Maine Voters Reject Same-Sex "Marriage" Law
By Kathleen GilbertAUGUSTA, Maine, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Maine voters handed traditional marriage supporters a major victory Tuesday night after rejecting a same-sex "marriage" law that the state government approved six months ago.Though signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, the law never went into effect, and remained in limbo after the success of the ballot initiative calling for a people's vote.Had the law been upheld, Maine would have been the sixth U.S. state to allow homosexual "marriage," after Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.As of early Wednesday, the law was defeated 53% to 47%, despite polling data leading up to the vote showing the race in a dead heat. A similar scenario played out last year in California, where a neck-and-neck battle ended with 52% of voters rejecting same-sex "marriage." A national survey of marriage initiatives by ProtectMarriage.com last September showed that polling data underestimated voter support for true marriage on election day by an average of 7 percentage points.The Stand for Marriage Maine campaign celebrated its victory at a Portland rally beginning at midnight Wednesday. "We've struggled, we've worked against tremendous odds, as we've all known," said campaign manager Marc Mutty. "We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight."Maine's same-sex "marriage" activists on the other hand, who had banked on the state's left-leaning electorate to push the new definition of marriage through, vowed to continue the fight. "We're not short timers. We're in for the long haul,'' said No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly early this morning. Connolly's campaign has yet to officially concede the vote, and ABC News reports that the Protect Maine Equality campaign is likely to call for a statewide recount, which could take several weeks to conclude.Same-sex "marriage" has now lost in all 31 states in which the question has been put to a popular vote. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), pointed out: "Every time Americans vote on marriage, traditional marriage wins. As people become aware of the true homosexual agenda, that it is not about equality but indoctrinating children and discriminating against Christians, they shore up protections against it."Maine's vote marks the third time citizens have rejected same-sex "marriage" in response to action by the state government. One year ago today, 52% of California voters also upheld traditional marriage, striking down a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual "marriage" in May. In 1998, Hawaii became the first state with a constitutional amendment dealing with homosexual "marriage" in response to a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hawaiian voters then passed Amendment 2, which gave the legislature the power to reserve marriage to unions of man and woman.Though outspent two to one, the traditional marriage campaign received a boost from Portland Bishop Richard Malone, whose advocacy for true marriage helped solidify the response of Maine's Catholics. Catholics constitute 37% of the Maine population. "The Catholic Church led the fight in Maine against those seeking to reinvent marriage, and won," said Catholic League president Bill Donohue Wednesday.Maine's victory was not the only one for marriage Tuesday night: the losses suffered by pro-same-sex "marriage" Democrats in Virginia's and New Jersey's gubernatorial races pose a significant hurdle to homosexualist advocates. The victory of New Jersey Republican Chris Christie was particularly significant, as same-sex "marriage" supporters now only have until January to push through their legislation in time for lame duck Gov. Jon Corzine to sign it. Christie has vowed to veto any legislation legalizing same-sex "marriage.""Gov. Corzine said gay marriage was 'on the ballot' with him in New Jersey this year. Today, New Jersey voted 'No' on both of them," said Len Deo, President of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.Washington, D.C.'s city council is also preparing to approve a same-sex "marriage" law. Conservative D.C. activists are gathering support for a referendum to protect traditional marriage.
The Colonial Flag
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Yet Another Violation of a Religeous Practice--Crucifixes in the Classroom
European Court of Human Rights Bans Crucifixes in Italian Schools
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
STRASBOURG/ROME, November 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that displaying crucifixes in Italian classrooms violates parents' rights to secular education for their children.The Strasbourg court found that, "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.""The presence of the crucifix ... could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion," the court said in a statement, adding the presence of such symbols could be "disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists."The seven judges ruling on the case added that crucifixes in the classroom also restricted the "right of children to believe or not to believe," according to the statement quoted by AFP news agency.The case was brought to the Human Rights Court by Soile Lautsi, a mother of two from Abano Terme, near Padua, on the grounds that her children were being influenced by having to attend a school that had crucifixes in every room.Ruling that this contradicted the separation of Church and state in Italy the court awarded her 5,000 euros (7,400 dollars) in damages.The court did not, however, order the Italian authorities to remove the crucifixes, and the Italian Government said that it would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber, according to the ANSA news agency.The ruling has sparked an uproar throughout the country, with religious leaders and politicians condemning the ruling using words such as "abhorrent," "offensive," "pagan," and "spineless.""This is an abhorrent ruling," said Rocco Buttiglione, a former culture minister."It must be rejected with firmness. Italy has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history," he said.Mariastella Gelmini, the Minister for Education, said that the ruling was "an offence against our traditions.""The presence of a crucifix in the classroom does not signify adherence to Roman Catholicism, rather it is a symbol of our tradition," Gelmini told the ANSA news agency. She pointed out that, "The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves. No one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity.""It is not by eliminating the traditions of individual countries that a united Europe is built," Gelmini stated.Mario Baccini, a senator in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, said the European Court of Human Rights had "gone adrift in paganism," while Pierferdinando Casini of the opposition Union of Christian Democrats party said the ruling showed that the European Union's institutions were "spineless" in their failure to acknowledge the continent's Christian roots.Vatican spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he wanted to see the ruling and the reasons behind it before commenting, whereas the Italian Bishops Conference said that the verdict was "one sided and ideological," and "evokes sadness and bewilderment."
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
STRASBOURG/ROME, November 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that displaying crucifixes in Italian classrooms violates parents' rights to secular education for their children.The Strasbourg court found that, "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.""The presence of the crucifix ... could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion," the court said in a statement, adding the presence of such symbols could be "disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists."The seven judges ruling on the case added that crucifixes in the classroom also restricted the "right of children to believe or not to believe," according to the statement quoted by AFP news agency.The case was brought to the Human Rights Court by Soile Lautsi, a mother of two from Abano Terme, near Padua, on the grounds that her children were being influenced by having to attend a school that had crucifixes in every room.Ruling that this contradicted the separation of Church and state in Italy the court awarded her 5,000 euros (7,400 dollars) in damages.The court did not, however, order the Italian authorities to remove the crucifixes, and the Italian Government said that it would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber, according to the ANSA news agency.The ruling has sparked an uproar throughout the country, with religious leaders and politicians condemning the ruling using words such as "abhorrent," "offensive," "pagan," and "spineless.""This is an abhorrent ruling," said Rocco Buttiglione, a former culture minister."It must be rejected with firmness. Italy has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history," he said.Mariastella Gelmini, the Minister for Education, said that the ruling was "an offence against our traditions.""The presence of a crucifix in the classroom does not signify adherence to Roman Catholicism, rather it is a symbol of our tradition," Gelmini told the ANSA news agency. She pointed out that, "The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves. No one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity.""It is not by eliminating the traditions of individual countries that a united Europe is built," Gelmini stated.Mario Baccini, a senator in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, said the European Court of Human Rights had "gone adrift in paganism," while Pierferdinando Casini of the opposition Union of Christian Democrats party said the ruling showed that the European Union's institutions were "spineless" in their failure to acknowledge the continent's Christian roots.Vatican spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he wanted to see the ruling and the reasons behind it before commenting, whereas the Italian Bishops Conference said that the verdict was "one sided and ideological," and "evokes sadness and bewilderment."
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Sucession--Secede TX!
by Walter Block
The law of free association is a crucially important implication of the rights of private property (in physical material, and in our own bodies). For if we cannot freely associate with others on a mutually voluntary basis, our property rights are to that extent abrogated.
The most serious denigration of property rights in persons and thus in free association is, of course, murder. No one favors such behavior (killing in self-defense is entirely another matter) so this is not at all controversial. Another grave violation of the libertarian code of non-aggression against non-aggressors and their property is slavery (or kidnapping, which is short-term slavery). This, too, is non-debatable.
There are, however, many institutions, actually favored by "respectable" commentators on political economy, which partake of slavery to a greater or lesser extent. All laws against "discrimination" are violations of free association, because they force two parties, one of which who wishes to have nothing to do with the other, to interact despite these desires. When a store owner is forced to sell to customers against his will, and is not free to snub any of them on whatever racial, sexual, religious etc., basis he chooses, he is to that extent a slave. The difference between such laws and outright slavery is only one of degree: in each case, the essence of the matter is that people are forced to associate with others against their will. Another instance is forced unionism. Our labor legislation forces employers to "bargain fairly" with those they would prefer to avoid entirely.
Perhaps the most important violation of the law of free association, at least on pragmatic grounds, occurs in the political realm. This is crucial, because other infringements, such as affirmative action, union legislation, etc., stem from political sources. If freedom of association in the realm of affirmative action is the right to discriminate, and in the field of labor the right to hire a "scab," then when it comes to the political realm, it is the right to secession.
Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account.
Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first. Government, in the minarchist libertarian view, was only instituted by them in order to achieve certain ends, later, after they had come to own their property. That is to say, the state is a creation of the people, not the people a creation of the state. But if a government was once invited in, to provide certain services, then it can also be uninvited, or invited to leave, or expelled. To deny this is to assert that the government was there first, before there were even any people. But how can this be? Government is not a disembodied entity, composed of creatures other than human (although, perhaps, there may be legitimate doubts about this on the part of some); rather, it is comprised of flesh and blood, albeit for the most part evil, people.
Given, then, that secession is a human right, part and parcel of the right to free association, how can we characterize those who oppose this? Who would use force and violence, of all things, in order to compel unwilling participants to join in, or to remain part of, a political entity they wish to have nothing to do with? Why, as would be slave holders, of a sort. Certainly not as libertarians.
Thus, it is nothing short of amazing to find that there are commentators who actually call themselves libertarians and yet oppose the rights of secession. Were these people to remain consistent with this view, they would be logically forced, also, to give their imprimatur to union and anti-discrimination legislation, surely a reduction of absurdum.
One of the grounds upon which so called libertarians oppose secession, the right to be left alone politically speaking, is that those who wish to secede might be less than fully perfect in various ways. For example, the Confederate states practiced slavery, and this is certainly incompatible with libertarian law.
Let us assume away the awkward historical fact that this "curious institution" was operational in the north, too. After all, we are making a philosophical point, not a historical one. Let us posit, arguendo, that the north came to its confrontation with the south with totally clean hands as far as slave holding, or, indeed, any other deviation from libertarian law is concerned (e.g., tariffs, high taxes, etc.). That is, the north is a totally libertarian entity, the south a morally evil one. (I know, I know; I’m only talking here for argument’s sake).
Would that premise be a valid rationale for the north to in effect enslave the south, and thus violate its rights of free association? It would not.
If it was proper for the north to hold the south captive against its will, the implication is that India was not warranted in seceding from England in 1948 since the latter practiced suttee; that African countries were not justified in departing from their European colonial masters since they practiced clitorectemy; that it would not have been permissible for the Jews in 1930s Germany to have left the jurisdiction of the Nazis since they, too, were doubtless imperfect in some way or other.
Let us move from the realm of the macro to that of the micro. If groups of imperfect people are not justified in seceding from groups of perfect people, what about individuals? If we rigorously apply the principle on the basis of which confederate secession was opposed to the individual level, again we run into all sorts of counter-intuitive results.
For example, divorce. Under this "logic" no spouse could leave another if the departing one were less than perfect.
In the words of Clyde Wilson: "If the right of secession of one part of a political community is subject to the moral approval of another, then there really is no right of secession." Either you have the right of free association and secession, or you do not.
If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)?
Under libertarian free market anarchism, it would be permissible for a private defense agency to invade private property if a crime is occurring there (if a mistake is made in this regard, libertarian punishment theory, the topic for another day, kicks into gear; in this type of society, even the police are not above the law). If A is about to murder B in A’s house, A may not properly object when the police kick in his door to forestall this dastardly act. Thus, free market competing defense agencies could have gone into the south to free the slaves, but once this was done, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no further interaction. The south (or India in the case of suttee) would then be allowed to go its own way.
Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
However, even under these assumptions individual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.
There would be no "reconstruction." There would be no "indivisible" U.S.A. Rather, there would now be two totally separate countries. The U.S.A. and the Confederacy. Again, once slavery was ended, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. On the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
Written July 9, 2002
The law of free association is a crucially important implication of the rights of private property (in physical material, and in our own bodies). For if we cannot freely associate with others on a mutually voluntary basis, our property rights are to that extent abrogated.
The most serious denigration of property rights in persons and thus in free association is, of course, murder. No one favors such behavior (killing in self-defense is entirely another matter) so this is not at all controversial. Another grave violation of the libertarian code of non-aggression against non-aggressors and their property is slavery (or kidnapping, which is short-term slavery). This, too, is non-debatable.
There are, however, many institutions, actually favored by "respectable" commentators on political economy, which partake of slavery to a greater or lesser extent. All laws against "discrimination" are violations of free association, because they force two parties, one of which who wishes to have nothing to do with the other, to interact despite these desires. When a store owner is forced to sell to customers against his will, and is not free to snub any of them on whatever racial, sexual, religious etc., basis he chooses, he is to that extent a slave. The difference between such laws and outright slavery is only one of degree: in each case, the essence of the matter is that people are forced to associate with others against their will. Another instance is forced unionism. Our labor legislation forces employers to "bargain fairly" with those they would prefer to avoid entirely.
Perhaps the most important violation of the law of free association, at least on pragmatic grounds, occurs in the political realm. This is crucial, because other infringements, such as affirmative action, union legislation, etc., stem from political sources. If freedom of association in the realm of affirmative action is the right to discriminate, and in the field of labor the right to hire a "scab," then when it comes to the political realm, it is the right to secession.
Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account.
Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first. Government, in the minarchist libertarian view, was only instituted by them in order to achieve certain ends, later, after they had come to own their property. That is to say, the state is a creation of the people, not the people a creation of the state. But if a government was once invited in, to provide certain services, then it can also be uninvited, or invited to leave, or expelled. To deny this is to assert that the government was there first, before there were even any people. But how can this be? Government is not a disembodied entity, composed of creatures other than human (although, perhaps, there may be legitimate doubts about this on the part of some); rather, it is comprised of flesh and blood, albeit for the most part evil, people.
Given, then, that secession is a human right, part and parcel of the right to free association, how can we characterize those who oppose this? Who would use force and violence, of all things, in order to compel unwilling participants to join in, or to remain part of, a political entity they wish to have nothing to do with? Why, as would be slave holders, of a sort. Certainly not as libertarians.
Thus, it is nothing short of amazing to find that there are commentators who actually call themselves libertarians and yet oppose the rights of secession. Were these people to remain consistent with this view, they would be logically forced, also, to give their imprimatur to union and anti-discrimination legislation, surely a reduction of absurdum.
One of the grounds upon which so called libertarians oppose secession, the right to be left alone politically speaking, is that those who wish to secede might be less than fully perfect in various ways. For example, the Confederate states practiced slavery, and this is certainly incompatible with libertarian law.
Let us assume away the awkward historical fact that this "curious institution" was operational in the north, too. After all, we are making a philosophical point, not a historical one. Let us posit, arguendo, that the north came to its confrontation with the south with totally clean hands as far as slave holding, or, indeed, any other deviation from libertarian law is concerned (e.g., tariffs, high taxes, etc.). That is, the north is a totally libertarian entity, the south a morally evil one. (I know, I know; I’m only talking here for argument’s sake).
Would that premise be a valid rationale for the north to in effect enslave the south, and thus violate its rights of free association? It would not.
If it was proper for the north to hold the south captive against its will, the implication is that India was not warranted in seceding from England in 1948 since the latter practiced suttee; that African countries were not justified in departing from their European colonial masters since they practiced clitorectemy; that it would not have been permissible for the Jews in 1930s Germany to have left the jurisdiction of the Nazis since they, too, were doubtless imperfect in some way or other.
Let us move from the realm of the macro to that of the micro. If groups of imperfect people are not justified in seceding from groups of perfect people, what about individuals? If we rigorously apply the principle on the basis of which confederate secession was opposed to the individual level, again we run into all sorts of counter-intuitive results.
For example, divorce. Under this "logic" no spouse could leave another if the departing one were less than perfect.
In the words of Clyde Wilson: "If the right of secession of one part of a political community is subject to the moral approval of another, then there really is no right of secession." Either you have the right of free association and secession, or you do not.
If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)?
Under libertarian free market anarchism, it would be permissible for a private defense agency to invade private property if a crime is occurring there (if a mistake is made in this regard, libertarian punishment theory, the topic for another day, kicks into gear; in this type of society, even the police are not above the law). If A is about to murder B in A’s house, A may not properly object when the police kick in his door to forestall this dastardly act. Thus, free market competing defense agencies could have gone into the south to free the slaves, but once this was done, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no further interaction. The south (or India in the case of suttee) would then be allowed to go its own way.
Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
However, even under these assumptions individual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.
There would be no "reconstruction." There would be no "indivisible" U.S.A. Rather, there would now be two totally separate countries. The U.S.A. and the Confederacy. Again, once slavery was ended, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. On the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
Written July 9, 2002
The Government's Violation of Rights over We the People
This excellent article is by W.N. (Bill) Fangio.
Just Power's?
In our declaration of independence we find these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness's. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--
I wonder how many of us believe that our central government derives their just powers from We the People? And, of we the people are not the source of the powers exercised by our central government then who or what is?
Laying that question aside for the moment consider the meaning of the word "just." According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, "Just" means morally right or good. And "power" means possession of control, authority, or influence over others.
I don't think anyone would argue that the central government does not have power over us. Through various forms of taxation and inflation of the currency they covert the fruits of our labor to their account by means of force. And they exercise control and authority over their lives through law and regulation also by means of force. Further, they influence our lives through propaganda dispensed in our institutions.
Are these powers just? Are they morally right and good? It is right to take a man's money and spend it on that of which he disapproves? Jefferson called that the highest form of tyranny. Do I want my money going to Planned Parenthood to support abortion? Is it right for the central government to engage in undeclared war and kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children? Is it right for the central government to meddle in the business of other nations including assassination? Is it right for the central government to arrogate powers to itself not enumerated in the Constitution to the hurt of the States and the people? Is it right for the central government to continually deplete our civil liberties? These questions could go on endlessly and the answer to all of them would be a resounding NO! The majority of the powers exercised by the central government are not just, and they are not morally right and good!
No matter how noble its origins, every government devolves into a similar final configuration. That is, that the government's sole function is to extract their wealth and power from the productive sector of the population. They will employ euphemisms to cast their activities in a high sounding and favorable light to leave a positive impression with the people. Such expressions may be used as "pay your fair share" in the hopes that we never look below the surface and question why we assumed the burden in the first place. They will talk about investing money in various projects, when any clear thinking person would know that government can only invest (read spend) what they take away from me and you. Further, government foes nothing will. There is no incentive for government to do well.
So the central government has power but the powers are not just. How did we star so well and wind up where we are today as servants to a leviathan government? Were we just not paying attention? Perhaps.
Some things take a long time and our current problems can be traced to the year 1913 and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Ask your neighbors or friends who owns the Federal Reserve and they will invariably tell you it is the government. OF course that is exactly what the bankers wanted us to believe by adding the word "Federal" to the title. And, it has worked. But in fact the Federal Reserve is a private institution beyond the reach of any branch of the central government. In passing the Federal Reserve Act a majority of congress sold out the American People by abdicating their constitutional responsibility to coin money and regulate the value thereof and gave that authority to a private banking cartel.
This meant that the money supply and interest rates are now managed by private persons. (I wonder whose interests they really have at heart?) Son, instead of a free market we have had a managed market for nearly 100 years. Interest rates and artificially lowered, lending increases and mal-investment results.
Add government interference in the economy and you have the situation we are faced with today. Over the last few decades certain member of congress wanted everyone to have a house whether they could afford it or not. Fueled by low interest rates, mortgages were being exponentially. Everyone was having a good time and the mortgages were being traded on Wall Street further compounding the problem. But, guess what? The folks that were encouraged to buy what they could not afford stated to default on the mortgages in droves. And, who do you think was left holding the bag? The bankers? The financial institution? The insurance companies? Not at all. Thanks to our supposedly benevolent government they made sure it would be the people who will be paying for generation to come.
It is invariably the case that government creates the problem and then proposes to fix the problem. Just as the Depression of 1929 was protracted due to government interference by Hoover and Roosevelt this one will be protracted by a new round of government interference with the passage of the latest stimulus and pork bill. Of course it will not work. The correct solution would be for the central government to reduce spending and taxes and curb inflation. Then allow the mal-investment to flush out.
So back to the original question. What is the source to power for the central government? It is in our wallet. It is the Federal Reserve Note coupled with legal tender laws. It gives the central government the power to pursue all of their adventures without having to come to the States or the people for funding. They just print what they need and leave you and I pay the bill through taxation and inflation.
Fangio 2009
Just Power's?
In our declaration of independence we find these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness's. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--
I wonder how many of us believe that our central government derives their just powers from We the People? And, of we the people are not the source of the powers exercised by our central government then who or what is?
Laying that question aside for the moment consider the meaning of the word "just." According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, "Just" means morally right or good. And "power" means possession of control, authority, or influence over others.
I don't think anyone would argue that the central government does not have power over us. Through various forms of taxation and inflation of the currency they covert the fruits of our labor to their account by means of force. And they exercise control and authority over their lives through law and regulation also by means of force. Further, they influence our lives through propaganda dispensed in our institutions.
Are these powers just? Are they morally right and good? It is right to take a man's money and spend it on that of which he disapproves? Jefferson called that the highest form of tyranny. Do I want my money going to Planned Parenthood to support abortion? Is it right for the central government to engage in undeclared war and kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children? Is it right for the central government to meddle in the business of other nations including assassination? Is it right for the central government to arrogate powers to itself not enumerated in the Constitution to the hurt of the States and the people? Is it right for the central government to continually deplete our civil liberties? These questions could go on endlessly and the answer to all of them would be a resounding NO! The majority of the powers exercised by the central government are not just, and they are not morally right and good!
No matter how noble its origins, every government devolves into a similar final configuration. That is, that the government's sole function is to extract their wealth and power from the productive sector of the population. They will employ euphemisms to cast their activities in a high sounding and favorable light to leave a positive impression with the people. Such expressions may be used as "pay your fair share" in the hopes that we never look below the surface and question why we assumed the burden in the first place. They will talk about investing money in various projects, when any clear thinking person would know that government can only invest (read spend) what they take away from me and you. Further, government foes nothing will. There is no incentive for government to do well.
So the central government has power but the powers are not just. How did we star so well and wind up where we are today as servants to a leviathan government? Were we just not paying attention? Perhaps.
Some things take a long time and our current problems can be traced to the year 1913 and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Ask your neighbors or friends who owns the Federal Reserve and they will invariably tell you it is the government. OF course that is exactly what the bankers wanted us to believe by adding the word "Federal" to the title. And, it has worked. But in fact the Federal Reserve is a private institution beyond the reach of any branch of the central government. In passing the Federal Reserve Act a majority of congress sold out the American People by abdicating their constitutional responsibility to coin money and regulate the value thereof and gave that authority to a private banking cartel.
This meant that the money supply and interest rates are now managed by private persons. (I wonder whose interests they really have at heart?) Son, instead of a free market we have had a managed market for nearly 100 years. Interest rates and artificially lowered, lending increases and mal-investment results.
Add government interference in the economy and you have the situation we are faced with today. Over the last few decades certain member of congress wanted everyone to have a house whether they could afford it or not. Fueled by low interest rates, mortgages were being exponentially. Everyone was having a good time and the mortgages were being traded on Wall Street further compounding the problem. But, guess what? The folks that were encouraged to buy what they could not afford stated to default on the mortgages in droves. And, who do you think was left holding the bag? The bankers? The financial institution? The insurance companies? Not at all. Thanks to our supposedly benevolent government they made sure it would be the people who will be paying for generation to come.
It is invariably the case that government creates the problem and then proposes to fix the problem. Just as the Depression of 1929 was protracted due to government interference by Hoover and Roosevelt this one will be protracted by a new round of government interference with the passage of the latest stimulus and pork bill. Of course it will not work. The correct solution would be for the central government to reduce spending and taxes and curb inflation. Then allow the mal-investment to flush out.
So back to the original question. What is the source to power for the central government? It is in our wallet. It is the Federal Reserve Note coupled with legal tender laws. It gives the central government the power to pursue all of their adventures without having to come to the States or the people for funding. They just print what they need and leave you and I pay the bill through taxation and inflation.
Fangio 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
More on Abortion--the Government's Perfect Tool for cutting down the population
Beggars Versus Giants: More Quotes to Consider
See previous Part 1 and Part 2 of this series
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac
October 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The following are additional quotes from prominent individuals emphasizing why abortion and its related anti-life evils must be given a very high priority:
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide." Ronald Reagan Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
"everything collapses without respect for life." Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, the head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Vatican City, Oct. 3, 2000"The abortion law has a common denominator with the spirit of the Nazis and of communism: We may kill.." Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg Andreas Laun in an interview with the Austrian magazine News
"Some will say that the defense of innocent life is only one issue among many, that it is important but not fundamental. They are wrong. In the natural moral law, the good of life is the most fundamental good and the condition for the enjoyment of all other goods." Archbishop Raymond Burke Jan. 2004
"Defense of human life is the only foundation on which all else must be built, or else, all else is eventually going to collapse. .." Bishop William Murphy, Archdiocese of Boston in Pilot Column
"The taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue." Bishop James Timlin, D.D., Bishop of Scranton, "The Ballot and the Right to Life" Fall 2000
"...we have a most grave obligation to defend all human life from the moment of conception until natural death. God help us if we fail in this most fundamental obligation." Archbishop John Myers of Newark, New Jersey - May 4, 2004
"A new 'ideology of evil' is threatening society and it includes gay 'marriage,' and abortion" Pope John Paul II in his book, "Memory and Identity." about his experiences with 20th-century totalitarianism
[T]he failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics" (1998), "Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill's shortest and most memorable commencement speech of all time at his alma mater during World War I as quoted by Peter Kreeft in his book How to Win the Culture War
Note: You may have noticed a lot of these quotes are from Catholic backgrounds--I am not Catholic--but these are great quotes posted by Life Site News, which is a Catholic news site.
See previous Part 1 and Part 2 of this series
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac
October 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The following are additional quotes from prominent individuals emphasizing why abortion and its related anti-life evils must be given a very high priority:
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide." Ronald Reagan Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
"everything collapses without respect for life." Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, the head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Vatican City, Oct. 3, 2000"The abortion law has a common denominator with the spirit of the Nazis and of communism: We may kill.." Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg Andreas Laun in an interview with the Austrian magazine News
"Some will say that the defense of innocent life is only one issue among many, that it is important but not fundamental. They are wrong. In the natural moral law, the good of life is the most fundamental good and the condition for the enjoyment of all other goods." Archbishop Raymond Burke Jan. 2004
"Defense of human life is the only foundation on which all else must be built, or else, all else is eventually going to collapse. .." Bishop William Murphy, Archdiocese of Boston in Pilot Column
"The taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue." Bishop James Timlin, D.D., Bishop of Scranton, "The Ballot and the Right to Life" Fall 2000
"...we have a most grave obligation to defend all human life from the moment of conception until natural death. God help us if we fail in this most fundamental obligation." Archbishop John Myers of Newark, New Jersey - May 4, 2004
"A new 'ideology of evil' is threatening society and it includes gay 'marriage,' and abortion" Pope John Paul II in his book, "Memory and Identity." about his experiences with 20th-century totalitarianism
[T]he failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics" (1998), "Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill's shortest and most memorable commencement speech of all time at his alma mater during World War I as quoted by Peter Kreeft in his book How to Win the Culture War
Note: You may have noticed a lot of these quotes are from Catholic backgrounds--I am not Catholic--but these are great quotes posted by Life Site News, which is a Catholic news site.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Funded Abortion Through the Gov.
House's Final Version of Massive Health Care Bill Poised to Instigate Government-Funded Abortion
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Democratic House leadership yesterday unveiled the final version of the health care overhaul on Thursday, one that keeps intact language to immediately initiate government funding for elective abortions.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced at a press conference Thursday the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), which Democrats expect to keep closed from further emendation.
"We are about to deliver on the promise of making affordable quality health care available for all Americans, laying the foundation for a brighter future for generations to come," Pelosi announced on the steps of the Capitol. "We have listened to the American people, we are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges."
The massive bill - 1,990 pages long, and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost about $1.055 trillion - creates a government-run health insurance option to compete with private insurers, and would require Americans to buy health insurance by 2013 or else pay a fine.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called the bill "another freight train of big government."
"This really is a goverment takeover of health care in America," Pence told CNN Thursday. "I think as the American people dig into this, it's going to become more obvious that this is a massive new bureaucracy."
As per the Energy and Commerce Committee's Capps amendment, the bill requires funds collected from the public plan to be used to cover abortions. In addition, taxpayer subsidies will be directed to insurance providers that cover abortions, and every region in the U.S. will be required to have at least one abortion-covering insurance plan available.
The bill also includes the infamous end-of-life planning provisions - known to some as the "death panels" - that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill had dropped.
Leaders on both sides of the health care debate have acknowledged that the abortion issue, which has come to the fore on a grassroots level, could be a possible deal-breaker for the whole bill. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told The Hill that abortion, as well as immigration, "are seen as potentially very decisive."
Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life warned in a statement Thursday that "a vote for this bill is a vote to establish a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds."
"The White House and top Democratic congressional leaders are trying to smuggle federal government funding of abortion into law, behind smokescreens of misleading, contrived language," said Johnson.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life commented following the bill's debut: "Now, more than ever, pro-life members of Congress must demand the opportunity to vote on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to prohibit abortion funding. Explicit language must be added to this health care bill to prevent unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
The fight against abortion expansion in the House depended largely in recent weeks to the efforts of Michigan Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak, who has vowed to try to block the House rules vote with 40 like-minded Democrats if leadership continues to insist agaist allowing a vote on a pro-life amendment. Stupak and other pro-life lawmakers have lobbied unsuccessfully for the addition a pro-life amendment designed to secure traditional federal prohibitions on federal abortion funding.
Rep. Stupak recently indicated, however, that he would not necessarily vote against the bill in the end, even if it still contained the abortion funding. In a town hall video published Wednesday by the Heritage Foundation blog, Stupak is shown telling local Michiganers that he "probably would not" vote against the bill if the House had a chance to vote down the pro-life amendment.
Following the relase of the final bill yesterday, Stupak said he was "disappointed" that it still contained the Capps Amendment. "Language in the bill still does not do enough to prevent federal funding from going to abortion services," he said. "I will continue to work with leadership to find satisfactory language on this issue."
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Democratic House leadership yesterday unveiled the final version of the health care overhaul on Thursday, one that keeps intact language to immediately initiate government funding for elective abortions.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced at a press conference Thursday the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), which Democrats expect to keep closed from further emendation.
"We are about to deliver on the promise of making affordable quality health care available for all Americans, laying the foundation for a brighter future for generations to come," Pelosi announced on the steps of the Capitol. "We have listened to the American people, we are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges."
The massive bill - 1,990 pages long, and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost about $1.055 trillion - creates a government-run health insurance option to compete with private insurers, and would require Americans to buy health insurance by 2013 or else pay a fine.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called the bill "another freight train of big government."
"This really is a goverment takeover of health care in America," Pence told CNN Thursday. "I think as the American people dig into this, it's going to become more obvious that this is a massive new bureaucracy."
As per the Energy and Commerce Committee's Capps amendment, the bill requires funds collected from the public plan to be used to cover abortions. In addition, taxpayer subsidies will be directed to insurance providers that cover abortions, and every region in the U.S. will be required to have at least one abortion-covering insurance plan available.
The bill also includes the infamous end-of-life planning provisions - known to some as the "death panels" - that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill had dropped.
Leaders on both sides of the health care debate have acknowledged that the abortion issue, which has come to the fore on a grassroots level, could be a possible deal-breaker for the whole bill. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told The Hill that abortion, as well as immigration, "are seen as potentially very decisive."
Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life warned in a statement Thursday that "a vote for this bill is a vote to establish a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds."
"The White House and top Democratic congressional leaders are trying to smuggle federal government funding of abortion into law, behind smokescreens of misleading, contrived language," said Johnson.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life commented following the bill's debut: "Now, more than ever, pro-life members of Congress must demand the opportunity to vote on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to prohibit abortion funding. Explicit language must be added to this health care bill to prevent unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
The fight against abortion expansion in the House depended largely in recent weeks to the efforts of Michigan Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak, who has vowed to try to block the House rules vote with 40 like-minded Democrats if leadership continues to insist agaist allowing a vote on a pro-life amendment. Stupak and other pro-life lawmakers have lobbied unsuccessfully for the addition a pro-life amendment designed to secure traditional federal prohibitions on federal abortion funding.
Rep. Stupak recently indicated, however, that he would not necessarily vote against the bill in the end, even if it still contained the abortion funding. In a town hall video published Wednesday by the Heritage Foundation blog, Stupak is shown telling local Michiganers that he "probably would not" vote against the bill if the House had a chance to vote down the pro-life amendment.
Following the relase of the final bill yesterday, Stupak said he was "disappointed" that it still contained the Capps Amendment. "Language in the bill still does not do enough to prevent federal funding from going to abortion services," he said. "I will continue to work with leadership to find satisfactory language on this issue."
Part 2: Abortion--the Governemtn's perfect tool for cutting down the world's population
Life Versus Death; Beggars Versus Giants - Part 2 of 2
See Part 1 of this series
Special Report By Steve Jalsevac
Massive Funding Received by Anti-Life OrganizationsIn Canada, all abortions are fully funded by taxation dollars. Abortion advocating feminist and other organizations are given millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars from all levels of government, plus funds from wealthy multinational foundations and other sources. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation reported that Canada's Conservative government gave $80 Million to de-population groups in 2006/07. $44,050,000 went to the UNFPA, and $18 million each went to Planned Parenthood and UNICEF. The Minister for Canadian International Cooperation Minister in the federal Liberal government in the year 2000 unveiled a $2.8 billion five-year plan to promote population control, abortion, abortifacient contraception, homosexuality and sex education targeted at poor nations. The list of abortion funding sources seems endless. By comparison, Canadian pro-life groups have had to work with a fraction of 1% of the amounts give to pro-abortion organizations to counter the influence of these groups.In the United States, Planned Parenthood receives massive funds from government. Jim Sedlak, the executive director of STOPP International reported that according to PP's 2005-06 report, the organization received taxpayer funds for that year alone totalling $305.3 million and it has amassed assets worth $839.8 million. According to PPFA's financial report for 2007-2008, the abortion provider brought in total revenue of $1.038 billion and posted an $85 million profit. The giant pro-abortion US foundations have given hundreds of millions towards population control related initiatives throughout the world. One of the nation's ten largest foundations, the MacArthur Foundation, in 2002 had assets of $4.2 billion and was reporting to be making grants totalling approximately $227 million annually. LifeSiteNews reported then that a list of recipients of grants from the MacArthur Foundation includes most of the enemies of life, faith and family that exist on the international level, as well as those in specific countries which the foundation targets. Apart from funding 'Catholics for a Free Choice' and International Planned Parenthood, the foundation targets funds towards abortion and population-control-promoting groups in Brazil, India, Mexico and Nigeria.Then there is the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Packard Foundation and the newer, far larger Buffet and the Gates Foundations - all for many years pouring millions into initiatives and groups around the world that advance what we emphasize is a Culture of Death. A 2002 Vida Humana Internacional report gives some idea of where these foundation funds went to in Latin America at that time.
See Part 1 of this series
Special Report By Steve Jalsevac
Massive Funding Received by Anti-Life OrganizationsIn Canada, all abortions are fully funded by taxation dollars. Abortion advocating feminist and other organizations are given millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars from all levels of government, plus funds from wealthy multinational foundations and other sources. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation reported that Canada's Conservative government gave $80 Million to de-population groups in 2006/07. $44,050,000 went to the UNFPA, and $18 million each went to Planned Parenthood and UNICEF. The Minister for Canadian International Cooperation Minister in the federal Liberal government in the year 2000 unveiled a $2.8 billion five-year plan to promote population control, abortion, abortifacient contraception, homosexuality and sex education targeted at poor nations. The list of abortion funding sources seems endless. By comparison, Canadian pro-life groups have had to work with a fraction of 1% of the amounts give to pro-abortion organizations to counter the influence of these groups.In the United States, Planned Parenthood receives massive funds from government. Jim Sedlak, the executive director of STOPP International reported that according to PP's 2005-06 report, the organization received taxpayer funds for that year alone totalling $305.3 million and it has amassed assets worth $839.8 million. According to PPFA's financial report for 2007-2008, the abortion provider brought in total revenue of $1.038 billion and posted an $85 million profit. The giant pro-abortion US foundations have given hundreds of millions towards population control related initiatives throughout the world. One of the nation's ten largest foundations, the MacArthur Foundation, in 2002 had assets of $4.2 billion and was reporting to be making grants totalling approximately $227 million annually. LifeSiteNews reported then that a list of recipients of grants from the MacArthur Foundation includes most of the enemies of life, faith and family that exist on the international level, as well as those in specific countries which the foundation targets. Apart from funding 'Catholics for a Free Choice' and International Planned Parenthood, the foundation targets funds towards abortion and population-control-promoting groups in Brazil, India, Mexico and Nigeria.Then there is the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Packard Foundation and the newer, far larger Buffet and the Gates Foundations - all for many years pouring millions into initiatives and groups around the world that advance what we emphasize is a Culture of Death. A 2002 Vida Humana Internacional report gives some idea of where these foundation funds went to in Latin America at that time.
Abortion--the Government's Perfect Tool for Cutting Down the Population
Life Versus Death; Beggars Versus Giants - Part 1 of 2
Special Report Commentary By Steve JalsevacNote: There has been much discussion lately among pro-life leaders about the chronic lack of resources the movement has had to endure during its existence while fighting the great battle against the Culture of Death. This article is one I believe has been needed for some time, and now more than ever. 40 years of this battle is a long time. It will be won, but certain things must finally happen to bring that about. This article addresses some of those needed developments.October 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Mother Teresa said, "The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion." Pope John Paul II called abortion "legal extermination." He compared abortion to the Nazi Holocaust and stressed that the abortion "rights" movement could "drive democratic regimes to transform themselves into totalitarian regimes." That decline in fundamental freedoms has been occurring now in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. Pope Benedict XVI told the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2007 "to guarantee the right to life for all and in an equal manner for all is the duty upon which the future of humanity depends." He has also stressed that "today's gravest injustice" is the destruction of new life. Abortion has spawned a long and still growing list of related assaults on life that are taking us down a truly frightening path, leading to even more massive killing of the most vulnerable and innocent.
And yet, mysteriously, despite all of this, there are still relatively few people who are taking seriously enough the great dangers of the international death culture spawned by abortion and its parent movement - the perversion of human sexuality.
Special Report Commentary By Steve JalsevacNote: There has been much discussion lately among pro-life leaders about the chronic lack of resources the movement has had to endure during its existence while fighting the great battle against the Culture of Death. This article is one I believe has been needed for some time, and now more than ever. 40 years of this battle is a long time. It will be won, but certain things must finally happen to bring that about. This article addresses some of those needed developments.October 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Mother Teresa said, "The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion." Pope John Paul II called abortion "legal extermination." He compared abortion to the Nazi Holocaust and stressed that the abortion "rights" movement could "drive democratic regimes to transform themselves into totalitarian regimes." That decline in fundamental freedoms has been occurring now in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. Pope Benedict XVI told the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2007 "to guarantee the right to life for all and in an equal manner for all is the duty upon which the future of humanity depends." He has also stressed that "today's gravest injustice" is the destruction of new life. Abortion has spawned a long and still growing list of related assaults on life that are taking us down a truly frightening path, leading to even more massive killing of the most vulnerable and innocent.
And yet, mysteriously, despite all of this, there are still relatively few people who are taking seriously enough the great dangers of the international death culture spawned by abortion and its parent movement - the perversion of human sexuality.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hurra for Russia!
Moscow Mayor Luzhkov Says “No” to Gay Pride Parade
By Gudrun Schultz
MOSCOW, Russia, May 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov has refused to grant a permit for a gay pride parade in Russia’s capital.
Luzhkov came under heavy criticism by an official at the Council of Europe, among others, for his decision earlier in the year to ban the parade planned for May. Organizers of the demonstration went ahead and applied for a permit earlier this week, but their application was denied.
The president of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe, Giovanni di Stasi, wrote a letter to Mayor Luzhkov in March, charging that the ban violated the Council’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Russian Orthodox and Jewish leaders expressed their support in March for Mayor Luzhkov’s decision, saying the promotion of homosexuality went against the teaching of their faiths.
The Congress of the Jewish Religious Organizations and Associations in Russia issued a statement in support of Mayor Luzhkov’s decision in March, saying, “Such parade is not a demonstration but propagation of a sin. We are in solidarity with the Russian Orthodox Church, not only for the present, but also for the future of our country.”
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexis II sent a letter to Mayor Luzhkov, made public in March, congratulating him for his opposition to the ‘gay pride’ parade.
“Please accept our gratitude for your decision to protect Moscow and Muscovites against attempts to organize a public parade of propaganda for sin,” he said in the letter.
“The Church treats people with such [homosexual] inclinations with pastoral responsibility, urging them to reform and resolutely opposes any attempts to present this sinful tendency as a ‘norm’ and example to follow. The Church does not accept any propaganda for immorality.”
____________________________________________________________
Russian Lesbian Couple "Married" in Canada Hopes to Force Russia to Recognize Union
By Thaddeus M. BaklinskiTORONTO, October 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two Russian lesbians have travelled all the way to Canada to be "married" under Canadian law in order to try to force Russian authorities to recognize their union.Though homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, Russian law states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.The couple is hoping to exploit a loophole in Russian law which does not specify the gender of those married abroad.Irina Fedotova-Fet and Irina Shipitko came to Canada with the help of the homosexual advocacy group Egale Canada, and were "married" in Toronto on Friday by Harvey Brownstone, a well-known openly homosexual judge.The couple's lawyer, Russian homosexual rights campaigner Nikolai Alexeyev, told GayRussia.ru, "We are delighted with the warm welcome in this wonderful country and in this stunning city of Toronto. Even though it is not my marriage, this is a day I will hardly forget. We are grateful to the Canadian LGBT organisation EGALE for helping us in organising the wedding of our Irinas in Toronto."
The two lesbians' attempt to "marry" in Russia in May was refused by the Moscow marriage registry office. The Tverskoi District Court in Moscow upheld the decision of the city authorities on October 6, saying same-sex "marriages" are illegal in Russia.Russian news service RIA Novosti noted that though homosexuality is no longer a criminal offense in Russia, there is little public support for "gay rights.""The city of Moscow has never allowed a gay pride parade or rights demonstration, which the mayor has called satanic," RIA Novosti commented.Fedotova-Fet and Shipitko are expected to return to Russia this week and have said they are willing to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
By Gudrun Schultz
MOSCOW, Russia, May 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov has refused to grant a permit for a gay pride parade in Russia’s capital.
Luzhkov came under heavy criticism by an official at the Council of Europe, among others, for his decision earlier in the year to ban the parade planned for May. Organizers of the demonstration went ahead and applied for a permit earlier this week, but their application was denied.
The president of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe, Giovanni di Stasi, wrote a letter to Mayor Luzhkov in March, charging that the ban violated the Council’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Russian Orthodox and Jewish leaders expressed their support in March for Mayor Luzhkov’s decision, saying the promotion of homosexuality went against the teaching of their faiths.
The Congress of the Jewish Religious Organizations and Associations in Russia issued a statement in support of Mayor Luzhkov’s decision in March, saying, “Such parade is not a demonstration but propagation of a sin. We are in solidarity with the Russian Orthodox Church, not only for the present, but also for the future of our country.”
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexis II sent a letter to Mayor Luzhkov, made public in March, congratulating him for his opposition to the ‘gay pride’ parade.
“Please accept our gratitude for your decision to protect Moscow and Muscovites against attempts to organize a public parade of propaganda for sin,” he said in the letter.
“The Church treats people with such [homosexual] inclinations with pastoral responsibility, urging them to reform and resolutely opposes any attempts to present this sinful tendency as a ‘norm’ and example to follow. The Church does not accept any propaganda for immorality.”
____________________________________________________________
Russian Lesbian Couple "Married" in Canada Hopes to Force Russia to Recognize Union
By Thaddeus M. BaklinskiTORONTO, October 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two Russian lesbians have travelled all the way to Canada to be "married" under Canadian law in order to try to force Russian authorities to recognize their union.Though homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, Russian law states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.The couple is hoping to exploit a loophole in Russian law which does not specify the gender of those married abroad.Irina Fedotova-Fet and Irina Shipitko came to Canada with the help of the homosexual advocacy group Egale Canada, and were "married" in Toronto on Friday by Harvey Brownstone, a well-known openly homosexual judge.The couple's lawyer, Russian homosexual rights campaigner Nikolai Alexeyev, told GayRussia.ru, "We are delighted with the warm welcome in this wonderful country and in this stunning city of Toronto. Even though it is not my marriage, this is a day I will hardly forget. We are grateful to the Canadian LGBT organisation EGALE for helping us in organising the wedding of our Irinas in Toronto."
The two lesbians' attempt to "marry" in Russia in May was refused by the Moscow marriage registry office. The Tverskoi District Court in Moscow upheld the decision of the city authorities on October 6, saying same-sex "marriages" are illegal in Russia.Russian news service RIA Novosti noted that though homosexuality is no longer a criminal offense in Russia, there is little public support for "gay rights.""The city of Moscow has never allowed a gay pride parade or rights demonstration, which the mayor has called satanic," RIA Novosti commented.Fedotova-Fet and Shipitko are expected to return to Russia this week and have said they are willing to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Christian's Free Speech on Homosexuality is Now Silenced by Obama's Signing of the Hate Crimes Bill
This is a sad day for Christians...this law, however, will never stop me from throwing stones at those disease ridden rats!
President Obama Signs "Hate Crimes" Bill into Law
By Peter J. SmithWASHINGTON, D.C., October 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Barack Obama has now signed into law a controversial "hate crimes" bill that authorizes the federal government to intervene in violent crimes that appear motivated by hatred of homosexuals and apply stiffer penalties and sentences. President Barack Obama signed the measure into law at 2:30 pm today. A reception is planned for 5 pm., and President Obama is expected to deliver some brief remarks on the bill at around 6:05 pm.The expanded hate crime legislation extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law as part of a provision added to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.Opponents of the hate crimes legislation have charged that the bill violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by making an individual's thought regarding certain groups as much a factor as the nature of his act in prosecuting a crime.The US Commissioners on Civil Rights wrote letters to US House and Senate leaders condemning the legislation, saying they "regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties." The commissioners also pointed out that the law creates a legal loophole to the Constitution's prohibitions to double jeopardy, because it allows the federal government to try an individual who has already been acquitted in a state trial, for the same crime. The bill has also been labeled the "pedophile protection act," in large part due to the refusal of House members to approve an amendment specifying that the bill would not penalize the free speech of those objecting to homosexual perversions such as pedophilia. The term "sexual orientation" is not defined in the bill, an oversight that some legislators charged could lead to an overly broad interpretation - since the term is used by psychologists to encompass a variety of sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.Christian leaders have expressed particular concern that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization failed. Among many rejected proposals for similar hate crimes legislation introduced in the House this year was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring that ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" simply because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.
President Obama Signs "Hate Crimes" Bill into Law
By Peter J. SmithWASHINGTON, D.C., October 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Barack Obama has now signed into law a controversial "hate crimes" bill that authorizes the federal government to intervene in violent crimes that appear motivated by hatred of homosexuals and apply stiffer penalties and sentences. President Barack Obama signed the measure into law at 2:30 pm today. A reception is planned for 5 pm., and President Obama is expected to deliver some brief remarks on the bill at around 6:05 pm.The expanded hate crime legislation extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law as part of a provision added to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.Opponents of the hate crimes legislation have charged that the bill violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by making an individual's thought regarding certain groups as much a factor as the nature of his act in prosecuting a crime.The US Commissioners on Civil Rights wrote letters to US House and Senate leaders condemning the legislation, saying they "regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties." The commissioners also pointed out that the law creates a legal loophole to the Constitution's prohibitions to double jeopardy, because it allows the federal government to try an individual who has already been acquitted in a state trial, for the same crime. The bill has also been labeled the "pedophile protection act," in large part due to the refusal of House members to approve an amendment specifying that the bill would not penalize the free speech of those objecting to homosexual perversions such as pedophilia. The term "sexual orientation" is not defined in the bill, an oversight that some legislators charged could lead to an overly broad interpretation - since the term is used by psychologists to encompass a variety of sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.Christian leaders have expressed particular concern that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization failed. Among many rejected proposals for similar hate crimes legislation introduced in the House this year was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring that ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" simply because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.
Global Warming--What happened to It? BBC News shows we've actually been colder
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson Climate correspondent, BBC News
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
By Paul Hudson Climate correspondent, BBC News
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
Mennonites Taking a Stand Against the forced Education of Quebec by Leaving the Territory
By John-Henry Westen and Elizabeth O'Brien
MONTREAL, August 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A community of a dozen Mennonite families in Quebec is ready to leave the province rather than succumb to provincial government demands that would require their children to be taught evolution and homosexuality. While the government sees its actions as nothing more than enforcing technical regulations, many view the case an intolerance of Christian faith. The community runs a small Mennonite school, out of a church in Roxton Falls, where eleven children in elementary grades were expected to commence studies this fall. Subjects include reading, writing, math, science, geography, social sciences, music and French. However, they are not schooled in evolution and homosexuality (sex education) as demanded by the official provincial curriculum.Quebec Education Ministry spokesman Francois Lefebvre told LifeSiteNews.com that the province has two requirements for approval of private schools. "That the teachers are certified and that the provincial curriculum which is mandatory in all Quebec schools is followed," he said.Ronald Goosen, a spokesman for the families, told LifeSiteNews.com that the community rejects both demands. With regard to certified teachers, he said, "we have pulled our students out of public schools and by asking us to have certified teachers they are asking us to send our teachers to public school. So basically they're asking something of us that we don't feel we can do."Regarding the curriculum, Goosen said, "Some of the things - the theory of evolution would be a problem, the attitudes portrayed, the lifestyles we don't ascribe to, making it look that single motherhood is fine, that alternate lifestyles are fine - gay 'marriage', we'd be very much against that."After visiting the Mennonites in November, the Ministry of Education told the school that their teaching was not up to standard and threatened them with legal action. Parents were informed that their children must be enrolled in government-approved schools by the fall. Given other incidents in the province, Goossen was concerned that if they don't comply, children might be taken from their families by social workers. In 2002, social workers in Aylmer removed seven children from a Mennonite family because the family used spanking as a form of discipline. This move is an enactment of the Ministry of Education's decision last year to shut down schools that don't teach the full government-approved curriculum. The Ministry threatened to shut down private Evangelical schools that didn't want to teach evolution and sex-education (See http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06102404.html ).The Mayor of Roxton Falls, Jean-Marie Laplante, said that the majority of non-Mennonites in his town support the school. Laplante has complained to the education department and Education Minister, Michelle Courchesne, to save the school from being shut down. "We want to keep these people here - they're part of our community," the Mayor told the National Post. "They're good neighbours. They integrated into the community, they work hard, they have farms, they work in businesses in the region."The prospect of losing the families, said the Mayor, "hurts economically, but it also hurts because everybody loves these people and we're saying, 'Why? Why is this happening?' "
Goosen told LifeSiteNews.com that the families are serious about moving and will be gone in a couple of weeks when school commences. He noted that most have already rented housing in Ontario. Should the government reconsider and allow them the freedom to educate their children within the boundaries of their faith, the community would gladly stay he said.Lefebvre told LifeSiteNews.com that the school had not yet applied for permission to run privately. However, Goosen responded that the ministry of education had all the required information and his application was not 'officially' submitted only due to a technicality related to the online submission process.Moreover, said Goosen, "we have been informed that our application would be rejected since they require certified teachers and adherence to the curriculum."Lefebvre at first seemed conciliatory. He claimed that the regulations "do not exclude giving other courses or teachings related to their religious convictions, but at this moment it is outside of the official program of education." LifeSiteNews.com asked whether a compromise could be reached, whether it would be possible to eliminate from the school's curriculum the offensive parts which deal with evolution and homosexuality. Lefebvre replied, "It's difficult to say because the educational program insists that students acquire competence in the whole program, therefore how could you eliminate one part of the program and still have a general competence?" He referred to religious schools in Quebec, emphasizing that they also have to "respect the program of education (curriculum) of Quebec." Goosen told LifeSiteNews.com that the Mennonite community has its own curriculum which is accepted in seven other Canadian provinces. "Our own curriculum system has served us well and produced good results," he said.The option of home schooling is permitted, Lefebvre stated in answer to another question, as long as the progress of the children is reported as satisfactory to the local education ministry. He told LifeSiteNews.com that homeschoolers in the province must be receiving an equivalent education as those in public schools, which means the provincial curriculum must be followed. That curriculum, with its pro-gay sex education and its teaching of evolution, remains unacceptable to many.
MONTREAL, August 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A community of a dozen Mennonite families in Quebec is ready to leave the province rather than succumb to provincial government demands that would require their children to be taught evolution and homosexuality. While the government sees its actions as nothing more than enforcing technical regulations, many view the case an intolerance of Christian faith. The community runs a small Mennonite school, out of a church in Roxton Falls, where eleven children in elementary grades were expected to commence studies this fall. Subjects include reading, writing, math, science, geography, social sciences, music and French. However, they are not schooled in evolution and homosexuality (sex education) as demanded by the official provincial curriculum.Quebec Education Ministry spokesman Francois Lefebvre told LifeSiteNews.com that the province has two requirements for approval of private schools. "That the teachers are certified and that the provincial curriculum which is mandatory in all Quebec schools is followed," he said.Ronald Goosen, a spokesman for the families, told LifeSiteNews.com that the community rejects both demands. With regard to certified teachers, he said, "we have pulled our students out of public schools and by asking us to have certified teachers they are asking us to send our teachers to public school. So basically they're asking something of us that we don't feel we can do."Regarding the curriculum, Goosen said, "Some of the things - the theory of evolution would be a problem, the attitudes portrayed, the lifestyles we don't ascribe to, making it look that single motherhood is fine, that alternate lifestyles are fine - gay 'marriage', we'd be very much against that."After visiting the Mennonites in November, the Ministry of Education told the school that their teaching was not up to standard and threatened them with legal action. Parents were informed that their children must be enrolled in government-approved schools by the fall. Given other incidents in the province, Goossen was concerned that if they don't comply, children might be taken from their families by social workers. In 2002, social workers in Aylmer removed seven children from a Mennonite family because the family used spanking as a form of discipline. This move is an enactment of the Ministry of Education's decision last year to shut down schools that don't teach the full government-approved curriculum. The Ministry threatened to shut down private Evangelical schools that didn't want to teach evolution and sex-education (See http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06102404.html ).The Mayor of Roxton Falls, Jean-Marie Laplante, said that the majority of non-Mennonites in his town support the school. Laplante has complained to the education department and Education Minister, Michelle Courchesne, to save the school from being shut down. "We want to keep these people here - they're part of our community," the Mayor told the National Post. "They're good neighbours. They integrated into the community, they work hard, they have farms, they work in businesses in the region."The prospect of losing the families, said the Mayor, "hurts economically, but it also hurts because everybody loves these people and we're saying, 'Why? Why is this happening?' "
Goosen told LifeSiteNews.com that the families are serious about moving and will be gone in a couple of weeks when school commences. He noted that most have already rented housing in Ontario. Should the government reconsider and allow them the freedom to educate their children within the boundaries of their faith, the community would gladly stay he said.Lefebvre told LifeSiteNews.com that the school had not yet applied for permission to run privately. However, Goosen responded that the ministry of education had all the required information and his application was not 'officially' submitted only due to a technicality related to the online submission process.Moreover, said Goosen, "we have been informed that our application would be rejected since they require certified teachers and adherence to the curriculum."Lefebvre at first seemed conciliatory. He claimed that the regulations "do not exclude giving other courses or teachings related to their religious convictions, but at this moment it is outside of the official program of education." LifeSiteNews.com asked whether a compromise could be reached, whether it would be possible to eliminate from the school's curriculum the offensive parts which deal with evolution and homosexuality. Lefebvre replied, "It's difficult to say because the educational program insists that students acquire competence in the whole program, therefore how could you eliminate one part of the program and still have a general competence?" He referred to religious schools in Quebec, emphasizing that they also have to "respect the program of education (curriculum) of Quebec." Goosen told LifeSiteNews.com that the Mennonite community has its own curriculum which is accepted in seven other Canadian provinces. "Our own curriculum system has served us well and produced good results," he said.The option of home schooling is permitted, Lefebvre stated in answer to another question, as long as the progress of the children is reported as satisfactory to the local education ministry. He told LifeSiteNews.com that homeschoolers in the province must be receiving an equivalent education as those in public schools, which means the provincial curriculum must be followed. That curriculum, with its pro-gay sex education and its teaching of evolution, remains unacceptable to many.
Christians being Harassed for Expressing Their Views on Homosexuals
67 Year-Old Grandma Interrogated and Threatened by Police over Gay Pride Complaint
By Hilary WhiteNORWICH, U.K. October 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The visit and threat of a "hate crime" charge by police to a 67 year-old U.K. pensioner and devout Christian grandmother, has garnered outrage from all corners of Britain, and has even been criticised by the head of Britain's leading homosexualist lobby group. Mrs. Pauline Howe was told by two police officers who visited her home that she may have committed a "hate incident" simply for having written a letter to her local council complaining about the local Gay Pride parade.Mrs. Howe says she is considering suing the police, after enduring what she described as a "frightening and intimidating" interrogation. She is seeking legal advice from the Christian Institute, a leading UK Christian lobby and advocacy group.In a video interview, Howe said it is "quite obvious" that the matter is one of an attack by police on freedom of religious expression and belief. "Our freedoms as bible-believing Christians have just been squashed now and the authority of God's word as well. We're not allowed to express our biblical evangelical beliefs anymore without being frightened."She sent the letter after she was harassed and subjected to sexually explicit verbal attacks when she joined a group of other Christians handing out leaflets at the Gay Pride event on July 25th. In her letter, Mrs. Howe said, "I and other Christians present are not attempting to prevent those who engage in this offensive behaviour from doing so in the privacy of their own homes."It is the public display of such indecency on the streets of Norwich which is so offensive to God and to many Norwich residents," she wrote. "It is shameful that this small, but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals." Mrs. Howe's letter garnered a response from Bridget Buttinger, the council's deputy chief executive, who told her that she could be facing hate crime charges. The council reported the letter to the Norfolk Constabulary, who judged after their interview that no crime had been committed. The issue has provoked a sudden storm of media attention after ITV's Anglia News ran the story last night. ITV quoted an organiser of the Gay Pride march supporting the police, saying, "There are some points of view that are too hateful to be said." Homosexualist activists have objected to Mrs. Howe's use of the biblically based term "sodomites" and her assertion that their "perverted sexual practices" spread sexually transmitted diseases. But Ben Summerskill, head of Britain's leading homosexualist activist group Stonewall, called the police response "disproportionate." Andrew Pierce, a commentator for the Daily Telegraph and a homosexual, said, "What kind of society have we become when the peaceful expression of a religious belief can bring police knocking at the door?"Norfolk police have issued a statement saying, "We will investigate all alleged hate incidents" and called their response "proportionate." A police spokesman said, "If it has come into our intelligence and been reported to us as a crime then we have to investigate."Mike Judge of the Christian Institute, said, "Whether people agree or disagree with Mrs. Howe's views, everyone who cares about freedom should be alarmed at the police action.""For democracy to survive people must be free to express their beliefs, yes even unpopular beliefs, to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from the police. It's not a crime to be a Christian, but it increasingly feels like it."Ed West, a journalist and commentator for the Daily Telegraph, wrote that Judge has a point. West pointed to the numerous cases of people, "all Christians (generally Evangelicals)," who have been "questioned by the police over objecting to homosexuality." "It is a part of a wider trend of illiberalism across Europe that has taken place in the past decade." "This soft totalitarianism does not come with gulags or death camps, but rather the petty harassment of individuals by the authorities," West added.
By Hilary WhiteNORWICH, U.K. October 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The visit and threat of a "hate crime" charge by police to a 67 year-old U.K. pensioner and devout Christian grandmother, has garnered outrage from all corners of Britain, and has even been criticised by the head of Britain's leading homosexualist lobby group. Mrs. Pauline Howe was told by two police officers who visited her home that she may have committed a "hate incident" simply for having written a letter to her local council complaining about the local Gay Pride parade.Mrs. Howe says she is considering suing the police, after enduring what she described as a "frightening and intimidating" interrogation. She is seeking legal advice from the Christian Institute, a leading UK Christian lobby and advocacy group.In a video interview, Howe said it is "quite obvious" that the matter is one of an attack by police on freedom of religious expression and belief. "Our freedoms as bible-believing Christians have just been squashed now and the authority of God's word as well. We're not allowed to express our biblical evangelical beliefs anymore without being frightened."She sent the letter after she was harassed and subjected to sexually explicit verbal attacks when she joined a group of other Christians handing out leaflets at the Gay Pride event on July 25th. In her letter, Mrs. Howe said, "I and other Christians present are not attempting to prevent those who engage in this offensive behaviour from doing so in the privacy of their own homes."It is the public display of such indecency on the streets of Norwich which is so offensive to God and to many Norwich residents," she wrote. "It is shameful that this small, but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals." Mrs. Howe's letter garnered a response from Bridget Buttinger, the council's deputy chief executive, who told her that she could be facing hate crime charges. The council reported the letter to the Norfolk Constabulary, who judged after their interview that no crime had been committed. The issue has provoked a sudden storm of media attention after ITV's Anglia News ran the story last night. ITV quoted an organiser of the Gay Pride march supporting the police, saying, "There are some points of view that are too hateful to be said." Homosexualist activists have objected to Mrs. Howe's use of the biblically based term "sodomites" and her assertion that their "perverted sexual practices" spread sexually transmitted diseases. But Ben Summerskill, head of Britain's leading homosexualist activist group Stonewall, called the police response "disproportionate." Andrew Pierce, a commentator for the Daily Telegraph and a homosexual, said, "What kind of society have we become when the peaceful expression of a religious belief can bring police knocking at the door?"Norfolk police have issued a statement saying, "We will investigate all alleged hate incidents" and called their response "proportionate." A police spokesman said, "If it has come into our intelligence and been reported to us as a crime then we have to investigate."Mike Judge of the Christian Institute, said, "Whether people agree or disagree with Mrs. Howe's views, everyone who cares about freedom should be alarmed at the police action.""For democracy to survive people must be free to express their beliefs, yes even unpopular beliefs, to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from the police. It's not a crime to be a Christian, but it increasingly feels like it."Ed West, a journalist and commentator for the Daily Telegraph, wrote that Judge has a point. West pointed to the numerous cases of people, "all Christians (generally Evangelicals)," who have been "questioned by the police over objecting to homosexuality." "It is a part of a wider trend of illiberalism across Europe that has taken place in the past decade." "This soft totalitarianism does not come with gulags or death camps, but rather the petty harassment of individuals by the authorities," West added.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Christmas is Attacked by the Government...Again!
Last time it was the Ten Commandments being displayed in Alabama. Now, it is our Nativity Sets--not on a court-house lawn or the town hall--but on privately owned property!! We are letting the federal Government step on own toes, never standing up, sticking it out, and telling them "You just MAKE us take that Manger Scene Down!" or, " You just MAKE us take prayer and the Bible out of the schools!" We need to stand up for our beliefs--they are what make our country and show to the world that we are, in fact, a Christian nation.
First Battle of the 2009 Christmas Culture War over Nativity Displays; Federal Lawsuit Filed
WARREN, Michigan, October 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Christmas culture wars for 2009 have now begun and ground zero is the Detroit suburb of Warren, which for 63 years has hosted a privately maintained nativity scene set at the crossroads of the city.The Nativity display had been maintained by Warren city resident John Satawa and his family for most of the municipality's history until the Macomb County Road Commission this year ordered the display removed because it "clearly displays a religious message" in violation of the "separation of church and state." The Road Commission had informed Satawa of its decision upon receiving a letter in December 2008 from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which purported to act on behalf of a complainant in the city of 134,000 residents, saying the display violated the Constitution. However, on Friday the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Satawa against the Road Commission, arguing that its decision violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion.Satawa's legal counsel hopes to obtain a court order permitting the nativity display along with a declaratory judgment that the Road Commission's actions were unconstitutional.Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, said that militant atheists attempt to do through the courts what the Taliban by force had done to Afghanistan: removing all the symbols of the country's national heritage.Thompson added that nowhere in the US Constitution appears the phrase "separation of church and state"; nevertheless, every Christmas those words become a "means of intimidating municipalities and schools into removing expressions celebrating Christmas, a National Holiday.""Their goal is to cleanse our public square of all Christian symbols. However, the grand purpose of our Founding Fathers and the First Amendment was to protect religion, not eliminate it."The nativity crèche dates from 1945, just five years after the incorporation of the Village of Warren, which then boasted 582 inhabitants. The statues at the time were originally donated to the newly formed St. Anne's Church, but as they were too large, the idea was formed to make them part of an outdoor crèche on the median of Chicago and Mound streets."The United States Supreme Court has long held that all public streets, which includes public medians, are held in the public trust and are properly considered traditional public forums for private speech," said Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter. "Moreover, the Supreme Court has also stated that 'private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.'""Consequently, by restricting speech because it is religious expression, the Road Commission is imposing a content-based restriction on private speech in a traditional public forum in clear violation of the Constitution."The lawsuit maintains that the Road Commission's content-based restriction on Satawa's private religious expression violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that the Road Commissions' policy decision violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion.The case is assigned to the court of U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan.
First Battle of the 2009 Christmas Culture War over Nativity Displays; Federal Lawsuit Filed
WARREN, Michigan, October 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Christmas culture wars for 2009 have now begun and ground zero is the Detroit suburb of Warren, which for 63 years has hosted a privately maintained nativity scene set at the crossroads of the city.The Nativity display had been maintained by Warren city resident John Satawa and his family for most of the municipality's history until the Macomb County Road Commission this year ordered the display removed because it "clearly displays a religious message" in violation of the "separation of church and state." The Road Commission had informed Satawa of its decision upon receiving a letter in December 2008 from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which purported to act on behalf of a complainant in the city of 134,000 residents, saying the display violated the Constitution. However, on Friday the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Satawa against the Road Commission, arguing that its decision violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion.Satawa's legal counsel hopes to obtain a court order permitting the nativity display along with a declaratory judgment that the Road Commission's actions were unconstitutional.Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, said that militant atheists attempt to do through the courts what the Taliban by force had done to Afghanistan: removing all the symbols of the country's national heritage.Thompson added that nowhere in the US Constitution appears the phrase "separation of church and state"; nevertheless, every Christmas those words become a "means of intimidating municipalities and schools into removing expressions celebrating Christmas, a National Holiday.""Their goal is to cleanse our public square of all Christian symbols. However, the grand purpose of our Founding Fathers and the First Amendment was to protect religion, not eliminate it."The nativity crèche dates from 1945, just five years after the incorporation of the Village of Warren, which then boasted 582 inhabitants. The statues at the time were originally donated to the newly formed St. Anne's Church, but as they were too large, the idea was formed to make them part of an outdoor crèche on the median of Chicago and Mound streets."The United States Supreme Court has long held that all public streets, which includes public medians, are held in the public trust and are properly considered traditional public forums for private speech," said Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter. "Moreover, the Supreme Court has also stated that 'private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.'""Consequently, by restricting speech because it is religious expression, the Road Commission is imposing a content-based restriction on private speech in a traditional public forum in clear violation of the Constitution."The lawsuit maintains that the Road Commission's content-based restriction on Satawa's private religious expression violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that the Road Commissions' policy decision violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion.The case is assigned to the court of U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan.
White Ribbon against Pornography Happening this Week
Citizens take have been taking steps to stand against the evils of our society.
The average home is the root of America's problem; it no longer teaches honor, hard world, self-reliance, sacrifice, fear of God, or individual responsibility and the principles of limited government to the next generation. Without there basic lessons, the next generation will shortly fall; by it's ignorance there will be the consequence of a series of "law traps," and their right and independence will slowly slip away. This would mean a country of prisoners bound to the government, and freedom would be a treasure only dreamed of.
There is scarcely any thing that can wound the pride, or degrade the character, of a people which we do not experience. Our country never ceases to ignorantly inflict upon itself shameful violation of rights and morals. The U.S. has poverty everywhere and homeless, abused children, it also has dead churches spotting its states with feeble ministers; our Nation also has fornication at a staggering rate and divorce flooding the home; and the citizens don't seem to care, at least in my view, because if we would be doing something about this despicable situation our nation has today of the cases I have mentioned.If we would begin to save our culture and Nation, we must save ourselves. Each person must put Jesus first in his or her life, and just as importantly the Bible, learning and teaching it; if we would, our dishonorable and demeaning problems would vanish.
Please read on:
NEW YORK, NY, October 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - This year, the annual White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) Week runs Sunday, Oct. 25, through Sunday, Nov. 1. WRAP Week is intended to inform the public and public officials about the harms of pornography and the need to enforce obscenity and related laws.Robert Peters, the President of Morality in Media, which is organizing the event, said: "Our nation is facing a moral crisis which is giving rise to, among other things, teen promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS), abortions, children born to single mothers, divorces, sexual abuse of children, rape, trafficking in women and children, on-the-job sexual harassment and lost worker productivity. The costs associated with these problems are incalculable."It is clear that the explosion of hardcore pornography on the Internet and elsewhere is fueling this moral crisis. It is also clear that ignoring the problem … and failing to take necessary steps to effectively curb the problem … won't solve the problem.Resources for individuals and groups are available at http://www.moralityinmedia.org/ ("WRAP Campaign"). These include information about ordering white ribbons and a sheet describing what citizens can do during WRAP Week and throughout the year, sample letter to U.S. Attorney General Holder, sample letter to state prosecutors, sample Proclamation, and sample prayers and sermons."The government's ongoing failure to enforce federal obscenity laws should be a matter of great concern to President Obama and Attorney General Holder," said Peters."While enforcement of obscenity laws is not the whole answer to the pornography problem, vigorous enforcement will put many hardcore pornographers out of business and encourage others to get or stay out. It will also send the message that pornography is a moral and social evil. Youth especially need to hear this message.Peters also pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that obscenity laws can be enforced against 'hardcore pornography' "and these days most commercially distributed pornography is 'hardcore.'" "The Court has also said there are 'legitimate governmental interests' at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity," said Peters, "which include protecting public safety, family life, and morality, and maintaining a decent society."He concluded, "Clearly, children also need protection both from exposure to hardcore pornography and from sexual predators who use this material to groom their victims and arouse themselves."
The average home is the root of America's problem; it no longer teaches honor, hard world, self-reliance, sacrifice, fear of God, or individual responsibility and the principles of limited government to the next generation. Without there basic lessons, the next generation will shortly fall; by it's ignorance there will be the consequence of a series of "law traps," and their right and independence will slowly slip away. This would mean a country of prisoners bound to the government, and freedom would be a treasure only dreamed of.
There is scarcely any thing that can wound the pride, or degrade the character, of a people which we do not experience. Our country never ceases to ignorantly inflict upon itself shameful violation of rights and morals. The U.S. has poverty everywhere and homeless, abused children, it also has dead churches spotting its states with feeble ministers; our Nation also has fornication at a staggering rate and divorce flooding the home; and the citizens don't seem to care, at least in my view, because if we would be doing something about this despicable situation our nation has today of the cases I have mentioned.If we would begin to save our culture and Nation, we must save ourselves. Each person must put Jesus first in his or her life, and just as importantly the Bible, learning and teaching it; if we would, our dishonorable and demeaning problems would vanish.
Please read on:
NEW YORK, NY, October 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - This year, the annual White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) Week runs Sunday, Oct. 25, through Sunday, Nov. 1. WRAP Week is intended to inform the public and public officials about the harms of pornography and the need to enforce obscenity and related laws.Robert Peters, the President of Morality in Media, which is organizing the event, said: "Our nation is facing a moral crisis which is giving rise to, among other things, teen promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS), abortions, children born to single mothers, divorces, sexual abuse of children, rape, trafficking in women and children, on-the-job sexual harassment and lost worker productivity. The costs associated with these problems are incalculable."It is clear that the explosion of hardcore pornography on the Internet and elsewhere is fueling this moral crisis. It is also clear that ignoring the problem … and failing to take necessary steps to effectively curb the problem … won't solve the problem.Resources for individuals and groups are available at http://www.moralityinmedia.org/ ("WRAP Campaign"). These include information about ordering white ribbons and a sheet describing what citizens can do during WRAP Week and throughout the year, sample letter to U.S. Attorney General Holder, sample letter to state prosecutors, sample Proclamation, and sample prayers and sermons."The government's ongoing failure to enforce federal obscenity laws should be a matter of great concern to President Obama and Attorney General Holder," said Peters."While enforcement of obscenity laws is not the whole answer to the pornography problem, vigorous enforcement will put many hardcore pornographers out of business and encourage others to get or stay out. It will also send the message that pornography is a moral and social evil. Youth especially need to hear this message.Peters also pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that obscenity laws can be enforced against 'hardcore pornography' "and these days most commercially distributed pornography is 'hardcore.'" "The Court has also said there are 'legitimate governmental interests' at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity," said Peters, "which include protecting public safety, family life, and morality, and maintaining a decent society."He concluded, "Clearly, children also need protection both from exposure to hardcore pornography and from sexual predators who use this material to groom their victims and arouse themselves."
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Developing Knowledge in What's Going On
I strongly encourage a development for the desire to get an understanding and knowledge on what's going on in our government and other political actions.
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all they getting get understanding." Proverbs 4:7
"...apply thine heart unto knowledge." Proverbs 22:17
It's sometimes a challenge to contrive time and energy to stay informed...but investing effort is important. You should desire to have such a benefit available--it's truly a blessing to have a knowledge on OUR economy, OUR schools, OUR health-care, OUR government, OUR country!
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee." Hosea 4:6
A lack of knowledge is your own fault-the information, the action, the KNOWLEDGE is out there for you to grab--but if you reject it--you will suffer, or as above, "destroyed." Internet, Fox news, email, newsletter, protests--it's all out there--and it's ignored. I'd almost have to say that's a sin.
It's a Duty, not only a desire to get understanding...your responsibility to your family, country and the constitution is to stay enlightened in the knowledge of Gos and the nation's laws.
George Nicholas said, "An enlightened people will never suffer what was established for their security to be perverted to an act of tyranny."
An "enlightened people" means citizens who what they believe and know what is going on in the country.
A writer of the Federalist Paper said our form of government would not work in promoting the rights of liberty unless the citizens were "enlightened." Most of America has failed to be enlightened, to be informed, to acquire understanding and knowledge of the Lord our God and the constitution...William Penn said, "Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants."
And we are. We have allowed so many evils by rejecting knowledge. Here are a list of evils that have perverted out country for a lack of God, and the constitution:
1. Abortion
2. Socialized Health Care
3. World Wars I and II
4. Bible and Prayer abandoned in the Public Schools
5. The Depression
6. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam
7. Homosexuality
8. Open borders
9. Teen-pregnancy and prostitution
10. Separation of Church and State
11. The Woman's Movement (Feminism)
12. Drugs and Drinking
The list goes on. We should be so ashamed things have gone this far and allowing a president to be elected that has a homosexual, gay, lesbian, and trans-gender agenda...and has had a homosexual relationship in his past, has pro-abortion ideas, encourages Islam, praises polygamy, proposes socialized medicine, installs homosexuals, Communists, ex-convicts, CZARS, wants an organized military patrolling here in the states, raises taxes and spends money outrageously, and wants pornographic art in Harvard University?!
Shame on America! What a disgusting lack of enlightenment we have sunk to. It has been wicked of us to sin in such a lazy, irresponsible, rebellious way toward God and this land when a few 100 years ago men pured their blood on the dirt, and suffered terribly to give the next generation and afterwards liberty and life to live in peace, justice, and godliness.
"IF my people, which are called by my name, shall humble the themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will their land." I Chronicles 7:14.
Our land is under a fight for gaining our Christianity back--and unless action is taken for Christ and the country and pray and educate ourselves in the knowledge of the Bible and of what's going on in America--we're doomed to suffer form the outcome of our ignorance...which is the madness and folly of Washington D.C.
Yes--knowledge means effort--and it can also can cause a lot of anger and grief developing in the understanding of evil--and I have wept many times--but it is our duty...and I hope yo will take your important part as a Christian and take action--starting today.
"And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceive that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1: 17&18
Gad save America!
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all they getting get understanding." Proverbs 4:7
"...apply thine heart unto knowledge." Proverbs 22:17
It's sometimes a challenge to contrive time and energy to stay informed...but investing effort is important. You should desire to have such a benefit available--it's truly a blessing to have a knowledge on OUR economy, OUR schools, OUR health-care, OUR government, OUR country!
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee." Hosea 4:6
A lack of knowledge is your own fault-the information, the action, the KNOWLEDGE is out there for you to grab--but if you reject it--you will suffer, or as above, "destroyed." Internet, Fox news, email, newsletter, protests--it's all out there--and it's ignored. I'd almost have to say that's a sin.
It's a Duty, not only a desire to get understanding...your responsibility to your family, country and the constitution is to stay enlightened in the knowledge of Gos and the nation's laws.
George Nicholas said, "An enlightened people will never suffer what was established for their security to be perverted to an act of tyranny."
An "enlightened people" means citizens who what they believe and know what is going on in the country.
A writer of the Federalist Paper said our form of government would not work in promoting the rights of liberty unless the citizens were "enlightened." Most of America has failed to be enlightened, to be informed, to acquire understanding and knowledge of the Lord our God and the constitution...William Penn said, "Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants."
And we are. We have allowed so many evils by rejecting knowledge. Here are a list of evils that have perverted out country for a lack of God, and the constitution:
1. Abortion
2. Socialized Health Care
3. World Wars I and II
4. Bible and Prayer abandoned in the Public Schools
5. The Depression
6. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam
7. Homosexuality
8. Open borders
9. Teen-pregnancy and prostitution
10. Separation of Church and State
11. The Woman's Movement (Feminism)
12. Drugs and Drinking
The list goes on. We should be so ashamed things have gone this far and allowing a president to be elected that has a homosexual, gay, lesbian, and trans-gender agenda...and has had a homosexual relationship in his past, has pro-abortion ideas, encourages Islam, praises polygamy, proposes socialized medicine, installs homosexuals, Communists, ex-convicts, CZARS, wants an organized military patrolling here in the states, raises taxes and spends money outrageously, and wants pornographic art in Harvard University?!
Shame on America! What a disgusting lack of enlightenment we have sunk to. It has been wicked of us to sin in such a lazy, irresponsible, rebellious way toward God and this land when a few 100 years ago men pured their blood on the dirt, and suffered terribly to give the next generation and afterwards liberty and life to live in peace, justice, and godliness.
"IF my people, which are called by my name, shall humble the themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will their land." I Chronicles 7:14.
Our land is under a fight for gaining our Christianity back--and unless action is taken for Christ and the country and pray and educate ourselves in the knowledge of the Bible and of what's going on in America--we're doomed to suffer form the outcome of our ignorance...which is the madness and folly of Washington D.C.
Yes--knowledge means effort--and it can also can cause a lot of anger and grief developing in the understanding of evil--and I have wept many times--but it is our duty...and I hope yo will take your important part as a Christian and take action--starting today.
"And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceive that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1: 17&18
Gad save America!
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Obama's Homosextual Agenda
Obama is at His Agenda Again!
Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar Dreamed of "Promoting Homosexuality" to Schoolchildren
June 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Kevin Jennings, who was appointed by Obama to be the assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools inside the Department of Education, has always been interested in promoting the homosexualist agenda to schoolchildren.
Jennings, cofounder and executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), told attendees at a GLSEN conference over a decade ago that he looked forward to the day when promoting homosexuality in schools will be seen in a positive light. (See the remarks here)
Jennings said that he “can envision a day when straight people say, ‘So what if you’re promoting homosexuality,’ or straight kids [will] say [to a male homosexual friend], ‘Hey, why don’t you and your boyfriend come over before you go to prom and try your tuxes on at my house?’ ”
"I’d like five years from now for most Americans when they hear the word ‘GLSEN’ to think ‘Ooh, that’s good for kids.’ ”
To enact this agenda, GLSEN regularly holds workshops that present tools for changing curricula at schools from kindergarten to high school, including “Inclusive Kindergarten,” “Inclusive Elementary School Curriculum,” and “Re-envisioning High School Literature.”
GLSEN leaders believe that to win the battle for “homosexual rights,” they must redefine the next generation’s view of homosexuality, beginning at kindergarten. Activist Jaki Williams has said that during kindergarten children are “developing their superego,” and “that’s when the saturation process needs to begin.”
Jennings was once asked on national television and in front of hundreds of attendees whether GLSEN’s mission was to go beyond “teaching of respect for all,” the title of a GLSEN instructional video, to which he responded with a forceful “no.”
However, when the cameras stopped rolling, the attendees broke into smaller groups where GLSEN presenters gave a drastically different idea of their mission. One speaker called the desire for “tolerance” a “condescending campaign for the second-class citizenry.”
“I don’t want to be tolerated. I don’t want to be put up with. I want to be ... celebrated,” said Stephen Glassman, a GLSEN chapter board member.
Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar Dreamed of "Promoting Homosexuality" to Schoolchildren
June 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Kevin Jennings, who was appointed by Obama to be the assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools inside the Department of Education, has always been interested in promoting the homosexualist agenda to schoolchildren.
Jennings, cofounder and executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), told attendees at a GLSEN conference over a decade ago that he looked forward to the day when promoting homosexuality in schools will be seen in a positive light. (See the remarks here)
Jennings said that he “can envision a day when straight people say, ‘So what if you’re promoting homosexuality,’ or straight kids [will] say [to a male homosexual friend], ‘Hey, why don’t you and your boyfriend come over before you go to prom and try your tuxes on at my house?’ ”
"I’d like five years from now for most Americans when they hear the word ‘GLSEN’ to think ‘Ooh, that’s good for kids.’ ”
To enact this agenda, GLSEN regularly holds workshops that present tools for changing curricula at schools from kindergarten to high school, including “Inclusive Kindergarten,” “Inclusive Elementary School Curriculum,” and “Re-envisioning High School Literature.”
GLSEN leaders believe that to win the battle for “homosexual rights,” they must redefine the next generation’s view of homosexuality, beginning at kindergarten. Activist Jaki Williams has said that during kindergarten children are “developing their superego,” and “that’s when the saturation process needs to begin.”
Jennings was once asked on national television and in front of hundreds of attendees whether GLSEN’s mission was to go beyond “teaching of respect for all,” the title of a GLSEN instructional video, to which he responded with a forceful “no.”
However, when the cameras stopped rolling, the attendees broke into smaller groups where GLSEN presenters gave a drastically different idea of their mission. One speaker called the desire for “tolerance” a “condescending campaign for the second-class citizenry.”
“I don’t want to be tolerated. I don’t want to be put up with. I want to be ... celebrated,” said Stephen Glassman, a GLSEN chapter board member.
Hooray for Italy!
Here in our country we find Obama surrounding himself with homosexuals, abortionists, communists, ex-convicts, and so many other evil characters. He is truly off his rocker.
When the Hate Crimes Bill was past, we see Italy standing up for its morals; but getting criticism for it in the UN circles.
I praise Italy for it standing for what's right against so many other nations.
This is a great article...please read!
Italy Rejects "Sexual Orientation" in Hate Crime Legislation
By Hilary White
ROME, October 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Italian parliament has rejected an attempt by homosexualist campaigners to install "sexual orientation" as a privileged category in hate crime legislation. The measure was defeated by a vote of 285- 222.
Opponents had argued that the change to the criminal code would have produced an inequality, in fact a case of reverse discrimination. Politician Rocco Buttiglione said that homosexuals are protected under the law in the same way as all other citizens and said that the defeat of the bill was a victory for "the principle of the equality of all citizens - a principle enshrined in our constitution."
Isabella Bertolini, a legislator and member of Silvio Berlusconi's ruling party who had also opposed the court-ordered killing of Eluana Englaro last year, said that the attempt to institute "inherent sexual orientation" into the criminal code was "clearly unconstitutional" and was "likely to cause serious problems and serious discrimination."
The concept, she said, was the "fruit of relativistic thought" that is growing in Italy that would "produce a substantial difference in treatment for homosexuals and transsexuals before the law." The proposed law would have created a legal situation in which an act of violence would be considered more serious if the victim were a homosexual. "This is incomprehensible," Bertolini said.
Bertolini warned, based on the experience of other countries with similar "sexual orientation" legislation, that should it be put in place in Italy, the result would be restrictions on freedom of speech.
Once introduced into the hate crime sections of the law, she said, "It would not be possible [for people] to exercise the right to express their opinions or criticisms" of homosexual activity, a serious matter in a predominantly Catholic country. She further warned that the proposed law would have been "used as a gateway to revolutionize the concept of marriage, family, adoption and unhinge the fundamental values that underpin our society."
The defeat of the bill has been criticized at the United Nations, with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights calling it "a step backward for human rights."
"Gays and lesbians deserve full protection under the law," said Navi Pillay, who added that governments should make additional laws specifically protecting homosexuals.
Italian welfare minister, Mariastella Carfagna, said that new hate crime legislation would be drafted that would call for harsher penalties for all crimes motivated by "discrimination" that would include the "sexual orientation" category. Currently hate crime legislation exists in Italy that includes the categories of race, ethnicity, nationality and religion. The inclusion of "sexual orientation" into the existing code has been a major goal of the country's homosexualist political lobby for some years.
Homosexualist campaigners have announced that a march will be held in Rome to protest the vote on October 17.
When the Hate Crimes Bill was past, we see Italy standing up for its morals; but getting criticism for it in the UN circles.
I praise Italy for it standing for what's right against so many other nations.
This is a great article...please read!
Italy Rejects "Sexual Orientation" in Hate Crime Legislation
By Hilary White
ROME, October 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Italian parliament has rejected an attempt by homosexualist campaigners to install "sexual orientation" as a privileged category in hate crime legislation. The measure was defeated by a vote of 285- 222.
Opponents had argued that the change to the criminal code would have produced an inequality, in fact a case of reverse discrimination. Politician Rocco Buttiglione said that homosexuals are protected under the law in the same way as all other citizens and said that the defeat of the bill was a victory for "the principle of the equality of all citizens - a principle enshrined in our constitution."
Isabella Bertolini, a legislator and member of Silvio Berlusconi's ruling party who had also opposed the court-ordered killing of Eluana Englaro last year, said that the attempt to institute "inherent sexual orientation" into the criminal code was "clearly unconstitutional" and was "likely to cause serious problems and serious discrimination."
The concept, she said, was the "fruit of relativistic thought" that is growing in Italy that would "produce a substantial difference in treatment for homosexuals and transsexuals before the law." The proposed law would have created a legal situation in which an act of violence would be considered more serious if the victim were a homosexual. "This is incomprehensible," Bertolini said.
Bertolini warned, based on the experience of other countries with similar "sexual orientation" legislation, that should it be put in place in Italy, the result would be restrictions on freedom of speech.
Once introduced into the hate crime sections of the law, she said, "It would not be possible [for people] to exercise the right to express their opinions or criticisms" of homosexual activity, a serious matter in a predominantly Catholic country. She further warned that the proposed law would have been "used as a gateway to revolutionize the concept of marriage, family, adoption and unhinge the fundamental values that underpin our society."
The defeat of the bill has been criticized at the United Nations, with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights calling it "a step backward for human rights."
"Gays and lesbians deserve full protection under the law," said Navi Pillay, who added that governments should make additional laws specifically protecting homosexuals.
Italian welfare minister, Mariastella Carfagna, said that new hate crime legislation would be drafted that would call for harsher penalties for all crimes motivated by "discrimination" that would include the "sexual orientation" category. Currently hate crime legislation exists in Italy that includes the categories of race, ethnicity, nationality and religion. The inclusion of "sexual orientation" into the existing code has been a major goal of the country's homosexualist political lobby for some years.
Homosexualist campaigners have announced that a march will be held in Rome to protest the vote on October 17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
