Disney World, No; The Real World, Yes!

Disney World, No; The Real World, Yes!


By Cal Zastrow


The Covenant News ~ April 30, 2010


Each winter, many northern people vacation in Florida. Their tourism industry is huge. Besides the beaches, there are amusement parks and Disney World. Orlando alone has millions of visitors. We took the kids to Orlando, but the heroes we introduced them to were not Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. Instead of going to see (and be) Goofy, we saw the real heroes of Florida, pro-life rescuers.

My children heard firsthand how the Lord closed down abortuaries, saved souls, and rescued babies. Their heritage of Rescue was greatly strengthened by meeting Lawrence and Alene Reves, old friends and jail mates of mine. We celebrated in Brevard County, a very populated area where all abortuaries have been closed for over ten years. Jay Rogers, Pat McEwen, Patty Laite, and the Pinkstons told of the history of what it took to remove the scourge of local slaughter houses.

We visited Ed Martin in Jacksonville, the faithful veteran of many rescues who still is on the streets evangelizing. As well as beloved old friends, our kids got to meet the tremendous sidewalk counselors Patte Smith and Allura Lightfoot while watching them minister in front of an Orlando death pit where sometimes babies are born before being murdered.

We were in Florida to help with the ballot-access petition drive for their Personhood Amendment (http://www.personhoodflorida.com). Encountering opposition for saving babies wasn’t just old stories for the kids the nights we petitioned outside of the St. Lucie County Fair. The “Fair Association Board” came to “talk to us” accompanied by uniformed officers from the Sheriff’s Department. The director of Personhood Florida, Pastor Bryan Longworth, joined us in gathering signatures, witnessing for Christ, and distributing pro-life literature on County property outside of the gate to the fair.

The organizers of the fair couldn’t understand why we were petitioning and witnessing there, talking about “abortion” to people wanting to have fun. People were signing and taking the literature. Claiming to be “pro-life Christians too,” they denounced us and our peaceful actions. They had even had a few complaints, so they said. We were “officially” asked to leave. We “officially” stayed. They “officially” called higher-ups on the phone. We “officially” called upon the Most High in prayer.

I handed the van keys and phone over to my wife when it appeared that they were ready to haul us off to jail for exercising our freedoms. No, they weren’t impressed by Pastor Bryan’s quotation of the First Amendment part about the right to “petition for redress of grievances.” Thankfully, their leaders told them that we were right and that they couldn’t arrest us just for petitioning. One barking deputy demanded “government-issued-identification” and was irritated when my son respectfully declined, “I’m thirteen and don’t have any.” They really didn’t like it when we recorded their “official” conversation.

One of the voters who signed (amidst the interruptions from the officials) thanked us profusely, “I was rescued from abortion. Give me some blanks so I can help too. Thank you so much!”

Those nights at the fair, seeing a courageous pastor stand calmly against tyranny, etched upon the souls of my children how to live: free in Christ. When Pastor Bryan told them later of his past rescues and having spent a total amount of three years in various jails for saving babies, they knew they were in the presence of real faith. Those stories, that faith, combined with what they had just seen and experienced, deepened their Rescue roots. My prayer is for those roots to produce much fruit. “Dad, when do we get to do big Rescues and shut down more death-pits?”

“Soon children, soon, I pray.”

The highlight of the month was the two-week Florida Personhood Tour led by Missionaries to the Preborn. Their tremendous report and pictures are here: http://www.missionariestopreborn.com/flpersonhood.html and here is an encouraging video from Pastor Matt Trewhella about it: http://vimeo.com/10552669. From riding in Ron Brock’s Truth Truck to displaying signs to passing out boxes of petitions, our whole family was greatly blessed by participating with one of America’s most effective ministry groups.

We skipped Disney World to experience the real world – the spiritual and cultural wars in Florida, while our kids had a great time standing for Jesus and the babies.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Court News Report

Not Good Enough


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Letters to the Editor:  

 ……………………. 

   LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:                                                     March 7, 2006

Not Good Enough


To the Editor,

As editor of an on-line pro-life newsletter, Christian Activist Pro-Life News (www.prolifenews.info), and as a Christian pro-life activist I try to stay informed of the latest news concerning the pro-life movement. I confess to being suspicious of legislation popular with the majority of conservatives, as they often lose sight of the goal, which is ending all killing of pre-born human beings. In their quest for expediency, they will sacrifice the lives of innocent human beings who may have been conceived in less than perfect circumstances, such as rape or incest. Or they may think a baby whose mother may die during the pregnancy or childbirth is somehow less valuable than the mother, so they compromise and allow the sacrificial death of an innocent child. In other words, they have taken the place of God, and they will decide who lives and who does not. I find this mindset absolutely reprehensible. In fact, I am actually at a loss of words to describe the anger welling up in my heart at such lack of respect for God Almighty and the human beings He has created in His image. One can almost overlook unbelievers promoting such callous legislation, as their consciences are seared, but what excuse is there for those who claim to be quickened to God by the Holy Spirit?

As this letter is being written there are several bills conservatives are pushing through their state legislatures. Many pro-lifers are putting their stamp of approval on these bills, and they are calling them “abortion bans”; I am calling the ones with any exception for the aborting of a baby in order to kill it “not good enough.”

First of all, who has the foreknowledge to decide whether a child conceived in rape and/or incest should be put to death other than the Creator of the child? The child that many are so quick to condemn to a painful torturous death has not done anything wrong, he is an innocent human being who has not been tried in a court of law. He just happens to have been conceived in less than ideal circumstances. The baby’s death is not going to make the trauma of a rape disappear, but it will compound the mother’s emotional and physical stress. It may even drive her to suicide, and there will now be two dead people for loved ones to mourn. Who knows but that if the child was allowed to develop and come outside of the womb in childbirth, he may actually bring comfort to the mother? Instead, the exception of abortion for rape and incest allows an emotionally distraught woman to add to her grief the sin and crime of murder.

What about allowing an exception to abort a premature human being in order to save the life of the mother? Doesn’t the mother have a “right” to self-defense that justifies taking the life of the child? No. This argument is a straw man, and one that many have bought hook, line and sinker. The “life of the mother” exception is nothing more than a legal loophole for the baby-killers to use to their advantage, and one that many conservatives are willing to give them. A principled ethical physician will always try to save both lives. My advice for those of you who do not have such a principled physician is to find one who is and to stop sacrificing the lives of others by supporting legislation that bans “almost all” abortions. It simply isn’t good enough.

Angela Wittman
Website: www.angelawittman.net


TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

America According to Lincoln


America According to Lincoln


By Scott T. Whiteman, Esq


The Covenant News ~ October 20, 2005


On November 19, 1863, America permanently shifted from being a Republic of Republics (U.S. Const., Art. IV, §4) guaranteeing to the States the right to govern themselves under God to an egalitarian Empire at the control of a presumptuous 10 square mile plot of land on the east side of the Potomac River. The shift had been occurring for around forty years with the regional jealousies and rivalries between North and South over the use of, versus the right to collect, taxes for the “internal improvement” projects that almost universally went to improve the North. But on November 19, 1863, Union President Abraham Lincoln delivered his now infamous speech, The Gettysburg Address, permanently codifying his view of an America according to Lincoln.

The Gettysburg Address was a radical shift from what our Framers had in fact believed and did in 1776. First, in America according to Lincoln, the Union was “born” in 1776. This is historical fallacy at best, and fraud at worst. In 1776, not one Union, but Thirteen separate States were created out of the formerly Thirteen English colonies. “United,” lower case in the document, the States combined their efforts to separate from England, and the Crown did eventually recognise the independence of each separate State. The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 was not between the King and “The United States,” as a singular proper noun, rather it was between the King and the “said United States,” plural, naming each of the Thirteen states making it abundantly clear that the King did not view the various States as a nation, and neither did they. The several states, united, had, under God’s Providence, through war, achieved “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them.”

From whence did America derive this notion of the separate and equal rights to self-government under God? In 1620, God set on this continent a group of men committed to the creation of a better ordering of government, “for the Glory of God” and the preservation and “Advancement of the Christian Faith.” Self-government, under God, by a Christian People emerged on this continent as the fundamental propositions of the American People as early as 1620 in the Mayflower Compact.

However, in America according to Lincoln, America was created upon one, singular proposition, that “all men are created equal.” Is such a claim justifiable? Contrast Lincoln’s opinion with the truth. Firstly, THE proposition of the Declaration? In truth, the “all men are created equal” clause was one (1) of the several self-evident truths acknowledged by the Signers of the Declaration. The sentence started, “We hold THESE TRUTHS to be self evident.” There was no singular proposition offered in 1776. “These truths” also included being (2) endowed by God with unalienable Rights to (3) Life, (4) Liberty and the (5) Pursuit of Happiness.

But that is not all. Yet another self-evident truth Lincoln failed to recognise, but our Founders acknowledged, was that (6) God institutes Governments among men (7) by their consent to (8) secure rights. Furthermore, governments (like England leading up to 1776, or the Union leading up to 1861) that trample those rights give rise to the (9) right of the governed to alter or abolish that tyrannical government. It is not difficult to surmise why Lincoln did not acknowledge this right of the Southern People.

Even further, now the tenth proposition upon which America was established, that upon altering or abolishing the old government, the people, when establishing a new one, shall (10) lays its Foundations on such principles (the former nine) and (11) organise its Powers in such a way as they believe will effect their Safety and Happiness.

Perhaps, after seven score and two years of having the American view according to Lincoln projected into the Declaration, a proper reading of the Equality Clause is in order. Let’s look at the words as written in 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal …” First, what was the purpose of the Declaration in the minds of the creators and signers of the document? To profess to the King, and the World, that each of the several States had assumed to itself the equal station and right inherent in all the Nations of the World, and united they were ready to stand, hopefully in peace, but if necessary in war, before the King.

Second, who holds these truths to be self-evident? “We.” The Declaration was not a document for individuals – it was written in the plural. “All men” does not mean “Each individual man.” “The People” does not mean “Each and Every Person.” Singular pronouns existed in 1776 – if the Founders intended by the Declaration to make a profession of the belief in individual equality and rights, they would have written the document in the singular. But they did not. Rather, the document was offered by the several united States as a declaration to the King. The States are the “We,” as represented by their duly elected ambassadors, not the group of individual signors.

Thus the “Equality Clause” must be read in the same context as the rest of the truths. The proposition to which the Framers committed themselves was not the claim that each individual person in America was created equal. Rather, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, entitle[s] them,” the People in the States, to the separate and equal rights of all Peoples to government by the consent of the governed, under God by a Christian People. “Them,” not “Him” was the word chosen, and it should be noticed. “They,” the People in their corporate capacity (the State), had rights as against the King.

The principles upon which America was founded provide far more liberty and security than any individualistic egalitarian dream imagined by Lincoln or his followers. Whenever liberals or conservatives use The Gettysburg Address to puff-up their position, they promote the “progressive” and Lincolnian view of America, and lead it only further down the road of tyranny. Consider, from the “conservative” side, George W. Bush has used the Equality Clause according to Lincoln to promote his War of Terror. From the liberal side, it has been used to promote the right to commit sodomy. Either way, it undermines the American view of Law and Government.

Just one example. In a decision by the Supreme Court of Vermont, “civil unions” were imposed upon the people of Vermont. As justification for their decision the majority on the Court declared, “even the most aristocratic of southern Whig planters … were pushed into creating an egalitarian ideology that would be and even as early as 1776 was being turned against themselves.” G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (1996) as quoted in Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194 (1999). According to the Lincolnian View, a great egalitarian Pandora’s box was opened in 1776.

The second paragraph of The Gettysburg Address hints at the idea that “any nation so conceived and dedicated” would, by necessity, have to fight a “great civil war” so that the nation “shall have a new birth of freedom” through the shedding of blood. America according to Lincoln requires blood-shed and revolution. The “great civil war” was indeed carried out, by Lincoln, to ensure that his view of America would prevail against the American view of law and government. Lincoln imposed a war upon the Southern people who merely claimed their equal right to confederate self-government under God by a Christian People. For doing what America’s founders had in 1776, by abolishing in their jurisdictions a Government that was destructive to those rights, Lincoln waged war against the American view of law and government as expressed by the confederated Southern States.

Prudence, indeed, did dictate that the union government long established was not changed for a light and transient cause. Rather, Southern men were willing to suffer from 1825 through 1861, while the Evils of the Union were sufferable. But after a long train of abuses and usurpations by the union government of the Rights of the States and the People to govern themselves, several of the formerly united States sought to peaceably withdraw from the Union. No great and bloody “civil war” would have ensued had Lincoln permitted South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee to peaceably leave the Union as permitted by the U.S. Constitution and the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. However, like King George, the Pride of Empire being too great a sin, Lincoln responded with war and invasion against a People seeking only to be American. The war was no contest for power, and thus by definition was not a “civil war.” Rather, it was a war by Lincoln and his conspirators to deny the Southern People their separate and equal right to self-government, under God, by a Christian People. It was, as I have heard, the War When Lincoln and the North Invaded America.

On the battlefields of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the American view of Law and Government was replaced with Lincoln’s view when the confederate armies suffered their fatal blows. America according to Lincoln has prevailed since that day. It is the official story of the educators, politicians and historians. America according to Lincoln is presently being taught at the National Constitution Center from June 10 through November 4, 2005. You are forewarned. But America according to Lincoln is nothing close to the American view of Law and Government that you can read about in this journal. Herein you will find that, while subjugated, the American view of Law and Government is far from dead.

For further reading on the undercurrent of thought guiding this essay, please read The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition, by Willmoore Kendall and George W. Carey, Louisiana State University Press (1970).

Scott T. Whiteman is a Reformed Christian, husband, and father of three. He is a practicing attorney in the State of Maryland, and served as Campaign Manager for Michael A. Peroutka as he ran for President in 2004. He is available for radio or TV interviews, or for speeches, by contacting him at (410) 760-7897 or scott@theamericanview.com


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Sixth Circuit Commands Kentucky to Blaspheme God


Sixth Circuit Commands
Kentucky to Blaspheme God


By Scott T. Whiteman, Esq


The Covenant News ~ December 26, 2005


It takes a real contrarian to resign to be dissatisfied with any decision of the Federal Courts no matter which way it goes. In a recent case in Kentucky the ACLU served as counsel for one side while the Pat Robertson/Jay Sekulow American Center For Law & Justice (ACLJ) served as counsel for the other. Now I know what side I’m supposed to be on, but I chose neither in this instance. Let me set it up for you.

A kindly old woman I’m sure, Carroll Rousey, asked permission on October 9, 2001 to hang a display entitled Foundations of American Law and Government in the Mercer County (Kentucky) Courthouse. The display was to contain the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration, the Ten Commandments, the Magna Charta, the Star Spangled Banner, the Bill of Rights, the national motto “In God We Trust,” the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution which reads, “We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution” and an image of “Lady Justice,” the Greek Goddess Themis.

The Legislature in Kentucky had recently passed a resolution authorising the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in displays of “formative, historical documents on government property” so the Mercer County court permitted the Foundations display to be erected. If I’m not going too fast, you can expect that the ACLU objected, made a federal case out of it, demanding that the display be taken down. The ACLJ stepped up and defended the State’s right. But the right to do what is the central question.

Did the ACLJ make the claim, or did the Court rule, that the States are not bound by the First Amendment; or that the First Amendment naming particularly that “Congress shall make no law” has no bearing on what a County Court House does; or that a State must acknowledge God if it seeks to prosper? None of the above. The ACLJ claimed, and the court ruled in favour of the Foundations display for, the worst conceivable reasons of all – because the Supreme Court says governments can erect such idols.

The first thing that went wrong, in my opinion, was that the Federal Court decided to hear the case and/or that the State failed to bring a motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. What does the Federal Court have to do with how a County Court intends to decorate its building? Anywhere in the entire U.S. Constitution, are the Federal Courts given jurisdiction over the interior of State Courthouses; or any jurisdiction over whether, let alone how, a State acknowledges God? The County Court, if the Federal Case had heard the case, ought to have just let itself lose the case, then kept the display up. But instead, the County dignified the federal usurper with a response – so to a degree, Kentucky got what she deserved.

The Federal Court reasoned its way through the applicability of the First Amendment on the State’s Courts by affirming the Articles of Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The First Amendment says that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’s … Its dictates have been incorporated to the states and their subdivisions through the Fourteenth Amendment.” ACLU of Kentucky v. Mercer County, No. 03-5142 (2005) at page 4. Such is tragic foolery. To claim that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Ten Amendments to the States makes the states mere subject provinces of the Federal government.1First of all, Congress shall make no law … So even if the provision was “incorporated,” how is the display of anything by a Courthouse the making of a law? The Fourteenth Amendment, if you conceded its validity, merely requires that the States refrain from depriving people of their unalienable rights without due process of law, so the ACLU ought to be forced to prove how the People of Kentucky or Mercer County have been denied their unalienable rights.

The next great offense committed was the Court’s “proper” negotiation through the Lemon Test. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming it improperly followed Lemon. My claim is that to honour Lemon is to violate the Constitution and profane the Name of God. According to Lemon, government action does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause if the (1) secular purpose of the action predominates over all other purposes; (2) the action does not have the primary or principal effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) it does not foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971) as modified by the McCreary County case (the Kentucky Ten Commandments Case from the summer of 2005). As the former Chief Justice of Alabama noted, public officials can acknowledge God only if they don’t mean it, which is rank profanity of God’s Name.2

The Court ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments in the midst of so many other human constructs and with the Grecian Goddess Themis 1.) had a primarily secular purpose in an “attempt to recognize American legal history. It is of course not unusual for a government to educate this public in this manner.” At page 9. So the first prong was satisfied – the purpose of the display was to permit the State to educate.

Next, 2.) does the display have the primary or principle effect of advancing (or inhibiting) religion? The court declares emphatically that a “religion” was not advanced and falls all over itself (and denigrates the Crown Rights of Christ Jesus) to prove it. Here is a short list of the denials:

  • While several of the documents refer to the Deity, it would be unreasonable, ipso facto, to interpret those as evidencing a religious purpose. p. 9;
  • The Ten Commandments are part of an otherwise secular exhibit. p. 12;
  • Nothing in the display, its history, or its implementation supports the notion that Mercer County has selectively endorsed the sectarian elements of the first four Commandments. p. 14;
  • There is nothing in the legislative history or implementation that tends to prove a religious purpose. p. 14;
  • Nor does the display have the effect of endorsing religion. p. 14;
  • After all, “we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” p. 13-14.

I don’t believe I’m being too particular, but most of those findings are lies. The Magna Charta, part of the “otherwise secular exhibit” explicitly refers to God and His “holy Roman Church.” What other deity in 1215 A.D. had His “holy Roman Church?” The Mayflower Compact declares that the purpose for which these Englishmen came to America was for the advancement of the Christian religion. The Ten Commandments themselves are extremely sectarian in all ten parts, not just the first four. None of the Commandments are “universal resolves” to which any member of any faith can ascribe. While all non-criminals might be able to affirm Thou shalt not kill, do all people really agree with how God interprets His Command? According to God, euthanasia and abortion are murder.

Now, what about the “first table.” Who is this God who lays down the “second table?” The Ten Commandments open with, I am Jehovah, thy God. He reveals Himself particularly, by Name, and further asserts Thou shalt have no other gods before me. His name is not “God,” but Jehovah, the Jealous God (Exodus 34:14) who demands that no other god be worshiped. And what does this Jealous God call all other Gods? Idols or Devils.3 Hardly a non-sectarian God wrote the Ten Commandments. Jehovah says “Lady Liberty,” or Themis, is a devil. In light of that finding, I suppose the display of the Ten Commandments actually did fail to selectively endorse the “sectarian” nature of the first four Commandments – and that is to their shame and likely ultimate demise. But to answer the fool according to his folly, to erect an idol of Themis is to “inhibit” Christianity, so Lemon 2.) is not satisfied and the whole display should have been thrown out.

The third prong, 3.) that the government action does not create an excessive entanglement with religion, I suppose is ground I’ll concede if by “religion” we mean God’s religion, or Christianity. The Court does, however, entangle itself with religion – that religion is the religion of the ancient Roman Empire that does not mind anyone worshiping Jesus – they’ll even put a statue of him in the throne room.4 Just don’t make Caesar bow to the Christ, or don’t claim the Crown Rights of Christ trump those of the Court.

After satisfying the Lemon Test, the Court determined that the Ten Commandments could be displayed only if they are not considered for what they are – holy writ from King Jesus. To satisfy the three prongs of Lemon, the name of God has to be denigrated and profaned. The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Deut. 5:11.5

The final egregious offense committed by the Federal Court was the bowing before the Altar of Stare Decisis. You can even say that they Stare’d in Lemon. “The recent decisions of this Court have routinely applied Lemon, including the endorsement test … [so] we must continue to do so.” at p. 11.

One good note, the Court did essentially tell the ACLU to stop bringing in these silly cases to the court (p. 14), but the Court has no apparent concern, in fact it seems to have an interest, with the ACLJ’s continual blasphemy of Christ. With the help of the ACLJ, the Court erected a display to an Unknown God, and it will be ashamed.

Footnotes:

1. Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West, Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2002, p. 183.

2. WCF 113: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are … the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane … mentioning…

3. Psalm 96:5; I Chronicles 16:26

4. R.J. Rushdoony, The “Atheism” of the Early Church. First Published in 1983 by Logos Foundation. Reprinted by Ross House Books (2000) at page 10.

5. Please see Author’s The Perjured Nation in “The Christian Statesman,” vol. 148, no. 4 at page 25.

Scott T. Whiteman a Reformed Christian, husband, and father of three. He is a practicing attorney in the State of Maryland, and served as Campaign Manager for Michael A. Peroutka as he ran for President in 2004. He is available for radio or TV interviews, or for speeches, by contacting him at (410) 760-7897 or by using our Forum


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

For These Little Ones


For These Little Ones


By Angela Wittman


 

    And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward. [Matthew 10:42]

As I look around at the callous and cold hearts of those committing carnage of humanity called reproductive freedom or choice, I am reminded of the missionary Amy Carmichael and the tract she wrote called “The Cry of the Blood:”

The tom-toms thumped on all night, and the darkness shuddered round me like a living, feeling thing. I could not go to sleep, so I lay awake and looked; and it seemed like this:

That I stood on a grassy sward, and at my feet a precipice broke sheer down into infinite space. I looked, but saw no bottom; only coiled shapes, black and furiously coiled, and great shadow-shrouded hollows, and unfathomable depths. Back I drew, dizzy at the depth.

Then I saw forms of people moving single file along the grass. They were making for the edge. There was a woman with a baby in her arms and another little child holding on to her dress. She was on the very verge. Then I saw that she was blind. She lifted her foot for the next step…it trod air. She was over and the children over with her. Oh, the cry as they went over.

Then I saw more streams of people flowing from all quarters. All were blind, stone-blind; all made straight for the precipice edge. There were shrieks as they suddenly knew themselves falling, and a tossing up of helpless arms, catching, clutching at empty air. But some went over quietly and fell without a sound.

Then I wondered, with a wonder that was simply agony, why no one stopped them at the edge. I could not. I was glued to the ground, and I could not call. Though I strained and tried, only a whisper would come.

Then I saw that along the edge there were sentries set at intervals. But the intervals were far too great; there were wide, unguarded gaps between. And over these gaps the people fell in their blindness, quite unwarned; and the green grass seemed blood-red to me, and the gulf yawned like the mouth of Hell.

Then I saw, like the picture of peace, a group of people under some trees, with their backs turned toward the gulf. They were making daisy chains. Sometimes, when a piercing shriek cut the quiet air and reached them, it disturbed them and they thought it rather a vulgar noise. And if one of their number started up and wanted to go and do something to help, then all the others would pull that one down. “Why should you get so excited about it? You must wait for a definite ‘call’ to go. You haven’t finished your daisy chains. It would be really selfish,” they said, “to leave us to finish the work alone.”

There was another group. It was made of people whose great desire was to get some sentries out; but they fond that very few wanted to go, and sometimes there were no sentries for miles and miles at the edge.

Once a girl stood alone in her place, waving the people back; but her mother and other relations called, and reminded her that her furlough was due; she must not break the “rules.” And, being tired and needing a change, she had to go and rest awhile; but no one was sent to guard her gap, and over and over the people fell, like a waterfall of souls.

Once a child caught at a tuft of grass that grew at the very brink of the gulf; the child clung convulsively, and it called but nobody seemed to hear. Then the roots of the grass gave way, and with a cry the child went over, its two little hands still holding tight to the torn-off bunch of grass.

And the girl who longed to be back in her gap thought she heard the little one cry, and she sprang up and wanted to go; at which her relatives reproved her, reminding her that no one is necessary anywhere – the gap would be well taken care of, they knew. And they sang a hymn.

Then through the hymn came another sound like the pain of a million broken hearts wrung out in one full drop, one sob. And a horror of great darkness was upon ME, for I knew what it was – the cry of the blood.

Then thundered a Voice, “…the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people…” Jesus said, “…Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature…and, lo, I am with you alway…” [Isaiah 6:8,9; Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:20]

The blood of the 40,000,000 plus babies who have suffered a violent death by abortion cries out to us. Won’t you please help these precious children to live?

We must call for the abolition of all infanticide – in or out of the womb – we must demand civil leaders who are 100% Pro-Life: No Exceptions, No Compromise…We must vote Michael Peroutka for President and Chuck Baldwin for Vice President in 2004.

Let us heed these words of our LORD found in Holy Scripture:

    I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God… [Deuteronomy 30:19]

Amen.


Angela Wittman is the Co-Chair (Lady) and a National Constitution Party Committee Member for the Constitution Party of Illinois. Angela is a longtime resident of southern Illinois, active in her community and writes Constitutionally correct commentaries. You may contact Angela here.


Back to The Covenant News

With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?


With Republicans Like These,
Who Needs Democrats?


By Scott T. Whiteman, Esq


The Covenant News ~ February 11, 2005


 

We Christians who believe the total claim, “Christ [g]ave a promise that the ends of the earth (Psal. ii.8) and the isles shall be his possession (Isa. xlix. 1),” (Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, QXXXI) are told that the Republican Party could really use our support – that true reform in America is possible through it and it alone – and that we, who work outside the Party are working against morality in America. But then, every so often, we are given confirmation that with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

For the first time in 134 years, the Republicans have taken complete control of State government in Georgia, but only one Republican intends to use that power to do that which his office requires. Republican House Representative Bobby Franklin is intent upon, of all things, remaining obedient to his Oath. He intends to defend and protect the unalienable right to life of unborn Georgians. Rep. Franklin also intends to fulfill his campaign promises to be “pro-life.” Rep. Franklin introduced a bill that calls for the re-criminalisation of abortion. An elected official who seriously regards his Oath and campaign pledges ought to be commended, but apparently not by Republicans.

The House Republican Leader, Jerry Keen, dismissed without concern Rep. Franklin’s intended fidelity to his Oath by stating, “Obviously that’s not the bill we’re going to be taking up.”

Obviously.

To do so would require that the Republican Party rule as if it intends to be pro-life. Instead, the “safe, legal and rare” Republicans are calling for more regulation of abortion in Georgia. The State Georgia, at the direction of Republicans, may begin to more greatly regulate the unlawful killing of unborn children by:

  • requiring a 24 Hour waiting period before receiving an abortion during which time the woman would be told the alternatives to abortion, and requiring physicians to inform the woman (the soon-to-be-deceased’s mother) about fetal pain and to show pictures of another fetus (not the soon-to-be-deceased) at the approximate stage of development of this fetus (the soon-to-be-deceased);
  • requiring the soon-to-be-deceased’s mother to inform the soon-to-be-deceased grandparent(s) if, but only if, the soon-to-be-deceased’s mother is a minor;
  • permitting pharmacists who oppose abortion to refrain from distributing the morning after pill. Of course, there is no prohibition on the soon-to-be-deceased’s mother from going to another pharmacist to acquire the drug that will leave the relatives of the soon-to-be-deceased mourning after he is dead;

The House and Senate leaders have pledged only to support the (grand)parental-notification bill and the 24 hour waiting period bill. How can we conclude anything other than that these men are committed to preserving abortion as a fundamental right in Georgia? The “safe, legal and rare” Republicans have bowed down at the alter of the Supreme Court and will not contest the validity of Roe v. Wade. Keen has admitted his consent to abortion by stating, “Even if I don’t always agree with the Supreme Court, they are the highest authority, and we have to respect that.”

How does a pro-lifer respect the notion that an unborn child, innocent of any worldly charge, can be terminated at any point provided that the mother who has contracted with another person to kill the child within her either has the grandparent’s of the infant’s consent or is of “legal age” and has had 24 hours to think about whether she really, really wants to kill this kid?

The truth is, no pro-lifer can respect that, and no pro-lifer can respect Roe v. Wade.

No pro-lifer can respect the notion that regulating the number of abortions is better than prohibiting abortion.

No pro-lifer can respect any politician, be he Republican, Democrat or other, who will permit the continued murder of children to go unpunished.

No pro-lifer can respect a President, be he Republican, Democrat or other, who authorises taxpayer-funding of abortion and increases it to a record-high $288,283,000, despite campaign rhetoric that no taxpayer-funds would be used for abortions.

No pro-lifer can respect any “pro-life” organisation that supports elected officials, be he Republican, Democrat or other, who are not wholly committed to the re-criminalisation of abortion.

In response to this opposition from the Republican Party, Rep. Franklin stated, “Some people go along with the majority because they are afraid of not being re-elected. I am not afraid. We just have to do what’s right.”

A pro-lifer can respect that.

Scott T. Whiteman a Reformed Christian, husband, and father of three. He is a practicing attorney in the State of Maryland and served as Campaign Manager for Michael A. Peroutka as he ran for President in 2004.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

DeLay Makes No Delay in Apology


DeLay Makes No Delay in Apology


By Scott T. Whiteman, Esq


The Covenant News ~ April 16, 2005


 

It never takes long, and it always happens – a conservative says something we conservatives believe, support and get excited about, and then he recants. I remember when Jerry Falwell blamed abortionists, feminists, and homosexuals for 911 only to recant (okay, actually 911 was a judgment from God for the Church’s failure to act against abortionists, feminists and homosexuals). Trent Lott said to Strom Thurmond, on his 100th birthday, that essentially America could have been spared 40 years of racist laws, race-baiting and oppression if he (Thurmond) had been elected President in the 1960’s, only to recant.

This week, we see only the most recent manifestation of the invertebrate nature of our elected Republicans. On the day Terri Schiavo died, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) said that the judges who refused to intervene in the Schiavo case would “answer for their behaviour.” Not two weeks later, DeLay recanted, explaining away his statement as stemming from emotions heightened by the Schiavo case and an “inartful way” of expressing his opinion. How exactly, may I ask, can one “artfully” suggest that the judges who mandated that Terri Schiavo be starved to death would be held responsible? Either they are guilty of connivance in the murder of a woman in Florida, and therefore accomplices in the murder, or they are not. Which is it?

Governments are instituted by God among men to secure people’s inalienable right to life, liberty and property. Governments are given the power to the sword to effectuate these ends. The only tool government has to carry out its purpose is force. When one member of the governed murders, kidnaps or steals property, the State is required to use force against that criminal. When one member of the governed expresses his intent to have someone murdered by starvation over the course of howeversomany days it takes, it is the duty of the government to use force against that person, not to reinforce his intention with a judicial order.

If a judicial order occurs supporting a man’s intent to murder his wife, it becomes the duty of the executive department of government to refuse to execute the unlawful judicial order. In our confederate Republic, if a member State of the Union has demonstrated its intent to connive at the murder of one of its citizens, it becomes the duty of the Chief Executive to intervene (see Federalist 43) and or the U.S. Congress to call forth the militia to stop the murder. On any day over the course of the 13 during which Terri Schiavo was being killed, but remained stationery in that room, the Governor was obligated to refuse compliance to that judicial order and sent in his guards to reinsert the feeding tube and arrest anyone who intended to remove it. On any day over the course of the 13 during which Terri Schiavo was being killed, but remained stationery in that room, the President was obligated to in his guards to do the same, and the Congress was obligated to call forth the militia to protect her. We have a balance of powers, not a strict separation of powers, whereby each branch gets a check over the other branches. But our system of checks and balance has broken down and our whole nation sits idly by while a probate judge’s opinion that a woman can be murdered without offense in his jurisdiction remains unopposed.

So let me “unartfully” declare that those judges who mandated the removal of the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo; those judges who refused to permit her case to be appealed; the Governor who remained personally troubled but remained seated on his hands silently while a woman was murdered over the course of thirteen days in his State; the President who said “I’ve done all I can do” while doing nothing; will be required to answer for their behaviour.

But answer to whom? Certainly not to an impotent Republican Congress which is great at PR campaigns when reasonably calculated to continue the dupe – that Republicans are conservative Constitutionists. Certainly not to a Republican President who has already “distanced himself” from DeLay and had previously appointed one of the judges (William Pryor) who ruled against Schiavo at the 11th Circuit. I hope they all will be held accountable by the voters for their willful neglect of their delegated and affirmative duty to secure life, one of the purposes for which God institutes governments among men … for if the voters do not hold them accountable for the blood of Terri Schiavo, God have mercy on us all as He takes further judgment on a People who constantly elect such perjurers into office.

Scott T. Whiteman a Reformed Christian, husband, and father of three. He is a practicing attorney in the State of Maryland and served as Campaign Manager for Michael A. Peroutka as he ran for President in 2004.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

John Roberts: Accomplice In Crime


John Roberts: Accomplice In Crime


By Scott T. Whiteman, Esq


The Covenant News ~ August 16, 2005


Last week we learned that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had nothing in his personal opinions that would prevent him from enforcing Roe v. Wade as the Supreme Law of the land as an appellate court justice. Then we learned that that he worked with the Lambda Legal Defense Fund in overturning a state’s initiative that protected an individual from being forced to rent his home to or hire homosexuals. Evangelical Conservatives have told us that President Bush has nominated a judge like Thomas and Scalia, but in Romer v. Evans, the case creating “special rights” for sodomites, Judge Roberts and Justices Rehnquest (for whom he clerked), Thomas and Scalia were on opposite sides.

One would think those facts would be enough to persuade Evangelical Conservatives from falling in line behind the President, but it has not. Instead, the religious right leaders have embraced the White House talking points on John Roberts. We have been told that he is a lawyer’s lawyer, able to argue for either side of an issue. Is this what makes a lawyer “good,” or isn’t “goodness” determined by obedience to God?

A few years back, I came across the following story:

    Many years ago, an advocate, distinguished for his eloquence and high social character, successfully defended a vile assassin, and, and by his tact, boldness and pathos, secured a verdict of acquittal. When the accused was released, he descended into the crowd of the court house, to receive the congratulations of his degraded companions, and, almost wild with elation, advanced to his advocate, offering his hand, with profuse expressions of admiration and gratitude. The dignified lawyer sternly joined his own hands behind his back and turned away, saying: “I touch no man’s hand that is foul with murder.” But in what light did this advocate learn that this criminal was too base to be recognized as a fellow man? The court had pronounced him innocent! It was only by the light of his private judgment – a private judgment formed not only in advance of, but in the teeth of, the authorized verdict. Where, now, were all the quibbles by which this honorable gentleman had persuaded himself to lend his professional skill to protect from a righteous doom a wretch too vile to touch his hand? as that “the lawyer is not the judge; that he is not authorized to decide the merits of the case?” Doubtless, this lawyer’s understanding spoke now, clear enough, in some such terms as these: “my hand is my own; it is purely a personal question to myself whether I shall give it to this murderer; and in deciding that personal question, I have a right to be guided by my own personal opinion of him. In claiming this, I infringe no legal right to life, liberty or possessions, which the constituted authorities have restored to him.” But was not his tongue his own, in the same sense with his hand? Was not the question, whether he could answer it to his God of having used his tongue to prevent the punishment of crime, as much a private, personal, individual matter, to be decided by his own private judgment, as the question whether he should shake hands with a felon.” R.L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. III, page 1-21. “Morality in the Legal Profession,” Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Virginia. (1996) at p.15 emphasis in original.

Consider also the next example Dabney provides: “[A] prominent advocate defends a man of doubtful character from the charge of fraud, and rescues him, by his skill, from his well-deserved punishment. But now this scurvy fellow comes forward and claims familiar access to the society of the honorable lawyer’s house, and aspires to the hand of his daughter in marriage.” Ibid. You can guess how the story continues: “My counselor, you advocated on my behalf, and it was by your industry and knowledge of the legal procedure that I stand before adjudicated not guilty. How is it now that you object to my presence?”

Sir William Blackstone defines Accessories After the Fact thusly:

    An accessory after the fact may be, where a person, knowing a felony to have been committed, receives, relieves comforts or assists the felon. … Generally, any assistance whatever given to a felon, to hinder his being apprehended, tried or suffering punishment, makes the assister an accessory. … [T]he crime imputable to this species of accessory is the hindrance of public justice, by assisting the felon to escape the vengeance of the law. … [S]o strict is the law … that the nearest relations are not suffered to aid or receive one another.” Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, §40(c). (Emphasis mine.)

The modern American definition of Accessory After the Fact is not considerably different. So, if any assistance whatever given to a felon to hinder his suffering punishment makes the assister an accessory after the fact, how is that different for lawyers? Because they are just doing their job? Every attorney must ask himself, “shall I professionally assist this man in his unrighteousness, or should I decline?” As Dabney wrote, “that question involves an unavoidable duty, and constitutes a matter personal, private and immediate, between him and his God.” Discussions at 14.

Therefore, a lawyer who helps a felon to evade justice is an accessory after the fact. What about a lawyer who helps someone commit the felony without fear of Justice? Consider Blackstone on Accessory Before the Fact: “whoever procureth a felony to be committed, though it be by the intervention of a third person, is an accessory before the fact.” Commentaries, at §39.

All men, even appointees to the Supreme Court, are personally responsible to God for their professional actions. Can a Christian woman be employed as a prostitute and claim that her adultery and fornication was nothing more than what her profession required? Don’t tell me that it’s different because prostitution is illegal, because 1.) it is not illegal everywhere, and 2.) it is also illegal to violate your Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Every Judge and lawyer perjures himself when he decides or argues on a case contrary to the United States Constitution. Every Judge or lawyer is an accessory after the fact if he knowingly assists a felon to evade justice. What convicts the Christian woman is the same that convicts the Christian Judge or attorney – God Almighty. He has offered no caveat in His Law for the excuse, “Just doing my job.” As Officers of the Court, a lawyer ought, and a Christian lawyer must, “form his own independent opinion, in God’s fear, whether in assisting each applicant he will be assisting wrong, or asserting falsehood.” Discussions at 16. Otherwise, lawyers are nothing more than accessories, hired-guns, or mercenaries of the lowest order.

In 1996, homosexual activists caused the foundations of states rights to “sustain serious erosion” and coupled with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was responsible for the legalisation of sodomy. See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 at 2482 (2003). Supreme Court nominee John Roberts helped erode those foundations by aiding and abetting unrighteous sodomites in the formulation of their arguments before the Supreme Court. Less than ten years ago, the States were permitted to exercise their lawful police powers. Then comes John Roberts to pave the way for homosexual “special rights,” leading to Lawrence v. Texas and the denial to the States their lawful authority and duty to prosecute sodomy. Though there was a level between attorney Robert’s actions in 1996 and the Supreme Court’s decision in 2003, he was an accessory before the fact, advancing the cause of felonious conduct (sodomy) and unrighteousness.

Judge Roberts is at best a “lawyer’s lawyer,” a hired-gun, a mercenary of the lowest order. He is willing, and quite able, to advocate the position of the highest bidder without taking any personal review of whether the cause is righteous. When it came to advocating for homosexuals and against the homeowners and employers who did not want to be required to associate with them, (then) attorney Roberts used his tongue and talents so effectively that he laid the road that led to the legalisation of sodomy and will, most suspect, lead to homosexual marriage. Judge Roberts bears the responsibility for the legalisation of sodomy and likely the future endowment of sodomy-based marriage.

For our baseness as Americans in continually electing officials with no intention to perform their Oaths, and for the sycophancy of the Evangelical Conservatives, despite John Roberts’ personal and professional unfitness for the office, we, for our sin, deserve this accomplice of evil on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Scott T. Whiteman a Reformed Christian, husband, and father of three. He is a practicing attorney in the State of Maryland, and served as Campaign Manager for Michael A. Peroutka as he ran for President in 2004. He is available for radio or TV interviews, or for speeches, by contacting him at (410) 760-7897 or by using our Forum


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Homosexual – Two Christians Assaulted while Sharing Biblical Message about Homosexuality


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                March 05, 2004

Two Christians assaulted while
sharing Biblical Message about Homosexuality

Perpetrator: “I’m going to kill you both.”


MONROE, WI . March, 05 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — On March 1st, two individuals with Wisconsin Christians United were in Burlington, Wisconsin literature dropping the WCU brochure Homosexuality: The Truth and a flyer dealing with so-called same-sex marriage. After leaving that literature on the doors of close to half of the homes in Burlington, the two men stood on a busy street corner holding signs which read, “Homosexuality is sin,” and “Christ can set you free.” The two individuals with WCU are Mike Foht, a full-time missionary, and a young Christian friend from Northern Ireland (Ulster) who had come to America to experience some ministry work here.

After a short time, a car with two individuals stopped by the picketers. A very large, very angry young man jumped out of the car and approached the picketers demanding to know “What the f–k are you doing? What’s with that sign. You guys got something against gays? . . . I’m going to kill you both and bust you.” The man then began viciously kicking one of the WCU signs with what appeared to be steel-toed work boots. He also kicked the young man from Ulster, bruising his knee. The assailant then turned on Mike Foht, kicking him and swinging his fists at him. In the process of trying to fend his attacker off, Mike ended up on the ground. The perpetrator’s friend shouted at him to come back to the vehicle so that they could flee the scene, which they did, but not before the berserk man picked up the sign reading, “Homosexuality is sin,” and repeatedly punched it while screaming curses.

During the incident just described, Mike Foht had a video camera hanging around his neck. The camera, which was aimed at the ground but running, recorded the first few seconds of the man’s assault but stopped working due to the violent nature of the attack upon Mike, who sustained bruises from it.

The man responsible for the Burlington attack has been taken into custody, thanks to the quick thinking of an alert citizen who followed the attacker to his home and reported that location to the police. As this report is being written, the man is in custody with charges pending.

WCU also received a phone threat from Burlington that we feel is serious enough to turn into law enforcement officials. We will be doing that later today. In addition, Mike Foht has notified Burlington police that while he was waiting for police to respond to the crime scene described above, four young men standing nearby approached him and said, “We are going to hunt you down.” Could any of this have anything to do with the fact that Christians who take a biblical stance on homosexuality are constantly being portrayed as ignorant, violent hatemongers looking for victims on which to satiate their mindless rage?

What happened in Burlington, Wisconsin does not by any means reflect the character of the majority of people in that town, but it does reflect the heart of a fascist-minded subculture which will not tolerate any dissent from its party line, including a simple gospel message about homosexuality. I commend the Burlington police for their professional conduct in handling the situation in which two Christians were viscously assaulted by a pro-homosexual individual. It will be interesting to see how the district attorney will handle this case. We often have been pleased to see the local police do their job in similar situations only to have the D.A. bow to political pressure and release a dangerous perpetrator with a slap on the wrist—or worse, a pat on the back. Either way, WCU will be back in Burlington soon to finish up lit dropping the town and to do another picket. This time, we will be on hand with considerably more than two people.”

–Pastor Ralph Ovadal, Director, Wisconsin Christians United

CONTACT:
Wisconsin Christians United
P.O. Box 771
Monroe, WI. 53566
1-608-328-4841
Website: www.wcuweb.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Socialist Christians – Socialists praise Christians


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release — parody:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                         November 04, 2004

Socialists praise Christians


Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus
praises Christian right for helping re-elect G.W. Bush.


We here at the Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus would like to extend sincerest gratitudes to our Christian colleagues all over the country for their help in electing George W. Bush. Many of you typically associate pro-choice, pro-gay, and socialist citizens with the Democratic Party, but unlike our counterparts to the left, we want to cut taxes and pre-emptively invade terrorist nations. We are glad that you are not so intolerant in your religious beliefs to share the same Party with the like-minded Republicans in our progressive Caucus. We could not have got George Bush into office without you! With George W. Bush at the helm, we are headed in the right direction.

The Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus has thrown its support behind George W. Bush for a number of reasons:

    1. President Bush has increased taxpayer funding for abortion, through Medicaid and Title X funding, more than any President in history.

    2. He publicly denies a pro-life litmus test for judicial appointees. By the pre-1992 Right to Life standards, he would have been classified as a “pro-abortion” candidate, but we are fortunate to have a Christian right that has evolved from its Neaderthal days of chauvinism.

    3. The brand of “strict constructionists” he has appointed has not been inconsistent with the pro-choice position. The judicial candidates he endorsed to the Texas Supreme Court when he was Governor of Texas allowed an underage woman to get an abortion without parental consent, defying underage-consent legislation that the misinformed public overwhelmingly approved. One of his appointees, Miguel Estrada, was employed by the pro-choice National Organization of Women to argue a case before the Supreme Court to prosecute anti-abortion protesters for RICO violations. This is our kind of “strict constructionist”!

    4. Although we have not been proud of all of Bush’s court appointees, but we have been encouraged nonetheless by his active campaigning and endorsement of Senate Arlen Specter over the Republican challenger anti-abortion religious extremist, Pat Toomey. Having won re-election, Senator Specter will now chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds hearings on all judicial nominees. Senator Specter has a tried and true pro-choice litmus test – he refused to let anti-abortion extremists to the Federal bench. He helped stop the anti-abortionist Robert Bork, who Reagan tried to get to the Supreme Court, and as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are confident that he will follow in Patrick Leahy’s footsteps and will not allow any anti-abortion nominees to come to a floor vote.

    5. George W. Bush has also gone on the record saying he doesn’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

    6. George W. Bush has admitted that he is personally pro-choice with exceptions – he believes that abortion is justified in cases of rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. This position also helps clarify in our minds that his “pro-life” position is based on political expediency, and is not a firmly-held principled position that considers abortion to be a criminal act against a real human being.

    7. Although he signed the abhorrent Mexico City policy, which was intended to forbid taxpayer monies from being distributed to groups that perform abortion overseas, he remedied himself by proposing a budget that sent taxpayer funds to groups that perform abortion overseas.

    8. Moreover, George W. Bush has appointed more open gays to high government positions than Bill Clinton.

    9. He appointed an open homosexual ambassador to the less enlightened Christian nation of Romania. The ambassador’s lover was acknowledged at the appointment ceremony and he is staying with his partner on the taxpayers’ tab at the Romanian embassy. Hopefully, Romania’s homophobic version of Christianity will see the light and begin to accept gays as normal people of faith.

    10. President Bush sent a personal letter of praise to the Metropolitan Community Church, which marries about 6,000 gays annually.

    11. He has praised the diverse family of his Vice President, Dick Cheney, and has embraced his lesbian daughter’s sexual preference.

    12. He has campaigned with and for many pro-choice and pro-gay politicians, including Mayor Rudy Guliani, NY Governor Pataki, and California Governor Swartzenegger. Those are our kind of Republicans!

    13. President Bush’s church in Texas, Highland Park United Methodist Church, accepts open homosexuals as brothers and sisters in Christ.

    14. Although he publicly professes the Christian faith, he has gone on record publicly admitting that he believes Muslims and non-Christians are going to heaven. (We hope and pray that homophobic, exclusive Christian groups, who lobbied so hard for the President’s re-election campaign, will mimic his tolerance, acceptance, and love for other diverse people groups.)

    15. President Bush has also gone on record admitting that he doesn’t believe every word of the Bible to be true. We are relieved that he does not embrace the parts of the Bible that endorse homophobia, hatemongering, the subjugation of women, or the exclusiveness of Christianity.

    16. He has increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, for the Department of Education, and for many other groups that previous Republican Presidents attempted to dismantle.

    17. Although he did cut taxes, he did not let that stop him from increasing government spending for almost every government program – indeed, spending has increased more under Bush’s leadership than any President in a generation.

    18. His administration helped oust that radical hatemonger former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore from the judiciary, and Bush gave a recess appointment to his chief nemesis, Bill Prior.

    19. Although Bush did capitulate to the anti-abortion forces and signed the “Partial Birth Abortion” ban, at least the wording of the Ban legalized every form of abortion except one type, and since there are other late term procedures available for women who want an abortion, this Ban – if it even survives the judicial gauntlet – will not impede a woman’s right to choose.

    20. President Bush has also gone on the record opposing the Republican policy which is against gay civil unions, and he is endorsing gay civil unions at the state level. (Gay civil unions are basically legal relationships in which marriage rights are conferred on gay couples.)

    21. Although he was endorsed by the fanatical NRA, he crossed them by admitting that he would re-enact the Clinton assault weapons ban, and he refused to rescind on any prior gun control legislation when he had the chance.

    (You can verify these facts about our President at WhereTheTruthHurts.org, although I’d encourage you
    not to read anything else on this religious fanatic’s website.)

We would like to specifically name a few Christian groups who devoted much money, time, and energy, into helping get our President back into office:

    • Christian Coalition
    • National Right to Life
    • Traditional Values Coalition
    • Center for Bioethical Reform
    • Priests for Life
    • American Family Association
    • American Center for Law and Justice
    • Eagle Forum
    • Family Research Council
    • Christian Defense Coalition
    • World Magazine
    • Human Events Magazine
    • Focus on the Family
    • Grassfire.net
    • National Rifle Association
    • Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
    • Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed,
      and conservative talk show hosts, Hannity, Limbuagh, Beck, and others.

As chairman of the Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Socialist Republican Caucus, I want to thank you all, and say that we could not have done it without you! Although you have publicly disagreed with the more moderate and progressive members of your Republican Party, it’s nice to see that the Party is more important than your particular version of Christianity. It’s good to see that you put the interests of your Republican President above the interests of your religion.

Let this union between the left and the right wings of our party demonstrate to the world once and for all that we are all God’s children, and we can work together for a better world without the divisiveness and intolerance of religious exclusiveness of those who say that abortion is murder, homosexuals are hellbound, and that Jesus is the only way to heaven. We re-elected the most liberal, progressive Republican in history into the White House, and we did it together! Thank you!

CONTACT:
Your Pro-Gay, Pro-Choice, Socialist Republican chairman,
Dr. Estee Deeze
www.republicanleftandrightuniteforGulianiin2008!.com
www.afterallHillaryisworse.com
www.ifyouvotefortheConstitutionPartythenyou’llhelpHillarygetelected.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE


TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

On Propaganda: Recognition and Diffusion


On Propaganda:
Recognition and Diffusion


By Lance White


I have heard said that at the height of power in Nazi Germany there were no fewer than 8000 propagandists employed by the German State. I am not sure if this figure is correct, but it is not hard to ascertain that thousands certainly were employed knowingly and unknowingly for the sole purpose of disseminating political propaganda (on all sides) in WWII. Political propaganda sometimes combined with limited but violent “trigger” events, has in the past century, and can to this day change the face of the earth in very brief time periods.

Psychology of the individual and the mass manipulation of such via propaganda events or texts is the weapon to use in the 21st century in order to bring about the changes and policies, or lack there of, those in power seek – not by force, but by convincing the individual to implement the ideas of a few in control of State power. In its best form it is extremely subtle and phenomenally persuasive at the same time. Propaganda is the root, a spark from the ember of individual wants and desires if you will, and everything that follows, including war among other consequences both physical and monetary, is the result of the spark. I would propose that war is now a function of propaganda or mass psychological conditioning as much as vice-versa. This would be the logical result in any State once the MIC became the most powerful “institution” of the State.

One must ask oneself, honestly and without concern for those hurling names such as “conspiracy theorist” (propaganda itself), how much of the current world political system is governed by “men pushing our buttons” with propaganda events and texts. How many “Americans” will line up willingly for “security,” issued of course by the State, such as their new federal ID when it comes time simply because of their own ignorance combined with State propaganda? Political propaganda is the most powerful weapon on the planet when used correctly because it has the potential power to make masses of normal individuals into a lethal “group-weapon” or into a suppressed and submissive society via deceit and manipulation that play on the basic instinct of fear in particular. The men in charge of the German State before and during WWII knew this all too well (as do the men in charge in our time).

    “Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

    “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

              ~ Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarschall

In this vein, it would be prudent for one to have as much knowledge of propaganda as possible or face the possibility of becoming part of a lethal “group-weapon,” “suppressed-submissives” (via taxation, we may all already be able to be defined as either) or worse. It is imperative, in my mind, that if there is one thing all of us should be doing it is becoming so familiar with propaganda and its techniques, that we can recognize it “on-sight.” By consistently having this ability available to as many individuals as possible, the influence of political propaganda may be diminished significantly. I believe 10% of the population possessing the ability to consistently recognize political propaganda on-sight (and call it such in as public a way as possible – before the war not after!) would be sufficient to begin diminishing propaganda effects and make starting wars, for example, for anything other than defense very difficult. This is based on a simple premise and nothing more: You don’t have to spill the whole apple cart – just intercept 10% of the apples (inventory) each day until the guy goes out of business. Create disruption in just 10% of almost any system and the system will not run efficiently and has great potential for collapse (temporary or permanent) as the disruption, most likely, will cascade.

My review of propaganda techniques and events began around 1990. It has been very interesting to view the world of “political events” through this new microscope over the last several years. The amount of political propaganda that “Joe average” American is exposed to unknowingly every day (via the Mainstream Media in particular) is astounding – it now exists in ALL MSM in one form or another. The MSM issues propaganda on a variety of subjects that the State feels one should think of in a certain way and that way only. These messages are repeated diligently until they no longer benefit the State or must be adapted to new situations, or the State feels the message has been “heard loud and clear” by a large enough percentage of the population to reach its goal. Propaganda, in all its forms, has become so subtle and prevalent that it is difficult for one who is looking for it to see all of it due to the bombardment of near invisible shells.

I caught a shining example of the subtlety of the propaganda being foisted upon the general public in a string of jokes by Dave Letterman early last November. Of all the jokes, I remember one in particular because I was struck by the text book use of propaganda within the joke (Also and up-front, I haven’t voted for a president since Perot, so this is not about my political view – this is about subtle propaganda and just ONE example). The joke was: “Horse John Kerry most looks like?” The answer was “Sea Biscuit.” It was more than just a joke on a late night talk show, it was “text book name-calling” and it did exactly what it should have when name-calling is used correctly. It combined something extremely humorous – the fact Kerry has a face that is long like a horse – with a coined or archaic word or phrase – “Sea Biscuit.” Brilliant – there is no response that is correct except to sit back and laugh at yourself which is no response at all – from Kerry or his supporters. Do I feel that Dave Letterman is a propagandist because of this? The answer is no. I think Dave is a very visible, but small cog in a much larger machine and doubt he was doing anything more that evening than reading jokes that were written for him. And, who knows, maybe a “cigar is just a cigar” in this case – but context (the PERFECT use of name-calling at election time, for one) would indicate otherwise.

On that note, it is important when scrutinizing media for propaganda that one takes into consideration if what one is scrutinizing is in fact propaganda. Propaganda is merely persuasion when boiled down and all of us use what COULD be construed as propaganda of one form or another almost every day. Context is a good identifier, but it is usually not too difficult to recognize most political propaganda (if consciously searching for and familiar with the techniques) because many of those attempting to use propaganda, in the MSM anyway, do not seem to have familiarized themselves enough with the techniques and subtleties in order to deliver their propaganda in a near transparent fashion, although some certainly have. This is easy to see with even a little familiarity of propaganda and its techniques when reviewing the build up to the current war in Iraq – in this case, the “lies” that led up to the war are a simple euphemism for ” State sponsored propaganda.” However, this shows that even when poorly done, most individuals will not recognize propaganda until it is too late – this is due to ignorance and nothing more and it can be corrected.

Another point to take into consideration when pondering propaganda and its (potential) sources and effects on oneself and others is the fact that we can all be conditioned quite easily and may not realize or think about it if not on-guard. Almost all animals can be conditioned in some way, and people can too. Even tree frogs, among other animals with very small brains, have been conditioned to respond in specific ways to visual-color stimulation via small colored “signs.” They have been conditioned to respond to color associated with basic instincts like feeding and returning “home” to a cage (not at all unlike the color-coded “terrorist threat level” we are exposed to every day – via the State-approved combining of the basic emotion fear with a color). This is an extremely dangerous mass-psychological weapon in the communication/information age. It is imperative that this type of Association be recognized on sight to avoid irrational action(s) on a large scale.

In conclusion, I don’t believe I have stated anything here that anyone reading a site like CovenantNews.com wasn’t already aware of. What I tried to state is that this is something that should and can be combated in a number of different ways and I don’t see enough of the “Joe average” population being made aware of what they are being exposed to in a way they can understand and react upon. Most “Joe averages” possess good levels of wisdom in certain areas and are intelligent enough to learn to recognize propaganda, but are still ignorant of a good many things regarding how the world really works. I have to wonder: If the “Joe averages” of this country were made aware of what they were being exposed to since grade school would the latest war in Iraq ever have begun? Would we be living with fiat money and taxation systems? Would we begin to realize as a society that there are better ways to organize than centralized Nation States?

I would suggest that anyone really interested in learning propaganda techniques “by heart,” begin at Wikipedia.com. They have a great section on propaganda with solid examples and definitions. There are so many sources available that can help with serious endeavors to learn about propaganda and its techniques that all one needs to do is search on the net, visit the local library, or both. Once these “glasses” are put on however, don’t expect to see the “events” of the world the same way ever again


Lance White [send him mail] is a partner in a family manufacturing business in the Midwest. He is concerned about the direction he sees those in power of the State’s of the world taking us all via, in many cases, manipulation and deceit on a grand scale. ‘On Propaganda: Recognition and Diffusion‘ was first published at LewRockwell.com


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Conservativism is a Loser’s Religion


Conservativism
Is a Loser’s Religion


By Scott T. Whiteman, Esq


The Covenant News ~ January 18, 2005


 

“You can’t beat something with nothing,” so goes the aphorism about politics. Simple child psychology proves the assertion as true – if you are trying to get your child to stop whining about a dough-nut, distract and divert his attention onto something else. Political pundits tell us the psychology applies to politics – several left commentators have argued that Kerry lost because he offered “nothing” to contrast Bush’s “something.” My attention is not on the battle for the national landscape or how the Democrats might be able to turn some Red States into Blue States if they start offering “something,” rather my attention is on the “nothing” offered by the Right, and how we Christians ought to view the world of Conservativism.

Pessimism is the mark of the Conservative movement, both Secular and Religious. Consider, what long-term optimistic view for “our side” has any prominent conservative demonstrated in the last 140 years. The modern success of the Left Behind Series, which presupposes a continued and eventual defeat of God on the earth, is an accurate portrayal of the Religious Right’s historical view. When “our guy” Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America in 1835 he was no proponent of democracy. He almost lamented the trend, but he believed that the trend was inevitable.

Juxtapose the conservative pessimism with the liberal belief in the historic inevitability of victory. As justification for its decision requiring the Legislature to grant civil unions to homosexuals in Vermont, the Supreme Court there took notice that our Founders opened a radically egalitarian Pandora’s Box in 1776 that would lead ultimately to the dispossession of the “Aristocratic Elite” framers of our government. Name the issue: Social Security; Education; Homosexual Rights; Taxation; Guns; Crime – do you conjure up in your mind visions of assured Christian victory or historically inevitable defeat? Is your vision of the future Huxlian-Orwellian, or Christian?

Having worked in Third-Party, Christian politics for 8 years, I am subject to consistent inquiry by elders and fellow congregants in my church. When I express a vision of hope a Christian government that would no longer protect abortion, sodomy and governmental theft, the response I often hear (often from Elders) is “Oh, Scott. That’ll never happen.” One Elder even went further and told me, “so I just vote for the one who will gives me the biggest tax-break.”

After more than a quarter century with the “Religious Right” running the conservative-Christian agenda, the “main-line” pro-life movement has stopped calling for the abolition of abortion. Notice that the National Right to Life Committee and the Americans United for Life do not suggest, and the AUL boastfully discourages, any legislation that would end legal abortion in America. When is the last time you heard anyone with gravitas call for the abolition of the Federal Department of Education? Consider, E. Ray Moore of Exodus Mandate and Marshall Fritz of Honest Ed./Separation of School and State Alliance have put together two excellent programs for the reestablishment of parental control in education, but not one prominent conservative has pushed that agenda. Even within the present political fight “Same-Sex Marriage,” what federal legislator or Conservative spokesperson is calling on the States to not only refrain from granting the word “marriage” to the illicit union, but to baldly prohibit any codified rights, grants or privileges to be bestowed upon those who are openly committing a felony.

I suppose this is a tautology, but Christendom will not prevail in a culture that refuses to promote Christ. Of course I don’t expect the “world” to promote the Name above all names, the King of kings, but I (in my naiveté) did at one time expect that the Church would. Instead, we have countless leaders from the Religious Right recommending that we refrain from using that Bible or any “Christian arguments” to make our case against abortion, same-sex marriage, &c., since the five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold that traditional value. We are told that by putting the Christian God aside, we can appeal to “religion” which is much less offense, and reach a greater audience of people with whom we would agree.

Where the aphorism, “You can’t beat something with nothing” breaks down is where it fails to take into account the power of the sword, and the American-nationalism that has replaced Christendom. While democracy is a hopelessly fickle form of government that is easily abused by the master-technician who can figure out how to get the most supporters of his view to the polls, meanwhile preventing his opponent from doing the same, the American-nationalism of the Religious Right has permitted a Wilsonian War to spread that form of government in the Middle-East. While denying the right to war with another nation because of the substance of its religion and god, the Religious Right has affirmed the right to wage war to spread a procedural form of government, as if it has some inherent virtue. The procedural form “democracy” is morally-neutral, but we will impose this “nothing” upon you with our Army, even if you have “something” that you prefer. Perhaps (perhaps?) God was correct in advising the children of Israel against a massive military build-up, lest the king unjustly use it to invade another country. God is in the business of nation building and whenever man usurps this function, he commits a sin of presumption against the Creator of the universe.

As Christians first, conservatives second, we ought to abandon our hopeless belief in ultimate failure, abandon our call to arms to establish a Christless, secular government in the Middle East, and acknowledge the Christ as the King of kings. Do you not see evidence of the assured victory Christ gave us in Matthew 28? Frankly, me neither, but let’s all follow the example of faithful Abraham and await the city which has foundations and whose builder and maker is God.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

The Washington Post – Washington Post Headline News – Covenant News

CovenantNews.com

Home Page | AP | FOX | USA TODAY | Washington Post | NY Times | MSNBC | CBS News


Pro-Life News

Court News Report

Freedom of Speech

Politics

Abominations

WashingtonPost.com

The latest top news headlines from The Washington Post, updated continuously from Covenant News Wire sources.

Support Covenant News; Visit Our Advertisers

Support Covenant News; Visit Our Advertisers


©2006 The Covenant News

Suggested Links

The American View

Institute on the Constitution

Problems After
RU-486?
Call Attorney
and Sue!

_________


USA TODAY.com Nation – Top Stories – Covenant News

CovenantNews.com

Home Page | AP | FOX | USA TODAY | Washington Post | NY Times | MSNBC | CBS News


Pro-Life News

Court News Report

Freedom of Speech

Politics

Abominations

USA TODAY Headlines

The latest top news headlines from USATODAY, updated continuously from Covenant News Wire sources. Refresh page for the most recent news.

Support Covenant News; Visit Our Advertisers

Support Covenant News; Visit Our Advertisers


©2006 The Covenant News

Suggested Links

The American View

Institute on the Constitution

Problems After
RU-486?
Call Attorney
and Sue!

_________


Film Festival – Controversy and Hope: San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival Expected to Draw More than 1,200 to Second Annual Event


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                October 26, 2005

Christian Film Festival

Controversy and Hope: San Antonio
Independent Christian Film Festival

Expected to Draw More than 1,200 to Second Annual Event

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS October 26 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — Vision Forum Ministries is pleased to host the second annual San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and Jubilee Awards to be held on October 27-29, 2005 at the Lila Cockrell Theatre and Gonzalez Convention Center in San Antonio, Texas. The 2005 festival will feature more than forty independent Christian films on four screens over a three-day span. The “Best of Festival” winner will receive the $10,000 Grand Prize Jubilee Award.

“The mission of the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival is to encourage Christian filmmakers to neither retreat from society, nor to synthesize with paganism — but to do God’s work, God’s way, from the ground-level up,” explained Doug Phillips, the festival’s founder. “We are urging filmographers to force the antithesis between cultural righteousness and cultural evil.”

Last year’s inaugural festival drew more than seven hundred attendees, including filmmakers from England and Scotland. More than twelve hundred are expected to attend this year’s event.

“We are pleased that the call to take a stand for Christ in the critical arena of film has resonated with filmmakers across the globe,” remarked Phillips, “What this festival showcases is a groundswell of interest on the part of aspiring Christian filmographers to chart a new path and to define success using a biblical criteria — not to accept the scraps from Hollywood’s table.” “Our film festival is controversial,” continued Phillips, “not because it seeks to be avant-garde or push the envelope of visual acceptability. It is controversial, because it dares to proclaim that the Lordship of Christ applies to our methodologies as well as our ends. It is controversial, not because of the offensive things you will see, but because of what you will not see.”

In addition to the film screenings, the festival will offer workshops with seasoned filmographers, including veteran producer Geoff Botkin, adventure cinematographer David Rasmussen, and composer Ron Owen, who wrote the score for Beyond the Gates of Splendor. Bible teacher R.C. Sproul, Jr. and radio host Kevin Swanson will also address the gathering.

Festival attendees will be treated to outdoor entertainment at the River Walk’s enchanting Arneson River Theatre with dramatic presentations by narrator and actor, George Sarris, and rousing ballads with maritime balladeer, Charlie Zahm.

While some may not agree with the standards advanced at the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, organizers believe the event provides a forum of hope for Christian filmographers. “Those who take part in the festival you will not only hear a message of hope,” explained Phillips, “but they will witness the fruits of the hopeful — men and women laboring to advance the crown rights of Christ in a medium of defining significance for twenty-first century Christians.”

Festival passes are $125 for adults, $100 for students. Passes allow access to all the festival events. Space is limited. For more information on the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and Jubilee Awards, please visit the festival Web site at: www.independentchristianfilms.com.

CONTACT:
Wesley Strackbein
Vision Forum Ministries
press@visionforum.org
Phone: (210) 340-5250, ext. 222
www.independentchristianfilms.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

H.R. 4811 U.N. International Family Planning FY 2001 Congressional Roll Call Vote #546 (2000)

How Your Congressman Voted
On International Family Planning

The House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 4811, making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001

A ‘Yea’ vote is a vote for the largest abortion funding bill in U.S. history

H.R. 4811 Roll Call Vote No. 546 Tally

 Voted Yea: 307  Voted Nay: 101  Not Voting: 24   ALABAMA  Voted Yea: Sonny Callahan (R-AL-1); Robert Cramer (D-AL-5); Spencer Bachus (R-AL-6); Earl Hilliard (D-AL-7).  Voted Nay: Terry Everett (R-AL-2); Bob Riley (R-AL-3); Robert Aderholt (R-AL-4)    ALASKA  Voted Yea: Don Young (R-AK-AL).  ARIZONA  Voted Yea: Ed Pastor (D-AZ-2); Jim Kolbe (R-AZ-5).  Voted Nay: Matt Salmon (R-AZ-1); Bob Stump (R-AZ-3); J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ-6).    Not Voting: John Shadegg (R-AZ-4).    ARKANSAS  Voted Yea: Vic Snyder (D-AR-2); Jay Dickey (R-AR-4).  Voted Nay: Marion Berry (D-AR-1); Asa Hutchinson (R-AR-3).   CALIFORNIA  Voted Yea: Mike Thompson (D-CA-1); Doug Ose (R-CA-3); Robert Matsui (D-CA-5); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6); George Miller (D-CA-7); Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-8); Barbara Lee (D-CA-9); Ellen Tauscher (D-CA-10); Tom Lantos (D-CA-12); Anna Eshoo (D-CA-14); Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-16); Sam Farr (D-CA-17); George Radanovich (R-CA-19); Calvin Dooley (D-CA-20); William Thomas (R-CA-21); Lois Capps (D-CA-22); Elton Gallegly (R-CA-23); Brad Sherman (D-CA-24); Howard McKeon (R-CA-25); Howard Berman (D-CA-26); James Rogan (R-CA-27); David Dreier (R-CA-28); Henry Waxman (D-CA-29); Xavier Becerra (D-CA-30); Matthew Martinez (D-CA-31); Julian Dixon (D-CA-32); Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-33); Grace Flores Napolitano (D-CA-34); Maxine Waters (D-CA-35); Steven Kuykendall (R-CA-36); Juanita Millender-McDonald(D-CA-37); Steve Horn (R-CA-38); Edward Royce (R-CA-39); Jerry Lewis (R-CA-40); Joe Baca (D-CA-42); Ken Calvert (R-CA-43); Mary Bono (R-CA-44); Loretta Sanchez (D-CA-46); Ron Packard (R-CA-48); Brian Bilbray (R-CA-49); Bob Filner (D-CA-50).  Voted Nay: Wally Herger (R-CA-2); John Doolittle (R-CA-4); Richard Pombo (R-CA-11); Fortney Stark (D-CA-13); Gary Condit (D-CA-18); Gary Miller (R-CA-41); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-45); Christopher Cox (R-CA-47); Randy Cunningham (R-CA-51); Duncan Hunter (R-CA-52).   Not Voting: Tom Campbell (R-CA-15).  COLORADO  Voted Yea: Diana DeGette (D-CO-1); Mark Udall (D-CO-2).  Voted Nay: Scott McInnis (R-CO-3); Bob Schaffer (R-CO-4); Joel Hefley (R-CO-5); Thomas Gerard Tancredo (R-CO-6).   CONNECTICUT  Voted Yea: John Larson (D-CT-1); Sam Gejdenson (D-CT-2); Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3); Christopher Shays (R-CT-4); James Maloney (D-CT-5); Nancy Johnson (R-CT-6).  DELAWARE  Voted Yea: Michael Castle (R-DE-AL).  FLORIDA  Voted Yea: Corrine Brown (D-FL-3); Tillie Fowler (R-FL-4); Karen Thurman (D-FL-5); Michael Bilirakis (R-FL-9); C.W. Young (R-FL-10); Jim Davis (D-FL-11); Mark Foley (R-FL-16); Carrie Meek (D-FL-17); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18); Robert Wexler (D-FL-19); Peter Deutsch (D-FL-20); Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL-21); E. Clay Shaw (R-FL-22).  Voted Nay: Joe Scarborough (R-FL-1); F. Allen Boyd (D-FL-2) Cliff Stearns (R-FL-6); Charles Canady (R-FL-12); Dan Miller (R-FL-13); Porter Goss (R-FL-14); David Weldon (R-FL-15).   Not Voting: John Mica (R-FL-7); Bill McCollum (R-FL-8); Alcee Hastings (D-FL-23).  GEORGIA  Voted Yea: Jack Kingston (R-GA-1); Sanford Bishop (D-GA-2); Cynthia McKinney (D-GA-4); John Lewis (D-GA-5); Johnny Isakson (R-GA-6); John Linder (R-GA-11).  Voted Nay: Michael Collins (R-GA-3); Bob Barr (R-GA-7); Saxby Chambliss (R-GA-8); Nathan Deal (R-GA-9); Charles Norwood (R-GA-10).  HAWAII  Voted Yea: Neil Abercrombie (D-HI-1); Patsy Mink (D-HI-2).  IDAHO  Voted Yea: Mike Simpson (R-ID-2).  Not Voting: Helen Chenoweth (R-ID-1).  ILLINOIS  Voted Yea: Bobby Rush (D-IL-1); Jesse Jackson (D-IL-2); William Lipinski (D-IL-3); Luis Gutierrez (D-IL-4); Rod Blagojevich (D-IL-5); Henry Hyde (R-IL-6); Danny Davis (D-IL-7); Philip Crane (R-IL-8); Janice Schakowsky (D-IL-9); John Edward Porter (R-IL-10); Jerry Weller (R-IL-11); Jerry Costello (D-IL-12); Judy Biggert (R-IL-13); Thomas Ewing (R-IL-15); Lane Evans (D-IL-17); Ray LaHood (R-IL-18); John Shimkus (R-IL-20).  Voted Nay: Donald Manzullo (R-IL-16); David Phelps (D-IL-19).  INDIANA  Voted Yea: Peter Visclosky (D-IN-1); Mark Souder (R-IN-4); Steve Buyer (R-IN-5); Dan Burton (R-IN-6); Edward Pease (R-IN-7); Baron Hill (D-IN-9); Julia Carson (D-IN-10).  Voted Nay: Tim Roemer (D-IN-3); John Hostettler (R-IN-8).  Not Voting: David McIntosh (R-IN-2).  IOWA  Voted Yea: Jim Leach (R-IA-1); Jim Nussle (R-IA-2); Leonard Boswell (D-IA-3); Greg Ganske (R-IA-4); Tom Latham (R-IA-5).  KANSAS  Voted Yea: Dennis Moore (D-KS-3).  Voted Nay: Jerry Moran (R-KS-1); Jim Ryun (R-KS-2); Todd Tiahrt (R-KS-4).  KENTUCKY  Voted Yea: Anne Northup (R-KY-3); Ken Lucas (D-KY-4); Harold Rogers (R-KY-5); Ernest Lee Fletcher (R-KY-6).  Voted Nay: Edward Whitfield (R-KY-1); Ron Lewis (R-KY-2).  LOUISIANA  Voted Yea: W.J. Tauzin (R-LA-3); Jim McCrery (R-LA-4); John Cooksey (R-LA-5); Richard Baker (R-LA-6).  Voted Nay: David Vitter (R-LA-1); William Jefferson (D-LA-2).  Not Voting: Chris John (D-LA-7).  MAINE  Voted Yea: Thomas Allen (D-ME-1); John Baldacci (D-ME-2).  MARYLAND  Voted Yea: Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD-1); Robert Ehrlich (R-MD-2); Benjamin Cardin (D-MD-3); Albert Wynn (D-MD-4); Steny Hoyer (D-MD-5); Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD-6); Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7); Constance Morella (R-MD-8).  MASSACHUSETTS  Voted Yea: John Olver (D-MA-1); Richard Neal (D-MA-2); Barney Frank (D-MA-4); Marty Meehan (D-MA-5); John Tierney (D-MA-6); Edward Markey (D-MA-7); Michael Capuano (D-MA-8); Joe Moakley (D-MA-9).  Not Voting: James McGovern (D-MA-3); William Delahunt (D-MA-10).  MICHIGAN  Voted Yea: Vernon Ehlers (R-MI-3); Dave Camp (R-MI-4); James Barcia (D-MI-5); Fred Upton (R-MI-6); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI-8); Dale Kildee (D-MI-9); David Bonior (D-MI-10); Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI-11); Sander Levin (D-MI-12); Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI-15); John Dingell (D-MI-16).  Voted Nay: Peter Hoekstra (R-MI-2); Nick Smith (R-MI-7); Lynn Rivers (D-MI-13).  Not Voting: Bart Stupak (D-MI-1); John Conyers (D-MI-14).  MINNESOTA  Voted Yea: Gil Gutknecht (R-MN-1); David Minge (D-MN-2); Jim Ramstad (R-MN-3); Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN-5).  Voted Nay: Bill Luther (D-MN-6); Collin Peterson (D-MN-7); James Oberstar (D-MN-8).  MISSISSIPPI  Voted Yea: Roger Wicker (R-MS-1); Bennie Thompson (D-MS-2).  Voted Nay: Charles Pickering (R-MS-3); Ronnie Shows (D-MS-4); Gene Taylor (D-MS-5).  MISSOURI  Voted Yea: William Clay (D-MO-1); Ike Skelton (D-MO-4); Karen McCarthy (D-MO-5); Kenny Hulshof (R-MO-9).  Voted Nay: Roy Blunt (R-MO-7); Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO-8).  Not Voting: James Talent (R-MO-2); Richard Gephardt (D-MO-3); Pat Danner (D-MO-6).  MONTANA  Voted Yea: Rick Hill (R-MT-AL).  NEBRASKA  Voted Yea: Doug Bereuter (R-NE-1); Lee Terry (R-NE-2).  Voted Nay: Bill Barrett (R-NE-3).  NEVADA  Voted Yea: Shelley Berkley (D-NV-1); James Gibbons (R-NV-2).  NEW HAMPSHIRE  Voted Yea: John Sununu (R-NH-1); Charles Bass (R-NH-2).  NEW JERSEY  Voted Yea: Robert Andrews (D-NJ-1); Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ-2); Jim Saxton (R-NJ-3); Christopher Smith (R-NJ-4); Marge Roukema (R-NJ-5); Frank Pallone (D-NJ-6); William Pascrell (D-NJ-8); Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9); Donald Payne (D-NJ-10); Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11); Rush Holt (D-NJ-12); Robert Menendez (D-NJ-13).  Not Voting: Bob Franks (R-NJ-7).  NEW MEXICO  Voted Yea: Heather Wilson (R-NM-1); Joe Skeen (R-NM-2); Tom Udall (D-NM-3).  NEW YORK  Voted Yea: Michael Forbes (D-NY-1); Peter King (R-NY-3); Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4); Gary Ackerman (D-NY-5); Joseph Crowley (D-NY-7); Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-8); Anthony David Weiner (D-NY-9); Edolphus Towns (D-NY-10); Major Owens (D-NY-11); Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-12); Vito Fossella (R-NY-13); Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14); Charles Rangel (D-NY-15); Jose Serrano (D-NY-16); Nita Lowey (D-NY-18); Sue Kelly (R-NY-19); Benjamin Gilman (R-NY-20); Michael McNulty (D-NY-21); John Sweeney (R-NY-22); Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY-23); John McHugh (R-NY-24); James Walsh (R-NY-25); Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-26); Thomas Reynolds (R-NY-27); Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY-28); John LaFalce (D-NY-29); Jack Quinn (R-NY-30); Amo Houghton (R-NY-31).  Not Voting: Rick Lazio (R-NY-2); Gregory Meeks (D-NY-6); Eliot Engel (D-NY-17).  NORTH CAROLINA  Voted Yea: Eva Clayton (D-NC-1); Bob Etheridge (D-NC-2); David Price (D-NC-4); Richard Burr (R-NC-5); Howard Coble (R-NC-6); Mike McIntyre (D-NC-7); Cass Ballenger (R-NC-10); Charles Taylor (R-NC-11); Melvin Watt (D-NC-12).  Voted Nay: Walter Jones (R-NC-3); Robin Hayes (R-NC-8); Sue Myrick (R-NC-9).  NORTH DAKOTA  Voted Yea: Earl Pomeroy (D-ND-AL).   OHIO  Voted Yea: Rob Portman (R-OH-2); Tony Hall (D-OH-3); Michael Oxley (R-OH-4); Paul Gillmor (R-OH-5); Ted Strickland (D-OH-6); David Hobson (R-OH-7); John Boehner (R-OH-8); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9); Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH-11); John Kasich (R-OH-12); Thomas Sawyer (D-OH-14); Deborah Pryce (R-OH-15); Ralph Regula (R-OH-16); James Traficant (D-OH-17); Bob Ney (R-OH-18); Steven LaTourette (R-OH-19).  Voted Nay: Steve Chabot (R-OH-1); Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10).  Not Voting: Sherrod Brown (D-OH-13).  OKLAHOMA  Voted Yea: J.C. Watts (R-OK-4).  Voted Nay: Tom Coburn (R-OK-2) Wes Watkins (R-OK-3) Ernest Istook (R-OK-5) Frank Lucas (R-OK-6).  Not Voting: Steve Largent (R-OK-1).  OREGON  Voted Yea: David Wu (D-OR-1); Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3); Darlene Hooley (D-OR-5).  Voted Nay: Greg Walden (R-OR-2) Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4).  PENNSYLVANIA  Voted Yea: Bob Brady (D-PA-1); Chaka Fattah (D-PA-2); Robert Borski (D-PA-3); Tim Holden (D-PA-6); Curt Weldon (R-PA-7); Jim Greenwood (R-PA-8); Bud Shuster (R-PA-9); Don Sherwood (R-PA-10); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA-11); John Murtha (D-PA-12); Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA-13); William Coyne (D-PA-14); George Gekas (R-PA-17); Mike Doyle (D-PA-18); William Goodling (R-PA-19); Frank Mascara (D-PA-20); Philip English (R-PA-21).  Voted Nay: Pat Toomey (R-PA-15); Joseph Pitts (R-PA-16).  Not Voting: Ron Klink (D-PA-4) John Peterson (R-PA-5).  RHODE ISLAND  Voted Yea: Patrick Kennedy (D-RI-1) Robert Weygand (D-RI-2).  SOUTH CAROLINA  Voted Yea: John Spratt (D-SC-5) James Clyburn (D-SC-6).  Voted Nay: Mark Sanford (R-SC-1); Floyd Spence (R-SC-2); Lindsey Graham (R-SC-3); Jim DeMint (R-SC-4).  SOUTH DAKOTA  Voted Nay: John Thune (R-SD-AL).  TENNESSEE  Voted Yea: Zach Wamp (R-TN-3); Bob Clement (D-TN-5); Bart Gordon (D-TN-6); Ed Bryant (R-TN-7); Harold Ford (D-TN-9).  Voted Nay: William Jenkins (R-TN-1); John Duncan (R-TN-2); Van Hilleary (R-TN-4); John Tanner (D-TN-8).  TEXAS  Voted Yea: Jim Turner (D-TX-2); Pete Sessions (R-TX-5); Nicholas Lampson (D-TX-9); Lloyd Doggett (D-TX-10); Kay Granger (R-TX-12); Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX-15); Silvestre Reyes (D-TX-16); Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18); Charles Gonzalez (D-TX-20); Lamar Smith (R-TX-21); Henry Bonilla (R-TX-23); Martin Frost (D-TX-24); Ken Bentsen (D-TX-25); Richard Armey (R-TX-26); Solomon Ortiz (D-TX-27); Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX-28); Gene Green (D-TX-29); Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30).  Voted Nay: Max Sandlin (D-TX-1); Sam Johnson (R-TX-3); Ralph Hall (D-TX-4); Joe Barton (R-TX-6); Bill Archer (R-TX-7); Kevin Brady (R-TX-8); Chet Edwards (D-TX-11); William Thornberry (R-TX-13); Ron Paul (R-TX-14); Charles Stenholm (D-TX-17); Larry Combest (R-TX-19); Tom DeLay (R-TX-22).  UTAH  Voted Nay: James Hansen (R-UT-1); Merrill Cook (R-UT-2); Christopher Cannon (R-UT-3).  VERMONT  Voted Yea: Bernard Sanders (I-VT-AL).  VIRGINIA  Voted Yea: Owen Pickett (D-VA-2); Bobby Scott (D-VA-3); Norman Sisisky (D-VA-4); Thomas Bliley (R-VA-7); James Moran (D-VA-8); Rick Boucher (D-VA-9); Frank Wolf (R-VA-10); Thomas Davis (R-VA-11).  Voted Nay: Virgil Goode (D-VA-5); Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-6).  WASHINGTON  Voted Yea: Jay Inslee (D-WA-1); Jack Metcalf (R-WA-2); Brian Baird (D-WA-3); Doc Hastings (R-WA-4); George Nethercutt (R-WA-5); Norman Dicks (D-WA-6); Jennifer Dunn (R-WA-8); Adam Smith (D-WA-9).  Voted Nay: Jim McDermott (D-WA-7).  WEST VIRGINIA  Voted Yea: Alan Mollohan (D-WV-1).  Voted Nay: Nick Rahall (D-WV-3).  Not Voting: Robert Wise (D-WV-2).  WISCONSIN  Voted Yea: Paul Ryan (R-WI-1); Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-2); Jerry Kleczka (D-WI-4); Thomas Barrett (D-WI-5); Thomas Petri (R-WI-6); David Obey (D-WI-7); Mark Green (R-WI-8).  Voted Nay: Ronald Kind (D-WI-3); F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI-9).  WYOMING  Voted Nay: Barbara Cubin (R-WY-AL).  

House Consideration Of Conference Report

Waiving Points Of Order Against Conference Report On H.R. 4811, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001 (House of Representatives – October 25, 2000)

[Page: H10833]

Ms. KILPATRICK.
…With the international family planning language set, with the $420 million appropriation there to help family planning for women all over the world, it is a major effort. I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for working closely and hard on that.

[Page: H10836]

Mrs. MALONEY.
…This conference report is the first time in 5 years that this body has increased funding for international family planning. Just 5 years ago, we spent $200 million more a year to save women’s lives. With the increase in this bill today, raising USAID funding to $425 million from $385 million last year, we are taking the first step to restoring our commitment to the life-saving resources international family planning provides to some of the world’s poorest women.

[Page: H10840]
Mr. STARK. …This bill also includes no restrictions on international family planning activities for non-profit organizations. I’m not sure why my anti-abortion colleagues have allowed this bill to proceed, but I’m thankful that this body has begun to realize that we cannot force our own personal morality on other people. I hope that in the future this body will continue on this path and support a woman’s right to choose.

H.R. 4811
Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001

Sec. 598. Family Planning
The conference agreement provides a ceiling of $425,000,000 for population planning activities or other population assistance but prohibits any of such funds from being obligated or expended until February 15, 2001. The managers believe this will afford adequate time for the exercise of the authority of the President under the Foreign Assistance Act and other law to determine what terms and conditions, if any, should be imposed on assistance for population planning and other population activities.

Back to The Covenant News

Bush holds funds on family planning

The Washington Times
www.washtimes.com


Bush holds funds on family planning

Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 7/23/2002


�����The Bush administration said yesterday that it will not pay the $34 million Congress has earmarked for U.N. family-planning programs overseas, a population-control initiative that conservative groups say tolerates abortions and forces sterilizations in China.
�����State Department officials said the decision to withhold money from the U.N. Population Fund, known as UNFPA, was based on information collected during a May investigation that revealed some of the funding was inadvertently used to support such practices.
�����"While the U.N. is not knowingly involved in these programs of coercion, they support and work with agencies that are involved in that," said Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman.
�����House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, hailed the decision sought by conservative groups, who lobbied intensely against the program.
�����"American tax dollars shouldn't fund a program that carries out the systematic destruction of innocent human life by performing forced abortions and sterilizing women against their will," he said.
�����Democrats, meanwhile, railed against it.
�����"It's perfectly clear that Karl Rove would rather appease the president's right wing than provide health care to women around the world," said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Democrat.
�����UNFPA officials said they were shocked by the U.S. government's decision and that they have never been "involved in coercion in China or anywhere else in the world."
�����"We've always been staunch supporters of international human rights particularly women's rights," said UNFPA spokesman Sterling Scruggs.
�����Mr. Boucher said the $34 million Congress appropriated in December 2001 will instead be spent through the U.S. Agency for International Development and noted that this will bring to $480.5 million the total spent by the United States this year on population programs worldwide.
�����He said the State Department's decision complies with a 1985 law called the Kemp-Kasten amendment that prohibits U.S. funding to any organization that the president determines supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.
�����President Bush was pleased with the decision, said White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McLellan. It denies federal funds for the program reinstated under President Clinton. Presidents Reagan and George Bush had withheld the funding based on that prohibition.
�����The announcement yesterday came after the administration's fact-finding team sent to China in May determined that the funding should be released to the UNFPA. Their report, released yesterday, found no evidence that the UNFPA knowingly participated in programs of coercion. It did find coercion still exists in China, both in law and in practice.
�����Mr. Boucher said the department's legal analysis found that while the UNFPA may not "knowingly" support coercion, it inadvertently does so because computers, data-processing equipment, vehicles and other support supplied by the UNFPA are used by government officials to impose fines and other punishments on women who violate China's population policy.
�����"UNFPA is helping improve the administration of the local family planning offices that are administering the fees and other penalties that are effectively coercing women to have abortions," the legal analysis says.
�����Chinese Embassy spokesman Xie Feng said yesterday that Beijing was disappointed by the decision.
�����"We are very regretful that the donations or the money United States ought to put to this fund has been stopped," Mr. Xie said. "We hope that this decision will be changed because it's not good for the U.N. cooperation, and it's also not true to facts."

The Washington Times National Weekly Edition


Sell the Washington Times National Weekly Edition in your store!

Pastors enter sodomite debate

Pastors Enter Marriage Debate

      Four area evangelical leaders reluctantly step forward to oppose gay marriage, saying it runs against their core values

      They were reluctant to talk to a reporter and had to be persuaded to allow a photo to be taken. They would rather stay within their church communities and out of the public eye.

      But, instead, four evangelical pastors from the Portland area have gingerly stepped into the public arena to oppose gay marriage.

      Among other things, they are part of an informal group considering launching a ballot measure that, if passed by Oregon voters, would bar the state from recognizing any marriage that is not between a man and a woman.

      Ballot fights over gay rights are nothing new to Oregonians. But these pastors regard themselves as different from Oregon Citizens Alliance leader Lon Mabon, who has mounted one high-profile crusade after another against anything he sees as promoting the societal acceptance of homosexuality.

      Instead, these pastors say they have largely stayed on the sidelines of gay-rights issues as they’ve ministered to congregations that run into the thousands of members.

      Their decision to step into the political fray speaks volumes about how strongly so many evangelicals feel about preserving the traditional definition of marriage — and why this is an issue likely to become as prominent and hard-fought as abortion.

      “Our primary focus is to minister to people to help them build solid, positive lives,” said Ray Cotton, senior pastor of New Hope Community Church near Clackamas Town Center. “We’re not here to be against anyone. But when you take a value of our faith that is such a core value, we feel like we have to stand up.”

      Cotton and three other pastors participated in an interview Friday arranged by Tim Nashif, a veteran political consultant who helped found the Oregon Family Council, a group that publishes a Christian voting guide. Nashif is advising an informal group of pastors that recently filed four versions of a proposed ballot measure barring gay marriage.

      Nashif said the pastors aren’t sure whether they’ll go ahead with an initiative. In part, that’s because it would be difficult to gather the signatures needed by July 2 to qualify it for the November ballot. He said they could also get involved in urging the Oregon Legislature to act, or support President Bush’s attempt to amend the federal Constitution to ban gay marriage.

      They sharply distinguished between marriage and other issues involving how gay relationships are treated legally. None expressed great hostility toward Vermont-style civil-union laws, which provide many of the legal benefits of marriage for gays.

      “I would not be a promoter of civil unions, but I would not be antagonistic either,” said James E. Martin, senior pastor of Mount Olivet Baptist Church in North Portland. “It would be like other issues: Just let it go.”

      Frank Damazio, pastor of City Bible Church, which has a congregation of more than 4,000 in two locations in the Portland area, said he had never bothered to delve into the legal fine points of civil unions.

      They seemed like “a very fair thing to do, personally,” Damazio said, but he objected after deciding that gay activists had the “intention all along to use this as a stepping stone to get a full definition of marriage.”

      4,000-year history

      That, the pastors said, runs full force against the basic beliefs they have preached for years. While there are disputes about the meaning of the biblical injunctions against homosexuality, the pastors argue that the Bible consistently defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

      And this definition has served society well for “thousands of years through every civilization and millions of marriages,” said Damazio, adding that he worries about generations of children growing up in gay households.

      “Whether I was religious or not,” he said, “I would find that pretty amazing that we would take a 4,000-year-old book and civilization and say, . . . ‘We’re going to do something different.’ That’s pretty heavy.”

      Although nearly all legal scholars say that no church would be forced to marry gays in any case, the pastors don’t buy that. “I don’t believe that people will stand for you saying, ‘I’m not going to marry you because you are a same-sex couple,’ ” Martin said. “I know that’s going to bring lawsuits.”

      Supporters of gay marriage say it’s a simple matter of equality that also provides a host of societal benefits. They say it can offer a model for monogamy and provide more stability and acceptance for children of gay couples.

      Prepared for criticism

      But the pastors dispute those arguments by raising their own objections to homosexuality. They insist it is a lifestyle that anyone can leave under the right circumstances. Dick Iverson, a retired pastor who now heads Ministers Fellowship International, said he’s counseled several people who have left homosexual relations for heterosexual marriage.

      Endorsing gay marriage runs “totally contrary to what we believe will bring hope and help to people,” he said.

      The pastors say they know those views will bring them heavy criticism. And that’s one reason they say they are reluctant to enter this battle.

      “The moment we step in and say, ‘This is what the Bible says,’ we get, ‘Oh you hateful, mean-spirited people. You hate people; you want to deny civil rights,’ ” Martin said. “I want them to know we’re not against anything. We’re for marriage.”

      In the same fashion, the pastors say they’ve tried to shore up marriage by working to reduce the incidence of divorce in their congregations and by helping single parents and their children.

      The pastors said they hope they won’t be seen as a divisive force, like Mabon often was with his initiatives. Cotton, for one, called Mabon’s measures “hurtful.”

      But on marriage, the pastors said they are convinced that the majority of the public supports them.

      “I think on the definition of marriage now, you’re not going to find people budge much,” Damazio said. “I think people are going to draw lines. They’re going to stand up and say, ‘This will not be changed.'”

    

Back to Covenant News

Nuremberg – Nuremberg Files – Thomas More Law Center To argue For Reversal of $120 Million Jury Verdict Against Pro-Lifers in the “Nuremberg Files” Case


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                July 12, 2005

‘Nuremberg Files’ Free Speech Case

Law Center To argue For Reversal of $120
Million Jury Verdict Against Pro-Lifers in the
“Nuremberg Files” Case


ANN ARBOR, MI., July 12 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — On Tuesday, July 12th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Portland, Oregon, will hear oral arguments in the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case, which many consider to be one of the most important First Amendment cases in the country. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, represents several pro-life advocates who were hit with a $120 million jury verdict in 1999. The case against the defendants was primarily based on their use of “wanted” posters specifically naming abortion providers.

The Law Center represents six of the fourteen pro-life defendants. The American Catholic Lawyers Association represents the remaining defendants. Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, will present the argument on behalf of all defendants.

According to White, “We are hopeful the Ninth Circuit will apply the new Supreme Court cases to defendants’ situation. These new cases require the reversal of the jury’s verdict in this case.”

After the 1999 jury verdict, an appeal was taken to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 2001 a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit set aside the verdict and injunction because the defendants’ speech was protected by the First Amendment. The unanimous decision, however, was overturned in 2002 by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, who voted six to five in the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review their decision.

However, since their initial refusal to grant a review of the case, United States Supreme Court has issued at least two opinions, which the Law Center believes, require a reversal or at least a new trial. The Supreme Court has now made it clear that for a defendant to be found guilty of making a threat, a jury must determine that the defendant made the threat with specific intent to commit violence. In the defendants’ case, however, the jury was told that it did not have to find specific intent, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

Also, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that for a pro-lifer to be found guilty of “extortion” under RICO, the pro-lifer must obtain property from an abortion provider. With regard to the defendants, there was no evidence that they had obtained any property from the abortion providers, yet the abortion providers were still awarded more than $11 million based on their RICO claims, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.

CONTACT:
Thomas More Law Center
Dan Costanzo
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI. 48106
734-827-2001
Fax: 734-930-7160
Email: info@thomasmore.org
Website: http://www.ThomasMore.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations