Friday, 28 March 2008
California homeschoolers safe...for now

California homeschoolers safe … for now

Education: The state's 2nd District Court of Appeals has approved a petition for a rehearing of last month's controversial decision against homeschooling | Lynn Vincent

A month after ruling homeschooling illegal in California, the 2nd District Court of Appeals has approved a petition for a rehearing, an action that effectively vacates the previous decision that sparked national outrage.

 “Parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey, 75, wrote in a Feb. 28 ruling in Re: Rachel L. The case involves the Long Family of Los Angeles, whose eight children were homeschooled by their mother and were enrolled in Sunland Christian School, an independent study program.

Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) President Brad Dacus called the court’s assent to a rehearing, made public on March 27, “highly unusual.”

“It could be that the court realized it was incorrect on the law and that they wish to write a different opinion … or they could be rehearing it to firm up the existing opinion and make it less vulnerable to challenge,” Dacus said. Other possibilities include the court’s crafting a new decision that avoids the sweeping effect of its original ruling.

That decision cited California law that requires students to be enrolled in a full-time private or public school taught by credentialed teachers. Croskey reaffirmed the credentialing requirement, in effect making criminals of most of the estimated 166,000 Californians now homeschooling their kids.

While other attorneys represent the Longs, PJI is representing Sunland Christian, the 20-year-old institution that was not a party to the case, but has suffered collateral damage. While agreeing with a state social services agency that the quality of education the Long children received at home was insufficient, the Feb. 28 appeals court decision also attacked Sunland’s independent study program as a “ruse” that was complicit in educational neglect. The court, however, had received documentation showing that both county and state education officials had favorably assessed Sunland’s program.

According to PJI, the court’s condemnation of Sunland damaged by extension the credibility of other, similar California homeschooling programs.
**********for remainder, go to ********


COMMENT:  Looks like private education is under fire in Britain.

'Bring private schools under state control', says Britain's biggest teacher's union

Last updated at 12:22pm on 23.03.08

 Add your view

  Private schools should be abolished, the new leader of Britain's biggest teachers' union said yesterday.

Bill Greenshields, president of the National Union of Teachers, said his organisation should support "bringing all schools into the state sector".

"Then we would soon see some urgent improvements in our state system," he told the union's conference in Manchester.


Families 'should take religious test for faith schools'

Nicholas Cecil, Political Correspondent

A simple religious test for families should be introduced to stop church schools "cream-skimming" able pupils, say two academics.

They told MPs the admission policies used by church schools varied significantly, with as many as 10 different criteria used.

Parents were left confused by the system and became involved in a "faith race" to show how devout they were to win a place at a Catholic, Church of England or other religious school.

The academics proposed a national eligibility test, such as having to attend Sunday service at least twice a month over two years and being baptised.

If a school was oversubscribed, other criteria such as how near families lived, siblings at the school or even a lottery could be used.

Professor Anne West, of the London School of Economics, and Rebecca Allen, of the Institute of Education at the University of London, made a joint submission to the Commons children, schools and families committee.

They said: "One way to simplify the admissions process would be to establish a nationally-agreed criterion of 'religious adherence' that families are deemed to have either met or not met.

"Once this is established, religious schools could rely solely on a signature from a religious leader to decide who has priority. This would avoid the need for schools themselves to collect additional background information.

"A policy such as this could remove the means by which covert creamskimming is possible, while simplifying the admissions process for parents."

Research by the academics found church schools in London had a higher proportion of pupils with ability and lower free school meal intakes compared with their neighbourhoods.

Some community schools had 50 per cent more pupils on free school meals than voluntary aided schools in the same area. Communities with more faith schools had more social segregation.

Ms Allen said that overall around 15 per cent of pupils in secondary community schools had free school meals, 13.5 per cent in Catholic schools and 11 per cent in Church of England schools. The Department for Children, Schools and Families said it was down to religious authorities to decide how to judge people's commitment to a faith.

A spokesman said: "Every school has a duty to promote community cohesion and every major faith body has signed up to the school admission code, which outlaws unfair admission practices which lead to social segregation."




Posted on 03/28/2008 12:05 PM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 27 March 2008


Apparently, putting everyone in Medicare (i.e., creating a universal system like Canada's) leads to worse results than having only some people in Medicare (i.e., having a mixed public/private system), says John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

For example, in a National Bureau of Economic Research study, David and June O'Neill draw on a large U.S./Canadian patient survey to show that:

  • The percent of middle-aged Canadian women who have never had a mammogram is double the U.S. rate.
  • The percent of Canadian women who have never had a pap smear is triple the U.S. rate.
  • More than 8 in 10 Canadian men have never had a PSA test, compared with less than half of U.S. men.
  • More than 9 in 10 Canadians have never had a colonoscopy, compared with 7 in 10 in the United States.

These differences in screening may explain why U.S. cancer patients do better than their Canadian counterparts, says Goodman.  For example:

  • The mortality rate for breast cancer is 25 percent higher in Canada.
  • The mortality rate for prostate cancer is 18 percent higher in Canada.
  • The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among Canadian men and women is about 13 percent higher than in the United States.

Amazingly, says Goodman, there are quite a few Canadians who are not being treated for conditions that clearly require a doctor's attention:

  • Among senior citizens, the fraction of Canadians with asthma, hypertension, and diabetes who are not getting care is twice the rate in the United States.
  • The fraction of Canadian seniors with coronary heart disease who are not being treated is nearly three times the U.S. rate.

Source: John Goodman, "Health Care Consumers Know Something Government Planners Don't," The Insider, Winter 2008.

For text:  

For more on Health Issues:

Posted on 03/27/2008 12:03 PM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Study says change possible & New APA Pamphlet

Study says change possible & New APA Pamphlet

COMMENT:  Could it be that the truth is finally making at least some impact in the psychiatric community?  One can only hope and pray.

1. Study suggests gays can change -- but truth faces tough opposition

2.  APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument

1.  Study suggests gays can change -- but truth faces tough opposition
Ed Vitagliano - Guest Columnist - 1/8/2008 1:00:00 AM

A new study concerning the possibility of homosexuals leaving that lifestyle is roiling the waters of debate, challenging the dogma of mental health organizations who insist that homosexuality is immutable.

Organizations like the influential American Psychiatric Association have steadfastly refused to admit the possibility that attempts to change sexual orientation through religious and/or psychological methods can work. In 1999, for example, then-APA President Rodrigo Muñoz, M.D., said: "There is no scientific evidence that reparative or conversion therapy is effective in changing a person's sexual orientation." He added that "there is, however, evidence that this type of therapy can be destructive."

A new study, however, claims to prove just the opposite. Conducted by psychology professors Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University, the study, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, was published in book form and scheduled for an October release.

The authors examined individuals who were attempting to change their sexual orientation by participating in a program run by the religious ministry Exodus International. They said the study was "the most scientifically rigorous study of the possibility of sexual orientation change to date ...."

The results were impressive: 38 percent of the participants in the Exodus program had either embraced "chastity with a reduction in prominence of homosexual desire" or experienced "a diminishing of homosexual attraction and an increase in heterosexual attraction with a resulting satisfactory heterosexual adjustment." According to press reports, another 29 percent had had only partial success in leaving the homosexual lifestyle but were committed to continuing their efforts.

Jones and Yarhouse did not candy coat the struggle of those trying to extricate themselves from homosexuality. "Sexual orientation change is clearly difficult and requires a serious commitment on the part of the person attempting change," they said. "It is likely impossible for some, but clearly seems possible for others."

Perhaps just as importantly, the researchers said they found "little evidence of harm" to those who participated in the process.

Public views shifting

Studies such as that by Jones and Yarhouse are critical for the pro-family movement because it is becoming clear that U.S. public opinion on the matter has been shifting toward a view that embraces homosexuality.

For example, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released in June found that a majority of Americans (56 percent) do not believe that sexual orientation can change. According to, it was the first time a CNN poll had found that a majority felt this way. In fact, in a 2001 poll only 45 percent believed sexual orientation was immutable, and in 1998 the percentage was even lower: 36 percent.

Related to this question was whether or not Americans believed homosexuals were born with that orientation. In the recent CNN poll, 42 percent of respondents said they thought homosexuality was caused by environmental factors (like family and upbringing), while 39 percent said gays and lesbians were born that way.

Even those results, however, have seen dramatic change over the last several decades. said polls in the 1980s revealed that less than 20 percent of Americans thought homosexuals were born with that orientation, and a poll in 1977 found that only 13 percent held that view.

Mental health groups influencing public?

Not surprisingly, groups like the American Psychological Association have seen a hardening in their own position. An article in the NARTH Bulletin, a publication of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, revealed this very thing.

A survey of APA psychologists in 2005, conducted by H. Kilgore et al. and published in the journal Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice and Training, found that since the early 1990s "[t]here has been an increase in the number of psychologists with a gay-affirmative view and approach" with homosexual and bisexual clients.

For example, the Kilgore survey found that 58 percent of psychologists described their approach to counseling as "gay-affirmative," compared to only 5 percent in a 1991 survey. Even more telling: 95 percent of psychologists surveyed by Kilgore said they viewed homosexuality as "acceptable" or "somewhat acceptable." Ten years earlier a similar survey found that only 83 percent answered that way.

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, said the shift in opinion among mental health professionals is probably helping to lead the large shift in public opinion toward acceptance of homosexuality. "When ordinary people continually see and hear and read what many mental health professionals believe -- that gays and lesbians were born that way and that homosexuality cannot be changed -- it's bound to influence the opinion of the average man on the street," he said.

TV changing public opinion

Wildmon said the role of television in changing the public's views should also be recognized. "The pro-homosexual sympathies of the entertainment industry have been well-documented," he said, "and I think the efforts of gay activists to force the acceptance of homosexuality through TV programming has been extremely successful.

***********for remainder, go to**********


APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality
De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports
a Client's Right to Self-Determination

The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known:
that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.

A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH

March 6, 2008 - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.

The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."

Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with "editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns"), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.

Consider the following statement from the first document:


"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:


"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to "prove" that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, and Friedman and Downey, were correct: a bio-psycho-social model best fits the data.

On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding "no." However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."

Of course, no mention is made of the Spitzer research, the Karten research, or the recent longitudinal research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse -- all of which support the conclusion that some people can and do change.

Of the Spitzer research, psychologist Dr. Scott Hershberger (who is a philosophical essentialist on questions of sexual orientation) conducted a Guttman analysis of the study sample, and declared:


"The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one."

The Spitzer study found no evidence of harm. Neither did the Karten study, nor the Jones and Yarhouse study.

Furthermore, one might ask, does the APA plan to conduct studies on the effectiveness of other therapies in use? Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy.

The Right to Self-Determination is Finally Recognized

In APA's new document, there is a greater emphasis on ethicality. The pamphlet includes this key statement:


"Mental health organizations call on their members to respect a person's [client's] right to self-determination."

Certainly, client self-determination is one of the cornerstones of any form of psychological care. And any attempt to ban psychological care for those unhappy with their homosexual attractions would be a direct violation of enormous magnitude of APA's own Code of Ethics -- one which neither the federal/state governments nor the American public would respond to favorably.

Imagine a media headline, "APA Declares That Homosexuals Are Not Competent To Determine Whether Or Not They Can Seek Psychological Care to Change" or "APA Bans Choice of Psychological Care for Homosexuals."

Additions to the new APA brochure also include sections on adolescents, homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexual couples.

Interestingly enough, the section on adolescents contains fairly good information regarding the differences between homosexual attractions, homosexual orientation and homosexual identity (though the terms are not used). There is an admission of the sexual fluidity of adolescence, with different ultimate outcomes for different sexually confused adolescents.

The section on marriage is simply an advocacy statement suggesting that marriage might enhance the stability of homosexual couples.

The discussion on parenting by homosexual couples was noteworthy for its internal contradictions. There is an admission that there is a dearth of scientific data on children raised by same-sex couples, but the authors conclude that there are "few differences." How can the dearth of scientific studies allow anyone to offer such a conclusion?

Finally and most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups.

The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

A significant portion of the new brochure was devoted to the role that prejudice and discrimination plays in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This theme seemed pervasive throughout the document. Homosexual relationships are viewed as no different from heterosexual relationships. There is no acknowledgement of the substantial research that clearly demonstrates that homosexuals are at greater risks for some forms of mental illness (Herrell, Ferguson, Sandfort).

It's unfortunate that APA does not move beyond its single-minded focus on "discrimination and prejudice" to allow honest and open study of GLBT issues. In areas such as homosexuality, political correctness seems to have gone amok. On this front in particular, APA seems to have surrendered its professionalism and its science to political correctness.

Some Say That Truth Doesn't Matter

Consider the following statement made by a prominent member of the American Psychological Association and published by the Harvard University Press: " may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"

Where are the guardians of our professional ethics? Will they really allow such Machiavellian statements to go uncritically examined? Is there an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supports activism masqueraded as science, and states that it is not so bad?

Political correctness would suggest that there will be no response from the APA.
*********for remainder, go to***********


Posted on 03/25/2008 11:59 AM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 21 March 2008
China harasses Christians ahead of Beijing Olympics

China harasses Christians ahead of Beijing Olympics

COMMENT:  As we mark 'Good Friday'  we should remember those around the world who risk their very lives to be faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ. I often wonder if our lives were literally at risk here in this county because of our faith (and some day they may be) how many of us would demonstrate the same kind of courage as we see in some of these countries today and have seen through history as people loved the Lord more than their own lives.

It is not too early to begin to pray for those who will be using the Olympics as an opportunity to bring the message of Christ to China. 

1.  China harasses Christians ahead of Beijing Olympics
2.  Chinese Christians forced into labor camps
3.  U.S. Troops Should Protect Iraqi Christians

1.  China harasses Christians ahead of Beijing Olympics

Posted on Mar 11, 2008 | by Erin Roach

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--With increased frequency, the Chinese government is persecuting house churches and banishing foreign Christians from the country, presumably to squelch voices who might draw attention to the plight of religious minorities in the nation surrounding the Beijing Olympics.

"We seem to be seeing a crackdown ahead of the Olympics. Whether that's to send a message to the church to lay low or whether it is to make sure that anybody who might cause international embarrassment is taken care of ahead of time, I don't know," Todd Nettleton, a spokesman for Voice of the Martyrs, told Baptist Press. "But we do see an increase in the level of arrests, the level of house church services being raided, that sort of activity.

"We also have seen a number of foreigners who are Christians who, when the time came to renew their visa they have been denied a new visa and told that they had to leave the country," Nettleton added. "So it's happening both amongst the house churches of native Chinese people as well as foreign Christians who are living and working in China. They're finding that they're no longer welcome."

Nettleton noted that about 20 percent of China's Christians are part of the official church -- the Three-Self Patriotic Movement or the Catholic version approved by the government -- while the other 80 percent go to unregistered or unofficial churches.

"They don't actually have permission from the government to meet together, so their activities are illegal and they can be arrested, they can serve time in prison, their meetings can be broken up because they don't have that official government seal of approval on their meetings," Nettleton said of the 80 percent.

Nettleton said his best guess for the increase in persecution is that the Chinese government views the Beijing Olympics, scheduled for Aug. 8-24, as sort of a coming out party where the eyes of the world will be on them.

"The Olympics are a huge event, there will be a huge amount of international attention focused on China," he said. "They want to make sure that they put their best foot forward, and having Christians doing some sort of protest or drawing attention to the religious freedom situation there would not be good PR. It would not make a good impression on the visitors from around the world, so they're going to do everything they can to make sure that doesn't happen."

China Aid Association, in its 2007 Persecution Report released in February, said the 60 reported cases of persecution against house churches in China last year was up 30.4 percent from 2006. CAA, a Christian rights defense organization, is based in Texas.

The total number of people persecuted last year was 788, up 18.5 percent from 2006, China Aid said regarding 2007 statistics, and the total number of people arrested and detained was 693, up 6.6 percent. Sixteen people were sentenced to imprisonment, down 5.9 percent, according to China Aid records.

"Besides these figures, two types of cases need special attention: There are 17 cases of physical abuse in the persecution (beating, torture and psychological abuse), up 325 percent from that of 2006, and the number abused was 35, up 400 percent," China Aid said. "The other type is that many foreign Christians also suffered persecution mainly in the form of arrest, interrogation and expulsion from the country. The total number of people in this category is over 100 (84 of them are confirmed), up 833 percent from the year before."

China Aid, in its persecution report, identified four categories of persecution: against house church leaders, against house churches in urban areas, against Christian publications and against foreign Christians and missionaries.

Among the foreign Christians and missionaries who were interrogated and expelled from China, most were from the West and a few were from South Korea and other countries, China Aid said.

"Some of these foreign Christians were not missionaries, but had their own secular professions in China," the report said. "However, as they preached the Christian belief or were associated with local Christians and churches, they were persecuted by the government. This is the largest persecution operation of expelling foreign Christians since the early 1950s when the [Communist Party of China] drove out all of the foreign missionaries."

Nettleton of Voice of the Martyrs said that despite the crackdown he doesn't see a high probability of Western Christians being harassed during the Beijing Olympics.

"I know there are some groups who are specifically going to work on evangelism efforts during the Olympics. I don't know how it will be different from what they did in Athens [in 2004] other than the fact that in China they will need to keep a little lower profile," Nettleton said. "They'll need to be a little more cautious about the nature of their activities, about what they're doing, about drawing attention to themselves.

***********for remainder, go to*********

2.  Chinese Christians forced into labor camps
Posted on Mar 11, 2008 | by Erin Roach

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Persecution against house churches in China last year was up 30.4 percent from 2006, and the total number of people persecuted was up 18.5 percent, according to a report by China Aid Association.

Nearly 700 Christians were arrested and detained in China last year, the Christian rights defense organization based in Texas said, and experts believe the increased harassment is related to the Chinese government exercising its authority ahead of the Beijing Olympics in August.

One of the most significant cases of persecution in China is the imprisonment of Zhang Mingxuan, president of the Chinese house church alliance, who has been arrested, beaten and incarcerated 12 times since his conversion to Christianity in 1986, according to China Aid.

Most recently, Zhang was forced to close an orphanage he had been operating with his two sons, and they were not able to take up residence elsewhere because of landlords being threatened by the government not to house Zhang.

In February, Zhang wrote an open letter to the international community, detailing the hardships and injustices he and others have endured.

"Many church leaders have been imprisoned, forced to work on labor camps, and had their homes searched. The Christians are said to be the enemy of the Communist Party," Zhang wrote in the letter circulated by China Aid. "The small number of corrupt government officials try to grab money by seizing Christians, beating them up, sending them into exile, and harming them in person, in opposition to Hu Jintao's call for building up a 'harmonious society.'

"They label Christianity as a cult and persecute the church and its members by using such excuses as cracking down on illegal gatherings; they beat up Christians, revile them, put them in jail, and send them to labor camps. As of this moment, a large number of Christians are still in prison and education-through-labor centers," Zhang wrote.

In December, 270 house church leaders were arrested in Shandong Province when they gathered for leadership training. After paying fines and finishing detention sentences that lasted from a few days to a few weeks, 249 were released, China Aid reported. The 21 most senior leaders, including 17 men and four women, were sentenced to up to three years in labor camps where they will spend the next three years being "re-educated" for their involvement in an "evil cult."

Bob Fu, China Aid's founder, called on Chinese authorities to release the remaining 21 prisoners and said the international community "will hold the Chinese government accountable for its reluctance to improve its worsening record on religious freedom before the Beijing Olympics."

***********for remainder, go to********


3. U.S. Troops Should Protect Iraqi Christians


AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  March 19, 2008


Bush should tell David Petraeus to use the “surge” of U.S. forces to defend the Christians left in Iraq.


You don’t have to be a member of the far-left to question what has happened in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003. During Holy Week, we should all consider the plight of Iraqi Christians and their possible extinction. This is something we can do something about. We should demand that the White House immediately order U.S. troops in Iraq to protect the remnants of the Christian community.

There were nearly a million Christians in Iraq before the war and about half of them have left the country. Dozens of Christian churches have been attacked, bombed or destroyed and some Christian children have reportedly been crucified by Islamic terrorists. The Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, Paulos Faraj Rahho, was recently kidnapped and murdered. Some Christians left in Iraq don’t go to church for fear of being targeted for death. Some priests don’t wear clerical garb for the same reason. Pope Benedict XVI has pleaded with Bush to do something about the plight of Iraqi Christians.

In another notorious incident, on October 11, 2006, Fr. Paulos Eskandar, a Syrian Orthodox priest, was abducted in Iraq and beheaded. His arms and legs were also hacked off.

Bush should immediately pick up the phone and tell David Petraeus, Commanding General of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, to use the “surge” of U.S. forces to defend the Christians left in that war-torn country. If they cannot for some reason be defended, then let the Christians be escorted by our troops out of Iraq to a place, like Crawford, Texas, where they can begin new lives.

Does Bush want to go down in history as the U.S. President who launched a war that resulted in the destruction of the Christian community in Iraq?

We know, of course that we can’t count on the liberal media to cover this unfolding catastrophe. They are interested in the war as a political issue that can usher the Democrats into power in the White House.

So let’s call on conservative commentators and bloggers to stop their knee-jerk cheerleading for the Iraq War policy long enough to seriously examine how the new and “democratic” Iraq has become a hellhole for Christians.

In a statement about the death of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, Bush sounded tough, saying, “I send my condolences to the Chaldean community and the people of Iraq. I deplore the despicable act of violence committed against the Archbishop. The terrorists will continue to lose in Iraq because they are savage and cruel. Their utter disregard for human life, demonstrated by this murder and by recent suicide attacks against innocent Iraqis in Baghdad and innocent pilgrims celebrating a religious holiday, is turning the Iraqi people against them.

We will continue to work with the Iraqi government to protect and support civilians, irrespective of religious affiliation.”

But what exactly is being done to protect Christians in Iraq?

Rosie Malek-Yonan, an Assyrian Christian who has testified before Congress on this issue, says the Bush Administration has become a “silent accomplice” to an “incipient genocide.” She asks, “Will President Bush have the courage to take off his blinders or will he continue to stumble in the dark until his final day in office?” She suggests that the Bush Administration is failing to deal with this embarrassing disaster because it is afraid of having the United States, a perceived “Christian country,” being accused as “helping one of its own” in a Muslim country.

Is it not tragic that U.S. troops, many of them Christian, are not being specifically deployed to help their fellow believers in Iraq?

In his speech on Wednesday, Bush said that the U.S. is “helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.” But no matter what has been accomplished in Iraq, it is not a democracy that benefits Christians and other religious minorities.

Earlier this year, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom drew attention to a coordinated series of bomb attacks against churches and monasteries in Iraq. It reported, “At least six people were reportedly wounded in seven separate attacks in Baghdad and Mosul as Christians were celebrating Christmas and the Epiphany on Jan. 6; three days later, bombs targeted three churches in Kirkuk. The attacks were the latest to target Iraq’s shrinking non-Muslim population, many of whose members have fled the country in the wake of violence directed against their communities.”

The Commission says that Christians and other non-Muslims in Iraq face “grave conditions” in Iraq in the form of violence from terrorists and “pervasive discrimination and marginalization” at the hands of the national and regional governments and Muslim militia groups.
******for remainder, go to********


Posted on 03/21/2008 11:57 AM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Sue Al Gore for Fraud

Sue Al Gore for Fraud

COMMENT:  Some of you saw the recent articles about indicating that Southern Baptist were now supporting Global Warming.  Please be advised that the folks in this story are in the SBC but DO NOT speak for the Southern Baptist Convention. See articles in this post. For a good resource on the subject, go to
1.  Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

2. Southern Baptist leaders urge climate change action

3. Little substance in Baptists' statement on global warming, says Christian author

 1.  Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

Thursday , March 13, 2008

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Click here to watch video of Coleman on "Fox and Friends."

Coleman says his side of the global warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global warming thing."

Coleman spoke to after his appearance last week at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create.

"You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live your life?" Coleman said. "Come on."

He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports over the weather.

"It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid, up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a significant impact," he said.

"The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product," he said.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument. "Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

Click here for John Coleman's briefs on global warming.,2933,337710,00.html


2. Southern Baptist leaders urge climate change action

But their unofficial call to action has kindled skepticism within the conservative denomination.


Influential Southern Baptist leaders are seeking to move the country's largest Protestant denomination – and one of its more conservative – beyond its skeptical stance on climate change to keep step with a growing 'green' awareness in the evangelical community.

A call to action on the environment, released Monday by 46 pastors and institutional leaders, "challenges Southern Baptists to be more proactive ... more aggressive and more informed," says Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C.

Just last June, the politically and theologically conservative Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) passed a resolution urging Baptists to proceed cautiously in the light of "conflicting scientific research."

But as more Evangelicals become actively engaged in what they call "creation care," concerns are growing that the SBC will be left behind. "Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better," the declaration says.

While it is an unofficial step, the declaration represents "a major step forward," according to David Gushee, a Baptist ethicist at Mercer University in Atlanta.

The initial spark for the action came from a young seminary student, Jonathan Merritt, son of a former SBC president, who pressed his case among a range of leaders. Frank Page, the current SBC president, and some former presidents are among those signing. Other prominent leaders did not, including Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the SBC's public-policy arm.

The commission's role is to promote official SBC positions, Dr. Land said in a statement, and it did not agree with the declaration's language that Southern Baptists have been "too timid." The SBC could have taken a similar environmental stand last June, he said, but "voted 60 to 40 percent" to remove language from its resolution that would have encouraged government initiatives.

*********for remainder, go to**********


3. Little substance in Baptists' statement on global warming, says Christian author

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 3/14/2008 8:00:00 AM

Christian author Dr. Cal Beisner says he's puzzled by a statement recently issued by high-profile Southern Baptist leaders, which declares current evidence of man-made climate change "substantial" and too serious to ignore.


Although the statement is not an official Southern Baptist Convention resolution, it argues the denomination has been "too timid" in addressing climate change and that its "cautious response ... in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless, and ill-informed."
Dr. Beisner, a national spokesman with the
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, argues the document says much less than it claims. "... [The statement] doesn't make any particular claims about the proportion of cause of global warming that is human-induced versus natural," he continues. "It doesn't make any particular claims about the magnitude of the impacts of global warming. It doesn't make any particular claims about what we need to do in response. It's a very strange statement."
The climate initiative was the brainchild of seminary student Jonathan Merritt, who claims he once "was an enemy of the environment." But Beisner says the statement perplexes him because he does not know any evangelical Christians who are enemies of the environment.
"It's especially difficult to [understand that argument] when we are talking about people who live in the United States of America, one of the world's most advanced economies," he comments, "where the very fact that we are so wealthy allows us to use highly developed technologies that greatly protect the environment from the negative impact of human action that occurs in a more low-tech way."

*********for remainder, go to ***********

Posted on 03/20/2008 11:53 AM by Bobbie Patray
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Judges & law enforcement Getting the Message About Illegal Aliens

1.  Judges Getting the Message About Illegal Aliens
2.  3 Imprisoned for hiring illegal immigrants for cleaning firm.

Judges Getting the Message About Illegal Aliens

by Phyllis Schlafly, March 5, 2008

Four children including two brothers were killed, and 12 others were hospitalized with injuries, in Minnesota last week when a van reportedly ignored a stop sign and barreled into a school bus. The driver of the van, who did not speak English or have a valid driver's license, was charged with homicide.


Authorities described the driver as an illegal alien using a phony name. She had pled guilty in 2006 for driving without a license.

For years, courts and lawyers have intimidated towns from protecting themselves against the invasion of illegal aliens. In 2006, Escondido, California backed away from its housing ordinance to curtail leases to illegal aliens and even agreed to pay $90,000 in legal fees to plaintiffs challenging the law.

Last summer, a federal court slapped down an attempt by Hazleton, Pennsylvania to penalize employers and landlords who hire and lease to illegal aliens. Hazleton had been hit by an influx of illegal aliens and victimized by some of their shocking crimes.

But in August, Newark, New Jersey, no stranger to violence, was shaken by the brutal murder of several college-bound teenagers who were harmlessly enjoying music at a playground. The victims were black, and the perpetrator was an illegal alien from Peru who had been previously charged with raping a five-year-old girl but released despite his obvious illegal presence in this country.

Another imported crime is driving too fast the wrong way on highways, with the headlights turned off, in order to escape detection while smuggling drugs or people. Several deadly crashes resulting from this practice have been reported.

The American people's outrage at law violations by illegal aliens was heard loud and clear by the Senate when it defeated the amnesty bill last year. Now, even judges may be getting the message.

In December 2007, a federal judge in Oklahoma upheld an Oklahoma law requiring state contractors to determine and verify the immigration status of new hires. Judge James H. Payne threw out a legal challenge to the law.

Less than two months later, in January 2008, federal Judge E. Richard Webber emphatically ruled against illegal aliens who had sued to overturn a similar ordinance enacted by Valley Park, Missouri, a town near St. Louis. The court upheld the ordinance, which was directed at employers who were hiring illegal aliens.

The third strike against illegal aliens came in February when federal Judge Neil V. Wake rejected each and every argument challenging a new Arizona law that imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. He dismissed the claim that federal law somehow ties the hands of state and local governments seeking to protect their own citizens.

These three decisions in three different parts of the country included both Republican and Democratic-appointed judges. In the term loved by the mainstream media, there is now bipartisan judicial support for state and local legislation against illegal aliens.

Law Professor Kris Kobach says these decisions give "a green light to other communities" seeking to pass similar ordinances.

The mayor of Hazleton, Lou Barletta, vigorously supported his city's ordinance cracking down on illegal aliens. Despite being vilified by liberal Pennsylvania newspapers, he won nearly 95 percent of the vote in his Republican primary for reelection last year.

But that wasn't all! In the same election, he also won the Democratic nomination on a write-in vote, defeating the leading candidate in the Democratic primary by a stunning 2-to-1 margin.

In the Arizona case, the court noted the research of Harvard economist George Borjas, who concluded that hiring illegal aliens depresses wages for legal workers because the illegals accept lower pay without benefits. Those hardest hit are uneducated legal workers, who lost $1.4 billion in 2006 in the form of lower wages in Arizona alone.

The nine months between now and the November election give states, cities and towns ample time to do what Congress has failed to do: protect us against the lawless entry of illegal aliens. That means penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens and landlords who lease to them.

It is long overdue for our public officials to rid the U.S. of imported crimes and to stand up for our legal workers, especially the poorly educated ones who need an entry-level job to start building their lives. Now that we have a green light from the courts, states and cities should proceed full steam ahead to protect us from illegal aliens.



Read this article online:


3 imprisoned for hiring illegal immigrants for cleaning firm

Maloney also ordered the three to forfeit bank accounts, life insurance policies and cash totaling more than $3 million that prosecutors said was derived from their illegal activities. Cunningham is expected to forfeit a home in the gated community of Ibis Golf and Country Club.

In handing down the sentence, Maloney said the crimes involved a "massive tax scheme involving illegal aliens."

Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security Julie L. Meyers said, "For too long, unscrupulous employers like those who owned and operated RCI have been able to undercut their competition by building their work force with illegal labor."

Myers added that "targeting employers who profit from illegal hiring is a key component to stopping illegal immigration."

*********for remainder, go to **********,0,4670611.story

Posted on 03/19/2008 11:49 AM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
What's Happened to Teaching History?

What's Happened to Teaching History?


by Phyllis Schlafly, March 12, 2008

A survey of British under-age-twenty kids recently reported that more than a fifth of them believe Winston Churchill, Richard the Lionheart and Florence Nightingale were fictional characters, but that Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes and King Arthur were real people.


We hope American students are more knowledgeable, but evidence is not reassuring. They scored an F, or just 54 percent, in a new survey by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of 14,000 freshmen at 50 U.S. colleges and universities.

Students were asked 60 questions to test their knowledge of American history and government. In general, the better a college ranked on the widely publicized U.S. News & World Report list, the lower it ranked on civic learning.

Another just-released survey found that a significant proportion of U.S. teenagers live in "stunning ignorance" of history and literature. That survey was conducted by a new research organization called Common Core.

An earlier survey of college seniors at 50 top colleges conducted by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that more than half didn't know that George Washington was the commanding general of the Continental Army during the American Revolution who accepted Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown. Some 36 percent thought it was Ulysses S. Grant, and 6 percent said it was Douglas MacArthur.

Fortunately, two important new books now tell 20th century history the way it really happened, instead of the way liberals and feminists wish it had happened. Every college student should read these books in order to learn history that colleges fail to teach.

Both books describe how Reagan-style conservatism replaced New Deal liberalism during the half century following World War II, an event of great magnitude and good fortune for America. The first of these new books was written by an historian, the second from the view of participants in historic events.

The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History is the work of distinguished historian Donald T. Critchlow (Harvard University Press, 2007). It is the indispensable scholarly account of how a small unorganized band of writers and an equally unorganized collection of grassroots activists launched a counteroffensive against the prevailing economic and political order of the 1930s and 1940s, and by the 1980s became the dominant force in American politics.

Long after Franklin D. Roosevelt was gone, conventional wisdom still considered his New Deal liberalism to be the wave of the future. Conservatives were believed to be an ineffective remnant waging a holding action against the inevitable socialism.

Critchlow traces the travails of the conservative movement through the political battles involving Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. Those who lived through those years will delight in the extraordinary detail produced by Professor Critchlow's extensive research and his more than 500 footnotes, and those too young to remember will learn history they cannot get anywhere else.

Conservatives found their leader in Ronald Reagan, who fortified their resolve with his faith that the tide of history is moving in our direction and that it is morning in America. Critchlow skillfully shows how the Reagan victories of the 1980s depended on a coalition of the fiscal conservatives left over from the 1964 Goldwater campaign, the alumni of the anti-Communist groups that had educated the grassroots about external and internal threats to our country, and the social conservatives who newly came into the political process in the campaigns against the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade.

Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism by Alfred S. Regnery (Simon & Schuster, 2008) is a fascinating account of how conservative authors combined with conservative activists to shake off New Deal socialism of the 1930s and become the dominant ideology in America. As the author boasts, "We are all conservatives now."

Regnery's book leads us to know and understand dozens of conservative leaders from various walks of life, voluntary organizations that played a role in the movement, mail-order fundraising, and foundations. He puts the broad scope of the conservative movement in focus, including the importance that the courts play in our culture.

Regnery deftly explains the fundamental differences between conservatives and big business, and between conservatives and neoconservatives. Conservatives want limited government, but those two other groups seek an activist government to promote their particular agendas.

Regnery's book is based not only on his first-hand involvement with many icons of the conservative movement, but his face-to-face interviews with many who are still living and able to tell their stories.

Regnery ends his book by describing the unexpected conservative uprising (all the way from Bill Kristol to Pat Buchanan) against President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. No doubt the author hopes that the success of that revolt shows that conservatives are still moving Upstream and can maintain their identity apart from liberal-Republican and Bush mistakes.

Read this article online:

Posted on 03/18/2008 11:44 AM by Bobbie Patray
Monday, 17 March 2008
Gov. Arnold blasts homeschool ruling

To sign the petition to 'depublish' the decision, go to:

Gov. Arnold blasts homeschool ruling
'Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of children's education'

Posted: March 07, 2008
9:47 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today blasted a court ruling that endangered homeschooling and homeschoolers statewide.

"Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," the governor said in a prepared statement. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education."

The comments came after a state appellate court ruling essentially concluded California state law allows no option for parents to school their children at home. Homeschool and legal experts have expressed concern that the move puts all of the parents of the estimated 166,000 homeschooled children in the state at risk of both criminal and civil penalties.

"This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will," he said.

The governor's office said the ruling from the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles concluded "all children ages 6 to 18 must attend public or private school full-time until graduation from high school or be tutored at home by a credentialed teacher."

The ruling resulted from a case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long, who earlier described for WND their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and the promotion of a faith in evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Long told California reporters today. He said the responsibility includes issues such as protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

But the court had concluded that state law doesn't allow children to be taught by their parents in their homes, a result achieved by many families by having the parents register as a private school, which exempts them from the requirement of having credentialed faculty.

WND earlier reported Brad Dacus, chief of the Pacific Justice Institute, is planning an appeal to the state Supreme Court on behalf of the school in which the Long children were enrolled.

He said his concern is that the ruling might be used by "overzealous" school district officials and social workers to try to remove a child from a family.

"We are hoping enough common sense prevails for everyone to wait and see how this plays out before the state Supreme Court," he said. But in California, such appellate level rulings are binding on lower courts when they are issued, he said.

The Los Angeles court decision granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

"The question [now] is whether it's going to be enforced," said Dacus. He said criminal infractions could involve fines or community service, and civil penalties could involve parental counseling.

But he said the California legislature has adopted "education neglect" rules that could be used "as grounds for the removal of a child from a family." Such cases usually are handled in juvenile court and by social services agencies.

***********for remainder, go to*******

Posted on 03/17/2008 11:42 AM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 14 March 2008
The increasing influence of Islam

The increasing influence of Islam

COMMENT:  It isn't only what is happening in Islamic Centers that should be of great concern.  Remember, "
Saudi in the Classroom -- A fundamental front in the war."?
Have you reviewed this article?  Have you investigated what is being taught in your child's or grandchild's classroom?

1.  3 in 4 US Mosques preach anti-West Extremism
2.  Devil may CAIR
3.  FBI boosts training in Islamic 'sensitivity'

1.  Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism
Secret survey exposes widespread radicalism

Posted: February 23, 2008
9:51 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.

The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.

"So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist," an official familiar with the project said.

Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.

Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that "the vast majority" are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.

The project, headed by David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on sharia law, has finished collecting data from the first cohort of 102 mosques and schools. Preliminary findings indicate that almost 80 percent of the group exhibit a high level of sharia-compliance and jihadi threat, including:

  • Ultra-orthodox worship in which women are separated from men in the prayer hall and must enter the mosque from a separate, usually back, entrance; and are required to wear hijabs.
  • Sermons that preach women are inferior to men and can be beaten for disobedience; that non-Muslims, particularly Jews, are infidels and inferior to Muslims; that jihad or support of jihad is not only a Muslim's duty but the noblest way, and suicide bombers and other so-called "martyrs" are worthy of the highest praise; and that an Islamic caliphate should one day encompass the U.S.
  • Solicitation of financial support for jihad.
  • Bookstores that sell books, CDs and DVDs promoting jihad and glorifying martyrdom.

Though not all mosques in America are radicalized, many have tended to serve as safe havens and meeting points for Islamic terrorist groups. Experts say there are at least 40 episodes of extremists and terrorists being connected to mosques in the past decade alone.

*********************for remainder, go to*************


2. Devil May CAIR

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: In a new court filing, federal prosecutors describe the Council on American-Islamic Relations as a supporter of terrorists. So why are Democrats still supporting the organization?

CAIR's boosters on the Hill, where it's headquartered just three blocks from the Capitol, have known for some time that several people in positions of power within the group have been directly connected to terrorism and have either been prosecuted or thrown out of the country. Yet lawmakers have gone right on singing CAIR's praises and doing its bidding. That agenda includes suing John Doe witnesses, censoring critics of Islamism and denying the FBI antiterror tools.

These cheerleaders, who include a handful of Republicans (see box), also know by now that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror-fundraising case last year. And that FBI wiretaps revealed that CAIR's founder, Omar Ahmad, and executive director, Nihad Awad, last decade attended a secret meeting in Philadelphia with Hamas leaders and other terrorist sympathizers.

In fact, Ahmad himself was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror case, which counts a CAIR founding director among its criminal defendants.

But now, in a separate case involving a senior CAIR official who trained to kill American soldiers in jihad, prosecutors are tying CAIR even closer to terror. In court papers filed in December, federal prosecutors described CAIR as not just an apologist or sympathizer, but a supporter of terrorists.

"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders," the filing states, "CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists." The government also cited evidence "the conspirators used deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists."

Perhaps some members of Congress had been fooled by CAIR's deception. But now they have no excuse. Now Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who saluted CAIR's "important work," and Sen. Paul Sarbanes, who applauded "CAIR's mission," know better.

The criminal briefing should also disabuse Rep. John Conyers, who's trumpeted CAIR's "long and distinguished history." Rep. John Dingell, who said "my office door is always open" to CAIR, now has an obligation to slam it shut.

*********for remainder, go to ************


3. FBI boosts training in Islamic 'sensitivity'
Weeks added to required 'enrichment' program:
'We all need to learn and understand each other'

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


The FBI believes its agents still aren't sensitive enough to Muslims and their culture, so the bureau has extended by "a few weeks" its Islamic cultural "enrichment" training program, WND has learned.

During a recent outreach event at a Washington-area mosque, FBI officials also reassured a large turnout of concerned Muslims that the bureau is not profiling Arabs and Muslims for terrorism, and has made investigating alleged "hate crimes" against them and other minorities "the second-highest priority in the criminal division of the FBI." [emphasis added].

Among the officials who attended the Feb. 8 "town hall meeting" at the large ADAMS Center mosque were Timothy Healy, deputy assistant director for FBI intelligence, and Dave Bennett, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI's Washington field office.

The officials said terrorism is "not a new phenomenon" limited to Muslims, and they cited abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolph as an example of a Christian terrorist.

While they said they are concerned about the threat from "homegrown terror" perpetuated by second-generation Muslim immigrants, the officials assured the Muslim audience they are no more concerned about such homegrown attacks than they are "about bank robberies," and are not targeting the Muslim community for special surveillance.

One official offered that FBI headquarters has extended the bureau's Arabic curriculum, which includes Muslim culture, by "a few weeks" to expose agents to Islam and cultivate a better understanding of the faith.

"We all need to learn and understand each other," he said, adding that the Muslim sensitivity program is part of basic training for agents.

"One of the things that the FBI believes in is diversity," he said. "Diversity is important."

To that end, he says the bureau is "under a hiring push this year" and is heavily recruiting Muslim agents. The FBI wants to hire 900 FBI agents and 2,000 professional support staff, including Arabic translators, by Sept. 30.

 [emphasis added and note: why does the FBI routinely reject Christians and Jews who are fluent in Arabic who apply to be translators?]

"One of the things that we are critically seeking are special agents and support staff who are Arabic speakers," he announced to the audience at the ADAMS mosque, which was founded and funded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.

"We also need folks who, candidly, are familiar with Islam," the official said. "We're learning, many of us. And I've had many conversations with Muslims, and I've learned quite a bit. I'm a Roman Catholic, and there are so many similarities I have learned between Islam and Christianity that was a surprise to me." [emphasis added].

ADAMS Center is not the only Muslim Brotherhood-tied organization where the FBI has recruited agents. In September, it also set up a recruitment booth at the annual Islamic Society of North America convention. Just four months earlier, federal prosecutors named ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror fundraising case, and listed it as a member of the U.S. branch of the radical Brotherhood.

What's more, the agency is advertising for agents in ISNA's magazine "Islamic Horizons," as well as on the website of the Saudi-backed Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which has supported Hamas and other known terrorists.

Last November, Lebanese former FBI agent Nada Prouty was arrested and pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a Hezbollah espionage investigation.

As WND first reported, the FBI summarily rejected some 90 Jewish Arabic speakers who after 9/11 applied to become translators and language specialists at the FBI's New York field office.

As WND also first reported in 2003, national Arab-American and Muslim leaders have made presentations at an FBI training course on civil rights at the Washington offices of the FBI, and at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va., as part of "Enrichment Training Sessions" for new special agents there.

In addition, the imam of a large Manhattan mosque has lectured veteran counterterrorism investigators at the FBI's New York field office about misinterpretation of the meaning of jihad in the Quran, the Muslim holy book.

The sensitivity training program, denounced by some active and former agents, was mandated after the 9/11 attacks by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

FBI headquarters defends the program as a way to reach out to the Muslim community in America.

***********for remainder, go to **********

Posted on 03/14/2008 11:41 AM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Quebec’s Quiet Revolution

Quebec’s Quiet Revolution

One of our Centurions recently told us a story that was both fascinating—and disturbing. Her name is Tessa Littlejohn. She is a flight attendant who lives in Ontario. Tessa recently worked with another flight attendant from Quebec, whom I will call Cecile. As they worked, Cecile told Tessa all about her boyfriend, Gerard. Cecile was wearing a ring on her left hand, so Tessa asked her if she was engaged. Cecile blushed. “Actually,” she said, “Gerard and I have been married for two years.”

Then why on earth was she calling Gerard her “boyfriend”? Because, Cecile explained, no one in Quebec gets married anymore. If she referred to Gerard as her husband, Cecile said, “I would sound like an old lady. It would feel too weird.”

Tessa was not too surprised at Cecile’s reasoning, but it did make her think about what happens when a society abandons God and His laws.

For Quebec, this abandonment began during what became known as the Quiet Revolution. As Richard Neuhaus writes in the March issue of First Things, up until 1960, when Quebec’s Liberal Party took power, there was an almost total synthesis of Church, culture, and state; the Catholic Church provided nearly all educational and social services.

As American scholar Charles Doran notes, it was Catholic clergy who helped people survive the hardships of a new and rough land, and “provided the social cement for the colony.” But in the 1960s, Canadians abandoned their Judeo-Christian values in favor of modernity. And as Doran notes, the Catholic clergy “became an embarrassing reminder of a past that everyone wanted to forget.” Tragically, the Church willingly cooperated in its own retreat.

The predictable result of this revolution was that the role of the state became greatly enlarged, because the state alone was capable of implementing desired social changes. Today, nearly five decades later, the churches largely stand empty—and the consequences of modernity are on stark display.

Of all the Canadian provinces, Quebec has the lowest marriage rate. It also has the lowest birth rate—the province is literally dying out. Quebec’s abortion rate is higher than all other Canadian provinces, with 30 percent of all pregnancies ending in abortion! Quebec leads the other provinces in divorce and suicide rates as well. And its chief city, Montreal, has become a notorious haven for pedophiles, according to Canada’s leading news magazine.

To continue reading, go to

Posted on 03/11/2008 11:31 AM by Bobbie Patray
Monday, 10 March 2008
Adult Stem Cells Help Those With Immune Disorders, Heart Disease

COMMENT:  Looks as if the Lord is allowing so many successful treatments that have nothing to do with killing little human embryos that perhaps over time the debate about embryonic stem cell research will become null and void.

Adult Stem Cells Help Those With Immune Disorders, Heart Disease

Analysis of studies finds modest benefit with both conditions

Posted 2/26/08

TUESDAY, Feb. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Treatment with adult stem cells harvested from blood or bone marrow may benefit some patients with certain kinds of cardiovascular disorders and autoimmune diseases, a new U.S. analysis shows.

There are two types of stem cells, according to background information in the study. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos four to five days after fertilization. Adult stem cells are located in tissues throughout the body and provide a reservoir for replacement of damaged or aging cells.

While stem cell therapy shows great promise, "clinical application has lagged due to ethical concerns [over embryonic stem cells] or difficulties harvesting or safely and efficiently expanding sufficient quantities," the review authors noted. "In contrast, clinical indications for blood-derived [from peripheral or umbilical cord blood] and bone marrow-derived stem cells, which can be easily and safely harvested, are rapidly increasing."

Dr. Richard K. Burt, of the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and colleagues examined hundreds of studies of blood- or bone-marrow derived stem cells that were conducted between January 1997 and December 2007 -- 323 assessed feasibility and toxicity, and 69 looked at patient outcomes.

The review found that in 26 studies involving a total of 854 patients with autoimmune diseases there was a treatment-related death rate of: less than 1 percent (two of 220 patients) for nonmyeloablative (not causing bone marrow suppression); less than 2 percent (three of 197 patients) for dose-reduced myeloablative; and 13 percent (13 of 100 patients) for intense myeloablative regimens -- those including total body irradiation or high-dose busulfan, a drug used to treat some forms of chronic leukemia.

***********for remainder, go here***********

Posted on 03/10/2008 11:28 AM by Bobbie Patray
Saturday, 8 March 2008
Tennessee Government has Plans for Your Children

Tennessee Government has Plans for Your Children

Along party lines the Public Health Subcommittee scuttled a bill that would protect your rights as parents to know about and give or deny permission for your child to be screened for any mental health problems.
Three years ago the journey began to protect parental rights, to prohibit automatic universal screening, to prohibit coercion of parents to place their children on psychotropic drugs, prohibit teachers from recommending these drugs leaving those recommendations to health care professionals. This proposal did not in any way prohibit students from being screened individually or from receiving any mental health services needed. Read bill.
In 2005 the proposal passed the Senate 31-0, made it all the way to the Budget Subcommittee (otherwise known as the ‘black hole committee’) where it did indeed conveniently stay buried. In 2006 this legislation passed the senate 32-0 – the House Health Committee put it in a ‘summer study’ committee. Needless to say, the issue was never ‘studied’.
For the 105th General Assembly session, we started again. This time we worked with the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Children Services to craft a bill that was acceptable to them and went forward confidently. Sure enough, under Sen. Diane Black’s (R-Gallatin) leadership last year, SB1959 passed the Senate floor 30-1. 
House sponsor Rep. Beth Harwell (R-Nashville) first presented the house companion, HB 1419, in the Public Health Committee February 13th. The following week a representative of the Department of Mental Health testified that they were satisfied and a representative of National Alliance on Mental Illness, who had in past years, opposed the bill’s language, testified that they were now satisfied. Debate and adopting amendments brought us to February 27th when it became clear that Rep. Jeanne Richardson (D-Memphis) wanted to make sure that mental health screening was treated like hearing and vision screening -- never mind that hearing and vision tests are objective and mental health screenings are very subjective and produce a significant rate of ‘false positives’.
On March 5, the bill was back before the committee. Rep. Richardson was successful in identifying someone who would testify against the bill. Dr. Tom Catron,
[] associate professor of Psychiatry at Vanderbilt is the director of Governor’s Office of Children’s Care Coordination.
[Governor’s email: ]
Understand that Dr. Catron never did Rep. Harwell or myself the courtesy of speaking with us to discuss his concerns or give us the opportunity to address them in any way.
You really must watch Dr. Catron’s testimony at to understand the dismissive attitude he has about parental rights. He made that very clear with: "It is very important that we engage parents once children are identified in early identification to allow them to make the important choices about what should happen and what kind of service their children should be involved in." 
According to figures I have seen we have 1.4 million children and youth in Tennessee. Now we know that the mental health folks have all of them in their ‘screening’ sights without parents knowledge or permission.
He also revealed something that should make our blood run cold when he mentioned that this bill would interfere with the coming plans based on a resolution that was passed last session. SJR 799directs the select committee on children and youth to study the children’s mental health system in Tennessee and develop recommendations for its improvement. Read more.
He stated “the prohibition of screening would totally undermine the objectives of that particular task force and really plays a pretty strong hand in tying our hands in making things better for our children…. Incumbent on the state and LEA to identify children early on and we should see mental health in the same way as vision hearing.” He also repeatedly mentioned “public welfare” concerns and said that securing prior consent would impose an "economic burden" on the state and would interfere with the "timeliness" of the tests.
Research on SJR 799 revealed that an interim report was due in April 2007 and is available online at: this link. A final report is due in April 2008. It appears that what we will see recommended is a complete denial of parental rights to give active, informed consent PRIOR to mental health screening. There you have it, we have had our warning – we should heed it.
A roll call vote was taken and is just more evidence that ‘it matters who governs’:
Voting YES were: Chris Crider (R-Milan), Tom DuBois (R-Columbia), Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville) -- 3.
Voting NO were: Joanne Favors (D-Chattanooga), Jeanne Richardson, (D-Memphis), Joe Armstrong (D-Knoxville)– 3
Present and not voting were: Lois DeBerry (D-Memphis) – 1
Technically, because of the tie vote, the bill was not defeated, but will remain in the subcommittee. If we come up with a viable strategy you will be alerted.
After the meeting, I approached Dr. Catron in the hall and told him the I did not appreciate him appearing in opposition to my bill without doing me the courtesy of giving me the opportunity to discuss his objections with him. (Rep. Harwell expressed similar sentiments to him.)
I asked him to verify that he wanted to screen all children without parental permission and he agreed. I asked him about parental rights to which he responded that ‘there is always tension between public health concerns and parental rights”. I maintained that parental rights should trump that every time. I also inquired if he knew about the lawsuits in other states because these screenings were done without parental knowledge and consent and asked if he was prepared for lawsuits in Tennessee and he indicated he was if it would save lives. (Studies question the success on the screenings regarding suicide.)
We will continue to follow this important issue and keep you posted.
          Our commonsense proposal to preserve the parent-child relationship was—astonishingly—met with resistance in a Health and Human Resources Subcommittee this week in the Tennessee House of Representatives. My bill would simply require a school to receive consent from a parent or guardian before screening a student’s mental, psychological, or socioemotional health. I believe that this is important—parents have a right to know when their child’s mental health is tested at school, just as they have a right to know the results. Having consulted with the Department of Mental Health, who assisted in drafting an amendment for the bill, I can assure you that all parties who should have been involved were.
          When I presented this bill in subcommittee this week, however, those who opposed the bill produced Dr. Catron, the Director of the Governor’s Office of Child Care Coordination, who voiced “serious concerns” about this commonsense legislation. He stipulated that the bill would hinder the identification of mental health problems in children, in essence creating an additional obstacle with which they would have to comply. If we want parents and guardians to be engaged and involved in this critical issue, we need them to be informed of what it is exactly that is being tested, just as we would want them to sign a release to allow their child to go on a field trip. The state of Indiana is currently going through a lawsuit because they ignored this important aspect of mental health screening in our schools—we do not want Tennessee to make that list.
          I do not understand why this General Assembly has so many hang-ups with informed consent and parent consent on a very serious topic like universal mental health screening and abortion. The irony is that in the very same committee calendar where the Democrats defeated SJR 127 to allow informed consent for abortions, we then took up a bill to require parental consent to e a tattoo! This same calendar had on it the university mental health screen bill and the committee defeated it because the Democrats don’t like parental consent.
          I found Dr. Catron’s remarks and philosophy regarding the rights of parents to be bone chilling. He very coolly and smugly explained to us that parents only needed to be engaged with what the school was up to after the school had done its damage, in other words, no parental involvement from the beginning, just when we say so. His attitude was very “I know better than you do in regards to your own child” and it is the same argument I heard from my local county TEA chapter regarding the need for pre-K—that government is better at parenting than parents are.


Posted on 03/08/2008 11:15 AM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 7 March 2008
Home Schooling parents could face criminal charges

COMMENT:  We certainly need to make this a matter of prayer!

1.  Parents of 166,000 students could face criminal charges
2. Ruling Threatens custody of home school kids
3. Dr. Dobson outraged by California ruling banning home schooling
4. HSLDA Response

Parents of 166,000 students could face criminal charges
'Breathtaking' decision on homeschooling
now moving to California Supreme Court

Posted: March 05, 2008
9:11 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


A "breathtaking" ruling from a California appeals court that could subject the parents of 166,000 students in the state to criminal sanctions will be taken to the state Supreme Court.

The announcement comes today from the Pacific Justice Institute, whose president, Brad Dacus, described the impact of the decision as "stunning."

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," he said. "It not only attacks traditional homeschooling, but also calls into question homeschooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private school."

"If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions," he said.

WND broke the story of the ruling against Phillip and Mary Long of Los Angeles.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

The determination reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who ruled "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Officials with the school said they asked Pacific Justice to work on the Supreme Court appeal because the organization "has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than 23 years."

"We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," Terry Neven, the president of the school, said. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of homeschooling families are preserved."

The ruling, on which WND previously reported, also issued a further warning of potential penalties for parents, this time in civil court.
***********for remainder, go to*********


Ruling threatens custody of homeschool kids
'We hope common sense prevails, people wait for Supreme Court'

Posted: March 06, 2008
10:04 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


An attorney working on an appeal to the California Supreme Court of a ruling declaring homeschooling by parents illegal says the threat to such families is serious and immediate, especially if there has been a contentious previous relationship with authorities.

Ultimately, Brad Dacus, chief of the Pacific Justice Institute, told WND the ruling involving a Los Angeles family might even be used by "overzealous" school district officials and social workers to try to remove a child from a family.

"We are hoping enough common sense prevails for everyone to wait and see how this plays out before the state Supreme Court," he said. But in California, such appellate level rulings are binding on lower courts when they are issued, he said.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

"The question [now] is whether it's going to be enforced," said Dacus, who is working on the state Supreme Court appeal on behalf of the school in which the Los Angeles family's children were registered. "It would be a criminal infraction less than a misdemeanor involving penalties of fines or community service."

But he said that's minor. In addition to the criminal penalties, the California legislature has adopted "education neglect" rules that could be used "as grounds for the removal of a child from a family." Such cases usually are handled in juvenile court and by social services agencies.

"We are advising our homeschoolers to continue, but to keep both eyes open," he told WND.

He said he doesn't expect an immediate massive filing of cases against homeschooling parents, but the danger remains.

"I've been in court representing homeschoolers on such charges," he said. "It's not abstract. There are school districts and social workers who are overzealous."

*********for remainder, go to **************


Dr. Dobson Outraged by California Ruling Banning
Home Schooling


Focus chairman calls it an 'all-out assault on the family.'

A state appeals court has decided California parents without teaching credentials do not have a right to home-school their children.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruling could affect up to 200,000 home-schooled students in the state.

“The court is guilty of an imperious assault on the rights of parents,” said Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family. “How dare these judges have the audacity to label tens of thousands of parents criminals — the equivalent to drug dealers or pickpockets — because they want to raise and educate their children according to their deeply held values?

"The case before them involved one couple — the ruling should have been confined to that one couple, not used to punish an entire class of people, the vast majority of them religious conservatives.”

According to the Home School Legal Defense Association, California is set to become the only state to deny the vast majority of home schooling parents their fundamental right to teach their children at home. The group will file an amicus brief in the case.

Dr. Dobson said Focus on the Family will do whatever it can to get the ruling overturned and to restore the basic rights of parents in California to determine how their children are educated.

“This is an all-out assault on the family, and it must be met with a concerted effort to defend parents and their children,” he said. “We will team with key allies and use every means at our disposal to make sure that not just every Californian, but every American, is aware of this miscarriage of justice. We will encourage them, by the hundreds of thousands, to make their voices heard on this matter.

"And we’re hopeful that, in the end, common sense and legal sanity will prevail.”

Dr. Dobson will discuss the ruling on his Friday radio broadcast.

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the court's timing is horrible.

"This takes away recourse from thousands of parents in California who want to escape the government-enforced indoctrination in public schools," she said. "The Legislature recently passed a law that basically ensures that students get a one-sided, positive portrayal of homosexuality and same-sex 'marriage.' "

We are asking concerned citizens across America to sign a petition asking the state Supreme Court to "depublish" the case, which means to apply the case to the family involved — not to all California families.

Dr. Dobson will discuss the California ruling on his Friday radio broadcast. Find a station or listen online.



Response to Ruling of California Court of Appeal
‘Homeschooling is Illegal in California’

On February 28, 2008, the California Court of Appeals issued a ruling in a juvenile court proceeding that declared that almost all forms of homeschooling in California are in violation of state law. (Private tutoring by certified teachers remains an option.) Moreover, the court ruled that parents possess no constitutional right to homeschool their children.

This family was not a member of Home School Legal Defense Association. They were represented by court-appointed counsel throughout the proceeding. Since it was by law a confidential proceeding, to the best of our knowledge neither HSLDA nor any other legal advocacy organization had any knowledge that the right of all homeschoolers in California was depending upon the outcome of this family’s case.

There are two appellate options at this time.

First, we have been told that the family is appealing this decision to the California Supreme Court with their California counsel.

HSLDA will file an amicus brief on behalf of our 13,500 member families in California. We will argue that a proper interpretation of California statutes makes it clear that parents may legally teach their own children under the private-school exemption. However, if the court disagrees with our statutory argument, we will argue that the California statutes as interpreted by the Court of Appeal violate the constitutional rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

HSLDA welcomes other organizations and persons to assist with the amicus process so that a full defense of home education, religious freedom, and parental rights can be given to the California Supreme Court.

The second appellate option is to seek to have this particular decision “depublished.” Depublication is a decision that can only be made by the California Supreme Court. If the Court determines that the decision should stand, regarding this family, on the facts presented, but that the general pronouncements of law for all of homeschooling should not be determined by this case, then the Court has the option of “depublishing” the Court of Appeal’s decision. This would mean that the case is not binding precedent in California and has no effect on any other family.

HSLDA will take the lead in an effort to seek to have this case depublished.

Homeschooling has offered a great opportunity for families to give their children a quality education with a moral and philosophical approach that is consistent with each family's beliefs.

The ability to homeschool freely in California should not depend upon one family in a closed-door proceeding. All families should have the right to be heard since the rights of all are clearly at stake.




Posted on 03/07/2008 4:17 PM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Planned Parenthood: Wanting fewer black 'understandable'
COMMENT:  I don't understand why the African American community is not up in arms about this as well as the huge percentage of abortions that are taking place in that community.  This investigation speaks volumes about Planned Parenthood and clearly shows that they haven't moved far from their Margaret Sanger roots.

African American women make up 6% of the nation’s population; they account for 36% of all abortions

Planned Parenthood: Wanting fewer blacks 'understandable'
Abortion provider says 'yes' when 'donor' wants to reduce minorities

Posted: February 27, 2008
8:33 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


A student-run magazine at UCLA has revealed an undercover investigation in which representatives of Planned Parenthood, the nation's abortion industry leader, admitted willingness to accepting a financial donation targeting the destruction of an unborn black baby.

Lila Rose, who edits The Advocate, previously revealed how Planned Parenthood officials expressed a willingness to conceal statutory rape, an investigative piece that earned her an appearance on the Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor."

Now she's told WND she hopes the taped responses of Planned Parenthood officials in seven states reveal to her local UCLA community and the nation the racist leanings of the organization.

WND calls to Planned Parenthood of Idaho, which was featured in The Advocate report, requesting a comment were not returned.

"Students on campus are shocked and saddened that such a huge organization would have racist leanings in the present day," Rose told WND. "They are surprised to hear the truth about [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger, and how the African-American community is being hurt by abortion.

"There's a lot of surprise out there. Planned Parenthood does an excellent job of covering up the facts," she said.

Sanger supported eugenics to cull those she considered unfit from the population. In 1921, she said eugenics is "the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."

At one point, Sanger lamented "the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." Another time, Sanger wrote, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

According to Bryan Fisher, executive director of Idaho Values Alliance, Planned Parenthood, which gets an estimated $200 million annually from U.S. taxpayers, has located nearly 80 percent of its clinics nationwide in minority neighborhoods, and about one-third of all abortions are performed on blacks, even though they make up only 13 percent of the population.

Some of the information about the investigation was posted on a YouTube video:

Nationwide, almost half of all black pregnancies end in abortion, officials said.

"It turns out that blatant racism is alive and well in Idaho, but it's not coming from the Aryan Nation types – it's coming from way-left organizations like Idaho's own Planned Parenthood," Fischer said. "If Idaho is in fact a haven for white racism, it turns out that Planned Parenthood and not Richard Butler is to blame."

Richard Butler, who died in 2004, was a notorious white supremacist who founded Aryan Nations in northern Idaho. He lost a 20-acre compound in 2000 when a $6.3 million civil judgment against his group led to a bankruptcy.

"Idaho didn't have room for Richard Butler and shouldn't have room for Planned Parenthood," Fischer said.

**********for remainder, go to************

Posted on 03/06/2008 5:56 AM by Bobbie Patray
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31