BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #92 07/14/2006

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:

Christianity / Religion

Liberty Counsel Joins Broad Coalition Urging Colorado Court of Appeals to Uphold Religious Land Use Law

Episcopal 'Meltdown' Ends Lay Groups Indictment Pressure on 'Radicalized Bishops'

Coptic Christians in Egypt need Help in Their First Steps toward Freedom

 

 

Democracy / Security

U.S.-Mexico merger opposition intensifies

States Take Immigration Reform into Own Hands

Family / Social

California court reconsiders 'marriage' ruling

Mass Supreme Judicial Court says Gay marriage ban can go on ballot

The Family that Chick-Fil-A's Together stays Together

 

 

Government / Legislation

Tell Cornyn, Hutchison to Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research

House Passes Internet-Gambling Bill

Attorney General Abbott Takes Action against Internet Child Predators; Testifies at Congressional Hearings about Online Safeguards

Dem Barney Frank Altered Immigration Law to Further 'Gay' Agenda

Action On Immigration

Life Issues / Behavior

Study Claiming Biological Basis for Homosexuality “Absolute Rubbish”: NARTH Psychiatrist

Gay Activists Push Worldwide Agenda

Study: Number of Homosexual Couples Wanting Children Doubled since 2002

Ford Continues Support for Homosexual Groups

Texas Supermarket Chain H-E-B Forsakes Christian Roots, Promotes Homosexual Agenda!

A Florida Boy to Attend Kindergarten as a Girl
 

 

Media / Internet / Entertainment

Court Forbids Cutting Nudity, Profanity from Hollywood Films, will effect Values-Conscious Films

Bill Aims to Keep Kids Safe Online, while existing Laws are not being enforced
 

Politics

Foreign Language Ballots Cause a Rebellion

DeLay’s prosecutor wants costs kept secret

Victory process, not peace process, needed in Middle East

World / World Apostasies

International Religious Outcry Close to Booting Gay Pride from Holy City of Jerusalem

An International Public Outcry Successful in Curbing Germany World Cup Prostitution

Christianity / Religion

Liberty Counsel Joins Broad Coalition Urging Colorado Court of Appeals to Uphold Religious Land Use Law

July 12 2006 Liberty Council

Denver, CO - Liberty Counsel has joined with a broad coalition of religious and civil rights groups to file a brief in the case of Town of Foxfield, Colorado v. Archdiocese of Denver, urging the Colorado Court of Appeals to uphold the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). Liberty Counsel is a national public interest law firm dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is joined in the brief by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, The American Center for Law and Justice, The Association of Christian Schools International, The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, The Queens Federation of Churches, Inc., and The Soka Gakkai International-USA. The appeals court will hear oral argument today at 1:30 p.m. MT in this case.

RLUIPA is a federal law that was designed to protect religious organizations from unfair zoning practices. RLUIPA states that city and county governments may not ban religious institutions from any jurisdiction and may not place unreasonable burdens on a religious institution within any jurisdiction. Testimony before Congress indicated that churches had frequently faced discriminatory zoning laws around the United States. For example, in Homestead, Florida, the city of Homestead attempted to completely ban churches from the downtown area. The law actually placed a two-year limitation on religious institutions located in the downtown business district. In the town of Surfside in southern Florida, the city completely banned religious institutions within the city limits.

In the Colorado case, the town tried to stop the Archdiocese from using property it had occupied since 1998. At the urging of a few neighbors, the town enacted a bizarre ordinance declaring it unlawful to park more than five motor vehicles for more than fifteen minutes within 1,000 feet of a private residential property on more than two occasions during any thirty-day period.

Liberty Counsel President Anita L. Staver commented: "This case is not unusual. Zoning laws have often been used by local government to suppress religious freedom. RLUIPA is designed to stop these discriminatory practices. The Colorado Court of Appeals should follow the numerous federal courts that have already upheld the constitutionality of this law. The fact that the coalition joining in this case is so diverse illustrates the necessity of the law. If we fail to protect religious freedom for all faiths, we will all lose our religious freedom together."

How RLUIPA Can Protect Your Religious Freedom

Find out how RLUIPA can be used to protect your church. Order the informative booklet "Questions and Answers About RLUIPA" online or by calling us 1-800-671-1776. When you order this booklet, you will receive as a bonus our pamphlet entitled "Religious Land Use Law."

Back

Episcopal 'Meltdown' Ends Lay Groups Indictment Pressure on 'Radicalized Bishops'

July 12 2006 Christian Newswire

WASHINGTON, despite support of key leadership bishops, pursuit of nationwide church indictments “against radicalized Episcopal bishops who have lost their Christian way” was called off today. “The recent terminal meltdown of the American Episcopal church rendered the proposed cases moot,” the lay sponsor announced. Episcopalians are the embattled U.S. province of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The American branch was suspended from global proceedings for transgressions in homosexuality issues adopted at its 2003 national convention and later. It has declined to affirm Anglican requirements stated in the now-famous “Windsor Report.”

“Practically speaking, the national convention in Columbus in June and the weeks since have made it obvious that there is no longer a stable legal jurisdictional path in the United States church,” the sponsoring Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) said.

“That church has departed -- spiritually dead and about to be administratively isolated. Its schismatic withdrawal from Christian doctrine has moved it away from traditional Anglicans in America and the big majority of international communicants,” said LEAC, which mounted the indictment initiative in May as a measure to test legally the church’s positions on controversial issues.

“Many Episcopalians, trapped in the holds of a strangely Unitarianism-inclined religious vessel, are slow to waken. Educating and rescuing them is a new challenge, requiring most of LEAC’s energies. Reconciliation died at Columbus, but there is broad new commitment to sustained spiritual and governance affiliation with the Anglican Communion, as ECUSA sails away.” (ECUSA was the acronym for the U.S. Anglican church, which now is simply “The Episcopal Church” (TEC).

“We go now full-bore into the most challenging and crucial mission since LEAC’s founding. Our attention must now be directed to assisting what we call ‘the middle 80%’ in parish pews across the nation, many unwittingly led down a blasphemous path. They have quietly if not secretively been taken away from their Christian vows and historic faith, although still mouthed in their creeds every Sunday.

“If we don’t succeed, most will go innocently away from Christianity, perhaps forever, blindly favoring comfortable ‘unity’ while losing their historic Christian home. We want to keep a robust national church, not a remnant. We want to save souls in unity with Christ, not unity in Unitarianism.”

LEAC said it had successfully recruited traditional bishops to join pursuit of indictments against about 40 bishops who had participated in the 2004 “laying on of hands” consecration of New Hampshire’s V. Gene Robinson, a divorced family man and now an openly partnered homosexual, and Bishop Robinson himself. Ten bishops with jurisdictions are needed to indict a fellow bishop under canon law.

“In direct conversations with bishops at Convention we had enlisted a sufficient core number to expect more than enough to proceed,” the group said in a news release. “Now a schismatic, terminal meltdown has taken away even this valid inquiry into the status of justice under church law.”

Although legally unnecessary, the effort had included a nationwide paper and internet drive among lay persons and clergy, which, is said to have enlisted petitioners in nearly all of the 110 U.S. dioceses. LEAC said the entire project had advanced well in just a few weeks toward the first legal phase, which was targeted for later this year.

“The issue became legally moot last week,” explained the Washington-based nonprofit on its website and news release. “There were again shameful affronts against Christianity and the Anglican Communion at the Columbus convention, followed by numerous faithful dioceses and other parishes seeking oversight by orthodox bishops rather than being under revisionist leadership which has destroyed the church.”

“The disintegrating U.S. church is well on the way to becoming a cult on the edges of Christianity, without the Divine Trinity or pre-eminent Scriptural Authority,” LEAC declared. LEAC advocates sustained unity with the 78 million-strong Anglican Communion, now reduced only slightly by departure of U.S. revisionists among about 2 million U.S. Episcopalians.

“The American church’s schismatic departure from the doctrine, faith and order of the Communion appears now to be irreversible. Reconciliation is over. We believe the international primates will not stand much longer for this heresy.

Back

Coptic Christians in Egypt need Help in Their First Steps toward Freedom

July 10 2006 Christian Newswire

MEDIA ADVISORY, the American Coptic Union is calling upon all Christians throughout the world to help the more than 1.5 million Coptic Christians in Egypt in their first steps toward freedom. These are Copts who have lost loved ones to government sanctioned persecution, have had their daughters kidnapped, and have refused the Egyptian Government’s repression. As a result, they have decided to form their own free Coptic Church because the traditional Church, under the current Pope Shenouda III, no longer represents all Coptic Egyptian people.

The American Coptic Union condemns the response of some Coptic figures, and Pro-Arab Muslim Coptic Organizations in the Diasporas, who have reacted negatively to the 1.5 million Copts who have opted for freedom from corruption through new Coptic leadership.

The traditional Coptic Church has unfortunately become a hotbed of heretical teaching, corruption, and treason. This increasing crisis has prompted the formation of new Coptic leadership under Bishop Michael Maximous I, which is necessary because of the rampant infiltration and corruption that has been taking place under the traditional Coptic Patriarch, Shenouda III.

For the past 25 years, the traditional Coptic Church has ignored numerous requests for reform and accountability. The responses by the Church, to such requests, have always been negative and sometimes violent.

The recent breakaway from the traditional Coptic Church is not only the result of the 30-year repression and persecution by the Arab Islamic regime of Egypt against Coptic minorities, but it is also a reaction to the old Church leadership which has done nothing to stop the continued persecution and killing of innocent Copts. Additionally, the traditional Coptic Church has done nothing to help its many victims of Islamic terrorism. In many cases, the top clergy have even played a suspicious role in helping Islamists and governmental authorities, thus intensifying the persecution of the Copts. The Patriarch, for example, nominated a Muslim by the name of Bishop Bishoy to head the Council of Bishops. This Bishop has been actively involved in corrupting the Church, beating up and torturing opposing Clergy and sexually assaulting Nuns.

Finally, we call upon the US Government, Congress, and Democratic and Freedom organizations to help this newborn movement to maintain its freedom. In addition, we are looking to pressure the Mubarak regime to stop inciting hatred against this movement, by using its agent Coptic Organizations.

The ACU will take all necessary steps to expose those who try to portray this cause of freedom to the American public as negative, and will actively seek support for this new Coptic movement. Thank you and God bless.

Back

Democracy / Security

U.S.-Mexico merger opposition intensifies

July 9 2006 Joseph Farah 2006 WorldNetDaily.com / Phyllis Schlafly / Cathie Adams Texas Eagle Forum

Some see secret efforts to scrap dollar, end U.S. sovereignty, combine nations

WASHINGTON – Are secret meetings being held between the corporate and political elites of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to push North America into a European Union-style merger?

Is President Bush's reluctance to control the border and enforce laws requiring deportation of foreigners who enter the country illegally part of a master plan to all but eliminate borders between the U.S., Canada and Mexico?

Does the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America include a common currency that would scrap the dollar in favor of what some are calling the "amero"?

It may be the biggest story of the 21st century, but few press outlets are telling it. In fact, until very recently, few in the U.S. were aware of the plans and even fewer denouncing what appears to be the implementation of an effort some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."

But opposition is mounting.

Perhaps the most blistering criticism has come from Lou Dobbs of CNN – a frequent critic of Bush's immigration policies.

"A regional prosperity and security program?" he asked rhetorically in a recent cablecast. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are -- we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is -- I mean, this is beyond belief."

What has Dobbs and a few other vocal critics bugged began in earnest March 31, 2005, when the elected leaders of the U.S., Mexico and Canada agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

No one seems quite certain what that agenda is because of the vagueness of the official declarations. But among the things the leaders of the three countries agreed to work toward were borders that would allow for easier and faster moving of goods and people between the countries.

Coming as the announcement did in the midst of a raging national debate in the U.S. over borders seen as far to open already, more than a few jaws dropped.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. and the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus as well as author of the new book, "In Mortal Danger," may be the only elected official to challenge openly the plans for the new superstate.

Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress.

Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minutemen, welcomed Tancredo's efforts.

"It's time for the Bush administration to come clean," Gilchrist said. "If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know."

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."

WND can find no specific congressional legislation, authorizing the SPP working groups, nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

Phyllis Schlafly, the woman best known for nearly single-handedly leading the opposition that killed the Equal Rights Amendment, sees a sinister and sweeping agenda behind the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

"Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" she asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'"

She accuses the president and others behind the effort of wanting to obliterate U.S. borders in an effort to increase the Mexican population transfer and lower wages for the benefit of U.S. corporate interests.

"Bush meant what he said, at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the U.S. middle class. Bush lives in a house well protected by a fence and security guards and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities. Yet, for five years, he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals."

That's unusually harsh criticism of a Republican president from one of Ronald Reagan's most loyal supporters.

At least one of the nation's daily newspapers has officially weighed in in opposition to the mysterious plans for closer cooperation in security, commerce and immigration between the three North American nations.

Recently, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review questioned the unchallenged momentum toward merger.

"Will Americans trade their dead presidents for Ameros?" the newspaper asked in an editorial last month.

The paper chided efforts at replacing the U.S. and Canadian dollars and Mexican peso with "the amero" – a knockoff of the euro – along with the building of "a looming NAFTA-like superstate." Citing the meeting between the three national leaders at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, the editorial warned: "Canadians, Mexicans and Americans who value the sovereignty of their respective countries should be concerned."

The Tribune Review editorial saw synergy between the plans of the national leaders and the ambitious agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations – seen by many as a kind of secretive, shadow government of the elite. The CFR issued a bold report in the spring of 2005, shortly after the joint announcements in Waco by Bush and his counterparts.

"The Council on Foreign Relations published a report in May -- "Building a North American Community" -- calling for, among other things, redefining the borders of the three nations, creating a super-regional governance board and the North American Paramilitary Group to ensure that Congress does not interfere with whatever the trilateral union feels like doing," said the paper. "Must the Bush administration happily sacrifice every shred of American sovereignty for the greater good of the New World Order?"

In fact, the CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

The CFR's strategy calls specifically for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." It calls for laying "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." It calls for efforts to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations." It calls for efforts to "harmonize entry screening."

In "Building a North American Community," the report states that Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23, 2005, at that meeting in Waco, Texas.

Alan Burkhart, who describes himself as a free-lance political writer, cross-country trucker "and proud citizen of one of the reddest of the Red States – Mississippi," is another critic seething over these plans that seem to have a life of their own – with little or no real public debate.

"As time passes, American corporations will find it unnecessary to move their facilities out of the country," writes Burkhart. "Our already stagnant wages will be just as low as those of Mexico. The cultures of three great nations will be diluted. Our currency will be replaced with the 'Amero.' And, we’ll be one giant step closer to the U.N.’s perverse dream of a one-world government."

The Amero is not a new concept. It was first proposed by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, in a monograph titled "The Case for the Amero" in 1999.

Last month, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America made one of its most visible and public moves since it was first announced last year. In Washington, on June 15, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier joined North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council. It was a major development that showed the March 2005 meeting was no fluke – and that the plans announced by the three national leaders then were continuing to take shape. The NACC was first announced by Bush, Harper and Fox.

Made up of 10 high-level business leaders from each country, the NACC will meet annually with senior North American government officials "to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy."

Officially, the council has the mandate to advise the governments on improving trade in key sectors such as automobiles, transportation, manufacturing and services. The three countries do more than $800 billion in trilateral trade.

Gutierrez said the Bush administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about its implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan. 1, 2008.

The U.S. executives involved in the NACC include: United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; Frederick Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, chief executive of Mittal Steel USA; Joseph Gilmour, president of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co. Inc.; David O'Reilly, chief executive of Chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of General Electric Co.; Lee Scott, president of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.; Michael Haverty, chairman of Kansas City Southern; Douglas Conant, president of Campbell's Soup Co. and James Kilt, vice-chairman of Gillette Inc.

The concerns about the direction such powerful men could lead Americans without their knowledge is only heightened when interlocking networks are discovered. For instance, one of the components envisioned for this future "North American Union" is a superhighway running from Mexico, through the U.S. and into Canada. It is being promoted by the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, a non-profit group "dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."

The president of NASCO is George Blackwood, who earlier launched the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. In fact, NAITCP later morphed into NASCO. A NAIPC summit meeting in 2004, attended by senior Mexican government officials, heard from Robert Pastor, an American University professor who wrote "Toward a North American Community," a book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.

Pastor also was vice chairman of the May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force entitled "Building a North American Community" that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional government.

Cathie Adams said: Friends, Some have asked, "What can I do about this proposed North American Union?"  First, we must educate ourselves, our friends and our elected representatives about it.

Here's a SHORT synopsis that your can use in conversation, as well as in letters: "FREE TRADE & THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION 

IN 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Fox and Canada’s former Prime Minister Martin signed an agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership which would place boundaries and tariffs around the North American continent, but none separating the countries within the continent.  This new continent-wide entity is called The North American Union and would be similar to the European Union. The NAU would reduce our borders with Mexico and Canada to electronic speed bumps. A proposed Kansas City Super Port would become sovereign Mexican territory, which is the customs stop for Mexican trucks that according to our own U.S. Supreme Court do not have to live under the same safety and environmental standards that American truckers do. 

The bottom line is that we all want FREE TRADE, but we also want a sovereign nation. We do NOT want a tribunal that would overrule our own U.S. Supreme Court so that we don't "irritate" Mexico or Canada with our power. Canada has already condoned homosexual marriages and taken away gun rights; I don't want our laws brought in line with theirs, which is likely in a NAU. Nor do I want to give up the dollar for a new "Amero," similar to the Euro, which is also proposed.

Instead, let us CELEBRATE our INDEPENDENCE and remember the gift of FREEDOM in our sovereign nation."

Second, we must have the courage to VOTE in the future for candidates who commit to DEFEND American sovereignty. Who will be our 2008 Presidential Candidate?

Third, consider the impact on Texas' economy if Houston's port is minimized and Mexico's Caribbean port is maximized. Mexican dock workers would unload the cargo and load it onto trucks driven by Mexicans. The economic fallout on Texans would be HUGE! Cathie Adams Texas Eagle Forum

Related offer:

Get Tom Tancredo's new book, "In Mortal Danger," for just $4.95.

Additional Information from Cathie Adams / World net daily Saturday, July 8 2006

This article is especially important for Texans. An inland port is planned along the new NAFTA / NASCO corridor in Kansas City, General Public Flyer Summer 06 Final.pdf 

Dallas and San Antonio are vying for inland ports that will become sovereign Mexican territory.

Dallasites will be asked to vote for a bond package this fall that includes funding for this port. TODAY, driving I-45 just south of Dallas you will find hundreds of Chinese semi-truck loads awaiting transport.

Texans must remain vigilant in order to vote wisely! Cathie Adams

WorldNetDaily article, (printer-friendly version) below. 

To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50963

Back

States Take Immigration Reform into Own Hands

July 11 2006 Bobby Eberle GOPUSA.Com

While measures designed to crack down on illegal immigration remain stalled in Congress, the problems caused by insecure borders, lack of law enforcement and non-existent political will remain. However, rather than wait for the federal government to act, a number of states are stepping forward and addressing the illegal immigration problem head on.

As reported in 30 states crack down on illegal workers, a number of state legislatures are enacting laws to crack down on employers who continue to hire illegal aliens. According to the story, “The National Conference of State Legislatures has recorded at least 57 state laws enacted to make it harder for undocumented workers to find jobs or receive public services.”

Some examples of these new laws include a Colorado measure passed in June which “prohibits awarding state contracts to businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. ” Another law passed in Georgia in April “has a phased-in requirement that public employers and government contractors and subcontractors verify information on newly hired workers through a federal program.”

In addition to the measure passed in June, the Colorado legislature on Monday passed a bill that would “force a million people receiving state or federal aid to verify their citizenship.” The story, running in USA Today, notes that the legislation “would deny most non-emergency state benefits to illegal immigrants 18 years old and older — forcing people to prove legal residency when applying for benefits or renewing their eligibility.”

Colorado Republicans, while happy to see something come from the legislature, feel that Governor Owens let them down by failing to produce a ballot measure for voters this fall.

As a sign that illegal immigration is one of the key hot-button issues going into the fall elections, the Colorado bill passed the state House by a vote of 48-15 and the state Senate by a vote of 22-13. Both chambers are controlled by Democrats.

President Bush appears to be getting the message as well. In a recent speech, the president noted the importance of enforcing employment laws:

I’m strongly for a comprehensive immigration policy, one that enforces the border. And we’re doing that by expanding agents and putting new technologies on our border. But part of a comprehensive immigration plan is to make sure we have interior enforcement that we uphold our laws, and say to employers, it’s against the law for you to hire somebody here illegally; we intend to fine you when we catch you doing it. But we’ve got to get the employers the tools to make sure that the people who are here are here legally.

There is also growing sentiment that the stronger House immigration bill, ‘which focus more on border security’ is the one that is more in line with the will of the American public. We must address the security issues of a porous border before we move on to other things. Security comes first, and to delay it because of politics is just wrong.

We must continue to stand strong on this issue and let Washington know that America wants real reform which focuses on border security, enforcement of existing laws, and no amnesty. The longer Washington delays, the more important it will be for states to come forward with measures of their own. Thankfully, many appear to be doing just that.

Back

Family / Social

California court reconsiders 'marriage' ruling

July 10 2006 the Washington Times

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A California state appeals court in San Francisco will consider today whether a trial judge erred in declaring unconstitutional the state's marriage laws, which San Francisco's homosexual mayor contravened by issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
    The 1st District Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear six hours of arguments in as many related cases -- four of them filed by the city and by lawyers for 20 couples seeking the right to "wed" and two brought by groups that want to maintain the status quo barring same-sex unions.
    Although any ruling is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court, advocates on both sides say the stakes remain high at the intermediate court. New York's highest court upheld that state's marriage laws Thursday. High courts in New Jersey and Washington State are deliberating cases. But it is California, home to more same-sex couples than any other state, where a pro-homosexual ruling would have the most impact.
    "California is the most diverse state in the country, and the homosexual community has achieved a kind of visibility and integration here that is unlike any state," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund who is representing couples in both California and Washington.
    The appeals that will be heard today were brought by California's attorney general and two groups opposed to same-sex "marriage." They followed San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer's March 2005 ruling that the state's marriage laws violated the civil rights of homosexuals by denying them "the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice" and by discriminating on the basis of one's sex and sexual orientation.
    Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger said he plans to offer the appeals court the same argument he presented to Judge Kramer -- that it is up to lawmakers to determine the marriage laws.
    "In defending the law, we are saying it's rational to defer to the legislative process in setting policy in such a sensitive area," Mr. Krueger said. A similar argument carried the day in the New York case.
    Also challenging the trial court's reasoning, are: the Campaign for Children and Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. They are arguing that Judge Kramer exceeded his mandate when he struck down a 2000 voter initiative that prevented California from recognizing same-sex "marriages" performed elsewhere.
    Mathew Staver, who represents Campaign for California Families, said the fact that New York's judges cited marriage's role in promoting procreation makes him optimistic that a California court would accept similar reasoning.
    "Having this decision from New York State's highest court is a huge momentum builder for our argument," Mr. Staver said. "New York is a big state, it's an influential state it’s not a conservative court. Yet it voted 4-2 to uphold marriage, and it did it on the same rationale we are arguing in California."

Gary Bauer with American Values said: While we celebrated victories last week in the battle to preserve traditional marriage, we must resist the temptation to assume “all is well.” Today, a California appeals court in San Francisco will take up the definition of marriage. The issue before this court is whether or not a county judge erred when he struck down California’s marriage law, approved overwhelmingly at the ballot box in 2000, with very sweeping language that went so far as to argue that legislative attempts to compromise on the issue with so-called “civil unions” and “domestic partnership laws” actually undermined the state’s defense of traditional marriage.

And while this case is expected to reach the California Supreme Court, we are still waiting for rulings in other high courts, such as Washington state and New Jersey. In short, this battle is not over and those who hailed last week’s ruling in New York as a “Gettysburg victory” for pro-family forces were likely premature in their celebration. I wish I shared that view, but I suspect the days ahead will bring more court rulings contrary to our values, not favorable ones.

The good news is that “we the people” are not powerless to prevent these radical unelected judges from redefining marriage. Our representatives in Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment that would define marriage in America as the union of one man and one woman. Such an amendment would be binding on judges at all levels, including the justices of the United State Supreme Court, who otherwise could impose same-sex “marriage” as the law of the land, just as they did with abortion-on-demand. If you believe the definition of marriage should be decided by the people and not by unelected judges, please call your representatives in Congress today at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support the marriage protection amendment.

Back

Mass Supreme Judicial Court says Gay marriage ban can go on ballot

July 10 2006 Denise Lavoie, Associated Press Writer

The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled Monday that a proposal for a constitutional amendment that could ban future gay marriages can move forward.

The ruling came on a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to certify the question because the state's constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.

The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument, paving the way for the state Legislature to take up the question during a constitutional convention Wednesday. The question would have to be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions before it could be placed on the 2008 ballot. Supporters need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers — 25 percent of the Legislature — in both sessions.

The same court, in a landmark 2003 ruling, cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples have married since.

The Legislature has been grappling with same-sex marriage ever since, balancing the views of people who believe marriage should be limited to the one-man, one-woman definition; those who believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to have civil unions but not marriages; and those who believe all couples should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

In its ruling Monday, the high court said the proposed amendment — which would restrict marriage to between one man and one woman — is not a reversal of its earlier ruling legalizing gay marriage, because it would leave intact the marriages of same-sex couples who already had wed.

"The underlying substantive law is simply changed to reflect the present intentions of the people, and that new law will be applied thereafter in any subsequent case or cases," the court said in its unanimous ruling.

But Justice John M. Greaney, in a concurring opinion, warned that approving the amendment would clearly be discriminatory because it would remove the rights of same-sex couples to receive the legal, social and financial benefits of marriage.

"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form," Greaney wrote.

Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed the lawsuit, said the fight is not over.

"So now, obviously, the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing and defeat this amendment," she said.

Supporters of the constitutional amendment predicted they will have enough votes to win the first round of approval from the Legislature.

"We are comfortably in excess of 50 votes," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Reilly, who certified the question, said he was pleased that the court agreed with his decision but now said he hoped the Legislature would reject the amendment. The Democratic candidate for governor initially opposed gay marriage, but later became a supporter, saying same-sex unions haven't hurt Massachusetts.

"I did my job, the court did its job; now it's up to the Legislature to do their job," he said.

Back

The Family that Chick-Fil-A's Together stays Together

July 7 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

...stays together. Or, at least that's the hope of S. Truett Cathy, founder of the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain. Cathy has implemented family-friendly policies for the 600 employees at his Atlanta-based company. Mr. and Mrs. Cathy themselves have been blessed by a 57-year marriage, an inspiration for some of the pro-marriage seminars their company offers as part of its standard benefits package.

Scott Stanley of Denver's Center for Marital and Family Studies agrees. He notes that levels of conflict at home are related to productivity and absenteeism on the job. Even more important, S. Truett Cathy's 900 franchise restaurants publicly honor God by closing their doors on Sundays.

May God bless the Cathy family and I say to them: thank you for all you do for America's families.

Back

Government / Legislation

Tell Cornyn, Hutchison to Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research

July 13 2006 Heritage Alliance

Senate to Vote Next Week on Stem Cell Bills

Your help is needed to protect the sanctity of human life in its earliest stages. The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote either Monday, July 17, or Tuesday, July 18, on two bills having to do with stem cell research.

The first of the bills is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would require federal funding of research using stem cells obtained by destroying human embryos. Heritage Alliance OPPOSES this bill because it would fundamentally violate the sanctity of human life, and because more promising results are being generated from adult stem cells, which do not present ethical problems.

The second bill is S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. This measure, according to its sponsor, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, "would prohibit the gruesome practice of initiating human pregnancies in either women or animal uteruses for the purpose of obtaining human tissues for research."

Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council's Center for Human Life and Bioethics, told CitizenLink: "It sounds really strange, but scientists have already done work in animals where, since they couldn't get the cells they wanted from the embryonic stem cells in the dish, they have gestated animals -- and would like to gestate human beings -- up to some point where they could harvest the tissues they want."

Heritage Alliance SUPPORTS S. 3504.

Under an agreement struck by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who supports embryonic stem cell research, each of the bills must garner 60 votes in order to pass. No amendments will be allowed to either of the bills.

TAKE ACTION:
Before Monday, please contact Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison and urge them to vote "NO" on H.R. 810 and "YES" on S. 3504. Urge them to oppose research that would require the destruction of a human embryo in order to obtain stem cells. Also, encourage them to support ethical stem cell research using adult stem cells or those found in umbilical cord blood.

For further contact information for Sen. Cornyn, see his page on the Heritage Alliance Legislative Action Center.

To find out more information, see Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.

Back

House Passes Internet-Gambling Bill

July 11 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

It would add teeth to laws against online wagering.

The House easily passed by a 317-93 vote Tuesday night the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, H.R. 4411.

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa, would cut off credit-card payments to illegal Internet-gambling sites -- most of which are offshore -- and give the Justice Department increased ability to prosecute illegal wagering.

In the process, House members also refused to swallow a "poison-pill amendment," designed to keep the bill from passing.

Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy for Focus on the Family Action, called it a "fantastic development."

"The bill, in essence, says we will not allow this 'bullet train' to crash into millions of American homes with Internet access," Hills told CitizenLink. "Basically, without it, we could have a casino in every house in America, if Internet casinos can legally operate online."

In recent years, Hills said, gambling on the Internet has exploded.

"It's the fastest-growing segment of the worldwide gambling industry," he explained. "Today it's a $12 billion industry -- with half of that estimated to come from the U.S. We're talking about tremendous growth."

Indeed, the growth in online betting has reached such levels that five major sports leagues -- Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association -- sent a letter to Congress lending their support to the bill.

"It just goes to show that this piece of legislation has broad support, not just (among) pro-family groups, but also among major-league professional sports," Brian Newell, government affairs assistant with the Family Research Council, told Family News in Focus.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces a tougher time. Hills said it's important that supporters speak up.

"I encourage people to contact their senators to get behind this legislation," Hills said. "We need to do something about online gambling, and this bill will be a major step forward."

(Family News in Focus correspondent Josh Montez contributed to this story.)

TAKE ACTION:
Please contact your senators and ask them to support the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, H.R. 4411.

Back

Attorney General Abbott Takes Action against Internet Child Predators;
Testifies at Congressional Hearings about Online Safeguards

July 11 2006 Texas Attorney General News Release

Stresses responsibility of social networking site operators to implement meaningful security measures to protect kids from pornography, predators

“WASHINGTON – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a nationally recognized leader in the fight against online predators, testified at a congressional hearing of the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in Washington today on federal legislation that would require publicly funded schools and libraries to limit access to commercial social networking sites like MySpace.com.

Attorney General Abbott also reiterated his call on MySpace.com and other social networking site operators to step up their efforts to protect young users of their sites from being subjected to sexually explicit images and unwanted solicitations.

The operators of social networking Web sites can no longer be allowed to turn a blind eye to the predators who lurk on the playground they created,” said Attorney General Abbott. “Site operators are part of the problem, and to be part of the solution they must do more than pay lip service to providing a safe environment for children. They must take affirmative, definitive action, such as verifying the age of their users, to ensure the protection of the millions of children and teenagers who use their networking sites and chat rooms.”

Noting the success his Cyber Crimes Unit has had in arresting over 80 sexual predators who were trolling Internet chat rooms for underage victims, Attorney General Abbott testified in support of H.R. 5319, introduced by Congressman Michael G. Fitzpatrick, R-PA.

The federal legislation, known as the “Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006,” would also require the Federal Trade Commission to publish a list of commercial social networking Web sites and Internet chat rooms that are shown to allow sexual predators "easy access" to children.

Attorney General Abbott had issued a letter to social networking Web site executives in May calling on them to strengthen safeguards against pornography and sexually explicit solicitations after his Cyber Crimes Unit arrested three men in Texas who used MySpace.com and other Internet chat rooms to solicit minors for sex.

In his testimony today, Attorney General Abbott again called on site operators to implement more stringent age verification measures to protect younger users on the networking site. He pressed operators to upgrade their resources and utilize filtering software that would also provide parents with the opportunity to block access to the sites at their discretion.

“Social networking site operators have made several adjustments to their safety protocols in the last few months, but sexual predators have found ways to get around those limits,” added Attorney General Abbott. “Without meaningful safeguards in place, no child is safe from the unwanted advances of chat room predators.”

Attorney General Abbott appeared at the hearing at the invitation of House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-TX.

Attorney General Abbott has made pursuing sexual predators a top priority of his administration. The Cyber Crimes Unit, launched by Attorney General Abbott in May 2003, targets online predators by assuming the identities of young teenagers in Internet chat rooms. Investigators have arrested 84 men who used teen chat rooms to arrange meetings with underage victims, with some predators driving hundreds of miles to meet children they met online. The office has also obtained convictions against 44 men on child pornography charges.

On May 18, the Cyber Crimes Unit was awarded a $300,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention to establish an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The grant will help the Unit expand its efforts to protect children and partner with law enforcement agencies across Texas to fight against online child exploitation.

In addition to the Cyber Crimes Unit, the Fugitive Unit which locates convicted child sex offenders who have violated the terms of their parole and could be stalking children, has arrested more than 270 such offenders.

Back

Dem Barney Frank Altered Immigration Law to Further 'Gay' Agenda

July 10 2006 Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer


A Republican candidate for the Massachusetts congressional seat currently held by Democrat Barney Frank is reigniting debate over whether changes to U.S. immigration laws Frank sponsored made it easier for the 9/11 hijackers to enter and remain in the United States. Frank continues to deny the charge, but GOP challenger Chuck Morse accuses Frank of opening the "turnstiles of terrorism" by denying immigration officials the power to bar or remove non-U.S. citizens from the country based on their ideology.

Cybercast News Service has learned that while Frank has routinely claimed he advocated the changes because immigration law was "unduly restrictive on political grounds," the avowed homosexual lawmaker spent ten years fighting to change the statute primarily to eliminate a long-standing ban on homosexual foreigners entering the U.S.

Morse: Barney Frank ... opened the 'turnstiles of terrorism'

"Barney Frank was the author of legislation, a series of legislative initiatives but, particularly, one that bears his name, the 'Frank Amendment,' that made it easier for terrorists and those who support them to come into this country legally," Morse told Cybercast News Service. "It raised the bar for our immigration officials and our State Department in terms of who could be denied a visa and it made it more difficult for our government agencies like the FBI and others to investigate those visiting the country while they were here and to detain people suspected of terrorist activity and to deport them."

Morse was more direct with his accusations in a mid-June speech to the Massachusetts Republican Assembly.

"Barney Frank ... opened the 'turnstiles of terrorism' in America by sponsoring legislation that made it nearly impossible for federal agencies to deny visas to terrorists," Morse charged. "As a result of its passage, the 'Frank Amendment' tied the hands of the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and other agencies for the better part of two decades, while terrorists formed their sleeper cells and plotted this nation's demise."

Morse originally made the allegation during his failed 2004 campaign against the 13-term Democrat. Frank denied the charge then and again in 2005.

"Several of my right wing political opponents have recently made the entirely inaccurate claim that immigration legislation on which I worked in the 1980s through 1990 is somehow connected to the entry into this country of the 9/11 terrorists," Frank wrote in an April 15, 2005, online statement. "This is totally untrue."

Prior to the passage of the Frank Amendment in 1990, aliens could be denied entry into the U.S. for three reasons related to their ideology:

-- Participation in activities that would be prejudicial to the public interest or public safety;

-- Membership in subversive organizations or teaching or advocating subversive views;

-- Likelihood of engaging in subversive activities after entry into the country.

The Frank Amendment eliminated those and all other "ideological" prohibitions, substituting a new rule that aliens could not be excluded or deported "because of any past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations which, if engaged in by a United States citizen in the United States, would be protected under the Constitution of the United States."

As James R. Edwards, Jr., author of "The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform," noted in an Aug. 30, 2005, panel discussion at the Center for Immigration Studies, the Frank Amendment "sought to extend the First Amendment to the world - despite foreigners' lack of corresponding duties that U.S. citizens bear or the status of being subject to the U.S. government's jurisdiction.

"Indeed, this law made it much easier for aliens who hold radical, dangerous, anti-American or subversive political beliefs to enter and remain in the United States," Edwards explained. "This perversion of the First Amendment means the guy who preaches hatred, pollutes hearts and minds, steeps persuadable people in reasons to harm Americans and wage war from within against America ... gets a free pass."

That, Morse argues, is precisely what happened when the 9/11 terrorists, the majority of whom had known associations with militant Islamic groups, entered and remained in the U.S. And Frank's GOP challenger is not alone in that allegation. Conservative educator, author and columnist Samuel L. Blumenfeld also blamed Frank for the ease with which al Qaeda terrorists infiltrated the U.S. in a Sept. 17, 2004, column published by WorldNetDaily.

"I have just finished reading the 500-page '9-11 Commission Report' and what becomes quite apparent is that the weakest link in our antiterrorism defense system prior to 9-11 was the Immigration and Naturalization Service," Blumenfeld wrote. "It was so weak that it became a revolving door for al-Qaida sleeper terrorists who were issued visas that permitted them to come and go as they pleased.

"And the one man responsible for creating this revolving door was Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, whose 1989 Frank Amendment to INS procedures paved the way for the 19 hijackers to freely enter this country, take flying lessons, and quietly prepare for their deadly attack with no notice from our intelligence agencies," he concluded.

Blumenfeld also cites a section of Gerald Posner's post-9/11 book "Why America Slept," which also accuses Frank of creating a legal environment that made it easy for terrorists to enter and remain in the U.S.

"Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa," Posner wrote. "Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post-9-11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism."

But Frank points to an exchange between 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and himself during Kean's appearance before the House Select Committee on Homeland Security on Aug, 17, 2004, that, Frank argues, proves him blameless.

FRANK: "Can I just say here that the key point here is under the statutes, as they now exist, those people were excludable if the right procedures had been followed?"

KEAN: "That's exactly right."

Frank also defends the new law, noting that it does allow State Department officials to deny entry to any alien "who a consular official knows or has reasonable ground to believe has engaged, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization, in a terrorist activity or is likely to engage after entry in a terrorist activity."

Frank's stated and lesser-known reasons for changing immigration law

The debate will likely continue as to whether the changes to U.S. immigration laws Frank gained in 1990 when Democrats controlled Congress made it easier for the 9/11 terrorists to gain entry to and remain in the country. But one point repeatedly made by Frank has not been challenged, until now.

In the August 2004 exchange with Kean, Frank explained his motivation for the immigration law changes saying, "I thought they were unduly restrictive on political grounds with people coming in."

In an April 22, 2004 memorandum to the media posted on his website, Frank described his goal similarly.

"We worked successfully to change the law that permitted American officials to refuse to allow people into America because we didn't like their political opinions," Frank wrote.

"[I]n a law inherited from the early fifties ... Congress instructed the Executive Branch to exclude from America people whose political views we found offensive," Frank contends. "The amendment we adopted dropped from the law the authority to exclude people because their views would be politically unpopular, but continued to allow exclusion of people who would commit acts of violence, terrorism, etc."

But in his contribution to the pro-homosexual political how-to book "Creating Change: Sexuality, Public Policy, and Civil Rights" entitled "American Immigration Law: A Case Study in the Effective Use of the Political Process," Frank offered a different explanation for his ten-year-long effort to limit the grounds on which citizens of other countries could be denied entry into the United States.

"Interestingly, it is both the least well known of all the legislative battles that supporters of gay and lesbian rights have fought, and it is also the one that was the most successful," Frank wrote. "... in 1990, I had the enormous satisfaction of sponsoring a successful amendment to American immigration law that repealed the homophobic [sic] provisions of that statute in all of its permutations." (Frank uses the term "homophobic" throughout his writing to refer to any person or group that objects to the homosexual lifestyle.)

While he did acknowledge his general interest in abolishing the "ideological exclusion," the Massachusetts Democrat - who had not initially acknowledged his participation in the homosexual lifestyle - stressed his primary reason for wanting to change the law.

"I do not remember exactly when I first became aware that American law flatly banned gay, lesbian, and bisexual foreigners from coming to the United States, and did so in the most inaccurately insulting terms," Frank wrote. "But I do know that by 1981 I was aware that as a gay American I had joined an institution - the U.S. Congress - that had sixteen years before done everything it could to protect my fellow citizens from foreigners who were like me.

"And I was determined," he continued, "to do everything that I could to abolish this abomination."

Frank's article also explains that when he "came out" on June 1, 1987, it gave him a psychological advantage over lawmakers who might have otherwise opposed his proposal.

"Before I came out, my colleagues respected my insistence on the repeal of the antigay provision as they would respect any colleague's strong feeling on an issue," Frank wrote. "But once I had acknowledged that I was gay, this moved from being simply an issue with which I was concerned to something that was obviously deeply personal.

"Automatically, this meant that those of my colleagues who wished to preserve good working relationships with me understood how important this matter was to me," Frank continued, "and their willingness to accommodate me increased accordingly."

Frank similarly acknowledged that he pursued the broader repeal of the ideological exclusions because he knew a stand-alone repeal of the ban on homosexuals visiting or immigrating to the U.S. would almost certainly have failed.

"Evidence of this came early for me when (in 1981) the House of Representatives voted 281 to 199 to overrule a District of Columbia City Council repeal of the city's sodomy law," Frank explained. "It occurred to me that just as the antigay exclusions had been first written and then tightened as part of a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws, my best chance to wipe them out was to do it in that same comprehensive context."

While it took Frank ten years to accomplish that goal, he brags about the success of his stealth approach from both the political and public relations perspectives.

"People - including gays and lesbians - know little about our successful fight to repeal the anti-gay-and-lesbian provision of immigration law in large part because we won," Frank wrote, "In our time, failure generates a good deal more attention than success."

Back

Action on Immigration

July 10 2006 Gary Bauer American Values

Last week, members of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate took their competing views of immigration reform on the road with “field hearings” in California, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The topics ranged from overwhelmed border security agents to critical labor shortages in some industries. Comments ranged from those of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, who said Congress should do its job and, “stop this invasion of the United States, which is hurting the American people,” to those of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said the city’s economy, “would collapse if they [illegal aliens] were deported.”

The hearings continue today in Miami, Florida, with Senator John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, holding a hearing on the contributions of immigrants to our nation’s military. Later this month, the House will hold field hearings in Virginia on making English America’s official language and the impact of immigration laws on American workers. Another field hearing scheduled for August will be held in Arizona on the costs associated with illegal immigration for state and local budgets.

While all of this talking is going on, there is action also. Numerous press reports suggest that the White House is slowly inching toward the House’s “enforcement first” approach through the use of “triggers.” In other words, the guest-worker programs included in the Senate’s plan could not take effect until specified border security measures have been put into practice and are certified by appropriate government officials as fully operational. House conservative are also continuing their efforts to strengthen U.S. immigration laws. For example, Rep. Steve King of Iowa successfully attached an amendment to an appropriations bill that would cut off federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities,” which have adopted policies that flout federal law by prohibiting local police officers from reporting illegal aliens to federal officials. Such laws often result in criminal aliens avoiding deportation.

And the states are getting tough, too. According to a report in USA Today, at least 30 states have passed laws this year “to crack down on illegal immigrants…” A number of these new state laws are striking at the “demand side” of the problem by targeting businesses that hire illegal aliens. At least three states are now demanding that businesses bidding for public contracts (meaning projects funded with your tax dollars) must verify the legal status of their employees or risk hefty fines and the loss of future state contracts.

Back

Life issues / Behavior

Study Claiming Biological Basis for Homosexuality “Absolute Rubbish”: NARTH Psychiatrist

July 10 2006 Gudrun Schultz LifeSiteNews.com

TORONTO, Ontario, A recent study suggesting that homosexual orientation results from biological factors in the prenatal environment is based on severely flawed research and biased assumptions, a leading Canadian psychiatrist has charged.

Researchers at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, conducted the study entitled “Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation.” The study suggested that male same-sex attraction results from an immune reaction on the part of the mother to the presence of the male child in her womb, a reaction the studies authors suggest stems from the gestation of previous male children. In other words, the study suggests, having biological older brothers leads to the development of homosexuality.

That suggestion is “absolute utter rubbish,” said psychiatrist Joseph Berger of the University of Toronto.

“It [the study] should never have been published. I suspect it was not peer-reviewed properly or was reviewed by someone so biased and ignorant that they were unable to see the huge flaws and [are] essentially ignorant of the literature,” he wrote in a review published by the National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH).

The study’s assumption of a biological basis for homosexuality is a “major glaring flaw,” said Berger, since existing research has not produced conclusive findings indicating grounds for such an assumption.

Secondly, he pointed out, the study relies on the “absolutely fatal flaw” of assuming that siblings in the same family are exposed to identical environments in growing up.

Absolute utter rubbish, even identical children are treated differently from birth. [In families,] this one is said to be more assertive, or calmer, or louder, or more anxious, etc, etc. When we come to children born at different times there are an ENORMOUS number of possible factors that might make for significant differences in upbringing that might effect how a child develops a sense of his identity and sexuality” [author’s emphasis].

The study also neglects to address other highly plausible explanations for the link between homosexual orientation and the presence of older biological brothers, Berger said, such as family tendencies to “baby” youngest children, delaying their maturity into an “adult masculine identity.”

“There are many alternative explanations to the findings. It is totally inappropriate for anyone to claim certainty in a study like this because such a claim is obviously political, not scientific in nature.”

“I could go on and on, but psycho-dynamically-oriented clinicians have learnt these things from long experience, while activist-propagandists produce ignorant papers with quite bizarre speculations based upon nothing more substantial than fantasy—such as this absurd notion of some maternal ‘immune response.”

Mr. Berger, Ph.D, is a Distinguished Fellow with the American Psychiatric Association and a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for NARTH, as well as the author of The Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry.

“Biological versus non-biological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation”:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0511152103v1.pdf

Back

Gay Activists Push Worldwide Agenda

July 10 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

Family experts say cries for "tolerance" will lead to intolerance for the Church.

Gay activists are trying to expose what they call the "oppression" of homosexuals around the world.

Pointing to violence and bolstered by renewed interest from the State Department, the activists hope to normalize homosexual behavior -- targeting what they consider to be trouble spots, including Africa, Eastern Europe and some Islamic countries.

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, said the cries for "tolerance" will result in intolerance toward people with deeply held religious beliefs.

"The homosexuals are trying basically to establish a legal right, a civil right, for immoral acts," he said. "If this happens then they can use that as a bludgeon against the church."

The pro-gay WorldPride event will take place in Jerusalem, Aug. 6-12, and promises to bring violent clashes. As activists take aim at other countries, Dr. Allan Carlson, founder of the World Congress of Families, said those nations will have to fight for their way of life.

"These are nations that have been through terrible ideological ordeals and now that they've finally won their liberty," he said, "they're under intense pressure from sexual revolutionaries in Western Europe to adopt the gay-rights agenda."

Adding insult to injury, the U.S. State Department's annual worldwide human-rights report devoted more attention than ever to the "problems" gays face, prompting activists to demand harsh penalties for countries that refuse to go along.

"The European Union has made it very clear," Carlson said, "implementing the full gay-rights agenda is going to be part of what you have to do to be a part of the European Union, to be part of the economic advantages that come from that."

Back

Study: Number of Homosexual Couples Wanting Children Doubled since 2002

July 7 2006 John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz LifeSiteNews.com

Incresing numbers of children being denied natural right to have a father and a mother

NEW YORK, Homosexual couples are increasingly interested in parenting children a recent survey found, with the number of couples planning for children more than doubling since 2002.

Conducted by OpusComm Group and Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, the survey found two-thirds of lesbians and a third of homosexual men plan to bring children into their homes within the next three years. Those numbers are a striking increase over 2002, when just 18 percent of lesbians and 5 percent of homosexual men said they wanted to parent children.

Only 21 percent of lesbians surveyed and just 5 percent of homosexual men said they presently have a child living in their home.

Pro-family advocates are expressing their concern with these findings. Louis DeSerres of Preserve Marriage - Protect Children's Rights, focuses specifically on the rights of children as the main reason for opposition to same-sex "marriage."

DeSerres told LifeSiteNews.com that homosexual "marriage" increases the risk "that children will become commodities and traded as such."  He explained: "Since with homosexual 'marriage' couples cannot have children naturally, they have to go to surrogate mothers, egg donors, anonymous sperm donors, etc.  In some jurisdictions surrogate motherhood is prohibited like in Quebec and France so they go to other areas especially California and do it there.  If they can't find surrogate mothers to carry a child for free the temptation will be very strong to use monetary incentives.

Such monetary inducement for assistance with artificial procreation is already rampant.  DeSerres recalled that in early 2006 a Montreal investigative reporter found 6 women offering eggs and who, over the course of discussions, were demanding payments of up to $10,000.  "We're getting into the buying and selling of children," warned DeSerres.

DeSerres also pointed out that "Surrogacy and anonymous sperm donors which are the only ways gays and lesbians can bring children in to the world, means that we will have more children deprived of their natural right to have a mother and father.  How can such a child claim his equality rights? He is deprived of having a mother or a father without consultation and the tragedy is there is absolutely no remedy for this discrimination."

The poll was conducted online.  About 7,500 people filled out the hour-long survey, responding to lifestyle and consumer-based questions.