Thursday, February 21, 2008

Judges require up or down votes

The U.S. Constitution states that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." At this time, 28 well-qualified judicial nominees are awaiting their turn. They simply desire a fair up-or-down vote in the confirmation process. Instead, they are forced to wait - while some liberal Senators, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ignore the constitutional mandate to give judges up-or-down votes. It is one of the Senate's most important duties ... to provide prompt consideration of presidential nominees for the federal judiciary. Yet, today's liberal congressional leadership has failed to meet its constitutional duty. In fact, despite urging from the President, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and his fellow liberals have continued to embrace a policy of obstructionism when it comes to giving judicial nominees timely consideration. Make no mistake: These judicial nominees are exceptionally qualified men and women who are committed to serving our nation. They deserve fair treatment. They deserve the up-or-down vote afforded them by the Constitution. In some circuit and district courts, where judicial spots have remained empty for far too long, extreme backlogs have been created and ''judicial emergencies'' have been declared ... ... all of which means JUSTICE IS BEING DELAYED. And when justice is being delayed, justice is denied. It's a plain and simple truth: Not giving each of these nominations an up-or-down vote violates the Constitution. However, do you think the liberals care if justice is being denied. Of course not. Now, I'm definitely not a fan of President Bush. However, I will say that he does has a history of appointing judges that are strict constructionists, which means they strictly follow what the Constitution says, and they don't interpret or put their own political meaning into the Constitution. And why are the Democrat Senators, such as Leahy not allowing the Senate to vote? Simply to stall time for a Democrat President to be elected and then the new President will appoint some very liberal judges that do not follow the Constitution, but will further the liberal agenda (force mixing of the races and laws that violate this notion and gay rights, such as gay marriage or civil unions, and of course immigration). Call your local U.S. Senator and request that they allow the Senate to give an up or down vote. Finally, one last bit of history info to all of you. Today, February 21, 1848, the Communist Manifesto was published. If you haven't read it, you need to. Examine what the communists' goals are, and then look at the laws, policies and the agenda of the NeoCons and liberals. Can you tell the difference? Until then.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Congress trying to increase foreign work visas.

I received this from NumbersUSA, an association that helps shed light unto the treachorous relax immigration policy of the U.S., and this organization helps reduce the number of illegal and legal immigrants in the United States. "Just when you think the Big Business Lobbyists can't be any more callous ... At the same time as reports that we may be in an economic recession and that the job market is getting more and more difficult for Americans, the magazines, newspapers and airwaves are filled with op-eds, editorials and articles quoting the business leaders and lobbyists saying we must import more foreign workers! Both the Democratic and Republican leadership of U.S. House and Senate are right now conspiring to bring legislation to the floor to greatly expand the pool of foreign labor in this country -- even as they talk about the need for taxpayers to provide more unemployment compensation for all the Americans who are losing their jobs. This kind of insanity is nothing new. And it will never slow down unless we as a Lobby of the People mobilize in massive fashion to put an end to it. Please go to your NumbersUSA Action Buffet corkboard and make sure you have taken all the actions we have provided you to stand up against this latest effort of the Big Business Lobby to depress wages and foist major new subsidies upon the taxpayers. I have been working full-time on these immigration issues since 1991. The Big Business Lobby and its well-compensated friends in Congress always use every upturn in the economy to cry for more foreign labor because of perceived shortages. But they never change their tune when the economy turns down. In every period of rising unemployment, the Big Business Lobby continues to cry about terrible worker shortages and always brings in hundreds of thousands of foreign workers during recessions. Your NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team has talked to a number of people who have been in high level Hill meetings where leaders of both Parties have expressed a desire during this time of economic turmoil to sneak through giant increases of H-1B visas for foreign tech workers, H-2B visas for foreign laborers, greencards for permanent foreign nurses and a five-year visa for 12-20 million illegal foreign workers and their dependents. Friends, I know that all of this may seem too crazy to be true. But please believe me that that the worse our country's economic situation, the more your congressional leaders see a chance to give their corporate sponsors the huge foreign labor increases that the People's Lobby has been blocking the last several years. Send your faxes immediately. Remember that Monday is a federal holiday. Wait to make your phone calls until Tuesday. Congressional leaders hope you will be so busy worrying about your own jobs that you won't notice them giving away millions more through immigration increases." We must act now. You need to call your local and national representatives and tell them you don't appreciate them trying to bring these foreign immigrants in our country and ultimately trying to get rid of your job. Don't wait, do it now.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Homosexual Organization ADMITS HIV is a Gay Disease.

On February 8, 2008, Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, rattled the homosexual activist community by joining the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pro-family organizations and a growing number of homosexual activists willing to admit that homosexual behavior is both extremely high-risk and primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the “gay” lobby’s party line by admitting, “Internally, when these numbers come out, the ‘established’ gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn’t our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.” A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the “gay” community by stating that, “HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it.” Many Christians and other activists are discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the “gay” community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS. The homosexual lifestyle is an unnatural lifestyle that is condemned by God, and God considers it an abomination. Read Lev. 20:13. This sick and perverse lifestyle which is against nature, produces horrible diseases such as HIV and AIDS, and now is producing the dead strain of staph infection. However, these diseases are not horrible to the average White Christian heterosexual couple that practice a wholesome lifestyle, but they are to the homosexuals, and now the homoesexual leadership is starting to admit it. Many believe that AIDS is a disease that God has sent to punish those who disobey his law of nature, and one would have a hard time arguing against that theory when they see that homosexuals are basically the only ones getting it. As J.B. Stoner, a great white nationalists' activist who has long passed away said, "Praise God for Aids." Until then.

A side note. The picture on the right is Matt Foreman,Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum (a jew of course. Its amazing how the jews are always behind the homosexual and other anti-christian movements.) block traffic with a banner moments before they got arrested in the middle of Broadway in Times Square during a protest by ACT UP (AIDS Coaltion to Unleash Power) in New York 15 March 2007. The group protested at the Times Square Military recruitment center against the remarks made about gays by US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board 13 March 2007, Pace said he supported the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy because homosexual acts are "immoral." He also likened homosexuality to adultery, which also is forbidden under US military law. Good going General Pace.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Ford Motor Co. supports Homosexual Agenda - Join the Boycott

The American Family Association and others began a boycott of Ford in March 2006 after Ford reneged on a commitment to stop funding homosexual groups. Ford's sales have declined in 20 of the 23 months since the boycott began. The company's sales increased in two months and were flat in one month. See chart. The American Family Association asked the company to adopt a policy of neutrality in the culture war, but Ford has refused. Evidently Ford cares more about supporting a small minority defined by their sexual behavior than they do about the people who keep them in business - their customers. Since the boycott, nearly 780,000 individuals have signed AFA's pledge to boycott Ford. We as Christians should not support businesses that actively seek support of the homosexual agenda. Obviously, it is hard to boycott every business out there that may be actively working contrary to what we, as christians and those that practice racial integrity (no miscegenation ) believe in. However, we should attempt to boycott those businesses when we are able to. Ford Motor Company is just one of those. Ford Motor Company actively advertise in gay magazines, such as The Advocate, sponsor homosexual events, and contribute literally millions of dollars to their causes, and even will pay for their own employees if they decide to have a sex change. Truly, Ford Motor Company is no friend to America and its future. In fact, so bad is the boycott, that 78 dealers in the Texas and Arkansas area wrote a letter to Ford Motor Co. requesting that they stop advertising in controversial magazines, such as The Advocate, and stop sponsoring gay events. However, Ford Motor Co. ignored the dealerships' request. You can go to AFA's website and actually read the letter from the 78 dealerships. Truly, what a sick and perverse age we are living in. An age of Sodom and Gamorah. We are in a struggle of literally life or death for our race, culture, and homeland. Our children are depending on us to fight for them. Will you let them down. We need to do our part, however big or small we may think it is. So, Take Action! Don't support Ford Motor Company and support AFA's pledge in boycotting Ford. Ford Motor Co. needs to realize that their agenda and support for this perverted lifestyle will not go unnotice. Until then.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Massachusetts' parents need no notification of gay curriculum

As you may recall, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that it was unconstitional to discriminate against "gay" couples and that they had every right to mary each other, just as heterosexual couples. This was just a first of series of victories for the homosexual movement. They ultimately, not only want to marry, but they want to pervert our children and introduce them to their sick lifestyle, but they don't obviously portray it that way. However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the case, Parker v. Hurley, which has just been handed down on January 31, 2008, is evident again how our judicial system not only is being corrupted by judicial activists, but is another step in taking away our fundamental right in raising our children in the schools. Some of the organizations that prepared amicus curiae briefs (briefs which are called friends of the court) that supported the school decision that I will be talking about was: Anti-Defamation League on brief for Anti-Defamation League, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on brief for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders; Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network; Greater Boston Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; Human Rights Campaign; Human Rights Campaign Foundation; and the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association.
Two sets of parents, whose religious beliefs were offended by gay marriage and homosexuality, sued the Lexington, Massachusetts school district in which their young children are enrolled. They asserted that they must be given prior notice by the school and the opportunity to exempt their young children from exposure to books they find religiously repugnant. Plaintiffs asserted violations of their own and their children's rights under the Free Exercise Clause and their substantive parental and privacy due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The Parkers object to their child being presented in kindergarten and first grade with two books that portray diverse families, including families in which both parents are of the same gender. The Wirthlins object to a second-grade teacher's reading to their son's class a book that depicts and celebrates a gay marriage. The parents did not challenge the use of these books as part of a nondiscrimination curriculum in the public schools, but challenge the school district's refusal to provide them with prior notice and to allow for exemption from such instruction. They asked for relief until their children were in seventh grade.
Massachusetts does have a statute that requires parents be given notice and the opportunity to exempt their children from curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 32A. However, the school system declined to apply this statutory exemption to the parents on the basis that the materials did not primarily involve human sexual education or human sexuality issues. The U.S. District Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a federal constitutional claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Parker v. Hurley, 474 F. Supp. 2d 261, 263 (D. Mass. 2007). The parents then appealed the decision.
In 1996, the Massachusetts legislature adopted a parental notification statute to be implemented by schools starting with the 1997-1998 school year. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 32A. Section 32A requires school districts to provide parents with notice of and an opportunity to exempt their children from "curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues." The Commissioner of Education, in an advisory opinion guiding the implementation of the new law, noted that it was intended to apply to discrete curricular units, such as "any courses (typically, sex education or portions of a health education or science course), school assemblies or other instructional activities and programs."
That statute has been interpreted in an opinion letter bythe Department of Education not to apply to educational materials designed to promote tolerance, including materials recognizingdifferences in sexual orientation, if those materials are presented"without further instruction or discussion of the physical andsexual implications of homosexuality."Close Schools must make the relevant curricular materials available for parents to review, though they do not necessarily have to allow parents to observe the classes. The statute mandates that the Department of Education promulgate regulations for resolving any disputes arising under section 32A, which the Department has done. See 603 Mass. Code Regs. 5.01 et seq. Lexington has a section 32A policy in place.
On November 18, 2003, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage. A later effort to reverse this decision through the mechanism of a constitutional convention and a popular vote failed.
B. The Parkers
David and Tonia Parker's sons, Jacob and Joshua Parker, and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin's son, Joseph Robert Wirthlin, Jr., were students at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Both families asserted that they were devout Christians and that a core belief of their religion is that homosexual behavior and gay marriage are immoral and violate God's law.
In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a "Diversity Book Bag." This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, "Who's in a family?": "The people who love you the most!" The book says nothing about marriage.
The Parkers were concerned that this book was part of an effort by the public schools "to indoctrinate young children into the concept that homosexuality and homosexual relationships or marriage are moral and acceptable behavior." On January 21, 2005, they met with Estabrook's principal, Joni Jay ("Jay"), to request that Jacob not be exposed to any further discussions of homosexuality. Principal Jay disagreed that the school had any obligation under section 32A to notify parents in advance of such class discussions. In March 2005, the Parkers repeated their request that "no teacher or adult expose [Jacob] to any materials or discussions featuring sexual orientation, same-sex unions, or homosexuality without notification to the Parkers and the right to 'opt out,'" this time including in their communication the then-Superintendent of Lexington's schools, William Hurley ("Hurley"), and two other district-wide administrators. This request was met with the same response. A further meeting to discuss these issues was held at Estabrook on April 27, 2005, which resulted in Mr. Parker's arrest when he refused to leave the school until his demands were met.
As the 2005-2006 school year began, Paul Ash ("Ash"), the current Superintendent, released a public statement explaining the school district's position that it would not provide parental notification for "discussions, activities, or materials that simply reference same-gender parents or that otherwise recognize the existence of differences in sexual orientation." When Jacob entered first grade that fall, his classroom's book collection included Who's in a Family? as well as Molly's Family, a picture book about a girl who is at first made to feel embarrassed by a classmate because she has both a mommy and a mama but then learns that families can come in many different varieties. In December 2005, the Parkers repeated their request for advance notice, which Superintendent Ash again denied.
C. The Wirthlins
In March 2006, an Estabrook teacher read aloud King and King to her second grade class, which included Joseph Robert Wirthlin, Jr. ("Joey"). This picture book tells the story of a prince, ordered by his mother to get married, who first rejects several princesses only to fall in love with another prince. A wedding scene between the two princes is depicted. The last page of the book shows the two princes kissing, but with a red heart superimposed over their mouths. Jay reiterated the school district's position that no prior notice or exemption would be given.
On April 27, 2006, the Parkers and the Wirthlins filed suit on behalf of themselves and their children in federal district court against Hurley, Ash, Jay, and Joey Wirthlin's teacher, as well as the town of Lexington, the members of its school board, and other school district administrators.
The complaint alleged that the public schools were systematically indoctrinating the Parkers' and the Wirthlins' young children contrary to the parents' religious beliefs and that the defendants held "a specific intention to denigrate the [families'] sincere and deeply-held faith." They claimed, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of their and their children's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and of their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to parental autonomy in the upbringing of their children, as well as of their concomitant state rights. The plaintiffs also claimed that defendants violated § 1983by conspiring to deprive them of these constitutional rights.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals held, "Further, these books do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other children might come from families that look different from one's own. There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations.
Joey has a more significant claim, both because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of King and King and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality and gay marriage. It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. That was the point of why that book was chosen and used. Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end. There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights...(t)he reading of King and King was not instruction in religion or religious beliefs. We do not suggest that the school's choice of books for young students has not deeply offended the plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs. If the school system has been insufficiently sensitive to such religious beliefs, the plaintiffs may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 890. They are not entitled to a federal judicial remedy under the U.S. Constitution.
We affirm the district court's dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs' federal claims and its dismissal without prejudice of the state claims so that they may be reinstated, should plaintiffs choose, in state court.
It's amazing to see a court say that there is no basis of indoctrination from the school system when you see the books that they are having these children to read. This is why it is so important for parents to strongly look at home schooling. The public school systems have been literally destroyed. Parents today rarely take a proactive approach in their children's education. While parents think their children are being taught the a,b,cs, they are also being taught the homosexual lifestyle. This is starting in kindergarden, 1st grade and up. Most of the time, the parents are clueless in this. How much do you care about your children. Will they be raised in a Christian environment, free from the homosexual agenda? Your children are the targets of these activists. You need to be aware of that. What will you do to preserve your child's future? If you haven't, take your children out of the public school, and home school them. This may be their only hope. Until then.