By Hilary White
December 16, 2009
The city of Shanghai's efforts to reverse more than 30 years of anti-child government propaganda, and boost the city's flagging birth rate are not being well received by the public, a report in the Washington Post says.
The Chinese government is allowing couples to have second children and are considering more easing of the country's one-child policy. But the results of the new permissions, some officials say, have been disappointing.
In Shanghai, posters and leaflets telling people how to apply for permits to have more children have replaced anti-child propaganda, but, officials complain, the number of births in the city in 2010 is not expected to rise significantly.
Despite these efforts, in Huinan township, with a population of 115,000, officials only receive four to five applications for children a month and in Shanghai the number of births in the city in 2010 is still expected to be only about 165,000, lower than 2008.
The Post quoted Shanghai residents Wang Weijia and her husband who said that they had no intention of having another child. "We have already given all our time and energy for just one child. We have none left for a second," said Wang.
According to UN reports, since the implementation of the policy in 1979, the birth rate in China has plummeted from an average of six children per woman to the current rate of 1.8. The number of people over 60 is expected to grow from 16.7 per cent of the population in 2020 to 31.1 per cent by 2050. Last year, people 60 and older accounted for almost 22 per cent of Shanghai's registered residents.
The Post quotes Xie Lingli, director of the Shanghai Municipal Population and Family Planning Commission, who said that fertile couples need to have babies to "help reduce the proportion of the aging population and alleviate a workforce shortage in the future."
Shanghai will become "as old, though not as rich, as developed countries such as Japan and Sweden," she said.
At the same time, Chinese delegates to the UN conference on climate change currently underway in Copenhagen, have defended their country's policy saying it has helped them to reduce carbon emissions. The Copenhagen conference opened at the same time as the UN Population Fund released a report calling for the reduction of the human population in the interest of the environment.
The Colonial Flag
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
America Under Barack Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Interview with Nat Hentoff
By John W. Whitehead
December 11, 2009
"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most
dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff
(Embedded image moved to file: pic19066.jpg)Nat Hentoff
Nat Hentoff has had a life well spent, one chock full of controversy
fueled by his passion for the protection of civil liberties and human
rights. Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist,
anti-death penalty advocate, pro-lifer and not uncommon critic of the
ideological left.
At 84, Nat Hentoff is an American classic who has never shied away from an
issue. For example, he defended a woman rejected from law school because
she was Caucasian; called into a talk show hosted by Oliver North to agree
with him on liberal intolerance for free speech; was a friend to the late
Malcolm X; and wrote the liner notes for Bob Dylan's second album.
A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a
“Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has
angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has
stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the
trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to
abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation
of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles
(He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any
president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our
liberties.").
Born in Boston on June 10, 1925, Hentoff received a B.A. with honors from
Northeastern University and did graduate work at Harvard. From 1953 to
1957, he was associate editor of Down Beat magazine. He has written many
books on jazz, biographies and novels, including children's books. His
articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times,
Commonwealth, the New Republic, the Atlantic and the New Yorker, where he
was a staff writer for more than 25 years. In 1980, he was awarded a
Guggenheim Fellowship in Education and an American Bar Association Silver
Gavel Award for his coverage of the law and criminal justice in his
columns. In 1985, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws by
Northeastern University. For 50 years, Hentoff wrote a weekly column for
the Village Voice. But that publication announced that he had been
terminated on December 31, 2008. In February 2009, Hentoff joined the Cato
Institute as a Senior Fellow.
Hentoff's views on the rights of Americans to write, think and speak
freely are expressed in his columns. He is also an authority on First
Amendment defense, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, students' rights
and education. Friends and critics alike describe him as the kind of
writer, and citizen, that all should aspire to be—"less interested in
'exclusives' than in 'making a difference.'" Critiquing Hentoff's
autobiography, Speaking Freely, Nicholas von Hoffman refers to him as "a
trusting man, a gentle man, just and undeviatingly consistent."
Hentoff took to heart the words from his mentor, I. F. "Izzy" Stone, the
renowned investigative journalist who died in 1989: "If you're in this
business because you want to change the world, get another day job. If you
are able to make a difference, it will come incrementally, and you might
not even know about it. You have to get the story and keep on it because
it has to be told."
Nat Hentoff has earned the well-deserved reputation of being one of our
nation's most respected, controversial and uncompromising writers. He
began his career at the Village Voice because he wanted a place to write
freely on anything he cared about. And his departure from the publication
has neither dampened his zeal nor tempered his voice.
Hentoff, whose new book, At the Jazz Band Ball—Sixty Years on the Jazz
Scene (University of California Press), is due out in 2010, took some time
to speak with me about Barack Obama, the danger of his health care plan,
the peril of civil liberties, and a host of other issues.
John W. Whitehead: When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he
introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he
has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?
Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the
most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is
ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the
way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system.
If the American people have their health care paid for by the government,
depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a
health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives
are worth living much longer.
In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he
would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his
promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA
renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be
interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore?
Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine
which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush
administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought
might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the
case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though
he promised not to.
So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a
phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he
will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a
very dangerous mindset for a president to have.
JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?
NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little
qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he
lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on
people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were
led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense,
"evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms
of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the
University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing
weakens the Constitution.
In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The
Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the
National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of
everything we do on the phone and on the internet. Obama has done nothing
about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial
supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.
JW: Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in
light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is
that?
NH: I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced
by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has
taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't
think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom
they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course,
that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They
are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change.
Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama
are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."
JW: Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what
some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?
NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care
bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a
certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their
end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was
done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them. The
death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be
the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote
a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.
In England, you have what I would call government-imposed euthanasia.
Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides
whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government
should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not
doing it and you gradually or suddenly die. The present Stimulus Bill sets
up the equivalent commission in the United States similar to that which is
in England. The tipoff was months ago on the ABC network. President Obama
was given a full hour to describe and endorse his health plan. A woman in
the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101
years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor
didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and
told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked
President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said
we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation. He said I would
advise her to take a pain killer. That is the essence of the President of
the United States.
JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?
NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except
to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in
his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone—both a constitutional backbone
and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us
a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally
because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has
scared me in terms of my lifespan.
JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people
believe things just by his personality.
NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted
for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people
voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this
country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him
and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could
elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on.
Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the
black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are
wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for
the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be
sinking in.
JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among
African-Americans.
NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for
a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching
stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual,
the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are
going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This
is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the
unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I
can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.
JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government
does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them
anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has
criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?
NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel
Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did
in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had
Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We
need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is
what is happening with the Tea Parties. I wrote a column called "The
Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for
themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout
the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot
of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they
are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.
JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test
while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions
are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote
the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is
basically dead.
NH: I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on
education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William
Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the
words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?" Well, it is
not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell
them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of
Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern
in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with
each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.
Young people get very excited when they hear why they are Americans. It is
not hard to do. We hear talk now about reforming public education. There
are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard
Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic
illiteracy in the country.
JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.
NH: A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of
Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment.
I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One
student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe
these are bright students.
JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name
the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.
NH: That is a stunner.
JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than
it was then?
NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone
too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in
America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government
knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The
government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen
in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a
long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say,
and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the
technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.
JW: You don't sound very optimistic.
NH: If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and
they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize
the country.
The media has been very bad about informing us about what is going on.
They focus on surface things. They do not focus enough on the fact that
the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to
transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on. But
I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why
you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because
we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who
are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And
we need to encourage others to become involved.
An Interview with Nat Hentoff
By John W. Whitehead
December 11, 2009
"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most
dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff
(Embedded image moved to file: pic19066.jpg)Nat Hentoff
Nat Hentoff has had a life well spent, one chock full of controversy
fueled by his passion for the protection of civil liberties and human
rights. Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist,
anti-death penalty advocate, pro-lifer and not uncommon critic of the
ideological left.
At 84, Nat Hentoff is an American classic who has never shied away from an
issue. For example, he defended a woman rejected from law school because
she was Caucasian; called into a talk show hosted by Oliver North to agree
with him on liberal intolerance for free speech; was a friend to the late
Malcolm X; and wrote the liner notes for Bob Dylan's second album.
A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a
“Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has
angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has
stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the
trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to
abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation
of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles
(He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any
president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our
liberties.").
Born in Boston on June 10, 1925, Hentoff received a B.A. with honors from
Northeastern University and did graduate work at Harvard. From 1953 to
1957, he was associate editor of Down Beat magazine. He has written many
books on jazz, biographies and novels, including children's books. His
articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times,
Commonwealth, the New Republic, the Atlantic and the New Yorker, where he
was a staff writer for more than 25 years. In 1980, he was awarded a
Guggenheim Fellowship in Education and an American Bar Association Silver
Gavel Award for his coverage of the law and criminal justice in his
columns. In 1985, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws by
Northeastern University. For 50 years, Hentoff wrote a weekly column for
the Village Voice. But that publication announced that he had been
terminated on December 31, 2008. In February 2009, Hentoff joined the Cato
Institute as a Senior Fellow.
Hentoff's views on the rights of Americans to write, think and speak
freely are expressed in his columns. He is also an authority on First
Amendment defense, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, students' rights
and education. Friends and critics alike describe him as the kind of
writer, and citizen, that all should aspire to be—"less interested in
'exclusives' than in 'making a difference.'" Critiquing Hentoff's
autobiography, Speaking Freely, Nicholas von Hoffman refers to him as "a
trusting man, a gentle man, just and undeviatingly consistent."
Hentoff took to heart the words from his mentor, I. F. "Izzy" Stone, the
renowned investigative journalist who died in 1989: "If you're in this
business because you want to change the world, get another day job. If you
are able to make a difference, it will come incrementally, and you might
not even know about it. You have to get the story and keep on it because
it has to be told."
Nat Hentoff has earned the well-deserved reputation of being one of our
nation's most respected, controversial and uncompromising writers. He
began his career at the Village Voice because he wanted a place to write
freely on anything he cared about. And his departure from the publication
has neither dampened his zeal nor tempered his voice.
Hentoff, whose new book, At the Jazz Band Ball—Sixty Years on the Jazz
Scene (University of California Press), is due out in 2010, took some time
to speak with me about Barack Obama, the danger of his health care plan,
the peril of civil liberties, and a host of other issues.
John W. Whitehead: When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he
introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he
has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?
Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the
most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is
ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the
way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system.
If the American people have their health care paid for by the government,
depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a
health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives
are worth living much longer.
In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he
would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his
promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA
renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be
interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore?
Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine
which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush
administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought
might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the
case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though
he promised not to.
So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a
phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he
will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a
very dangerous mindset for a president to have.
JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?
NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little
qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he
lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on
people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were
led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense,
"evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms
of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the
University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing
weakens the Constitution.
In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The
Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the
National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of
everything we do on the phone and on the internet. Obama has done nothing
about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial
supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.
JW: Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in
light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is
that?
NH: I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced
by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has
taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't
think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom
they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course,
that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They
are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change.
Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama
are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."
JW: Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what
some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?
NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care
bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a
certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their
end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was
done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them. The
death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be
the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote
a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.
In England, you have what I would call government-imposed euthanasia.
Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides
whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government
should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not
doing it and you gradually or suddenly die. The present Stimulus Bill sets
up the equivalent commission in the United States similar to that which is
in England. The tipoff was months ago on the ABC network. President Obama
was given a full hour to describe and endorse his health plan. A woman in
the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101
years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor
didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and
told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked
President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said
we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation. He said I would
advise her to take a pain killer. That is the essence of the President of
the United States.
JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?
NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except
to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in
his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone—both a constitutional backbone
and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us
a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally
because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has
scared me in terms of my lifespan.
JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people
believe things just by his personality.
NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted
for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people
voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this
country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him
and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could
elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on.
Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the
black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are
wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for
the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be
sinking in.
JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among
African-Americans.
NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for
a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching
stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual,
the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are
going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This
is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the
unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I
can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.
JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government
does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them
anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has
criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?
NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel
Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did
in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had
Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We
need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is
what is happening with the Tea Parties. I wrote a column called "The
Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for
themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout
the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot
of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they
are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.
JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test
while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions
are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote
the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is
basically dead.
NH: I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on
education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William
Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the
words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?" Well, it is
not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell
them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of
Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern
in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with
each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.
Young people get very excited when they hear why they are Americans. It is
not hard to do. We hear talk now about reforming public education. There
are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard
Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic
illiteracy in the country.
JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.
NH: A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of
Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment.
I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One
student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe
these are bright students.
JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name
the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.
NH: That is a stunner.
JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than
it was then?
NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone
too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in
America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government
knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The
government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen
in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a
long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say,
and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the
technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.
JW: You don't sound very optimistic.
NH: If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and
they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize
the country.
The media has been very bad about informing us about what is going on.
They focus on surface things. They do not focus enough on the fact that
the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to
transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on. But
I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why
you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because
we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who
are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And
we need to encourage others to become involved.
Outlook for Senate Health Bill Grim: Senators
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 14, 2009
The two steadiest non-GOP votes against the senate health care bill reaffirmed this weekend that attempts at compromise so far have not won their support, and that the prospects for the bill continue to grow dimmer as time passes. While one Democrat senator claimed that there was, to the contrary, "tremendous momentum" behind the bill, the latest voter poll shows opposition holding a steady majority among American voters.
"The opposition to it has been growing as the week has gone on," Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday. "There are not 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate now."
Lieberman, who normally caucuses with the Democrats, has consistently opposed any version of a public option in the bill, a feature some liberal senators consider essential.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) also painted a grim picture for those striving to win his "yes" vote, reiterating his position against the abortion mandate to "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. "I said I can't support the bill with the abortion language that's there," he said, noting that finding an adequate compromise would be "a tall order."
Nelson and Lieberman's opposition has Democrat leadership scrambling to find enough votes to scuttle a Republican filibuster on the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last Tuesday evening claimed that Democrats had reached a "broad agreement" on the health reform legislation. However, subsequent interviews with senators such as Sen. Nelson indicated that the parties involved merely agreed to send the new language to the Congressional Budget Office for a fiscal evaluation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky affirmed, also on Face the Nation, that Senate Republicans were united against the health care bill, which he called a "monstrosity." However, he said that on the Democratic side there is no such unity of position.
"It's noteworthy that you had to have three Democrats on to explain the Democratic position," McConnell said. "There are more Democratic positions than you'd find in a stack of newspapers, [and] therein lies the problem."
West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller gave a cheerier outlook on the bill, insisting that it has "tremendous momentum." "It's not hard for me to feel optimistic. I do," Rockefeller said, "because history calls on us."
A Rasmussen poll gauging public opinion on the health care bill this weekend shows voters holding the line against it: 56% said they oppose the plan, while 40% favored it.
In the same poll, President Obama's approval ratings plummeted to a new low, with 24% of voters reporting they "strongly approve" of Obama's performance, while 42% "strongly disapprove."
Last week, Democrat Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa announced he supported altering Senate filibuster rules to ease passage of the bill by eliminating the 60-vote requirement.
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 14, 2009
The two steadiest non-GOP votes against the senate health care bill reaffirmed this weekend that attempts at compromise so far have not won their support, and that the prospects for the bill continue to grow dimmer as time passes. While one Democrat senator claimed that there was, to the contrary, "tremendous momentum" behind the bill, the latest voter poll shows opposition holding a steady majority among American voters.
"The opposition to it has been growing as the week has gone on," Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday. "There are not 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate now."
Lieberman, who normally caucuses with the Democrats, has consistently opposed any version of a public option in the bill, a feature some liberal senators consider essential.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) also painted a grim picture for those striving to win his "yes" vote, reiterating his position against the abortion mandate to "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. "I said I can't support the bill with the abortion language that's there," he said, noting that finding an adequate compromise would be "a tall order."
Nelson and Lieberman's opposition has Democrat leadership scrambling to find enough votes to scuttle a Republican filibuster on the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last Tuesday evening claimed that Democrats had reached a "broad agreement" on the health reform legislation. However, subsequent interviews with senators such as Sen. Nelson indicated that the parties involved merely agreed to send the new language to the Congressional Budget Office for a fiscal evaluation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky affirmed, also on Face the Nation, that Senate Republicans were united against the health care bill, which he called a "monstrosity." However, he said that on the Democratic side there is no such unity of position.
"It's noteworthy that you had to have three Democrats on to explain the Democratic position," McConnell said. "There are more Democratic positions than you'd find in a stack of newspapers, [and] therein lies the problem."
West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller gave a cheerier outlook on the bill, insisting that it has "tremendous momentum." "It's not hard for me to feel optimistic. I do," Rockefeller said, "because history calls on us."
A Rasmussen poll gauging public opinion on the health care bill this weekend shows voters holding the line against it: 56% said they oppose the plan, while 40% favored it.
In the same poll, President Obama's approval ratings plummeted to a new low, with 24% of voters reporting they "strongly approve" of Obama's performance, while 42% "strongly disapprove."
Last week, Democrat Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa announced he supported altering Senate filibuster rules to ease passage of the bill by eliminating the 60-vote requirement.
The Health Care Bill--latest report
By Steve Jalsevac
So the outlook for the Senate Health Care bill is grim say some of the US Senators. Many are hoping that is true, but Americans have been repeatedly warned by pro-life, pro-family organization leaders not to underestimate the resolve and deviousness of the Obama administration. That is, hard work against the bill cannot let up until the issue is resolved.
The bill passed on Sunday in the US Senate confirms the Democrats' fanatical commitment to abortion. They will continue to relentlessly pursue their agenda.
Take a few minutes to watch the video of Laura Ingraham questioning the Financial Post's Diane Francis about her advocacy of a planetary one-child policy like China's. Ingraham is superb and Francis reveals herself to be a coldly pragmatic, non-comprehending, Ayn Rand type of super capitalist. These dangerous elitists, who are obviously sincere, feel that only they know what is best and must be imposed on everyone - regardless of any great personal suffering that may result. We are all widgets, not souls.
Communism and super capitalism meet in totalitarianism - one openly so and the other quietly backing totalitarian regimes with their money and power. That is why Francis and many other western elitists, such as Maurice Strong and many at the UN, admire Communist China. It gets things done fast, makes lots of money, is super business smart and does not get bogged down by the inefficiencies and delays caused by democracy, human rights laws and religious principles preaching the dignity of every person.
Kevin Jennings is just one example of the truly scary people that President Obama has around him. Never in my life have I ever seen such a collection of dark natured people put into the administration of a western government at one time.
Yes, the large majority of you want to say and hear "Merry Christmas". Say it and the more you do, the more you will find others will do the same. In most cases it will be a relief for people to hear you say it. It will create a ripple wave, spreading the true loving spirit of Christmas that most people want to spread, but are often afraid to.
Over the years we have repeatedly heard complaints and concerns expressed to us about the US bishops' Catholic News Service. We don't often quote CNS or refer to it simply because its reports often seem too politically correct, liberal Catholic, or are just not what they should be. Sometimes they are downright disturbing. It's too bad since such a national Catholic news service is fundamentally a good idea. It just depends on who runs it and especially who is overseeing its Catholicity. Louie Verrecchio of Baltimore has been concerned about this for some time. Hopefully his article will encourage major reform of that institution.
The US bishops recently said that they are working on a new policy and framework to ensure that information services that call themselves Catholic are authentically so and held accountable. It's a great idea that we support. CNS could be their first project. And then there is the National Catholic Reporter, the Jesuits America magazine, the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting. etc., etc.
So the outlook for the Senate Health Care bill is grim say some of the US Senators. Many are hoping that is true, but Americans have been repeatedly warned by pro-life, pro-family organization leaders not to underestimate the resolve and deviousness of the Obama administration. That is, hard work against the bill cannot let up until the issue is resolved.
The bill passed on Sunday in the US Senate confirms the Democrats' fanatical commitment to abortion. They will continue to relentlessly pursue their agenda.
Take a few minutes to watch the video of Laura Ingraham questioning the Financial Post's Diane Francis about her advocacy of a planetary one-child policy like China's. Ingraham is superb and Francis reveals herself to be a coldly pragmatic, non-comprehending, Ayn Rand type of super capitalist. These dangerous elitists, who are obviously sincere, feel that only they know what is best and must be imposed on everyone - regardless of any great personal suffering that may result. We are all widgets, not souls.
Communism and super capitalism meet in totalitarianism - one openly so and the other quietly backing totalitarian regimes with their money and power. That is why Francis and many other western elitists, such as Maurice Strong and many at the UN, admire Communist China. It gets things done fast, makes lots of money, is super business smart and does not get bogged down by the inefficiencies and delays caused by democracy, human rights laws and religious principles preaching the dignity of every person.
Kevin Jennings is just one example of the truly scary people that President Obama has around him. Never in my life have I ever seen such a collection of dark natured people put into the administration of a western government at one time.
Yes, the large majority of you want to say and hear "Merry Christmas". Say it and the more you do, the more you will find others will do the same. In most cases it will be a relief for people to hear you say it. It will create a ripple wave, spreading the true loving spirit of Christmas that most people want to spread, but are often afraid to.
Over the years we have repeatedly heard complaints and concerns expressed to us about the US bishops' Catholic News Service. We don't often quote CNS or refer to it simply because its reports often seem too politically correct, liberal Catholic, or are just not what they should be. Sometimes they are downright disturbing. It's too bad since such a national Catholic news service is fundamentally a good idea. It just depends on who runs it and especially who is overseeing its Catholicity. Louie Verrecchio of Baltimore has been concerned about this for some time. Hopefully his article will encourage major reform of that institution.
The US bishops recently said that they are working on a new policy and framework to ensure that information services that call themselves Catholic are authentically so and held accountable. It's a great idea that we support. CNS could be their first project. And then there is the National Catholic Reporter, the Jesuits America magazine, the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting. etc., etc.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The True meaning of the 2nd Amendment
The founders expected the individual State militias to keep their citizens armed just as the Swiss. We need to return to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment....now!
Pray to God and keep the power dry! Swiss gun control
Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. Our second amendment on steriods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
Pray to God and keep the power dry! Swiss gun control
Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. Our second amendment on steriods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Spanish King Faces Excommunication if He Assents to Abortion Bill
Good for you, Spain! If only we in America would threaten Obama the same way.
Royal assent could plunge Spain into Constitutional Crisis
By Hilary White
The Spanish press is highlighting the dilemma faced by Juan Carlos, king of Spain, a Catholic, who may be called upon to sign into law a bill that, if passed, would further liberalize abortion. On November 25th, Spain's Catholic bishops warned that those politicians who vote in favor of the law will have excommunicated themselves, having put themselves in an "objective state of sin." The bishops wrote that "while the situation lasts," politicians who vote in favor of the law "may not be admitted to Holy Communion." However, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 stipulates that new laws must be promulgated by the king, who is head of state, but who now faces possible excommunication if he gives royal assent to the bill.Prominent Spanish Catholics are calling on the king to refuse to sign the law. In an article appearing on the website Religion en Libertad, titled, "The King should not sign the abortion law," the head of the lobby group HazteOir, Nacho Arsuaga, said the country could be heading for a constitutional crisis over the bill. "The king of a democratic state under the law cannot sign a law approving the right of a few to kill other human beings. With this law, the government is de facto destroying the validity of the Spanish constitution, which stipulates in its Article 15 the right to life." Arsuaga called on the king either to refuse to sign or to abdicate. Javier Maria Perez-Roldan, president of the Thomas More Law Center, said that the law would "contradict the principle of monarchy," which "loses all authority if it is exercised against the common good." Arsuaga's article quotes politicians and the heads of a number of Catholic organizations who have called on the king to abdicate in imitation of King Baudouin of Belgium, who in 1990 temporarily renounced his throne rather than sign his country's law liberalizing abortion. They also cited the more recent case of Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who refused last year to sign the duchy's law legalizing euthanasia and who may be stripped of his constitutional powers as a result. Milian Manuel Mestre, a businessman and politician and Member of the Congress of Deputies, called it "incomprehensible from the ethical point of view," that the government could pass a law that establishes abortion as a right. "As a believer and a citizen of this country it does not seem appropriate for the King to sign into law the Act ... Neither the king nor the government nor the Spanish Courts may violate principles of fundamental ethics," Mestre said. But the editor of the weekly Alba, Gonzalo Altozano, warned not to expect heroics from Juan Carlos. When, in 2005, the Zapatero government created "gay marriage," the king responded, "I'm not the king of Belgium" and displayed no hesitation in signing the bill. Altozano writes, "He was right: Juan Carlos is not Baldwin [Baudouin]. It is, simply, Juan Carlos. Do not expect any heroics from him. No longer."Juan Carlos was born in Rome, where the Spanish royal family had settled following the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic in 1931. He succeeded the dictator Franco as head of state and was enthroned as king in 1975. The family's close connection to the Catholic Church is a tradition dating back centuries, and Juan Carlos' wife, Queen Sofia, in an authorized biography, recently denounced abortion, saying she was "absolutely against" it as well as euthanasia, and "gay marriage."Nevertheless, it was King Juan Carlos himself who instituted the "liberal" political and social reforms in Spain following the death of Franco. Under his rule, leftist groups and movements, such as the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Spain, which had been defeated in the Spanish Civil War, were legalized and legitimized.
Royal assent could plunge Spain into Constitutional Crisis
By Hilary White
The Spanish press is highlighting the dilemma faced by Juan Carlos, king of Spain, a Catholic, who may be called upon to sign into law a bill that, if passed, would further liberalize abortion. On November 25th, Spain's Catholic bishops warned that those politicians who vote in favor of the law will have excommunicated themselves, having put themselves in an "objective state of sin." The bishops wrote that "while the situation lasts," politicians who vote in favor of the law "may not be admitted to Holy Communion." However, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 stipulates that new laws must be promulgated by the king, who is head of state, but who now faces possible excommunication if he gives royal assent to the bill.Prominent Spanish Catholics are calling on the king to refuse to sign the law. In an article appearing on the website Religion en Libertad, titled, "The King should not sign the abortion law," the head of the lobby group HazteOir, Nacho Arsuaga, said the country could be heading for a constitutional crisis over the bill. "The king of a democratic state under the law cannot sign a law approving the right of a few to kill other human beings. With this law, the government is de facto destroying the validity of the Spanish constitution, which stipulates in its Article 15 the right to life." Arsuaga called on the king either to refuse to sign or to abdicate. Javier Maria Perez-Roldan, president of the Thomas More Law Center, said that the law would "contradict the principle of monarchy," which "loses all authority if it is exercised against the common good." Arsuaga's article quotes politicians and the heads of a number of Catholic organizations who have called on the king to abdicate in imitation of King Baudouin of Belgium, who in 1990 temporarily renounced his throne rather than sign his country's law liberalizing abortion. They also cited the more recent case of Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who refused last year to sign the duchy's law legalizing euthanasia and who may be stripped of his constitutional powers as a result. Milian Manuel Mestre, a businessman and politician and Member of the Congress of Deputies, called it "incomprehensible from the ethical point of view," that the government could pass a law that establishes abortion as a right. "As a believer and a citizen of this country it does not seem appropriate for the King to sign into law the Act ... Neither the king nor the government nor the Spanish Courts may violate principles of fundamental ethics," Mestre said. But the editor of the weekly Alba, Gonzalo Altozano, warned not to expect heroics from Juan Carlos. When, in 2005, the Zapatero government created "gay marriage," the king responded, "I'm not the king of Belgium" and displayed no hesitation in signing the bill. Altozano writes, "He was right: Juan Carlos is not Baldwin [Baudouin]. It is, simply, Juan Carlos. Do not expect any heroics from him. No longer."Juan Carlos was born in Rome, where the Spanish royal family had settled following the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic in 1931. He succeeded the dictator Franco as head of state and was enthroned as king in 1975. The family's close connection to the Catholic Church is a tradition dating back centuries, and Juan Carlos' wife, Queen Sofia, in an authorized biography, recently denounced abortion, saying she was "absolutely against" it as well as euthanasia, and "gay marriage."Nevertheless, it was King Juan Carlos himself who instituted the "liberal" political and social reforms in Spain following the death of Franco. Under his rule, leftist groups and movements, such as the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Spain, which had been defeated in the Spanish Civil War, were legalized and legitimized.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Are the Jews are still God's people today?
This was written when I was questioned on my post on "Our opinions Concerneing Israel."
This is the reply:
The nation of Israel was chosen to bring the Savior into the world. Jesus had to be born somewhere in some nation, so it only made sense that God would create a nation whose laws and traditions would serve to prepare the world for Christ. It would make no sense for the Savior of the world to be born into a pagan home that worshipped false gods, would it? So, God chose Abraham and made his seed into a nation. National election of the Jews was merely PROVISIONAL - it was a temporary arrangement so Christ could be born to Abraham's seed as promised. But, being a servant of God was NEVER based upon ethnicity. Men are not acceptible based upon race or physical descent. What makes anybody acceptible to God is the obedience of faith. Thus, Paul says "For he is NOT a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart" (Rom. 2:28, 29).So, here Paul expressly states that being a Jew does not mean one can trace physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but a "Jew" is an obedient, servant of God based upon faith. He repeats this in Romans 9:7, 8, saying, "Neither, becaue they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall they seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Here, Paul says lineal descent from Abraham does not make a person Abraham's seed or a child of God. Only in Christ are we the seed and do we obtain the status of being children and heirs of God and eternal life.The verses you cite showing the Jews were God's people, were all from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has been annulled by the cross of Christ. Today, all men are viewed equally by God and all must come to grace exactly the same way. God does not have two covenants, one for the Jews and another for the rest of mankind. The promise of salvation was made to Adam and Eve before there were any Jews and the promise was for all men.Yes, any unbeliever who denies Christ is an antichrist, regardless of race or nation. My only point in saying the Jews were antichrist was to dispell the fallacy that they are somewhow God's chosen people today after rejecting God, murdering his son, and persecuting his church and gospel. The Jews rejected God and he rejected them and destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 in vengeance and wrath. What God has done, let not man undo! We should not support any nation, Jew or Muslim, that is an enemy of Christ.
This is the reply:
The nation of Israel was chosen to bring the Savior into the world. Jesus had to be born somewhere in some nation, so it only made sense that God would create a nation whose laws and traditions would serve to prepare the world for Christ. It would make no sense for the Savior of the world to be born into a pagan home that worshipped false gods, would it? So, God chose Abraham and made his seed into a nation. National election of the Jews was merely PROVISIONAL - it was a temporary arrangement so Christ could be born to Abraham's seed as promised. But, being a servant of God was NEVER based upon ethnicity. Men are not acceptible based upon race or physical descent. What makes anybody acceptible to God is the obedience of faith. Thus, Paul says "For he is NOT a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart" (Rom. 2:28, 29).So, here Paul expressly states that being a Jew does not mean one can trace physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but a "Jew" is an obedient, servant of God based upon faith. He repeats this in Romans 9:7, 8, saying, "Neither, becaue they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall they seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Here, Paul says lineal descent from Abraham does not make a person Abraham's seed or a child of God. Only in Christ are we the seed and do we obtain the status of being children and heirs of God and eternal life.The verses you cite showing the Jews were God's people, were all from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has been annulled by the cross of Christ. Today, all men are viewed equally by God and all must come to grace exactly the same way. God does not have two covenants, one for the Jews and another for the rest of mankind. The promise of salvation was made to Adam and Eve before there were any Jews and the promise was for all men.Yes, any unbeliever who denies Christ is an antichrist, regardless of race or nation. My only point in saying the Jews were antichrist was to dispell the fallacy that they are somewhow God's chosen people today after rejecting God, murdering his son, and persecuting his church and gospel. The Jews rejected God and he rejected them and destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 in vengeance and wrath. What God has done, let not man undo! We should not support any nation, Jew or Muslim, that is an enemy of Christ.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Michigan ought to be burned to the ground!
Americans went to war over taxes and etc when we won't lift a finger over little innocents being murdered!
By James Tillman
DETROIT, December 4, 2009
Northland "Family Planning Centers" of Michigan are now advertising their services with a video calling abortion "sacred work."
Set to soft, upbeat piano music and themed with pink pastel shades, a recently uploaded video entitled "Every Day, Good Woman Choose Abortion," assures prospective customers that deciding "to have an abortion is a normal experience," and that the decision is a good decision. The video's spokeswoman continues: "Goodness is courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that are good for yourself."
"Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom."
The staff at Northland, the narrator continues, believe in the "essential goodness" of abortion. The narrator speaks of a sign hanging at the Northland abortion facility that reads: "We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here, bring only love."
The video showcases a quotation from the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller, which states: "Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all."
Northland abortion mills have been previously connected with the "November Gang" group of abortionists. The "November Gang" is set apart from other anti-life organizations by their use of pre- and post-abortion "counseling" sessions that ape the language and techniques used in pro-life movements like Project Rachel. In practice, this means November Gang groups are more willing to admit that abortion kills a baby.
This leads to bizarre practices in some facilities such as baptizing and praying over a baby's bloody remains, or admitting that abortion kills but anticipating God's forgiveness before the fact. The Northland website, in its section on emotional healing, advises women to write a letter "to the spirit of the child inside of them."
It continues: "Some women write how they came to their decision, some ask for forgiveness. Some thank the spirit for the wisdom or thoughts they have had about life. Some write about the love they feel. Sometimes, having a way to say goodbye is an important part of healing."
The website also advises women "to create your own way to acknowledge your loss or changes. It may be as simple as releasing a symbolic object into the water, planting a tree or writing a poem. It would be a way for you to memorialize the day and move forward."
The videos are just the latest attempts by Northland to make abortion seem as attractive as possible. In 2000 the New York Times reported that Renee Chelian, founder of the Northland abortion center, needed something special to draw customers in the face of stiff competition; and so "she created almost a spa-like atmosphere at her offices, with low light in the rooms, aromatherapy, candles and relaxing music."
"As altruistic as women and feminists want to be, the reality is that we can only stay in business if we earn enough to keep our doors open," Chelian said in the article.
The narrator in the recently released video goes on to say: "If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself, and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.
"You are a good woman, doing the best you can in your situation."
By James Tillman
DETROIT, December 4, 2009
Northland "Family Planning Centers" of Michigan are now advertising their services with a video calling abortion "sacred work."
Set to soft, upbeat piano music and themed with pink pastel shades, a recently uploaded video entitled "Every Day, Good Woman Choose Abortion," assures prospective customers that deciding "to have an abortion is a normal experience," and that the decision is a good decision. The video's spokeswoman continues: "Goodness is courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that are good for yourself."
"Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom."
The staff at Northland, the narrator continues, believe in the "essential goodness" of abortion. The narrator speaks of a sign hanging at the Northland abortion facility that reads: "We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here, bring only love."
The video showcases a quotation from the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller, which states: "Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all."
Northland abortion mills have been previously connected with the "November Gang" group of abortionists. The "November Gang" is set apart from other anti-life organizations by their use of pre- and post-abortion "counseling" sessions that ape the language and techniques used in pro-life movements like Project Rachel. In practice, this means November Gang groups are more willing to admit that abortion kills a baby.
This leads to bizarre practices in some facilities such as baptizing and praying over a baby's bloody remains, or admitting that abortion kills but anticipating God's forgiveness before the fact. The Northland website, in its section on emotional healing, advises women to write a letter "to the spirit of the child inside of them."
It continues: "Some women write how they came to their decision, some ask for forgiveness. Some thank the spirit for the wisdom or thoughts they have had about life. Some write about the love they feel. Sometimes, having a way to say goodbye is an important part of healing."
The website also advises women "to create your own way to acknowledge your loss or changes. It may be as simple as releasing a symbolic object into the water, planting a tree or writing a poem. It would be a way for you to memorialize the day and move forward."
The videos are just the latest attempts by Northland to make abortion seem as attractive as possible. In 2000 the New York Times reported that Renee Chelian, founder of the Northland abortion center, needed something special to draw customers in the face of stiff competition; and so "she created almost a spa-like atmosphere at her offices, with low light in the rooms, aromatherapy, candles and relaxing music."
"As altruistic as women and feminists want to be, the reality is that we can only stay in business if we earn enough to keep our doors open," Chelian said in the article.
The narrator in the recently released video goes on to say: "If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself, and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.
"You are a good woman, doing the best you can in your situation."
HOOORRAY for Kansas, my home! Good for you! Abortionist Carhart Abandons Plans for Late-term Abortion Facility in Kansas
Abortionist Carhart Abandons Plans for Late-term Abortion Facility in Kansas
By James Tillman
WICHITA, KS, December 4, 2009
Operation Rescue has confirmed that abortionist LeRoy Cahart will not open a late-term abortion facility to replace the one that closed in Wichita after abortionist George Tiller's death.
"I'm thinking we may not go ahead and develop that down there" Carhart told a source connected with Operation Rescue. "I think we are just going to stay in Nebraska for now."
Carhart, who does abortions out of Bellevue, Nebraska, had announced that he would do late-term abortions at the Wichita Women's Health Care Services after Tiller was murdered, but Tiller's family instead decided to close the facility permanently. Since then Carhart had on different occasions told the media he would open a late-term abortion center in or near Wichita, before eventually being forced to abandon his plans.
"This is a win, win, win situation," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "It is a win for Operation Rescue's 'Keep it Closed' campaign because it accomplished its goal of keeping Carhart out of Kansas. It is a win for the people of Kansas who are weary of being the national focus of the abortion debate. But most importantly, it is a win for the babies."
Carhart has begun to use his Bellevue, Nebraska abortion mill to perform some of the late-term abortions Tiller used to receive, some as late as 30 weeks of gestation, according to Operation Rescue. But his decision to do so has not been free of difficulty; according to the New York Times, several of his employees quit after he said he was expanding his work. Furthermore, Carhart has said that only ten percent of the post-viability abortions Tiller used to receive have followed him to Nebraska.
"During our efforts in Kansas, there was a 54 percent decrease in post-viability abortions at Tiller's clinic where Carhart worked. Now, out of that remaining 46 percent, Carhart is only doing a small fraction," said Newman.
"By running Carhart out of Kansas, we have helped put a huge dent in the nation's late-term abortion business. That means babies will have an opportunity at life that they would not have had if Carhart had simply picked up where Tiller left off."
By James Tillman
WICHITA, KS, December 4, 2009
Operation Rescue has confirmed that abortionist LeRoy Cahart will not open a late-term abortion facility to replace the one that closed in Wichita after abortionist George Tiller's death.
"I'm thinking we may not go ahead and develop that down there" Carhart told a source connected with Operation Rescue. "I think we are just going to stay in Nebraska for now."
Carhart, who does abortions out of Bellevue, Nebraska, had announced that he would do late-term abortions at the Wichita Women's Health Care Services after Tiller was murdered, but Tiller's family instead decided to close the facility permanently. Since then Carhart had on different occasions told the media he would open a late-term abortion center in or near Wichita, before eventually being forced to abandon his plans.
"This is a win, win, win situation," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "It is a win for Operation Rescue's 'Keep it Closed' campaign because it accomplished its goal of keeping Carhart out of Kansas. It is a win for the people of Kansas who are weary of being the national focus of the abortion debate. But most importantly, it is a win for the babies."
Carhart has begun to use his Bellevue, Nebraska abortion mill to perform some of the late-term abortions Tiller used to receive, some as late as 30 weeks of gestation, according to Operation Rescue. But his decision to do so has not been free of difficulty; according to the New York Times, several of his employees quit after he said he was expanding his work. Furthermore, Carhart has said that only ten percent of the post-viability abortions Tiller used to receive have followed him to Nebraska.
"During our efforts in Kansas, there was a 54 percent decrease in post-viability abortions at Tiller's clinic where Carhart worked. Now, out of that remaining 46 percent, Carhart is only doing a small fraction," said Newman.
"By running Carhart out of Kansas, we have helped put a huge dent in the nation's late-term abortion business. That means babies will have an opportunity at life that they would not have had if Carhart had simply picked up where Tiller left off."
Good for you California!!!!!!
California Homosexualist Leader: "We Do Not See a Path to Victory" for Same-Sex 'Marriage' in 2010
"We do not see a path to victory."
By Kathleen Gilbert
LOS ANGELES, California, December 4, 2009
The head of a leading homosexualist campaign in California has concluded that there is no foreseeable way to reverse the state's constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as between a man and a woman, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
"We do not see a path to victory," Courage Campaign's Rick Jacobs told the newspaper on November 30. Jacobs said he reached the conclusion after spending more than $200,000 on "qualitative research" into the issue.
In a letter to supporters, the campaign called for "for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot."
Lambda legal, another leading homosexualist group, agreed with the Courage Campaign's evaluation. "Putting this measure to a vote in 2012 is the strongest strategy," said the group. The Leaders of Equality California, which had led the charge against Proposition 8 last year, has also stated it would wait to revisit the matter.
Despite the objections, a coalition of 40 homosexualist organizations submitted an initiative in September for the 2010 ballot to re-institute same-sex "marriage."
Last month, nearly 60% of Californians responding in a poll by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California said they did not want to revisit the marriage question.
"We do not see a path to victory."
By Kathleen Gilbert
LOS ANGELES, California, December 4, 2009
The head of a leading homosexualist campaign in California has concluded that there is no foreseeable way to reverse the state's constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as between a man and a woman, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
"We do not see a path to victory," Courage Campaign's Rick Jacobs told the newspaper on November 30. Jacobs said he reached the conclusion after spending more than $200,000 on "qualitative research" into the issue.
In a letter to supporters, the campaign called for "for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot."
Lambda legal, another leading homosexualist group, agreed with the Courage Campaign's evaluation. "Putting this measure to a vote in 2012 is the strongest strategy," said the group. The Leaders of Equality California, which had led the charge against Proposition 8 last year, has also stated it would wait to revisit the matter.
Despite the objections, a coalition of 40 homosexualist organizations submitted an initiative in September for the 2010 ballot to re-institute same-sex "marriage."
Last month, nearly 60% of Californians responding in a poll by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California said they did not want to revisit the marriage question.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Challenge to Ireland's Pro-Life Laws Goes to European Court of Human Rights
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
December 3, 2009 (C-FAM) - Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiac v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiac decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiac was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiac's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum.
December 3, 2009 (C-FAM) - Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiac v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiac decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiac was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiac's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum.
Challenge to Ireland's Pro-Life Laws Goes to European Court of Human Rights
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
December 3, 2009 (C-FAM) - Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiac v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiac decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiac was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiac's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum.
December 3, 2009 (C-FAM) - Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiac v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiac decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiac was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiac's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum.
Hundreds of Pro-Aborts Rally, Pressure Congressmen to Erase Stupak Amendment
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 2, 2009
Hundreds of placard-waving abortion lobbyists descended upon a rainy Capitol Hill Wednesday to lobby against the pro-life Stupak amendment in the Democrats' health care bill, and receive encouragement from top pro-abortion leaders and lawmakers.The "Stop Stupak-Pitts Lobby Day" was sponsored by Feminist Majority Foundation and co-sponsored by a plethora of leading pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood, National Organization for women, NARAL, the National Abortion Federation, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and the ACLU.An overflow crowd of abortion supporters packed into the auditorium and Russell Caucus room in the Dirksen Senate Building midday to listen to lawmakers decrying the Hyde-amendment restrictions in Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment, and giving advice on how to lobby congressmen against it.Lawmakers in attendance included Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Jerrod Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards acted as Master of Ceremonies.One theme stressed by the speakers was the notion that the Stupak amendment went beyond Hyde-amendment restrictions, and prevented women from purchasing abortion coverage with private monies. "Don't let any office tell you that the Stupak amendment is Hyde revisited," warned Rep. Lynn Woolsey. "It is not. If they say it, you tell them that's not true: it's way, way more serious than that and it takes even more away from women than the Hyde amendment does."Pro-life analysts have denied that the Stupak amendment would prevent women from privately purchasing abortion coverage, a claim first stated by pro-abortion Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. Last month, the non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact.com also deemed the private-purchase claim false. Some speakers directed criticism at the U.S. Catholic Bishops for their role in the Stupak amendment's success. "The nature of this bill was pro-life legislation from the start. That is what health care reform is. It was a pro-life piece of legislation before the bishops engaged in trying to [take this down]," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro. Rev. Carlton Veazey, President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and a minister of the National Baptist Convention, took a moment to "call out" the bishops' involvement before closing the conference with a prayer."No one religion, no theological perspective, should get the kind of weight that they can put pressure on the Congress," said Veazey. "We in the religious community resent that, and ... we believe that no religion should carry that kind of weight in legislation.""You not only have a constitutional right for abortion, but you have a God-given right - given to you by God," he continued.Richards paused the rally at one point to offer applause, in memory of late-term abortionist George Tiller, in support of all abortionists.Pro-life leaders responded by questioning whether lawmakers would heed the ralliers' message over the majority opinion of American voters regarding the bill's abortion funding. The National Right to Life Committee last month compiled a string of poll results showing broad public support for the abortion restrictions represented by the Stupak amendment. "As intimidating as the coat hanger deliveries might be, the longer term effect of voting for a health care bill that involves every American in almost every abortion that takes place in the nation will be far more consequential in the minds and actions of voters," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony list.Eric Scheidler, the Executive Director of Pro-Life Action League, said the abortion lobby was "showing its true colors ever more clearly" as the battle over federal abortion funding heats up. "Not satisfied with legalized abortion, they're now seeking to force all of us to pay for abortion through our tax dollars," he said."It is amazing to me to see Planned Parenthood, who would benefit financially from the current national healthcare legislation, join up with their pro-abortion allies to continue to further their lies about what the Stupak-Pitts status quo amendment really does," remarked Students for Life executive director Kristan Hawkins. "Their tired rhetoric of the 1970s no longer works and they now know with their declining profits each year they need this Obama healthcare bill to stay in business," said Hawkins. "At the end of the day, Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion allies only care about their own survival and not the best interest of American women."
Hundreds of placard-waving abortion lobbyists descended upon a rainy Capitol Hill Wednesday to lobby against the pro-life Stupak amendment in the Democrats' health care bill, and receive encouragement from top pro-abortion leaders and lawmakers.The "Stop Stupak-Pitts Lobby Day" was sponsored by Feminist Majority Foundation and co-sponsored by a plethora of leading pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood, National Organization for women, NARAL, the National Abortion Federation, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and the ACLU.An overflow crowd of abortion supporters packed into the auditorium and Russell Caucus room in the Dirksen Senate Building midday to listen to lawmakers decrying the Hyde-amendment restrictions in Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment, and giving advice on how to lobby congressmen against it.Lawmakers in attendance included Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Jerrod Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards acted as Master of Ceremonies.One theme stressed by the speakers was the notion that the Stupak amendment went beyond Hyde-amendment restrictions, and prevented women from purchasing abortion coverage with private monies. "Don't let any office tell you that the Stupak amendment is Hyde revisited," warned Rep. Lynn Woolsey. "It is not. If they say it, you tell them that's not true: it's way, way more serious than that and it takes even more away from women than the Hyde amendment does."Pro-life analysts have denied that the Stupak amendment would prevent women from privately purchasing abortion coverage, a claim first stated by pro-abortion Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. Last month, the non-partisan fact-checking site Politifact.com also deemed the private-purchase claim false. Some speakers directed criticism at the U.S. Catholic Bishops for their role in the Stupak amendment's success. "The nature of this bill was pro-life legislation from the start. That is what health care reform is. It was a pro-life piece of legislation before the bishops engaged in trying to [take this down]," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro. Rev. Carlton Veazey, President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and a minister of the National Baptist Convention, took a moment to "call out" the bishops' involvement before closing the conference with a prayer."No one religion, no theological perspective, should get the kind of weight that they can put pressure on the Congress," said Veazey. "We in the religious community resent that, and ... we believe that no religion should carry that kind of weight in legislation.""You not only have a constitutional right for abortion, but you have a God-given right - given to you by God," he continued.Richards paused the rally at one point to offer applause, in memory of late-term abortionist George Tiller, in support of all abortionists.Pro-life leaders responded by questioning whether lawmakers would heed the ralliers' message over the majority opinion of American voters regarding the bill's abortion funding. The National Right to Life Committee last month compiled a string of poll results showing broad public support for the abortion restrictions represented by the Stupak amendment. "As intimidating as the coat hanger deliveries might be, the longer term effect of voting for a health care bill that involves every American in almost every abortion that takes place in the nation will be far more consequential in the minds and actions of voters," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony list.Eric Scheidler, the Executive Director of Pro-Life Action League, said the abortion lobby was "showing its true colors ever more clearly" as the battle over federal abortion funding heats up. "Not satisfied with legalized abortion, they're now seeking to force all of us to pay for abortion through our tax dollars," he said."It is amazing to me to see Planned Parenthood, who would benefit financially from the current national healthcare legislation, join up with their pro-abortion allies to continue to further their lies about what the Stupak-Pitts status quo amendment really does," remarked Students for Life executive director Kristan Hawkins. "Their tired rhetoric of the 1970s no longer works and they now know with their declining profits each year they need this Obama healthcare bill to stay in business," said Hawkins. "At the end of the day, Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion allies only care about their own survival and not the best interest of American women."
NY Senate Hands Gay Activists Crushing Defeat on Same-Sex "Marriage" Bill
Victory for Democrat Sen. Ruben Diaz, who led tireless campaign to defend natural marriage.
By Peter J. Smith
ALBANY, December 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Wednesday afternoon, the New York State Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject legislation that would have legalized same-sex "marriage," handing a humiliating defeat to proponents of the legislation who told the Senate that a vote for same-sex "marriage" was a vote to stand on the "right side of history."
The measure, which would have amended New York State's Domestic Partnership Law and have made New York the sixth state to legalize same-sex "marriage," failed by a broad margin of 24 in favor and 38 against.
The Senate vote finally means same-sex "marriage" is dead in New York for this legislative session: a resounding victory for pro-family advocates in the state, and a heavy loss for Gov. David Paterson and Democratic leaders, who were looking to deliver same-sex "marriage" advocates their first victory after their latest defeat in Maine.
Just minutes before the 3 P.M. vote, Sen. Thomas Duane (D-NY 29), the chief sponsor of the same-sex "marriage" bill, confidently told members of the Senate that he was looking forward to not just being "an old gay" but soon a "married gay."
However, those anticipations were dashed by a coalition of eight Democrats led by Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. (D-NY 32), the leader of the Senate fight against same-sex "marriage," who joined every member of the GOP caucus in a conscience vote against the bill.
Debate began after a short noon recess with Sen. Duane arguing that this "legislation would provide me and tens of thousands of other New Yorkers equal rights in New York State."
Delivering the final speech before the vote, Duane appeared confident of victory and pressed fellow Senators to vote for the bill since, "It's always the time to be on the right side of history!"
Only Sen. Diaz spoke on the floor of the Senate against same-sex "marriage." The Senator and Evangelical minister, indefatigable in his fight against same-sex "marriage," rallied 20,000 Hispanics over the summer in support of natural marriage, forged a broad religious coalition to oppose the bill, and even sacrificed with his wife a cruise celebrating their wedding anniversary in order to attend a special legislative session called by Gov. Paterson, where same-sex "marriage" could have been called to a vote.
Diaz mentioned that adherents of the world's major religions - not just Evangelicals - oppose same-sex "marriage," including Jews, Muslims, and Catholics. Diaz specifically praised those Catholic bishops who signed the Manhattan Declaration as a testament of their opposition to same-sex "marriage."
He proposed that the Senate instead should let New Yorkers decide on same-sex "marriage" through a referendum. New York has no referendum process like Maine, but the State Legislature could pass a bill that allows voters to decide the question via the ballot box.
However, the supreme "irony," Diaz told the Senate, was that the same gay lobby, which fought so hard and spent an enormous amount of money to wrest control of the Senate from the GOP in order to get a bill on same-sex "marriage," now "is depending on them to make this happen."
"The reality is that it has been the Republican Party and their traditional values, and the Republican Party with their moral values, and the Republican Party with their family values, that has been for years and years what has kept the values in this whole nation alive," declared Diaz. "And now they are being asked to throw away these values."
He appealed to the Republicans once again to hold fast to their principles and instead let the people decide the fate of marriage in New York, pointing out that the will of the people has opposed same-sex "marriage" in all thirty-one states where they had an opportunity to vote on it.
"Remember your rules, remember your values: remember your family values, traditional values, moral values," exhorted Diaz. "Go back to the defense of your traditional values. Join me a Democrat, join me a Hispanic, join me a black, join me a Puerto Rican, and join me in bringing a referendum to the people."
However the rest of the speeches proceeded from Democrats speaking out in favor of the bill.
Sen. Malcolm Smith (D-NY 14), President Pro Tempore of the Senate, told the Senate that at stake with same-sex "marriage" was "an individual's right to feel good about themselves."
"For the first time, all men and women will be created equal," declaimed Sen. Eric Schneiderman (D-NY 34), Deputy Majority Leader. "This law will expand the central American ideal of equality."
Sen. Eric Adams (D-NY 20) politely accused Sen. Diaz of not speaking "from his head." Adams compared banning gay marriage to "reaching back to the most ugliest [sic] period of America," when states like Virginia had laws banning interracial marriages until the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.
The senator also told his colleagues that, "When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out."
That statement drew a sharp rebuke from Sen. Diaz, who stated that given what he said was the rising scourge of crime in America, "That is the wrong statement to send." Diaz urged Senators to remember their Bibles before voting. "You should carry your Bible all the time," he said.
Freed by GOP Minority Leader Sen. Dean Skelos (NY 9) to vote their consciences, every single Republican joined Sen. Diaz in rejecting same-sex "marriage." The seven other Democrats to vote against the same-sex "marriage" bill were Sens. Carl Kruger (NY 27), Shirley Huntley (NY 10), Darrel Aubertine (NY 48), Joseph Addabbo (NY 15), William Stachowski (NY 58), George Onorato (NY 12), and Hiram Monserrate (NY 13).
By Peter J. Smith
ALBANY, December 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Wednesday afternoon, the New York State Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject legislation that would have legalized same-sex "marriage," handing a humiliating defeat to proponents of the legislation who told the Senate that a vote for same-sex "marriage" was a vote to stand on the "right side of history."
The measure, which would have amended New York State's Domestic Partnership Law and have made New York the sixth state to legalize same-sex "marriage," failed by a broad margin of 24 in favor and 38 against.
The Senate vote finally means same-sex "marriage" is dead in New York for this legislative session: a resounding victory for pro-family advocates in the state, and a heavy loss for Gov. David Paterson and Democratic leaders, who were looking to deliver same-sex "marriage" advocates their first victory after their latest defeat in Maine.
Just minutes before the 3 P.M. vote, Sen. Thomas Duane (D-NY 29), the chief sponsor of the same-sex "marriage" bill, confidently told members of the Senate that he was looking forward to not just being "an old gay" but soon a "married gay."
However, those anticipations were dashed by a coalition of eight Democrats led by Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. (D-NY 32), the leader of the Senate fight against same-sex "marriage," who joined every member of the GOP caucus in a conscience vote against the bill.
Debate began after a short noon recess with Sen. Duane arguing that this "legislation would provide me and tens of thousands of other New Yorkers equal rights in New York State."
Delivering the final speech before the vote, Duane appeared confident of victory and pressed fellow Senators to vote for the bill since, "It's always the time to be on the right side of history!"
Only Sen. Diaz spoke on the floor of the Senate against same-sex "marriage." The Senator and Evangelical minister, indefatigable in his fight against same-sex "marriage," rallied 20,000 Hispanics over the summer in support of natural marriage, forged a broad religious coalition to oppose the bill, and even sacrificed with his wife a cruise celebrating their wedding anniversary in order to attend a special legislative session called by Gov. Paterson, where same-sex "marriage" could have been called to a vote.
Diaz mentioned that adherents of the world's major religions - not just Evangelicals - oppose same-sex "marriage," including Jews, Muslims, and Catholics. Diaz specifically praised those Catholic bishops who signed the Manhattan Declaration as a testament of their opposition to same-sex "marriage."
He proposed that the Senate instead should let New Yorkers decide on same-sex "marriage" through a referendum. New York has no referendum process like Maine, but the State Legislature could pass a bill that allows voters to decide the question via the ballot box.
However, the supreme "irony," Diaz told the Senate, was that the same gay lobby, which fought so hard and spent an enormous amount of money to wrest control of the Senate from the GOP in order to get a bill on same-sex "marriage," now "is depending on them to make this happen."
"The reality is that it has been the Republican Party and their traditional values, and the Republican Party with their moral values, and the Republican Party with their family values, that has been for years and years what has kept the values in this whole nation alive," declared Diaz. "And now they are being asked to throw away these values."
He appealed to the Republicans once again to hold fast to their principles and instead let the people decide the fate of marriage in New York, pointing out that the will of the people has opposed same-sex "marriage" in all thirty-one states where they had an opportunity to vote on it.
"Remember your rules, remember your values: remember your family values, traditional values, moral values," exhorted Diaz. "Go back to the defense of your traditional values. Join me a Democrat, join me a Hispanic, join me a black, join me a Puerto Rican, and join me in bringing a referendum to the people."
However the rest of the speeches proceeded from Democrats speaking out in favor of the bill.
Sen. Malcolm Smith (D-NY 14), President Pro Tempore of the Senate, told the Senate that at stake with same-sex "marriage" was "an individual's right to feel good about themselves."
"For the first time, all men and women will be created equal," declaimed Sen. Eric Schneiderman (D-NY 34), Deputy Majority Leader. "This law will expand the central American ideal of equality."
Sen. Eric Adams (D-NY 20) politely accused Sen. Diaz of not speaking "from his head." Adams compared banning gay marriage to "reaching back to the most ugliest [sic] period of America," when states like Virginia had laws banning interracial marriages until the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.
The senator also told his colleagues that, "When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out."
That statement drew a sharp rebuke from Sen. Diaz, who stated that given what he said was the rising scourge of crime in America, "That is the wrong statement to send." Diaz urged Senators to remember their Bibles before voting. "You should carry your Bible all the time," he said.
Freed by GOP Minority Leader Sen. Dean Skelos (NY 9) to vote their consciences, every single Republican joined Sen. Diaz in rejecting same-sex "marriage." The seven other Democrats to vote against the same-sex "marriage" bill were Sens. Carl Kruger (NY 27), Shirley Huntley (NY 10), Darrel Aubertine (NY 48), Joseph Addabbo (NY 15), William Stachowski (NY 58), George Onorato (NY 12), and Hiram Monserrate (NY 13).
Letter to the Sons of Confederate Veterans By Kurt Simmons
Dear Editor,
I appreciated the article by Chaplin-in-Chief, Cecil Fayard, Jr, “America is in Trouble.”
America’s biggest problem is the watered-down quality of Christian faith among those that profess to follow Christ. Had our forebears been alive when the present administration declared June “Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Pride” month, they would have demanded immediate secession. Our forebears would have considered it an honor to die fighting to be free rather than allow the basic morals and teaching of the Bible to be perverted this way.
When, a few years earlier, federal Judge Myron Thompson declared that Alabama could not place the Ten Commandments in its State Supreme Court Building (the State could not acknowledge God), the Alabama State Legislature should have begun immediate debates about secession. They should have preferred war than to submit to the suppression of our Christian faith and its emblems. There is no legal, moral, or Constitutional basis for the court’s decision. What possible power upon earth could persuade us to obey it?
When the federal courts abolished Bible reading in our schools or the opening of class with prayer, that, too, should have caused the nation to erupt in calls for secession. Yet, hardly a peep was heard. Great men of faith we are today! America is in trouble and our government is full of criminals because our pulpits are full of cowards!
Why would any people who profess faith in Christ want to be beneath the government of Washington DC, seeing it has made itself the enemy of the gospel, and everything this country was founded upon? Do we have so great love for life in this world that we are willing to jeopardize the next, obeying Caesar more than Christ? Have we been reduced to nation of neuters and castrates? Is there nothing that can move us?
Yes, America is in trouble and will continue to be in trouble until we are prepared to die fighting for what we believe. We use to have names for that: Obedience, Faithfulness, Devotion, and Sacrifice! Lost virtues in this age! The last 50-75 years have been marked by nothing but surrender, abandonment, and apostasy by those professing to be soldiers of the cross. When we care enough about our children, our families, our communities, and our faith to publicly begin calling for secession and working to make it happen, then and not before, can we hope for real change and to regain our Christ-based culture and institutions.
Meanwhile, may God be merciful upon our poor, pathetic, souls!
I appreciated the article by Chaplin-in-Chief, Cecil Fayard, Jr, “America is in Trouble.”
America’s biggest problem is the watered-down quality of Christian faith among those that profess to follow Christ. Had our forebears been alive when the present administration declared June “Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Pride” month, they would have demanded immediate secession. Our forebears would have considered it an honor to die fighting to be free rather than allow the basic morals and teaching of the Bible to be perverted this way.
When, a few years earlier, federal Judge Myron Thompson declared that Alabama could not place the Ten Commandments in its State Supreme Court Building (the State could not acknowledge God), the Alabama State Legislature should have begun immediate debates about secession. They should have preferred war than to submit to the suppression of our Christian faith and its emblems. There is no legal, moral, or Constitutional basis for the court’s decision. What possible power upon earth could persuade us to obey it?
When the federal courts abolished Bible reading in our schools or the opening of class with prayer, that, too, should have caused the nation to erupt in calls for secession. Yet, hardly a peep was heard. Great men of faith we are today! America is in trouble and our government is full of criminals because our pulpits are full of cowards!
Why would any people who profess faith in Christ want to be beneath the government of Washington DC, seeing it has made itself the enemy of the gospel, and everything this country was founded upon? Do we have so great love for life in this world that we are willing to jeopardize the next, obeying Caesar more than Christ? Have we been reduced to nation of neuters and castrates? Is there nothing that can move us?
Yes, America is in trouble and will continue to be in trouble until we are prepared to die fighting for what we believe. We use to have names for that: Obedience, Faithfulness, Devotion, and Sacrifice! Lost virtues in this age! The last 50-75 years have been marked by nothing but surrender, abandonment, and apostasy by those professing to be soldiers of the cross. When we care enough about our children, our families, our communities, and our faith to publicly begin calling for secession and working to make it happen, then and not before, can we hope for real change and to regain our Christ-based culture and institutions.
Meanwhile, may God be merciful upon our poor, pathetic, souls!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Sen. Nelson: I Won't Support a Health Bill Without Stupak Language
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 2, 2009
One Democrat senator has thrown a critical wrench in President Obama's health care plans by stating he will not support the measure unless it includes Hyde-amendment restrictions like those introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak in the bill's House counterpart.
Democrat Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska says he intends to introduce a Stupak-like amendment for his chamber's bill. The Huffington Post reports that when asked by reporters if he would support a bill that lacked his amendment, Nelson replied, "No."
Nelson's stand against the abortion-funding bill could prove fatal to the already-struggling legislation: Democrats are already scrambling for votes after Independent Senator Joe Lieberman vowed to staunchly oppose any bill with a public option, considered by many liberal Democrats an essential part of the plan. The bill would need support by all 60 lawmakers who caucus with Democrats to defend against a GOP filibuster attempt.
Nelson's amendment, which he said is "as identical to Stupak as it can be," has yet to be unveiled. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is at least one co-sponsor of the amendment.
Sen. Bob Casey, another Democrat who often votes pro-life, said that his own negotiations on the abortion funding are "ongoing."
While pro-abortion lawmakers tout the Senate health care bill as maintaining the "status quo" on abortion policy, leading pro-life analysts have decried the bill's supposed ban on federal abortion funding as little more than an accounting gimmick. The Senate bill, like the defunct "Capps amendment" of the House bill, allows a government-run insurance option to cover abortions, and allows taxpayer subsidies to fund private insurance plans that cover abortions.
The Hyde-amendment restrictions won an upset victory in the House last month after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seeking votes from conservative Democrats, made a sudden about-face and allowed a vote on the easily-passed Stupak amendment. Pro-abortion lawmakers have since promised that the pro-life language would never make it into the final version of the bill.
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 2, 2009
One Democrat senator has thrown a critical wrench in President Obama's health care plans by stating he will not support the measure unless it includes Hyde-amendment restrictions like those introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak in the bill's House counterpart.
Democrat Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska says he intends to introduce a Stupak-like amendment for his chamber's bill. The Huffington Post reports that when asked by reporters if he would support a bill that lacked his amendment, Nelson replied, "No."
Nelson's stand against the abortion-funding bill could prove fatal to the already-struggling legislation: Democrats are already scrambling for votes after Independent Senator Joe Lieberman vowed to staunchly oppose any bill with a public option, considered by many liberal Democrats an essential part of the plan. The bill would need support by all 60 lawmakers who caucus with Democrats to defend against a GOP filibuster attempt.
Nelson's amendment, which he said is "as identical to Stupak as it can be," has yet to be unveiled. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is at least one co-sponsor of the amendment.
Sen. Bob Casey, another Democrat who often votes pro-life, said that his own negotiations on the abortion funding are "ongoing."
While pro-abortion lawmakers tout the Senate health care bill as maintaining the "status quo" on abortion policy, leading pro-life analysts have decried the bill's supposed ban on federal abortion funding as little more than an accounting gimmick. The Senate bill, like the defunct "Capps amendment" of the House bill, allows a government-run insurance option to cover abortions, and allows taxpayer subsidies to fund private insurance plans that cover abortions.
The Hyde-amendment restrictions won an upset victory in the House last month after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seeking votes from conservative Democrats, made a sudden about-face and allowed a vote on the easily-passed Stupak amendment. Pro-abortion lawmakers have since promised that the pro-life language would never make it into the final version of the bill.
Our Opinions Concering Israel
We feel that the favoritism the U.S. has shown the Jews/Israel has injured our relationship with the Arab world and has caused them to hate us. We
owe Israel no special friendship or allegiance. The Jews are antichrist.
An Antichrist is anyone who denies the Son. (I Jn. 2:22 & 23 who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledge the Son hath the Father also. ). The only way to the Father is through the Son. The Jews deny Jesus and therefore are Antichrist, and have not the Father. The Bible says that those who deny Christ are at enmity (hatred) with God (Rom. 8:7, 8) If the Jews are at enmity (enemies) of God, why should Christian befriend them (except to lead them to Christ, of course)?
The Jews were provisionally chosen as a nation to accomplish God's purpose to bring Jesus into the world; they were “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” which God bore with much longsuffering and patience (Rom. 10:22, 23). The Jews had the chance and refused the gospel. You also say, Emily, that the Jews did not kill Jesus; yet they rejected him and cause the Son of God to be crucified when Pilate was determined to let him go (Acts 2:23)! The moral blame was squarely placed on them. (Matt. 27:1 when the morning was come, the chief priests and elders took counsel against Jesus to put him to death). You also say that He gave Himself up willingly, that is true. He did it for us, but that doesn’t change the fact that they sought to murder Him. (Also look at Matt. 27:20) That is why their city and nation was destroyed by Rome in AD 70 (see Matt. 23 & 24). Jesus said "your house is left to you desolate" - that is, they abandoned God and so he abandoned them to be destroyed. Emily, now you said that God sees all men equally, you are right. That means all men find grace the same way – through Jesus. Jews must obey the gospel the same as Gentiles. There is no preferential treatment. The ground before the cross is plane. Unless the
Jews repent and accept Christ, they are condemned as every other man or
woman. As a "Christian" we have no business taking sides with a nation
that denies Christ. That makes us a party to their sins. So, while we certainly do not favor the Muslim, neither should we favor the Jews. Both deny Christ and are enemies of the gospel. That is the plain and simple truth.
owe Israel no special friendship or allegiance. The Jews are antichrist.
An Antichrist is anyone who denies the Son. (I Jn. 2:22 & 23 who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledge the Son hath the Father also. ). The only way to the Father is through the Son. The Jews deny Jesus and therefore are Antichrist, and have not the Father. The Bible says that those who deny Christ are at enmity (hatred) with God (Rom. 8:7, 8) If the Jews are at enmity (enemies) of God, why should Christian befriend them (except to lead them to Christ, of course)?
The Jews were provisionally chosen as a nation to accomplish God's purpose to bring Jesus into the world; they were “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” which God bore with much longsuffering and patience (Rom. 10:22, 23). The Jews had the chance and refused the gospel. You also say, Emily, that the Jews did not kill Jesus; yet they rejected him and cause the Son of God to be crucified when Pilate was determined to let him go (Acts 2:23)! The moral blame was squarely placed on them. (Matt. 27:1 when the morning was come, the chief priests and elders took counsel against Jesus to put him to death). You also say that He gave Himself up willingly, that is true. He did it for us, but that doesn’t change the fact that they sought to murder Him. (Also look at Matt. 27:20) That is why their city and nation was destroyed by Rome in AD 70 (see Matt. 23 & 24). Jesus said "your house is left to you desolate" - that is, they abandoned God and so he abandoned them to be destroyed. Emily, now you said that God sees all men equally, you are right. That means all men find grace the same way – through Jesus. Jews must obey the gospel the same as Gentiles. There is no preferential treatment. The ground before the cross is plane. Unless the
Jews repent and accept Christ, they are condemned as every other man or
woman. As a "Christian" we have no business taking sides with a nation
that denies Christ. That makes us a party to their sins. So, while we certainly do not favor the Muslim, neither should we favor the Jews. Both deny Christ and are enemies of the gospel. That is the plain and simple truth.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Pope Encourages Demonstrators against Anti-Crucifix Ruling
By Hilary White
ROME, November 30, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI told demonstrators at St. Peter's square this Sunday that the crucifix has a "religious, historical and cultural value."
In a rare move, the pope directly addressed the demonstrators, saying, "I greet with affection the Italian-speaking pilgrims, especially those who took part in the march organized by the Movement of Family Love to express my deep love for the Crucified, recognizing the value of religious, historical and cultural heritage."
The papal boost for the protesters came at the end of the Sunday Angelus, a weekly address by Pope Benedict to pilgrims in the piazza. Hundreds of demonstrators marched to the square to protest attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to ban the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools.
At the same time, the protests continue around the country against the Strassburg court ruling that came earlier this month saying that crucifixes should be removed for the sake of religious freedom. Town mayors around the country are ordering their schools to display crucifixes or face heavy fines, and newspapers are carrying articles detailing the history, cultural significance and artistic renditions of crucifixes through the centuries, calling it a "central icon" in western art.
This weekend, officials of the small town of Mariglianella in the Province of Naples have instituted a formal ceremony to "deliver the crucifixes" to the local schools. The event was held on Saturday at the Institute Comprehensive "Giosuè Carducci," at which headmistress Joan Zarra said, "We must defend our history but at the same time we must defend the history of others, understand, respect and also be free to choose without being forced and without coercion."
The Italian national paper Il Giornale ran an obituary today on the artist Ernesto Treccani who died at 84 years on Friday, noting the cycle of crucifixes he created in the summer of 2000. "In the crucifix I see all of humanity," Treccani said in a final interview. "Christ on the cross opens his arms in a gesture of universal love. Loneliness, misunderstanding and betrayal of the cross become a sharing touching, in an act of perfect love."
"The crucifix is our time," he said. "The crucifix is at the bottom of our existence, of every possible existence. Pain and love in the Crucified interpenetrate. Approach them, trying to fathom the mystery, beauty, symbolic meaning for me representing the sign of existential grace and aesthetics, that moves me every day and I am surprised."
Italian Politicians Furious Agaist EU Human Rights Court
Italian Politicians Furious over Anti-Crucifix Decision by European Human Rights Court
By Hilary White
ROME, November 4, 2009
The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against crucifixes in Italian schools has garnered outrage from many corners in Italy, including senior officials of the Vatican and the Italian Parliament as well as local political and social groups. The news made the front page of most national Italian papers.
The ruling comes in response to a complaint by an Italian citizen of Finish origin, Soile Lautsi, who now lives near Padua, who had asked her local public school to remove crucifixes that she deemed offensive. Lautsi had campaigned through the courts for eight years against the presence of crucifixes in Italy's classrooms. The ECHR ruling granted her compensation of five thousand Euros for moral damages.
The ruling said, "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities ... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions."
Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi SJ, said that the decision had been greeted with "astonishment" in the Vatican. "The Crucified, remember, was always a sign of God's offer of love and union and reception for all humanity," Lombardi said. For this reason he said he is "sorry that it would be regarded as a sign of division, exclusion or restriction of freedom. This is not in the common sentiment of our people."
Lombardi defended the presence of Christianity in Italian schools saying, "Religion makes a valuable contribution to the training and moral growth of individuals, and is an essential component of our civilization. It is wrong and short sighted to want to exclude this from the educational reality."
The Italian bishops' conference issued a statement saying the ruling is "likely to artificially separate the national identity from its cultural and spiritual matrix." The bishops called it an example of Europe's "degeneration into secularism, hostility to all forms of the political and cultural importance of religion."
Reactions from government and political leaders, however, have been even more blunt, with most calling the ruling a serious offense against Italian culture, history and independence.
Minister of Education Mariastella Gelmini said that the government is appealing the decision. "Our Constitution rightly recognizes a particular value of the Catholic religion. I would not like some of the rules referred to by the judges in Strasbourg would be inconsistent with our Constitution," she said, adding, "The crucifix represents Italy and to defend its presence in schools means to defend our tradition."
Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said that the Vatican "appreciates" the efforts against the ruling by the government and said he hoped that other European governments would follow. But Bertone said that it is for the laity to react, saying the Holy See "cannot interfere with the decisions of the European Court."
Italian Foreign minister, Franco Frattini, however, said the ruling is "a fatal blow to Europe of values and rights." Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni, called it a "mistake and an act of insensitivity" and the fruit of a "partial and ideological" court.
Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia called it a "shameful" decision and said, "Pending clarification of the reasons I cannot but side with all those, believers or not, religious or not, Christian or not, who feel aggrieved by an abstract and pseudo democratic ruling.
"The one who is offending the feelings of the peoples of Europe born from Christianity is without doubt the Strasbourg court. Without identity there are peoples, and without Christianity there would be no Europe."
Minister of Youth, Giorgia Meloni, said, "The crucifix is a symbol inextricably tied to the identity of European peoples, even beyond its religious meaning." This was backed up by Minister of Economic Development Claudio Scajola who called the crucifix a "universal symbol of love, gentleness and peace."
Union of Christian and Centre Democrats (UDC) party leader Pier Ferdinando Casini said, "The decision to reject the presence of the crucifix in schools is the first consequence of the timidity of European governments that have refused to mention the Christian roots in the European Constitution."
Even the leader of Italy's centre-left Partito Democratico (PD), Pierluigi Bersani, speaking at the headquarters of the European Commission, said the decision in this "delicate area" is where "common sense becomes a victim of the law." "I think," he continued, "that an ancient tradition as that of the crucifix cannot be offensive to anyone."
A local paper of the Veneto region, that includes Padua, said the area is for one day declaring "secession from Europe" in rebellion. Corriere del Veneto quoted MEP Bizzotto Mara saying, "To prohibit the crucifix in our schools is a glaring idiocy." Another Veneto politician called for a rebellion and for crucifixes to be displayed in every classroom and every office.
Bricolo Frederick, chairman of the Senate of the Carroccio, said, "At home no one can impose rules that are against our history and our culture. Even those European organizations which demonstrate increasingly distant from the belief and the will of our peoples."
Paul Caratossidis, coordinator of Forza Nuova, said that anyone trying to remove crucifixes from Veneto schools would face a "human wall" of opposition, "Even if it means risking the illegality."
By Hilary White
ROME, November 4, 2009
The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against crucifixes in Italian schools has garnered outrage from many corners in Italy, including senior officials of the Vatican and the Italian Parliament as well as local political and social groups. The news made the front page of most national Italian papers.
The ruling comes in response to a complaint by an Italian citizen of Finish origin, Soile Lautsi, who now lives near Padua, who had asked her local public school to remove crucifixes that she deemed offensive. Lautsi had campaigned through the courts for eight years against the presence of crucifixes in Italy's classrooms. The ECHR ruling granted her compensation of five thousand Euros for moral damages.
The ruling said, "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities ... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions."
Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi SJ, said that the decision had been greeted with "astonishment" in the Vatican. "The Crucified, remember, was always a sign of God's offer of love and union and reception for all humanity," Lombardi said. For this reason he said he is "sorry that it would be regarded as a sign of division, exclusion or restriction of freedom. This is not in the common sentiment of our people."
Lombardi defended the presence of Christianity in Italian schools saying, "Religion makes a valuable contribution to the training and moral growth of individuals, and is an essential component of our civilization. It is wrong and short sighted to want to exclude this from the educational reality."
The Italian bishops' conference issued a statement saying the ruling is "likely to artificially separate the national identity from its cultural and spiritual matrix." The bishops called it an example of Europe's "degeneration into secularism, hostility to all forms of the political and cultural importance of religion."
Reactions from government and political leaders, however, have been even more blunt, with most calling the ruling a serious offense against Italian culture, history and independence.
Minister of Education Mariastella Gelmini said that the government is appealing the decision. "Our Constitution rightly recognizes a particular value of the Catholic religion. I would not like some of the rules referred to by the judges in Strasbourg would be inconsistent with our Constitution," she said, adding, "The crucifix represents Italy and to defend its presence in schools means to defend our tradition."
Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said that the Vatican "appreciates" the efforts against the ruling by the government and said he hoped that other European governments would follow. But Bertone said that it is for the laity to react, saying the Holy See "cannot interfere with the decisions of the European Court."
Italian Foreign minister, Franco Frattini, however, said the ruling is "a fatal blow to Europe of values and rights." Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni, called it a "mistake and an act of insensitivity" and the fruit of a "partial and ideological" court.
Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia called it a "shameful" decision and said, "Pending clarification of the reasons I cannot but side with all those, believers or not, religious or not, Christian or not, who feel aggrieved by an abstract and pseudo democratic ruling.
"The one who is offending the feelings of the peoples of Europe born from Christianity is without doubt the Strasbourg court. Without identity there are peoples, and without Christianity there would be no Europe."
Minister of Youth, Giorgia Meloni, said, "The crucifix is a symbol inextricably tied to the identity of European peoples, even beyond its religious meaning." This was backed up by Minister of Economic Development Claudio Scajola who called the crucifix a "universal symbol of love, gentleness and peace."
Union of Christian and Centre Democrats (UDC) party leader Pier Ferdinando Casini said, "The decision to reject the presence of the crucifix in schools is the first consequence of the timidity of European governments that have refused to mention the Christian roots in the European Constitution."
Even the leader of Italy's centre-left Partito Democratico (PD), Pierluigi Bersani, speaking at the headquarters of the European Commission, said the decision in this "delicate area" is where "common sense becomes a victim of the law." "I think," he continued, "that an ancient tradition as that of the crucifix cannot be offensive to anyone."
A local paper of the Veneto region, that includes Padua, said the area is for one day declaring "secession from Europe" in rebellion. Corriere del Veneto quoted MEP Bizzotto Mara saying, "To prohibit the crucifix in our schools is a glaring idiocy." Another Veneto politician called for a rebellion and for crucifixes to be displayed in every classroom and every office.
Bricolo Frederick, chairman of the Senate of the Carroccio, said, "At home no one can impose rules that are against our history and our culture. Even those European organizations which demonstrate increasingly distant from the belief and the will of our peoples."
Paul Caratossidis, coordinator of Forza Nuova, said that anyone trying to remove crucifixes from Veneto schools would face a "human wall" of opposition, "Even if it means risking the illegality."
Italian Mayor Revolt Againt EU Court Ruling...
Italian Mayors Order Crufixes Put in Classrooms in Revolt against European Court Ruling
Polish president and Greek Orthodox Church also hit out at decision against crucifixes in classrooms
By Hilary White
ROME, November 17, 2009
Poland's president, Lech Kaczynski and the leadership of the Greek Orthodox Church have both hit out at a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) attempting to ban the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools. At the same time, a general revolt against the ruling in municipalities all over Italy has been started by public officials, who are now ordering the display of crucifixes in schools, and levelling fines for non-compliance.
The November 3rd ECHR ruling, made in response to a complaint by an Italian secularist campaigner, said that the display of crucifixes violated the religious rights of pupils.
During Independence Day celebrations on Wednesday in Warsaw, Poland's Kaczynski said that "nobody in Poland will accept the message that you can't hang crosses in schools."
"One shouldn't count on that. Perhaps elsewhere, but never in Poland," Kaczynski said.
The reaction from Poland has touched a national nerve in a country where crucifixes and other religious symbols were banned under the atheistic communist rule and are now a prominent symbol of national sovereignty.
Lech Walesa, the former president and leader of the Solidarity movement that eventually freed Poland from its Soviet-controlled communist dictatorship, challenged the court ruling in a TV interview Thursday, saying, "We must respect minorities but also protect the rights of the majority."
At the same time, Archbishop Ieronymos, the Archbishop of Athens and primate of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece has also spoken out, urging all Europeans to oppose the ruling, saying the court is ignoring the role of Christianity in forming Europe's identity. The Greek Church has intervened in the case in response to a Greek citizen whose son is studying in Italy, the BBC reports.
The reactions from Greece and Poland reflect the warning made recently by UK legal expert Neil Addison, who told LifeSiteNews.com that, because of the intricacies of European Union law, the Italian crucifix ruling is likely ultimately to affect all 27 member states.
Addison, an author and expert on anti-discrimination law, said that if the Italian government loses their appeal, the ruling could result in the enforced exclusion of all public displays of Christian symbols all over Europe. Addison specifically warned that in countries like Greece and Cyprus, the common display of icons in public places would be under threat.
In fact, since the November 3rd ruling was announced, a secularist activist group in Greece, the Greek Helsinki Monitor, has called for a similar ruling to be applied to that country. The group is urging trade unions to challenge the presence of religious symbols in Greek schools.
The BBC reports that the Orthodox Church plans to hold an emergency Holy Synod to hash out a plan to oppose the ruling.
Meanwhile, Italian papers are reporting a general revolt across the country against the Strasburg ruling. All schools in the League Monza in the Lombardy region, have been given seven days to ensure that crucifixes are displayed in every classroom. The mayor of Besana in Brianza, Vittorio Gatti, signed an order levelling a €150 fine for non-compliance.
Mayor Gatti said, "We will give principals time to adjust, but then the order will be respected."
In a statement published on the municipality's website, the mayor referred to the ECHR decision, saying, "We believe that the crucifix is a symbolic expression in Italy of the religious origin of such important civic values as tolerance, mutual respect, enhancement of the person, freedom, solidarity and rejection of any discrimination."
"I believe I have decided the right thing. I have always seen crucifixes in schools and I believe we should have respect for our traditions and defend them against those who do not even know what they're talking about," Gatti said. The mayor of Priverno in the province of Latina, Lazio, central Italy, signed an order which provides for the maintenance of crucifixes in classrooms of primary schools throughout the municipality. Mayor Umberto Macci, instructed the municipal police to check that crucifixes are in place, with non-compliance to be fined €500. Citing 1924 and 1927 regulations on school furniture, which provided for the display of crucifixes in schools, the mayor said they are "an expression of fundamental civic values and Italian cultural values."
The mayor of Ascoli Piceno in the in the Marche region near the central east coast, said the crucifix expresses "in a symbolic way, the origin of religious values of the republican constitution. I am referring to freedom, mutual respect, appreciation of the person, solidarity and the rejection of any discrimination."
Mayor Guido Castelli cited state laws that agreed the display of crucifixes in classrooms "does not seem open to criticism over the principle of secularism" of the Italian State.
Polish president and Greek Orthodox Church also hit out at decision against crucifixes in classrooms
By Hilary White
ROME, November 17, 2009
Poland's president, Lech Kaczynski and the leadership of the Greek Orthodox Church have both hit out at a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) attempting to ban the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools. At the same time, a general revolt against the ruling in municipalities all over Italy has been started by public officials, who are now ordering the display of crucifixes in schools, and levelling fines for non-compliance.
The November 3rd ECHR ruling, made in response to a complaint by an Italian secularist campaigner, said that the display of crucifixes violated the religious rights of pupils.
During Independence Day celebrations on Wednesday in Warsaw, Poland's Kaczynski said that "nobody in Poland will accept the message that you can't hang crosses in schools."
"One shouldn't count on that. Perhaps elsewhere, but never in Poland," Kaczynski said.
The reaction from Poland has touched a national nerve in a country where crucifixes and other religious symbols were banned under the atheistic communist rule and are now a prominent symbol of national sovereignty.
Lech Walesa, the former president and leader of the Solidarity movement that eventually freed Poland from its Soviet-controlled communist dictatorship, challenged the court ruling in a TV interview Thursday, saying, "We must respect minorities but also protect the rights of the majority."
At the same time, Archbishop Ieronymos, the Archbishop of Athens and primate of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece has also spoken out, urging all Europeans to oppose the ruling, saying the court is ignoring the role of Christianity in forming Europe's identity. The Greek Church has intervened in the case in response to a Greek citizen whose son is studying in Italy, the BBC reports.
The reactions from Greece and Poland reflect the warning made recently by UK legal expert Neil Addison, who told LifeSiteNews.com that, because of the intricacies of European Union law, the Italian crucifix ruling is likely ultimately to affect all 27 member states.
Addison, an author and expert on anti-discrimination law, said that if the Italian government loses their appeal, the ruling could result in the enforced exclusion of all public displays of Christian symbols all over Europe. Addison specifically warned that in countries like Greece and Cyprus, the common display of icons in public places would be under threat.
In fact, since the November 3rd ruling was announced, a secularist activist group in Greece, the Greek Helsinki Monitor, has called for a similar ruling to be applied to that country. The group is urging trade unions to challenge the presence of religious symbols in Greek schools.
The BBC reports that the Orthodox Church plans to hold an emergency Holy Synod to hash out a plan to oppose the ruling.
Meanwhile, Italian papers are reporting a general revolt across the country against the Strasburg ruling. All schools in the League Monza in the Lombardy region, have been given seven days to ensure that crucifixes are displayed in every classroom. The mayor of Besana in Brianza, Vittorio Gatti, signed an order levelling a €150 fine for non-compliance.
Mayor Gatti said, "We will give principals time to adjust, but then the order will be respected."
In a statement published on the municipality's website, the mayor referred to the ECHR decision, saying, "We believe that the crucifix is a symbolic expression in Italy of the religious origin of such important civic values as tolerance, mutual respect, enhancement of the person, freedom, solidarity and rejection of any discrimination."
"I believe I have decided the right thing. I have always seen crucifixes in schools and I believe we should have respect for our traditions and defend them against those who do not even know what they're talking about," Gatti said. The mayor of Priverno in the province of Latina, Lazio, central Italy, signed an order which provides for the maintenance of crucifixes in classrooms of primary schools throughout the municipality. Mayor Umberto Macci, instructed the municipal police to check that crucifixes are in place, with non-compliance to be fined €500. Citing 1924 and 1927 regulations on school furniture, which provided for the display of crucifixes in schools, the mayor said they are "an expression of fundamental civic values and Italian cultural values."
The mayor of Ascoli Piceno in the in the Marche region near the central east coast, said the crucifix expresses "in a symbolic way, the origin of religious values of the republican constitution. I am referring to freedom, mutual respect, appreciation of the person, solidarity and the rejection of any discrimination."
Mayor Guido Castelli cited state laws that agreed the display of crucifixes in classrooms "does not seem open to criticism over the principle of secularism" of the Italian State.
Obama Education Czar + Planned Parenthood Sex Education
By Rita Diller
Note: Rita Diller is the national director of STOPP at American Life League. STOPP is devoted to fighting the anti-life, anti-family agenda of Planned Parenthood.December 1, 2009 (http://www.all.org/)
How many times and how many ways can Planned Parenthood say that it is reducing teen pregnancy with its horrifyingly graphic, immoral sex education, when evidence shows quite the contrary to be true? With Planned Parenthood's own Guttmacher Institute conducting all of the studies on the efficacy of its programs, and Planned Parenthood supervising its own programs in schools, it sometimes appears our teens are doomed to never-ending abuse by the abortion-mongering, sex-hawking organization that exists to "liberate" our society from sexual mores and kill any preborn babies that may get in the way of its push toward "sexual rights" for all, including children.One case in point is Robeson High School in Chicago. The school made headlines recently because of a revelation that one in seven of its female students is pregnant. Some media outlets jumped on the opportunity to blame the high pregnancy rate on the fact that the parents are not doing enough at home and that the school is encouraging pregnancy by helping pregnant teens continue with their education. No mention was made of the fact that Planned Parenthood has been a highly paid consultant with the Chicago public school system for years.From February 27, 2001, through August 31, 2004, Planned Parenthood was awarded $1,608,100 in consulting fees by Chicago public schools "on a non-competitive basis because of Consultant's unique qualifications to provide a teen pregnancy prevention program." (Emphasis added.) The money emanated from the school's operating fund.In return, Planned Parenthood was to provide a teen pregnancy prevention program for seventh and ninth graders in 45 Chicago public schools. Students were also given special times to access Planned Parenthood's places of business "for support and guidance." Incredibly, Planned Parenthood was given authority to oversee itself and "assess the program's efficiency and evaluate participating students' progress in the program."From September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2006, an additional $1 million was awarded to Planned Parenthood for the same "services." It continued to allow the group to monitor itself and left open the option of renewal for two more time periods.In 2006, the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, which includes Planned Parenthood, led the charge to remove any vestiges of "abstinence-only" education from Chicago public schools by holding a fundraiser at the headquarters of Playboy Enterprises.The Chicago Board of Education adopted a requirement that "students in sixth grade and beyond" take a comprehensive sex education program (of the Planned Parenthood type) beginning in 2007. (Emphasis added.)According to a 2006 news report from the Chicago Tribune, The new program ... [will] provide "age-appropriate and medically accurate information concerning the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life."The courses will be taught in Grades 6 through 12 and include instruction on how to prevent pregnancy through abstinence and contraception, as well as the emotional and psychological consequences of premarital sex and pregnancy. And who was overseeing the Chicago public schools from 2001 to 2008, when Planned Parenthood was paid in excess of $2 million to reduce teen pregnancy? None other than Arne Duncan, who was appointed U.S. Secretary of Education in January of this year. It's enough to make a grown woman cry. But instead of crying, it's time to shout. Planned Parenthood must be removed from our schools and our communities. Parents must educate their local school board members about the immorality of Planned Parenthood programs and the dangers they pose to our children.STOPP's proven plan for defeating Planned Parenthood includes a strategy for defeating its sex education programs. Time and time again, when parents have followed this plan, they have been successful in getting Planned Parenthood removed from local schools. Don't wait for someone else to do it. Act now to protect our children from the hellish vice of Planned Parenthood that holds our children hostage to the slavery of unbridled sex and its consequences, and steals their very souls.
Note: Rita Diller is the national director of STOPP at American Life League. STOPP is devoted to fighting the anti-life, anti-family agenda of Planned Parenthood.December 1, 2009 (http://www.all.org/)
How many times and how many ways can Planned Parenthood say that it is reducing teen pregnancy with its horrifyingly graphic, immoral sex education, when evidence shows quite the contrary to be true? With Planned Parenthood's own Guttmacher Institute conducting all of the studies on the efficacy of its programs, and Planned Parenthood supervising its own programs in schools, it sometimes appears our teens are doomed to never-ending abuse by the abortion-mongering, sex-hawking organization that exists to "liberate" our society from sexual mores and kill any preborn babies that may get in the way of its push toward "sexual rights" for all, including children.One case in point is Robeson High School in Chicago. The school made headlines recently because of a revelation that one in seven of its female students is pregnant. Some media outlets jumped on the opportunity to blame the high pregnancy rate on the fact that the parents are not doing enough at home and that the school is encouraging pregnancy by helping pregnant teens continue with their education. No mention was made of the fact that Planned Parenthood has been a highly paid consultant with the Chicago public school system for years.From February 27, 2001, through August 31, 2004, Planned Parenthood was awarded $1,608,100 in consulting fees by Chicago public schools "on a non-competitive basis because of Consultant's unique qualifications to provide a teen pregnancy prevention program." (Emphasis added.) The money emanated from the school's operating fund.In return, Planned Parenthood was to provide a teen pregnancy prevention program for seventh and ninth graders in 45 Chicago public schools. Students were also given special times to access Planned Parenthood's places of business "for support and guidance." Incredibly, Planned Parenthood was given authority to oversee itself and "assess the program's efficiency and evaluate participating students' progress in the program."From September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2006, an additional $1 million was awarded to Planned Parenthood for the same "services." It continued to allow the group to monitor itself and left open the option of renewal for two more time periods.In 2006, the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, which includes Planned Parenthood, led the charge to remove any vestiges of "abstinence-only" education from Chicago public schools by holding a fundraiser at the headquarters of Playboy Enterprises.The Chicago Board of Education adopted a requirement that "students in sixth grade and beyond" take a comprehensive sex education program (of the Planned Parenthood type) beginning in 2007. (Emphasis added.)According to a 2006 news report from the Chicago Tribune, The new program ... [will] provide "age-appropriate and medically accurate information concerning the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life."The courses will be taught in Grades 6 through 12 and include instruction on how to prevent pregnancy through abstinence and contraception, as well as the emotional and psychological consequences of premarital sex and pregnancy. And who was overseeing the Chicago public schools from 2001 to 2008, when Planned Parenthood was paid in excess of $2 million to reduce teen pregnancy? None other than Arne Duncan, who was appointed U.S. Secretary of Education in January of this year. It's enough to make a grown woman cry. But instead of crying, it's time to shout. Planned Parenthood must be removed from our schools and our communities. Parents must educate their local school board members about the immorality of Planned Parenthood programs and the dangers they pose to our children.STOPP's proven plan for defeating Planned Parenthood includes a strategy for defeating its sex education programs. Time and time again, when parents have followed this plan, they have been successful in getting Planned Parenthood removed from local schools. Don't wait for someone else to do it. Act now to protect our children from the hellish vice of Planned Parenthood that holds our children hostage to the slavery of unbridled sex and its consequences, and steals their very souls.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Bible In the Schools--A Letter by Dr. Ben Rush
Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) was one of the youngest signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
He was a distinguished physician and scientist who held the first chemistry professorship in America. He published the first American chemistry textbook, A Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on Chemistry, in 1770. He also established the first free dispensary in America in 1786 and published in 1812 the first American work on mental disorders, Medical and Observations Upon the Diseases of the Mind. He also helped to found the first abolition society in America, The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, in 1775, and was appointed by President John Adams as the Treasurer of the United States Mint in 1797, which he held until 1813. The following is taken from a personal letter written by Dr. Rush in the late 1700’s.
Dear Sir:
It is now several months since I promised to give you my reasons for preferring the Bible as a schoolbook to all other compositions. Before I state my arguments, I shall assume the five following propositions:
That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that is proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.
That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way.
That the Bible contains mare knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world.
That knowledge is most durable, and religious instruction most useful, when imparted in early life.
That the Bible, when not read in the schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life.
My arguments in favor of the use of the Bible as a schoolbook are founded,
I. In the constitution of the human mind.
1. The memory is the first faculty which opens in the minds of children. Of how much consequence, then, must it be to impress it with the great truths of Christianity, before it is preoccupied with less interesting subjects.
2. There is a peculiar aptitude in the minds of children for religious knowledge. I have constantly found them, in the first six or seven years of their fives, more inquisitive upon religious subjects than upon any others. And an ingenious instructor of youth has informed me that he has found young children more capable of receiving just ideas upon the most difficult tenets of religion than upon the most simple branches of human knowledge. It would be strange if it were otherwise, for God creates all His means to suit His ends. There must, of course, be fitness between the human mind and the truths which are essential to its happiness.
3. The influence of early impressions is very great upon subsequent life; and in a world where false prejudices do so much mischief, it would discover great weakness not to oppose them by such as are true. I grant that many men have rejected the impressions derived from the Bible; but how much soever these impressions may have been despised, I believe no man was ever early instructed in the truths of the Bible without having been made wiser or better by the early operation of these impressions upon his mind. Every just principle that is to be found in the writings of Voltaire is borrowed from the Bible; and the morality of Deists, which has been so much admired and praised where is has existed, has been, I believe, in most cases, the effect of habits produced by early instruction in the principles of Christianity.
4. We are subject, by general law of our natures, to what is called habit. Now, if the study of the Scriptures be necessary to our happiness at any time of our life, the sooner we begin to read them, the more we shall probably be attached to them; for it is peculiar to all the acts of habit, to become easy, strong, and agreeable by repetition.
5. It is a law in our natures that we remember longest the knowledge we acquire by the greatest number of our senses. Now, a knowledge of the contents of the Bible is acquired in school by the aid of the eye and the ear, for children, after getting their lessons, read or repeat them to their instructors in an audible voice; of course, there is a presumption that this knowledge will be retained much longer then if it had been acquired in any other way.
6. The interesting events and characters recorded and described in the Old and New Testaments are calculated, above all others, to seize upon all the faculties of the mind of children. The understanding, the memory, the imagination, the passions, and the moral powers are all occasionally addressed by carious incidents which are contained in those divine books, insomuch that not to be delighted with them is to be devoid of every principle of pleasure that exists in a sound mind.
7. There is in man a native preference of truth to fiction. Lord Shaftesbury says that "truth is so congenial to our mind that we love even the shadow of it:" and Horace, in his rules for composing an epic poem, established the same law in our natures by advising that "fictions in poetry should resemble truth." Noe, the Bible contains more truth than any other book in the world; so true is the testimony that it bears of God His works of creation, providence, and redemption that it is called truth itself, by way of preeminence above all earthly things that are acknowledged to be true. How forcibly are we struck above what we discover in the history of other nations. Where do we find a hero or an historian record is own faults or vices except in the Old Testament? Indeed, my friend, from some accounts which I have read of the American Revolution, I begin to grow skeptical to all history except that which is contained in the Bible. Now, if this book be known to contain nothing but what is materially true, the mind will naturally acquire a love for it from this circumstance; and from this affection for the truths of the Bible, it will acquire a discernment of truth in other books, and a preference of it in all the transactions of life.
8. There is wonderful property in the memory which enables it in old age to recover the knowledge acquired in early life after it had been apparently forgotten for forty or fifty years. Of how much consequence, then, must it be to fill the mind with that species of knowledge in childhood and youth which, when recalled in the decline of like, will support the soul under the infirmities of age and smooth the avenues of approaching death. The Bible is the only book which is capable of affording this support to old age; and it is for this reason that we find it resorted to with so much diligence and pleasure by such old people as have read it in early life. I can recollect many instances of this kind of attachment to the Bible in the meridian of their days, who have, notwithstanding, spent the evening of life in reading no other book. The late Sir John Pringle, physician to the queen of Great Britain, after passing a long like in camps and at court, closed it by studying the Scriptures. So anxious was he to increase his knowledge in them that he wrote to Dr. Michaelis, a learned professor of divinity in Germany, for an explanation of a difficult text of Scripture a short time before his death.
II. My second argument in favor of the use of the Bible in schools is founded upon an implied command of God and upon the practice of several of the wisest nations of the world.
In the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, we find the following words, which are directly to my purpose: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach then diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when tho liest down, and when thou risest. up."
It appears, moreover, form the history of the Jews, that they flourished as a nation in proportion as they honored and read the books of Moses, which contained the only revelation that God had made to the world. The law was not only neglected, but lost, during the general profligacy of manner which accompanied the long and wicked reign of Manasseh. But the discovery of it amid the rubbish of the temple by Josiah and its subsequent general use were followed by a return of national virtue and prosperity. We read further of the wonderful; effects which the reading of the law by Ezra, after his return in Babylon, had upon the Jews. They hung upon his lips with tears, and showed the sincerity of their repentance by their general Reformation.
The learning of the Jews, for many years, consisted in a knowledge of the Scriptures. These were the textbooks of all the instruction that was given in the schools of their Prophets. It was by means of this general knowledge of their law that those Jews who wandered from Judea into other countries carried with them and propagated certain ideas of the true God among all the civilized nations upon the face of the earth. And it was form the attachment they retained to the Old Testament that they procured a translation of it into the Greek language, after they had lost the Hebrew tongue by their long absence from their native country. The utility of this translation, commonly called the Septuagint, in facilitating the progress of the Gospel is well known to all who are acquainted with the history of the first age of the Christian church.
But the benefits of an early and general acquaintance with the Bible were not confined to the Jewish nation; they have appeared in many countries in Europe since the Reformation. The industry and habits of order which distinguish many of the German nations are derived from their early instruction in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. In Scotland and in parts of New England, where the Bible has been long used as a school book, the inhabitants are among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe.
I wish to be excused from repeating here that if the Bible did not convey a single direction for the attainment of future happiness, it should read in our schools in preference to all other books, from, its containing the greatest portion of that kind which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.
We err not only in human affairs, but in religion likewise, only because "we do not know the Scriptures." The opposite systems of the numerous sects of Christianity arise chiefly from their being more instructed in catechism, creeds, and confessions of faith, than in the scriptures. Immense truths, I believe, are concealed in them. The time, I have no doubt, will come, when prosperity will view and pity our ignorance of these truths, as much as we do the ignorance of the disciples of our Savior, who knew nothing of the meaning of those plain messages in the Old Testament which were daily fulfilling before their eyes.
But further, we err, not only in religion but in philosophy likewise, because we "do not know or believe the Scriptures." The sciences have been compared to a circle, of which religion composes a part. To understand any one of them perfectly, it is necessary to have some knowledge of them all. Bacon, Boyle, and Newton included the Scriptures in the inquires to which their universal geniuses disposed them, and their philosophy was aided by their knowledge in them. A striking agreement has been lately discovered between the history of certain events recorded in the Bible and some of the operations and production of nature, particularly those which are related in Whitehurst's observation on the deluge, In Smith's account of the origin of the variety of color in the human species, and in Bruce's travels. It remains yet to be shown how many other events related in the Bible accord with some late important discoveries in the principles of medicine. The events and the principles alluded to mutually establish the truth of each other.
I know it is said that the familiar use of the Bible in our schools has a tendency to lesson our due reverence for it. But this objection, by proving too much, proves nothing. If familiarity lessens respect for divine thins, then all those precepts for divine things, them all those precepts of our religion which enjoin the daily or weekly worship of the Deity are improper. The Bible was not intended to represent the Jewish ark; and it is an anti-Christian idea to suppose that is can be profaned by being carried into a schoolhouse, or by being handled by children.
It is also said that a great part of the Old Testament is no way interesting to mankind under the present dispensation of the Gospel. But I deny that any of the books of the Old Testament are not interesting to mankind under the Gospel dispensation. Most of the characters, events, and ceremonies mentioned in them are personal, providential, or instituted types of the Messiah, all of which have been, or remain yet, to be full filled by Him. It is from ignorance or neglect of these types that we ave so many Deists in Christendom, for so irrefragably of they prove the truth of Christianity that I am sure a young man who had been regularly instructed in their meaning could never doubt afterward of the truth of any principles. If any obscurity appears in these principles. If any obscurity appears in these principles, it is only to use the words of the poet, because they are dark with excessive brightness.
He was a distinguished physician and scientist who held the first chemistry professorship in America. He published the first American chemistry textbook, A Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on Chemistry, in 1770. He also established the first free dispensary in America in 1786 and published in 1812 the first American work on mental disorders, Medical and Observations Upon the Diseases of the Mind. He also helped to found the first abolition society in America, The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, in 1775, and was appointed by President John Adams as the Treasurer of the United States Mint in 1797, which he held until 1813. The following is taken from a personal letter written by Dr. Rush in the late 1700’s.
Dear Sir:
It is now several months since I promised to give you my reasons for preferring the Bible as a schoolbook to all other compositions. Before I state my arguments, I shall assume the five following propositions:
That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that is proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.
That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way.
That the Bible contains mare knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world.
That knowledge is most durable, and religious instruction most useful, when imparted in early life.
That the Bible, when not read in the schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life.
My arguments in favor of the use of the Bible as a schoolbook are founded,
I. In the constitution of the human mind.
1. The memory is the first faculty which opens in the minds of children. Of how much consequence, then, must it be to impress it with the great truths of Christianity, before it is preoccupied with less interesting subjects.
2. There is a peculiar aptitude in the minds of children for religious knowledge. I have constantly found them, in the first six or seven years of their fives, more inquisitive upon religious subjects than upon any others. And an ingenious instructor of youth has informed me that he has found young children more capable of receiving just ideas upon the most difficult tenets of religion than upon the most simple branches of human knowledge. It would be strange if it were otherwise, for God creates all His means to suit His ends. There must, of course, be fitness between the human mind and the truths which are essential to its happiness.
3. The influence of early impressions is very great upon subsequent life; and in a world where false prejudices do so much mischief, it would discover great weakness not to oppose them by such as are true. I grant that many men have rejected the impressions derived from the Bible; but how much soever these impressions may have been despised, I believe no man was ever early instructed in the truths of the Bible without having been made wiser or better by the early operation of these impressions upon his mind. Every just principle that is to be found in the writings of Voltaire is borrowed from the Bible; and the morality of Deists, which has been so much admired and praised where is has existed, has been, I believe, in most cases, the effect of habits produced by early instruction in the principles of Christianity.
4. We are subject, by general law of our natures, to what is called habit. Now, if the study of the Scriptures be necessary to our happiness at any time of our life, the sooner we begin to read them, the more we shall probably be attached to them; for it is peculiar to all the acts of habit, to become easy, strong, and agreeable by repetition.
5. It is a law in our natures that we remember longest the knowledge we acquire by the greatest number of our senses. Now, a knowledge of the contents of the Bible is acquired in school by the aid of the eye and the ear, for children, after getting their lessons, read or repeat them to their instructors in an audible voice; of course, there is a presumption that this knowledge will be retained much longer then if it had been acquired in any other way.
6. The interesting events and characters recorded and described in the Old and New Testaments are calculated, above all others, to seize upon all the faculties of the mind of children. The understanding, the memory, the imagination, the passions, and the moral powers are all occasionally addressed by carious incidents which are contained in those divine books, insomuch that not to be delighted with them is to be devoid of every principle of pleasure that exists in a sound mind.
7. There is in man a native preference of truth to fiction. Lord Shaftesbury says that "truth is so congenial to our mind that we love even the shadow of it:" and Horace, in his rules for composing an epic poem, established the same law in our natures by advising that "fictions in poetry should resemble truth." Noe, the Bible contains more truth than any other book in the world; so true is the testimony that it bears of God His works of creation, providence, and redemption that it is called truth itself, by way of preeminence above all earthly things that are acknowledged to be true. How forcibly are we struck above what we discover in the history of other nations. Where do we find a hero or an historian record is own faults or vices except in the Old Testament? Indeed, my friend, from some accounts which I have read of the American Revolution, I begin to grow skeptical to all history except that which is contained in the Bible. Now, if this book be known to contain nothing but what is materially true, the mind will naturally acquire a love for it from this circumstance; and from this affection for the truths of the Bible, it will acquire a discernment of truth in other books, and a preference of it in all the transactions of life.
8. There is wonderful property in the memory which enables it in old age to recover the knowledge acquired in early life after it had been apparently forgotten for forty or fifty years. Of how much consequence, then, must it be to fill the mind with that species of knowledge in childhood and youth which, when recalled in the decline of like, will support the soul under the infirmities of age and smooth the avenues of approaching death. The Bible is the only book which is capable of affording this support to old age; and it is for this reason that we find it resorted to with so much diligence and pleasure by such old people as have read it in early life. I can recollect many instances of this kind of attachment to the Bible in the meridian of their days, who have, notwithstanding, spent the evening of life in reading no other book. The late Sir John Pringle, physician to the queen of Great Britain, after passing a long like in camps and at court, closed it by studying the Scriptures. So anxious was he to increase his knowledge in them that he wrote to Dr. Michaelis, a learned professor of divinity in Germany, for an explanation of a difficult text of Scripture a short time before his death.
II. My second argument in favor of the use of the Bible in schools is founded upon an implied command of God and upon the practice of several of the wisest nations of the world.
In the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, we find the following words, which are directly to my purpose: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach then diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when tho liest down, and when thou risest. up."
It appears, moreover, form the history of the Jews, that they flourished as a nation in proportion as they honored and read the books of Moses, which contained the only revelation that God had made to the world. The law was not only neglected, but lost, during the general profligacy of manner which accompanied the long and wicked reign of Manasseh. But the discovery of it amid the rubbish of the temple by Josiah and its subsequent general use were followed by a return of national virtue and prosperity. We read further of the wonderful; effects which the reading of the law by Ezra, after his return in Babylon, had upon the Jews. They hung upon his lips with tears, and showed the sincerity of their repentance by their general Reformation.
The learning of the Jews, for many years, consisted in a knowledge of the Scriptures. These were the textbooks of all the instruction that was given in the schools of their Prophets. It was by means of this general knowledge of their law that those Jews who wandered from Judea into other countries carried with them and propagated certain ideas of the true God among all the civilized nations upon the face of the earth. And it was form the attachment they retained to the Old Testament that they procured a translation of it into the Greek language, after they had lost the Hebrew tongue by their long absence from their native country. The utility of this translation, commonly called the Septuagint, in facilitating the progress of the Gospel is well known to all who are acquainted with the history of the first age of the Christian church.
But the benefits of an early and general acquaintance with the Bible were not confined to the Jewish nation; they have appeared in many countries in Europe since the Reformation. The industry and habits of order which distinguish many of the German nations are derived from their early instruction in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. In Scotland and in parts of New England, where the Bible has been long used as a school book, the inhabitants are among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe.
I wish to be excused from repeating here that if the Bible did not convey a single direction for the attainment of future happiness, it should read in our schools in preference to all other books, from, its containing the greatest portion of that kind which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.
We err not only in human affairs, but in religion likewise, only because "we do not know the Scriptures." The opposite systems of the numerous sects of Christianity arise chiefly from their being more instructed in catechism, creeds, and confessions of faith, than in the scriptures. Immense truths, I believe, are concealed in them. The time, I have no doubt, will come, when prosperity will view and pity our ignorance of these truths, as much as we do the ignorance of the disciples of our Savior, who knew nothing of the meaning of those plain messages in the Old Testament which were daily fulfilling before their eyes.
But further, we err, not only in religion but in philosophy likewise, because we "do not know or believe the Scriptures." The sciences have been compared to a circle, of which religion composes a part. To understand any one of them perfectly, it is necessary to have some knowledge of them all. Bacon, Boyle, and Newton included the Scriptures in the inquires to which their universal geniuses disposed them, and their philosophy was aided by their knowledge in them. A striking agreement has been lately discovered between the history of certain events recorded in the Bible and some of the operations and production of nature, particularly those which are related in Whitehurst's observation on the deluge, In Smith's account of the origin of the variety of color in the human species, and in Bruce's travels. It remains yet to be shown how many other events related in the Bible accord with some late important discoveries in the principles of medicine. The events and the principles alluded to mutually establish the truth of each other.
I know it is said that the familiar use of the Bible in our schools has a tendency to lesson our due reverence for it. But this objection, by proving too much, proves nothing. If familiarity lessens respect for divine thins, then all those precepts for divine things, them all those precepts of our religion which enjoin the daily or weekly worship of the Deity are improper. The Bible was not intended to represent the Jewish ark; and it is an anti-Christian idea to suppose that is can be profaned by being carried into a schoolhouse, or by being handled by children.
It is also said that a great part of the Old Testament is no way interesting to mankind under the present dispensation of the Gospel. But I deny that any of the books of the Old Testament are not interesting to mankind under the Gospel dispensation. Most of the characters, events, and ceremonies mentioned in them are personal, providential, or instituted types of the Messiah, all of which have been, or remain yet, to be full filled by Him. It is from ignorance or neglect of these types that we ave so many Deists in Christendom, for so irrefragably of they prove the truth of Christianity that I am sure a young man who had been regularly instructed in their meaning could never doubt afterward of the truth of any principles. If any obscurity appears in these principles. If any obscurity appears in these principles, it is only to use the words of the poet, because they are dark with excessive brightness.
I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than out Maker. If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary. He came to promulgate a system of doctrines, as will as a system of morals. The perfect morality of the Gospel tests upon a doctrine which, though often controverted, has never been refuted; I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God. This sublime and ineffable doctrine delivers us from the absurd hypothesis of modern philosophers concerning the foundation of moral obligation, and fixes it upon the eternal and self-moving principle of LOVE. It concentrates a whole system of ethics in a single text of Scripture: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, even as I have love you." By with-holding the knowledge of this doctrine from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds. We do more; we furnish an argument for withholding from them a knowledge of the morality of the Gospel likewise; for this, in many instances, is a supernatural, and therefore as liable to be controverted, as any of the doctrines or miracles which are mentioned in the New Testament. The miraculous conception of the Savior of the world by a virgin is not more opposed to the ordinary course of natural events, not is the doctrine of atonement more above human reason, than those moral precepts which command us to love our enemies or to die for our friends.
I cannot bu suspect that the present fashionable practice of rejecting the Bible from our schools has originated with Deists. And they discover great ingenuity in this new mode of attacking Christianity. If they proceed in it, they will do more in half a century in extirpating our religion than Bolingbroke or Voltaire could have effected in a thousand years.
But passing by all other considerations, and contemplating merely the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of governments; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this divine book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and all those sober and frugal virtues which constitute the soul of republicanism.
Perhaps an apology may be necessary for my having presumed to write upon a subject so much above my ordinary studies. My excuse for it is that I thought a single mite from a member of a profession which has been frequently charged with skepticism in religion might attract the notice of persons who had often over looked the more ample contributions, upon this subject, of gentlemen in other professions.
With great respect, I am, etc.
Benjamin Rush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
