Sexual orientation is flexible, right?

Marriage – I want to marry three men, 6 women, 4 children ages ranging from 6 to 10, two dogs and a mule. And I want insurance and benefits for all of them. You don’t like it, hate crime!!! Go to jail, get fined.

Alain

Hey everyone, this is my coming out notice. I have decided to CHANGE MY GENDER! (We all know from the many great organizations out there that our gender is not fixed! NOW, HRC, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, even Barack Hussien Obama, and so many more…)

Hoorah for me!

I am no longer to be considered a monogamous heterosexual male. From this point on, I am to be recognized as a Para-sexual. You will love me and must accept me for who I truly see myself to be.

What, you never heard of a Para-sexual? No I am not homosexual. No, I am not BI-sexual. Quit trying to limit my freedoms!

I want to have a loving, multidirectional, multifaceted relationship with the ones I choose to love.

These are:

Male: Steve, Jack and John
Female: Judy, Jane, Elizabeth, Sally, Erica and Hillary
Children: Peter (male age 7), Jonathon (male age 9), Samantha (female age 10) and Jill (female age 9)
Canis familiaris: Spot (male age 3, Doberman) and Fife (female age 1 ½, frecnh poodle)
Mule: Pedro (age 7)

We plan on a big happy wedding ceremony; all of my best friends will be invited. Barack, Hillary, Ted, Barbara B., Feinstein. You know the crowd. (Great people. Oh that Ted is a kicker at parties when he starts getting juiced up!)

We deserve to have a happy legal marriage and all the benefits that come with it.

• We deserve full medical and dental insurance, as well as other normal benefits, from our employers for our entire family.
• Hospitals must allow me to make decisions and visitations for all of my family.
• We must be allowed to jointly adopt new children, pets and livestock.
• We must be allowed public housing on universities.
• My entire family must be considered surviving partners if one of us doesn’t have a will and dies.

We demand all school children be taught, from preschool through college graduation, that we are a normal loving family. They must be forcibly taught that anyone who disagrees with our family’s lifestyle is terrible, hurtful, hateful bigots that should be locked away from decent people. We deserve not be protected from bullying and name-calling.

We demand that we have equal representation for the Para-sexual on all aspects television, radio, movie and print. This means at least 5 prime time sitcoms, 3 to 5 major motion pictures per season, and daily mention in the news media.

If American idol does not find one of our very talented Para-sexual's to the THE American idol, they must be thoroughly chastised in the press, and maybe sued by our great friends over at the ACLU.

Para-sexual must become a protected lifestyle. We must not be discriminated against in any way. Laws must be passed protecting us from anyone who disagrees with us. Our liberty is at stake!

Our family unit is larger than most, so we will fall well below the government described poverty line. Due to this, we deserve (and demand) equal access to child care, Medicare, welfare, unemployment, food stamps and any other wonderful social program we find out there that will give us what we deserve: free money.

Your churches must also accept us. We will not allow intolerance from the pulpit. Any church that does not immediately and wholeheartedly accept us into their congregation will have their leaders arrested for hate crimes against us. We don’t care that God says what we are doing is SIN… we love each other. Isn’t God all about LOVE??? You best be LOVING us or we will get the government to make you, religious God fearing bigots!

Your Church leaders better step up and get ready for some BIG weddings. When we come down the aisle, it is a true parade!

So, now I am out of the closet.

Are you loving me? Are you respecting me?

No? [Screams: Hey ACLU, we got another one we can sue! Send in the litigators and make sure our bank account can handle another couple hundred grand from this reader!]

Read more >>

Abortion Challenge to the Left: Why do you feel it's ok to kill our children via abortion?

Please tell me why.

Alain

I'm a conservative. There are many facets to this viewpoint, just as there are many to someone who claims to be a liberal.

Today, I want to challenge the liberal viewpoint that a woman has the "RIGHT" to terminate an unborn life that she has helped create.

I have always heard liberals and feminists loudly tout that because it is her body, she has the right to do whatever she wants with it, and the unborn life that is growing inside her does not matter in any way, shape or form.

If she decides that having a child, for whatever reason, is not good for her, she then has the right to extinguish that small life.

Anyone who claims it is not "a life" is refusing to admit the scientific facts, and the truth, for the sake of their own convenience, and possibly because of a guilty conscience.

Even the "doctors" who do the terrible deed admit freely that they are killing a child.

Former abortionist, Anthony Levatino, M.D., says, "I want the general public to know that the doctors know that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue . . ." And former abortionist, McArthur Hill, M.D., said, "I am a murderer. I have taken the lives of innocent babies and I have ripped them from their mother's wombs with a powerful vacuum machine."

People on the Left will stand up and scream bloody murder if someone smashes an egg in the nest of a bird on the protected animal list -- but a human child in the equivalent stage of development has zero value to them. Go figure.

So here is my question and challenge to all of you liberals.

If it 's all a matter of "choice" for a woman, why can a woman not choose to be responsible for her own actions?

Is a woman not capable of controlling herself? Is a woman so weak that she cannot abstain from taking actions that can result in causing a new life to be created?

Oh, I know it feels great! The act of procreation is immensely pleasurable, but it takes a conscious choice to participate in the act.

I hear taking large amounts of certain types of narcotics can tickle the pleasure zone so badly that you think you are in heaven, but the act of taking drugs comes with consequences.

Oooohhhh, that dreaded word, consequence.

For every action there is a reaction. Cause and effect. Absolutely scary concepts to the "do it because it feels good" crowd who want to live life like there were NO consequences for any action they deem pleasurable.

Please write in, post some comments liberal Americans. Explain to me why it is ok for a woman to end the life of a child brought into existence by her actions.

What, a man is involved as well? So true, but nature has decreed that it is the woman who will carry a child. This is a fact that those of you on the left who support the homosexual movement just hate to admit, but facts are facts - men and women are different.

If a man fathers a child, society should make him take care of his responsibilities toward this new life he helped create. I agree on this whole heartedly.

Being a good father who provides for and raises his children is the ultimate example of manhood.

What about rape and incest, you ask? Are you going to argue that a woman should be able to kill an innocent child because of the crime of the father?

First, let's get the facts straight -- less than one percent of all abortions performed in America are for rape or incest.

In these cases, the rapist is the criminal, not the newly conceived child. Killing the child of a woman who has been impregnated by rape is not the answer. The loving response is to love them both: both mother and child. The terrible crime of the father should not be cause for a death sentence for the child.

As for the man, he's a vicious criminal and he should be prosecuted for his crime. In fact I favor laws requiring castration of repeat offenders (just my personal opinion).

So tell me liberal America: What is "so compelling" -- reason why must we keep these horrendous acts of abortion legal? Shouldn't our society care for all our children, our future generation, those in the womb and those already born?

America's founding document states that all have the Right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life.

Liberty.

Pursuit of Happiness.

Please click our comment button and explain why women cannot accept responsibility in their lives, why they do not have the strength or ability to control themselves, why we are not generous enough to help support women and children in need.

Why are men and women not able to abstain from sexual relations until such a time as they desire a child, or accept responsibility for the life they have helped create?

Please tell me why.

(J.T. Finn and Frank York contributed to this article.)

Read more >>

Response to Jonathan M on why I am against abortion

Some people really just dont get it.

Response to Jonathan M on why I am against abortion

Subject: I don't fully understand your ideas, could you assist me please?

Before I ask my question I wish to say beforehand, I'm not asking this out of spite or any sort of hateful thoughts. I'm just curious about your stance on abortion, why are you so set in your ways against it when abortion can both control human population (and we are in a population crisis) and has the purposefully hidden consenquinse of lowering crime. but ill not get into that argument, for it isn't proper conversation.

Please forgive my horrable writing, and please don't think me a fool for asking. Maybe we can have a civil discusion as time progresses, but for now ill say fare well and thank you for replying.

Jonathan Mxxxxxx

Dear Jonathan,

Why am I so against abortion? I am against it because it is murder of an innocent human life, plain and simple.

As for controlling the population and crime, you sound pretty selfish if you can present an argument for destroying the weakest of the human race to better the lives of the others, i.e., yourself.

We could just as easily control population and crime by killing adults, I mean if you follow this argument why place limitations?

Why not kill off all the old people as well. After all they do not produce for society but take from it.

We could also kill the ill and infirm since they are a constant drain on our resources.

We could kill the people with lower IQ's, I mean only the intelligent should benefit from living right?

Oh, then we must also most definitely kill those who look different or think different. I mean, where would we be if people were not like you, or disagreed with you, and these people were allowed to keep on breathing.

Where do you draw the line??

Once the value of life is removed, the only limitations are those placed by those in control.

A man named Hitler went this route. His reasoning was to control what he saw as overpopulation by those who were detrimental to his view of society.

As for discussion, there is none. I am absolute in my values of innocent life, and there is no argument you or anyone else out there will ever be able to bring to me that will sway my opinion on this.

Especially since almost every single person out there who supports the so-called “Choice” of a woman to kill their children are some of the most self-centered selfish people in our day and age.

They believe in the “do it if it feels good and go on living without any consequence” mentality.

I believe in moral absolutes. Some things are unbending, unchanging. This does not matter whether you agree or disagree it is just simple fact.

Some times there is NO SHADE of GREY, just simple black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. This is one of those things.

Read more >>

'Gay' curriculum challenges students' faith

'Does your religion encourage choice or reinforce gender expectations?'

By Drew Zahn

A homosexual advocacy initiative claims that over 250 California schools have registered to show their students a curriculum of films that encourages teens to rethink their sexuality, society and even religion.

The curriculum includes videos made by a San Francisco group calling itself "the best in LGBT media," and includes a clip in which a boy "comes out" by wearing his mother's bikini and another that uses Native American spirituality to depict bisexual individuals as "two-spirit" people.

The accompanying discussion guides also encourage students to evaluate their religious traditions based on whether they encourage "choice" in sexuality or "reinforce gender expectations."

The program, called "Youth in Motion: Empowering students through LGBTQ film," is a joint effort between the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and Frameline, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender media arts.

"Our goal is to give student activists and teachers new tools to educate their peers about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender history and culture (and have fun doing it!)," states the curriculum's website.

The curriculum comes in several packages designed for middle and high school students, including "Gender Matters," which encourages children to think of sexuality outside the male/female dichotomy, and "In the Family," which takes a critical slant on traditional marriage laws.

Each of the curriculum packages includes videos, discussion guides and action points for classroom use – some of which are certain to raise eyebrows:

The "Gender Matters" package, for example, includes a film called "Two-Spirit People," which teaches teens that some Native American religions honor individuals who "embody feminine and masculine qualities" as "a third gender, beyond man and woman," capable of being "a conduit between the physical and spiritual world."

"Does your culture, religion or family have any similar coming-of-age rites of passage (quinceañera, bat/bar mitzvah, prom)?" the discussion guide asks. "Do these cultural events encourage gender choice or reinforce gender expectations?"

In the "In the Family" curriculum, students are invited to create coloring books for even younger children based on what they've learned from the videos. The curriculum holds up "Girls Will Be Boys Will Be Girls" as "a cool example of a fabulous gender coloring book."

One group keeping a close eye on how this curriculum will be used is the Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties.

Brad Dacus, PJI's president, told Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.com, "These pro-homosexual 'tolerance' films, shown to children as young as 12 years old in the seventh grade are a clear breach of parental trust."

PJI is encouraging concerned parents to stay informed and to ask their school districts if the films will be shown.

Apparently, PJI's warning stems from the reality that the videos can legally be shown in California schools without informing the parents.

"School districts in California cannot require parental consent for films that include mention of LGBT people or issues," the curriculum's website boasts, "only instruction or materials that explicitly mentions human reproductive organs and their functions fall under consent laws for sex education."

In a statement, however, PJI reminded parents that discover the films are scheduled to be discussed in their children's schools that they have the ability to have their children excused from the discussion.

Furthermore, Dacus said in the statement, "PJI will continue to investigate whether any opt-out laws are being violated by the showing of these films. Any parents whose opt-out requests are denied by their child's school should contact PJI immediately."

Read more >>

'American training will be utilized to kill Jews'

Muslim gunmen issue dire warning during sit-down interview with WND

By Aaron Klein

NORTHERN WEST BANK – Training received at current American-run courses for Palestinian militia men will likely be utilized in the not too distant future to kill Israelis, U.S.-trained Palestinian gunmen told WND in an exclusive, in-person interview this week.

WND met seven members of the Palestinian Authority security forces who recently received training at U.S.-run bases as part of a stated effort to reform the PA's militias. All seven of the interview subjects formerly were leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group; some are suspected of still being involved with Brigades activities. They were all granted amnesty by Israel as part of a gesture to bolster PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization against Hamas.

The meeting took place at a restaurant in a northern West Bank city that had been known as one of several major strongholds of the Brigades, the declared military wing of Fatah responsible for scores of suicide bombings and deadly shootings against Israeli civilians.

The pardoned gunmen agreed to speak on condition their names be withheld and that WND does not print the name of the city in which the meeting took place, citing concerns over their current jobs in the PA's U.S.-backed security forces.

Some of the men present are notorious Brigades members.

Asked immediately why they agreed to be interviewed, one former Brigades leader replied, "Because we know people call us Dayton's poodles, and we want everyone to know that in the next intifada we will be the leaders."

"All the trainings we received from Dayton and company will not affect our loyalty to our people and the resistance," said the former Brigades leader.

The others present concurred.

The gunman was referring to Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator to the Palestinian territories who has been overseeing the training of Palestinian militias.

Since the late 1990s, the U.S. has run training bases for PA militias. The U.S. also has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid and weapons to build up the PA militias.

The past two years, the U.S. stepped up its efforts at training the PA, running more advanced courses guided by Dayton, who in 2007 initiated an advanced program for Palestinian police that trains 500 to 600 cadets at a time at the American bases.

The U.S. currently operates training bases for the PA police and other militias, such as Force 17 and the Preventative Security Services in the West Bank city of Jericho and also at U.S.-operated bases in the Jordanian village of Giftlik.

Historically, many members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist organization have served openly in the various PA militias, including in top positions. Starting in 2007, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert granted pardons for hundreds of Brigades members who were then folded into the PA's various militias full-time.

WND reported two weeks ago Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has quietly continued the controversial practice of granting amnesty to Brigades terrorists despite the dismal track record under Olmert, when many of the pardoned Brigades members continued their involvement in anti-Israel terrorism after they received amnesty.

Speaking to WND, the Palestinian militia members were open about using their U.S.-training against Israel.

"We want a Palestinian state either through negotiations or through resistance," said one of the seven gunmen interviewed. "The minute we see the negotiations with Israel are in vain, we will lead the confrontation just like we led it in the last intifada."

Indeed, in that intifada, started after the Palestinians rejected an offer of a state in the summer of 2000, Fatah was responsible for far more terrorism than any other Palestinian group.

"Fatah was the leader of the revolution and will be the leader of any struggle against the occupation," another Fatah interview subject told WND.

"We cannot accept Dayton like we are garbage," he continued. "No, we are Palestinian patriots. What we received from Dayton, we will use when the day comes for a confrontation."

Even Dayton reportedly recently implied his training may be used against Israel.

Speaking at a May symposium organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Nation magazine quoted Dayton warning that if a Palestinian state is not created within two years, his Palestinian troops might not continue taking orders.

"With big expectations, come big risks," said Dayton. "There is perhaps a two-year shelf life on being told that you're creating a state, when you're not."

Robert Dreyfuss, the Nation blogger who was present for the speech, wrote, "To my ears, at least, his subtle warning is that if concrete progress isn't made toward a Palestinian state, the very troops Dayton is assembling could rebel."

Terrorist: 'U.S. training helped us kill Jews'

Already, basic U.S. training provided during the 1990s helped kill Israelis, according to a Fatah militant interviewed by WND in 2007. Current U.S. training is far more advanced, and, if turned against Israel, may result in higher casualties.

Abu Yousuf, a senior officer of Abbas' Force 17 Presidential Guard unit in Ramallah, described to WND in 2007 how his U.S. training helped him kill Israelis.

"I do not think that the operations of the Palestinian resistance would have been so successful and would have killed more than 1,000 Israelis since 2000 and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without these [American] trainings," said Yousuf.

Yousuf received U.S. training in Jericho in 1999 as a member of the Preventative Security Services. He is a Brigades chief in Ramallah, where he is accused of participating in anti-Israel terrorism, including recent shootings, attacks against Israeli forces operating in the city and a shooting attack in northern Samaria in December 2000 that killed Benyamin Kahane, leader of the ultranationalist Kahane Chai organization.

After the Kahane murder, Yousuf was extended refuge by Yasser Arafat to live in the late PLO leader's Ramallah compound, widely known as the Muqata. Yousuf still lives in the compound.

Olmert, while in office last year, granted Yousuf amnesty.

Speaking during a sit-down exclusive interview for the book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Yousuf said his American training sessions were instrumental in killing Jews:

"All the methods and techniques that we studied in these trainings, we applied them against the Israelis," he said.

"We sniped at Israeli settlers and soldiers. We broke into settlements and Israeli army bases and posts. We collected information on the movements of soldiers and settlers. We collected information about the best timing to infiltrate our bombers inside Israel. We used weapons and we produced explosives, and of course the trainings we received from the Americans and the Europeans were a great help to the resistance."

Yousuf described his U.S.-provided training.

"I myself received American trainings in Jericho. Together with my Preventative comrades, I received trainings in intelligence methods and military trainings," he said. "In the intelligence part, we learned collection of information regarding suspected persons, how to follow suspected guys, how to infiltrate organizations and penetrate cells of groups that we were working on and how to prevent attacks and to steal in places.

"On the military level, we received trainings on the use of weapons, all kind of weapons and explosives," Yousuf said. "We received sniping trainings, work of special units especially as part of what they call the fight against terror. We learned how to put siege, how to break into places where our enemies closed themselves in, how to oppress protest movements, demonstrations and other activities of opposition.

"We also learned to discover agents that Israel tried to plant in our cells," he said.

Yousuf stressed he "isn't talking about U.S. training in order to irritate the Americans or the Israelis and not in order to create provocations."

"I'm just telling you the truth," he said. "We applied against Israel all that we learned from the Americans."

Read more >>

Senate Finance Dem: Health Care Bill Text Is 'Gibberish,' 'Incomprehensible,' 'One of the More Confusing Things I've Ever Read'...

(CNSNews.com) Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told Nicholas Ballasy that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told Nicholas Ballasy.

Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible."   He likened it to the "gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.

Sometime in the wee hours of this morning, according to the Associated Press, the Finance Committee finished work on its health-care bill.  "It was past 2 a.m. in the East--and Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance--when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all sections of the legislation," said the AP.

Thus far, however, the committee has not produced the actual legislative text of the bill. Instead the senators have been working with “conceptual language”—or what some committee members call a “plain English” summary or description of the bill.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told Nicholas Ballasy on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard practice in working with a “plain language description” of the bill rather than an actual legislative text.

“It’s not just conceptual, it’s a plain language description of the various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for consideration,” said Bingaman.

But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who also serves on the committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.

“The conceptual language is not good enough,” said Cornyn. “We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.”

Carper said he would "probably" read the "plain English version" of the bill as opposed to the actual text.

In a Thursday afternoon interview outside the hearing room where the Finance Committee was debating the final amendments to the still-unseen bill, Carper explained why he believes it would be useless for both members of the public and members of the Senate to read the bill’s actual text.

Committee members did not have a “clue,” he said, when one senator recently read them an example of some actual legislative language. When you look at the legislative language, he said, “it really doesn’t make much sense.”

“When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about,” said Carper. “So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’--and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense.”

Carper questioned whether anybody could read the actual legislative text and credibly claim to understand it.

If this bill became law, it would mandate dramatic changes in the U.S. health care system.

“So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that,” said Carper. “The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”

Carper compared the full legislative language of the bill to credit card disclosure documents that he described as “gibberish,” meaning that “you can’t read it and really know what it says.” 

When asked if Republican members of the committee should have a chance to read the full text of the bill if they believe they are capable of understanding it, Carper suggested Republicans would only pretend to understand the bill when in fact they would not understand it.

“They might say that they’re reading it.  They might say that they’re understanding it,” said Carper. “But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand.”

Carper said if Americans were given the chance to read the actual text of the bill he believes they would decide that it made little sense for either them—or members of Congress—to read such texts because of the difficulty in understanding them.

“I think if people had the chance to read that they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language,” said Carper. “It’s just hard to decipher what it really means.”

Here is a full transcript of the Nicholas Ballasy interview with Sen. Tom Carper (D.-Del.):

Nicholas Ballasy: I wanted to ask you if you plan, if you’re going, to read the entire actual text of the health care bill before the committee votes on it. 

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.): I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. We, we write in this committee and legislate with plain English and I think most of us can understand most of that. When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about. So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’--and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense. So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that. The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Ballasy: Do you think--

Carper: But that’s a very good question and I’m glad you asked it, Nicholas.

Ballasy: Do you think Republicans on the committee should be able to read the entire full actual text of the bill?

Carper: I, I--They might say that they’re reading it.  They might say that they’re understanding it. But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand. 

Ballasy: And the American people as well--

Carper: I use it to like, for example, credit card disclosures. If you actually read the stuff, you say, you read it and say, like dozens of pages: ‘What does this say?’ And this is one of the reasons why we’ve directed, among others, banks to use plain, plain language, plain English to explain what they’re doing, so that the gibberish, you can’t read it and really know what it says. 

Ballasy: The American people--do you think they should be able to read the bill online? Some have called for the bill to be online for at least 72 hours. Do you think they should be able to read the entire full actual text?

Carper: If people who work here on a daily basis and work with the legislation and shape the legislation--You know, we are pretty good at understanding the plain English version of the legislation. I think that should be certainly online and made available. The idea of folks--and what we’re, I think we’re doing, on my website is actually giving people an example of what legislative language looks like and how incomprehensible it can be.  And I think if people had the chance to read that they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language. It’s just hard to decipher what it really means. 

Ballasy: Last question for you. If members on the committee, whether it’s Republican or Democrat, want to read the legislative language--if they feel they can understand it--will that language be available? Do you know where that language is? Have you seen any of the language or the full actual text?

Carper: In the time that I’ve spent here, I’ve seen plenty of legislative language and I know more often than not it’s almost incomprehensible as to what it means. Because what you do is you take certain language and you insert it in other parts of the law, other parts of the bill, and it frankly almost defies comprehension in many instances. Why that is a value and why someone should need to read that, or feel the need--I don’t understand. The idea, is actually like, say, I get my credit card disclosure and I have a one or two page summary written in plain English and then I have like 40 or 50 pages written by an attorney or a bunch of attorneys that is almost impossible to understand--Why you would insist on reading the stuff that’s incomprehensible as opposed to the plain English language that’s ordered by law so that people can understand it, that’s beyond me.

Read more >>

THE EGO HAS LANDED WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND

* Overnight dash to Copenhagen fails

* Setback to Chicago, Obama's hometown

* Obama was flying home to Washington when he got the news

By Steve Holland

U.S. President Barack Obama's politically risky Olympics gamble failed to bring home the gold on Friday, with the Olympics committee's refusal to grant the 2016 Summer Games to his hometown Chicago.

The president, whose even-tempered personality has earned him the nickname "No Drama Obama," broke from that mold to make an overnight dash from Washington to Copenhagen to personally lobby for Chicago.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, had taken their star power to the Danish capital to make Chicago's case, ignoring the carping from Republican opponents who charged it was a bad time to go with foreign policy challenges in Iran and Afghanistan and the U.S. Congress bogged down in a domestic healthcare debate.

"I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America," Michelle Obama told committee members.

Her husband said, "If you do, if we walk this path together, then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud."

All that was for naught as Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting, a decision that brought gasps from the Chicago contingent at the Copenhagen meeting.

The Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, was unsparing in his criticism in a statement issued before the decision was announced and on a day when the U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.8 percent, a 26-year high.

"As President Obama travels to Copenhagen to bring the Summer Olympics to his hometown seven years from now, Americans back home are increasingly concerned they won't have a job seven months from now as they see more and more of their neighbors and friends lose jobs today," Steele said.

BAD NEWS

Obama had originally planned not to go but changed his mind when it was clear that other leaders wanting their countries to host the 2016 Games would be there.

The Democratic president got the bad news as Air Force One flew him back to Washington, where just about every move he makes goes under a partisan microscope.

While more Republican criticism was likely, it was unclear whether the failure would have a lasting impact on Obama's political image. His job approval rating has stabilized at slightly above 50 percent after dropping about 10 points over the summer. 

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said he believed the issue would not linger.

"It's a classic political hullabaloo that will fade quickly," he said. "I think it actually points up a problem the Republicans are having, which is focusing the unhappiness and disagreement they have with Obama. In politics you have to be able to complain about the right things."

‘Pandemonium Here in the Broadcast Center’: Chicago Loses Olympics Bid

Read more >>

Unlawful Immigration and a Jammed Judiciary

By Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.  

Yet another manifestation of the troublesome impact the inundation of unlawful immigrants, mostly crossing the Mexican Border, now is felt by our Federal Judiciary.  The negative impact, of course, not only inundates Federal Judges and their staffs but also United States Attorneys and their entire prosecutorial staffs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, litigants before the affected Courts - and many businesses and citizens situate in the bordering States of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, particularly Arizona and Texas.

Statistics reveal some of the growing, and very dangerous, trouble.  Here are only a few.

United States Border Patrol agents cover about two-thirds of the huge geographic area constituting the State of Arizona.  Illegal drugs are smuggled over, under and around the southwest portion of the Border to the point at which the quantum is estimated to be a majority of all drugs smuggled into the United States of America.  In the first half of this year more than 1.2 million pounds of marijuana were seized.  During the same six months felony - not misdemeanor but felony - prosecutions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona increased 42%.  The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, also covering part of the Border, is expected to have 3,800 criminal cases this year; there were 400 in 1994. 

The Mexican Border is about 2,000 miles long.  All kinds of unlawful, often very dangerous, people and instruments of destruction - explosives, for example - manage to sneak into our country.  Their crimes often are committed far away from the Border.  The fence, counting both vehicular and pedestrian, covers less than one-third of the Border.  It is evaluated as very valuable even though by tunneling and otherwise criminals to some extent surmount it.  Many experts believe it should be vastly extended.

Two means of attempting to curtail illegal entry are very different from a fence.  One is sniffer dogs.   (That reminds me of one of my favorite cartoons.   An irritated dog looks up at a human being.  The dog thinks: “No, I can’t speak words but I can smell smells you didn’t even know existed.”) The other is technology.  A technology example:   A truck with a portable x-ray can drive beside an incoming vehicle and often detect spaces in the vehicle in which are hidden illegal immigrants, narcotics and/or explosives.

So much for some examples.  No wonder it is that the United States District Courts for the Western District of Texas and for the District of Arizona are inundated.   No wonder also it is that no one accurately can count the number of unlawful immigrants in this country although there appears to be general agreement that there are at least 11 million.

If one can stand reading more misery on this subject, this commentary has addressed it on June 25, May 26 and March 5, 2009; June 24 and April 9, 2008; each available on the Free Congress Foundation website, www.freecongress.org.

Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.

Read more >>

Outrageous !!! Clinton Issues Holiday Greetings to Muslims, not Jews

by Ray Gano

Both Jews and Muslims celebrated holidays in September 2009. However, the United States Consulate in Jerusalem - America's representative in Israel's capital - chose to focus entirely on Islam this year, while ignoring the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur completely.

The consulate's website features Eid IL-Fitr greetings from U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Consul General Daniel Rubinstein. Its staff was involved in Ramadan celebrations in Jenin and Shechem, and hosted a meal in Jericho for the Muslim holiday of Iftar.

Clinton's greeting was published on September 19 - the first day of Rosh Hashanah. However, no mention was made of the Jewish holiday.

All three holiday wishes from American leaders to Muslims were apolitical, and focused on messages such as "personal reflection" and "charity." In contrast, President Obama's Rosh Hashanah greeting, which is not on the site, included a brief promotion of his Israel-Palestinian Authority peace plan.

Snub Follows Admission that Consulate Caters to PA

The High Holidays snub follows an admission in August that the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem views itself as America's representative to the PA, while the embassy in Tel Aviv is seen as the representative to Israel. Consulate staff explained that they are "the principal representation to the Palestinian Authority" in an email to a Jewish American concerned by the lack of balance in consulate events.

The admission angered many American citizens in Israel. America's apparent recognition of the PA's claim to rights in Jerusalem was seen as a slap in the face, particularly because America takes care not to recognize Israeli rights in the capital city despite more than 40 years of Israeli sovereignty in the greater Jerusalem area.

The U.S. Has repeatedly declined to move its embassy to Jerusalem, the seat of Israel's government, and American citizens born in Jerusalem are not registered as having been born in Israel.

Embassy Ignores Judaism as Well

While admitting that U.S. Representatives in Jerusalem cater to the PA, consulate staff defended that decision by pointing to the Tel Aviv embassy as the existing representative to Israel.

However, the Tel Aviv embassy website provides no mention of the major Jewish holidays in September and October, and the only mention of any fall holidays, Jewish or Muslim, comes in the form of a video from a dinner hosted at the Ambassador's residence in celebration of Iftar.

But that is not all...

New Report Warns Demographic Changes in the U.S. 'Could Leave Israel Without an Ally'

Israel's military has been bracing for the prospect of a significant reduction in U.S. Assistance.

In an analysis in the Israel military's monthly Maarachot, a senior officer warned that the United States could withhold aid to the Jewish state during a regional war, including that which would involve Iran.

The officer, Lt. Col. Robi Sandman, pointed to U.S. Demographic changes, particularly a rapidly shrinking Jewish community and the rise of minority groups. "This trend will continue to get worse, due to assimilation and the fast rise of other minorities such as the Hispanics, which amount to 30 million today in the United States," Sandman wrote.

The article, which has reflected military assessments in 2009, was awarded a prize for excellence by Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. Sandman said the next few years "could leave Israel without an ally." In 2009, Israel received about $2.4 billion in U.S. Military aid. But the Obama administration has refused to announce a single weapons deal or export delivery to Israel.

The military has been discussing scenarios of a Middle East war in which Washington would refuse to directly help Israel. The scenarios have been examined amid the administration of President Barack Obama, who has refused to approve most of Israel's weapons requests in 2009.

The report urged the Israeli military to focus on intensified training and other programs with the United States. Sandman said the two countries should hold exercises that would facilitate U.S. Military intervention in a Middle East war, and that Israel should expand U.S. Military stockpiles in the Jewish state.

"This type of support will be important one day in an emergency, but could also serve as a deterrent for enemies when planning an attack," Sandman said.

The report came in wake of a series of consultations between the military's General Staff and the Defense Ministry over the prospect of a U.S. Arms embargo on Israel. During the meetings, the military and Defense Ministry explored alternative suppliers should the Obama administration continue to reject Israeli weapons requests.

Sandman said Israel must restructure its military to prepare for a regional war, including an invasion by the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah and Syria. Based on interviews with 24 senior defense officials, Sandman asserted that Hizbullah performed better than the Israeli military during the war in Lebanon in 2006.

Hizbullah's strengths were said to have been in intelligence and organization.

"We need to recognize that the army with its current structure cannot provide a response to the unbelievably well-equipped force that is rising to destroy the state of Israel," Sandman said.

Read more >>

ISN'T IT FUNNY: LETTERMAN SAYS HE SLEPT WITH STAFFERS...

You know what's creepy? Telling a story about having sex with your employees to people who LAUGH and APPLAUD

Wow.

I don't know where to begin with David Letterman's bizarro, play-it-for-laughs on-air admission that he had sex with staff members.

On the one hand, good for him for telling a fairly unvarnished account of being blackmailed by a Connecticut man for $2 million and admitting to the "creepy things," as Dave kept putting it, the blackmailer was threatening to take public.

On the other hand: Couldn't somebody have gone out between the first and second act and said, "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Letterman is about to talk about something very difficult and though you might be tempted to laugh, please don't."

Instead, Letterman (whether by accident or design) wound up playing the story for laughs, and even drew applause with his admission that he'd had affairs with employees. Here are the highlights...

After a monologue that included more than one Roman Polanski joke -- which I found odd given my knowledge of what was coming -- act two began with Dave, who was clearly enjoying his audience, saying "I'm glad you folks are here tonight and in such a good mood ..... Do you feel like a story?" (Crowd: Yeahh!!)

So he starts talking about finding the package in the back of his car at 6 a.m. and the note, which read, "I know that you do some terrible, terrible things." Laughter. "A guy is going to write a screenplay about me ... unless I give him some money. ... That's a little hinky!" More laughter.

You can tell Letterman is trying to ratchet up the gravity. He uses the word "terrifying" to describe his response to this extortion letter. Later on he says, "This whole thing has been quite scary." But for every one of those statements there's one like this: "If you know anything about me, I am just a towering mass of Lutheran midwestern guilt." Of course, the crowd laughs. It sounds funny.

The first tipoff to the audience should have been Dave's statement, "This guy knows creepy stuff about me" --not "this guy thinks he knows creepy stuff about me."

And then finally, after telling the audience that the suspect, now ID's as Robert Halderman, had been arrested, applause, finally Dave reveals the allegation in the screenplay: that "I have had sex with women who worked for me on the show." And....?

"My response to that is, yes, I have," said Letterman. At this admission, the audience laughs and then rolls into applause.

If this was the reaction of most of Dave's audience at home, then he's home free.

If it wasn't, he's got a lot of damage control to do. Click to hear my reaction on the radio tonight.

I'm sure over time, the blackmailer will merge in my memory with the would-be babynapper and the schizophrenic stalker as evidence that David Letterman is some kind of magnet for seriously disturbed people -- the "King of Comedy" as well as of late night.

But right now, this night stands out as singularly icky in the annals of David Letterman. And I don't think that feeling's going to fade anytime soon.

For one thing, as employees of Worldwide Pants (!), the females who had sex with Dave work or worked for Dave. So there's potentially a power issue involved, as anyone who's been in an unfortunate liaison with their boss already knows. Hello! Summer of 2008!

It will be interesting to hear the reaction of his west coast colleague, Craig Ferguson, who's probably the most female-friendly late night host of the bunch.

Read more >>

'Hammer and sickle' Obama billboard draws attention...

BLUE SPRINGS, Mo. -- Drivers on Interstate 70 can barely see the billboard but once they do the message has been gaining attention.

The billboard is located along I-70 between the Adams Dairy Parkway and the Grain Valley exits. The billboard reads, "How do you like your change now? Obama Nation. They are coming for you! The Taxpayer. First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy. Live free or Die." There is also a hammer and sickle on the sign.

People said they might not agree with the sentiment of the sign, but they felt it was a matter of free speech. Others that KCTV5 talked to said it is offensive and should come down.

A pastor who drives by the sign during his daily commute to his church said he lived in England for years and he agreed with the message.

"We lived in a socialist society and I guess what I am seeing in America is that we are pushing to some of those ways now," he said. "Especially the hospitalization. It's taken away some of our freedoms as Americans."

KCTV5 could not reach the owner of the billboard. The mayor of Blue Springs said his office has gotten calls and e-mails about the sign.

Read more >>

CBS News worker arrested in Letterman blackmail plot

A CBS News employee is accused of trying to extort $2 million from David Letterman, forcing the late-night host to admit in an extraordinary monologue before millions of viewers that he had sexual relationships with female employees.

Letterman said that "this whole thing has been quite scary." But he mixed in jokes while outlining what had happened to him, seeming to confuse a laughing audience at Thursday's taping about whether the story was true.

The network said the person who was arrested works on the true-crime show "48 Hours" and has been suspended. A person with knowledge of the investigation said the suspect is Robert J. Halderman. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because authorities have not released the suspect's name.

A "48 Hours" producer named Joe Halderman was part of a team nominated for an Emmy for outstanding continuing coverage of a news story in a news magazine in 2008. Two numbers listed for Halderman were disconnected, and a message left at a third number was not immediately returned Thursday.

Letterman's "Late Show" audience was the first to hear the story, which came as a shock since the 62-year-old Letterman had married longtime girlfriend Regina Lasko in March. The couple began dating in 1986 and have a son, Harry, born in November 2003. Fatherhood and his heart surgery in 2000 had seemed to mellow Letterman, who took over as the most popular late-night comedy host this summer after NBC replaced Jay Leno with Conan O'Brien on the "Tonight" show.

Letterman sat behind his desk to outline the scheme after a monologue that targeted some frequent foils like Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney.

Three weeks ago, Letterman said, he got in his car early in the morning and found a package with a letter saying, "I know that you do some terrible, terrible things and that I can prove that you do some terrible things." He acknowledged the letter contained proof.

He said it was terrifying "because there's something insidious about (it). Is he standing down there? Is he hiding under the car? Am I going to get a tap on the shoulder?"

Letterman said he called his lawyer to set up a meeting with the man, who threatened to write a screenplay and a book about Letterman unless he was given money. There were two subsequent meetings, with the man given a phony $2 million check at the last one. Letterman joked it was like the giant ceremonial check given to winners of golf tournaments.

He told the audience that he had to testify before a grand jury on Thursday.

"I was worried for myself, I was worried for my family," he said. "I felt menaced by this, and I had to tell them all of the creepy things that I had done."

He said "the creepy stuff was that I have had sex with women who work for me on this show. My response to that is yes, I have. Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Yes, it would, especially for the women."

Whether they wanted to make the relationships public was up to them, he said.

"It's been a very bizarre experience," he said. "I felt like I needed to protect these people. I need to protect my family. I need to protect myself. Hope to protect my job."

CBS said in a statement that "we believe his comments speak for themselves."

Perhaps as a defense mechanism, Letterman sprinkled his remarks with jokes: "I know what you're saying," he said. "I'll be darned, Dave had sex."

He said he wouldn't talk further about it, and recited a Top Ten list. But it wasn't far from his mind. During banter with actor guest Woody Harrelson, Letterman said, "I've got my own problems."

It was not immediately clear when the relationships took place or how long they lasted. Letterman's "Late Show" has been on the air since 1993. Before that, "Late Night with David Letterman" aired on NBC from 1982 to 1993.

Letterman won't be taping a show Friday. Friday night's show was taped Thursday.

Alicia Maxey Greene, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney's office, declined to comment.

It's the second set of embarrassing headlines for Letterman in four months. In June, he apologized to Palin for making a crude joke about the former Republican vice presidential candidate's 14-year-old daughter. Although there was a small "fire Letterman" demonstration outside of his studio later, CBS stood by its late-night star.

Last fall Letterman sharply denounced Palin's running mate, John McCain, for abruptly canceling a "Late Show" appearance. Weeks of withering jokes by Letterman eventually forced McCain to come on the show and beg for forgiveness.

Letterman was also the victim of a 2005 plot by a former painter on his Montana ranch to kidnap his nanny and son for a $5 million ransom. The former painter, Kelly A. Frank, briefly escaped from prison in 2007 before being recaptured.

Another alleged extortion scandal surrounding a public figure, Louisville men's basketball coach Rick Pitino, similarly forced him this summer to acknowledge an affair.

Read more >>

Obama's French Lesson

"President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing." -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

WASHINGTON -- When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the U.N., that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Washington Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia ... what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority -- and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports The New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."

Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports The Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world."

He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without (nuclear weapons).' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite."

Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacre bleu, he's sitting on Qom!"

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama's fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can ... dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did.

Read more >>

Maine fines Christian group for criticizing Islam

Christian organization files lawsuit to challenge censorship

A Christian organization in Maine has filed a lawsuit to challenge a bureaucratic decision to impose a $4,000 fine for its "criticism" of Islam, expressed in a mailing to supporters.

The action was taken on behalf of the Christian Action Network by Liberty Counsel, where founder Mathew Staver said the state is out of line.

"The chief purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from licensing the press," Staver said. "Citizens do not need permission to petition government officials or to protest government policies."

The issue developed following a Christian Action Network fundraising letter several months ago. The letter exposed "how some public schools were promoting Islalm by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran," according to the complaint against the state.

"The letter pointed out that some schools have provided a 'prayer room' for Muslims and one textbook that told seventh grade students they 'will become Muslim.' The letter listed Gov. John Baldacci as a person who is over the public schools and someone to whom the recipients of the letter should voice their opinion," the complaint said.

State officials then alleged the letter contained "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message" and used the governor's name without his permission and canceled the group's registration, imposed a $4,000 fine and said it no longer could send out letters.

That came at the same time the state was asked to renew the business license for CAN, and deposited and cashed the check for that process.

This week, the lawsuit was filed because of the free speech challenges and censorship.

"The state of Maine has no business licensing one viewpoint on controversial issues and cannot deny speech because some bureaucrat deems it 'anti-Muslim,'" said Staver.

Christian Action Network officials said the letter was dispatched to expose Islamic advocacy in public schools and ask citizens to sign a petition to their governor opposing the programs.

The accusations then came from the state Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. "The correspondence contained an inflammatory anti-Muslim message," state officials proclaimed.

"How is it illegal to mention a politician's name in a charitable solicitation letter?" said Martin Mawyer, CAN president, in a web posting before the lawsuit was filed. "Are we the only charitable group to mention the governor's name without his written consent? Of course not. So why are we being singled out?

"Clearly this is a case based on selective prosecution using a law that is patently unconstitutional," he said at the time.

He said the motive, however, is clear.

"The state of Maine believes our letter is offensive to Muslims and they want us to shut up or pay up. They are accusing us of 'hate speech' without directly calling it 'hate speech.' They want to set a legal precedent which other states can follow for suppressing free speech they find offensive," he said.

The letter had criticized a decision in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California that affirmed the right of public schools to ask students to dress up as Muslims, wear the Islamic crescent moon and star, chant "Praise be to Allah," learn the five pillars of Islamic belief and cite Muslim prayers.

The letter also cited examples of public schools removing pork from their menus, installing footbaths in tax-funded universities and an attempt in San Diego to separate boys from girls according to Islamic doctrine.

Read more >>

Respecting Religious Belief

By Thomas E. Brewton

The belief in man-made global warming is a secular religious dogma, one which the rest of us should be allowed to respect without being compelled by the secular political state to suffer its disastrous consequences.

With cap-and trade regulation moving again to the top of Congress’s agenda, it’s time to revisit the true nature of the man-made global warming hypothesis.

While not all believers in the hypothesis of man-made global warming are worshippers of secular socialism and salvation through the political state, that hypothesis, as currently hyped by Al Gore, is a product of the secular religion of socialism. 

Socialism’s beginnings are rooted in the scientism of gnostic revelation about the secrets of history’s presumed inevitable course.  Forecasts about the inevitable climate disasters to beset the world within ten years, as Al Gore predicted a year or two ago, are just an extension of that brand of historicism. 

Neither Auguste Comte’s, nor Karl Marx’s predictions about the socialistic course of world history have materialized.  Similarly Al Gore’s predictions have been consistently wide of actual events, and his acolytes’ computer models can’t even conform to what actually happened in the past. 

The Soviet Union, liberal-progressivism’s great hope for perfection of society, was one of history’s most brutal and destructive episodes.  President Obama’s proposed regulation of our economy based upon Al Gore’s prescriptions for global warming will be more of the same.

In the classic gnostic pattern, liberal-progressives see political society as badly aligned, causing all sorts of human misery.  Liberal-progressives are confident that their secret knowledge will enable them to restructure society and to free humanity from the bondage of inequities arising from protection of private property. 

Lawyers will tell you that property is not a thing, but a bundle of rights: rights to use and to dispose of tangible and intangible possessions.  Among those properties, as understood by the delegates who wrote the Constitution in 1787 and as outlined by John Locke in 1689, are the rights to determine for ourselves how we will build our homes, what automobiles we will drive, what forms of energy we will use, and the rights of entrepreneurs to conceive of new technology and to use it to found new businesses that create new jobs for our citizens.

Liberal-progressives, in the name of their special knowledge, propose to abrogate those rights, as they see it, for our own good.  We the ordinary citizens of the United States are too ignorant to make proper choices for ourselves.  As Bill Clinton said about proposed tax reductions, he would be favorably disposed, but people would just use the money for the wrong things.

The hypothesis of man-made global warming in its present-day emanation is a fuzzy, feel-good doctrine used to proselytize young students and ill-informed members of the public.  Under its seemingly beneficent cover, however, is a fist of iron that will crush individual political liberties. 

It is no accident that labor unions, a quintessential excrescence of socialism, strongly support President Obama’s efforts to impose Kyoto-style restrictions on business and individual choice.  Resurgent anti-free-trade protectionism, under the sham of protecting the environment, is a logical implication of the liberal-progressive urge to micro-manage everything and everyone, as well as a political payoff to organized labor.

If Democrat/Socialist Party leaders have their way, the United States will be propelled into relative poverty.  Our standard of living, if regulations to reduce carbon emissions to the extent proposed by President Obama are imposed, will be reduced to less than the standards prevailing when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.  Labor unions then will be positioned to resume medieval guild-style control of all production (much of which will of necessity be hand crafted, if San Francisco liberal-progressives like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi determine the model).  Lucky labor union members will be assured of a monopoly position to limit the numbers of apprentices permitted to work in production of goods, while the public pays for their union luxury in fewer jobs, fewer goods, and higher prices.

There is plenty of evidence that the earth has gone through many climate cycles and that the earth has gradually been warming over millions of years.  That, however, is a far cry from the presumption that humans are powerful enough to usurp God’s Will with respect to climate conditions. It is an equally far cry from handing over our nation’s fate to a socialist elite centered in the UN and the Brussels EU headquarters, an elite who presume themselves powerful enough to control the entire world’s climate.

Unfortunately for believers in this socialist dogma, evidence against it continues to mount.  Its foot of clay is the complete inability of scientistic speculators to make their computer models predict accurately any actual weather behavior.  With global temperatures moving over the past decade in the opposite direction from Al Gore’s predictions, believers are left to secular religious faith alone to sustain them.  This, of course, they are free to do, but that is no warrant for compelling us to degrade our lives and the future for our children and grandchildren to support their secular religious belief.

Socialists have long recognized that their religion, which is resisted strongly wherever political freedom exists to any degree, must be imposed by force, either legislatively or by armies.  Moreover, if socialism is to become the dominant religion in the United States, it must ultimately be imposed universally.  Too many people defect from socialism when they can observe people in other nations living in free-market prosperity.

The Soviet Union’s continual drive to pull nations around the globe into its political and economic orbit was motivated by precisely that recognition.  Lenin and other socialist theorists recognized that the imagined social and economic harmony of socialism could be realized only when the entire world had been converted or conscripted into the socialist religion.

This explains why, to promote the hypothesis of man-made global warming, President Obama and his socialistic confreres continually refer to so-called international law and to their vision of a world government.

Read more >>

Support for Abortion Rights Declines Under Obama

In the largest shift in sentiment since pollsters began asking about the topic in 1995, support for abortion rights dropped from 54 to 47 percent in one year.

Popular support for abortion rights has dropped seven points in the past year due in part to the election of a pro-choice Democratic president, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said Thursday.

In the largest shift in sentiment since pollsters began asking about the topic in 1995, support dropped from 54 to 47 percent in one year. Opposition rose from 40 to 44 percent and the percentage of undecided rose from 6 to 9 percent.

"It's pretty unusual," senior Pew researcher Greg Smith said of the change in public attitudes about abortion rights. "In 2007 and 2008, supporters of abortion clearly outnumbered opponents by a 14-point margin. Now the margin is 3 percent. Basically, they are evenly divided."

Pew's findings square with a similar Gallup Values and Beliefs survey in May that showed more Americans consider themselves to be pro-life (51 percent) than pro-choice (42 percent).

They also square with a Pew survey released in May showing an even larger drop of 8 percentage points - 54 to 46 percent since August 2008 - of abortion rights advocates. The biggest drops in support were among white mainline Protestants and men. Approval among both groups fell by 10 percent.

Although opponents have yet to actually outnumber supporters of abortion rights, the balance of opinion has shifted dramatically across the culture and multiple religious groups ranging from Catholics to Jews, Mr. Smith said.

And the idea of a "common ground" on abortion, a key tenet of the Obama administration, is apparently not resonating with either major political parties or the religiously affiliated and non-affiliated. The most disenchanted with the idea are white evangelical Protestants, whose support for a middle ground dropped 21 percentage points (from 61 percent to 40 percent) since 2006. The one exception is Roman Catholics, whose support for common ground rose 4 points, from 63 to 67 percent.

Pew figures showed that a large number of liberals no longer consider abortion a key issue, whereas conservatives are increasingly more entrenched in their opposition to the nation's annual total of 1.2 million abortions. Fifteen percent of all liberals consider abortion an important issue today, compared with 28 percent in 2005, the survey said.

The survey of 4,013 adults, conducted in August, is one of the first indicators of public sentiment on the Obama administration's first nine months. It has a margin of error of 2 percent.

Pew researchers pinpointed the this past spring as the turning point of public perceptions of the issue.

"There is no one answer that explains the shift," Mr. Smith said. "The election of a Democratic pro-choice president could be a contributing factor."

Although survey results showed a drop in approval of legalized abortion, it also showcased a large swatch of the public that wishes the matter would be laid to rest.

In a question about President Obama's handling of the issue, 42 percent said they didn't know his stance on abortion, "which is consistent with the decline of the importance of this issue for a lot of people," Mr. Smith said.

Of the remainder, 29 percent said the president is handling the issue "about right," 19 percent worry he is supporting abortion too much, and 4 percent say he is not doing enough.

Pew found that support for abortion rights has dropped among Catholics of all stripes, with the biggest decline - 10 points - among white Catholics who attend Mass weekly.

All religious groups on the survey showed sizable drops in abortion rights support. Double-digit drops included Jews (10 percent), white mainline Protestants (10 percent) and white evangelicals who sporadically attend church (12 percent).

Read more >>