Showing posts with label Vaughn Walker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vaughn Walker. Show all posts

Thursday, August 19, 2010

My Life, My Death, My Choice: Responding to Final Exit Network Billboards

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about the Final Exit Billboards. This follows this post analyzing the Prop 8 ruling. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

My Life, My Death, My Choice: Responding to Final Exit Network Billboards
by Wesley J. Smith
The advocacy billboards appeared without warning in San Francisco and New Jersey:: "My Life. My Death. My Choice." Paid for by the Final Exit Network (FEN), the promotional signs received widespread media coverage as a new wrinkle in the ongoing national campaign to legalize assisted suicide.

But there is much more to this story than controversial messaging on billboard. FEN doesn't just advocate assisted suicide: Its "counselors" make deadly house calls. Indeed, FEN members have been indicted in Georgia—including Ted Goodwin, its former head— and in Arizona for alleged assisted suicide activities. So far, two FEN members have pleaded guilty (in the Arizona case involving the suicide of a mentally ill woman).

FEN-style moral outlawry is nothing new, of course. In the 1990s, Jack Kevorkian plowed this particular field until convicted of second degree murder. (Proving that crime pays: Kevorkian has retired from his deadly avocation and receives $50,000 per speech, as he basks in the warm light of a sympathetic biopic starring Al Pacino.

Kevorkian's Australian counterpart, physician Philip Nitschke, still travels the world teaching people how-to-commit suicide as he attempts to touts a suicide concoction called "the peaceful pill," which he opined in a National Review Online interview, should be made available to anyone who wants to die, including "troubled teens." Full story at www.LifeNews.com

Looking for a Pro-Life Speaker?
Looking for a pro-life speaker for your next banquet, conference or convention? LifeNews.com editor Steven Ertelt is a low-cost speaker who can entertain and educate your audience as well as help you with a fundraising pitch. He can speak on any pro-life topic. For more information, email news@LifeNews.com .

Is Homosexuality Acceptable to God?

An interesting article from www.ucg.org about homosexuality. This follows this article about the Ground Zero of Prophecy. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Is Homosexuality Acceptable to God?
The acceptance of homosexuality as an equally valid lifestyle is rapidly growing in Western culture. Yet God tells us that sex was designed for only one relationship—within marriage, exclusively between a man and a woman. Because homosexual activity, premarital sex and adultery are all outside of marriage, all are violations of God's instructions. These things are all sins, and those who commit these sins must repent of them.

The Bible condemns homosexual practices in several places such as Genesis 19:1-25, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and Judges 19:1-25. These scriptures refer to homosexual acts as something that should not be done and as evil in the eyes of God.

In the New Testament, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 refer to homosexuality in the same way. The passage in Romans includes a specific prohibition of both male and female homosexual involvement. The Bible nowhere makes positive or approving statements about homosexuality. The only two options affirmed for adult Christians are heterosexual marriage or abstinence.

The vast majority of academic and biblical scholars agree that the Bible prohibits homosexual activities. Nearly all of today's translations of the Bible are also in agreement that God prohibits homosexual practice.

Contesting God's instructions, some homosexuals argue that God made them the way they are and that He therefore must approve of homosexuality. Such reasoning is inherently flawed for several reasons.

First, God made all of us with free moral agency; we choose what we will think, believe and do. We are not robots incapable of making our own choices or governing our own behavior. Second, one's environment has been proven to have a great impact on a person's developing sexuality. Moreover, studies of identical twins where one twin is homosexual and the other isn't prove that homosexuality isn't governed by genetic makeup. These factors show that homosexuals are made, not born.

Third, regardless of any conditions that may predispose a person to homosexuality, we are all expected to make moral decisions regardless of our circumstances. When we determine to follow God's instructions, we must live up to all His standards. God doesn't permit us to rewrite His rules simply because we are naturally inclined to premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality or any other sin.

And speaking of the way we human beings are made, the Bible reveals that we all (regardless of our sexual orientation) have a predisposition to sin. We have minds that from childhood are set against God and His ways (Jeremiah 17:9). As a result, we all sin (Romans 3:23). The challenge for each of us in responding to God is to repent of our sins—to change our lives, with His help, in conforming to His standards (Romans 12:1-2). When we commit our lives to God, we can change our lives.

It's encouraging to understand that there is clear biblical evidence that God can change the life of a person involved in homosexual behavior. In 1 Corinthians 6, the apostle Paul is addressing men and women in the church at Corinth. He lists many forms of behavior—including homosexual acts—that will keep a person from being in God's Kingdom (verses 9-10). Then Paul makes this statement: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (verse 11, New International Version).

Paul apparently knew former homosexuals in the church at Corinth. So the message that homosexuality can be changed is not new. Homosexuals have been experiencing change since the Bible was written. God's Word takes the approach of hating the sin but loving the sinner (compare John 3:16).

What is the responsibility of one who wants to be a Christian but struggles with a deeply ingrained attraction to members of his or her own sex? The Scriptures say that person is obligated to control his sexual desires in the same way that heterosexual single adults must exercise self-control. In other words, he or she must refrain from giving in to his or her lusts.

The Bible instructs us to repent and come out of sin. Homosexual practices, like any other sin, need to be repented of and overcome. A practicing homosexual would do so by acknowledging that homosexuality is wrong and by ceasing to live a homosexual lifestyle or place himself in a situation where he or she might be tempted to engage in such behavior.

Recognizing that sin begins in the mind (James 1:13-15), a person struggling with this or other sexual sins must strive to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). Such an individual can be a true Christian even though he or she may be engaged in a lifelong struggle to resist returning to homosexual practices.

It is also important to understand the difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual lust and behavior. The orientation is not a sin but the lust and behavior is. While there are many people in our society today who reject God's instruction on this subject, there are many others with homosexual orientations who are coming out of this lifestyle to live in accordance with God's instruction.

As resources for those wishing to overcome homosexuality and obey God, we recommend reading Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and Breaking Free Journal (www.breakingfree.ucg.org ), a publication dedicated to helping Christians struggling with homosexuality, addictions and other dysfunctional behaviors.

A book entitled Love Won Out by John and Anne Paulk can also be encouraging. It is the true story of how, with God's help, two people were able to leave homosexuality and find each other. For those seeking help in leaving the homosexual lifestyle, several organizations can be contacted:

Exodus International
P.O. Box 540119
Orlando, FL 32854
(407) 599-6872
www.exodus-international.org

Desert Stream
P.O. Box 17635
Anaheim Hills, CA 92817
(714) 779-6899
www.desertstream.org

His Heart Ministries
12162 E. Mississippi
P.O. Box 12321
Aurora, CO 80011
(303) 369-2961

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Expert: Prop 8 Trial Based on False or Dubious Statements about Homosexuality

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com analyzing the Prop 8 ruling. This follows this post about the line being held on Barack Obama's judicial appointments! For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Expert: Prop 8 Trial Based on False or Dubious Statements about Homosexuality


By James Tillman

August 18, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Judge Vaughn Walker built his decision overturning Proposition 8 on many “findings of fact” that to a great extent came from experts supplied by the opponents of Proposition 8. But according Dr. Walter Schumm, professor of Family Studies and Human Services at Kansas State University, many of these so-called facts are either false or doubtful.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), Dr. Schumm explained that, contrary to the findings of Judge Walker, homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children; that scholars are often biased in favor of research friendly to the homosexual agenda; and that legalizing homosexual “marriage” places an unjust burden upon heterosexual families.

(To read the entire interview, which covers material not included in this summary, click here.)

The 71st finding of fact in Judge Walker’s decision states that children raised by homosexuals are just as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be “healthy, successful, and well adjusted.”

But according to new research by Dr. Schumm, “children of GLB [gay, lesbian, or bisexual] parents were more likely to either have identified as GLB or to have at least experimented with nonheterosexual behavior.”

The abstract of his study states that according to one of his analyses the percentage “of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%”

Schumm also said that the studies indicating that the children raised by homosexuals are as well adjusted as those raised by heterosexuals, may be flawed.

“Many of the studies have set up questionable comparisons of GLB and heterosexual parents,” he said. “Often, the GLB parents have higher education, higher incomes, fewer children, as well as a likely desire to present their children in a socially desirable manner for the sake of ‘the cause’.”

He continued: “I have yet to see any study that has controlled for or taken into account per-capita household income when comparing children from both types of households.”

“One recent study used gay fathers from households earning an average of $190,000 annually, which put them easily into the top 5% of all U.S. households for income. Generalizing from the top 5% of all households to all households is simply not appropriate scientifically.”

Those who wish to critique such methodologically flawed studies, he continued, often have difficulty finding a hearing.

“My own research has shown that articles featuring ‘pro-gay’ outcomes are much more likely to be cited scientifically than those featuring ‘anti-gay’ results, even if the authors, timeframe, and journals are the same,” he said. “I have also found that sometimes, the worse the quality of the research in this area, the more likely it is to have been cited in major reviews of the literature.”

He continued: “If a journal is willing to publish adverse outcomes for GLB parenting it is at risk of being blackballed and deemed ‘unscientific’; thus, editors of journals must have tremendous courage to buck the current of political correctness and allow fair peer review of such research.”

The 48th finding of fact in Judge Walker’s decision states that same-sex "couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions."

According to Dr. Schumm, however, it is becoming “increasingly clear from research that lesbian mothers tend to have less stable relationships than heterosexual mothers and fathers, an issue seldom considered by researchers.” Because children raised by single-parent households generally do worse than those raised in two-parent households, children raised by lesbians may be adversely affected by less-stable lesbian relationships.

Furthermore, he said that researchers have found that “gay men are much more likely than heterosexual men to engage in and approve of ‘extra-marital’ sexual affairs.”

Finally, Dr. Schumm also addressed the flawed argument that it is “simple justice to afford equality to same-sex couples.”

“In my opinion,” he said, “this is a case of focusing on equality of outcomes rather than taking into account equality of inputs.”

“My point,” said Dr. Schumm, “is that by treating unequal relationships (unequal in terms of costs and risks) as if they deserve to be equal in terms of societal benefits, the court is actually establishing a great inequality, the very opposite of what it may think it was doing.”

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Poll: Voters in Key States Oppose Candidates Who OKd Pro-Abortion Health Care

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about polling in key elections this year. This follows this post about the line being held on Barack Obama's judicial appointments! For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Poll: Voters in Key States Oppose Candidates Who OKd Pro-Abortion Health Care
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- New polling data released today by the Susan B. Anthony List shows voters in key states and congressional districts oppose candidates voted for the pro-abortion health care bill. The poll puts some of the "pro-life" Democrats who supported the bill and its abortion funding in jeopardy.

The voter poll, taken in districts of Democrats who oppose abortion but voted for the pro-abortion health care bill, gauges November election implications for incumbents.

Conducted by the Polling Company firm, the survey found two-thirds of voters are less supportive of the ObamaCare law knowing that it will lead to taxpayer funding of abortion.

At least 74 percent of voters are still against taxpayer funding of abortion and more than 66 percent believe their representative was “wrong” to betray his or her pro-life principles and vote for the health care bill.

“For the Susan B. Anthony List, this election cycle has turned out to be dramatically different from the one in which we began. Members of Congress we thought were our allies have now become our top targets for defeat,” SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told LifeNews.com.

“Before the health care vote, we conducted polling and launched a media tour in these Democrats’ districts in an effort to support the pro-life convictions of these Democrats. Then, they voted for the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade," she said. "This latest polling shows that five months of a long, hot summer have not burned off any voter intensity on the issue." Full story at LifeNews.com

Monday, August 16, 2010

Senate GOP Refuses Vote on Obama Judges, Including Pro-Abortion Goodwin Liu

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about the line being held on Barack Obama's judicial appointments! This follows this post about a major abortionist. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Senate GOP Refuses Vote on Obama Judges, Including Pro-Abortion Goodwin Liu
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- While most of the attention in the Senate last week was focused on its approval of pro-abortion activist Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, Republicans refused votes on other judicial nominees President Barack Obama put forward. That includes pro-abortion appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu.

Senate Republicans declined in six instances last week to allow a unanimous consent request from Democrats to vote on Obama's judicial nominees.

As a result, the Senate returned those six nominations to the White House, according to Family Research Council legislative guru Tom McClusky.

"While some of President Obama’s nominees were given a reprieve due to a deal struck between Democratic and Republican leadership two of his most controversial judicial appointees were sent back to the President (alongside 100 other nominees)," he said.

"One of the two, Goodwin Liu, nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court, is a firm believer in the rule of international law and has shown nothing but disrespect for the Senate Judiciary Committee," McClusky added.

Liu was appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and another pro-abortion nominee was Louis Butler for a federal district court position in Wisconsin.

The pro-life advocate said he expected Obama would send the nominations back to the Senate. If Obama choose to re-nominate them, they would be considered new nominations and the Senate would send them to the Judiciary Committee to full hearings. Full story at LifeNews.com

By advertising with LifeNews.com, you can reach more than 250,000 pro-life people each week through our web site, email news and radio news program. Your organization, business, or product will benefit from appearing in front of pro-life leaders and advocates across the country and around the world. Email news@LifeNews.com for details.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Abortionist Pendergraft Suspended For Fourth Time

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about a major abortionist. This follows this post about Planned Parenthood's supporters. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Abortionist Pendergraft Suspended For Fourth Time
News report questions judgment of FL medical board for not revoking Pendergraft's license



ORLANDO, Florida, August 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Abortionist James Pendergraft has had his medical license suspended for a fourth time by the Florida Board of Medicine.

The board made the decision on Saturday after it found that Pendergraft allowed an employee to administer narcotics to patients without a license, and, although Pendergraft knew the employee had a drug problem, allowed her to order drugs under his name, and prescribed steriods to her for no apparent reason.

Pendergraft has been suspended in the past for performing illegal abortions, including third-trimester abortions.

His license was suspended for one year, to be followed by three years of probation, and the abortionist was ordered to pay $10,000 fine and take a course on record keeping.

"This is a case that should outrage everyone," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "Here is a proven quack that has served three previous license suspensions, yet continues to offend.

"Even a stint in prison hasn't helped Pendergraft amend his ways. Nevertheless, the Board will allow this man to continue the practice of medicine after he serves his fourth suspension. It is irresponsible to place women at repeated risk from this guy. Enough is enough!"

Pendergraft faced previous suspensions, one as recently as January, 2010, for botched abortions, committing illegal late-term abortions, and dispensing drugs without a license. In 2004, he pled guilty to impeding justice while under investigation for extortion.

The Board ruled on Saturday that Pendergraft's two active suspensions would run concurrently.

Aaron Liberman, the chairman of the Department of Health Management and Informatics at the University of Central Florida, appeared to criticize to the leniency shown by the Board.

"I think it's a wake-up call for us all when we have an individual who is allowed to practice medicine in a way that draws question as to both his credibility and capability," he said in a Central Florida News 13 report.

Pendergraft owns five abortion clinics in Florida. While on suspension, his clinics continue to operate with other abortionists, at least one of which has had his own problems with the law. Abortionist Randall Whitney has had his license suspended twice and place on probation for violations according to the Florida Health Department.

"Pendergraft's clinics are a menace to the public. They should be closed, and perhaps if he was in another state, they would be," said Newman. "It is simply outrageous that these people who have proven that they cannot comport themselves within the law are allowed the opportunity to continue to prey on an unsuspecting public.

"The Florida Board of Medicine seriously dropped the ball by not revoking Pendergraft and forcing the closure of his clinics."

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Named

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about Planned Parenthood's supporters. This follows this post about Mexico's Supreme Court ruling.For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Named



FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, August 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Life Decisions International (LDI) has released a revised edition of The Boycott List identifying corporations that support of Planned Parenthood, the world's primary abortion-advocacy group.

"As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro-family people, at least 256 corporations have stopped funding Planned Parenthood," said Kenneth C. Garvey, LDI's Director of Communications. It is estimated that the boycott has cost Planned Parenthood more than $40 million since the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began nearly 18 years ago.

"This should serve as a testament to those who thought it impossible to change corporate philanthropic behavior," he added.

New boycott targets include AOL, Darden Restaurants (Bahama Breeze, The Capital Grille, LongHorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Season 52), Franchise Services (PIP, Signal Graphics, Sir Speedy), Hilton Worldwide (Conrad Hotels, Doubletree, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inns/Suites, Hilton Garden Inn, Hilton Hotels, Homewood Suites), Ignite Restaurants (Brickhouse Tavern+Tap, Joe's Crab Shack), ING (financial services), Kohl's (department stores), Mrs. Fields (cookies), Staples (office/school supplies), Toys "R" Us, and Trader Joe's (markets/supermarkets).

Returning to The Boycott List are The Gap (apparel/accessories) and Freddie Mac (U.S. government-sponsored secondary mortgages).

Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously released Boycott List include AlphaGraphics, Wells Fargo (including Wachovia), Nike, Time Warner, Bank of America, Walt Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Chevron, and Nationwide Insurance, among others.

Garvey was critical of pro-life organizations that continue to use PayPal even though it has been a boycott target for several years now. "PayPal is owned by boycott target eBay," Garvey said. "Most pro-life groups are aware that it is a boycott target because it has funded Planned Parenthood, but they have consciously chosen to continue doing business with the company. Doing so is indefensible."

Garvey said alternatives to PayPal exist, and he will gladly help anyone who has trouble tracking them down. "It is unconscionable that anyone who claims to be pro-life would willingly do business with a company that funds the number one enemy of preborn children," Garvey said.

The new Boycott List includes a "Dishonorable Mention" section, which identifies charitable groups that are associated with Planned Parenthood and/or its agenda. Groups named in this section include Lions Clubs, the American Cancer Society, Easter Seals, Boys & Girls Clubs, Ronald McDonald House Charities, Camp Fire, Girls Inc., Girl Scouts, Kiwanis Clubs, March of Dimes, Muscular Dystrophy Association, Rotary Clubs, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Salvation Army, YWCA, America Gives Back (formerly [American] Idol Gives Back), and YMCA, among others.

"This has not been some sort of 'Jesse Jackson boycott' where we make news for a few days and then go away," said LDI Chairman Thomas C. Strobhar. "Corporate officials are learning that those who value life are among the most dedicated people on earth. We will not go away until corporate involvement with Planned Parenthood comes to an end."

For more information about the CFP, including the steps taken before a corporation is placed on The Boycott List, click here.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Commentary: All Eyes on Anthony Kennedy and Prop. 8

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com This follows this post about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule in the military. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Commentary: All Eyes on Anthony Kennedy and Prop. 8

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Should defenders of true marriage pin their hopes on the U.S. Supreme Court? Despite public displays of confidence from pro-family leaders that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to strike down the natural definition of “marriage” on Wednesday will be overturned at the Supreme Court level, there is good reason to feel unease. The fate of marriage in the United States will likely come down to the vote of U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and more than one commentator has noted that Walker seems to have issued his ruling with the court’s swing vote in mind.

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate magazine observed Wednesday that Walker’s ruling striking down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional “trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights.” It contained “seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law).”

“Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity,” wrote Lithwick. “The real triumph of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact.”

Rather than try Proposition 8 on legal merits, Judge Walker chose to hold a bench trial, inviting both sides to call expert witnesses to give testimony on the pros and cons of restricting the definition of marriage to two individuals of the opposite sex. One thing is for sure: whatever the legal arguments of ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Prop. 8 (who had to defend the amendment because the governor and the attorney general of the state of California refused) were completely outgunned in terms of expert testimony. Their attorneys brought forward only two witnesses, compared to 18 witnesses summoned by Ted Olson and David Boies: meaning that as far as the factual record goes, the defendants have only one witness to every nine that the plaintiffs brought forward. And appeals courts usually give some deference to the findings of fact in a trial record when making their decisions.

How this will play in Anthony Kennedy’s book remains uncertain, but there will be a great deal of pressure on him to make judicial history. Were Kennedy to join the court’s liberal bloc in a 5-4 decision, he would be the senior of the majority, and get to write the decision.

The Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto predicts that Walker’s ruling in Perry will stand, pointing out that Kennedy “has been consistent in taking a very broad view of the rights of homosexuals,” writing the majority’s decisions in Romer (1996) and Lawrence (2003) (see above). Writing in his “Best of the Web” column for Thursday, Taranto noted that Walker argued that the logic of Romer and Lawrence “leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.” Associate Justice Anton Scalia, Taranto observed, warned that is exactly where Lawrence was going.

Taranto quotes Scalia from his 2003 dissent, where he stated, “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), ‘[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,’ what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution’?”

Scalia ominously concluded, “This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.”

University of Utah Law Professor Clifford Rosky has a different take, but also noted that Walker was writing his decision almost as if he were speaking to Kennedy. Rosky told ABC 4 News in Salt Lake City that if Kennedy continues down the track of Roper and Lawrence “he could be the 5th vote to strike down Prop 8.” But Rosky sensed that on some level, redefining marriage was a bridge too far for Kennedy’s championship of homosexual rights.

“[I]t is not at all clear and in fact there were some signals in the most recent case that he wrote marriage was a different issue for him," said Rosky.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage told LifeSiteNews.com on Thursday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention on behalf of ProtectMarriage, by preventing Walker from changing the rules and turning the court proceedings into a televised Scopes-trial circus, gave them some hope. In any event, he stated that if a Kennedy majority legalized same-sex “marriage,” it would be absolutely necessary for Congress to intervene with a U.S. constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

In any event, the appeal will go to a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court first. Three judges out of 29 will be randomly selected, creating the possibility that a conservative majority would overturn Walker’s decision. In any event, it is extraordinarily likely that the end of the road for the case will be with the U.S. Supreme Court and, ultimately, with Anthony Kennedy.

As all eyes turn to Justice Kennedy, it might be wise for those who believe in Divine Providence to pray for a man who holds a heavy burden in his hands: deciding the fate of marriage for a nation.

Monday, August 9, 2010

WHITE traitors against America?

An interesting post from www.badeagle.com about WHITE traitors to the U.S. This follows this post about a very interesting book which describes the dangers America currently faces.

Red Dawn V: The Moral Imperative
by David Yeagley ·

“I’ve been wronged!” is the battle cry of the liberal. It has been my definition of Communism from the beginning, that, and “You owe me!” Ann Coulter has developed the same theme as the “victim” mantra. This is apparent in her book, Treason (2003), and was absolutely emblazoned in her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006). In Godless, Coulter demonstrates how “invulnerability” was an element added to the “victim” concept. Chapter 5 of Godless is entitled, “Liberals’ Doctrine of Infalibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women.” Liberals must create a victim whose integrity and authenticity is invulnerable. The victim must be sacrosanct. Their actual, natural vulnerability is the key defense. Women, children, and Negroes make the best victims. When I mentioned my psychological principle of Communism (”I’ve been wronged”) to David Horowitz in 2001, he said, “Yes, injustice gives you a moral advantage in the argument.” In Treason, Coulter shows how this theme was employed to the max early on in American media.


Ann Coulter, in a recent and somber moment

Chapter 5: Victims of McCarthyism–The Liberals’ Mayflower.
Coulter says liberals against McCarthy painted the early 1950’s as a period of terror–worse than the Medieval plague. Anyone accused of being a Communist was victim, and one deserving of the most profound sympathy. And “the children” theme was already afloat, or modern liberals would have us know. A San Francisco Chronicle article (March 8, 1995) dramatized the effects on the children of those accused of being Communist. Reviewing Griffen Fariello’s Red Scare (1995), the Chronicle cites examples of children suffering great social disquietude because their parents were named as Soviet spies.

One by one, these testimonies chill us to the bone, making it cleaer what totalitarianism once looked like within our own borders.

Clearly, the ‘accusation’ of `McCarthyism is still used against patriotism, conservatism, and simple love of country. The delusive implication being Communists are the patriots, and patriots are the totalitarians!

Then Coulter says something, in passing, which is actually quite important. “Conservatives could never catch up with the outburst of liberal indignation.” She observes how conservatives seemed to have indulged liberals for the moment (having lack of experience in dealing with hysterical ideologues at the time), and then says, “The moment you concede some small point to liberals, they go to work building an enormous elaborate edifice on top of the first lie.” Coulter cites the case of the United Nations (brain child of Soviet spy Alger Hiss). Conservatives indulged it, thinking it’s worthlessness could not work positive harm. Coulter observes:

The next thing you knew, the U.N. was dominated by ludicrous despots in countries primarily known for cannibalism issuing lunatic declarations while Democrats and the media acted as if U.N. approval was a constitutional prerequisite to the United States acting in its self-defence.

Moral advantage, indeed. The U.N. finally induced “abortion” as a right under the American Constitution!

Similarly, having ceded the lie of “McCarthyism,” now no one is allowed to call liberals unpatriotic. Liberals relentlessly attack their own country, but we can’t call them traitors, which they manifestly are, because that would be “McCarthyism,” which never existed.

And so we see clearly how the liberal (Communist) game works. (It finally got a name in Orwell’s 1984–”doublespeak.” Making a word mean the opposite of what it really means. Like, saying, “I’ve been wronged,” when you are the wrong doer, or at least the one thinking wrongly.

McCarthy was essentially inquiring. He held hearings. He did not prosecute. The liberals turned this into a devastaing attact on American freedom, patriotism, and integrity. McCarthy was made to appear as a monstrous Medieval inquisitor, wreaking destruction on innocent, patriotic lives.

Hollywood–the idol of all media-minded human beings, where are enshrined all visions of human vanity, was most responsible for making the “Red Scare” a public phenomenon. Coulter reports that Michael J. Ybarra (in The New Republic) indicates that Joseph Stalin himself advised the “Hollywood Ten” in their congressional appearances. These mediocre “scribblers,” as Coulter calls them, were suppected of Communism, and called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with it. But, of course, in time, with media magic, the Hollywood “victims” all came under the evil banner of “McCarthyism.”


Senator Joe McCarthy, 1908-1957

Then Coulter says who McCarthy’s real “victims” were. They were not

sympathetic witnesses, frivolous Hollywood screenwriters, or irrelevant blowhard college professors. They were elite WASP [White Anglo-Saxon Protestant] establishment policy-makers. Sedition always held a strange attraction for Ivy League types with three names, like John Steward Service, Harry Dexter White, George Catlett Marshall, and William Sloan Coffin

[Coffin was the chaplian of Yale University when I was there in the late 1970's.]

It is important to note that this is a recurring point of emphasis in Coulter’s writing. The traitors of America are in fact the sons of the Pilgrims, the descendents of the fathers. I’ve identified it as some sociological Oedipal Complex manifestation. It is simply too enormously important an observation to leave unnoticed. Coulter is unique and original in her identification of the social status of the traitors. In this context, any particular emphasis on the “Jewish” element in American Communism pales in comparison. Coulter continues:

They all liked one another, these Anglophile blue bloods. They went to Yale, played cricket, became Rhodes scholars, wrestled in the mud together at the Skull and Bones society, and went to parties where Dean Acheson was invariably a guest. They were well-born and looked good in dinner jackets. Protecting traitors was part of the bonhomie of the ruling class. It was as if the WASPs had developed some XXY chromosome that led to overt treason.

Then, in a moment of rare racial candor (!) Coulter confesses:

They had ruled magnificently for many years, but their blood had gotten thin. Angry ethnics like Joe McCarthy made much better Americans.

Who knows? Maybe Coulter would add another Irish family that came to prominence, which was close to McCarthy, and even a certain southern swarthy Mediterranean crowd that shared the same boot-legging business.

It seems that, after WWII, American identity was up for grabs. Different groups, ethnic or religious, seemed to emphasis certain elements in the American value system which suited their purposes. Who can tell how it is that American society has become the monstrosity it is today? From Coulter’s view, it seems that the lusus naturae evolved from the corruption of blue blood. I say it’s Freudian. Maybe it’s more Mosaic (Deuteronomy 32:15):

But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked; thou art waxen fat, thou are grown thick, thou are covered with fatness: then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Federal Judge Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com This follows this post about New Jersey Governor Christie vetoing money for Planned Parenthood. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional



TODAY'S HEADLINES SEND NEWS TIPS DONATE
SHARE: E-MAIL PRINT

By Peter J. Smith

SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – U.S. District Chief Justice Vaughn Walker has dealt a blow to defenders of California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, according to media sources.

Sources both with the Drudge Report and NY Magazine say Walker, who presides over the District Court for the Northern District of California, has declared Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, violating both the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because it bans same-sex “marriage.”

According to Drudge, Walker wrote in his decision that "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians."

"Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians," he said.

Proposition 8 states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Walker’s decision enjoins enforcement of Prop. 8. Pro-family advocates, however, have made clear they immediately will seek the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Walker’s ruling, until an appeal can be sorted out.

The 138-page decision will be made available by 5 PM, EST.

Developing …