The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation that one conservative Christian activist says protects bizarre sexual orientations and threatens the free speech of those who dare speak out publicly against homosexuality.
By a 249-to-175 vote, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act today. Among other things, the bill would add gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law. A companion bill, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, has already been introduced in the Senate. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claims the legislation "does not affect free speech or punish beliefs or thoughts. It only seeks to punish violent acts." But Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, says Hoyer is ignoring the case of eleven Christians in Philadelphia who were charged with hate crimes for sharing Scripture verses at a homosexual pride rally. "Ask the Philadelphia 11. We know what these supposed 'hate crime' laws are meant to do. In Philadelphia, Christians were arrested and jailed based on hate crime law," she points out. "So we know that what the other side is saying -- that it will not affect pastors or youth pastors or Christians -- we know that is not true." Under the hate crimes bill, Lafferty contends a pastor who delivers a sermon denouncing homosexuality or transgenderism could potentially be prosecuted for hate speech.
Unfortunately, these so called Christians should have listened to those in the White nationalist movement as a whole since they have been telling these false Christians for years that if they don't stand against mescegenation (race-mixing) as the Bible forbids it, then it would only be a matter of time before they would be using the same laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add sodomy and other sick and perverted lifestyle to protected acts. Now, we see this happening. It is now just a matter of time, that Sodomy will be protected such as mescegenation, and then will the so called "churches" be standing against sodomy, or will they tuck their tails behind them and run like they did with mescegenation?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano says "crossing the border is not a crime per se."
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said during a CNN interview, "crossing the border is not a crime per se." But the secretary was wrong because it is a criminal misdemeanor. 8 USC Sec. 1325(a) says that crossing the border illegally is punishable by up to six months in prison for the first offense. Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions is demanding a public correction of her statement.
"It is breathtaking that a cabinet secretary, bestowed by the public with the responsibility to protect our nation’s borders, could be ignorant of the undisputable fact that it is a violation of the criminal code to enter our country illegally. 8 U.S.C. 1325(a), which has been in effect for decades and codified in its current form since 1991, is unambiguous that doing so is a crime. This is one of the most baffling statements from a high government official I have ever heard. ...
... Sec. Napolitano must swiftly, clearly, and unambiguously correct her comments on this matter to set the record straight. "
During the April 19 airing of "State of the Union" on CNN, show host John King asked Napolitano to comment on Maricopa, Ariz. County Sheriff Joe Arpaio who has come under fire for his treatment of accused illegal aliens. Sheriff Joe said he's just enforcing the law, and Napolitano responded with... Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.
What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.
And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.
Well, she is just wrong and clearly doesn't know what the law is and if she did, she wouldn't really enforce it. That is apparent. 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) states...Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
You can read Sen. Session's statement in its entirety at his website.
SEND A FAX to Secretary Napolitano blasting her for her statement.
"It is breathtaking that a cabinet secretary, bestowed by the public with the responsibility to protect our nation’s borders, could be ignorant of the undisputable fact that it is a violation of the criminal code to enter our country illegally. 8 U.S.C. 1325(a), which has been in effect for decades and codified in its current form since 1991, is unambiguous that doing so is a crime. This is one of the most baffling statements from a high government official I have ever heard. ...
... Sec. Napolitano must swiftly, clearly, and unambiguously correct her comments on this matter to set the record straight. "
During the April 19 airing of "State of the Union" on CNN, show host John King asked Napolitano to comment on Maricopa, Ariz. County Sheriff Joe Arpaio who has come under fire for his treatment of accused illegal aliens. Sheriff Joe said he's just enforcing the law, and Napolitano responded with... Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.
What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.
And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.
Well, she is just wrong and clearly doesn't know what the law is and if she did, she wouldn't really enforce it. That is apparent. 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) states...Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
You can read Sen. Session's statement in its entirety at his website.
SEND A FAX to Secretary Napolitano blasting her for her statement.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Hate Crime bill approved in House
Republican opponents of the controversial "hate crimes" legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee today claim Democratic supporters of the measure are not being clear about who exactly will receive special protections under the bill.
By a 15-12 vote, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, paving the way for a vote in the full House next Wednesday. The bill would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.
According to OneNewsNow.com, "Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) told Democratic members that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are vague terms that need to be specifically defined since courts will be analyzing those terms. "This panel -- this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill -- either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation," King stated. "Does sexual orientation...include transvestism? Does it include transgendered? Are those two that are also part of sexual orientation?" he asked. "And if so, if that's two of 30 [orientations], what are the other 28 that are part of sexual orientation?" Openly lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) responded to King by noting that gender identity is defined in the bill as "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics," but acknowledged that sexual orientation is not defined in the legislation. "The underlying hate crimes bill or law that has been in existence since the late 60s," she said, "does not define the terms race, color, national origin, or um..." King interjects: "That's because they're immutable characteristics." Although it was not included in the bill, Baldwin said her definition of sexual orientation would be "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." King offered an amendment that would have barred pedophiles from receiving special protection under the hate crimes bill. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote 13-10. Congresswoman Baldwin said that amendment was "unnecessary and inflammatory."
Dems caught in 'lie' during hate crimes debate. A conservative activist closely monitoring the hate crimes" legislation pending before a House committee says although the measure still poses a threat to the religious freedom of Christians who speak out publicly against homosexuality, the foundation of the bill has been removed.
Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee had planned on holding a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act yesterday, but due to a large amount of Republican amendments to the bill, the vote was postponed until this morning. The bill would add homosexuals and transgender people to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law. (Listen to audio report) Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, notes that Democrats were forced to eliminate a key portion of the bill -- the findings section. "We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders -- and that claim was the foundation of the bill," she notes. "They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that's a lie." Lafferty says during yesterday's markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America -- a country of 300 million people -- there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people. The Judiciary Committee hearing resumes at 9:00 a.m. Central time today. A vote on the House floor is expected next week.
By a 15-12 vote, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, paving the way for a vote in the full House next Wednesday. The bill would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.
According to OneNewsNow.com, "Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) told Democratic members that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are vague terms that need to be specifically defined since courts will be analyzing those terms. "This panel -- this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill -- either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation," King stated. "Does sexual orientation...include transvestism? Does it include transgendered? Are those two that are also part of sexual orientation?" he asked. "And if so, if that's two of 30 [orientations], what are the other 28 that are part of sexual orientation?" Openly lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) responded to King by noting that gender identity is defined in the bill as "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics," but acknowledged that sexual orientation is not defined in the legislation. "The underlying hate crimes bill or law that has been in existence since the late 60s," she said, "does not define the terms race, color, national origin, or um..." King interjects: "That's because they're immutable characteristics." Although it was not included in the bill, Baldwin said her definition of sexual orientation would be "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." King offered an amendment that would have barred pedophiles from receiving special protection under the hate crimes bill. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote 13-10. Congresswoman Baldwin said that amendment was "unnecessary and inflammatory."
Dems caught in 'lie' during hate crimes debate. A conservative activist closely monitoring the hate crimes" legislation pending before a House committee says although the measure still poses a threat to the religious freedom of Christians who speak out publicly against homosexuality, the foundation of the bill has been removed.
Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee had planned on holding a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act yesterday, but due to a large amount of Republican amendments to the bill, the vote was postponed until this morning. The bill would add homosexuals and transgender people to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law. (Listen to audio report) Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, notes that Democrats were forced to eliminate a key portion of the bill -- the findings section. "We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders -- and that claim was the foundation of the bill," she notes. "They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that's a lie." Lafferty says during yesterday's markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America -- a country of 300 million people -- there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people. The Judiciary Committee hearing resumes at 9:00 a.m. Central time today. A vote on the House floor is expected next week.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
CNN shows bias against "TEA" Party supporters with extreme vulgarity
According to OneNewsNow.com, "A conservative media watchdog organization says CNN has once again demonstrated its liberal bias in its coverage of a recent "TEA party" event in Chicago.
On Wednesday, CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen was interviewing a Chicago TEA party ("Taxed Enough Already") participant when she evidently did not approve of what he was saying about President Obama's tax policies, talked over him as he responded to her question, and began to editorialize.
Roesgen: "I think you get the general tenor of this [rally]. It's anti-government, anti-CNN -- since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox. And since I can't really hear much more -- and I think this is not really family viewing -- I'll toss it back to you, Kyra."
Kyra Phillips (studio anchor): "Alright. I know Susan Rosegen is having a hard time hearing me, but wow, that is the prime example of what we're following across the country."
Julia Seymour is an assistant editor/analyst for the Business and Media Institute of the Media Research Center (MRC). "It's just awful reporting," she says of CNN's handling of the Chicago rally. "It would be easier to tolerate if CNN had bothered to do the stories leading up to the event. But CNN wasn't even talking about the TEA parties until April 14 -- despite previous protests that had happened in February and two months [of people] organizing these events." Seymour says Roesgen reacted very differently when she covered an anti-Bush protest several years ago. "She was not rude to those protestors," the MRC spokeswoman recalls. "So clearly I think there was more here -- and she has shown herself and her true colors." The MRC analyst remarks that the liberal media has switched from the mode of constantly attacking the administration of George W. Bush to automatically and repeatedly deflecting criticism of government action and undermining the opposition to Barack Obama."
And CNN's anchor Anderson Cooper on April 14, Tuesday night, referenced a vulgar slang term used in the homosexual community to ridicule Republicans involved in the "TEA Party" rallies.
During his AC 360 program, Anderson Cooper made the vulgar remark after CNN senior political analyst David Gergen spoke of the Republican Party being "in disarray."
Gergen: "Republicans have got a way -- they still haven't found their voice, Anderson. They're still -- this happens to a minority party after it's lost a couple of bad elections, but they're searching for their voice."
Cooper: "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging."
Now, this is what is so disturbing about this term. Wickepedia defines Teabagging as this? Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.
Teabagging is also an erotic activity used within the context of BDMand male dominance, with a dominant man teabagging his submissive partner, either a woman or a man, as one variation of facesitting and/or as a means of inflicting erotic humiliation.
Where is the outcry from the media for a well known journalist to make such vulgar statements like this. None. If this was said about a left wing liberal, there would be an outcry. Unfortunately, it just again demonstrates the left wing liberal's attitude for those that are Christians that do not like seeing what is happening to our country and the destruction of our monetary system.
On Wednesday, CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen was interviewing a Chicago TEA party ("Taxed Enough Already") participant when she evidently did not approve of what he was saying about President Obama's tax policies, talked over him as he responded to her question, and began to editorialize.
Roesgen: "I think you get the general tenor of this [rally]. It's anti-government, anti-CNN -- since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox. And since I can't really hear much more -- and I think this is not really family viewing -- I'll toss it back to you, Kyra."
Kyra Phillips (studio anchor): "Alright. I know Susan Rosegen is having a hard time hearing me, but wow, that is the prime example of what we're following across the country."
Julia Seymour is an assistant editor/analyst for the Business and Media Institute of the Media Research Center (MRC). "It's just awful reporting," she says of CNN's handling of the Chicago rally. "It would be easier to tolerate if CNN had bothered to do the stories leading up to the event. But CNN wasn't even talking about the TEA parties until April 14 -- despite previous protests that had happened in February and two months [of people] organizing these events." Seymour says Roesgen reacted very differently when she covered an anti-Bush protest several years ago. "She was not rude to those protestors," the MRC spokeswoman recalls. "So clearly I think there was more here -- and she has shown herself and her true colors." The MRC analyst remarks that the liberal media has switched from the mode of constantly attacking the administration of George W. Bush to automatically and repeatedly deflecting criticism of government action and undermining the opposition to Barack Obama."
And CNN's anchor Anderson Cooper on April 14, Tuesday night, referenced a vulgar slang term used in the homosexual community to ridicule Republicans involved in the "TEA Party" rallies.
During his AC 360 program, Anderson Cooper made the vulgar remark after CNN senior political analyst David Gergen spoke of the Republican Party being "in disarray."
Gergen: "Republicans have got a way -- they still haven't found their voice, Anderson. They're still -- this happens to a minority party after it's lost a couple of bad elections, but they're searching for their voice."
Cooper: "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging."
Now, this is what is so disturbing about this term. Wickepedia defines Teabagging as this? Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.
Teabagging is also an erotic activity used within the context of BDMand male dominance, with a dominant man teabagging his submissive partner, either a woman or a man, as one variation of facesitting and/or as a means of inflicting erotic humiliation.
Where is the outcry from the media for a well known journalist to make such vulgar statements like this. None. If this was said about a left wing liberal, there would be an outcry. Unfortunately, it just again demonstrates the left wing liberal's attitude for those that are Christians that do not like seeing what is happening to our country and the destruction of our monetary system.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
TEA (Taxes Enough Already) Parties being held across the nation.
The town that hosted the very first tea party in American history will be hosting another as American citizens speak out against high taxes at "TEA parties" being held all across the nation today (April 15). As reported by OneNewsNow.com, "Outrage over taxes is what sparked the American Revolution and motivated the Sons of Liberty as they staged the first tea party more than 200 years ago when they dumped hundreds of pounds of tea into Boston Harbor in protest of a tea tax. Fast forward to the present and Boston will be hosting another "tea party" -- only this time it will occur on Boston Commons, and "TEA" stands for "Taxed Enough Already." Stay-at-home mom Christen Varley helped to organize the Boston event. "We have 1,500 who have RSVPed positively online," she shares. "We have reached out via email last week to another 10,000." Varley says the attendees will come from all walks of life -- Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, conservatives, etc. And all are rallying around a common cause, she says -- outrage over tax burdens. One of the featured speakers at the Boston event will be Massachusetts Family Institute president Kris Mineau, whose will focus on taxes and how they affect the American family. However, Brian Camenker of the pro-family group MassResistance says he will not be in attendance because he claims that Varley will not allow pro-family issues to be discussed. "[A]nd I said to her, 'But we're talking, for instance, in our situation about the hundreds of thousands of dollars, nearly a million dollars, going for homosexual programs in the public schools,'" Camenker explains. "And she said that she understands that, but that there might be people there who support those programs and support the homosexual agenda and that they didn't want to offend them." Varley refused to comment on Camenker's remarks, except to say he was misunderstanding her. She also stated that she is not setting any guidelines for how people protest at the event. "I feel that as a grassroots, non-professional organizer of an event, it is not within my rights whatsoever to dictate to people how they can protest, what they can say, what their signs can say," Varley says. "All that we have asked online is that people respect that we are on city property." According to Varley, everybody has their own personal opinions and that attempts to "pigeonhole" people into political categories such as social conservative or liberal is the "old-style" politics. Varley says the TEA party movement does not end after April 15, and that people need to start looking for quality, honest, and trustworthy people to put into government -- and to get involved in the political process."
And lets all remember, that we have a government that no longer represents the people that built this country. But instead we have a government that is more interested in inslaving the citizens through taxes and having an unconstitutional Federal Reserve Board that prints our money, which then America has to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Board. You see, the Federal Reserve Board is not part of the government. It is a private corporation. And now we have people like President Obama that does not care about our children and grandchildren.
Why did president Obama and other members of Congress voted for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it? are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying? consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected? want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others? (communism) punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not? admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda? run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China? want government controlled health care? want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections? refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country? appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department? want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will? want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts? take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
The president and members of congress (for the most part) are not looking out for the interest of our children and grandchildren. They will continue to destroy our country and children's future by not only destroying our racial country make up, but placing a private corporation, the Federal Reserve Board dictating our economic policies. until then.
And lets all remember, that we have a government that no longer represents the people that built this country. But instead we have a government that is more interested in inslaving the citizens through taxes and having an unconstitutional Federal Reserve Board that prints our money, which then America has to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Board. You see, the Federal Reserve Board is not part of the government. It is a private corporation. And now we have people like President Obama that does not care about our children and grandchildren.
Why did president Obama and other members of Congress voted for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it? are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying? consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected? want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others? (communism) punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not? admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda? run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China? want government controlled health care? want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections? refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country? appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department? want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will? want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts? take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
The president and members of congress (for the most part) are not looking out for the interest of our children and grandchildren. They will continue to destroy our country and children's future by not only destroying our racial country make up, but placing a private corporation, the Federal Reserve Board dictating our economic policies. until then.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Big Labor Unions support amnesty for millions of illegal aliens
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the "Change to Win" have just announced that they are supporting the 13.2 million illegal alien amnesty (of course, the illegal alien population is probably much more than the conservative figure).
The New York Times reported this morning (click to the link to read the full article) that the Big Labor unions signed an accord that "endorses legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already in the United States. . ." The Times said this endorsement had been worked out by "consulting between the two [union] federations and with a variety of Hispanic organizations and advocate groups for immigrants."
According to NumbersUSA, "This union sellout is the latest sign that every group in America that can make a fast buck on illegal immigration is lining up to push the gigantic amnesty backed by the Obama administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Today's news builds on another New York Times article from last Thursday, stating that the Obama administration was making amnesty a top priority.)" Big Business had already sold out workers by backing practically all amnesties. But now the one group that is supposed to stand up for individual workers has decided it's willing to trade the paycheck of American workers for union dues paid by illegal aliens.
It shows again how elitists in government and big businesses are selling out our children's future. Our country is fasting becoming a non-white country. Once that is done, we will no longer look like a European country. But instead, we will be looking like Mexico, Haiti, or someother third world country, and our laws, government, and even religion will change according to the racial makeup of the people. With the millions of illegal aliens that will become "legal" with the stroke of a pen, it will only continue to bring more illegals in, and the legal aliens then will be able to sponsor their families into this country. Oh, if America could only consider its latter end. Until then.
The New York Times reported this morning (click to the link to read the full article) that the Big Labor unions signed an accord that "endorses legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already in the United States. . ." The Times said this endorsement had been worked out by "consulting between the two [union] federations and with a variety of Hispanic organizations and advocate groups for immigrants."
According to NumbersUSA, "This union sellout is the latest sign that every group in America that can make a fast buck on illegal immigration is lining up to push the gigantic amnesty backed by the Obama administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Today's news builds on another New York Times article from last Thursday, stating that the Obama administration was making amnesty a top priority.)" Big Business had already sold out workers by backing practically all amnesties. But now the one group that is supposed to stand up for individual workers has decided it's willing to trade the paycheck of American workers for union dues paid by illegal aliens.
It shows again how elitists in government and big businesses are selling out our children's future. Our country is fasting becoming a non-white country. Once that is done, we will no longer look like a European country. But instead, we will be looking like Mexico, Haiti, or someother third world country, and our laws, government, and even religion will change according to the racial makeup of the people. With the millions of illegal aliens that will become "legal" with the stroke of a pen, it will only continue to bring more illegals in, and the legal aliens then will be able to sponsor their families into this country. Oh, if America could only consider its latter end. Until then.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
More Info. on the Dream Amnesty Act.
--------------Reprinted by NumbersUSA ------------------
A Dose of Reality Turns DREAMs into Nightmares
By Rosemary Jenks, Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:58 AM
EDITOR's NOTE: A line-by-line analysis of the DREAM Act (as introduced in the U.S. Senate) reveals no end to the nightmares. (1) The amnesty applies to illegal-alien "kids" up to age 35; (2) aliens merely need to make a "claim" that they are qualified for the amnesty -- they don't have to provide any proof that the claims are true; (3) but the feds have to perform costly, time-consuming investigations to prove the claims are false in order to deny an amnesty to anybody; (4) the parents who broke the law to bring these "kids" here can get U.S. citizenship; (5) DREAM would remove the federal ban on in-state tuition for future illegal aliens.
Proponents of the DREAM Act insist that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the children of illegal aliens—who were brought here illegally through no fault of their own and shouldn't be penalized for the sins of their parents—have an opportunity to go to college. After all, shouldn’t every child have a chance to better himself by getting a good education?
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act was introduced on March 26, 2009, as S. 729 by Senators Durbin (D-IL.) and Lugar (R-IN) and as H.R. 1751 by Rep. Berman (D-CA). As of April 6, 2009, the Senate bill has 19 cosponsors and the House bill has 20 cosponsors. What its supporters don't tell you, though, is that the DREAM Act would award amnesty to virtually any illegal alien under the age of 35 who first entered the United States before the age of 16, has been in the country for at least the last five years, and has earned a high school diploma or GED in the United States. While the age limit of 35 seems excessive, at least it sounds like a relatively well-defined population, right? Here's the kicker: Illegal aliens only have to submit a petition in which they claim to meet these requirements. There is not a single provision in the DREAM Act that requires the aliens to provide proof that the claims are true.
In fact, once an illegal alien submits this required petition, the only way the alien can be denied amnesty is if DHS proves that the claims are false. Think what would happen if, say, half a million amnesty applications (an extremely conservative estimate) are dumped on an agency—US Citizenship and Immigration Services—that already has over three million applications pending. How many amnesty applications are likely to be denied when every denial involves additional time to track down proof that the statements on the application are false, versus an approval that takes only the stroke of a pen? Past experience shows that the answer is frighteningly close to none, so the potential for fraud is virtually unlimited. On top of this, the incentives created by the bill make massive fraud a certainty. For example, once an illegal alien files a petition for amnesty, regardless of whether the alien actually meets the requirements or not, DHS is prohibited from deporting that individual for any reason until the petition is granted or until DHS has found proof that the alien does not qualify and so denies the petition. There are no exceptions to this. So, as long as an illegal alien files an amnesty petition before he flies a plane into the World Trade Center or goes on a killing spree in the local shopping mall, we are stuck with him for as long as it takes an already backlogged agency to consider his application for amnesty. Rest assured, though, that no illegal alien with a criminal record can qualify for amnesty – unless the criminal record only involves one or two misdemeanor convictions like DUIs or domestic violence, or it only involves violations of immigration laws or crimes committed to achieve an immigration-related goal like document fraud. Terrorists don’t qualify for the DREAM amnesty either—at least not those we have listed on a watch list and who use their real names to apply for amnesty.
The fact that there is no deadline by which all DREAM-amnesty applications must be filed means there is plenty of time for illegal aliens (those already here and those planning to come) who don’t actually qualify to fabricate or purchase their eligibility. No doubt the Mexican drug cartels and other criminal enterprises already are developing the “DREAM Set”—a prepackaged set of documents, utility bills, high school diplomas, and so on to ensure that every illegal alien gets a slice of the American DREAM, for the right price. Of course, the bill specifically requires DHS to move all amnesty petitions to the front of the line—ahead of the millions of people who have been waiting for years to come to the United States legally—so it shouldn't take more than six months or so to decide any one application--unless amnesty is denied, in which case the illegal alien could extend the process for several years by appealing the denial. And what will happen in the rare instance when an illegal alien is denied amnesty? The illegal alien “shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior” to applying for amnesty. Well, of course! We will simply ignore the fact that the alien had to admit to being in the country illegally on his amnesty petition and pretend we do not have his address, occupation, or any other information about him! We can’t let pesky details like the fact that, in order to deny amnesty, DHS has to prove that the alien committed fraud on his petition, is not “of good moral character,” has been convicted of a deportable offense, or is a terrorist, human smuggler, or international child abductor, to get in the way.
The DREAM Act sets no numerical limits on how many illegal aliens may be granted amnesty, and they cannot be counted against the current annual green card limits. Furthermore, once granted permanent resident status, beneficiaries of the DREAM amnesty can become U.S. citizens and sponsor their relatives—the parents who brought them here illegally, any siblings left in the home country, and then aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on—for legal immigration to the United States under current chain migration laws. So all in all, this little bill to ensure that children can get a good education would quickly begin to rival the "one-time-only" amnesty of 1986, under which some three million illegal aliens and their spouses and children were given green cards, along with countless extended relatives. Finally, just in case illegal aliens who come in the future feel left out, the DREAM Act has benefits for them, too (and there WILL be lots of future illegal aliens since amnesties always result in more illegal immigration and this bill does absolutely nothing to deter it).
The DREAM Act would retroactively repeal the federal law that prohibits state colleges and universities from giving illegal aliens in-state tuition rates. The repeal would have two results: First, it would mean that each state would be free to decide whether to give in-state tuition slots to illegal aliens instead of to U.S. citizens and legal residents (after all, there is a set number of in-state tuition slots, so giving one to an illegal alien means one less for a citizen or legal resident). Second, it would nullify the various lawsuits that have been filed challenging those states that already have violated federal law by giving illegal aliens in-state tuition, so those states would get away with breaking the law with impunity. Now, there's a lesson we all want our children to learn, right? For NumbersUSA's full analysis of the DREAM Act, see our Fact Sheet. You can also visit the Proposed Bills page and look under Amnesty for updates on the DREAM Act. For most of you, there are faxes on your Action Buffet to send to your Representatives urging them not to support the DREAM Act. ROSEMARY JENKS is the Director of Government Relations for NumbersUSA
A Dose of Reality Turns DREAMs into Nightmares
By Rosemary Jenks, Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:58 AM
EDITOR's NOTE: A line-by-line analysis of the DREAM Act (as introduced in the U.S. Senate) reveals no end to the nightmares. (1) The amnesty applies to illegal-alien "kids" up to age 35; (2) aliens merely need to make a "claim" that they are qualified for the amnesty -- they don't have to provide any proof that the claims are true; (3) but the feds have to perform costly, time-consuming investigations to prove the claims are false in order to deny an amnesty to anybody; (4) the parents who broke the law to bring these "kids" here can get U.S. citizenship; (5) DREAM would remove the federal ban on in-state tuition for future illegal aliens.
Proponents of the DREAM Act insist that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the children of illegal aliens—who were brought here illegally through no fault of their own and shouldn't be penalized for the sins of their parents—have an opportunity to go to college. After all, shouldn’t every child have a chance to better himself by getting a good education?
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act was introduced on March 26, 2009, as S. 729 by Senators Durbin (D-IL.) and Lugar (R-IN) and as H.R. 1751 by Rep. Berman (D-CA). As of April 6, 2009, the Senate bill has 19 cosponsors and the House bill has 20 cosponsors. What its supporters don't tell you, though, is that the DREAM Act would award amnesty to virtually any illegal alien under the age of 35 who first entered the United States before the age of 16, has been in the country for at least the last five years, and has earned a high school diploma or GED in the United States. While the age limit of 35 seems excessive, at least it sounds like a relatively well-defined population, right? Here's the kicker: Illegal aliens only have to submit a petition in which they claim to meet these requirements. There is not a single provision in the DREAM Act that requires the aliens to provide proof that the claims are true.
In fact, once an illegal alien submits this required petition, the only way the alien can be denied amnesty is if DHS proves that the claims are false. Think what would happen if, say, half a million amnesty applications (an extremely conservative estimate) are dumped on an agency—US Citizenship and Immigration Services—that already has over three million applications pending. How many amnesty applications are likely to be denied when every denial involves additional time to track down proof that the statements on the application are false, versus an approval that takes only the stroke of a pen? Past experience shows that the answer is frighteningly close to none, so the potential for fraud is virtually unlimited. On top of this, the incentives created by the bill make massive fraud a certainty. For example, once an illegal alien files a petition for amnesty, regardless of whether the alien actually meets the requirements or not, DHS is prohibited from deporting that individual for any reason until the petition is granted or until DHS has found proof that the alien does not qualify and so denies the petition. There are no exceptions to this. So, as long as an illegal alien files an amnesty petition before he flies a plane into the World Trade Center or goes on a killing spree in the local shopping mall, we are stuck with him for as long as it takes an already backlogged agency to consider his application for amnesty. Rest assured, though, that no illegal alien with a criminal record can qualify for amnesty – unless the criminal record only involves one or two misdemeanor convictions like DUIs or domestic violence, or it only involves violations of immigration laws or crimes committed to achieve an immigration-related goal like document fraud. Terrorists don’t qualify for the DREAM amnesty either—at least not those we have listed on a watch list and who use their real names to apply for amnesty.
The fact that there is no deadline by which all DREAM-amnesty applications must be filed means there is plenty of time for illegal aliens (those already here and those planning to come) who don’t actually qualify to fabricate or purchase their eligibility. No doubt the Mexican drug cartels and other criminal enterprises already are developing the “DREAM Set”—a prepackaged set of documents, utility bills, high school diplomas, and so on to ensure that every illegal alien gets a slice of the American DREAM, for the right price. Of course, the bill specifically requires DHS to move all amnesty petitions to the front of the line—ahead of the millions of people who have been waiting for years to come to the United States legally—so it shouldn't take more than six months or so to decide any one application--unless amnesty is denied, in which case the illegal alien could extend the process for several years by appealing the denial. And what will happen in the rare instance when an illegal alien is denied amnesty? The illegal alien “shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior” to applying for amnesty. Well, of course! We will simply ignore the fact that the alien had to admit to being in the country illegally on his amnesty petition and pretend we do not have his address, occupation, or any other information about him! We can’t let pesky details like the fact that, in order to deny amnesty, DHS has to prove that the alien committed fraud on his petition, is not “of good moral character,” has been convicted of a deportable offense, or is a terrorist, human smuggler, or international child abductor, to get in the way.
The DREAM Act sets no numerical limits on how many illegal aliens may be granted amnesty, and they cannot be counted against the current annual green card limits. Furthermore, once granted permanent resident status, beneficiaries of the DREAM amnesty can become U.S. citizens and sponsor their relatives—the parents who brought them here illegally, any siblings left in the home country, and then aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on—for legal immigration to the United States under current chain migration laws. So all in all, this little bill to ensure that children can get a good education would quickly begin to rival the "one-time-only" amnesty of 1986, under which some three million illegal aliens and their spouses and children were given green cards, along with countless extended relatives. Finally, just in case illegal aliens who come in the future feel left out, the DREAM Act has benefits for them, too (and there WILL be lots of future illegal aliens since amnesties always result in more illegal immigration and this bill does absolutely nothing to deter it).
The DREAM Act would retroactively repeal the federal law that prohibits state colleges and universities from giving illegal aliens in-state tuition rates. The repeal would have two results: First, it would mean that each state would be free to decide whether to give in-state tuition slots to illegal aliens instead of to U.S. citizens and legal residents (after all, there is a set number of in-state tuition slots, so giving one to an illegal alien means one less for a citizen or legal resident). Second, it would nullify the various lawsuits that have been filed challenging those states that already have violated federal law by giving illegal aliens in-state tuition, so those states would get away with breaking the law with impunity. Now, there's a lesson we all want our children to learn, right? For NumbersUSA's full analysis of the DREAM Act, see our Fact Sheet. You can also visit the Proposed Bills page and look under Amnesty for updates on the DREAM Act. For most of you, there are faxes on your Action Buffet to send to your Representatives urging them not to support the DREAM Act. ROSEMARY JENKS is the Director of Government Relations for NumbersUSA
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
URGENT. DREAM amnesty in danger of passing.
-------Reprinted. from Roy Beck of NumbersUSA.-----
DREAM amnesty in danger of passing -- contact your Senators while they are home
DEAR FRIENDS, We're in a bit of an emergency, and especially need you to try to attend a townhall meeting while your Members of Congress are home. Several indicators this week suggest that the Senate Majority Leader and the President are doing a full-court press behind the scenes to force passage of the DREAM Amnesty and that they may be successful. In a nutshell (which I'll explain below), the DREAM Act is not primarily about a few illegal-alien kids in high school or in college -- rather it offers an amnesty to nearly all illegal aliens up to the age of 35. It is gigantic. Here is a list we've gathered of local appearances by Members of Congress during this Spring Recess. Unfortunately, many Members have kept their appearances largely secret or just aren't bothering to meet with the voters. But please look for your two Senators and your U.S. Representative. Action No. 1: If you see that your Members of Congress are appearing somewhere in public, make every effort to appear there, too. Perhaps no single act you take will be more influential than if a Senator/Representative while back home is asked an immigration question, hears an immigration comment, sees an immigration sign or hears applause or boos in response to his/her immigration comments. They must see signs while they are home that the introduction of the DREAM amnesty is stirring up opposition. Action No. 2: Go visit one of your Members' local offices over the next 10 days. You may actually catch a Member passing through that office. Even if not, the local staffers are much more on the alert while their boss is out of Washington and back home. Look at the office addresses here. Action No. 3: Make sure you have sent all the faxes and made all the phone calls that have been posted on your Action Buffet corkboard. LA RAZA, ETC. ARE PUSHING TO PACK THESE MEETINGS The open-borders groups of the National Council of La Raza, immigration lawyers, etc., are engaged in a national campaign this week and next to pack as many people as possible into townhall meetings to clamor for "reform" that stops enforcement that "breaks up families" and to pass the DREAM Act "for the kids." Fortunately, the open-borders groups don't really have that much of a constituency. But we must not risk their voices being the main ones heard by Congress in townhall meetings. Top leaders of major religious groups are also pushing their clerics and lay leaders to attend the townhall meetings to call for the DREAM Act as a way to honor Easter and Passover. This strikes me as close to sacrilege to suggest that these high holy days are an excuse for helping the greediest of corporations to keep wages low and to have easier access to foreign labor while Americans suffer one of the highest unemployment rates in their history. Read the DREAM blog by Rosemary Jenks (NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations). It may blow your mind. It certainly will make your blood boil. Every supporter (and even many opponents) of the DREAM Act will say that it is about unfortunate illegal-alien kids caught in a dilemma because their parents broke the law. In fact, kids are a minor part of this bill. Rosemary and her Hill Team have analyzed every line of the DREAM Act, and she tells you in the blog how:
The DREAM Act offers immediate provisional amnesty to virtually every illegal alien up to the age of 35. All a person has to do is file an application that CLAIMS to meet the criteria. That gives the illegal aliens an immediate provisional amnesty. Although the feds may eventually require some papers to back up the CLAIMS, you can be sure that the fraudulant document industry is already preparing the counterfeit plates to turn out these false documents at a good profit (they have done so for every other amnesty). The likelihood of any illegal alien losing the amnesty because of fraud is unlikely because DREAM is written so that nobody can lose the amnesty unless the feds do the expensive investigation to PROVE that the illegal alien isn't qualified.
Rosemary also shows that the DREAM Act opens the way for a pathway to citizenship for most of the illegal aliens who are OVER the age of 35 if they are related to illegal aliens under 35. Unless an amnesty eliminates Chain Migration categories, it will always open the way for millions upon millions more relatives, including those who are illegally already in this country.If you encounter Members of Congress who argue for amnesty "for the kids," tell them to write a bill that narrowly does that -- not support a bill that offers the chance of citizenship to MILLIONS of illegal aliens. Tell them that a bill that was serious about helping illegal-alien kids would:
include mandatory workplace E-Verify for every employer to ensure there was no jobs magnet for millions of people who otherwise would be enticed by the amnesty to become illegal aliens;
include an elimination of chain migration categories so the criminal parents who put the kids into this predicament can't get citizenship, and so this moderate-sized amnesty for the kids doesn't end up bringing giant numbers of relatives to compete with unemployed Americans;
include requirements that applicants PROVE they meet narrowly drawn criteria.The DREAM Act does none of those. If you call a congressional office or talk directly to a Senator (even one of our allies), there is a good chance that he/she won't know what Rosemary told you in those bullet points above. It is up to all of you to be an army of truth to get the word out because the open-borders people have spent millions of dollars to market the lie. THANKS,
DREAM amnesty in danger of passing -- contact your Senators while they are home
DEAR FRIENDS, We're in a bit of an emergency, and especially need you to try to attend a townhall meeting while your Members of Congress are home. Several indicators this week suggest that the Senate Majority Leader and the President are doing a full-court press behind the scenes to force passage of the DREAM Amnesty and that they may be successful. In a nutshell (which I'll explain below), the DREAM Act is not primarily about a few illegal-alien kids in high school or in college -- rather it offers an amnesty to nearly all illegal aliens up to the age of 35. It is gigantic. Here is a list we've gathered of local appearances by Members of Congress during this Spring Recess. Unfortunately, many Members have kept their appearances largely secret or just aren't bothering to meet with the voters. But please look for your two Senators and your U.S. Representative. Action No. 1: If you see that your Members of Congress are appearing somewhere in public, make every effort to appear there, too. Perhaps no single act you take will be more influential than if a Senator/Representative while back home is asked an immigration question, hears an immigration comment, sees an immigration sign or hears applause or boos in response to his/her immigration comments. They must see signs while they are home that the introduction of the DREAM amnesty is stirring up opposition. Action No. 2: Go visit one of your Members' local offices over the next 10 days. You may actually catch a Member passing through that office. Even if not, the local staffers are much more on the alert while their boss is out of Washington and back home. Look at the office addresses here. Action No. 3: Make sure you have sent all the faxes and made all the phone calls that have been posted on your Action Buffet corkboard. LA RAZA, ETC. ARE PUSHING TO PACK THESE MEETINGS The open-borders groups of the National Council of La Raza, immigration lawyers, etc., are engaged in a national campaign this week and next to pack as many people as possible into townhall meetings to clamor for "reform" that stops enforcement that "breaks up families" and to pass the DREAM Act "for the kids." Fortunately, the open-borders groups don't really have that much of a constituency. But we must not risk their voices being the main ones heard by Congress in townhall meetings. Top leaders of major religious groups are also pushing their clerics and lay leaders to attend the townhall meetings to call for the DREAM Act as a way to honor Easter and Passover. This strikes me as close to sacrilege to suggest that these high holy days are an excuse for helping the greediest of corporations to keep wages low and to have easier access to foreign labor while Americans suffer one of the highest unemployment rates in their history. Read the DREAM blog by Rosemary Jenks (NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations). It may blow your mind. It certainly will make your blood boil. Every supporter (and even many opponents) of the DREAM Act will say that it is about unfortunate illegal-alien kids caught in a dilemma because their parents broke the law. In fact, kids are a minor part of this bill. Rosemary and her Hill Team have analyzed every line of the DREAM Act, and she tells you in the blog how:
The DREAM Act offers immediate provisional amnesty to virtually every illegal alien up to the age of 35. All a person has to do is file an application that CLAIMS to meet the criteria. That gives the illegal aliens an immediate provisional amnesty. Although the feds may eventually require some papers to back up the CLAIMS, you can be sure that the fraudulant document industry is already preparing the counterfeit plates to turn out these false documents at a good profit (they have done so for every other amnesty). The likelihood of any illegal alien losing the amnesty because of fraud is unlikely because DREAM is written so that nobody can lose the amnesty unless the feds do the expensive investigation to PROVE that the illegal alien isn't qualified.
Rosemary also shows that the DREAM Act opens the way for a pathway to citizenship for most of the illegal aliens who are OVER the age of 35 if they are related to illegal aliens under 35. Unless an amnesty eliminates Chain Migration categories, it will always open the way for millions upon millions more relatives, including those who are illegally already in this country.If you encounter Members of Congress who argue for amnesty "for the kids," tell them to write a bill that narrowly does that -- not support a bill that offers the chance of citizenship to MILLIONS of illegal aliens. Tell them that a bill that was serious about helping illegal-alien kids would:
include mandatory workplace E-Verify for every employer to ensure there was no jobs magnet for millions of people who otherwise would be enticed by the amnesty to become illegal aliens;
include an elimination of chain migration categories so the criminal parents who put the kids into this predicament can't get citizenship, and so this moderate-sized amnesty for the kids doesn't end up bringing giant numbers of relatives to compete with unemployed Americans;
include requirements that applicants PROVE they meet narrowly drawn criteria.The DREAM Act does none of those. If you call a congressional office or talk directly to a Senator (even one of our allies), there is a good chance that he/she won't know what Rosemary told you in those bullet points above. It is up to all of you to be an army of truth to get the word out because the open-borders people have spent millions of dollars to market the lie. THANKS,
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Iowa Supreme Court legalizes sodomy-overturns 170 years of state law.
On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court spat on Christian America, and favored sodomy. It ruled that state's same-sex "marriage" ban violates the constitutional rights of homosexual couples, making it the third state where same-sex marriage is legal.
As reported by OneNewsNow.com, "In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.
The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based homosexula rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six homosexual Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should be left to the Legislature. Douglas Napier, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, explains to OneNewsNow that the court overturned the state's Defense of Marriage Act. "The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled, and overwhelming supported by Iowans for 170 years in the history of Iowa," he notes. "There was simply no legitimate reason for this court to redefine marriage."
Napier asserts that the justices stepped out of their proper role of interpreting the law and have instead created new law. A recent poll, which compares to others, indicates 62 percent of Iowans are against homosexual marriage.
"And it's astounding the Supreme Court would usurp the role of the legislature, put a choke hold on the democratic process, and take that from the people of Iowa and claim to know better," the attorney exclaims. "They don't know better -- and the people of Iowa need to vote on a marriage amendment and put it in place and let the Supreme Court know that they can't speak for them."
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's Law School, had this reaction. "These activist judges are no more than proselytizing engines of social change," he offers. "That's not the role of a judge. They are to be umpires merely calling the balls or strikes. They don't rewrite the definition of marriage." And they do not go against the will of the people, he adds. (Listen to audio report)
Staver believes the legislature ought to vote to put the issue on a future ballot. "There is no question in my mind [they wil do that]," he states. "They will move forward with a constitutional amendment to overrule this ridiculous decision -- which frankly, in my view, is no law at all," the Christian attorney comments. "The judges in this case crossed the line. This is an example of the kind of judge that should never be on the bench." At present, the staff of the Iowa Family Policy Council is lobbying state lawmakers to put the issue on a future ballot.
As reported by OneNewsNow.com, "In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.
The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based homosexula rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six homosexual Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should be left to the Legislature. Douglas Napier, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, explains to OneNewsNow that the court overturned the state's Defense of Marriage Act. "The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled, and overwhelming supported by Iowans for 170 years in the history of Iowa," he notes. "There was simply no legitimate reason for this court to redefine marriage."
Napier asserts that the justices stepped out of their proper role of interpreting the law and have instead created new law. A recent poll, which compares to others, indicates 62 percent of Iowans are against homosexual marriage.
"And it's astounding the Supreme Court would usurp the role of the legislature, put a choke hold on the democratic process, and take that from the people of Iowa and claim to know better," the attorney exclaims. "They don't know better -- and the people of Iowa need to vote on a marriage amendment and put it in place and let the Supreme Court know that they can't speak for them."
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's Law School, had this reaction. "These activist judges are no more than proselytizing engines of social change," he offers. "That's not the role of a judge. They are to be umpires merely calling the balls or strikes. They don't rewrite the definition of marriage." And they do not go against the will of the people, he adds. (Listen to audio report)
Staver believes the legislature ought to vote to put the issue on a future ballot. "There is no question in my mind [they wil do that]," he states. "They will move forward with a constitutional amendment to overrule this ridiculous decision -- which frankly, in my view, is no law at all," the Christian attorney comments. "The judges in this case crossed the line. This is an example of the kind of judge that should never be on the bench." At present, the staff of the Iowa Family Policy Council is lobbying state lawmakers to put the issue on a future ballot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
