This morning I was watching NBC's Today program as they discussed a recent outbreak of Whooping Cough. During the segment, the program's official "doctor" blamed the outbreak on those children and parents who haven't been vaccinated. This doctor went on and on about the need for immunization shots for children and adults alike.
In response to this one sided segment, I sent the following response to the show:
The segment about Whooping Cough with the doctor who was advocating vaccinations was offensive. For the doctor to suggest that un-vaccinated children and families are to blamed for the current outbreak is wrong. Why wasn't her assertion challenged and why wasn't she required to provide evidence for such a specious claim?
And that brings up another point: Where is the balance? There are many doctors who believe that vaccinations are more harmful then helpful -- why didn't you have a balanced segment debating the risk and benefits of vaccinations?
As educated parents, my wife and I understand that vaccinations are not 100 percent effective in protecting against certain diseases that our children may or may not be exposed to. Moreover, we have good reason to be concerned about the risk of adverse effects from these vaccinations -- including death or paralysis.
Dr. Mercola is one of those medical doctors who doesn't share the dominant medical community's view about vaccinations. In fact, he points to another study that suggests the outbreak in Whooping Cough may be due to a mutation in the virus or to the poor quality food our children are eating. This is Dr. Mercola's medical opinion:
So now the experts are finding out that the pertussis vaccine is not working. Is this due to the genetic shift of the organism or the progressive worsening of the foods that our children are now eating? Although it is likely that shifting genes are an issue, my vote is for the diet being the main variable contributing to the observed resistance.
The foods we consume are one of the most important factors that determines the functioning of our immune system. The food choice program is an outstanding way to improve your child"s immune system and decrease their risk for developing all types of infection, not only pertussis or "whooping cough".
Last Thursday, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals joined the D.C. Superior Court in calling natural marriage "discriminatory" and arguing that, as such, voters should not have the opportunity to protect it. A block of five judges wrote, "Because appellants' proposed initiative would authorize, or have the effect of authorizing, discrimination on the basis prohibited by the Human Rights Act, it was not a proper subject of initiative." The case turned more on arcane details of D.C. law than it did on the merits of homosexual "marriage."
Until the District gives its people a voice, Bishop Harry Jackson's team is determined to bring the issue to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, the next -- and final stop -- in preserving the principle of self-governance that this city is supposed to symbolize.
Radicals again challenge a state marriage amendment
The radically liberal ACLU filed suit in Montana District Court yesterday, indirectly challenging the Montana Marriage Amendment.
While the plaintiffs say they are not directly challenging Article XIII Section 7 of the Montana Constitution, which defines marriage as solely the union between one man and one woman, the effect will be the same.
Seven homosexual couples (odd number?) are asking that a parallel to marriage be created so that they can receive the benefits of marriage without actually getting married.
The suit says "Plaintiffs do not seek the opportunity to marry, nor do they seek they seek the designation of marriage for their relationships".
Unfortunately, this is the same strategy that led to the marriage debacle in California, and the current legal battles surrounding Proposition 8.
The California Legislature, in an effort to placate the radical political agenda of the activist homosexual community, created another counterfeit marriage type -- "civil unions." This bestowed official government recognition and affirmation to same-sex couples the same benefits of marriage, withholding only the name "marriage". The court said this is patently discriminatory.
This strategy is the same they wish to deploy here in Illinois. After passing "civil unions" legislation, they will file a lawsuit claiming "separate but equal" treatment.
To confer all of the benefits of marriage and withhold only the name is to play a semantic game, but worse than that, it sets up a direct legal challenge to the marriage amendment on the grounds of discrimination.
In a statement today, the Montana Family Foundation said its president Jeff Laszloffy wrote the marriage amendment back in 2004 to protect families and the sanctity of marriage. On November 4, 2004 nearly 70 percent of Montana's voters agreed, and CI-96 passed overwhelmingly.
As happens far too often today, the courts are being asked to overturn the expressed will of the people and to enact new legislation via an oligarchy.
It begs the question.... Why do we even have a legislative branch and the direct citizen initiative process if they become nothing more than a puppet and rubber stamp for the courts?
Once again, Planned Parenthood has been caught in another undercover videotape misleading a young girl seeking an abortion. The group Live Action released a video this week in which an Indianapolis Planned Parenthood clinic staff member tells a young patron that she thinks is ten weeks pregnant that a fetus is not a baby.
It's "not like a person" she tells the prospective abortion client. In the video "Sarah" asks the clinician when the heartbeat begins. The clinician says eight or nine weeks. In truth the heartbeat of an unborn child is audible in just 21 days, some five weeks sooner than the alleged medical professional says it can be heard. The staffer is also heard on tape misleading the young lady about the complications of an abortion and the high risk of miscarriage for future pregnancies.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approves Elena Kagan's nomination
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to approve Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. The 13-6 vote sends Kagan's nomination to the full U.S. Senate, where a vote could take place as early as next week to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Despite calls of opposition, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was the lone Republican to support her nomination, joining panel Democrats in supporting President Barack Obama's second Supreme Court nominee.
I wonder how liberal Republican U.S. Senator Scott Brown will vote on Kagan's nomination. Brown was just one of only three Republicans to vote for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street bill. Yet, he voted to oppose the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and has come out against the DISCLOSE Act. His vote on the Kagan nomination is critical.
I believe that Kagan's judicial philosophy is wrong for the court. Her values and political beliefs are contrary to ours and the majority of Americans. She is also simply unqualified, having never served as a judge.
Missouri, our neighbor to the southwest, has become the second state in the nation to enact legislation empowering pregnant women to take protective action to safeguard their unborn children.
Missouri law had previously authorized individuals to use force, including deadly force, to protect themselves from death, serious physical injury, or any forcible crime. Governor Jay Nixon has signed legislation which now allows women to use similar deadly force to protect the life of their unborn child.
"This new law ensures that women who use force to protect their unborn child from criminal attacks are not later themselves subjected to prosecution and incarceration," says Denise Burke of Americans United for Life.
The new law adds to the legal protections unborn children have under Missouri law in non-abortion contexts. Presently, a person can be charged with homicide or involuntary manslaughter for causing the death of an unborn child.
The new statute was sponsored by State Rep. Jeanie Riddle, and was handled in the Senate by State Senator Jack Goodman. The legislation, known as the Pregnant Women's Protection Act, has been promoted by Americans United for Life (AUL). The effort to win passage of the measure was led by Kerry Messer of Missouri Family Network, who is the State Director for AUL.
Proponents of gay rights have said many times what others do in their bedroom doesn't affect anyone else and is no one's business. The recent circumstances at the University of Illinois prove otherwise as a university professor shared his beliefs on natural moral laws and then was fired for his opinion.
Professor Kenneth Howell's firing is only one example of how others in society are affected by government recognition of the homosexual lifestyle and how laws, such as the recent passing of hate-crimes legislation, affect everyone in society and then become everyone's business.
Hate-crimes legislation shouldn't even exist because it grants "special" protections, not constitutional equal protection. All citizens are already protected under the 14th Amendment as having equal protection under the law.
The professor is allegedly being punished for his religious belief and view that sexuality is between a man and a woman. The professor in his e-mail stated, "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
This is not hate speech as he was speaking truths related to natural law. Why would a university punish someone who by his opinion is also affirming longstanding Illinois law that declares sexuality in marriage as being between a man and a woman? If his opinion is aligned with these constitutional laws then don't punish him for upholding those laws that are also aligned with natural law.
This recent action of the university is an example of individuals and groups being demonized for following a faith and moral tradition that has served civilization well for centuries. It is not hate to agree with God about sexuality and natural moral law as well as protecting members of our society, which includes homosexuals.
In one of the very first of the new government-run health care plans, the Obama administration has officially approved the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. The administration has approved a $160 million plan to set up a new "high-risk" insurance pool for Pennsylvania under provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed on March 23rd. According to the legislative director for National Right to Life, the new plan will cover any elective abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
Criticisms over the uselessness of a presidential executive order that gave cover for many allegedly "pro-life" members of congress to vote for Obamacare now seem fully vindicated. "My description of the executive order as simply words void of meaning placed on an empty piece of paper for a feel good effect have proven quite accurate," noted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of Pennsylvania.
According to LifeNews.com, U.S. Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA) said, "Today, we see exactly why the Executive Order signed by President Obama will not prevent federal funding for elective abortion. I'm sad to see my own state of Pennsylvania cover abortion through the new high risk insurance pool."
"This clearly illustrates the need for strong legislative language to prevent federal funding for abortion coverage. Poll after poll shows that the American people don't want the federal government to subsidize abortion. Gov. Rendell and President Obama can't hide the fact that this new plan deeply offends the conscience of millions of Americans," he said.
This morning I was watching the local Fox newscast, which goes by the name "Good Day Chicago," and was disappointed to watch them interview a Playboy Playmate...
The pandering and promotion of the Playboy legacy by the Chicago media is shameful. Fifty years of degrading women, sexualizing our children and the culture of an entire generation is not something of which to be proud. STDs have never been so widespread as it is today. This is directly related to the explosion of pornographic images flooding our culture.
Moreover, porn addiction is rampant. Infidelity has destroyed marriages and families. And Chicago's Fox News sportscaster Lou Canellis, in an interview with a "Playmate" has the gall to call pervert-in-chief Hugh Hefner his "hero"?! and then proceed to drag anchor David Navarro into his teenage antics.
I have to wonder if Canellis would he be as excited if it were his daughter posing nude for a man and magazine so that other men could get off by ogling her?
Sex is a gift from God and is designed to be used within the boundaries of marriage. Anything beyond that has spiritual, physical and emotional consequences -- many of which spill over into our communities, which taxpayers bare the brunt.
There used to be a saying "wake-up and smell the coffee." Well good friends, the pot is percolating."Saturdays front page story, "Teacher fired for stating beliefs," should be your wake-up call.
We were formed as a country guaranteed our first, (Free speech) and fourteenth amendment rights.(equal opportunity and protection under the law) For the past few years the activist homosexuals have decided in an aggressive push, that these rights apply only to them.
Nothing should be more dear to us than the God given, and constitutionally guaranteed, right to practice openly our religious beliefs. That part that says, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of same."
No where has this been shown clearer than the happening at the University of Illinois. In an almost "believe it or not" episode, a teacher of "Authentic and Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church" has been fired for doing extremely well what he was hired to do. That being,teaching the Church's unchanging, beliefs on the sinfulness of a chosen homosexual lifestyle. The same teachings our Lord gave while on earth over 2000 years ago, and retained in the Bible.
The reason given for the firing; the tired old argument, "hate crimes." Lets see if I get this right, we who disagree and believe homosexuality sinful, suddenly become bigots, zealots, and homophobes. As far as tolerance goes, sounds like a one way street to me.
Noteworthy to this discussion is the fired teacher, Doctor Ken Howell was recognized by his own Department in both 2008 and 2009 as "an excellent teacher." I used to think that the purpose of a University is to stimulate discussion, and not to silence it. The good doctor Howell is a hero in my book. Some of our timid religious leaders who have been intimidated into no longer being "Good Shepherds of their flocks," (that's us folks) hopefully will be emboldened by Howell's actions to speak out against this unholy effort to change Gods teachings as expressed in scripture.
For those who disagree with the actions of the school, take heart my friends, as the "first team," has joined the fray. Alliance Defense Fund, the stellar defender of our constitution, has joined the fight. The ADF will do some protecting and teaching of their own. Hopefully the head of the Religious Department, Robert McKim, and Associate Dean Ann Mester will be reminded that true dialogue as guaranteed under our first amendment will always be a major part of a great University such as Illinois.
Hawaii governor stands for marriage, vetoes "civil unions"
On Tuesday, Hawaii's governor vetoed legislation what would have legalized homosexual "civil unions." Gov. Linda Lingle (R-Hawaii) took the action on the final day she had to either sign or veto the bill, ending months of speculation on what she would do following the legislature's approval in late April.
"I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name," Lingle said at a news conference. The bill would have given homosexual couples the same rights and benefits that the state provides to married heterosexual couples, essentially awarding all but the word marriage.
"It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials," Lingle said, explaining that the voters should decide the fate of civil unions, not politicians.
I applaud Governor Lingle for her principled stand in defense of traditional marriage. The people of Hawaii were the first to fight back against an activist court that wanted to force homosexual so-called "marriage" on the state when they passed a constitutional amendment assigning the definition of marriage to the legislature in 1998. On Tuesday, the Governor not only recognized that the citizens of Hawaii do not want to radically redefine natural marriage in any form, but also that any attempt to change the definition of marriage should be subject to the people's vote.
Last week, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee began hearing Elena Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court bench. As expected, Kagan's views on life and other important issues have come out more, and they now cast her as extremely pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia, even to the point where she's being accused of attempting to persuade a medical body to falsify the truth about partial-birth abortion.
Additionally, both Republican and Democrat Senators now are concerned that Kagan isn't being forthcoming in answering the Committee's questions. Some of the issues that have gotten the most media attention from the confirmation hearings deal with Kagan's quick and witty responses (which range from remarks about getting her hair done to her Jewish ancestry), not the things that qualify her for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court bench.
Just more evidence that we can no longer rely on the dominate media for fair and balanced coverage of important news items.
Supreme Court Issues Narrow Ruling in Key Religious Freedom Case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday to uphold an unusual university policy that forces student groups to allow outsiders who disagree with their beliefs to become leaders and voting members. The court confined its opinion to the unique policy and did not address whether nondiscrimination policies in general, which are typical on public university campuses, may require this. The court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group's right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.
Attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund represented a student chapter of CLS at California's Hastings College of the Law in the lawsuit, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The suit was filed in 2004 after the law school refused to recognize the chapter because the group requires all of its officers and voting members to agree with its basic Christian beliefs.
"All college students, including religious students, should have the right to form groups around shared beliefs without being banished from campus," said Kim Colby, senior counsel at the CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom. "Today's ruling, however, will have limited impact. We are not aware of any other public university that has the exact same policy as Hastings."
Click HERE to read more from the Alliance Defense Fund.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds the will of the people!
"Marriage and the will of the people are the clear winners in this decision," said Julaine Appling, President of Wisconsin Family Council. "When Wisconsin voters passed the marriage amendment in 2006 by almost 60 percent, they recognized the purpose of the amendment was clear and simple: to protect the institution of marriage. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reinforced that purpose in their decision."
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed an amicus, or "friend of the court," brief on behalf of Wisconsin Family Council in this case.
"Once again, activists tried to use the courts to force something on the people that they have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected." said ADF Litigation Counsel Jim Campbell. "We should be strengthening -- not undermining -- marriage, which is one man and one woman."
McConkey v. Van Hollen, in which Prof. Bill McConkey claims the amendment deals with two subjects rather than one as required by the constitution, began at the trial level in 2007 where Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess upheld the amendment's constitutionality in 2008, stating in his decision that the single purpose of the amendment is "the preservation of the unique and historical status of marriage."
McConkey appealed the decision to the District IV Court of Appeals. In early 2009, the appellate court opted to move the case up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court without acting on it; and in May of 2009, the Supreme Court accepted the case. Last November, the Court heard the oral arguments from McConkey's attorney and the State Attorney General's office.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its opinion, stating:
...The two propositions contained in the marriage amendment plainly relate to the subject of marriage. And as the text of the amendment and context of its adoption make clear, the general purpose of the marriage amendment is to preserve the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman. Both propositions in the marriage amendment relate to and are connected with this purpose. Therefore, the marriage amendment does not violate the separate amendment rule of Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Rather, the marriage amendment was adopted by the people of Wisconsin using the process prescribed by the constitution, and is properly now part of our constitution.
"The lawsuit's accusation that the marriage amendment addresses multiple subjects was just a sneaky attempt to tear down what the voters clearly wanted," said Appling. "The very reason we passed the marriage amendment was to protect marriage in our state from redefinition by judicial fiat. The court was right to reject this baseless lawsuit. Judges and politicians should never toss aside the will of the people in order to impose a system that intentionally deprives children of a mom and dad. Which parent doesn't matter: a mom or a dad?"
It was brought to my attention that the Chicago Young Republicans (CYR), or at least a good number of the members of CYR, proudly marched in the Chicago "Gay Pride" parade this past Sunday. Pictures from their participation are on display on the front page of the CYR website.
Ironically, if one were to visit this website and navigate over to the FAQ section, you can find the following Q and A:
Q: Does your club follow a particular "wing" of the Republican Party? What is your specific ideology?
A: Our club supports and advances the platform of the Republican Party. However, the specific political ideologies of our club members is as diverse as the various ideologies within the Republican Party. The one thing our members do share is a passion for Republican politics, and a desire to advance the platform in a positive and professional manner.[Emphasis added]
This may come as a surprise to some of the CYRs, but homosexual activists, by way of their agenda and of which the "Gay Pride" parade celebrates, are unapologetically attempting to advance extreme liberal policies that radically alter marriage and family, redefine and marginalize Judeo-Christian traditions (and western cultural values in general).
Moreover, the Republican Party Platform -- of which the CYRs say they support and advance -- unequivocally embraces pro-life, pro-family, and pro-marriage values; while, the homosexual agenda is wholeheartedly pro-abortion, pro-counterfeit "marriage" (read same-sex), advocates special "rights" for homosexuals, and is openly hostile to traditional Judeo-Christian values.
Unfortunately, the CYRs who marched in the perversion parade have bought the politically correct lie that asserts that one's perceived sexual orientation is a civil right. As a result, they are unwittingly promoting liberal ideas, values and candidates who will undermine the foundation of values and institutions -- specifically marriage -- which undergird all of American society.
The CYRs (and every so-called "conservative" that embraces the extremist gay agenda) are displaying nothing but dismissive scorn for the truth about volitional homosexual behavior, the Republican platform, middle-American, and the conservative values embraced by the majority of Illinois Republicans.
Methinks they should change their name to Chicago Young RINOs or perhaps move to the other Party - the one that embraces these extreme liberal values.
