God Save America

Shootings in Colorado Highlight the Fact that Christians and Churches are the Overwhelming Target of Hate Crimes in America

MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 11 /Christian Newswire/ — The tragic shootings in Colorado highlight the fact that Christians and churches are the overwhelming target of hate crimes in America.

For example, between 1997 and 2007 there were 3,500 acts of either arson, attempted arson, bombings and suspicious fires at churches according to the National Coalition for Burned Churches.

The group also reports that 600 churches were subjected to arson alone between 2000 and 2006.

Commenting on the Christian faith being the number target for hate crimes and violence in America, Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, comments;  

"First of all, our prayers and thoughts go out the families and friends that lost loved during the deadly shootings in Colorado during the past several days.  These deaths in Colorado highlight the fact that Christians and churches are the overwhelming target of violent hate crimes in America.   

For many Americans, the fact comes as a surprise.  Most would believe that the groups or facilities most likely to be targets of hate crimes are persons of color, gays, Muslims or abortion clinics.  The reason for that is the national press, media, elected officials and special interest groups focus, dramatize and over report when those groups and facilities are subjected to violent acts.

Imagine the media outrage if over 600 mosques, abortion clinics, gay night clubs or NAACP offices were burned to the ground over the past several years.  It would be a major news story for weeks.  Yet, when hundreds of churches are burned and Christians are killed there is a much more limited and lukewarm response.

We must all work for an America where violence has no place and people are not targeted for acts of hate because of their skin color, religious beliefs or gender.  However, we must begin to recognize that the most serious problem regarding violent hate crimes America concerns churches and Christians."

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

ADF and allies file lawsuit challenging SB 777  

SAN DIEGO — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 777.  The new law redefines a student’s sex as his or her “gender identity,” relying upon a student’s feelings about whether the student is male or female rather than his or her biological sex.

“State officials are jeopardizing women’s privacy and the safety of women and children.  Without any standards for determining someone’s ‘gender,’ school officials have no way to prevent a man from using the girl’s restroom or locker room, for example, and this should alarm students and parents,” said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler.

SB 777 prohibits schools from imposing dress codes or segregating school activities and programs on the basis of “gender.”  ADF and Advocates attorneys representing California Education Committee, L.L.C., argue that SB 777 is so vague that it could force schools to permit boys to participate in girls’ sports and run for homecoming queen.

In October, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 into law to become effective Jan. 1.  The law applies to all public schools and most private schools, including pre-schools, elementary schools, high schools, and post-secondary schools, such as colleges and universities.

A copy of the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in the case California Education Committee v. Brown can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/CECComplaint.pdf.

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

www.telladf.org

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

ADF attorneys filed friend-of-the-court briefs in August explaining to R.I. high court that divorce is not legally possible for non-marital relationships

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — In a case involving two women seeking to “divorce” one another, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled Friday that the term “marriage,” according to state law, means a union between one man and one woman.  Therefore, the lower state court did not have the authority to consider a petition for a same-sex “divorce.”

“Marriage has always been one man and one woman in Rhode Island.  Everything else is counterfeit.  The Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled correctly,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks.  In August, ADF attorneys filed three friend-of-the-court briefs explaining that divorce is not legally possible for non-marital relationships (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4197).

The two women in the case, Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, both residents of Rhode Island, traveled across the state to Massachusetts in May 2004 and obtained a “marriage” license there.  The couple subsequently petitioned the Rhode Island courts for a “divorce.”

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island expressed in its ruling, “The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent as expressed in the statues enacted by the General Assembly.”

“Not only is today’s ruling a victory for marriage, it’s also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism,” said Nimocks.  “Rhode Island’s highest court acknowledged that it is the role of the legislature, and not the judiciary, to establish public policy.”

A full copy of the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in the case Chambers v. Ormiston can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ChambersRuling.pdf.

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

www.telladf.org              www.domawatch.org

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Warner Todd Huston

The recent outrage against Constitutional liberty by the Boston Police raises some very interesting questions. Can we voluntarily give up our Constitutional rights? Further, can government legally violate our rights even if we ask them to do so? These are questions that we all need to consider before allowing police into our homes, invited or no.

Last week The Boston Globe reported that the Boston police are about to launch a program in "high-crime neighborhoods" where a roving band of policemen will walk door-to-door and ask parents if they have permission to search the home for guns. These police squads intend to conduct searches without warrants, claiming that the invitation by the homeowner is all they need to commence the search.

Like all steps down the road to tyranny, the pavement here is being laid by folks with good intentions, officials who are, after all, only trying to "help" the community. The Commissar of Police, Edward Davis claims that he is giving the folks of Boston "an option" for what to do about gun violence in the city. The cops "ask permission" to enter and supposedly only do so when given the OK. They also target specific homes that have been fingered as troublesome by neighbors and other intelligence sources.

Some community leaders are professing their faith in this new program that is patterned after one instituted, but later abandoned, by the St. Louis police. Boston’s community leaders seem ready to give this a try because the program is supposed to be spurred by community interaction and tips to the Boston PD. It is interesting and instructive, however, to note that some reports about the demise of the St. Louis program claim that one of the reasons they shut it down there was because the St.

Louis PD began to rely more on their own intelligence and less on community tips. Meaning, the community was no longer involved and the police there began to act as if it was solely their own resources

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Warner Todd Huston

The fields of DNA and gene manipulation research are incredibly exciting for the good that it can offer mankind. Imagine a day when the results of such research can assist mankind to treat previously untreatable diseases, maybe even prevent them? Wouldn’t it be tremendous to be able to alter the DNA of an unborn fetus to prevent its developing spina bifida or Down’s syndrome? Wouldn’t it be a Godsend if we could manipulate our genes in order to shut off the cancer cells that ravage us or rebuild broken spinal chords? Who would stand against such worthwhile gains in health, medicine and science? Of course, no caring human could oppose such work.

But that same work has its dark side and this is a subject that medical science is doing its level best to pretend does not exist. That dark side is not getting its due in the debate of the future of mankind through science. Unfortunately, it is not merely something to scoff at as unlikely because, for all our scientific knowledge, we are still, after all, men. Evil, selfishness, hatred and ignorance will remain with us whether we are free of cancer or know our full DNA sequence or not and those innate flaws inherent in man has, can and will corrupt the good that his science can do. The potential for evil is there no matter how wondrous that science can be.

The New York Times recently published a story about this very topic. Naturally, to further their own agenda, they only discussed a small portion of the potential evil that could result in the misuse of DNA research and left an awful lot of the debate unaddressed. In a story by Amy Harmon, the Times worried only abut racial prejudices being revived by DNA research ("In DNA Era, Worries About Revival of Prejudice") as that research begins to decode the small differences that accounts for skin color or other things that denote racial groups. From physical characteristics to propensity for race specific disease, DNA research is beginning to map these differences giving hope that, at least in the case of disease, those differences might lead to treatments and prevention. But, the Times worries that this research might also revive discrimination based on those differences. "The notion that race is more than skin deep," the Times reports, "could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal."

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Jim Kouri

"I shudder to think how millions of California children will be led astray, how marriage will be destroyed, and how immorality will step on the neck of morality if Arnold Schwarzenegger signs five anti-family bills into law. The ‘Terminator’ has less than two weeks to sign or veto very bad bills!" said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families.

Thomasson is disappointed with California’s Christian pastors and elders. In the last five days, many individuals and several businesses have responded to CCF’s action alert. However, to date, only one church has faxed in veto letters to the liberal Schwarzenegger’s office in Sacramento.

"This is not right, since the majority of pastors in California oppose sexual indoctrination of schoolchildren (SB 777 and AB 394), oppose demeaning marriage (AB 43 and AB 102), and oppose forcing the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda on businesses, organizations, and churches (AB 14)," said Thomasson.

"Distracted drivers cause car accidents; distracted pastors may accidentally assist anti-family bills to be signed into law. The Governor will notice our loud voice or our relative silence. The choice is [ours]," he added.

California’s leading pro-family organizations are urging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto five bills they believe will harm children, marriage, and religious freedom that are on his desk. And the Governor is taking notice — he’s listed the five bills as among a dozen pieces of legislation upon which telephone callers to his State Capitol office can "vote."

Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), Capitol Resource Institute, California Family Council, and Traditional Values Coalition are all urging vetoes of two school sexual indoctrination bills (SB 777 and AB 394), two marriage-demeaning bills (AB 102 and AB 43), and a bill that forces homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality upon businesses, churches, and nonprofit member organizations such as the Boy Scouts (AB 14).

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Worst Ex-President Ever By Alan Caruba

Historians and others love to make lists of the best and the worst of personalities and events, so permit me to offer a candidate as the Worst Ex-President Ever. I give you Jimmy Carter, anti-Semite, intellectual and moral weakling, and all-around bad person.

I think Jimmy will edge out Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor who made a botch of the Reconstruction after the Civil War and cannot even begin to compare with the largely unknown Harry Truman who succeeded Franklin Delano Roosevelt to see through to a successful conclusion of World War II, the implementation of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and after other wise decisions, retired to his home in Independence, Missouri. Neither Truman, nor other former Presidents, constantly sought the public spotlight to voice criticism of those who followed him into the Oval Office.

Jimmy Carter, who gained the highest office largely because of the voter’s revulsion against the Watergate scandals and the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, cannot shut up. During his time in office he blamed the American people for a “malaise” that affected the economy that was largely in the dumps. It never occurred to him that cutting taxes and taking other measures might have helped stabilize or jump-start the economy.

He was in office in 1979 when the Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took our diplomats hostage. Other than a poorly planned, failed military mission to extricate them, the voters would have to wait 444 days for Ronald Reagan to take office before their release.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Ken Marrero

We used to talk like that when we were ambushed. We used to know the difference between a legitimate disagreement, or even a conflict, and a deliberate, unannounced act of war. We used to have the will to see through to the end what had to be done to ensure the threat that revealed itself in that act of war never threatened us again. We used to think we’d always be able to do that. Sadly, it would appear that we are not.

Hawaii is 4 hours behind us here in Tennessee. At 7:55AM, December 7, 1941 the Japanese conducted a surprise attack on the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor. It was 11:55AM here in Tennessee. Over the next 2 hours that attack would claim the lives of 2,403 Americans and wounded another 1,178.

Time Magazine has an excellent timeline of the events. Here are a few excerpts.

07:55 The raid begins at Pearl Harbor as the Raleigh, Helena, Utah and Oklahoma are struck.

07:56 There are two explosions on the Arizona. Pfc. James Cory: "The bridge shielded us from flames … Around the edges in these open windows came the heat and the sensation of the blast. We cringed there … I think that at this moment I wanted to flee, but this was impossible. You’re on station, you’re in combat."

08:06 A 1,763-lb. missile fired by PO Kanai Noboru hits the Arizona. It demolishes the forward magazine and kills nearly 1,000 men. "It was so vivid in my mind," says Private Le Fan, who saw the action from the Marine barracks. "[The Arizona] just quivered, buckled and then settled. It looked like … well, that killed it … It was so devastating."

8:08 Two bombs strike the West Virginia, whose captain, Mervyn Bennion, is mortally wounded by a piece of shrapnel that flies over from the Tennessee.

08:10 (13:40 E.S.T.) In Washington, President Roosevelt is informed by Navy Secretary Frank Knox that there has been a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. This is "just the kind of unexpected thing the Japanese would do," says FDR. "[A]t the very time they were discussing peace in the Pacific, they were plotting to overthrow it."

08:12 The Utah capsizes.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Jim Kouri

In the United States, Tuberculosis infection and disease occur most often among people born in areas of the world where TB is common, such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In most cases, these foreign-born persons become exposed to and infected in their country of birth and bring the contagious disease into the US.

Of all TB cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control in 1997 — the last year studied — 39% were in foreign-born persons. This is an increase from 1986, when 22% of cases were in foreign-born persons. Tuberculosis case rates were seven times greater in the foreign-born compared with the US-born population.

Also, foreign-born individuals now represent 46 percent of all tuberculosis cases reported in the United States compared to 27 percent of cases eight years ago. The CDC is currently processing new data on the illegal alien-TB connection.

TB cases come from Mexico, Philippines, and Vietnam, by and large. All people who apply for immigration and refugee status are screened for TB disease before coming to the United States. Immigrants with TB disease who are infectious at the time of screening are required to receive treatment before they are allowed entry into the United States.

However, the majority of those entering the US are illegal aliens who undergo no physical exams nor do they undergo treatment for their diseases.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.