BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #98 08/15/2006
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
Criminalization of Christianity by our own military proceeds, Navy pre-trial hearings against Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt are underway.
Virginia Megachurch sues County for barring Theology courses
American’s Personal Faith Profile
Democracy / Security
Texas Sheriffs Say Terrorists Entering US from Mexico
Buchanan warns: flood of illegals will overwhelm the United States
Globalism's toll mounting for U.S. citizens
Property Groups Cry Foul Over 'Heritage Areas'
Family / Social
Kids Used to Advance Gay Goals
California State Assembly Passes SB 1437 to Indoctrinate School Children
Massachusetts Fights to Indoctrinate Kids on Homosexuality
Back to School: Why You Should Be 'Considering Homeschooling'
Government / Legislation
ALERT Senate 'Amnesty' Proposal Will Cost $126 Billion – Help Stop It Now
President Bush Approves Over the Counter Early Abortion Pill, Pro-Life Base Decries Move
FDA Approves Nonprescription Sales of Plan B
When a State Spending Limit Is No Limit
Why Texas Needs a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights
Pacific Justice Institute Files Motion to Intervene to Defend Mt. Soledad Cross Land Acquisition
Life Issues / Behavior
A Deceptive California Assembly Bill 1056 to change the Definition of Tolerance to Indulgence of Homosexuality
Sam's Club replaces 'Christmas' with 'Holidays'
Oklahoma Ten Commandments Can Stay
Media / Internet / Entertainment
San Antonio Christian Newspaper 'The Kingdom Press' Launches Nationwide
Coalition Says Hotel Pornography May Be Illegal
Churches Putting daily video devotionals on the iPod
Controversial Computer Game to Be Shipped to Churches
Politics
Texans, Vote Your Values!
Our Churches Can Do Plenty in Advance of Election Day
Dems Rearrange Nomination Calendar
World / World Apostasies
Mexico Introduces Graphic Sex Education; Catholic Bishops in Outrage
Articles Below
Christianity / Religion
Criminalization of Christianity by our own military proceeds, Navy pre-trial hearings against Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt are underway.
August 23 2006 Dr. Alan Keyes
U
.S. Navy judge, Anita K. Blair, ruled that preaching “exclusive” Christian content in the chapel at an optionally-attended Navy religious service is a punishable offense. This decision to punish his “exclusive” sermon supported the same Admiral who now seeks to court-martial Chaplain Klingenschmitt for praying in Jesus’ name.
Exclusive? Yes, the Chaplain preached a Christian message and thus included the Gospel. Wrong and punishable, ruled the U.S. Navy, with a resounding rap of its politically correct gavel.
President Bush needs to issue an Executive Order overruling this ridiculous decision! 
Yes, the Navy is moving to punish Chaplain Klingenschmitt, deeming it ”wrong” to preach the Gospel.
Wrong -- even though the occasion was advertised as a “Christian service.”
Wrong – even though the memorial was for a sailor who professed faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior shortly before his death.
Wrong -- even though attendance at the chapel service was completely voluntary.
Wrong -– because the Chaplain’s message dared to quote John 3:36, which says “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Wrong and punishable, ruled the U.S. Navy, taking a black-magic marker to his Bible, guaranteeing this chaplain will never be promoted again, just like 68 other Christian chaplains now suing the Navy.
Criminally punishable at court-martial, even when this chaplain had prior written permission to wear his uniform during prayers, as long as he didn’t pray in Jesus’ name.
T
he shameful day is now at hand when judicial tyranny insists a Christian serviceman’s memorial cannot include “exclusive” Scriptures. Senior officials falsely apply the Constitution's so-called Establishment Clause, out of fear of “official government endorsement of sectarian religious beliefs.” So chaplains’ prayers must be completely “generic” or “non-sectarian” and never mention the name of Jesus Christ in public -– lest it offend a non-Christian.
Friends! We must recapture the truths that first made us great before it is too late. For in today’s perilous times, as in difficult eras past, you and I are called to defend this great nation and its guaranteed freedoms.
A menacing fog of lies, fanned by rogue judges and mindless political correctness, pervades America.
The distinction between true and false standards needs to be obvious in these perilous days of active evil and a terror war. That basic religious freedoms are violated –- even by those in authority in our military -- clearly demonstrates how truly ominous this fog has become.
I ask you, as a proven friend of the Declaration Foundation, to peer with me through the haze to recapture a glimpse of America’s once-bright flame of truth.
I believe our nation yearns to remain the land of the free and the home of the brave, in the service of truth. The fog will only lift when increasing numbers of Americans realize, as you and I do, that we must act decisively and emulate our Founders in their faithfulness to principle.
That requires discipline and selflessness from an American people that some say has become too faithless, too self indulgent, too morally rudderless, too apathetic to defend truth, or to stand and fight for liberty.
But not all Americans are faithless. I know that’s not true of Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. The Chaplain staged an 18-day hunger strike to protest the Navy’s new prayer policy authorizing only “generic” prayers –- a new policy that reversed 231 years of Navy history, violated the Constitution, and abrogated federal law since 1860. He also filed a whistleblower complaint with Congress after his commander punished him in writing three times for preaching about Jesus and praying in His name -- banned speech which is "exclusive" and “offends” people.
We, as right-minded patriots, must defend Chaplain Klingenschmitt. We must oppose the ongoing assault upon the principles of liberty our Founders laid down in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the basis for this nation's existence. We cannot allow these principles, once so clearly articulated, to disappear.
But, as you know, modern factions aggressively reject these principles and seek to destroy or distort them. They are embarrassed by principle in these “enlightened” times.
Yes, embarrassed especially by those great words which acknowledge -- as we must in order to sustain the discipline of liberty -- that our rights are given us by the Creator God and are not inventions of human will.
A
nd so, with the assistance of judicial tyrants, anti-religious powers in America seek a godless Pledge of Allegiance, a Christ-less Christmas, cross-less mountainsides, prayers without Jesus, and, yes, they even deprive our warriors of their right to a Christian burial.
I am not embarrassed by our Godly heritage, and I know you are not either. We are unashamed to state America is “under God” and insist His freedom to worship Him be upheld. Together we must remind America of this truth.
Upon declaring their independence from man’s tyranny and their dependence upon the Providence of Almighty God, the Founding Fathers protected and defended the Declaration’s words and ideas in ways too many don’t appreciated today.
We think now of freedom as a source of strength and comfort, wonderful economic abundance, and success so admired by much of the world.
But this was not what liberty meant to the Founders. At the birth of this precious nation, they knew liberty meant...
> Sacrificing the safety of family and friends;
> Losing all comforts and advantages;
> Inviting the burning and destruction of home and property;
> Risking their very lives.
No, America’s Founders understood the price to be paid -- as have subsequent generations in their times of trial.
In our day, Chaplain Klingenschmitt volunteered for a demotion in rank and a cut in pay just to become a chaplain, and preach the gospel. His programs won 6 awards, including “best in Navy” community service. But now he risks his entire career, facing criminal prosecution, because he refused to compromise his faith.
Our generation faces the same test our Forefathers faced. How will we fare?
Will history see us as cut from the same star-spangled cloth? Or will time testify we stood by as a judicial dictatorship destroyed republican government of, by and for the people? Will we passively allow God to be scoured from our public precincts, and freedom of religion lapse?
I know your answer, and you like many Americans perhaps are asking yourself: “What must we do?”
The answer is simple and direct: Energetically show our deep devotion, respect and allegiance for the great, timeless and universal principles of our abiding Faith, and our Declaration. And convince others to do the same.
L
ike Chaplain Klingenschmitt, as today’s patriots, we must stand up and accept the challenges of battle. We must risk personal and political unpopularity, even persecution, to do whatever is necessary to prevail for the cause of freedom.
The freedom to pray according to the dictates of conscience, the freedom to preach the gospel, must be defended. These principles, set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are a gift from our Creator. The Declaration Foundation is dedicated to protecting these freedoms and communicating their essential message to our nation, and indeed, the world.
This is no small task. To accomplish our goal -- indeed to save our nation -- it’s going to take great personal sacrifices like Chaplain Klingenschmitt’s, and a monumental educational, community and political effort.
Graduates of politically correct government training and public schools don’t fully appreciate our nation’s God-graced beginning. Revisionist textbooks no longer tell of the real Inspiration that enabled our Founding Fathers to risk all to become truly free.
If not in our nation’s God-less, prayer-less, Scripture-less schools and military, who will teach truth? YOU, through the Declaration Foundation, that’s who!
I’m convinced that an allegiance to the principles of the Declaration burns bright and deep in the hearts of most every American. Moreover, because America is under God, I have faith our Creator will grant us clear vision to see the ungodly fog for what it really is.
But will we have Chaplain Klingenschmitt’s faith to stand tall? Will enough citizens realize America is on the edge of an abyss, that without decisive action our nation will topple off to an evil end?
I know this: America cannot have government of the people, by the people, for the people, when the people no longer love liberty enough to oppose tyranny.
Who will stand with the Chaplain Klingenschmitt’s of our generation, to boldly pray and preach, and stand up for liberty without fear, refusing to compromise, at great personal risk?
Do you want to lift the banner of faith and freedom high? Then I must have your support. The most urgent need TODAY is to rally Congress and the Bush administration against the Navy’s persecution of the Chaplain, and to assist him directly with his legal defense expenses.
Right now click here…to sign our Brand –New Petition to the President, even if you’ve signed others before. https://secure.responseenterprises.com/InJesusName/petition.php
You can ALSO CALL demanding an Executive Order issued by President Bush (202-456-1414) permitting military chaplains to pray according to their diverse faiths. Encourage your pastor, priest or rabbi to write or call the Pentagon and protest to the Chief of Navy Chaplains through Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s office (703-692-5131 or 703-692-7100) about the grave injustice being done to Chaplain Klingenschmitt and other junior chaplains who are routinely discriminated against and coerced into unconstitutional religious conformity.
C
haplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt has taken his stand. I stand with him, and pray that the injustice of his persecution will awaken the nation. But his court-martial defense and his efforts to help other junior chaplains fight censorship are expensive, so I’ve pledged Declaration Foundation’s efforts to assist in every way possible.
We at Declaration Foundation have formed a special fund, the “In Jesus’ Name” Project, to help the Chaplain defend his first amendment right to free exercise of religion.
So won’t you please prayerfully offer the largest gift you can make? Be it $1,000, $500, $100, or $50, the Chaplain and Declaration Foundation need to hear from you!
It’s no exaggeration to say the fate and destiny of America really does rest on you, me and those like Chaplain Klingenschmitt who still stand up for faith and freedom.
My friend, though at times it may seem daunting, I need you to continue to stand with me, in defense of faith warriors like Chaplain Klingenschmitt.
I know where I wish to stand. I know where all the decent men and women of American history have wished to stand. You have always been most faithful.
Where do you stand, my friend, in this cause? I trust you will step forward, and stand with Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, and all the junior chaplains who wish to pray “In Jesus’ Name.” Please let us hear from you today.
Please sign our Brand –New Petition to the President, even if you’ve signed others before. https://secure.responseenterprises.com/InJesusName/petition.php
Back
Virginia Megachurch sues County for barring Theology courses
August 21 2006
J. Edward Mendez, Jason Bailey reporting - Christianity Today
A Washington-area Megachurch filed a federal lawsuit July 3 challenging a government ruling that it was improperly holding seminary-level classes on church grounds.
T
he nondenominational McLean Bible Church, which draws about 9,500 worshipers weekly to its services in Fairfax County, Virginia, partnered with Capitol Bible Seminary in 2001 to offer Bible study and religious ministry classes. The church did not issue academic credit or confer degrees. But students were allowed to take classes at the church for credit toward a master's degree in biblical studies and theology from the seminary.
Three years after the classes began, Fairfax County officials determined they went beyond those of a typical Sunday school. The county said McLean would need to apply for zoning status as a college or university, which the church wished to avoid.
Colby May, an American Center for Law and Justice Attorney handling the case, said McLean filed the lawsuit after exhausting all administrative remedies with the county. May said the church was willing to change procedural aspects of the program, but not the curriculum. He said Fairfax County had authorized McLean to hold the classes, based on a special-use permit issued by the county in 1999. According to May, the permit says "church facilities shall only be made available for use by groups or activities which are sponsored by the church and are consistent with its ministry objectives."
The church's suit claims that Fairfax County's actions violate its constitutional rights to religious free exercise, as well as freedom of speech and association. A public relations representative from Fairfax County, which has 60 days to respond to the lawsuit, declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Back
American’s Personal Faith Profile
August 14 2006 Barna group, Survey
O
ften described as “the most religious people on earth,” most Americans “feel accepted by God” (88%), see themselves as “deeply spiritual” (62%) and believe they can be accurately described as “a fulltime servant of God” (59%).
Americans describe their personal faith in various ways. While more than eight out of ten (84%) view themselves as Christian, a lesser but significant majority label themselves as a “committed Christian” (60%). Within that framework, people’s self-identity includes 45% who call themselves a “born again Christian,” 42% who claim to be an “evangelical Christian” and one out of four who adopt the label “charismatic or Pentecostal Christian” (26%).
The survey also highlighted the fact that people who are in the born again constituency (based upon their beliefs, rather than their self-identification) are less likely than atheists to be social activists (42% of atheists claimed that label, compared to just 29% of born again adults and only 20% of evangelicals). Despite their activism, though, atheists emerged as being less clear about their purpose in life and less likely to feel at peace. Not surprisingly, they were also considerably less concerned about the moral condition of the country.
Born Again Distinctives
Individuals whose beliefs (as opposed to their self-description) classify them as born again Christians differed significantly from other adults on all seven of the religious categories evaluated, but were less distinct from the population on the self-perception adjectives (just three distinctions across the 12 measures), related to their views about the world (only one perspective differed among the four tested), and attitudes (two notable differences among the five elements assessed). There were no significant differences between born again and non-born again adults in the seven lifestyle dimensions examined. Overall, then born again adults were similar in their self-descriptions to non-born again individuals in relation to 20 of the 26 dimensions examined, apart from the religious self-descriptions.
In each of its surveys, The Barna Group defines a person as being born again if they indicate they have “made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ” that is important in their life today, and who believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Based on that definition, rather than people calling themselves “born again,” the study found that adults who fit the more detailed definition of born again differed from non-born again adults on various self-perceptions.
Americans' Self-Perceptions
| Perception |
born again |
non-born again |
| Deeply Spiritual |
79% |
47% |
| A fulltime servant of God |
79% |
43% |
| Born again Christian |
77% |
20% |
| Committed Christian |
86% |
45% |
| Evangelical Christian |
68% |
22% |
| Feel accepted by God |
98% |
79% |
| An effective parent |
76% |
64% |
| Clear about the meaning and purpose of their life |
86% |
78% |
| Making a positive difference in the world |
88% |
75% |
| Concerned about the nation’s moral condition |
94% |
80% |
| Very convinced they are right about things in life |
58% |
47% |
You can view the full and extinctive report on the Pastors report page at the BMAT Moral Action website: http://texasmoralaction.org/
Back
Democracy / Security
Texas Sheriffs Say Terrorists Entering US from Mexico
August 21 2006 Kevin Mooney CNSNews.com Staff Writer
T
he chief law enforcement officers of several Texas counties along the southern U.S. border warn that Arabic-speaking individuals are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture before paying smugglers to sneak them into the United States. The Texas Sheriffs' Border Coalition believes those individuals are likely terrorists and that drug cartels and some members of the Mexican military are helping them get across the border.
Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez of Zapata County, Texas told Cybercast News Service that Iranian currency, military badges in Arabic, jackets and other clothing are among the items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande River. The sheriff also said there are a substantial number of individuals crossing the southern border into the U.S. who are not Mexican. He described the individuals in question as well-funded and able to pay so-called "coyotes" - human smugglers - large sums of money for help gaining illegal entry into the U.S.
Although many of the non-Mexican illegal aliens are fluent in Spanish, Gonzalez said they speak with an accent that is not native.
"It's clear these people are coming in for reasons other than employment," Gonzalez said.
That sentiment is shared by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.).
"For years, Muslims and other 'Special Interest Aliens' from places other than Mexico have been streaming into the U.S. across our porous border," Tancredo told Cybercast News Service. "These people are not paying $50,000 or more a head just to 'take jobs no American will do.'
"Terrorists are working round the clock to infiltrate the United States," he added. "Congress and this administration must address this gaping hole in our national security and they must do it now."
S
ome of the more high profile pieces of evidence pointing to terrorist infiltration of the U.S. have been uncovered in Jim Hogg County, Texas, which experiences a high volume of smuggling activity, according to local law enforcement.
"We see patches on jackets from countries where we know al Qaeda to be active," Gonzalez explained.
The patches appear to be military badges with Arabic lettering. One patch in particular, discovered this past December, caught the attention of federal homeland security officials, according to Gonzalez and local officials familiar with the investigation.
S
heriff Wayne Jernigan of Valverde County, Texas, told members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in March about one patch that read "midnight mission" and displayed an airplane flying over a building heading towards a tower. Translators with DHS have said some of the various phrases and slogans on the items could mean "martyr," "way to eternal life," or "way to immortality."
Gonzalez told the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation in July that the terrorists are getting smarter.
"To avoid apprehension, we feel many of these terrorists attempt to blend in with persons of Hispanic origin when entering the country." Gonzalez stated. "We feel that terrorists are already here and continue to enter our country on a daily basis."
Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth County, Texas, told Cybercast News Service that he believes some Mexican soldiers are operating in concert with the drug cartels to aid the terrorists.
"There's no doubt in my mind," he said, "although the Mexican government and our government adamantly deny it."
Statistics made available through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) show more than 40,000 illegal aliens from countries "Other Than Mexico," designated as OTMs, were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in the period ranging from October 2003 to June 2004, as they attempted to cross the southwestern border. An overview of border security challenges produced through the office of Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicates that almost 120,000 OTMs were apprehended while attempting to cross into the state from January through July 2005.
Local authorities are particularly concerned about illegal aliens arriving from Special Interest Countries (SICs) where a radical version of Islam is known to flourish. Perry's office cites Iraq, Iran, Indonesia and Bangladesh among those countries. A Tancredo spokesperson said the list also includes Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.
As Cybercast News Service previously reported an internal audit of DHS that combines the number of illegal aliens arriving from SICs with the documented instances of illegal aliens arriving from countries identified as being state sponsors of terrorism (SSTs) yields a grand total of over 90,000 such illegal aliens who have been apprehended during the five year period from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2005.
The border security report delivered by Perry's office focuses attention on the "Triborder region" of Latin America, which spans an area between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.
"The Triborder Region is a focal point of Islamic extremism," the report states. "Al Qaeda leadership plans to use criminal alien smuggling organizations to bring terrorist operatives across the border into the U.S."
Carlos Espinosa, a press spokesman for Tancredo, said his office is aware of a training camp in Brazil that actually teaches people from outside of Latin America how they can assimilate into the Mexican culture.
"They come up as illegal aliens and disguise themselves as potential migrant workers," Espinosa said.
Back
Buchanan warns: flood of illegals will overwhelm the United States
August 22 2006 Eric Pfeiffer the Washington Times
P
at Buchanan says illegal immigration from poor and developing countries will overwhelm the United States and other Western countries in the next 50 years unless something is done.
"We've already won the battle with the public," Mr. Buchanan tells The Washington Times. "The question is, when will the government respond?"
In his new book "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America," the former presidential candidate and White House speechwriter examines immigration-related social problems and documents high levels of support among Hispanics for the so-called "Reconquista" of the U.S. Southwest. Several authors have addressed the immigration issue in recent years, but Mr. Buchanan's book -- ranked No. 2 at Amazon.com yesterday -- proposes measures to address the "emergency" that are more far-reaching than any legislation advocated by conservatives in Congress.
His plan includes deporting illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds, a 10-year limit on legal immigration set between 150,000 and 200,000 persons per year, and a $10 billion, 2,000-mile security fence along the border of the United States and Mexico. With an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, which now has about 34 million foreign-born residents polls indicate most Americans share Mr. Buchanan's concerns. A 2003 survey found that 58 percent would prefer total annual immigration be reduced to below 300,000, a two-thirds reduction from current levels of 1 million per year. Yet critics say a "get tough" approach is impractical. "Even if Mr. Buchanan's proposals were put into place, we'd still have rising levels of immigration," says Daniel T. Griswold, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Frustration with the issue is rising. Congress has utterly
failed to deal with the issue. But that doesn't necessarily point to Pat Buchanan's prescription."
Since 2000, more than 400,000 illegal aliens a year have entered the United States, the Department of Homeland Security recently estimated. Most of the illegals came from Mexico, DHS reported.
In his book, Mr. Buchanan says high levels of immigration threaten the future of American culture. "As Rome passed away, so the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way," Mr. Buchanan writes. "What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are: to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended." Mr. Buchanan has long been seen as a polarizing figure in American politics -- he was castigated by some in the Republican Party for his 1992 Republican National Convention address, in which he spoke of a "cultural war ... for the soul of America." Many of Mr. Buchanan's critics view his immigration rhetoric as counterproductive.
"I don't know what kind of America he envisions, but I think that immigrants are strengthening America," said Mr. Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies. But Mr. Buchanan says the immigration debate has shifted toward his position. "In 1992, I was down in California calling for only 70 miles of border fencing," Mr. Buchanan said. "And I was called a lot of bad things. If I'm insensitive, then so are the 70 percent of Americans who agree with me on this issue."
Politically, neither Republicans nor Democrats have been able to gain an upper hand on the immigration issue, with a recent Newsweek poll showing 39 percent of Americans trust Democrats more to handle immigration, while 37 percent chose Republicans. Mr. Buchanan has harsh words for Republicans in Congress. He denounces as "de facto amnesty" the Senate-passed bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. However, Mr. Buchanan adds that when he started writing his book, "I didn't know the House would push for such a strong bill," speaking of the enforcement-only measure passed by the House in December.
"Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America," Mr. Buchanan says when asked why elected officials do not support more stringent restrictions on immigration. "Until they get it right, they should be defeated at the ballot box."
In his book, however, Mr. Buchanan saves his strongest criticism for President Bush, writing: "Concerned about his legacy, George W. Bush may yet live to see his name entered into the history of his country as the president who lost the American Southwest that James K. Polk won for the United States."
Back
Globalism's toll mounting for U.S. citizens
August 21 2006 Phyllis Schlafly
I
t's not just U.S. ports that are fast slipping into foreign ownership; it's highways, too. A Spanish company, Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., has bought the right to operate a toll road through Texas and collect tolls for the next 50 years.
Hearings held by the Texas Department of Transportation this summer attracted hundreds of angry Texans.
Called the Trans-Texas Corridor, TTC, on which construction is planned to begin next year, this highway would bisect Texas from Oklahoma to its border with Mexico. Plans call for a 10-lane limited-access highway to parallel Interstate 35. It would have three lanes each way for passenger cars, two express lanes each way for trucks, rail lines both ways for people and freight, plus a utility corridor for oil and natural gas pipelines, electric towers, cables for communication, and telephone lines.
Central to this plan is a massive taking of 584,000 acres of farm and ranch land at an estimated cost of $11 billion to $30 billion - property then lost from the tax rolls of counties and school districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., no one need wonder about the power of eminent domain to take private property.
The Trans-Texas Corridor will be the first leg of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Super Highway to go through heartland America all the way to Canada. This would be a major lifeline of the plan to merge the United States into a North American Community.
Plans are already locked in for Kansas City Southern de Mexico Railroad to bring Chinese goods in sealed cargo containers from the southern Mexican port of Lazaro Cardinas direct to Kansas City, Mo. Mexican trucks will be able to drive more sealed containers up the fast lanes of the NAFTA Super Highway, inspected only electronically if at all, and making their first customs stop in Kansas City.
In response to recent articles in conservative publications about the sovereignty, freedom and economic dangers that will result from President George W. Bush's creating the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, the partnership has issued an unconvincing rebuttal.
This Security and Prosperity Partnership document starts by declaring, "Our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions." That's false; Mexico is a corrupt country where a few families control all the wealth while the rest of the people are kept in abject poverty with no hope of economic opportunity.
The rebuttal states that partnership's mission is to make "our businesses more competitive in the global marketplace." That's globalist doubletalk that means producing U.S. goods with cheap foreign labor, thereby destroying the U.S. middle class.
The rebuttal states that the project wasn't "signed" by Bush at Waco. But when Bush went to Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006, he proclaimed the first anniversary of whatever he had agreed to in Waco in 2005, and he sent Michael Chertoff to Ottawa to take "an important first step" toward whatever Bush did or didn't sign in Waco.
The rebuttal denies that the partnership's working groups are secret, but the Security and Prosperity Partnership won't release the names of who is serving on them. The rebuttal denies that the partnership will "cost U.S. taxpayer money" because it is using "existing budget resources" (no doubt coming from the fairy godmother).
Thanks to the Internet, we can often find out more about the doings of the Bush administration from the foreign press than from U.S. media. A Spanish-language article written from a Mexican perspective one year ago fully described the plan for the "deep integration" of the three North American countries.
Economist and researcher Miguel Pickard explained that although the plan is sometimes called NAFTA Plus, there will be no single treaty text and nothing will be submitted to the legislatures of the three countries. The elites plan to implement their shared vision of "a merged future" through "the signing of 'regulations' free of citizen review." Pickard revealed a series of three meetings of a new entity called the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America. After secretly conniving in Toronto, New York and Monterrey, Mexico, the task force called for a unified North American Border Action Plan (i.e., open borders among the three countries), and the three countries then signed "close to 300 regulations."
The United States was represented at the meeting by Robert Pastor, who has been working for years to promote North American integration. Pickard revealed that Pastor is in "constant dialogue" with Jorge G. Castaneda, Vicente Fox's foreign relations adviser. Pickard is convinced that George W. Bush is "vigorously pushing" the idea of a "North American community." Pickard concluded that the schedule calls for beginning with a customs union, then a common market, then a monetary and economic union, and finally the adoption of a single currency (already baptized as the "amero" by Pastor).
Back
Property Groups Cry Foul Over 'Heritage Areas'
August 23 2006 Nathan Burchfiel CNSNews.com Staff Writer
As Virginia Republican senator and likely 2008 presidential candidate George Allen throws his support behind a proposed "National Heritage Area," property-rights advocates worry that he's advocating federal control over the land.
W
hen a region of the country is designated as a National Heritage Area, Congress appoints a management entity made up of preservationist groups to work with the National Park Service to develop a management plan for the region. The stated goal is to create "large-scale, community-centered initiatives collaborating across political jurisdictions to protect nationally-important landscapes and living cultures."
In June, Allen announced his support for making a 175-mile stretch from Charlottesville, Va., to Gettysburg, Pa., a federally recognized "heritage area." If Congress passes the proposal, the region would become the 28th National Heritage Area.
Property rights groups worry that National Heritage Area designations could allow the federal government or preservationist groups - which can include staunch environmental activists - to usurp property rights and retard development.
"They're given very broad discretion in terms of what areas they want to target for preservation or acquisition," said Peyton Knight, the director of environmental and regulatory affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "It basically translates into whatever these activists and the federal government deem appropriate, they can do."
Knight told Cybercast News Service that such a designation could "spell restricted land use and lost property rights for residents within the boundaries."
Brenda Barrett, national coordinator of National Heritage Areas for the Park Service, disputed Knight's claim. The federal government has no control over land use policies, she said, and management entities do not have the power to set land use regulations.
"The goal is to bring together partners at the state, local level and the national level to tell the same stories and to pool assets, not necessarily cash assets," Barrett said.
Barrett said the appointed management entity would "create a management plan, which is a little misleading, because it's not really a management plan, but it's a plan of partnership - who is going to work together, what are the stories we're going to tell, what are some of the actions we're going to take."
But Knight said the partnership between the federal government and preservationist groups creates the opportunity for "strong-arm" tactics that could coerce local governments to do the bidding of environmental groups.
"They don't have the power to change land use by themselves, but what they are given is millions of dollars in federal funding and the backing of the National Park Service to foist these changes through local legislatures, zoning boards, what have you," Knight said.
According to Knight, the federal involvement allows the management entity to say, "'we have the backing of the federal government on this. We have a massive amount of federal funding appropriated to us telling us to do this and now you need to do it.'"
He said the groups "strong-arm them and they are permitted to pass federal funds to local authorities in an effort to get them to do this, to get them to carry out their plan."
Barrett emphasized that Heritage Area legislation is "extremely clear that there are no land use or other requirements" imposed on the local governments in those areas and that none of the residents in existing areas have complained of curtailment of their property rights.
The current 27 National Heritage Areas include 40 million Americans' homes, and an additional 22 proposed Heritage Areas are being considered by Congress. Those facts, Barrett argued, show that Americans support the designation and aren't concerned that it puts property rights at risk.
Make media inquiries or request an interview with Nathan Burchfiel.
Back
Family / Social
Kids Used to Advance Gay Goals
August 23 2006 staff reports Citizen Link
More and more, children are being thrust to the forefront in the battle for special rights for homosexuals.
F
amily advocates are outraged over reports that public school teachers from San Diego Cooperative Charter School took children with them to march in this summer's Gay Pride Parade.
It's unclear if the elementary-age kids were students at the school or the teachers' own children. But Catholic journalist Allyson Smith photographed about eight kids marching with teachers under the public school's banner, and said she was appalled at what the kids were exposed to.
"They were … exposed to floats that advertised hard-core, homosexual pornography," she told Family News in Focus.
But that's not the only way in which children are being used to hasten the normalization of homosexuality. Perhaps the most widespread pro-gay event in public schools is the "Day of Silence," sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which claims the involvement of 500,000 students nationwide. The idea is for students to say nothing during the school day, in recognition of the institutionalized "oppression" against gay students.
Ed Vitagliano, a spokesman for the American Family Association, said what advocates of special rights for homosexuals are doing is savvy.
"Homosexual activists," he said, "have seen the emotional potential when they're trying to win the argument with the culture and those who might not agree with their agenda — the emotional capital you gain when you have children participating in gay-pride marches or gay-pride events."
Homosexual activists, he added, see children as their future.
"Most kids in America are a captive audience in public schools," Vitagliano said, "so the public schools become the perfect vehicle for capturing the hearts and minds of the next generation."
That's why it's important, he explained, for parents to find out if their children's school is being targeted by homosexual activists trying to promote the gay agenda through the next generation.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
America is not only widely tolerating homosexuality in our schools, in the media and in the corporate world, but is more openly punishing those who disagree. With well-documented and disturbing proof in their book The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, Alan Sears and Craig Osten expose the great strides homosexuals are making as a result of their concerted strategic activities.
Back
California State Assembly Passes SB 1437 to Indoctrinate School Children
August 21 2006 Christian Newswire
Jill and Jill Ran up the Hill, SB 1437 passes California State Assembly, outraging parents and grandparents who demand that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto raft of sexual indoctrination bills.
S
acramento, California - the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly today passed SB 1437, one of four bills that would sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren and college students. SB 1437 would alter K-12 public education textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities to positively reference transsexuality, transvestitism, bisexuality, and homosexuality, including homosexual "marriage." The Assembly floor vote was 46-31 (five more than needed to achieve a 41-vote majority). SB 1437 now goes to the state Senate for a concurrence vote.
Immediately before the debate, a Republican-offered amendment requiring schools to acquire parental permission before sexual curriculum was taught to their own children failed on a 26-48 vote. During the 36-minute debate on SB 1437, seven Republican spoke against the bill (Haynes, DeVore, La Suer, Huff, La Malfa, Spitzer, and Mountjoy), while six Democrats spoke in favor it (Nunez, Goldberg, Frommer, Saldana, Ruskin, and Levine).
In his opening remarks, Democrat Fabian Nunez, the Assembly Speaker and the bill's floor jockey, openly said the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system. "The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view," Nunez said.
And, in his close, Nunez admitted that SB 1437 will promote lesbianism to young girls. "If somebody wants to teach kids in kindergarten that Jack and Jill ran up a hill, this bill doesn't prohibit that. But it does say that if somebody wants to say that if Jill and Jill ran up the hill and somehow that's wrong -- then this bill says that that is not acceptable," said Nunez.
"We call upon Governor Schwarzenegger to keep his promise to veto SB 1437, which micromanages public schools by forcing them to promote a gaggle of sexual lifestyles that disturb parents and confuse kids," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a leading statewide pro- family organization which has been fighting against SB 1437 all year.
"If Schwarzenegger abandons children by signing any of these school indoctrination bills, pro-family voters will abandon him," predicted Thomasson.
Back
Massachusetts Fights to Indoctrinate Kids on Homosexuality
August 22 2006 Citizen Link
N
ow that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, schools are teaching homosexuality as part of their curriculum -- and parents can't do anything about it, Family News in Focus reported.
Massachusetts parents went to court to exempt their children from the pro-gay instruction, and the state, in turn, called for the case to be dismissed, citing a court ruling in Oregon that denied Indians the use of peyote, a hallucinogenic, in their religious ceremonies.
Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, decried the state's position.
"What they're trying to do," he said, "is use that case as a way to say, 'Look, you don't have free exercise anymore. If we do something and we're not aiming at your religion, then your religion is not violated and you don't have any claims that you can make."
In any case, it's an insult and not a very good comparison, according to Dr. Warren Throckmorton with Grove City College.
"Smoking peyote is illegal. There is a statute making the possession and the use of it illegal," he said. "It's not illegal to believe that marriage should be between a man and woman."
The next step in the case is a formal rebuttal of the motion to dismiss and then a federal judge will rule. A decision is expected after Labor Day.
Back
Back to School: Why You Should Be 'Considering Homeschooling'
August 23 2006 Christian Newswire
National group urges Christian parents to take a leap of faith this September.
M
EDIA ADVISORY, considering Homeschooling ( www.consideringhomeschooling.com) a national homeschool outreach that recruits Christian parents to homeschool, asks Christian parents to consider the benefits of home education as the back to school frenzy begins.
"Homeschoolers overall do better academically, socially, and most important, spiritually," said Charles B. Lowers, Executive Director of Considering Homeschooling. "This September, why not take that leap of faith and teach your children yourself at home?"
"There is an abundance of wonderful curriculum available and there are many homeschool support groups to assist you," says Lowers, "Most of all, trust the Lord to show you how to bring up your child in Him."
Lowers notes that the majority of Christian parents still send their children to public school, not realizing the catastrophic spiritual and social damage most children suffer there. And, many parents have never seriously explored homeschooling. "If you have children and can create a safe, loving, educational, Christ-centered environment, then bring those kids home," said Lowers.
Amy Paap, a Considering Homeschooling Librarian, comments, "Home education gives parents the opportunity to choose the very best books for their children. Living books make learning fun, bringing school subjects to life. Reading great books with your children builds: auditory and verbal skills, strengthens family relationships and often teaches character through delightful and memorable stories!"
Sorojini Zabawsky, Board Member and Field Trip Director for Considering Homeschooling said, "As we raise our next generation, it's a wonderful experience to be able to expose our children to educational, real- life field trips. With homeschooling, even very young children can learn about various professions and God's fascinating world, all while bonding with their parents and building childhood relationships. Our children go on weekly tours of interesting places such as the airport, dentist, farm, courthouse, radio station, just to name a few."
Considering Homeschooling urges individuals, pastors, and homeschool groups to reach out to others about the benefits of private biblical homeschooling. Please visit our website (www.consideringhomeschooling.com) for a free outreach guide which will help you get active in homeschool evangelism.
Our representatives are articulate advocates of stay- home motherhood and homeschooling and have experience with radio and print interviews. Please contact us today.
Contact: Charles B. Lowers, Considering Homeschooling, 949-916-6816
Back
Government / Legislation
ALERT Senate 'Amnesty' Proposal Will Cost $126 Billion – Help Stop It Now
August 22 2006 RightMarch.com:
N
ews reports are noting that the Congressional Budget Office is forecasting the hiring of 31,000 more federal employees over five years, and the construction of fences and barriers with a price tag of $3.3 billion, under the Senate's immigration proposal. And, the report suggests, another $50 billion would be needed to cover the demands on Medicaid, Social Security, earned income and child tax credits. Overall, it forecasts that government spending will rise by as much as $126 BILLION over the next decade. That's BILLION with a "B", and it's all YOUR hard-earned taxpayer money being spent on illegal immigrants -- if the U.S. Senate bill becomes law. WE MUST STOP THEM!
The Heritage Foundation estimates one Senate plan could bring in at least 60 million additional foreigners to the United States over 20 years. Those people, mostly, will be high school dropouts working low-paying jobs that pay little or no income tax and they will be 50 percent more likely to get government benefits than non-immigrants, the declaration notes.
As you probably know, the Senate has betrayed millions of Americans, and passed S. 2611, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act" -- the bill that would grant "guest worker" AMNESTY to millions of illegal aliens. That's why we need to take DIRECT action, TODAY.
Our members have sent over ONE MILLION faxes, emails and hand-delivered letters to Capitol Hill on this issue -- and if we keep up the incredible grassroots pressure, we have a chance to STOP this amnesty legislation dead in its tracks! They're scheduled to form a "conference committee" when Congress comes back into session, containing members from both the U.S. House and the Senate, so they can arrive at a "compromise" between the Senate's amnesty bill and the House's "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act" (H.R. 4437), which passed WITHOUT any "guest worker" amnesty provisions attached.
Now the REAL pressure is on from the pro-illegal alien, pro-amnesty forces -- they want a "compromise" bill that includes what they call "comprehensive immigration reform"... To give AMNESTY to millions of illegal aliens! No, they won't call it "amnesty", just like Ted Kennedy and John McCain won't call it that. They like to use the term "guest worker program". But what does that "program" mean? It means giving illegal aliens a way to avoid any real penalty for breaking our immigration laws. That, my friend, is AMNESTY. And the Senate passed a bill SUPPORTING that kind of amnesty for illegals -- and now they want to force the House to sign onto it! THIS IS INSANE! Republicans on Capitol Hill should NOT put Ted Kennedy and Vicente Fox in charge of immigration reform! The grassroots of America -- that's YOU and ME -- MUST stop this NOW!
TAKE ACTION: The Congressional conference committee DOES need to pass "immigration reform" -- but it needs to be a bill to SECURE THE BORDER, without any amnesty provisions. But they WON'T pass a bill like that unless we FORCE them to -- they need to "feel the heat" to "see the light," and this week -- while the focus is finally on the issue of illegal immigration -- is the PERFECT time to hit them hard! We need to get a strong message to Capitol Hill QUICKLY -- one that they CAN'T IGNORE. You can send a personalized Email directly to the office of EVERY SINGLE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE in the U.S. Congress, demanding that they reject ANY "immigration bill" that includes ANY "guest worker" amnesty provisions!.
THEY THINK YOU DON'T CARE. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who called measures like Kennedy's bill a "pro illegal immigration bill," said it's possible such a bill COULD pass because "Congress has insulated itself from the views of the American people on this issue for the last 10 years."
It is CRITICAL that you ACT TODAY! If we can FLOOD the offices of these Congressmen and Senators with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Emails, demanding that they REJECT any "guest worker" amnesty bill, we CAN stop this dangerous bill dead in its tracks, and we can FORCE the House to stand strong against Senate compromisers. We need YOUR help. Send your Emails to U.S. Representative and Senators, NOW:
Back
President Bush Approves Over the Counter Early Abortion Pill, Pro-Life Base Decries Move
August 21 2006 LifeSiteNews.com John-Henry Westen
W
ASHINGTON, for his pro-life supporter base, President George W. Bush stepped into one of the biggest political landmines of his Presidential career today with his approval of over the counter status for the abortion-causing morning after pill Plan B.
A press release by Human Life International underscored the seriousness of the move as it was titled, "President Bush Files for Divorce with Catholic Base." Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International commented, "President Bush's implied support for the abortion-causing drug Plan B is completely inconsistent with his recent veto of the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) funding bill. What the president apparently fails to realize is that Plan B kills the same innocent unborn children that the ESCR process does."
At a White House press conference this morning, the President was asked by Bill Sammon a reporter from the Washington Examiner about Plan B and his new FDA commissioner who supports its over the counter status. "Mr. President, some pro-life groups are worried that your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve over the counter sales of Plan B, a pill that, they say, essentially can cause early-term abortions," said the reporter. "Do you stand by this choice, and how do you feel about Plan B in general?"
The President replied, "I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors, is what I believe. And I support Andy's decision."
Andy, as the President referred to him, is the new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach. Pro-life groups last week called for von Eschenbach's resignation over his deal with a drug company to make a high-dose of a drug (Plan B, a morning-after pill) available without a prescription to women 18 year of age and older.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) blasted the decision noting that it is ludicrous to allow Plan B without medical supervision when a low-dose of the same drug (birth control pills) requires medical oversight to protect women from serious health complications.
"It is deplorable that the head of the FDA would put his career ambitions and a drug company's interests above women's health," said Wendy Wright, CWA's President. "CWA provided legal and regulatory evidence that the FDA does not have the authority to do what it is proposing and medical evidence that any dose of the drug requires medical oversight to protect women's health. The drug is known to cause serious complications such as blood clots and stroke."
Rev. Euteneuer added, "The president must demonstrate a consistent respect for the sanctity of all human life or he risks provoking a great divorce with the conservative Catholics that compromise a large part of his support base. Human beings in the embryonic stage of development deserve equal protection under the law and the president's position falls far short of that mark."
To express concerns:
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Back
FDA Approves Nonprescription Sales of Plan B
August 24 2006 Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor
T
he Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after pill" on Thursday, but only for girls over the age of 18.
The hormone pill, until now available only with a prescription, prevents implantation of a fertilized egg if it is taken within a few days of unprotected intercourse.
Easier access to the drug known as Plan B has drawn strong opposition from conservative groups, who say it will end up in the hands of young girls, regardless of what the rules say.
Focus on the Family is among the many groups that have argued against over-the-counter sales of Plan B, which it describes as "an invitation for adult men to pressure underage girls to have sex with the promise of an easily accessible magic pill to prevent or abort a pregnancy."
Pro-life groups believe that life begins at conception -- and that interfering with the growth of a fertilized egg is an early form of abortion.
President Bush infuriated pro-life activists when he appeared to waffle on the issue earlier this week. (See story)
In an announcement on its website Thursday morning, the FDA compared Plan B with birth control pills:
"Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug," the FDA said. Plan B contains the same ingredient as birth control pills do, but Plan B has a higher dose and a different dosing regimen.
"When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under," the FDA said.
The FDA said Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a "rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program."
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America hailed the FDA's decision to make "emergency contraception" (EC) available to girls 18 and over -- but it expressed dismay at the "scientifically baseless restrictions" that deny younger girls access to "backup birth control."
"Today's announcement is an important victory and long overdue. Women need timely access to backup birth control -- last year alone, Planned Parenthood provided more than one million women with emergency contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy," said PPFA President Cecile Richards.
Richards said the United States has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the western world -- so "anything that makes it harder for teenagers to avoid unintended pregnancy is bad medicine and bad public policy."
PPFA said its research shows that over-the-counter access to Plan B will not increase or encourage teen sexual activity; and it says studies show that women do not use Plan B as a regular method of birth control.
"Experts estimate that wide access to EC could prevent up to 1.5 million unintended pregnancies, and 800,000 abortions, a year," the PPFA website says.
The FDA said its decision to expand access to Plan B followed "an extensive process," including "expert advice" from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and a public comment period.
The FDA also noted that the request to make Plan B over-the-counter for some women and prescription-only for others "raised novel issues."
Indeed, the Family Research Council has questioned whether the FDA has the legal authority to approve "dual status" marketing of the same dosage of a drug. The FRC also argued that the FDA lacks the authority to enforce an age restriction.
Focus on the Family believe the age restriction is worthless: "At best, it is unrealistic for the president and the FDA to believe teens won't have access to these pills and won't be at risk of exploitation; at worst, it is irresponsible for them to assume an age limit for the over-the-counter access is a safe and parent-respecting compromise."
President Bush on Tuesday surprised pro-life groups when he said, "I believe that Plan B...ought to require a prescription for minors, is what I believe." He also expressed support for the FDA's Acting Commissioner Andrew Von Eschenbach, who supports over-the-counter sales of pill.
The American Life League said it was "overwhelmingly disappointed" at the FDA's decision and it said President Bush probably helped speed the approval with his recent remarks.
"Unfortunately, the responsibility for the deaths of an untold number of preborn children rests on the shoulders of our federal government," ALL said.
Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) earlier placed a hold on Von Eschenbach's nomination as FDA
Back
When a State Spending Limit Is No Limit
August 22 2006 Byron Schlomach
R
ecently, Texas taxpayers were given the cold shoulder by a visiting state district judge in Austin. A lawsuit by Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (CLOUT) against the State of Texas for not properly implementing the Texas Constitution’s expenditure limit was summarily dismissed because, says the judge, taxpayers lack legal standing.
In short, the ruling means the “Texas Tax Relief Act” (as the amendment was known) effectively does not exist. If taxpayers do not have standing to enforce the constitutional spending limit, it is little more than window dressing.
Unless the Supreme Court of Texas says differently on appeal, state officialdom could almost ignore the constitution with impunity.
Unfortunately, this has happened before. State law passed to implement the constitution’s expenditure growth limit instructs the Legislative Budget Board to adopt a maximum growth rate based on personal income growth. In the 1980s this was not done. At the time, a request to the Texas Supreme Court for an order requiring the legislature to do its duty was simply refused without comment. Only political embarrassment forced the legislature to begin taking the constitution’s expenditure limit seriously.
Texas is among 30 states with expenditure limits. Texans approved our amendment in 1978, shortly after Ronald Reagan first proposed a similar measure when he was governor of California. The idea is to limit how much the legislature can increase spending – even if it were to increase taxes. Otherwise, government tends to grow out of control when the legislature meets as spending advocates descend on Austin while taxpayers are busy making a living.
Unfortunately, Texas’ taxpayer protection is one of the weakest in the nation. The constitution says that spending should not rise faster than the economy grows. That sounds reasonable – until you read the fine print. The limit only applies to tax revenues not dedicated in the constitution. Any spending from fee-based revenues is not included. Spending from the constitutionally dedicated gasoline tax is not included, either.
Another problem is that the expenditure limit only applies to how much the legislature appropriates for the next two years. Therefore, the allowable growth rate is based on only a guess of how much personal income will grow in the future. Who is to say if the adopted rate is correct? No official check for whether these guesses come close to reality ever occurs, and spending is never adjusted to correct for errors.
In short, expenditures can grow considerably faster than growth in the economy, especially if an unexpected economic slump comes along.
Far more predictable is how much population might grow in the near future and how high inflation is likely to be. Government should grow no faster than population growth and inflation would dictate, since they take into account increased demand for government services as well as increased costs. With the current expenditure non-limit, government can grow as fast or faster than the economy, even though increased prosperity should require less government.
But don't think the limit has been completely without effect. It actually kept Texans this year from getting more property tax relief. Although the state is flush with surplus cash, it could not be used to reduce school property taxes because the state was near the expenditure cap. The bare majority needed in the legislature to declare an emergency to exceed the cap would not vote to do so – not for the sake of taxpayers! Of course, observers expect lawmakers will quietly bust the limit when they meet in January – for “supplemental” spending.
Only time will tell if the Texas Supreme Court will side with taxpayers or big spenders in deciding whether taxpayers can enforce the protections for which they voted.
Whichever side the court takes, Texans need a new “Texas Tax Relief Act,” one that does not require legislative action to implement it, one that applies to local as well as state government, one based on population growth and inflation, and one that requires taxpayer permission before the limit can be violated.
Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit research institute based in Austin.
Back
Why Texas Needs a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights
August 15 2006 Dr. Barry Poulson, Adjunct Scholar, Americans for Prosperity
The Texas state government is now being sued by a taxpayer’s group for exceeding the constitutional limit on the growth in state spending. It is about time. The legislature has exceeded the limit with impunity for decades, but is now being called to task. A judge has dismissed the lawsuit, but that decision is being appealed.
Texas citizens might well ask how the state could exceed a constitutional limit on the growth in spending. The explanation is that the existing limit is poorly designed, and the legislature has exploited a number of loopholes to boost spending in excess of the limit.
Loophole One
The existing limit constrains the growth in appropriations to the growth in the state economy, defined as the growth in personal income. The Legislative Budget Board (LBB) uses projected estimated personal income growth rather than actual historical income growth to determine the limit. There is much ambiguity in this measure of economic growth. When actual growth in personal income falls below the projected growth, the legislature is free to spend at the higher projected growth rate.
Loophole Two
The implementing language for the 1978 Amendment allows the LBB to transition
to a measurement other than personal income growth if it would be more accurate.
Loophole Three
A biennial budget allows for shifting appropriations from one year to the next.
This opens up another loophole that the legislature has used to increase spending in excess of the growth in personal income.
Loophole Four
The Legislature can declare an emergency and exceed the limit by a simple
majority vote. While the legislature has not often exploited this loophole it is an easy hurdle to overcome.
If Texas citizens want to impose a more effective limit on the growth in state spending they have two alternatives. They can modify the existing limit or replace the existing constitutional amendment with a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
Modify the Existing Limit
The legislature could modify the existing tax and spending limit through new implementing language that would not require a change in the Constitution. First, the state should use actual historical growth in personal income rather than projected estimated growth. This would remove the LBB from any role in setting the limit. Secondly, the state should be prohibited from exceeding the limit by shifting expenditure from one year to the next in the biennium budget. Thirdly, the legislature should require a supermajority vote to declare an emergency and exceed the limit.
Replace the Existing Limit with a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights
An alternative approach is to replace the existing limit with a more stringent limit on the growth in state spending, such as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights Amendment in Colorado.
This would limit the growth in state revenue and spending to the sum of inflation and population growth. A similar limit would be imposed on the growth in local revenue and spending. Some surplus revenue above that limit would be allocated to the budget stabilization fund and emergency fund. Additional surplus revenue would be rebated to taxpayers. The budget stabilization fund would be used to offset revenue shortfalls in periods of recession. Emergency expenditures above that limit would require a supermajority vote of the legislature, and ultimately a vote of the people. Voter approval would be required for any increase in taxes or debt.
Based on the experience in other states I conclude that the existing spending limit in Texas TEL is never likely to be an effective constraint on the growth of state spending, even if some of the loopholes in that limit are closed. If Texas citizens want an effective constraint on the growth of government they should replace the existing limit with a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. This type of limit would both stabilize the budget over the business cycle and constrain the growth of government in the long run.
Because a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights would be more stringent than the existing
limit, my expectation is that this would require a referendum and change in the
Constitution rather than just a statutory change. After decades of unconstrained growth in state and local spending, Texas citizens are ready for an effective limit on the growth in government.
Back
Pacific Justice Institute Files Motion to Intervene to Defend Mt. Soledad Cross Land Acquisition
August 22 2006 Pacific Justice Institute
S
an Diego, CA—PJI has filed a motion to intervene in a suit brought by Steve Trunk and Philip Paulson which seeks to prevent the transfer of the war memorial cross displayed on Mt. Soledad in San Diego to the federal government. In papers filed with the court, Trunk and Paulson seek damages for “emotional grief” claiming that the war memorial cross causes them to suffer irreparable injury in that they “cannot comfortably enjoy the park or memorial because they are not Christians.” Trunk and Paulson assert that the war memorial cross only honors veterans who are Christian and thus violates the Establishment Clause. Litigation over the cross has been ongoing for seventeen years in numerous courts. In one of those cases, last July Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stayed a lower
court’s order to remove the cross pending appeal.
In August, Congress passed a bill which was signed into law last week by President Bush, in which the federal government acquired the land from San Diego. In this most recent suit, Plaintiffs are challenging the acquisition of the land. A release by the White House stated, “The Administration supports the important goal of preserving the integrity of war memorials.”
However, in an effort to prevent the federal acquisition of the property before the President signed the bill into law, the Plaintiffs attempted to obtain a temporary restraining order to prohibit the transfer of the property without giving notice to attorneys for the City of San Diego or the United States. The court denied the unnoticed request and, after briefing on the matter, denied the request for the temporary restraining order.
PJI is represented by its affiliate, Peter Lepiscopo who stated, “There is a reason the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President intervened in this case to protect the Mt. Soledad War Memorial: this Nation honors those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to insure such public expressions of faith can continue in this country. However, the other side spends all of their energies and time trying to destroy religious icons like the 10 Commandments and the Cross, which our military men and women give their lives to protect. To honor their memory, we will successfully defend and win this case and finally bring this 17 year fight to an end.” Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute said, “This without question is a very important case and we are confident that our affiliate attorney, Pete Lepiscopo, will do an outstanding job.”
