Pages

Friday, February 27, 2009

Obama to rescind Bush abortion rule

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer

The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on moral grounds, an official said Friday.

A Health and Human Services official said the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, and open a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

Read the full article here.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

UK Advises Parents Not to Teach Morality

From Timesonline

Parents should avoid trying to convince their teenage children of the difference between right and wrong when talking to them about sex, a new government leaflet is to advise.

Instead, any discussion of values should be kept “light” to encourage teenagers to form their own views, according to the brochure, which one critic has called “amoral”.


**************

The most unbelievable excerpt from the pamphlet: “Discussing your values with your teenagers will help them to form their own. Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what’s right and wrong may discourage them from being open.”

**************
Read the full article here.

Considering some of the shocking statistics (more here and here) about US teenagers being sexually active, now may be the time to start teaching the morality. Do you think the attitude portrayed in the pamphlet is prevalent in the US school system, government, or society in general?

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Virginia Porn Shop Closing Due To Community Pressure

From www.citizenlink.com

During the last year and a half, Rick E. Krial spent $150,000 defending his porn business in court.

He says it's not worth it anymore, The News Leader of Staunton, Va., reported.

Staunton Prosecutor Raymond C. Robertson won a conviction against Krial and his company in August on two misdemeanor obscenity charges. The week-long trial pitted Robertson against two of the nation's top obscenity trial lawyers. The porn shop closed after the trial.

************

Read the full story here.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Hawaii: Next State to allow Civil Unions for Homosexual Couples?

From www.LifeSiteNews.com

Between 6,000 and 8,000 people gathered at the state Capitol on Sunday for a demonstration against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex civil unions in Hawaii.

The protest was organized by the Hawaii Family Forum (HFF) which represents churches from across the state, including the Hawaii Catholic Conference, in anticipation of a vote to be held today by a state Senate committee looking at the issue.

Executive Director of the HFF, Dennis Arakaki, said "We are here in the spirit of love, compassion, and grace," according to AP. "But we are also here armed with the sword of truth. In Hawaii, people still believe in traditional marriage and the sanctity of marriage, and there's no indication that values or perspectives have changed."

In 1998, nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment giving the State Legislature the power to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples. The "defense of marriage" amendment resulted in a law banning homosexual "marriage" in Hawaii, but did not obviate the possibility of same-sex civil unions.

Earlier this month the Hawaii House of Representatives approved Bill 444, in a 34 to 17 vote, which, if passed by the Senate committee and not vetoed by Governor Linda Lingle, would give same-sex partners who enter into civil unions the same rights and benefits under state law as married couples. It would also recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships and same-sex "marriages" performed in other states and countries as civil unions in Hawaii.

Read the full article here.

****************
Update: Civil union bill stalls in Senate Judiciary Committee with a 3-3 vote. The vote took place at 3:00am after 12 hours of testimony.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Result of HR5 Vote at Capital

The California State assembly passed a resolution encouraging the state Supreme Court to overturn the results of Proposition 8.

the pomegranate apple has more info on how the judiciary assembly members voted

Beetle Blogger has a video of the proceedings as well as some personal accounts of others who were there

Pearl Diver posts about her experience lobbying at the capital

Their words say it all.

Pearl: "Democracy was categorically ignored."
Beetle: "Your legislators cancel[led] your vote."
the pomegranate apple: "The legislature’s attempt to influence the judiciary is a serious disregard for the separation of powers."

***********
Update: SR7 passes committee with a 3-2 vote

Friday, February 20, 2009

Speechless: Silencing the Christians

Several stations have refused to air an hour-long special TV program by the American Family Association called Speechless: Silencing the Christians that reveals the homosexual agenda, including the promotion of that agenda by the media, the indoctrination of school children, and homosexual marriage.

Take the time to view it and share it with your friends and family, and tell me what you think.




The program mentions a homosexual activist agenda book called After the Ball that Pearl Diver blogged about here, here and here.

The information at the end about the new administration's agenda for the LGBT community can be found at the official White House website.

The survey mentioned can be filled out here.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Student Jonathan Lopez Sues School Over Same-Sex Marriage speech

From the Los Angeles Times:

Student Jonathan Lopez says his professor called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.


When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to "ask God what your grade is," the suit says.

Read the full article here and here.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Seven States Have Launched Efforts for Personhood Rights for Pre-born - More Expected

By www.LifeSiteNews.com

Personhood USA has announced that since the beginning of the new year, seven different states have started efforts in support of the personhood of pre-born children. In addition, Rep. Duncan Hunter has introduced H.R. 881, the Right to Life Act, on the federal level, propelling the personhood movement forward.

Five States have now introduced bills affirming the personhood rights of pre-born humans from the moment of fertilization, including:

Maryland - HB925 - Delegate Don Dwyer
North Dakota - H.R. 1572 - Rep. Dan Ruby
Montana - SB 406 - Sen. Daniel W McGee
South Carolina - H.3526 - Rep. Liston Barfield
Alabama - SB-335 - Sen. Hank Erwin

Oregon has also begun a personhood amendment petition drive, and Mississippi's personhood amendment petition drive is expected to launch within weeks.

The common thread among all of these efforts is the goal to fill what is becoming known as the "Blackmun Hole" in Roe v. Wade. This is where Justice Blackmun implied in the Roe v. Wade decision that if the case were established that the pre-born human being was a person, the argument for abortion collapses. In Roe v Wade, it is acknowledged that the "fetus" is fully human, but the decision did not grant the rights of "persons" until birth.

Read the rest of the article here.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

12-year-old speaks out on abortion

According to her mother, this 7th grader chose the topic of abortion and prepared this speech on her own.




Read more about her story at United Families International.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Update on Prop 8 Rally at the Capital

From Beetle Blogger:

The Digital Network Army, United Families International and Capital Resource Institute are joining forces this Tuesday to rally for families at the Capitol Building in Sacramento. Both state houses are drafting official resolutions condemning the passage of Proposition 8 and urging the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people AGAIN.

Two statewide elections with the majority voices of millions were not loud enough to turn the heads of our representatives in Sacramento, so we’re bringing the voice of the people to Sacramento. Come Rally with us for Marriage and Families! Help remind the Senators and Assemblymen that we are watching…because there’s nothing more important to our nation than its families.

Protect Marriage! Protect Families! Protect Democracy!

If our representatives are going to turn their backs on the people who voted for them, let them do it to our faces in the light of the cameras, not in a silent corner.

From DNA:

Ok, so the most recent word is that the opposition is going to be busing people in from San Francisco for the hearings so seating at the actual hearing may be limited, come early. If you have kids, bring water bottles and a few snacks, comfortable shoes. Security is tight there, so remember, no pocket knives etc.

If we have more people come to the hearing than we can fit in the room, we’ll hold a concurrent rally outside the capitol building with a petition signing. No body will be wasted! Kids and families are welcome! Come and be heard! Wear your yellow shirt if you like! If it rains, bring an umbrella, we’ll rally in the hallways!

Proposition 8 Hearings will be held in these rooms:

HR 5
Tuesday, February 17
10:30am
State Capitol
Room 4202

SR 7
Tuesday, February 17
12:30pm
State Capitol
Room 4203

Saturday, February 14, 2009

California Prop 8 Rally at the Capital

From Beetle Blogger

Go! Rally! Bring Your Signs and Spread the Word!

This resolution would put the Assembly on record as supporting the repeal of Proposition 8 and declaring that the initiative was an improper revision to the California Constitution. -Equality California Website

Dear California Supporters of the Family,

State Assembly and Senate Considering Resolution Encouraging State Supreme Court to Overturn Prop 8!!!

SR7 and HR5

On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an “improper revision” to the state constitution.

Read HR5 and Read SR7

Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters. Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, “Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike….Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern.”

Don’t let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.

What You Can Do

DOT.jpg Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

For directions
For parking information

DOT.jpg Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7
Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Dem-42 (916) 319-2042 Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov
Rep-68 (916) 319-2068 Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov
Dem-41 (916) 319-2041 Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
Dem-7 (916) 319-2007 Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov
Dem-9 (916) 319-2009 Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov
Dem-43 (916) 319-2043 Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
Dem-53 (916) 319-2053 Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov
Dem-27 (916) 319-2027 Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov
Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7

Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916 651 4010
Fax: 916 327 2433

Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Tom Harman
Phone: 916 651 4035
Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno
Phone: 916 651 4003

Mimi Walters
Phone: 916 651 4033
Fax: 916 445 9754

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state.

United Families California

Friday, February 13, 2009

Are you "homophobic?"

Brazilian Government Says 99% of Citizens Are "Homophobic" and Must Be Reeducated

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, www.LifeSiteNews.com

The Brazilian government has determined that 99% of its citizens are "homophobic," and therefore must be reeducated, according to the Brazilian newspaper O Globo.

The results are taken from a study that tested for "homophobia" by asking people to comment on such statements as "God made men and women with different sexes so that they could fulfill their role and have children." The 92% of Brazilians who agreed partially or completely with the statement were labeled "homophobic."

Another test question for "homophobia" was, "Homosexuality is a sin against the laws of God." Fifty-eight percent of Brazilians agreed.

Those who agreed partially or completely that "Homosexuality is an illness that should be treated" (41%) were also labeled "homophobic," as were those who objected to homosexuals kissing and hugging in public (64%).

According to O Globo, Brazil's federal government will use the data "to plan new policies, and warns that it has now detected a dark consequence of so much prejudice: intolerance." The study was performed by an organization linked to the socialist Labor Party, which currently occupies the nation's executive branch and predominates in the legislature.

Read full article here.

From Kingfisher:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

Do you think there is a disparity between the actual definition of homophobia and the Brazilian government's definition? Do you think homosexual activists in our country are trying to redefine homophobia in this way?

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Bankrupt California buys billboards promoting homosexual adoption

From WorldNetDaily

Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Soecial Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family" campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.

According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting "gay" adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.

...

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a California pro-family organization, released a statement saying the state has no business sponsoring the campaign when it has decided to issue taxpayers IOUs in place of their annual returns.

"At a time when the state doesn't have enough money to provide hard-working people with their tax refunds, it's a shame that state and county funds are being wasted on this propaganda," he said.

Read the full article here.

Photo from Campaign for Children and Families

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Prop. 8 opponents look ahead to 2010

Not waiting for the court

From California Catholic Daily

Supporters of same-sex marriage in California are moving quickly to undo Proposition 8 in case the state Supreme Court does not strike it down. Two proposed initiatives have been filed with the attorney general’s office for the 2010 elections – one would simply repeal Prop 8, the other would abolish civil marriages altogether.

Before initiative backers can begin collecting signatures to qualify it for the ballot, they must first submit their proposal to the attorney general, who assigns a title to the proposed measure and prepares a summary that appears on the petitions.

On Jan. 12, according to the attorney general’s web site, Kaelan Housewright of Studio City submitted the “Domestic Partnership Initiative.” The summary provided to the attorney general says: “The proposed measure calls for the term ‘marriage’ to be removed from government legislation. The State of California Law code would have ‘marriage’ replaced with ‘domestic partnership,’ while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, ‘Marriage’ itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8.”

A second initiative proposal was stamped “received” by the attorney general’s office on Jan. 26. Submitted by Charles Lowe of a Sacramento-based group that calls itself “Yes! on Equality,” the proposal would simply repeal Proposition 8 by striking out the wording in the state constitution restricting marriage to between a man and a woman. In addition, the proposed initiative provides, “This section is not intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, mandate or require clergy of any church to perform a service or duty incongruent with their faith.”

Since both measures would change the constitution, the signature threshold on petitions is higher than for a standard legislative initiative. In order to qualify for the 2010 ballot, either initiative would require the valid signatures of 694,354 registered California voters. After the attorney general reviews the proposed initiatives and assigns an official title and summary, backers would have just 150 days to obtain the required number of signatures.

Read the full article here.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Obama May Pick Extreme Pro-Abortion KS Gov. Sebelius for HHS: Reports

by Kathleen Gilbert, www.LifeSiteNews.com

Obama may choose Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, friend of notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller and one of the most pro-abortion governors in America, to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, according to news reports citing a senior official in the Obama administration.

If Sebelius is chosen to replace Tom Daschle, who withdrew his bid in disgrace over unpaid taxes and connections to health organizations, she will bring an even more radical pro-abortion record and a dark history of her own to the top of the HHS.

According to Operation Rescue, Sebelius held a secret party at the governor's mansion for George Tiller (whom OR claims has secretly funneled hundreds of thousands in donations to Sebelius' campaign) and his entire abortion clinic staff in April 2007. Tiller has been charged with 19 counts of illegal abortions and faces trial next month.
............

Sebelius has also opposed or vetoed several abortion-accountability bills, including popular clinic regulation legislation in 2005. She appointed a former abortion clinic "escort" John Carmichael, a militant supporter of Tiller's Political Action Committee, ProKanDo, to the Human Rights Commission. His name was quietly withdrawn ten months later.

Sebelius also appointed political supporter and abortionist Howard Ellis to serve on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts after he surrendered his medical license in Missouri rather than face disciplinary action. Ellis resigned under pressure, and two months later was charged by the Board with attempting to persuade a physician to falsify records.

"Sebelius is joined at the hip with the abortion industry," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "She owes them her political career and has been more than willing to pay them back with personal favors that have shielded them from legislation and criminal prosecution. Her corrupt abortion politics make her unfit to serve."

Read full article here.

Monday, February 9, 2009

The Intolerance of Those Demanding Tolerance

From United Families International
by Gary G. Kreep

I never cease to be amazed at the rationales, excuses, and bizarre lengths that some people will go to attack those of us, like myself, who supported Proposition 8 in the last election.

For those hate mongers who simply cannot bear the fact that Proposition 8 won, and have decided that those who supported it need to be vilified, attacked, and destroyed, I am pretty easy to find. Not only did I support Proposition 8, and vote for it, but I was a lead attorney in a lawsuit to invalidate the Same Sex Marriage licenses issued in response to the California State Supreme Court Ruling–that ruling created a “constitutional right” of homosexual marriage. Further, to add more flames to the fire, I was up all night on election night, one of 140+ attorneys who were designated to monitor the Registrars of Voters in counties around the state, to ensure fairness in the vote.

Even more to the chagrin of those of you who are the real haters in this situation, I will be filing one or more briefs with the California State Supreme Court defending the passage of Proposition 8 in the November, 2008, election.

Since the passage of Proposition 8, I have learned of racial epithets being hurled at Blacks who supported Proposition 8. I have read about death threats and violence directed at those who supported Proposition 8. I have learned of people being forced out of their jobs, or harassed at work, for having the audacity to contribute money to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

I have read about the extreme lengths that those who cannot stand the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints supported Proposition 8 have gone to vilify and attack that church. Nowhere, however, have I seen any attacks against the Black churches that went to the same, if not even greater, lengths to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. It appears that church involvement in elections is only “evil” if it offends the activists in the homosexual movement, and their leftist allies.

It is amazing to me that those who cried for “fairness” during the last election, and who continually ask for tolerance for their lifestyles, not only show no tolerance for those who oppose them, but promote outright hate against those that oppose them.

Despite all the protestations of many in the homosexual movement, this lack of tolerance for opponents is nothing new.

Read the full article here.


This video illustrates the author's point about "the intolerance of those demanding tolerance."

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Pro-Life Petition Continues To Add Names

From United Families International

On December 10, 2008 a Pro-Life coalition including United Families International gathered at the UN to present a Pro-Life petition. The reason for the petition was two fold:

  1. To celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  2. In response to a Pro-Abortion petition presented by Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International

The Pro-Life petition contained over 340,000 names gathered over a 60 day period, while the opposition petition claimed 651 names in nearly a year of work. Due to the relatively short amount of time that the Pro-Life petition was available, United Families International and the Pro-Life coalition have decided to keep the petition open until September 2009 when it will be re-presented to the UN. We invite all who believe in the sanctity of life to add their names to the International Petition to Protect Life.

The petition requests that all member nations and states interpret the UNDHR to mean that:

The right to life, liberty and security is for every person; that each child born or unborn, has the right to birth and a full, natural life. That a child has the right to a mother and a father, of full age, within the bonds of marriage defined as between a man and a woman. And, that the parents have the right to raise and educate their children without any limitation due to race, religion, culture or nationality.

CLICK HERE to add your name to the petition and join Pro-Lifers around the globe in protecting life.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Updates from the frontlines

Vermont: A bill that would allow homosexual couples to marry is being introduced today in the House. The state currently allows civil unions.

Hawaii: The state house has signed a bill that would allow civil unions between homosexual couples. If signed into law, it would also require Hawaii to recognize same-sex unions or "marriages" from other states.

Washington: Both the state House and Senate are considering bills that would give same-sex couples that same rights as married couples. Lawmakers supporting the bill say that it is a step to passing a law legalizing same-sex marriage for homosexual couples--something they hope will happen next year.

Wyoming: A bill failed today that would have allowed voters to amend the state constitution regarding same-sex marriages. Voters would have been able to decide if the state must recognize same-sex "marriages" performed in other states. Wyoming is currently required to do so. Wyoming already has a law that states marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child = Taking away Parental Rights

Is parental authority on the U.N. chopping block?

by Pete Chagnon, OneNewsNow.com

The chancellor of Patrick Henry College is warning parents about a dangerous United Nations treaty.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was established about 20 years ago. Although the U.S. has signed the treaty, it has not been ratified according to Constitutional mandate. Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College, says if the treaty is ratified during the Obama administration, it would override all state laws regarding parental rights.

"The biggest problem with this treaty is that we replace American law [developed] by our elected officials with international law that is governed by a board of 18 child's rights experts in Geneva," he explains.

Read full story here.

-----------------------------------------------------

B Michael P. Farris, Esq., Parentalrights.org

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:
  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Read more about the implication of the treaty here.
----------------------------------------
Note from Kingfisher: There are indications that within the next two years, an attempt will be made to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who has control over submitting the treaty to the Senate) is a supporter, and at the Walden University debate, President Obama implied support:

"
It’s important that the United States return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of human rights. It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Obama selects David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice


President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.

"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination" said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis.

"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."

"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine - at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch.

As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.

"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch. "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws."

See a full dossier on Ogden compiled by Fidelis here:

http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t...

To express concern to Senators regarding the appointment visit:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...'


From Kingfisher:

Official dutes of the Deputy Attorney General from the USDOJ:

The Deputy Attorney General advises and assists the Attorney General in formulating and implementing Departmental policies and programs and in providing overall supervision and direction to all organizational units of the Department. The Deputy Attorney General is authorized to exercise all the power and authority of the Attorney General, except where such power or authority is prohibited by law from delegation or has been delegated to another official. In the absence of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General acts as the Attorney General.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Should the LDS/Mormon Church Lose it's Tax- Exempt Status Over In-Kind Prop. 8 Donations?

(Note from Kingfisher: The official statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on their donations to Prop. 8 can be found here.)

By Pearl Diver

The most debated clause in the 501(c)(3), especially in the case of the LDS Church’s in-kind donations to defending marriage, is the designation of a tax-exempt organization having “no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” (frwebgate.gov).

First, let’s establish the fact that the 501(c)(3) does not have a definitive monetary substantiality test by which to weigh the lobbying contributions of churches. Furthermore, “there is no statutory or regulatory definition of the amount of legislative activity that would constitute a ‘substantial part’ of an organization’s activities” (stblaw.com).

There are, however, two cases which have set precedents to which judges refer when scrutinizing the lobbying activities of a tax-exempt entity/organization/charity (in this case, a church).

In Seasongood v. Commissioner, the ruling “held that attempts to influence legislation that constituted five percent of total activities were not substantial.” This case, however, provides “limited guidance because the court’s view of what set of activities were to be measured is no longer supported by the weight of precedent. Moreover, it is not clear how the court arrived at the five percent figure” (IRS.gov).

In Haswell v. United States, “the Court of Claims cited percentage figures in support of its determination that an organization’s lobbying activities were substantial. (The amount of the organization’s expenditures for lobbying activities ranged from 16.6 percent to 20.5 percent of total expenditures during the four years at issue.) While the court stated that a percentage test is only one measure of substantiality (and not, by itself, determinative), it held that these percentages were a strong indication that the organization’s purposes were no longer consistent with charity.” (IRS.gov).

Okay, so what we have discovered so far is that if a church’s lobbying activities make up only 1% - 15% (to be safe) of its overall activity, its tax-exempt status is safe. As a general rule, then, looking to the Haswell precedent, any amount of activity falling at the 16% mark or above would be considered “a substantial part.” If, as was the case in Haswell v. United States, we were to judge based on “total expenditures during [time] at issue,” the LDS Church’s total in-kind donations would have had to have been in the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars considering first an annual gross income of $6 billion (in 1997 - Deseret News Archive) and second, the colossal expenditures necessary to operate a worldwide church, remembering the hundreds of land acquisitions and building projects they sign and complete throughout the world each year (temples and chapels, renovations, remodels, etc.) and multiple charitable projects such as the Perpetual Education Fund and world-wide disaster relief response. Given this knowledge, $190,000 does not even come close to signifying “a substantial part” based solely on a monetary inspection of lobby-related activities.

So what else is there? If we do not base the Church’s continued access to tax-exempt status purely on their non-monetary, in-kind donations to the promotion of moral principles through the adoption of legislation, then truly, what other measurement will the IRS employ to determine this matter?

“Churches… are evaluated by the “less precise ‘substantial activity test’” that is “based upon all relevant facts and circumstances”—in other words, the IRS has no openly available standard that it must follow and can therefore do whatever it wants. There may be a more codified procedure in the future, or there may not be. It may be more or less restrictive. The IRS has free reign, since all 501(c)(3) status churches have already agreed that no substantial part of their activity will be “carrying on propaganda” (propagating information) about anything” (Servants News).

=========

“The IRS has used other factors to determine substantiality:

Time spent by employees and volunteers;

Money spent in relation to the organization’s entire budget;

The amount of publicity the organization assigns to the activity;

Continuous or intermittent nature of the activity.”

(stblaw.com)

Please note that the first qualifier speaks of employees and volunteers, not members (who acted on an individual basis after being asked once, in a letter, by their president, and once in a satellite broadcast with members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, to get involved). And if the amount of money allotted to compensate employees for their time spent on the promotion of Proposition 8 is any indication of how much time was actually spent, then I think we can safely say the LDS Church has not violated that qualification. With regard to money and Church budget, I think we’ve adequately dismissed any concern of violation there (remember $190,000 v. hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars). Publicity provided by the Church came in the form of one satellite broadcast to members of the Church in California, a website, and various YouTube videos. And only a couple of specific activities were continuous in nature (YouTube videos and website) from the time that the LDS Church joined the coalition in June of 2008, until the vote on Nov. 4, 2008.

Now, if you hold up the roughly four and a half months of mild and intermittent lobbying for marriage engaged in during the year 2008 (speaking strictly of the Church here, not of its members) against its nearly 179 years of missionary work, proselytizing, disaster relief aid, and building of temples and meetinghouses, then again I would suggest that the Church has in no way violated its allowable lobbying by meeting or exceeding that highly debatable phrase “a substantial part.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Monday, February 2, 2009

More than Two children is "Irresponsible"

More than Two Children “Irresponsible” Says Top Advisor to British Government

By Hilary White, LifeSiteNews.com

While demographers continue to warn of an onrushing, and virtually irreversible, demographic collapse in Europe because of the aging of the European population, a top British government advisor has called for more abortion and contraception to “save the environment.” The chairman of Britain's Sustainable Development Commission said this weekend that couples who have more than two children are “irresponsible.”
...

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better “family planning,” (which means abortion and contraception) even if it means reducing funding for curing illness. Porritt said that a focus of his work will be to urge environmentalist groups to make population control a part of their lobbying efforts.

The Times also quoted the Optimum Population Trust, a pro-abortion radical environmentalist organisation of which Porritt is a patron, who says that each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland.

The equation made by the population control movement, whose major tools are abortion, sterilisation and contraception, between environmentalist doctrine and the reduction of human population is long established. In June this year, the Optimum Population Trust said that a “voluntary population policy” should be imposed in British law. In 2007, the Trust, reacting to news of a slight increase in the British birth rate, said that the government must institute a two-child policy, similar to that of the People’s Republic of China.
...

Reaction to Porritt’s comments in the British press has not been positive. Bruno Waterfield, Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, wrote that Porritt’s equation of environmental sustainability with human self-extinction is commonplace on the left.

Calling it “the anti-human essence and prejudice behind environmentalism,” Waterfield wrote, “Environmentalists see birth as pollution. For most of us a new child means new life. For the greens it means yet more dirty destruction.”
...

Read the full article here.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Pro-Life Superbowl Ad Rejected by NBC

This video by CatholicVote.org was rejected by NBC because it involves a "political issue".




Read more at EarthTimes.