that will allow Colston to exercise her free speech rights and ensure that the students of Crowley ISD may safely exit the building and load buses.

“The district staff agreed upon having a mark on the sidewalk that would reflect the agreed-upon distance between the two parties,” Wynne said. “The mark serves as a concrete sign of what has been approved. I don’t know the actual distance. It is an agreed upon length from the midpoint of the school.”

Colston, represented by the Liberty Legal Institute, sent a demand letter to the district and later sued, claiming that she was denied her free speech rights to distribute religious literature on a public sidewalk in front of Crowley High School. Crowley ISD denied all allegations in an answer filed in federal court.

Colston received an undisclosed amount of attorneys’ fees in the settlement, which CISD administrative secretary Judi Cangas said couldn’t be revealed to the public because it was part of the settlement agreement to keep it undisclosed by both parties.

“Mr. Gibson [Crowley ISD superintendent Greg] did a wonderful job bringing both sides together to resolve this case,” said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute. “This is a district that values free speech and religious expression, and it demonstrated that by immediately working toward a resolution soon after the lawsuit was filed.”

 Back

New Noah's Ark Discovery

June 27 2006 Prophecy News Watch

CBS 11 has news of what could turn out to be one of the biggest discoveries in the history of both archaeology, and Christianity. A group of men believes it has found the remains of Noah's Ark, but it's not where most think.

The group made the discovery in Iran. That may come as a surprise, because Christians have always believed Noah's Ark was in Mount Ararat, in eastern Turkey.

The terrain was treacherous. The odds of success low.

"I really didn't think we were going to get into Iran. What are the chances that ground zero, the country that hates America the most, that we could get in?" said Texan, Arch Bonneman.

Faith and curiosity drove Dallas businessman Bonneman on a spiritual and historic journey. He says more than a thousand people have searched for Noah's Ark over the past century.

"If we can find some evidence that Noah's Ark really existed, I thought that could cause thousands and tens of thousands of people to say, 'maybe the rest of the bible is true, too.'" Bonneman said.

He was joined by fellow Dallas businessman Boone Powell, and more than a dozen others.

"We had archaeologists, we had geologists, scientists, biblical historians, we had mountain climbers," Bonneman said.

More than 13,000 feet above sea level, after a seven hour hike, their pilgrimage concluded with a 400-foot long object.

Bonneman says the piece was obviously man-made and it was exactly where they expected. The team's leader, Dr. Robert Cornuke, had determined that Noah's Ark couldn't be in Turkey, based on the description in the bible and the time frame.

According to Bonneman, in biblical times, Ararat was in the region which is today northern Iran.

The businessman says the petrified wood clearly bears a resemblance to a ship. "How did a ship get to 13,300 feet, except to float there?"

Bonneman says he knows there will be naysayers, but he believes the discovery will reaffirm others' faith as it did his own.

A Houston lab used by the Smithsonian tested the alleged ark. Bonneman says they found that it was petrified wood, and that fossilized sea animals were buried inside it.

Back

Democracy / Security

U.N. Gun Control Summit Attacks Second Amendment and Firearms Worldwide

June 23 2006 the Center for Individual Freedom

"Small Arms, as Deadly as WMD." 

            "Wherever arms flow, violence follows." 

These absurd and objectively inaccurate pronouncements come courtesy of the United Nations, which commences its international gun control summit in New York from June 26 to July 7, 2006.  According to the U.N. announcement, the summit targets "the proliferation of small arms and light weapons," and literally advocates their collection and wholesale destruction. 

Rather than saying, "wherever arms flow, violence follows," however, the U.N. could more accurately announce that "wherever guns are confiscated, genocide and violence follow." 

Lest one assume the U.N. merely seeks trans-global standards, consider the following press release:  "Member states should ... bring their own national legislation into compliance with the Council's measures."  It further asserts that, "particular attention was placed on the need to ... encourage harmonisation of national legislation."  Moreover, consider the following U.N. statement proffering the program's mandatory nature: 

"By unanimously adopting the Program of Action in 2001, the UN Member states committed themselves to collecting and destroying illegal weapons, adopting and/or improving national legislation to help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms, regulating the activities of brokers, setting strict import and export controls, taking action against violators of such laws, and better coordinating international efforts to that end." 

Just what America needs – the U.N. dictating its our laws. 

Which nations will comprise this summit?  The U.N. identifies twenty-eight participants, including the following international beacons of freedom:  Iran, China, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, Benin, Senegal, South Africa, Bangladesh, Argentina, Columbia, Jamaica, and Peru. 

No word yet on whether the U.N. will notice Cuba's omission and expeditiously add it, just as it added Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Libya, and China to its "Human Rights Commission." 

The U.N. also officially invited several non-governmental participants, including the "Biting the Bullet Consortium" and the notorious London-based International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), whose website baldly proclaims, "Bringing the Global Gun Crisis under Control."  IANSA's official site asserts that the U.S. is "the leading supplier of conventional arms to the developing world," that it has "one of the world's largest markets for small arms," and that "the private resale of guns is largely unregulated in the United States, making it difficult to prevent their acquisition." 

Ominously, their website further announces that "IANSA participants in the United States are working to: research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership, promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns, apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry, and support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms." 

Shockingly, the U.N. invited neither the nearby National Rifle Association nor the Second Amendment Foundation to provide intellectual balance to these international anti-American partisans congregating at the New York summit. 

What does the U.N. advocate doing with firearms themselves?  Once again, reality transcends farce, and the U.N.'s official website speaks for itself: 

"More than 60 countries have collected and destroyed large amounts of illegal small arms.  Different methods have been used, including 'Flames of Peace' bonfires (Burundi, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Haiti, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa); by crushing them with steamrollers, bulldozers, or tanks (Brazil, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Paraguay, Sri Lanka); by dismantling weapons (Argentina, Costa Rica, Timor-Leste, Uganda); by discarding in deep water (Senegal and others).  Other cost-effective and environmentally-friendly methods have also been used." 

That was not a misprint.  Leave it to the U.N. and IANSA to cite genocide-torn Cambodia, Congo, Haiti, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Timor, and the former Yugoslav republics as inspirational models, and to advocate gun bonfires, steamrollers, and literally dumping firearms into the ocean. 

Sadly, it hasn't occurred to the U.N. that disarming law-abiding citizens provides criminals and dictators a monopoly on firearms possession, eviscerates people's self-defense capabilities, and leads to precisely the sort of mass genocide experienced in those countries.  (Imagine the impossibility of a government attempting genocide against America's well-armed populace.  Yet the U.N. wants the world to follow those nations' examples, rather than America's.) 

Lest one disregard the summit as simply another inept and pointless U.N. boondoggle, consider the long-term strategy to completely eliminate firearms acknowledged by Pete Shields, former leader of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: 

"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal." 

Britain has done precisely that, and now stands as the world's most-violent developed nation.  Their example proves once again that governments cannot and do not effectively protect law-abiding citizens, and that citizens' right to possess firearms is a necessary component of providing for self-defense and domestic security. 

Simply put, the U.N.'s anti-firearm summit next week is undeniably Phase One in the campaign to abolish firearm rights through small, inexorable steps.  Further, on the heels of last month's U.N. report calling for greater international speech and press restrictions, the summit illustrates precisely why Congress and the White House must immediately reconsider its enormous subsidies to such an anti-American conglomeration of despots, dictators, and tyrants. 

There is simply no excuse for America's continued disproportionate support of this corrupt organization. 

Back

DHS Reports 45,008 Illegal Aliens Released into US from Terror-Sponsoring Countries

June 22 2006 Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

PHOENIX, AZ Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (“MCDC”), released the following statement in response to the recent report released by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General: “On May 19th, three days after DHS Czar Michael Chertoff briefed the press on President Bush’s illegal immigration amnesty cum border security plans, DHS released a report completed by its Inspector General back in mid-April. This report was made 'public' without a press release and late on a Friday to make sure this searing report got little or no attention. Contained in this DHS report was the astonishing admission that tens of thousands of illegals from terrorist-sponsoring states were silently released into the neighborhoods of America between 2001 and 2005, even though their identities—much less their purposes for being in the U.S.—could not be confirmed by immigration officials. “It is absolutely appalling that 45,008 illegal aliens from countries on the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terror (SST) and from countries that protect terrorists (SIC) were released onto the streets of America and it is still not known how many of these illegals were actually deported, if any.

“As the U.S. Senate continues to obstruct real border security, and the House of Representatives announces field hearings to assess the illegal immigration situation, tens of thousands of potential terrorists are roaming sovereign U.S. territory free to plan, plot and carry out violent, hostile, potentially devastating attacks on American soil.

Unarmed members of the National Guard have been deployed to our southern frontier to do vehicle maintenance and paperwork while our borders remain wide open to terrorists, arms and drug traffickers, rapists, thieves, murderers and millions of illegal, unidentified migrants.

President Bush seems to suffer from the notion that the most urgent problem facing our Border Patrol is a lack of competent office help. Nero fiddles while Rome burns.” To read the full DHS/IG report buried deep in the recesses of the DHS website: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf

To read the Front Page Magazine article that broke this story: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22830 ###

Back

Family / Social

Vatican Cardinal Fears Church Will be Brought before International Court for Defense of Life and Family

June 28 2006 John-Henry Westen LifeSiteNews.com

Alfonso Says Embryonic Stem Cell Researchers Excommunicated Just Like Abortionists

VATICAN CITY, in an interview published in the June 27 issue of Famiglia Christiana magazine, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, said that those involved in embryonic stem cell research which kills human embryos are excommunicated.

In a wide-ranging interview about the Fifth World Meeting of Families, due to be held in Valencia, Spain from July 1 to 9, the Cardinal was asked about excommunication, first in the case of abortion.  He responded that the doctors, the nurses and the mother involved all incur excommunication.  He added that the father is also excommunicated if he agrees with the procedure.

Asked if that excommunication also applied to those who do embryonic stem cell research, the Cardinal responded, "Sure. It is the same thing. To destroy the embryo is equivalent to abortion."  He added that the excommunication applies to parents, doctors and investigators "who eliminate the embryo."

Speaking about politicians who support abortion, Cardinal Trujillo said that they should "not approach the Eucharist." 

He noted that he was expressly asked by the Pope to explain such things to politicians; adding that "sometimes they change their minds."

Ominously the Cardinal warned during the interview that the Vatican fears that the Church will one day be brought "in front of some international Court" if more radical demands are listened to.  He explained that "speaking in defense of the life and for the rights of the family is becoming in some societies a type of crime against the State, a form of disobedience to the Government, a discrimination against women."

Back

More Teens Getting Hooked on Gambling in Europe

June 28 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

Kids as young as 11 are calling an addiction help line in Europe.

A growing number of pre-teens worldwide are struggling with gambling addiction, according to new statistics.

A gambling-addiction help line in Norway, for instance, reports children as young as 11 calling in with problems. Several European callers under 13 told help-line staff they are betting hundreds of dollars a month.

Rina Gupta, co-director of the International Center for Youth Gambling Problems and High Risk Behaviors, said 4 percent of North American teenagers are struggling, too.

"Most of the research that's been done starts at age twelve, so it's a little hard to speak about eleven-year-olds in terms of addiction," she told Family News in Focus. "There's so much exposure and so much opportunity to gamble that it's really not surprising."

One reason kids gamble, Gupta added, is because they see celebrities doing it.

"Adolescence is a period of risk-taking," she said. "And so kids don't perceive the risks that they are engaging in. That's the way their brains are constructed, and gambling fits very well into that whole risk-taking spectrum. So, it's popular."

Chad Hills, gambling analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there are physical reasons, as well.

"Adolescents are a lot more vulnerable just because of the stage of development that their brain is in," he explained. "The appeal is there — especially with video gambling machines and online Internet gambling. The appeal and the excitement is there for these kids, but the rational, sober thought that comes later in life is not there yet."

Teens who gamble, he added, are three times more likely to become problem gamblers in adulthood.

School Attempts to Slip Explicit Video Past Parents

June 28 2006 Citizen Link

The Governor's School in Raleigh, N.C., has backed off plans to show a sexually explicit video, featuring homosexual behavior, to students without their parents' consent.

School officials repeatedly promised they would gain parental consent before allowing students to watch American History X. But parents weren't informed until after an Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney got involved.

The Governor's School, a six-week summer program funded by taxpayers that is for academically gifted students, advertised the film as part of the "Race and Film" series.

"Positioning this film as one that is merely about racial tension is extremely misleading," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson said. "It seems clear that school officials have attempted to subject the best and the brightest of local high school students to a sexually explicit video without their parents' knowledge or consent, in defiance of state law.

"We will continue to defend the rights of these families through such action as necessary."

Back

Government / Legislation

New Bill Would Drop Lawyer Fee Damages in Religious Battles

June 26 2006 Alison Espach CNSNews.com Correspondent

The ACLU by an obscure provision of the Civil Rights Act that allows that inveterately hostile organization to milk millions of dollars in attorney fees by going after local governments that recognize America's religious heritage in any way.

The "Christmas tree wars," fought each year over public religious displays often end up in court, but congressional legislation taken up recently by a House Judiciary subcommittee would prohibit damages and attorney fees from being awarded to plaintiffs in such First Amendment cases.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel, testified in favor of the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (PERA). He later told Cybercast News Service that he does not "believe the opposition presented any reasonable arguments to not move forward with this bill. I think it's a bill that should be passed and is long overdue."

The battles over public religious displays, which happen year-round, but are more prevalent during the Christmas season, revolve around the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Civil libertarians often refer to the clause as "the constitutional separation of church and state," words that do not actually appear in the Constitution. Conservatives believe the First Amendment gives them the right to practice their religion in public without interference from the government.

PERA (H.R. 2679), proposed by Rep. John Hostettler, (R-Ind.) would amend two federal laws (42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988) that the congressman reportedly said are currently used by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "to extort behavior out of individuals."

If PERA is not enacted, Staver said frivolous litigation by the ACLU will drain the funds that the federal government needs to spend on infrastructure and education.

Rees Lloyd, a former ACLU employee who went on to work as a judge advocate for the American Legion, also testified in favor of the bill; his written testimony stated that there is no need for the ACLU to have its attorney fees paid in religious display cases it challenges in court.

"As a former ACLU attorney, I know to a certainty that the ACLU's litigation is carried out by staff attorneys, or by pro bono attorneys who are in fact precluded from receiving fees under the ACLU's own policies," said Lloyd.

He provided many instances in which he felt unjustified attorney fees were paid to the ACLU:

$1 million was given to the ACLU by the Dover, Pa., School Board in the "Dover Design Theory Case" when the ACLU claimed that teaching "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian Theory violated the Establishment Clause.

Another involved a Ten Commandments monument that was ordered removed from Alabama's state judicial building in 2003. The ACLU and sister organizations received $500,000 in attorney fees.

Lloyd also cited the Redlands, Calif., City Council, which voted to remove the cross in 2005 from its City Seal because the ACLU threatened to sue. Lloyd said the only reason given for the vote was the fear that court-awarded attorney fees would take away taxpayer funds needed for city services.

Because the city could not afford to change all of the seals, employees who had badges -- police, fire, emergency services -- were called in and had holes drilled through the crosses of their badges to comply with the ACLU's demands.

The threat of such attorney fees, according to Lloyd, "is having a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental First Amendment rights."

Staver added that "some government officials will back down whenever they are threatened by the ACLU, even though they are right, simply because the law is confusing and they don't want to risk having to pay the ACLU's attorney fees."

Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress, an opponent of the PERA bill, admitted in his written testimony that it is "true that local government bodies have foregone litigating Establishment Clause defenses against claims of free exercise or religious free speech because of concern about attorney's fees."

However, Stern said that if PERA is enacted the government "will rue the day that they supported this legislation."

"What possible reason could there be for treating citizen litigants substantially less well than prison litigants?" he asked.

Stern said PERA was proposed and supported by people with the "mistaken view that Establishment Clause litigation is brought only by those who detest religion, and who seek a naked public square."

According to Stern, "the only practical way to make sure that all these claims" regarding alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, "can be heard is to ensure that access to the courts is on an equal footing."

But according to Staver, this argument is irrelevant because "these claims are typically brought by public interest organizations, already financed by public, charitable support."

Staver added that Establishment Clause jurisprudence is "confusing" and "conflicted" and that even the U.S. Supreme Court justices are confused about the issue. The justices, he said, "rule in one way on one case and the opposite way on another with no rationale between the two."

"We should not punish government officials for a misstep in this constitutional minefield," said Staver.

Stern offered a final warning in the close of his written testimony: "It is a sad fact of human nature that some of those who today protest official efforts to impose religion will, when they hold the reins of power, not hesitate to impose their secular views on others. When that happens, as it inevitably will, the sponsors of H.R. 2679 will rue the day that they supported this legislation."

The ACLU did not return phone calls seeking comment for this article.

Take Action Now
Support the 'Public _Expression of Religion Act'

Back

Congress Takes Up 'American Values Agenda'

June 27 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link

Values legislation comes to Capitol Hill this week.

Pro-family members of Congress united today to push for a group of bills they are calling the American Values Agenda.

Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the package consists of 10 pieces of values-oriented legislation.

"These are bills having to do with religious-liberty issues, the pro-life issue, traditional marriage — a variety of things values voters will be paying close attention to," she said.

Most of the bills already existed in one form or another, but congressional leaders bundled them together to highlight their importance.

"The House of Representatives belongs to the American people, and the American people want us to act on the issues they care about," House Majority Leader John Boehner said. "This is their agenda."

It includes:

· H.R. 42 - Freedom to Display the American Flag Act (sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.)

This bill would bar covenantal associations like homeowner and condominium groups from restricting residents from flying the American flag — or restricting the flag size or where and how flags can be placed. It passed today.

· H.R. 2679 - The Public Expression of Religion Act (Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind.)

Currently, plaintiffs in cases involving the Establishment Clause — so-called separation of church and state cases — have the right to collect attorneys' fees if they win the lawsuit. This bill would end that practice.

Though it would not, for example, stop the American Civil Liberties Union from challenging a Ten Commandments monument at a courthouse, as the group did in Alabama in the 1990s, the legislation would bar it from seeking to make the losing party pay the $550,000 in attorneys' fees it racked up in that case.

· H.R. 2389 - Pledge Protection Act (Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo.)

This bill was drafted in response to atheist Michael Newdow's unsuccessful court challenge to strike the words "under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance. The act would remove the Pledge from the jurisdiction of the federal courts — and relieve federal judges from hearing constitutional challenges on the issue.

· H.J. Res. 88 - Marriage Protection Amendment (Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.)

A version of this amendment failed in the Senate last month, but pro-family groups have higher hopes for it in the House. The measure would define marriage in the U.S. Constitution as a relationship of only one man and one woman.

In addition, lawmakers are working on two pro-life bills — H.R. 356, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act; and H.R. 1357, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act — along with bills that would make family tax relief permanent, regulate Internet gambling and protect the rights of firearms owners.

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute in Texas, said if judges would simply follow the law there would be no need for legislation to protect against the Pledge being gutted, or the flag being barred or desecrated, or the national motto — "In God We Trust" — being removed from our money.

Shackelford is himself embroiled in a case in which an atheist has sought and won the removal of a well-known American icon located in Southern California — the cross on San Diego's Mt. Soledad.

The pro-family attorney represents the American Legion in the case, which involves the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals trying to force the city of San Diego to remove a 50-year-old cross from a Korean War memorial on top of Mt. Soledad.

"The idea that anyone would believe that the Founders of this country would support going to our veterans' memorials and veterans' cemeteries and stripping all the crosses and stars of David off of the graves is absolutely ridiculous," Shackelford said.

Unfortunately, it has become reality.

"The fact that we have judges who are starting to do this just shows that judges are out of control," he added. "The problem is not our Constitution, or the people of this country — but it is time to put a stop to out-of-control judges."

Banks, meanwhile, said the fact that some are attempting to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance is not the unimportant gesture some might suggest.

"It's a serious threat to the foundations our nation was built upon — the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country," she said. "We need to ensure those foundations don't crumble and that our heritage is maintained. These bills do much in that regard.

"It's an aggressive goal for Congress to try to pass all 10."

TAKE ACTION
Please contact your representative and ask him or her to support the bills which are part of the American Values Agenda. For contact information, log in to the http://texasmoralaction.org

In addition, please thank House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Speaker opf the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., for putting this package together and making these issues a priority.

Back

American Flag protection Amendment Fails by Single Vote

June 28 2006 Fox News

WASHINGTON, the narrow defeat of a proposal to ban flag desecration marks the second time in a month Senate Republicans have lost bids to amend the Constitution in ways designed to inspire social conservatives to vote in the midterm elections.

The 66-34 tally on the flag amendment Tuesday was one less than the two-thirds, or 67 votes, required to send it to the states for ratification. The House cleared the two-thirds threshold last year, 286-130.

Sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the amendment read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

A proposed amendment earlier this month to ban gay marriage suffered a more decisive defeat, killed on a test vote.

Winning isn't the only goal for those measures or other social policy proposals congressional Republicans will bring up this year in an effort to energize their base of voters.

House Republicans intend to hold votes this summer and fall touching on abortion, guns, religion and other priority issues for social conservatives, part of an attempt to improve the party's prospects in the midterm elections.

The "American Values Agenda" also includes the gay marriage amendment, a prohibition on human cloning and possibly votes on several popular tax cuts.

The flag amendment's cliffhanger defeat a week before Independence Day represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecration of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people's patriotism for political advantage.

"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. It would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation. It also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

The House meanwhile passed by voice vote a measure that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., the resolution would prohibit those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property. The Senate is considering whether to bring up the measure this year.

It's unclear how many of the controversial bills might clear Congress and reach President Bush's desk. Still, political strategists argue that by bringing controversial issues to a vote, one party can broadly emphasize differences with the other on an issue such as abortion, and increase the determination of its own supporters to go to the polls.

For their part, Democrats maneuvered successfully last week for a Senate vote on raising the minimum wage. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the party's leader, said Tuesday they would "do everything within our power to stop a congressional pay raise from going through this year, and we're going to tie it to minimum wage."

Back

Schools May Answer in Court for Censoring Students' Christian Messages

June 23 2006 Jim Brown Agape Press

A Christian attorney says a Colorado high school was wrong to withhold a valedictorian's diploma because her commencement speech encouraged people to learn about Jesus Christ.

Erica Corder, an 18-year-old graduating senior at Lewis-Palmer High School in Monument, used her commencement speech to speak about the death and resurrection of Christ and to urge listeners to learn more about his sacrifice. After the valedictory address, however, school officials told Corder she would not receive her diploma until she wrote an e-mail to the school community's students and parents, apologizing for her comments. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Florida-based Liberty Counsel, believes the school acted inappropriately. "Frankly, schools have no right to withhold a diploma," he argues. "That diploma is earned. It's just like if you already worked at your job, and you get paid after the fact; what you do on vacation or off work does not have any bearing on whether you're going to get paid."

Corder's case has a number of "very disturbing components," Staver says, because after she gave her speech, she was threatened that her diploma would be withheld unless she wrote an e-mail apologizing to the seniors in her class. But Corder had already "earned" her diploma, he insists, and as the valedictorian, "she was entitled to the diploma, and the school should not have forced her to give this apologizing e-mail."

The pro-family attorney feels this has been one of the most egregious incidences of abuse of power by school officials at graduation that he has ever encountered. Until this situation in Colorado, he notes, "I've never seen a case where a diploma is withheld because someone gave a religious message. I believe that was obviously illegal to do that."

In fact, Staver believes it was unconstitutional for the school to censor the Christian valedictorian's message. The Liberty Counsel spokesman has sent a letter to school district officials on Corder's behalf, informing them that, under the Constitution of the United States, she has the right to share her faith. He says even though Corder agreed to write parents and fellow graduates an apology letter, a lawsuit against the school is still warranted.

New Jersey Second Grader Barred From Singing "Awesome God"

Meanwhile, in another case of apparent school censorship, a judge will decide whether a New Jersey elementary school violated a student's free speech rights when it barred her from singing a Christian song at a school talent show. The Frenchtown School District described the lyrics of the second-grader's selected music -- the Rich Mullins anthem "Awesome God" -- as too violent and graphic for the elementary school presentation.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Olivia Turton. ADF attorney Demetrios Stratis says, contrary to the school's claims, allowing Olivia to sing the song would not have violated the First Amendment. In fact, he asserts, "It's preposterous. It really, really is, to think that an eight-year-old, a second grader, is singing songs or lyrics that are violent and that in some way violate the establishment clause."

Stratis feels the school's defense is particularly ludicrous in light of some of the acts the school did not choose to censor. He says far more questionable performances were allowed at the talent show. For instance, he notes, "Someone was dancing to Shakira, I think," referring to the Colombian Latin pop performer known as much for her provocative dance style as for her at times suggestive lyrics.

Also, someone in the talent show performed a song by the rock band Bon Jovi, and someone else acted out "a scene from MacBeth regarding witches," the ADF lawyer recalls. With all the things that were allowed in show, Stratis contends it is beyond the pale for the Frenchtown School District officials "to suggest that the song 'Awesome God' is violent" and, he adds, "it just goes to show you the 'logic' behind them refusing to let Olivia sing her song."

Both sides in the case have filed motions for summary judgment. Judge Stanley Chesler will receive the papers on July 3 and will then decide whether to issue a ruling or have the case go to trial.

Back

Bush Issues Executive Order on Eminent Domain

June 26 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link

Last Friday marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous Kelo decision.

It has been one year since the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that shocked the country and attacked the fundamental American doctrine, "A man's home is his castle." Now the backlash is under way.

President Bush marked the anniversary of the Kelo v. New London ‘Conn.’ decision by: issuing an executive order barring the federal government from taking private land for someone else's private use.

Specifically, Bush's order said "it is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property" by "limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Bush's order specifically requires agencies that answer to the president to make sure, when they exercise eminent domain, that people's property is taken only for a public use, such as a road or airport, rather than what Kelo allows — the taking of private property for any use, including commercial development.

"Kelo interpreted the Fifth Amendment to allow state and local governments to condemn private property for the benefit of private developers," Hausknecht said, "to build privately owned improvements on that property for the hope of a public benefit, such as a higher tax base."

The ruling, cited by family advocates as an egregious example of judicial activism, sprung from a 1997 case in which the city of New London, Conn., allowed the New London Development Corp. to seize Susette Kelo's entire neighborhood for a shopping mall. Kelo and some of her neighbors sued — and lost.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, applauded Bush for taking executive action.

"The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government," Cornyn said.

Cornyn has authored legislation — The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act (S. 1313) — which puts into federal law for the full government what Bush's order does for the executive branch. His bipartisan bill now has 31 Senate co-sponsors.

A House bill, H.R. 4128, passed the lower chamber with bipartisan support by a vote of 376-38 and is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That bill would restrict federal economic-development funding to states where municipalities engage in eminent domain abuse.

"The Supreme Court's decision last year represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years, and the president's action was an important step toward righting that wrong," the Texas senator said. "But Congress must act soon."

Good news, bad news

The Kelo decision has brought both good news and bad news, according to Steve Anderson, a senior staff attorney for the Institute for Justice. The bad news is that Kelo opened up a floodgate of government property seizures.

"We did a study from 1998 to 2002, which showed more than 10,000 instances of eminent domain abuse around the country," Anderson told CitizenLink. "But in the last year, since Kelo, over 5,700 properties are being threatened or condemned for private development — that's nearly triple the yearly average."

The good news, he said, is that the ruling has unleashed a response from state legislatures and grassroots activists.

"The one thing the court got right is that states are free to pass laws that are more restrictive and pass laws that are more protective of their residents," he said. "We've seen that occur in about half the states. About 25 states have passed some kind of reform."

In addition, citizen-driven initiatives are being placed on the ballot in a number of states this fall, including California.

"We've seen an unprecedented grassroots rebellion because of this decision," Anderson said. "Quite frankly, it hits home."

Its ironic Hausknecht said, that the anniversary of Kelo comes so close to July 4, America's Independence Day, because the Founding Fathers were very protective of private property in the Constitution.

"Property rights were near and dear to everything the Founders believed," he noted, "and part of the abuse of rights that England committed against America dealt directly with property rights."

TAKE ACTION
Contact your U.S. senators and urge them to support S. 1313, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act. For contact information including an easy-to-use e-mail form log on to the CitizenLink Action Center.

Back

Life issues / Behavior

 

Is Warren Buffett: Killing with Kindness?

June 26 1006 Tony Perkins family research Council

The press is gushing over Warren Buffett's announcement that he and his wife will give the lion's share of their immense wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A sizable chunk will also be given to foundations run by Buffett's wife and children.

Here at FRC we have long memories. Consequently, we suggest one charitable project the Buffetts' have a moral obligation to fund. Back in the 1990s, the Buffett Foundation gave $2-3 million dollars to fund research and clinical trials needed to bring RU-486, the abortion pill, to market. Thanks to the Buffetts, and other promoters of abortion for population control, the drug was fast-tracked and approved under an order from President Clinton. Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486. There has also been some "collateral damage" as they decreased the surplus population. At least, six American women have been killed following RU-486 use, and three of those women left children who are now motherless.

Buffett's billions have the potential to do damage like this on a global scale. His foundation over the years has given millions to the likes of Planned Parenthood, Pathfinder International, the Population Council, and more besides.

It has been reported that Buffett and Gates visited communist China in 1995 and made sure to visit a "family planning" clinic along the Yangtze. China's one-child policy has had a history of coercion, which went unremarked on the Buffett-Gates tour. It would be tragic if the new funds flowing into the Gates Foundation further today's assaults on the sanctity of human life, especially when the population bomb that is actually detonating is the one whose ideological fragments are wrecking Europe's fertility and contributed to so much pessimism about the Continent's future.

Back

CWA Lauds US House of Representatives' Proactive Leadership on Values Issues

June 27 2006 Christian Newswire

WASHINGTON, Concerned Women for America (CWA) praised the House of Representatives for taking serious steps to address important issues that have been too long ignored. The House released its “American Values Agenda” this afternoon which includes, among other issues, several topics that are a top priority for Congress and for America’s families.

“With a myriad of issues diverting much of Congress’ attention, we are encouraged by the proactive leadership shown today in the House of Representatives,” said Lanier Swann, CWA’s Director of Government Relations. “We applaud Majority Leader Boehner, Majority Whip Blunt, and all the House leadership for giving pro-family issues the priority they deserve. American families will be encouraged to know that House leaders understand that values issues are critically important to the nation’s future.

“Protecting life at every stage is a most important aspect of any American Values Agenda. Our hope is that the Senate will follow suit in scheduling pro-life votes before they recess for the summer. A vote cast to protect life is the most significant vote a member of Congress can cast. We look forward to those votes in the coming weeks,” Swann said.

CWA stands with the House and pledges to continue to raise awareness of and work toward final passage of legislation such as:

• Pledge Protection Act (H.R. 2389; Akin)

• Freedom to Display the American Flag Act (H.R. 42; Bartlett)

• The Public _Expression of Religion Act (H.R. 2679; Hostettler)

• Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 356; C. Smith)

• Internet Gambling Prohibition (Leach/Goodlatte)

• Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 1357; D. Weldon)

• Family Tax Permanency

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Back

Attacking the Mount Soledad Cross

June 23 2006 Tony Perkins Family research Council

Despite the fact that 75 percent of local residents voted to keep the Mount Soledad cross by transferring it to the National Park Service, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given San Diego only until August to remove the cross from public property.

The Alliance Defense Fund's (ADF) Senior Counsel Joe Infranco spoke out against this unreasonable assault. "Veterans memorials, such as the one at Mt. Soledad, are a tribute to heroes who understood the great responsibility and sacrifice required to protect freedom," Infranco said. "What is disturbing is that groups like the ACLU are attempting to rob the freedom of families to duly honor--in the way most meaningful to them--the memory of their loved ones who have died in service to their country. In this case, the cross holds utmost meaning for them, and it should not be cleansed from the landscape by social engineers pursuing their agenda."

I thank ADF for fighting back against the ACLU. If a veterans memorial cross cannot stand on public property in California, can those thousands of crosses and Stars of David that mark the graves of American servicemen in Normandy stand? After all, the American cemetery in France is U.S. public property. Legally and logically, they must move on to bulldoze those symbols, too. In the midst of our war on terror, when jihadists murder Christians and attack the cross, do liberals really want to go there?

Additional Resources
City Loses Another Battle To Save Cross

Back

Media / Internet / Entertainment

 

U.S. Department of Defense and Ad Council Launch “America Supports You” so you can show your support For our Military

June 26, 2006 U.S. Department of Defense and the Advertising Council - NEWS RELEASE

The Defense Department’s “America Supports You” program highlights how Americans across the country are supporting the U.S. armed forces. These corporations have generously supported this effort by helping the men and women in uniform in a variety of ways. Please click on the logos to learn how.

The U.S. Department of Defense and The Advertising Council joined today to launch a national public service advertising (PSA) campaign designed to encourage Americans to participate in activities that show their support of the troops and to communicate that support to military personnel serving both domestically and overseas. The PSAs, being distributed this week, are an extension of the Department of Defense’s “America Supports You” initiative, which launched in November 2004.

According to military sociologists, the support of the American people has had a positive and important impact on troop morale. Despite the strong support from the American people, testimony documents reveal that often military members and their families are not aware of that support. Created by ad agency DeVito/Verdi in New York, the new national multi-media PSA campaign is a dual-targeted effort, which is designed to encourage and inspire more Americans to join in the effort to support the troops and, in turn, communicate that support to the troops.

The PSA campaign includes radio, magazine and newspaper advertising, which directs Americans and the military to visit www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil where they will not only find ideas and examples of how to support the troops, but can also post information about activities in their community that support the troops. Visitors can post messages of thanks to a service member, or download branding materials (posters, bumper stickers, buttons, and other collateral materials) that communicate “America Supports You.” In addition, service members can log on to read about ways that the American public supports them.

“We are so very pleased that the Ad Council agreed to this campaign. Ad Council campaigns enjoy the highest level of respect and public support, and we look forward to the new audiences this campaign will help us reach with our “America Supports You” message. That means that even more people across the nation will learn about ways they can support our military men and women and their families - and increased awareness of our nation’s support and concern will reach our military community,” said Allison Barber, Department of Defense Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

“We are proud to partner with the Department of Defense to communicate these critical empowering messages to the public and the troops,” according to Peggy Conlon, President & CEO of The Advertising Council. “I believe this poignant advertising, created by DeVito/Verdi, will strike an emotional chord with the public and show them how important it is to show their support of our troops and the sacrifices they make every day.”

The PSAs are being distributed to media outlets nationwide this week. Per the Ad Council’s model, all of the new PSAs will air and run in advertising time and space that will be donated by the media. To view the ads, visit www.adcouncil.org.

“We're honored to have been able to do our small part for those who are doing so much,” said Alan Brown, Account Director at DeVito/Verdi. “We can only hope that this work motivates Americans to let their words of encouragement and support be heard by those a world away.”

America Supports You is an ongoing nationwide program that helps showcase American’s support for the men and women of the Armed Forces. Since its launch in November of 2004 by the Department of Defense, the America Supports You program has welcomed over 200 grassroots organizations and more than 25 corporate members to its team. Many America Supports You team members support the troops through letter writing, care packages, helping the wounded when they return home, assisting military families, sending an email or kind gesture. More than 1.9 million Americans have logged on to wwwAmericaSupportsYou.mil to register the activities and projects in their communities that show their support for America’s Armed Forces.

DeVito/Verdi (a privately held company) has been recognized as one of the most exceptional creative agencies in the industry. The agency was voted best in the country for six years and is known for its award winning work for Meijer, Sony, Canon, BMW, Circuit City, Daffy¹s, Esquire Magazine, TimeOut Magazine, Grey Goose Vodka, Jackson Hewitt, Hotwire.com, ecampus.com, Mount Sinai Medical Center and NTRA. DeVito/Verdi recently launched a highly successful campaign for The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters), in support of the radio industry using top talent such as Alicia Keys, Ludacris, Nelly, etc. The Agency was a leading strategic and creative resource for Hillary Clinton in the 2000 NY State Senate Campaign and developed award winning work for The Citizens For A Strong Senate in 2004.  DeVito/Verdi continues to strive for excellence and maintains a unique level of prestige within the advertising industry.

The Ad Council is a private, non-profit organization with a rich history of marshalling volunteer talent from the advertising and media industries to deliver critical messages to the American public. Having produced literally thousands of PSA campaigns addressing the most pressing social issues of the day, the Ad Council has effected, and continues to effect, tremendous positive change by raising awareness, inspiring action and saving lives. To learn more about the Ad Council and its campaigns, visit www.adcouncil.org.

Back

Neutrality Debate Over Internet Equality Is Hardly Neutral

June 23 2006 Neil Tambe and Eric Warren Capitol Eye

Senators take up the network neutrality issue, which pits entrenched telecom interests against the Internet’s newcomers.

The Senate is now considering legislation that would ensure the Internet remains based on a principle of equal and open connectivity. Opponents of so-called network neutrality legislation have contributed to senators’ campaigns and political action committees, more than three times more money as the legislation’s proponents. That disparity may have helped sink a similar provision earlier this month in the House of Representatives. The net neutrality debate pits online computer services against a coalition of telephone utilities, telecommunications, and cable distributors—the companies that provide the content versus those that transmit it. The alliance opposed to the legislation includes AT&T Inc., BellSouth Corp., Verizon Communications, Comcast Corp., and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association; they advocate for a competitive Internet with minimal regulation. The list of active players in favor of network neutrality legislation includes Microsoft, Yahoo!, eBay Inc., Amazon.com, and Google Inc.

Both sides of the Internet regulation debate are active political contributors. However, in total, the Internet sector has contributed a mere $2.7 million compared with $9.1 million in federal contributions from the telecom-telephone alliance.* More entrenched in politics than relative newcomers in the Internet sector, telecom companies seek influence on a wider array of issues. Despite the disparity, several senators have stood up already in favor of adding network neutrality protections to the Senate’s version of a communications reform bill, named the Communications, Consumers’ Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S.2686).

Network neutrality legislation aims to prevent broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) from discriminating between content. The Federal Communications Commission set ablaze the current debate on August 5, 2005, when it announced it would refuse to enforce network neutrality without a mandate from Congress. Proponents of network neutrality legislation want the government to regulate the Internet to prevent network controllers from providing superior access to higher-paying customers. Proponents also say that without network neutrality protections, ISPs would be able to slow or block websites of their choosing, including those of their competitors. In a June 14 written statement, the Technology Network (TechNet), a bipartisan political organization of Internet sector executives, stated that “legislative safeguards” are necessary for “the continued growth of the Internet as an open, non-discriminatory and global platform for communication and innovation.”

The telecommunications alliance claims that these allegations are unfounded, because competitive markets would prevent network controllers from abusing consumers. If one provider is unsatisfactory, they argue, consumers would switch providers. They also make the case that distributors of online content should help bear the cost of upgrading networks, and that government regulation would keep broadband prices high and hinder the spread of fast connections to rural areas. Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association—a trade organization representing the cable industry—said that regulations would be “premature and unnecessary.” NCTA’s members do not block or restrict access to content and have pledged that they would not do so in the future, Dietz said.

Three senators who have introduced network neutrality legislation in the past six months–Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)–have each received sizeable contributions from groups opposed to the sort of law they are advocating. Wyden received more than $186,000 from telecommunications and telephone companies and only $31,000 from Internet sectors. Dorgan and Snowe received nearly $245,000 and $63,000, respectively, from groups that oppose net neutrality legislation, but received only $40,000 and just above $9,000, respectively, from groups that support it. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a vocal advocate for network neutrality, has received upwards of $400,000 from groups opposed to it and only $54,000 from groups for it.

Only two senators received notably larger contributions from pro-network neutrality groups; Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both Democrats from Washington, have been funded extensively by Washington-based Microsoft, a major backer of net neutrality and a deep political player.

In the House, similar to the situation in the Senate, substantial campaign contributions from telecom, including almost $87,000 from AT&T since 1989, were not enough to deter Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) from introducing pro-network neutrality legislation to the House version of the communications reform bill: the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (H.R. 5252).

Markey, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, received more than $240,000 from companies and individuals opposed to network neutrality legislation in the two most recent campaign cycles, but barely $40,000 from supportive groups. Markey’s amendment failed on June 8 by a vote of 269 to 152, with all but 11 Republicans voting against it. The final communications bill with mostly Democratic opposition, passed by a large margin.

Those congressmen voting against Markey’s amendment received an average of nearly $10,000 more in contributions from the anti-network neutrality coalition, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics found. The Republican leadership, including Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), and Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), received averages of $320,000 from groups opposing net neutrality and $48,000 from its proponents. It is not clear whether the extra $10,000 swayed the House vote, but the telecom interests prevailed.

Not only did these industries contribute to federal candidates, they spent even more money on lobbying. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, companies on both sides of the issue spent a total of nearly $300 million lobbying in Washington; industries favoring network neutrality spent $43.8 million, whereas industries opposing it spent just over $255 million. Complete data from the 2005-2006 Cycle is not yet available.

The Internet industry’s biggest spenders on lobbying in the 2004 cycle were Microsoft, Yahoo!, and eBay, spending $24.8 million, $3.8 million, and $2.1 million respectively. Google, a new player in Washington, spent $260,000. Topping the telecom industry were AT&T, which spent $27.7 million, Verizon ($23.6 million), and the U.S. Telecommunications Association ($23.8 million). The largest spending cable interest, the National Cable Telecommunication Association, spent $19.3 million on lobbying.

Even though the coalition fighting network neutrality legislation did not win over every member of Congress to whom the telecom industry contributed substantially, this data suggests that political contributions succeeded. The House’s version of the communications reform bill passed without any network neutrality protections. If the House vote and campaign finance data are any indicators, network neutrality can be expected to fail in the Senate as well.

But with a compromise introduced June 19 by the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), it is yet unclear whether senators will embrace an alternative or continue to polarize around the issue as witnessed in the House. Stevens’s compromise would preserve the right of consumers to access any website they choose, but would not explicitly ban Internet service providers from tiered pricing based on the amount of usage. (A flat access fee is the current practice.) Jim Hock, spokesman for the pro-neutrality group TechNet, said Internet companies are generally more concerned about the threat of ISPs blocking delivery of content than they are about a tiered pricing structure. The commerce committee will continue discussion of the communications reform bill on June 27.

Researcher Douglas Weber contributed data for this article.

* Contributions include monies going to individual campaign committees as well as associated leadership PACs, and coming from corporate PACs, employees, and their immediate family members.

Back

Business leaders: US not prepared for Internet outage

June 27, 2006 Prophecy News Watch

The US is unprepared to deal with a major cyber emergency. That's the conclusion of a new report from the Business Roundtable, a group of 160 CEOs from the nation's largest companies. Their concern about the issue is largely economic, since the Internet is now a key element of so much business activity. The group spent the last year looking at Internet safety and disaster recovery and concluded that a major strike (involving hackers, malicious software, natural disaster, or physical attack) on the basic fabric of the Internet could bring the US economy to a halt.

The Hurricane Katrina disaster was a wake-up call to Americans who believed that the country's wealth, ingenuity, and "can-do" attitude could fix a problem of any scale in a short period of time. The reality of the situation was that without preparation and proper coordination, even the US was incapable of responding to a disaster in a timely fashion. That lesson was not lost on the Business Roundtable; Katrina is cited several times in the report.

"Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina suggest that political and business leaders must consider, in advance, how they intend to respond prior to and in the aftermath of a major cyber disruption."

After discussing the economic importance of the Internet (hint: it's enormous), the report identifies three "cyber gaps" in the nation's Internet defense system. First up is the lack of formal "trip wires" that would let people know that an attack is in progress. Just as the National Weather Service alerts communities to the presence of hurricanes before they strike, the US needs to have better mechanisms in place for identifying a major Internet attack in its earliest stages. This is especially important because Internet attacks can unfold so much faster than natural disasters.

The second weakness is a "lack of accountability and clarity" about who does what. The report notes that current Internet safety is presided over by a mishmash of government and private-sector organizations with "unclear or overlapping responsibilities." In the event of an emergency, it's not always obvious who would be responsible for certain aspects of service restoration. The report again points to government agencies that take the lead in other areas—the National Weather Service for storms and hurricanes, the Centers for Disease Control for infectious disease. The Internet needs the same level of leadership and coordination.

Finally, the report identifies a lack of resources given to existing organizations such as the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT). They note that CERT currently has a budget of US$70 million a year—less than 0.2 percent of the overall Department of Homeland Security budget—and that little of the money is set aside for reconstruction and disaster management.

It's not a pretty picture, but the report does provide some hope by outlining a series of recommendations for change. Most of these involve better coordination between government and industry groups, establishing a single point of contact for interaction with the government and working out a way to share information in advance of a disaster (this of course is trickier when the Internet is not functioning). Note that the report does not advocating leaving the task to the government. Although the government can play a useful role, businesses want to be involved—and understandably so—in something so central to their continued existence.

The bottom line is that government and industry need to be ready to work together in the event of an attack or major outage. By preparing now, lives, money, and time could all be saved somewhere down the Information Superhighway.

Back

Ford Motor Company Sponsors Homosexual Media Awards, Desperate Housewives

June 27 2006 American Family Association

When Ford said they support homosexual groups promoting same-sex marriage, they meant it. Ford put forth this declaration: "This is a strong commitment we intend to carry forward with no exception."

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Media Awards events were recently held in Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. The GLAAD Awards honored those who had made outstanding contributions to the homosexual lifestyle. Ford was a corporate sponsor for all four GLAAD Media Awards events.

In an effort to overcome the boycott called by AFA, Ford is telling potential customers that they advertise in Christian publications such as Christianity Today, Today's Christian Woman, The National Liberty Journal and Charisma. They also say that they are the largest advertiser on Christian radio. It is no accident that Ford all of a sudden has begun to advertise in Christian publications and on Christian radio.

In addition to their promotion of homosexuality, last week Ford sponsored ABC's Desperate Housewives, the TV program which promotes the legitimization of adultery and promiscuity. Desperate Housewives confronts viewers with themes of adultery, sexual promiscuity, and deceitfulness portrayed as the norm. The program gives the message time and again that the end justifies the means. If sexual immorality, lying, and manipulation can get you what you want, then it's okay. Remember, Ford says they pre-screen programs and only sponsor programs they find acceptable.

Back

Politics

Gambling could be an ace in the hole for two Texas Gubernatorial Candidates

June 24 2006 Bud Kennedy Star Telegram

This governor's race might come down to a roll of dice, or more exactly, an ace in the hole.

Two very different and colorful independent candidates are officially out to take Gov. Rick Perry's job. To get there, they'll also have to beat an equally lackluster Democrat, Houston lawyer Chris Bell.

To rally voters, Richard "Kinky" Friedman and Carole "Grandma" Keeton Strayhorn have fun nicknames.

But they have something else in common:

Both want to revamp or expand legal gambling in Texas.

In a state divided almost evenly between supporters and opponents of more gambling -- meaning anything from Vegas-style casinos to charity poker halls -- a "gamblers' candidate" might pick up quick early money and attention.

The state's dominant Republican Party has already staked out its position: No way.

"We continue to oppose government-sponsored gambling," reads the platform passed this month by Texas Republicans. Gambling has a "devastating impact" on families, party leaders wrote, calling for canceling Lotto Texas and fighting all gambling beyond the current horse racing, dog racing and bingo.

Strayhorn has said she would consider video slot machines at the state's suffering horse racetracks such as Lone Star Park in Grand Prairie. That would help out the horse industry and, according to a 2005 study, bring in another $1.2 billion per year to help pay for the state's $60 billion public school system.

Friedman is the only candidate calling for local-option legal gambling. He would offer communities a menu of gaming choices ranging from full-scale casinos to barroom video poker.

He calls it "Slots for Tots."

Without saying who did the math, he claims that casino gambling would raise $5 billion to $6 billion a year.

When he and Strayhorn were officially certified as candidates this week, he was fresh from what he called a "fact-finding mission" over the slots at the Flamingo hotel in Las Vegas.

"Half the people there were from Texas," campaign spokeswoman Laura Stromberg said by phone Friday from Austin. Friedman was taking a day off from his barnstorming campaign and stand-up comedy tour.

"Kinky has been saying for a year now that Texans are paying to educate other states' children when we could keep our money in Texas," Stromberg said. "You can go to Nevada, Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Mexico -- look at the gambling boats in Mississippi. Half the license plates everywhere are from Texas."

The question for lawmakers is not only whether to keep some of that money at home, but also how to do it carefully.

Ideas for a cautious expansion might range from adding games only at horserace tracks -- not at garish casinos -- to limiting games to a few specific gambling locations.

Say, inside the Texas state line opposite a competing casino, or in old gaming halls in National Register historic districts where gambling once flourished, such as the Galveston Strand or Fort Worth Stockyards.

At least one pro-gambling faction in Texas wants to add only a single new game: Charity poker.

With TV poker spreading across cable channels and sponsors such as Miller Brewing Co. lining up to sponsor Vegas tournaments -- the World Series of Poker is now "presented by Milwaukee's Best Light" -- Texas' poker players are left out of the game.

By law, Texans can play only amateur "social" or "recreational" poker. And even social games are banned wherever liquor is sold under a state permit.

Congress is considering laws to ban online poker Web games. But an Austin-based political action committee wants Texas to bring poker off the computer screen and back into public -- for charity.

"Poker rooms would bring the revenue back into Texas without the negative impact of casinos," said Mike Lavigne, treasurer of the Texas Poker Political Action Committee.

Charity poker rooms could operate as unobtrusively as bingo halls, he said. He called charity poker Texas' best bet for high-dollar revenue, criticizing slot machines and Lotto Texas as a "ripoff" and "idiot taxes" that prey on the poor.

Texas poker players "want to pay taxes," said Lavigne, a former Texas Democratic Party administrator. "They want to bring major poker tournaments to the state. And they want to do it in a clean, nice club atmosphere that doesn't attract the same element as a gambling casino."

When state Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, tried to legalize charity poker in the last session of Texas Legislature, he said, "There's no difference between this and playing Old Maid or Go Fish." But lawmakers weren't interested in any charity card games. They wanted to fight over casinos and video slot gambling.

Religious Republicans in the Texas House won that fight overwhelmingly, and that has quieted some of the casino talk in the governor's race.

Even Bell, the Democratic candidate, says carefully that he is "willing to look at" new games.

Only Friedman talks openly about more gambling.

One of his favorite punch lines is, "We invented Texas hold 'em, and we can't even play it."

This is one foursome to watch.

Back

Supreme Court upholds most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

June 28 2006 GINA HOLLAND the Associated Press

WASHINGTON, The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

J

ustice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan. The vote was 5-4 on that issue.

Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.

At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.

On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like _ not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.

That was acceptable, the justices said.

"We reject the statewide challenge to Texas redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander," Kennedy wrote.

However, he said the state's redrawing of District 23 violated the Voting Rights Act.

The 2003 boundaries were approved by the state Legislature and its Republican majority newly elected with DeLay's help. In the next congressional elections, Republicans picked up six additional seats in the House. The contentious map drawing also contributed to the downfall of DeLay.

He was charged in state court with money laundering in connection with fundraising for legislative candidates. Although he is fighting the charges and maintains he is innocent, DeLay gave up his leadership post and then resigned from Congress.

Back

World / World Apostasies

Warren Buffett Gives until it Hurts: Hurts Women, Hurts the Developing World and Kills Preborn Children

June 27 2006 Christian Newswire

“Warren Buffett’s philanthropy aims at killing pre-born children not curing childhood disease, eliminating the poor not poverty, destroying the developing world not aiding in development,” states prominent Roman Catholic Priest.

FRONT ROYAL, Va, The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of Human Life International responds to Warren Buffett’s announcement to donate billions of dollars to the pro-abortion Gates Foundation.

“Warren Buffett’s money has gone to fund the deadly abortion causing drug RU- 486, the production and distribution of portable suction abortion devices in the developing world, organizations that push abortion on developing countries, and among many other radical organizations Buffett’s foundation gave a grant to the Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization that fought bans on partial-birth abortion...

“Warren Buffett, who is not a Roman Catholic, has also donated money to the Anti-Catholic organization Catholics for a free Choice a group that seeks to undermine the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life.

“Warren Buffett’s philanthropy aims at killing pre-born children not curing childhood disease, eliminating the poor not poverty, and destroying the developing world not aiding development.

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have also given millions of dollars to organizations pushing abortion around the world. The merger of Gates and Buffett may spell doom for the families of the developing world.

“Warren Buffett will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents and ceases using tax deductible donations to promote a culture of death and desolation...,” concluded the Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer.

Founded in 1981, Human Life International is the world’s largest pro-life, pro-family organization that is dedicated to defending life, faith and the family, with branches and affiliates around the world.

Back

Seven Canadian Women to Wed . . . Themselves

June 22 2006 Hilary White LifeSiteNews.com
 
VANCOUVER, the fallout of the dissolution of the legal institution of marriage in Canada is proving the recently established maxim that the modern world is impervious to satire.
 
While homosexual activists insisted that with the redefinition of marriage to allow them to register their partnerings, the whole affair would be closed, activists defending marriage warned that the redefinition had kicked the supports out from under the institution. Many warned that taking marriage out of its natural context and re-defining it according to the whims of special interest groups would lead inevitably to polygamy being included as a religious rights issue.
 
Now a group of women in Vancouver are going one better than mere polygamy and are moving into previously unexplored realms of narcissism and marrying themselves. One said, “You can't commit to anyone else unless you're in touch with yourself.”
 
The seven women, ranging in age from 24 to 50, have announced they will gather on a local beach, dressed in wedding gowns, and undergo a mock marriage ceremony.
 
Melanie Talkington told the Province newspaper she wants “to embrace her femininity” with the mock ceremony, which she describes as “a big theatrical event.” The women described the event as a