Tuesday, 29 April 2008
The cost of immigration
How the Government Spends Taxpayers' Money
by Phyllis Schlafly, April 23, 2008
Are you having a hard time paying your bills, making your mortgage payments, or putting your kids through college? You need to know how much of your hard-earned income the government is skimming off and diverting into handouts to immigrants and illegal aliens.
You can read the depressing details in the new 70-page document called "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration" written by Edwin S. Rubenstein. A Manhattan Institute adjunct fellow with a mile-long scholarly resume, he has been doing financial analysis ever since he directed the studies of government waste for the prestigious Grace Commission of 1984.
The bottom line, which you need to know for your own bottom line, is that U.S. taxpayers are giving more than $9,000 a year in cash or benefits to each immigrant, a third of whom are illegal aliens. That's $36,000 for each immigrant household of four.
Since the U.S. has 37 million immigrants, legal and illegal, the national cost was more than $346 billion last year, which was twice our fiscal deficit. The cost of immigrants is so high because, as Rubenstein writes, "Immigrants are poorer, pay less tax and are more likely to receive public benefits than natives."
Big Brother hasn't told you this bad news, perhaps because the government doesn't want you to know why your paychecks are shortchanged. Even the huge amnesty bill that was defeated last year didn't contain one word about its budgetary consequences.
The financial burden that immigrants impose on education starts with the 3.8 million K-to-12 students enrolled in more-expensive classes for the non-English-speaking. When we add up the costs of hiring specialized teachers, training regular teachers, student identification and assessment, and administration costs, the total amounts to an estimated $1,030 per pupil, or $3.9 billion.
Of the 48.4 million pre-K through 12 public school children, 9.2 million or 19 percent are immigrants or the children of immigrants. In the next few years, immigration will account for virtually all the increase in public school spending.
Look at the $1.5 billion cost of incarcerating 267,000 criminal aliens in federal prisons. That's not the worst of it; prison capacity is limited, so 80,000 to 100,000 other criminal aliens have been prematurely released to prowl our streets.
Criminals also impose heavy private costs on their victims. Rubenstein estimates the losses of income and property, hospital bills, and emotional suffering at $1.6 million per assault- or property-crime offender.
Rubenstein's report includes all sorts of costs that other observers conveniently ignore, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC gives an average cash payment of $1,700 per year to 1 in 4 immigrant households.
The emergency medical treatment given free to illegal aliens is another enormous cost, causing some hospitals and emergency rooms to close. Emergency means any complaint from hangovers to hangnails, gunshot wounds to AIDS.
Even after some restrictions were imposed in 1996, 24.2 percent of immigrant households receive Medicaid, whereas the figure for native-born Americans is 14.8 percent. Rubenstein calculates that Hispanics account for 19.2 percent of Medicaid enrollment, while they are 13.7 percent of the U.S. population.
The FHA has had a policy of increasing home ownership among low-income immigrants and therefore approved FHA mortgages on homes with a down payment of only $200 to $300 and marginal income. Since mortgagors have so little invested in the house, they can walk away from it when they can't meet the payments, and this has resulted in neighborhoods of abandoned, boarded-up housing.
Refugees are a large and growing fiscal burden because they become immediately eligible for generous taxpayer-paid benefits. Evidence shows they stay dependent on these programs and start chain-migrating relatives under the "family reunification" law.
The Interior Department spends millions of dollars to clean up the mountains of trash discarded by illegal aliens crossing into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Some immigration advocates peddle the notion that immigration will solve the future financial burdens of Social Security. Rubenstein shows how foolish is this prediction because today's low-wage workers will surely become tomorrow's expensive retirees.
Another cost that few talk about is that immigrant workers depress the wages received by native-born Americans, and that causes a $100 billion shortfall in federal tax revenue. Harvard University Professor George Borjas found that each 10 percent increase in the U.S. labor force from immigration reduces wages of native-born Americans by 5.25 percent.
Some liberals are trying to tell us to fight a recession by bringing in more immigrants, but that would only raid the pockets of U.S. taxpayers to support more millions of non-taxpayers. It's hard to say which is more outrageous: the diversion of Americans' personal income into cash handouts to foreigners, or the federal government's policy of concealing the fiscal impact of immigration.
Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/apr08/08-04-23.html
Posted on 04/29/2008 4:18 PM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 25 April 2008
How a Pro-Life Doctor Overcomes Abortion With Truth
How a Pro-Life Doctor Overcomes Abortion With Truth
by Paul Nowak
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
March 24, 2008
As an OB/GYN, Dr. William Lile will take part in the miracle of birth more times than many of us will ever get to witness it. Medical practitioners in Dr. Lile's specialty have been immensely important to the pro-life cause for providing insight and information into the science and awe-inspiring wonders of pregnancy and birth.
However, Dr. Lile is also aware of the terrible truth that it is his peers who perform most of the abortions in the U.S., and he is going the extra mile to let the truth be known about God's miracle of life and abortion's brutality.
The face of evil
Although his respect for the sanctity of life began in childhood, Dr. Lile received a new perspective on abortion during his medical training when he came face to face with peers who had succumbed to the temptation of easy money.
During his residency at Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola and the University of Florida, Dr. Lile was asked by abortionist Bo Bagenholm what he believed happened to aborted babies. Professing his belief in the soul, God's mercy and the infants' innocence, Dr. Lile said he believed they were welcomed into heaven.
"He told me, 'I've sent more souls to heaven than most people, according to your religion,'" recalled Dr. Lile. "There was no guilt."
"In my opinion my peers initially get involved with abortions for the quick money, and then it becomes a matter of ego," added Dr. Lile. "I find it amazing how these people are put on a pedestal, and thanked by other doctors for doing a procedure they are uncomfortable doing
From death into life
After completing is residency in 1999, Dr. Lile began looking for a practice. As it turned out, a practice near Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola was available – Bo Bagenholm's practice, complete with a second-floor surgical abortion facility. At the time, the practice was the third-largest provider of abortions by volume in Escambia County.
Dr. Lile and his partner arranged to purchase the practice, including all of the equipment and retention of the staff. The purchase included a no-compete agreement that forbade Bagenholm from practicing medicine within the tri-county area around Pensacola for two years.
On the first day under the new ownership, Dr. Lile and his partner announced to their employees, who had previously been involved in the practice's abortion services, that not only would they no longer provide abortion, but referral of women to other abortion businesses would be grounds for termination. On that day, a 20-year legacy of death in the building was ended.
Turning abortionists' tools against them
Dr. Lile still remembers going up to the second floor surgical center for the first time.
"It was one of the most chilling feelings I have ever had," he said, recalling the day he first saw the table, suction machine and tools together where so many lives had been taken. "There was a palpable feeling of coldness."
"My goal had been to stop the practitioner," said Dr. Lile. "But it was then I realized that God can take anything and use it for good."
Today, in addition to serving his patients at his practice Dr. Lile makes time to use that same equipment in a presentation he calls God's Miracle of Life, which he has given across the country over the past several years.
The presentation uses in-vitro video and ultrasounds to show audiences the development of the child in the womb. Dr. Lile also explains how advances in medicine have even made prenatal surgery a reality. In particular, he discusses the case of "Baby Samuel," the subject of the famous photo of a 21-week old unborn child holding a surgeon's finger during a prenatal operation to correct spina bifida.
With the wonders of the womb still fresh in the audience's mind, Dr. Lile then takes those same abortionist's tools that were used by their previous owner to take lives, and uses them to give bloodless demonstrations of just how abortions are done. The steps and instruments of death involved in first-, second- and third-trimester abortions -- including the infamous partial-birth abortion procedure -- are shown to the audience and explained.
His unique presentation exposes the risks, lies and dangers of abortion, such as the complexity of a partial-birth abortion which has been claimed as a "life saving" procedure by its practitioners, and the suction machine's ability to crush a steel can—a can so strong it could support a grown man standing on it.
"What I've found is there are those who are pro-life and those who are pro-abortion," explains Dr. Lile. "We need to target those in the middle who are undecided."
He adds that his presentation makes his audience aware of the blatant murder and brutality of abortion, by letting them see the miraculous design of the child in the womb contrasted by the cold, harsh methods of their destruction.
"They can then put two and two together," said Dr. Lile.
While the demands of his practice limit his availability to speak to groups in person, Dr. Lile's presentation has been produced on DVD that is available from Amazon.com. He also maintains a web site, www.ProLifeDoc.org, and his demonstration of a partial-birth abortion has been posted on YouTube and Google Video for the public to view for free.
*********for remainder, go to*********
Posted on 04/25/2008 4:16 PM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 24 April 2008
CIA to describe North Korea-Syria nuclear ties
CIA to describe North Korea-Syria nuclear ties
Officials will tell Congress members this week that North Korea was helping Syria build a reactor last year when it was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike, a U.S. official says.
WASHINGTON -- CIA officials will tell Congress on Thursday that North Korea had been helping Syria build a plutonium-based nuclear reactor, a U.S. official said, a disclosure that could touch off new resistance to the administration's plan to ease sanctions on Pyongyang.
The CIA officials will tell lawmakers that they believe the reactor would have been capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons but was destroyed before it could do so, the U.S. official said, apparently referring to a suspicious installation in Syria that was bombed last year by Israeli warplanes.
The CIA officials also will say that though U.S. officials have had concerns for years about ties between North Korea and Syria, it was not until last year that new intelligence convinced them that the suspicious facility under construction in a remote area of Syria was a nuclear reactor, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing plans for the briefing.
By holding closed, classified briefings for members of several congressional committees, the administration will break a long silence on North Korean-Syrian nuclear cooperation and on what it knows about last year's destruction of the Syrian facility. Nonetheless, it has been widely assumed for months that many in the administration considered the site a nuclear installation.
It was not clear Tuesday how recently North Korea may have been aiding Syria. But disclosure of the relationship to the committees is likely to bring criticism from conservative lawmakers who already believe that U.S. overtures to North Korea have offered the government in Pyongyang too many benefits without assurances that it will disclose the extent of its nuclear arms effort or ultimately surrender its weapons.
U.S. officials provided little explanation of why they want to brief lawmakers on the North Korean-Syrian links after declining to do so for months.
A senior Senate aide said the timing appears driven by a Bush administration desire to apprise committee members of the latest intelligence on the reactor before releasing some of the information.
"I have this strong impression the reason they want to brief the committee is they want to say something publicly," said the aide, who discussed contacts with the administration only on condition of anonymity.
The administration has briefed senior members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, a senior Senate aide said. But other lawmakers have remained in the dark. The administration has been under pressure to extend briefings to a larger circle of lawmakers.
The administration is planning to ease sanctions on North Korea as part of talks aimed at removing Pyongyang's nuclear weapons. The six nations involved in the talks, which also include China, Russia, South Korea and Japan, have been negotiating since 2003.
After a breakthrough last year in which North Korea agreed to shut down its only functioning nuclear production facility, it was rewarded with fuel oil and the release of frozen bank funds. But talks stalled after the Bush administration demanded that Pyongyang provide a full description of its past nuclear activities by a December 2007 deadline.
To continue reading, go to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-norkor23apr23,0,3070215.story
Posted on 04/24/2008 4:14 PM by Bobbie Patray
Monday, 21 April 2008
Bush Raises Temp on Global Warming
COMMENT: Let me HIGHLY recommend The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (Paperback), by Christopher C. Horner (Author). It is available for $13.37 on Amazon.com.
Bush Raises Temp On Global Warming
By Tony Blankley
April 16, 2008
The last months of a presidential administration are often dangerous. Presidents -- looking to their legacies -- go to desperate lengths to try to enhance their reputations for posterity. A pungent example of such practices by the Bush administration was reported above the fold on the front page of The Washington Times Monday: "Bush prepares global warming initiative."
Oh, dear. Just as an increasing number of scientists are finding their courage to speak out against the global warming alarmists and just as a building body of evidence and theories challenge the key elements of the human-centric carbon-based global warming theories, George W. Bush takes this moment to say, in effect: "We are all global alarmists now."
It reminds me of the moment back in 1971 when Richard Nixon proclaimed, "We are all Keynesians now" -- eight years after Milton Friedman had published his book "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" and about an hour and a half before a consensus built that Friedman's work consigned Keynes to the dustbin of economic history.
Now it is Bush's turn to be the last man to join a losing proposition. In how many ways is this proposal not useful? First of all, as Chris Horner, the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," shrewdly has pointed out, the Democrats desperately want Bush and the Republicans "to take ownership" of the global alarmists' issues before he goes.
This is important. Whatever restraint likely to be exercised by the Democratic Party majority next year will be induced by the political fear that the Republicans would be able to say I told you so if the Democrats' policies contract the economy and put yet more people out of work.
That will give them political cover for the entire program, which, whatever it may try to do regarding "global warming," certainly will give governments and international organizations vastly more control over the United States economy.
Of course, the proposed carbon taxes will subtract hundreds of billions (or trillions) of dollars from productive private-sector economic activity and transfer it to "our friend the government" to spend "beneficially" for us all. Beyond even confiscatory taxation, reduced economic output, and higher unemployment, we have hints of other things to come with the talk of connecting private homes to the central electricity grid.
In its benign form, it is described by Rep. Nick Lampson in the Washington paper The Hill: "As demand for energy services grows, the nation's outdated grid is showing signs of strain due to congestion, sometimes resulting in large-scale outages, such as the blackouts and brownouts experienced in New York, California, and my home state of Texas during summertime heat waves in recent years. One solution to this problem would be to build scores of new power plants and thousands of miles of new transmission lines to increase overall grid capacity. A better way is to change how we manage electric power, by deploying smart-grid technologies.
"A smart grid uses information technology to transform a simple 'pipe' into an interactive energy-management system. Streams of real-time information are exchanged between users, producers, and the grid itself to allow dynamic power management that increases both efficiency and stability."
But one can well imagine what the global warming fanatics might wish government to do with interactive "dynamic power management." Energy pigs (for example, people like me, who want to have air conditioning on hot days) will not be permitted to destroy the planet. Our energy use can be "capped" easily by the dynamic system. One bureaucrat will be empowered to turn our electricity on or off -- according to the dictates of the current politically correct judgment.
To continue reading, go to http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tblankley/2008/tb_04162.shtml
Posted on 04/21/2008 4:12 PM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 18 April 2008
Human-animal hybrid research
Human-animal hybrid research
COMMENT: It seems to me that there is nothing that cannot be done now in the name of 'science'.
Not only do some support killing existing tiny human embryos for research, creating and killing tiny human embryos for research, cloning human beings, now some see nothing wrong with creating hybrid human-animal embryos. Human beings are created in the image of God, the crowning touch to his entire creation. We have lost all respect for the dignity that should be given human beings. When abortion was legalized 'open season' was declared on babies. If we can kill innocent babies at any time during the nine months of gestation, even sometimes kill them after they are born (infanticide) and we can euthanize the sick and elderly, these hybrids are just the next step in the 'culture of death.' Please note that ALL of the advances made in treatments and 'cures' have come from 'adult' stem cells NOT from embryonic stem cells, but that 'fact' doesn't seem to deter those intent on destroying embryos for 'science sake'. I really cannot imagine God withholding his judgment much longer.
1. Scottish cardinal attacks “hype-filled” hybrid embryo research
2. British Polls Show Conflicting Results on Hybrid Human Cloning Research
3. Hybrid Human Cloning is Scientific Manipulation of the Dignity of Man
1. Scottish cardinal attacks “hype-filled” hybrid embryo research
.- Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of Edinburgh and leader of Scotland’s Catholics, has written an editorial for a British newspaper criticizing the “hype-filled” claims used to advocate the creation of human-animal hybrid embyros. He described the hybrid research itself as involving “grotesque procedures.”
Writing in the Wednesday issue of the Guardian, Cardinal O’Brien said, “I think it is time we deployed a great deal more rigor when listening to the hype-filled claims of those who experiment upon and destroy human life at its most defenseless.”
He said that claims about the hypothetical potential of human-animal hybrid research had been made for almost a decade, “without any substance.”
“As the years have gone by, not one single treatment or therapy has emerged,” the cardinal said. He claimed that research using adult stem cells has led to over 70 therapies and treatments “without destroying a single embryo.”
Cardinal O’Brien emphasized that scientific research must have ethical limits. “Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done,” he said. “The question of scientists' responsibility towards humanity is today painfully pertinent as they tamper with human life in its earliest incarnation.”
The cardinal noted his own background as a graduate in the sciences made him understand many of the processes by which scientific understanding advances. He said he believed “strongly” that scientific research “must always serve the public good.”
Other countries, he noted, had banned the creation of human-animal hybrids.
“France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia have all banned the grotesque procedures we seek to legalize. Could it be that the citizens and politicians of those countries care nothing for the chronically ill among them?”
“Or could it be that we are wrong and these democracies see no reason to attack the sanctity and dignity of human life when many alternatives exist?” the cardinal asked.
The cardinal also cited a recent opinion poll reporting that 67 percent of Britons are completely opposed to the creation of human-animal hybrids.
Continue reading at:
2. British Polls Show Conflicting Results on Hybrid Human Cloning Research
by Steven Ertelt
April 13, 2008
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- Polls of Britons show conflicting results on whether they support hybrid human cloning research that involves the infusing of animal and human DNA. A new London Times poll with suggests popular support for the cloning process but a previous survey of Scotland residents finds strong opposition.
The Times' poll, conducted by the Populus firm, found 50 percent of British residents okaying the research while 30 percent are opposed to it.
Members of the British Parliament could use the results in their bid to get the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill approved in the House of Commons next month. The measure would provide scientists already engaged in the hybrid human cloning practice with firm legal ground for their research.
However, the poll also found opposition from the British public for another section of the bill that includes the removal of the requirement for a father in fertility treatment.
Just 32 percent back that idea while another 40 percent are opposed.
The results differ with those from a previous survey of opinion in Scotland, conducted for the Catholic church by the Opinion Research Business.
That poll found 67% of the 1005 polled opposed to hybrid human cloning and another 64 percent opposed to the changes in fertility treatments.
Continue reading at http://www.lifenews.com/bio2407.html
3. Hybrid Human Cloning is Scientific Manipulation of the Dignity of Man
by Ken Conner
March 29, 2008
LifeNews.com Note: Ken Connor is the chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington and a leading pro-life attorney who helped Terri Schiavo's family try to save her life. He is a former president of the Family Research Council.
Popular culture is blindly embracing science and ignoring legitimate moral concerns. Human dignity is steadily being eroded in the pursuit of the "advancement of science" and the quest for "cures." Increasingly, we are losing our common understanding of what it means to be a human being, and the idea that human beings are something "special" is rapidly becoming an antiquated notion.
Science is unquestionably a worthwhile pursuit, but many have come to view science as an end unto itself. The unbridled pursuit of science and technology is glorified, and any who suggest constraining science within limits of morality or propriety are condemned. Raising the simple question of whether something should be done is considered taboo. Radical science advocates are only interested in whether something can be done.
Central to the "science without limits" view is the notion that man is merely an animal, the product of random chance. God is removed from the creation equation and the notion of moral truth is abandoned. Notions of right and wrong are relegated to the spheres of theology and philosophy and do not constrain the consciences or actions of radical scientists.
The latest example of the results of radical science is the blending of human DNA and animal cells in Britain. There scientists extracted the DNA from a human embryonic cell and injected it into a "emptied" cow egg. This process, it is argued, produces a 99.9% human embryo from which scientists can harvest stem cells for further research and analysis.
A group at Newcastle University led by Lyle Armstrong produced one such "cybrid" embryo (cytoplasmic hybrid) on April 1. It lived three days and grew to 32 cells. The ultimate goal is to extend a cybrid's life cycle to six days, at which time stem cells can be removed.
Current British law makes it illegal to allow these cybrids to live longer than 14 days or to implant them into a human womb. The use of animal eggs is justified by the shortage of human eggs and the danger to women in harvesting them. The process is authorized upon receipt of a license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
The creation of cybrids by the scientific community represents a frontal assault on human dignity. The mixing of human and animal cells for the purpose of creating a 99.9% person is a grave violation of the natural order and strikes at the heart of what it means to be a human being.
If the practice is allowed to persist, the percentages will inevitably change based on the utility of the various combinations of humans and animals. The average person recoils at such a practice, but not the radical scientists.
Scientists working in embryology have long clamored for the complete freedom to create, manipulate and destroy embryos as they see fit. On top of this clamor, they demand a blank check from the government in pursuit of this research and are indignant at any restrictions. The British government recently considered a ban on the creation of cybrids, but quickly "retreated after a revolt by scientists."
The scientists hold out the promise of "cures" for diseases and disabilities in order to circumvent ethical concerns. These supposed future cures are the carrots with which the scientific community is manipulating the politicians.
Sadly, the truth about these ghoulish practices is usually buried under complex scientific verbiage and ambiguous promises. Professor Neil Scolding of Bristol University, a Catholic researcher into stem cells, stated that the practical prospect of human and animal DNA working in harmony and producing a useful organism is "a big ask".
Professor Scolding also refers to the new, more successful developments in adult stem cell research as an approach which could hold great cures while also avoiding the ethical problems of "cybrids" and embryonic stem cell research. He comments that these promising adult stem cell developments make it "all the more inexplicable why a small minority of UK stem cell scientists wants to pursue the extraordinarily complex and frankly speculative hybrid approach."
Continue reading at http://www.lifenews.com/bio2405.html
Posted on 04/18/2008 4:04 PM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 17 April 2008
North American Union: Conspiracy or Coverup?
North American Union: Conspiracy or Coverup?
by Phyllis Schlafly, April 16, 2008
Ever since Hillary proclaimed the Clintons as the victims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," conspiracy has been the hot word used to ridicule your opponents. When President Bush wanted to avoid answering questions about whether the Security and Prosperity Partnership is the prelude to a North American Union connected by a three-country superhighway, he accused SPP critics of believing in a conspiracy.
By definition, conspiracies are usually secret. There's nothing secret about right-wingers organizing to criticize the Clintons and their goals, and there's nothing secret about plans to morph the United States into a North American Union.
The elites, however, must be feeling the heat. Following the Hudson Institute's helpful suggestion to change the name of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the fourth annual SPP meeting to be held in New Orleans on April 21 will now be called the North American Leaders Summit, and the promoters of the TransTexas Corridor are trying to change its name to "regional loop."
To see what the elites are planning, you don't have peek through keyholes or plant a spy under the table. Just read their published reports.
The words most frequently used to describe their goals are "economic integration," "labor mobility," "free movement of goods, services and people across open borders," and "harmonization" of regulations.
The Council on Foreign Relations published a major report on May 17, 2005, only two months after the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was announced by President Bush, Mexico's Vicente Fox, and Canada's Paul Martin in Waco on March 23, 2005. The CFR document explaining SPP's goals and methodology was posted on the U.S. State Department website, thereby confirming its authenticity.
The CFR report explains that the three SPP amigos at Waco "committed their governments" to "Building a North American Community" by 2010 with a common "outer security perimeter," "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" of illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, and "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
The prestigious Center for Strategic & International Studies published a report in 2007 called "North American Future 2025 Project." It advocates "economic integration," the "free flow of people across national borders," and "policies that integrate governments."
The CSIS report even calls for "harmonizing legislation" on intellectual property rights with other countries. That's a direct attack on our U.S. patent system, which is the key to U.S. leadership in inventions and innovation.
The Hudson Institute published a 35-page White Paper in 2007 called "Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership." It states that SPP is the vehicle "for economic integration" with Mexico and Canada and even "combines an agenda with a political commitment."
The Hudson White Paper explains that SPP's "design" is for the executive branch to exercise full "authority" to "enforce and execute" whatever is decided by a 3-nation agreement of "civil service professionals" as though it were "law." That means evading treaty ratification and even congressional legislation and oversight.
Don't forget the importance of the Wall Street Journal and its longtime, very influential editorial-page editor, the late Robert Bartley. When Mexico's Vicente Fox called for NAFTA to evolve into something like the European Union, Bartley wrote: "There is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper."
One of the most influential business writers, Peter F. Drucker, wrote in his book, Post-Capitalist Society, that "The economic integration of the three countries into one region is proceeding so fast that it will make little difference whether the marriage is sanctified legally or not."
When Larry King asked Mexico's Vicente Fox about plans for a "Latin America united with one currency," Fox answered in the affirmative. He said that one currency was part of the "vision" of the Free Trade Area of the Americas that Bush agreed to in the Declaration of Quebec City in 2001.
So now we know why the Bush Administration won't build a fence to interfere with "labor mobility" across open borders. Now we know why Bush won't pardon Ignatio Ramos and Jose Compean, while winking at the prosecutor's deal to give immunity to a professional drug smuggler.
Now we know why Bush thumbed his nose at the overwhelming congressional votes (411-3 in the House and 75-23 in the Senate) to exclude Mexican trucks from U.S. roads. Now we know why Bush has been more persistent in pursuing "totalization" to put illegal aliens into Social Security than to promote his proposal to privatize a small part of Social Security for American citizens.
This is no conspiracy. It's all part of the "economic integration" of the North American countries that's been openly talked about for years.
Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/apr08/08-04-16.html
Posted on 04/17/2008 4:02 PM by Bobbie Patray
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
The High Cost of 'family fragmentation' - $112B
COMMENT: We had known for some time the emotional 'cost' of fragmented families especially to children, but now we have hard evidence of what it is costing us in taxpayer dollars.
Study: "Family fragmentation" costs $112B
The Associated Press
NEW YORK — Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.
Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages.
Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments — notably job creation — would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.
There have been previous attempts to calculate the cost of divorce in America. But the sponsors of the new study, being released today, said theirs is the first to gauge the broader cost of "family fragmentation" — both divorce and unwed childbearing.
The study was conducted by Georgia State University economist Ben Scafidi. His work was sponsored by four groups who consider themselves part of a nationwide "marriage movement" — the New York-based Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest of Redmond, and the Georgia Family Council, an ally of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family.
"The study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing — besides being bad for children — are costing taxpayers a ton of money," said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values.
"We keep hearing this from state legislators, 'Explain to me why this is any of my business? Aren't these private matters?' " Blankenhorn said. "Take a look at these numbers and tell us if you still have any doubt."
Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes.
The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.
Reducing these costs, Scafidi said, "is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators."
While the study doesn't offer formal recommendations, it does suggest that state and federal lawmakers consider investing more money in programs intended to bolster marriages.
Such a program has been in place in Oklahoma since 2001; Texas last year earmarked about $15 million in federal funds for marriage education.
To continue reading, go to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004349460_families15.html?syndication=rss
The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing:
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States
Posted on 04/16/2008 4:00 PM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Cost of refusing to photograph same-sex ceremony
COMMENT: Are we paying attention yet to the loss of our religious freedom? Just glance at the list of incidents following article -- less than three percent of the population is driving the "Overhauling of Straight America". Keep in mind that this "Overhauling" article was written in 1987 -- the homosexual community has 'planned a work and worked a plan' with astonishing success.
Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job
By John Jalsevac
New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony", was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.
A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography.
"On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony - that marriage can be defined as two women or two men."
In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees.
"Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money," said Lorence. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Lorence said that the ADF is framing its case in a similar fashion to the 1995 Supreme Court "Hurley" Case. "In the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade case the US Supreme Court said that the State of Massachusetts could not punish a privately run parade because it refused to allow a homosexual advocacy group to carry banners and signs in the parade. They said that would be compelled speech, ordering the parade organizers to help promote a message they do not want to promote. To apply the discrimination law that way violates freedom of speech. We are making a similar kind of argument in this case."
Lorence said that this current case is demonstrative of a "tremendous threat" facing those with traditional views on marriage and family.
"I think that this is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights. Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, 'We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people's right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.'"
But, in practice, says Lorence, "Business owners with traditional views or church owners with traditional definitions of marriage are now vulnerable for lawsuits under these nondiscrimination laws. There are 20 states that have these laws where they ban sexual orientation discrimination. Most of the major cities in the United States also have these kinds of ordinances. So these are a big threat, as the federal government debates whether to make this a blanket nationwide law.
To continue reading: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Catholic Activist "Banned for life" From Publicly Criticizing Homosexuality
Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission for Speaking Against Homosexuality
Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal for Letter to Editor on Homosexuality
U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony
Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
Human Rights Complaint Filed Against Catholic Bishop for Defence of Traditional Marriage
Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites
CHRISTIAN COUPLE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN B&B FOR REFUSING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE
Posted on 04/15/2008 3:58 PM by Bobbie Patray
Monday, 14 April 2008
The Study of Political Islam
COMMENT: You will want to read every word of this important article. We MUST understand what it is that we face!!
The Study of Political Islam
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/5/2007
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI- http://www.cspipublishing.com/). CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced a series on its focus. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors.
FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.
FP: Tell us a bit about the Center for the Study of Political Islam.
Warner: The Center for the Study of Political Islam is a group of scholars who are devoted to the scientific study of the foundational texts of Islam—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). There are two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and history, or as CSPI sees it—the theory and its results. We study the history to see the practical or experimental results of the doctrine.
CSPI seems to be the first group to use statistics to study the doctrine. Previous scientific studies of the Koran are primarily devoted to Arabic language studies.
Our first principle is that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the texts.
Our major intellectual breakthrough is to see that dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith).
Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?
This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.
Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.
(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.
>From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:
(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”
All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.
No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.
Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.
For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.
FP: Why, in your view, is there so much ignorance about the history and doctrine of political Islam in the West?
Warner: First, let’s see how ignorant we are about the history of political Islam. How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic? What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul’s letters? Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of dhimmitude (second class citizens who serve Islam). What European knows that white women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca? Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed, but find an unbeliever who can tell you how many died in jihad over the last 1400 years.
We are just as ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent gets two hours of training on Islam and most of that is how not to offend the imam. We are fighting in Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military doctrine of Islam to plan strategy? Who can find a single rabbi or minister who has read the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What governor, senator, congressmen or military leader displays a knowledge of the political doctrine of Islam? Try to find a course available in a college about Islamic political doctrine and ethics. Graduates are schooled in Islamic art, architecture, poetry, Sufism, and a glorious history that ignores the suffering of the innocent unbelievers. Graduates read comments about the Koran and Hadith, but do not read the actual doctrine.
FP: So why this ignorance?
Warner: Let’s start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of Arabia into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks; the invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our scholars were incapable of even naming the invaders.
Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him. It was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous basis for ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all. What accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam? Beyond fear is the realization that political Islam is profoundly foreign to us.
Let’s examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:Treat others as you would be treated.
The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule--the equality of human beings--we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.
FP: So how is Islam different in this context?
Warner: The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.
There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.
By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.
Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.
There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.
The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be "nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.
FP: You mentioned earlier how logic is another point of profound difference. Can you touch on that?
Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.
Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.
Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms: submission.
The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan’s sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.
Jews don’t want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal and being a dhimmi
Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan.
Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.
Dualistic logic. Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no compromise. These are the reasons we don’t want to know about Islam’s political history, doctrine or ethics.
FP So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?
Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.
But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.
Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.
Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.
In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.
FP: Can you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?
Continue reading at: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-study-of-political-islam/
Posted on 04/14/2008 3:56 PM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 10 April 2008
New Proof of Reagan's Wisdom
New Proof of Reagan's Wisdom
by Phyllis Schlafly, March 26, 2008
The U.S. Navy gave Ronald Reagan a dramatic 25th anniversary gift on February 21. A Navy missile raced into outer space and destroyed an orbiting satellite, thereby providing new proof of the vision President Reagan proclaimed in his then-sensational televised address on March 23, 1983.
While the Navy SM-3 missile didn't knock down an incoming nuclear missile, the direct hit on a satellite proved again that our anti-missile technology is mature and reliable, and that an effective anti-missile system is within our grasp. Traveling at 6,000 miles per hour after being launched from a cruiser in the Pacific, the SM-3 missile was even more accurate than anyone had predicted because it struck precisely at the satellite's dangerous fuel tank.
The successful kill of the satellite also confirmed the ability of the SM-3 to intercept at a higher elevation than had ever been tested before. It revalidated the Bush Administration's expenditure of $10 billion a year on anti-missile defenses.
This direct hit comes on the heels of a particularly impressive track record of successful anti-missile tests in 2007. Since 2005, the Missile Defense Agency has scored 21 successful space interceptions in 22 tests.
The so-called world community, egged on by U.S. pacifists and disarmament professionals, grumbled and sputtered because the United States dared to knock out a satellite. Actually, there was a very persuasive reason for our government to take immediate action against this particular satellite.
It had failed in its mission and was edging closer to Earth carrying a large tank of toxic fuel that would be harmful to many people if it crashed into a populated area. Our government acted properly to protect the world against such an unnecessary disaster.
This demonstration of U.S. anti-satellite capability also had a useful side effect. It signaled Communist China that we have anti-satellite technology and power.
China shocked the world on January 11, 2007 by conducting the first successful test of an anti-satellite weapon. In its usual disregard for the health of humankind, China's test left 2,500 pieces of debris in space spread out in a way that poses a danger to manned and unmanned spacecraft.
U.S. officials recognized China's action as a new strategic threat. Killing a communications satellite could knock out U.S. military and civilian communications systems.
In his 1983 address, Reagan announced that he was "launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history." Indeed, it did. His speech extricated America from the defeatist McNamara-Kissinger-Nixon-Ford-Carter strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction, known descriptively by its acronym MAD.
The MAD strategy postulated that our only hope of avoiding nuclear war was by threatening massive retaliation and killing as many enemy people as we could. "Morning-in-America" Reagan offered the contrary vision of hope.
"Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them?" he said. "What if we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?"
Reagan thus added the necessary fourth leg to his strategy of Peace Through Strength. It encompassed not only diplomacy, deterrence and offensive weapons, but also defensive weapons.
This made eminently good sense to the American people, who fully understand that battle requires both a sword and a shield. Conservatives had been pleading for an anti-missile defense system for more than 20 years.
The whole disarmament/pacifist crowd attacked Reagan unmercifully for his determination to defend America with defensive as well as offensive weapons. Ted Kennedy led the pack by ridiculing Reagan's plan as Star Wars.
Reagan's opponents criticized him on every front, claiming an anti-missile system can't work because it requires hitting a bullet with a bullet. This new test should finally put to rest the false claims that it won't work.
Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that it was Reagan's determination to push forward with what became known as his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that won the Cold War. SDI was the centerpiece of his strategy.
At the Geneva and Reykjavik Summits, Mikhail Gorbachev offered every carrot and stick in his arsenal to persuade or intimidate Reagan into abandoning SDI. When Reagan refused, Gorbachev realized the jig was up for the Soviet empire and its delusions of world conquest because the Soviets could not compete with the U.S. military-economic powerhouse.
Reagan's SDI, so courageously proposed in 1983, ultimately enabled him to defeat the Evil Empire without firing a shot. We know the system works, and it's just as necessary in the post-9/11 world as in the days of the Soviet threat.
Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/mar08/08-03-26.html
Posted on 04/10/2008 3:53 PM by Bobbie Patray
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'
COMMENT: It was my pleasure to view this movie at a recent private screening. It is scheduled for release April 18th. In a world where "freedom of speech" and "tolerance" are SUPPOSED to be held in highest esteem, see the price being paid by some for their 'free' speech.
Let me encourage you to not only go, but take all the young people with you that you can. What students are being taught in elementary schools, secondary schools and in college is totally one-sided and taught as FACT, no dissent allowed!
Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'
Posted on Apr 4, 2008 | by Michael Foust
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Actor, commentator and comedian Ben Stein promises he hasn't lost his mind. Well, he says with his famous dry monotone humor, at least not in this instance.
On the contrary, Stein -– whose documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" opens in two weeks, April 18 -- believes he's involved in one of the leading cultural and political battles of his life: the fight for academic freedom against an establishment that teaches Darwinian evolution as fact. Intelligent Design (ID) -– the belief that certain aspects of the world are so complex that they must have been created by an intelligent being, instead of by a random process –- deserves a place at the academic table, he says.
"I think I'm engaged in a struggle that's very much uphill in which the establishment is very much against me," he said in a recent telephone conference call with reporters. "But I'm a rebel to my core ... and happy to be in an uphill struggle, as long as the cause is right."
Obviously, conservatives and supporters of Intelligent Design don't believe Stein has lost his mind. Rather, they believe "Expelled" –- one of the year's most controversial films -– has a chance to change dramatically the landscape in the ongoing struggle between evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). In the film, Stein travels the globe, interviewing scientists, philosophers and doctors who believe in evolution and those who believe in Intelligent Design. In case after case, Stein recounts the story of ID supporters who lost their jobs or couldn't get tenure because of their supposed controversial beliefs.
The documentary, rated PG for thematic material and very brief language, ends in a climactic scene with Stein interviewing one of the world's leading backers of evolution, atheist and author Richard Dawkins.
Stein's humor is on display throughout the film, although supporters of evolution likely won't find it too funny. Christian conservative leaders are on board, supporting it. The film was shown at the recent National Religious Broadcasters meeting. It's also scheduled to be the topic of an upcoming Focus on the Family broadcast.
ID supporters, Stein and the film assert, are facing staunch opposition in the academic world, in the media and in the courts.
"The case we're making," associate producer Mark Mathis said, "is that there needs to be freedom in science, that we have highly qualified scientists who are being persecuted for unscientific reasons [and] are being driven [away] by a philosophy. That is the core content of the film -– the persecution of scientists needs to stop."
A secondary theme is that evolution, taken to the extreme, can have deadly consequences. In one part of the documentary that likely will stir controversy, Stein tours a Jewish concentration camp and interviews an expert who argues that evolution was a contributing factor to the Holocaust. For Stein, who is Jewish, the moment was personal.
Some critics will say the documentary unfairly links evolution to the Holocaust, but Stein believes the film showed restraint. One person in the film says evolution was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the Holocaust.
"If I had my way about this movie -- which I didn't, because I was not one of the producers -- I would have had much more of it [be] about Nazi Germany," Stein said. "The unequivocal nature of the evidence that Darwinism had a big part to play in rationalizing the Holocaust for the Nazis is so painful and so horrible that I think we touched on extreme, extreme restraint."
The film, Stein says, is not saying evolutionists are Nazis.
"What we're saying is that the Nazis thought they were carrying out Darwinian ideas in the sense of eliminating inferior races and making mankind healthy and so forth," he said.
Although the Nazi element might get the media's spotlight, the majority of the documentary focuses on the ongoing fight for academic freedom by supporters of Intelligent Design.
Stein interviews, among others, Guillermo Gonzalez, a supporter of ID and an astronomy professor at Iowa State University who was denied tenure, as well as Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out because she questioned Darwinian evolution and introduced Intelligent Design in the classroom. Stein also speaks with Richard Sternberg, a biologist who was ridiculed and harassed by his peers at the Smithsonian Institution for allowing the publishing of a pro-Intelligent Design paper in an academic journal. Sternberg's plight received national attention in 2005-06 and even led to a congressional investigation that found top officials had desired to make Sternberg's "life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave."
Stein also interviews Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary philosophy professor William Dembski, one of the nation's leading supporters of Intelligent Design.
Getting involved in the project, Stein says, wasn't a difficult decision.
"I was always interested in Darwinism because I never thought it gave a particularly coherent explanation of how life originated and developed," he said. "... I also was extremely concerned about the social implications of Darwinism and the moral, ethical and human costs of Darwinism, because I knew Darwinism was one of the main props under the national socialist regime of Adolf Hitler and that the Holocaust was commenced in large part to satisfy social Darwinists' aims of eliminating so-called inferior races. That was my starting point."
As he got involved in the project with the documentary's producers, Stein said, he began seeing it as a free speech issue. Stein and the producers conducted the interviews over a period of two years.
In addition to Dawkins, the film includes interviews of several prominent backers of evolution, including biologist PZ Myers, a biologist and atheist at the University of Minnesota Morris, and Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Some of the pro-evolution scientists and philosophers in the film have claimed the interviews were conducted under false pretenses -– a claim Stein and the producers reject. Mathis said he contacted each person, telling him or her they were working on a film about the cultural intersection of evolution, religion and Intelligent Design.
"[We said,] 'You, Mr. or Mrs. Scientist, are an outspoken person on this topic. Would you like to do an interview with us on this film? And you'll be paid.' And they said, 'Sure, we'd love to,' because they do this sort of thing all the time," Mathis said.
In some instances, he said, questions were sent to people in advance. After the interview was done, the person signed a form giving the producers the rights to use the footage as they deemed necessary. Those who believe in evolution, Mathis said, are given ample time in the film to explain their position. The producers didn't tell anyone the name of the film, he added, because the film didn't yet have one.
***********For remainder, go to**********
Posted on 04/09/2008 3:50 PM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Mexican official says NAFTA includes superhighways
COMMENT: Well I guess the cat is out of the bag. As we have been dealing with this issue and heard the denials -- now the truth come from a Mexican official. For our new subscribers, you might want to go to http://www.tneagleforum.org/sovereignty.cfm for background information.
Mexican official says NAFTA includes superhighways
'Transportation linking the United States, Mexico and Canada is key to the future'
Posted: March 18, 2008
10:56 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
While President Bush and other U.S. officials have derided fears of a NAFTA superhighway as merely conspiracy theory, a Mexican transportation expert contends the trade agreement includes plans for a network of international ship, rail and truck connections to deliver consumer goods from China and the Far East to Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.
"Transportation linking the United States, Mexico and Canada is key to the future of NAFTA," Eduardo Aspero, president of the Mexican Intermodal Association, told a recent luncheon sponsored by the Free Trade Alliance San Antonio.
In transportation economics, the term "intermodal" refers to the ability to move a container by crane to different modes of transportation, including ship, truck and railroad, without having to unpack or repack the container.
"It was interesting how the NAFTA transportation network so vehemently denied by the U.S. government was alive and well in Aspero's speech and openly discussed in San Antonio," said Terri Hall, founder of the San Antonio Toll Party.
WND reported President Bush, while attending the third annual summit of the Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Quebec last August said in an internationally televised press conference that those who believe the SPP might lead to NAFTA superhighways or a North American Union are "conspiracy theorists."
Hall, who attended Aspero's San Antonio speech, is a political activist whose website, TexasTurf.org, is dedicated to fighting the Trans-Texas Corridor and the expansion of toll roads in the state.
Aspero focused on plans by the Chinese firm of Hutchison Ports Holdings to develop the deep-water Mexican ports of Lazaro Cardenas and Manzanillo, on the Pacific Ocean south of Texas, to bring containers from China into North America.
As WND has reported, Hutchison Ports Holdings is paying billions of dollars to deepen Mexican ports such as Lazaro Cardenas and Manzanillo in anticipation of the arrival of post-Pamamex mega-ships capable of holding up to 12,500 containers currently being built for Chinese shipping lines.
WND also has reported how the U.S. southern border is being blurred for the benefit of global trade, with the official website of the Mexican northeastern state of Nuevo Leon disclosing plans to extend the Trans-Texas Corridor south through Monterrey to connect with Pacific ports in Mexico.
*********for remainder, go to **********
Mexican truck drivers take English exam in Spanish
Senator thrashes Bush's Mexican truck hat dance
Mexican trucks defy Congress, still roll
Congress cuts funding for Mexican trucks
Mexican trucks roll on despite opposition
Posted on 04/08/2008 12:21 PM by Bobbie Patray
Friday, 4 April 2008
Outsourced passports -- risking national security
Outsourced passports netting govt. profits, risking national security
By Bill Gertz
March 26, 2008
This is the first in a three-part series on the outsourcing of passports.
The United States has outsourced the manufacturing of its electronic passports to overseas companies — including one in Thailand that was victimized by Chinese espionage — raising concerns that cost savings are being put ahead of national security, an investigation by The Washington Times has found.
The Government Printing Office's decision to export the work has proved lucrative, allowing the agency to book more than $100 million in recent profits by charging the State Department more money for blank passports than it actually costs to make them, according to interviews with federal officials and documents obtained by The Times.
The profits have raised questions both inside the agency and in Congress because the law that created GPO as the federal government's official printer explicitly requires the agency to break even by charging only enough to recover its costs.
Lawmakers said they were alarmed by The Times' findings and plan to investigate why U.S. companies weren't used to produce the state-of-the-art passports, one of the crown jewels of American border security.
"I am not only troubled that there may be serious security concerns with the new passport production system, but also that GPO officials may have been profiting from producing them," said Rep. John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Officials at GPO, the Homeland Security Department and the State Department played down such concerns, saying they are confident that regular audits and other protections already in place will keep terrorists and foreign spies from stealing or copying the sensitive components to make fake passports.
"Aside from the fact that we have fully vetted and qualified vendors, we also note that the materials are moved via a secure transportation means, including armored vehicles," GPO spokesman Gary Somerset said.
But GPO Inspector General J. Anthony Ogden, the agency's internal watchdog, doesn't share that confidence. He warned in an internal Oct. 12 report that there are "significant deficiencies with the manufacturing of blank passports, security of components, and the internal controls for the process."
The inspector general's report said GPO claimed it could not improve its security because of "monetary constraints." But the inspector general recently told congressional investigators he was unaware that the agency had booked tens of millions of dollars in profits through passport sales that could have been used to improve security, congressional aides told The Times.
Decision to outsource
GPO is an agency little-known to most Americans, created by Congress almost two centuries ago as a virtual monopoly to print nearly all of the government's documents, from federal agency reports to the president's massive budget books that outline every penny of annual federal spending. Since 1926, it also has been charged with the job of printing the passports used by Americans to enter and leave the country.
When the government moved a few years ago to a new electronic passport designed to foil counterfeiting, GPO led the work of contracting with vendors to install the technology.
Each new e-passport contains a small computer chip inside the back cover that contains the passport number along with the photo and other personal data of the holder. The data is secured and is transmitted through a tiny wire antenna when it is scanned electronically at border entry points and compared to the actual traveler carrying it.
According to interviews and documents, GPO managers rejected limiting the contracts to U.S.-made computer chip makers and instead sought suppliers from several countries, including Israel, Germany and the Netherlands.
Mr. Somerset, the GPO spokesman, said foreign suppliers were picked because "no domestic company produced those parts" when the e-passport production began a few years ago.
After the computer chips are inserted into the back cover of the passports in Europe, the blank covers are shipped to a factory in Ayutthaya, Thailand, north of Bangkok, to be fitted with a wire Radio Frequency Identification, or RFID, antenna. The blank passports eventually are transported to Washington for final binding, according to the documents and interviews.
The stop in Thailand raises its own security concerns. The Southeast Asian country has battled social instability and terror threats. Anti-government groups backed by Islamists, including al Qaeda, have carried out attacks in southern Thailand and the Thai military took over in a coup in September 2006.
The Netherlands-based company that assembles the U.S. e-passport covers in Thailand, Smartrac Technology Ltd., warned in its latest annual report that, in a worst-case scenario, social unrest in Thailand could lead to a halt in production.
Smartrac divulged in an October 2007 court filing in The Hague that China had stolen its patented technology for e-passport chips, raising additional questions about the security of America's e-passports.
A 2005 document obtained by The Times states that GPO was using unsecure FedEx courier services to send blank passports to State Department offices until security concerns were raised and forced GPO to use an armored car company. Even then, the agency proposed using a foreign armored car vendor before State Department diplomatic security officials objected.
Concerns that GPO has been lax in addressing security threats contrast with the very real danger that the new e-passports could be compromised and sold on the black market for use by terrorists or other foreign enemies, experts said.
"The most dangerous passports, and the ones we have to be most concerned about, are stolen blank passports," said Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of Interpol, the Lyon, France-based international police organization. "They are the most dangerous because they are the most difficult to detect."
Mr. Noble said no counterfeit e-passports have been found yet, but the potential is "a great weakness and an area that world governments are not paying enough attention to."
Lukas Grunwald, a computer security expert, said U.S. e-passports, like their European counterparts, are vulnerable to copying and that their shipment overseas during production increases the risks. "You need a blank passport and a chip and once you do that, you can do anything, you can make a fake passport, you can change the data," he said.
Separately, Rep. Robert A. Brady, chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, has expressed "serious reservations" about GPO's plan to use contract security guards to protect GPO facilities. In a Dec. 12 letter, Mr. Brady, a Pennsylvania Democrat, stated that GPO's plan for conducting a security review of the printing office was ignored and he ordered GPO to undertake an outside review.
GPO's accounting adds another layer of concern.
The State Department is now charging Americans $100 or more for new e-passports produced by the GPO, depending on how quickly they are needed. That's up from a cost of around just $60 in 1998.
Internal agency documents obtained by The Times show each blank passport costs GPO an average of just $7.97 to manufacture and that GPO then charges the State Department about $14.80 for each, a margin of more than 85 percent, the documents show.
The accounting allowed GPO to make gross profits of more than $90 million from Oct. 1, 2006, through Sept. 30, 2007, on the production of e-passports. The four subsequent months produced an additional $54 million in gross profits.
To continue reading, go to:
Posted on 04/04/2008 12:16 PM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 3 April 2008
McDonalds + Unmasking The 'Gay' Agenda
McDonalds + Unmasking The 'Gay' Agenda
COMMENT: I want to encourage you to read every word of this important article. Right now a friend of my in Oklahoma, Rep. Sally Kern, is the object of homosexual wrath for stating at a Republican women's club luncheon (someone secretly recorded and posted part of it on YouTube) her concerns about the homosexual agenda. She has received over 30,000 emails, some threatening to the point that she has to have a body guard now. See how successful they have been?
In addition beginning on Mother's Day weekend and continuing Father's Day, the radical, San Francisco--based Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) and three allies will launch a major protest against some of our nation's most prominent mega-churches.
Each week they'll target a different congregation in Texas, California, Illinois, Georgia, and Maryland. Their goals are simple and insidious: to intimidate these large churches and, by extension, the wider population of conservative Christians. To confuse Christians and the population at large about what the Bible says about homosexuality. To substantially silence the voice of Christians in the culture--and eliminate our opposition to same-sex "marriage"
Ronald McDonald Cozies Up To Homosexual Movement
Restaurant chain puts executive on board of US homosexual chamber of commerce.
WASHINGTON, DC, March 31, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) has announced that Richard Ellis, vice president of communications for McDonald's USA, has been appointed to its board of directors.
A press release earlier this month (http://www.nglcc.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/15486/pid/5...) confirmed that this organization, which promotes homosexual business ventures, has received an endorsement from McDonald's and has the VP of communications for the world's biggest fast-food chain on its board.
*********For remainder, go to ********
COMMENT: My recommendation is to take the above press release to your local McDonald's and speak to the manager and of course you can email or call the president.
Andrew J. McKenna, President
Oak Brook, IL 60523
E-Mail: Andrew J. McKenna, McDonald's
Unmasking The “Gay” Agenda
Balance of Power
Americans who self-identify as “gay” or lesbian comprise roughly one to three percent of the population. Yet the homosexual movement — led by extremist homosexual pressure groups like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. Consider that HRC and the HRC foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of 50 million.
Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, homosexual activists have successfully cast homosexuals — many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence — as a disadvantaged minority. They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant.
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “gay agenda.” At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are “equal.” If it feels good, do it.
Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.
This creates cultural and moral anarchy.
Plan of Attack
Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct — by force of law — through federal edicts such as “hate crimes” legislation, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned “same-sex marriage.” All such government mandates grant special protected “minority” status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.
Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan “celebrate diversity” supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”
Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded “homophobic,” “hateful” or “discriminatory.” They are to be silenced by all means possible.
In Their Own Words
What you are about to read is just a quick, though disturbing, glance behind the homosexual lobby’s lavender curtain.
Below are two of the central demands put forth by homosexual activists in their “1972 Gay Rights Platform”:
“Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” (This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification — so long as those children “consented” to having sex.)
“Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.” (Once marriage is redefined, there can be no logical or ethical objection to any conceivable “marriage” combination, including polygamous “marriages.” By watering down marriage, “gay” activists and like-minded politicos [usually activist judges] remove this foundational institution’s intrinsic value.)
Here are just a few of the demands the homosexual lobby put forth during the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington”:
“The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.” ([ENDA] This would force all religious business owners, landlords and schools to abandon — under penalty of law — sincerely held and constitutionally protected religious beliefs and adopt a view of sexual morality that runs entirely counter to central teachings of every major world religion.)
“Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.” (Translation: pro-homosexual, government-mandated indoctrination. This is already occurring in thousands of public schools throughout America. Children are being force-fed the absurd notion that male-male anal sodomy is a perfectly acceptable, “alternative” sexual “orientation.” This calculated propaganda continues to expand, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that such behaviors place participants at extremely high risk for dangerous and often deadly infectious disease.)
“The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.” (This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide “commitment ceremonies” to homosexuals.)
“Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples.” (This is now being mandated in many states such as California and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities’ adoption service was recently forced to close down because it refused to assign children to homosexuals for adoption.)
The push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is another activist tool intended to silence traditional views on human sexuality and sexual morality. Similar laws have already been used around the world, and even right here at home, to persecute Christians and other traditionalists. For example, in 2004, 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia and charged with a “hate crime” for merely preaching the Bible at a public homosexual street festival. They could have served up to 47 years in prison.
More recently, a Christian photographer was dragged before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for a lesbian couple because lesbian behavior is inconsistent with Christianity.
Such stark examples of homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the “gay” agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, “The Gay Agenda”:
On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”
On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”
On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”
On “same-sex marriage”: “Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”
On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”
The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.
In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda.
They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.
Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:
- Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
- Give potential protectors a just cause.
- Make gays look good.
- Make victimizers look bad.
“Desensitization,” wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”
As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.
With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks’ Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.
Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, “The wages of sin is death.”)
And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.
The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.
As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the “Everyman.” “In no time,” they said, “a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.”
Prophetic words from two very smart men.
“Jamming” refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda. “Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,” wrote Kirk and Madsen. “Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’
“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.
But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”
And so words like “homophobe” and “heterosexism” were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a “homophobe,” a “hatemonger,” a “bigot.”
Not even churches are safe.
“Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”
And, oh, how it has.
“Conversion” means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”
“In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!”
So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of “hide the ball.” In order to achieve widespread acceptance of “gayness,” they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of “gay civil rights.”
In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to “consummate” a so-called “gay marriage.” Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for “civil rights.” Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.
Therein lies the deception.
But There’s Hope
There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction. Part of our fallen condition as humans is that we are all subject to sin. Those who know the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, are no better or worse than those who engage in homosexual sin.
But through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ, we can all find salvation from sin. So can homosexuals. “Gayness” is not an “immutable” or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.
There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the “gay” agenda and our national moral integrity. Concerned Women for America (CWA) endeavors on a daily basis to counter this destructive movement throughout all facets of culture and public policy.
With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.
(For more information about Concerned Women for America and to learn how you can be part of unmasking the “gay” agenda, please call us at (202) 488-7000 or visit CWA’s website at www.cwfa.org.)
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
Posted on 04/03/2008 12:13 PM by Bobbie Patray
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Hamas puppet show + Islam and Free Speech + Lessons from Europe
Hamas puppet show + Islam and Free Speech + Lessons from Europe
Puppet Show From Hamas TV Shows Child Stabbing Bush
A children's puppet show featured on Hamas TV shows a child stabbing President Bush to death.
"Who are you to come here and threaten me?" Bush says in the puppet show video. "You are on my own turf, you little child, you. Get out."
The child tells Bush that he killed his father in the Iraq war, which made him an orphan.
"I have come to take revenge with this sword — revenge for my mother and my sisters," the child puppet says. "You are a criminal, Bush."
"I will kill you, Bush, because that is your fate," the child says before stabbing Bush repeatedly.
The show aired on Al-Aqsa TV on March 30.
Click here to watch the video.
1. Islam and Free Speech
2. The Rape of Europe
Comment from Act for America: “If leaders of the Muslim nations of the world proceed ahead with such a plan to muzzle any critique or criticism of Islam they deem offensive or defamatory, it is reasonable for freedom-loving people and societies to ask: Can Islam be compatible with freedom? Can freedom-loving societies hope to successfully co-exist with a religious and political ideology that demands that freedom of speech be subordinated to its demands – or else?”
1. Islam and Free Speech
By PETER HOEKSTRA
[Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.]
March 26, 2008; Page A15
The Netherlands is bracing for a new round of violence at home and against its embassies in the Middle East. The storm would be caused by "Fitna," a short film that is scheduled to be released this week. The film, which reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned, was produced by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party. Mr. Wilders has called for banning the Quran -- which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" -- from the Netherlands.
After concern about the film led Mr. Wilders's Internet service provider to take down his Web site, Mr. Wilders issued a statement this week that he will personally distribute DVDs "On the Dam" if he has to. That may not be necessary, as the Czech National Party has reportedly agreed to host the video on its Web site.
|Marked for death: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.
Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work "Piss Christ" -- a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine -- Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.
Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, "The Satanic Verses." Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film "Submission," which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for "Submission," received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.
The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.
Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.
Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq's Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.
There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists' opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?
Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who "disappeared" for probable forced marriages.
While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist "waiting game," based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration.
What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.
Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.
European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.
*********for remainder, go here**********
2. The Rape of Europe
The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”
Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”
Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.
Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”
In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.
**********for remainder, go to*********
Posted on 04/02/2008 12:10 PM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
1. Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
2. Soaring Wheat cost has ripple effect
1. Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.
There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
*********for remainder, go here*******
2. Soaring wheat cost has ripple effect
Industry expects prices of most items to rise, too
LUBBOCK, Texas — If you think the cost of gassing up your car is outrageous, wait until you need to restock your pantry.
The price of wheat has more than tripled during the past 10 months, making Americans' daily bread — and bagels and pizza and pasta — feel a little like luxury items. And baked goods aren't the only ones getting more expensive: Experts expect 80 percent of grocery prices will spike, too, and could remain steep for years because wheat and other grains are used to feed cattle, poultry and dairy cows.
"It's going to affect everything ... impact on every section of the grocery store," said Michael Bittel, senior vice president of King Arthur Flour Co. in Norwich, Vt.
Consumers such as Maria Cardena feel trapped by the prices. She said the bread she buys has jumped from 69 cents a loaf to $1.09 in recent weeks.
"You have to buy it," said the 29-year-old mother from Lubbock, Texas. "You can't go without it. Everything has gone up."
The wheat market has been pushed higher by a combination of agricultural, financial and energy issues.
Poor wheat harvests in Australia and parts of Europe and the U.S. have caused China and other Asian countries to buy up more American crops, which are especially attractive be cause of the weak U.S. dollar.
At the same time, the American crop is shrinking because of federal incentives to grow corn for ethanol. And skyrocketing gas prices make it costlier to get any wheat to market.
Those same pressures also have made it more expensive to supply feed grains for dairy and beef cattle and poultry, driving up costs throughout the grocery store.
At Bob's Red Mill flour company, wheat flour has typically been subject to retail price adjustments every five years. Now those increases are happening almost monthly.
"You look at the price and you say, 'Oh, my gosh,' " said Dennis Gilliam, executive vice president of sales and marketing for the company in Milwaukie, Ore. "It keeps climbing every day."
Wheat historically trades at $3 to $7 a bushel.
Bushel price rises to $18
Last week, futures of spring wheat — which produces the flour used in hearth breads, rolls, croissants, bagels and pizza crust — were close to $18 a bushel on the Minneapolis Grain Exchange.
They climbed as high as $24 in late February.
Consumers pay an additional penny on wheat products for each dollar the price-per-bushel increases. "It's a huge impact," said Steve Mercer, spokesman for U.S. Wheat Associates, an industry group.
White bread cost an average of 85 cents a pound in 1998 and $1.03 in February 2007. Federal data show the price rose to $1.32 a pound last month.
And that's on top of overall food price increases of 4 percent last year and an additional 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent expected this year, according to federal data. Most years see 2.5 percent increases.
During the past few months, the price of cereals and baked goods has risen nearly 6 percent over the same time last year, federal officials reported.
People can buy less
Consumers can try to minimize costs by buying fewer wheat products, but the nation's bakers, pizzerias and other flour-dependent industries don't have that luxury.
*********for remainder, go here***********
Posted on 04/01/2008 12:08 PM by Bobbie Patray