Santorum Calls Out Obama,The Left and the Transformation of Society,and Obama as Caesar:Power Play

Three points on this whole contraceptive,sterilization mandate.

  • No employer should be forced to provide health insurance by the government.
  • No employer should be told what it has to provide in the health insurance that they choose to provide for their employees.
  • No religiously based employer should be forced to provide medical procedures for that to which they are morally opposed to.

Three points regarding President Obama’s so-called Christianity.

  • Obama was a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years ,and “came to Christ “during that time.
  • Wright has been and is a proponent of Black Liberation Theology
  • Obama’s policies reflect a Marxist Liberation Theology mindset(redistribution of wealth)

“By their fruits you shall know them”

The question is which Christ does he believe in ? Why does he always take Scriptures out of context ? Why is he such a radical when it comes to abortion and the homosexual agenda’ ?The answer is to be found in the twisted version of Christianity that he was taught and that he accepted during his stay at Wright’s church.

 

Good for Rick Santorum –

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Rick Santorum said he was not questioning President Obama’s Christian values today when he said the “president’s agenda” is based on a “different theology” and instead Obama is “imposing his values” on Americans.

“He is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do. The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different — you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church,” Santorum said, referring to the decision by the Obama administration to require all institutions that provide health insurance, including Catholic churches and hospitals, to cover birth control and emergency contraception.

“If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it,” Santorum said at a press conference after a speech to the Ohio Christian Alliance.

At a tea party rally in Columbus this morning, Santorum said the “president’s agenda” is “not about you. It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job.”

“It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology,” Santorum said. “Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”

Obama deputy press secretary Ben LaBolt called the comments the “latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, searing pessimism and negativity — a stark contrast with the president, who is focused every day on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Santorum was asked about LaBolt calling it the “latest low” and he became increasingly angry as he answered, saying the “president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before.”

“But it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church,” Santorum told reporters. “It is a new low. … If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.” Rest of the article-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorum-obama-hits-new-low-of-oppressing-religious-freedom/

 

Perhaps Daniel Greenfield’s best column ever – http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Guns, Butter, Jobs and Birth Control

The old totalitarian paradigm was guns or butter. The Soviet Union could provide its people with the basic food groups or it could run a military race to conquer as much of the world as possible. As a totalitarian ideology, it naturally chose the latter.

The modern incarnation of the hammer and sickle, the liberals who took it slow, working from within the system instead of seizing the reins and executing anyone who got in the way, isn’t big on guns. The Clinton and Obama administrations both inflicted massive cuts on the military because it was extraneous to their domestic goals. They didn’t want guns, but they didn’t want butter either. They wanted a third thing.
The Obama Administration is about as interested in creating jobs as the denizens of the Kremlin were in making sure that every Russian family had plenty of milk and butter on the table. Totalitarian ideologies don’t care about individual welfare and they certainly are not interested in individual empowerment. An improved economy would weaken the left, it would undermine its central program of promoting fear and dependence on a social safety net and a rights infrastructure administered by them.
The left is not very good at discussing the economy. Ask its leaders to apportion blame for economic problems and they are right there with denunciations of the banks, corporations and a thousand other factors. But ask it how to repair an economy and after some mumbling the answer is usually to fund a bunch of its pet projects that have nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with its social agenda.
The left’s goal is to transform society, not to empower individuals to make their own choices. That is why an arena like birth control is its natural territory. A society with state subsidized birth control has a low birth rate, low marriage rate, high demand for social subsidies and a high demand for immigrants to compensate for the low birth rate and pay for the social subsidies. Now whether or not you think such a society is a good thing, it is the kind of society that the left wants. Rest of the article here – http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

 

 

Michael Novak from NRO – Very good article about the whole contraceptive debate,as well as a

great line –“ Caesar says that only houses of worship and their ministers count as “church” — so now we see the symbolic meaning behind Obama’s use of the columns of ancient pagan temples at his nomination in 2008. He was dreaming of Caesar. And now he is Caesar, lusting for power over what belongs to Caesar, but also over what belongs to God.”

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291299/obamarsquos-deceptive-hidden-premises-michael-novak

The most evil thing about the Obama administration’s recent violation of the separation of church and state is its deceptiveness. With his order requiring inclusion of contraception and abortifacient drugs in insurance coverage, the president is smuggling the hidden premises of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other supporters of abortion into U.S. law, and doing so untruthfully.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) instruction attacking religious institutions such as hospitals, universities, and programs for the poor rests on four hidden premises.

Advertisement

(1) The first deception is that the president has issued a “contraception mandate.” It is not that; it is a presidential power grab. No state or other jurisdiction is trying to ban contraception. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other religious body is trying to ban contraception. The means of contraception are even more widely available than in drugstores; one can pick up condoms in restrooms, even in restaurants. The reason for this deception is to make opponents appear to be doing something they are not. They are not banning contraception. It is dishonest to focus on contraception instead of on the real issue, the attempt to extend presidential power into areas constitutionally forbidden to it.

The genius of this deception is its explicit attack on the Catholic Church. This tactic was aided by the Church’s long and well-known moral disapproval of contraception, as an artificial barrier between a man’s and a woman’s complete self-giving. Yet the Church does not try to ban contraception even among its own congregants, only to teach that it is morally wrong, because it reveals a self-absorbed form of love.

In this way, by distorting Church doctrine, the president and his enablers in the press masked his power grab of forcing conscientious objectors to pay for contraception. The press also masked his violation of the Constitution in defining which religious bodies are religious, according to his ideas. Beginning with George Stephanopoulos, most of the press has been a delighted accomplice in misdescribing the issue.

(2) The second deception is that sterilization, contraception, abortifacients — and by logical extension, at the proper hour, abortion — are not matters of private choice, but matters of women’s health. This definition is then expanded into an enforceable right to women’s health. This supposed right is then expanded into a duty upon others to pay for the private choices and values systems of some women. In other words, this is naked coercion in its most deceptive form, and an illicit and twisted use of rights talk.

Pregnancy is a disease? The destruction of an individual human being within, boy or girl, is a matter of women’s health?

(3) The third hidden premise is that President Obama has the power to make laws respecting the self-understanding of churches. Caesar says that only houses of worship and their ministers count as “church” — so now we see the symbolic meaning behind Obama’s use of the columns of ancient pagan temples at his nomination in 2008. He was dreaming of Caesar. And now he is Caesar, lusting for power over what belongs to Caesar, but also over what belongs to God. Rest of the article -http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291299/obamarsquos-deceptive-hidden-premises-michael-novak

Planned Parenthood,Fraud,and the Coverup of Sexual Abuse

Planned Parenthood guilty of tens of millions of dollars in fraud charge whistleblowers, report-

BY BEN JOHNSON

LUFKIN, TEXAS, February 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood that touched off the controversy over Susan G. Komen’s funding of the abortion giant may soon expand into a series of national hearings in the nation’s capital and court cases around the country that could expose hundreds of millions of dollars of financial impropriety, critics say.

Karen Reynolds, a decade-long employee of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC) in Texas, has filed a lawsuit claiming 12 Planned Parenthood mills in Texas and Louisiana bilked the government by billing medical agencies for services that were unnecessary or that were never actually provided. “Fraud is fraud,” said Reynolds’ attorney, Mike Love.

Her allegations are part of a cascade of negative publicity drawing attention to the dubious or possibly illegal accounting practices of roughly 20 percent of Planned Parenthood’s national affiliates.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards

Responding to the new allegations of wrongdoing, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn has written a letter to House Speaker John Boehner calling for a “full-scale series of congressional hearings to expose the damage Planned Parenthood has caused to our nation.”

The Tennessee Republican cited a recent 23-page report issued by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) that found upwards of $99 million in waste or possible fraud, including the illegal taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion-related procedures.

“There have been 38 federal HHS Office of Inspector General audits of state family planning programs, of which Planned Parenthood gets the lion’s share, between 1995 and 2009,” Steven Aden, vice president for human life issues and senior council at ADF told LifeSiteNews.com on a conference call last week. “These have discovered between $88-99 million in waste, abuse, and potential waste and fraud.”

“Two of those federal audits, in New York and New Jersey, specifically identified Planned Parenthood and only Planned Parenthood as a source of overbilling in the family planning program,” he said.

Only seven of the nation’s 79 Planned Parenthood affiliates had been officially investigated, as far as the ADF knows, he said. The 10 known audits took place in California, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington state – mostly Democratic states that favor legalized abortion.

Yet those investigations uncovered numerous instances of financially questionable practices including wrongly billing Medicaid for medications provided as part of an abortion in violation of the Hyde Amendment, overbilling for prescription drugs, dispensing prescription drugs – including oral contraceptives – without a prescription, double-billing, charging for medically unnecessary services, falsely claiming some services were provided for family planning, and several instances of unsigned or missing documentation. The ADF report identifies 12 types of potential fraud, in all.

A common practice was “unbundling,” in which services provided as part of an abortion procedure were billed separately, as though they were unrelated services.

“In New York alone during one four year period,” the report states, “it appeared that hundreds of thousands of abortion-related claims were billed illegally to Medicaid.” (Emphasis in original.)

A 2008 New York audit found 102 of 119 sample cases improperly received such reimbursement – including funds that paid for 27 abortions. An audit the previous year found nearly half of New York’s 100 sampled cases involved a laboratory being reimbursed for abortion-related services, for which it should not have received any money.

A June 2008 audit in New Jersey found several clinics, “especially Planned Parenthood providers,” billed all their services as family planning, allowing 90 percent of their costs to be reimbursed by the federal government.

“Thus, Planned Parenthood’s primary motivation appears not to be to provide quality healthcare to patients who seek family planning services, but rather to enhance its profits,” ADF reports.

Two federal whistleblower lawsuits in California and Texas charge even more affiliates with Medicaid fraud in the tens of millions of dollars.

Karen Reynolds of Lufkin, Texas, worked more than 10 years at Planned Parenthood. In her court complaint, she charges PPGC with “billing for medical services not rendered, billing for for unwarranted medical services, billing for services not covered by Medicaid, and creating false information in medical records which was material to billing for medical services.”

Reynolds quotes a PPGC memo that stated, “If the client [getting an abortion] is getting on birth control make this the focus of the visit and put a note in the chief complaints that the client had a surgical or medical abortion ‘x’ weeks ago.”

Another former Planned Parenthood employee, P. Victor Gonzalez, who was chief financial officer for Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, claimed in a 2010 lawsuit that PPLA paid “$225,695.65 for Ortho Tri-Cyclen birth control pills, yet billed the government $918,084 – for a profit of $692,388.35.” These and other actions, which he said deliberately violated the False Claims Act (FCA), amounted to$100 million in financial impropriety.

Rest of the story here – http://www.lifesitenews.com

 

From Life Dynamics and their undercover report about Planned Parenthood -


A LIFE DYNAMICS SPECIAL REPORT

Child Predators

By Mark Crutcher

EXPOSING THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD,
THE NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION AND MEN WHO
SEXUALLY ABUSE UNDERAGE GIRLS

Here is an excerpt –

INTRODUCTION

For several months Life Dynamics has been conducting an investigation into the issue of teen pregnancy. What we have found can only be described as sickening. Underage girls, some as young as 10 years old, are being sexually exploited by adult men in numbers that are unprecedented in American history.1

According to the most reliable studies, among girls 15 and younger who become pregnant, between 60 and 80 percent of them are impregnated by adult men.2

We have also uncovered data showing that as the age of the victim goes down, the age of the perpetrator goes up.3

In America today, we have reached the point where a junior high school girl is more likely to become pregnant by an adult than by someone close to her own age.4

One study concluded that the average age of men who father children with girls under 14 is now higher than the average age of men who father children with 18-year-olds.5

By almost any standard, our country is experiencing an epidemic of child sexual abuse.6 In this report you will see that the driving force behind this tragedy is the fact that men who prey on underage girls have powerful national organizations that are willing to harbor them. Our investigation has uncovered irrefutable evidence that both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation – often operating on taxpayer dollars – knowingly conceal these crimes while aiding and abetting the sexual predators who commit them.

CONSEQUENCES & CAUSES

When underage girls become sexually involved with adult men they are exposed to a devastating array of physical and emotional injuries. These illicit relationships set them up to be life-long victims who tend to view their self-worth solely in terms of sex.7

When compared to girls who are sexually active with boys near their own age, these girls are more likely to:

  • have multiple sex partners8
  • drop out of school9
  • engage in dangerous sexual behaviors10
  • become pregnant11
  • run away from home
  • be lured into prostitution12
  • abuse drugs or alcohol13
  • end up on welfare14
  • be estranged from friends and family15
  • be in physically abusive relationships16
  • become divorced17

Other data shows that among sexually active girls between 11 and 13, those who are having sexual relationships with men more than five years older than themselves are significantly more likely to attempt suicide.18

Another consequence is that underage girls involved with adult men suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a far higher rate than girls having sex with boys close to their own age. In fact, studies now show that the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases in America is found among females ages 15 to 19, and that the overwhelming majority of these girls contracted these diseases from adult males.19

This epidemic of child sexual abuse is being driven by several factors, one of which is technology. The image most people have of men who prey on underage girls is that of a pervert in a trench coat lurking around a school playground. The reality is, today that pervert is far more likely to be lurking around an Internet chat room. For men who prey on young girls, technology is making it much easier for them to acquire victims, while dramatically reducing the chances they will be caught.20

Police departments nationwide are now saying that child molesters trolling the Internet for underage girls is a major problem, and they don’t have the budgets or manpower to keep up.21

Another factor in this epidemic is that young girls simply have more contact with unrelated adult males than ever before. Because of America’s high divorce rate, a large number of minor girls live in homes with either stepfathers or the boyfriends of their mothers. This is compounded by the fact that the majority of these moms work outside the home meaning that their daughters have substantially more unsupervised time than did girls in previous generations.22

Absent fathers also play another important role. When a sexual predator targets a girl with no father at home, he knows two things. First, he can count on his victim having a heightened need for adult male attention. Second, the one person the perpetrator has the most reason to fear – the victim’s father – is generally not in the picture.23

Even girls who live in intact families with their biological fathers or in homes with caring and involved stepfathers are not immune from becoming the targets of sexual predators.24

Children are much more involved in activities outside their homes and schools than ever before, and our research indicates that girls who are sexually exploited by adult men very often meet their abuser as a result of one of these activities.25

There are many other factors that contribute to this epidemic, but the basic problem is that we live in a sex-obsessed culture in which girls are more vulnerable to sexual predators than at any time in our nation’s history. Any parent who thinks their daughter is not a potential victim is fooling themselves. The data is absolutely clear that victims are black and white, rich and poor, urban, rural and suburban and that they come from every cultural and socio-economic background.

THE CRIME

In all 50 states, sexual activity with underage children is illegal. Also, every state mandates that if a healthcare worker has reason to suspect that an underage girl is being sexually abused, they are required by law to report that information to a designated law enforcement or child protective services agency. That agency is then responsible to investigate the possibility that the child may be the victim of sexual abuse or statutory rape.

Because the pregnancy of an underage girl is evidence that she is the victim of sexual abuse, any healthcare worker who has contact with a pregnant underage girl has an obligation to initiate a report to the state.

The important point here is that the healthcare worker is required to report the incident, not investigate it. The responsibility of determining whether or not the circumstances that led to this girl’s pregnancy are criminal lies solely with the state agency to which the report is mandated.

Additionally, the fact that a minor girl may be lawfully allowed to have an abortion or secure birth control without her parents being informed is irrelevant. The law still mandates reporting of the sexual activity to the state.

THE PROOF

With the information we now have, it is simply undeniable that Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation have made a conscious decision to conceal the sexual exploitation of children and protect the men who commit these crimes.

We have uncovered an overwhelming body of statistical evidence showing that the rate at which these two organizations fail to comply with mandatory reporting laws is in excess of 90 percent. This data was obtained from government sources, medical journals, independent researchers and the abortion industry itself.26

Rest of the report here – http://www.childpredator.com/

Obamacare,Cheap Shots,and Planned Parenthood

Dr. Albert Mohler responds to Nicolas Kristof’s lame attempt defending the Obama administration’s attack on religious liberty. It’s a shame Kristof resorted to such a cheap shot column. He has done some nice work on human rights issues in the past.

 

We Try to Respect Religious Beliefs” — Mr. Kristof Rewrites the Constitution

Monday, February 13, 2012

Columnist Nicholas Krist of of The New York Times has emerged as one of the most influential journalists and public intellectuals of our times. He has been the voice of conscience on many issues of human rights and foreign affairs, and he has won two Pulitzer Prizes for his reports, books, and commentaries on world affairs.

A graduate of Harvard University and a Rhodes Scholar, Mr. Kristof sees the world from an elite point of reference, and his column in The New York Times is mandatory reading for anyone concerned with human rights and human dignity.

His keen sensitivity to human rights concerns is what makes his column published in the February 12, 2012 edition of the paper so perplexing — and so offensive.

Nicholas Kristof writes movingly and urgently of human rights violations all over the world, but this recent column reveals his apparent willingness to deny human rights here at home, on a matter right at the center of the American understanding of human rights — religious liberty.

Kristof writes rather sarcastically about the “pelvic politics” of recent controversy. The furor over the Obama Administration’s inclusion of mandatory coverage of birth control as “preventive care” under the Affordable Care Act, stating: “I may not be as theologically sophisticated as American bishops, but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.”

How clever. Would Kristof say the same to theological liberals trying to argue for nuclear disarmament? Not yet, anyway. This cheap shot signals Kristof’s intention to slam those who have theological and moral concerns about the mandatory inclusion of birth control under the so-called Obama Care legislation. He cheapens his own credibility by speaking of “banning contraceptives.”

So, if contraceptives are not free they are “banned?” Nice try. Rest of the article here -

http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/02/13/we-try-to-respect-religious-beliefs-mr-kristof-rewrites-the-constitution/

 

And from the Heritage Foundation,a clear,concise article about Obamacare and some of the problems it inevitably has,and will present to freedom.

If it weren’t for Obamacare, we wouldn’t have this problem. By “this problem,” we mean of course the Obamacare regulation that forces health insurance plans to provide coverage, without co-pay, for contraception, sterilization, and what many people believe are abortion-inducing drugs.

When it was announced last August, the forced coverage mandate contained only a very narrow religious exemption. That meant it would apply to many religious employers who object on religious or moral grounds to providing, paying for, or otherwise participating in abortion, sterilization, and contraception. This result, as Heritage has explained on several occasions, was a blatant violation of religious freedom.

Under pressure for trampling religious freedom, last Friday the Obama Administration announced certain potential modifications to the rule. Sort of. What the Administration actually did was post the final rule without any changes. That’s right—they posted the final rule without any modifications from the August 2011 version that caused the furor in the first place. And then they promised that sometime during the next year, they would pursue a new rule to address concerns about religious freedom.

Decide for yourself how much weight to put on the Administration’s promise to protect religious freedom in some future rulemaking process. Even if the Administration does exactly what it says it will do, however, the announced “compromises” are little more than a fig leaf, meaning the forced coverage mandate—on this and future issues—persists as a serious threat to religious freedom.

In short, this issue isn’t going away, as badly as the Administration might want it to. That means more spin from the Administration and its allies in the days and weeks ahead.

Concerned citizens, leaders of religious institutions, and public officials should respond by keeping their focus on three basic points:

  1. Religious freedom goes hand in hand with limited government and with greater freedom in general.
  2. The basic structure of Obamacare makes these kinds of conflicts both inevitable and recurring.
  3. Properly designed health reforms would never have produced this situation in the first place.

Rest of the article here -

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/14/how-conscience-gets-trapped-in-obamacares-little-box-of-horrors

 

As to why this is all happening-

The national firestorm over the HHS contraceptive mandate and conscience rights, President Obama’s ‘war on the church’ and constitutionally protected religious liberty is a confrontation necessitated by unprecedented government action. But all that fire is distracting us from the spark of ignition: Why did the federal government mandate health insurers to cover contraception, sterilization and the morning after pill in the first place?

Why these particular drugs, of all things? Why not other “preventive health services” of which there’s a wide array? They (HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President Obama) claim it’s because they’re keenly intent on providing healthcare “for the health of women and families,” but nothing is provided for, say, infertility treatment for women who want to become pregnant and couples who want a family.

I saw a spokeswoman for the ‘Reproductive Rights Center’ vigorously arguing for this mandate and wondered…what are “reproductive rights”? There’s no reproduction going on in their business and the rights they represent are limited to choosing or endorsing or providing for their services, which are contraception and abortion.Rest of the article here – http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/10305

From Weasel Zippers more info on this nefarious relationship- http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/14/abc-news-planned-parenthood-ceo-cecile-richards-a-top-white-house-adviser-on-contraception-mandate/

ABC News: Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards a Top White House Adviser On Contraception Mandate…

Obama ignored his own VP and Chief of Staff in favor of the country’s largest abortion provider.

Via LifeNews:

Jake Tapper of ABC News wrote a remarkable story last week revealing the players in the Obama administration’s internal debate on the contraception mandate.

According to Tapper, President Obama’s top advisers on the issue included Vice President Joe Biden, former White House Chief-of-Staff Bill Daley, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, former Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes, White House Senior Advisers Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, two U.S. Senators — and Planned Parenthood Federation for America CEO Cecile Richards [...]

Surprising to me was Richards’ unquestioned prominence at the White House. Why did the mainstream media not question an obvious benefactor of the contraceptive mandate being in on the conversation? Richards is truly in the inner circle. Pro-lifers knew Richards had influence, but to see in writing just exactly how much weight she carries is informative.

Keep reading…

The Lisa Miller Story

For those who don’t think that the legalization of homosexual marriages will have negative ramifications on family law and children,think again.

From LifeSite News -

‘I promised God that if he would save my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle’

BY MATTHEW CULLINAN HOFFMAN

  • Mon Feb 06, 2012

February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Lisa Miller, an ex-lesbian who made national headlines during her battle to protect her daughter from a custody transfer to her former sex partner, is now telling the story of her struggle through a book by one of her attorneys, Rina Lindevaldsen.

Only One Mommy: A Woman’s Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom” (New Revolution Publishers, 2011), gives readers new insights into Miller’s inspiring odyssey from abused and neglected child, through the horrors of sexual and chemical addictions, to redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.

Miller’s final act of bravery was her decision to enter into hiding with her child, Isabella, to escape her former lesbian partner Janet Jenkins, who was successfully seeking to transfer custody of Miller’s daughter, Isabella, to herself.  Although Miller remains in hiding, she speaks to readers through journals and letters left with her attorney, and through Lindevaldsen’s own narrative.

At the root of Miller’s nightmarish childhood were two elements: contraception and divorce. Miller’s early memories are filled with the bitter reminder that her mother, who was using birth control at the time she conceived Miller, had not wanted her.

“Whenever my mother was mad at me, she would pull out the oval peach colored pack of birth control pills that she had saved all those years to show me that only one week was missing, and that was the week she got pregnant,” Miller writes.

At age seven, Miller’s parents divorced, leaving herself and her brother alone with an increasingly mentally ill, distant, and cruel mother.  Miller’s isolation and lack of affirmation from her parents led her to seek solace in unhealthy fixations on food, diet pills, and pornography. In order to relieve herself of emotional pain, she began to cut herself, which added to the scars that her body already held from her mother’s beatings

However, Miller was also the recipient of positive influences through friendships with leaders in her church and schoolteachers, who took an interest in her and provided her with adult role models. Her religious education would come back to her in her darkest days, providing a way out of her seemingly impossible situation.

After entering a troubled marriage, and finally making a suicide attempt that left her in intensive care for days, Miller received another major blow. During her recovery in a psychiatric ward in Virginia, a counselor informed her that she was a lesbian and must seek the sexual companionship of other women.

“As part of my treatment, in order to be released, I had to meet with my immediate family, including my husband, and tell them I was a ‘lesbian.’ I complied, and not surprisingly, my marriage ended. Even though I had left behind all of my childhood addictions at that time, sadly, I entered into the addiction of homosexuality,” writes Miller.

Lisa eventually entered into a relationship and a Vermont “civil union” with a recovering alcoholic named Janet Jenkins. During that time she was artificially inseminated, resulting in the birth of her daughter. She recalls that in the misery of her sexually immoral and conflictive relationship with Jenkins, she almost lost Isabella before she was born. It was then that she made a special petition to God, promising him that “if he saved my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle.”

Isabella was born healthy, and although Miller did not keep her promise immediately, she recalled it as her relationship with Jenkins continued to deteriorate. “It was then that God brought to mind the covenant that I had made with him just months earlier.  I knew enough from my religious background that one does not make covenants with God and not keep them without suffering negative consequences. When my daughter was 17 months old, I left the homosexual lifestyle and moved with my daughter back to my home state of Virginia, where she had been conceived and born.”

Judicial tyranny and the struggle to save Isabella from her lesbian “other mother”

After Lindevaldsen’s summary of Miller’s victory over homosexual vice and her other addictions, the attorney leads readers through the maze of legal arguments that have been used to justify giving parenthood rights, and ultimately guardianship, of Isabella to Jenkins.  In the process she shows that no state is truly safe from the effects of homosexualist legislation in other jurisdictions.

Lisa Miller with her daughter Isabella

Although Miller was artificially inseminated while in a civil union with Jenkins, Isabella was never adopted by her, and Jenkins’ name does not appear on Isabella’s birth certificate. Moreover, Miller and Jenkins were residents of Virginia when they entered into their Vermont “civil union,” and Virginia’s constitution explicitly denies all recognition to such unions.

In sum, while Jenkins appears to lack all standing to make a claim of “parenthood,” that did not prevent judges in Vermont and Virginia from twisting the law like a pretzel to ensure that Jenkins had access to Isabella.

Miller’s legal nightmare began when a Vermont judge decided to literally create a law where one did not exist. Vermont had no law giving parenthood rights to the spouse of a woman who is artificially inseminated – the spouse had to adopt the child. But despite the fact that civil unions were to be treated like marriages under Vermont law, Vermont Judge Richard Cohen decreed from the bench that Jenkins was Isabella’s “mother.”

Noting that “the court admitted that the legislature still hadn’t answered the question of how a child born by artificial insemination by an anonymous sperm donor would gain the legal status of a child to the spouse who was not biologically related to the child,” Lindevaldsen observes: “To its credit, the court at least admitted what it was doing—creating new law in order to reach its decision.”

However, despite all of the protections inserted into the Virginia constitution against the enforcement of civil union or homosexual “marriage” legislation from other states, prosecutors managed to make use of a federal law that was designed to stop one parent from denying custody to another: the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (FKPA).

Although the law was created to prevent parents from fleeing to another jurisdiction to get a better custody settlement through another set of courts, it was used in Miller’s case to claim that Virginia could not cancel the custody order issued by the Vermont court.  Lindevaldsen argues that this is false reasoning because the federal Defense of Marriage Act protects states from the obligation of giving “full faith and credit” to homosexual unions formalized in other states, and even under the FKPA, states don’t have to enforce the decisions of other states’ courts.  Nonetheless, the Virginia courts ruled in favor of Jenkins, and agreed to apply the Vermont decision.

Lindevaldsen goes on to discuss the destructive effects of the homosexual lifestyle, and documents the damage to children and teens caused by the movement’s influence in the school system.

The author, who is a an associate dean and professor of law at Liberty University, told LifeSiteNews that Christians need to be aware of the Obama administration’s relentless pursuit of Miller and her daughter, and the implications of their decisions at the voting booth with regard to family issues.

“I think certainly the current administration has obviously made a commitment that this is a high priority for them, that they are going to track down a biological mother and attempt to take this child away from her biological mother and I certainly think that there is some political pressure that could be taken,” Lindevaldsen said.

“I think the word needs to get out. Christians need to know that these things are happening, the idea that a woman apparently had to flee the country to protect her child, shouldn’t be happening in America, and I don’t think enough Christians know about that and don’t realize that the people they vote for in an election year, who they vote for has direct consequences on things like this.”

She added that, in addition to their involvement in the national political process, Christians can work at the state level to ensure that other children are not victimized by ant-family legislation.  Lindevaldsen says she has handled dozens of other cases that are similar to Miller’s.

“We need to pass laws at the state level making it very clear that courts do not have the discretion to do this, to declare a child to have two parents, because we need to avoid these situations happening in the future, because they are happening on a regular basis.”

The Obama Administration:Willfully or Ignorantly Blind to the Nature of Islam ?

Pieter Bruegel the Elder: The parable of the blind

U.S. National Intelligence Director Cites Muslim Brotherhood As Bulwark Against Al-Qaeda- http://globalmbreport.org

 

 

 

In his statement for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appears to endorse the concept Muslim Brotherhood involvement in the Mideast political process will serve as some kind of bulwark against Al-Qaeda and other such groups. He writes:

If, over the longer term, governments take real steps to address public demands for political participation and democratic institutions—and remain committed to CT efforts—we judge that core al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement will experience a strategic setback. Al Qaeda probably will find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services, and advocate religious values. Nonviolent, pro-democracy demonstrations challenge al Qaeda’s violent jihadist ideology and might yield increased political power for secular or moderate Islamist parties.

In February 2011, author and former Wall Street Journal reporter Ian Johnson published an article titled “Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood” in which he reviews the history of the US relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and should serve as a cautionary note regarding the policies implied above. The piece begins:

As US-backed strongmen around North Africa and the Middle East are being toppled or shaken by popular protests, Washington is grappling with a crucial foreign-policy issue: how to deal with the powerful but opaque Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt, the Brotherhood has taken an increasingly forceful part in the protests, issuing a statement Thursday calling for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. And though it is far from clear what role the Brotherhood would have should Mubarak step down, the Egyptian president has been claiming it will take over. In any case, the movement is likely to be a major player in any transitional government.Journalists and pundits are already weighing in with advice on the strengths and dangers of this 83-year-old Islamist movement, whose various national branches are the most potent opposition force in virtually all of these countries. Some wonder how the Brotherhood will treat Israel, or if it really has renounced violence. Most—including the Obama administration —seem to think that it is a movement the West can do business with, even if the White House denies formal contacts.If this discussion evokes a sense of déjà vu, this is because over the past sixty years we have had it many times before, with almost identical outcomes. Since the 1950s, the United States has secretly struck up alliances with the Brotherhood or its offshoots on issues as diverse as fighting communism and calming tensions among European Muslims. And if we look to history, we can see a familiar pattern: each time, US leaders have decided that the Brotherhood could be useful and tried to bend it to America’s goals, and each time, maybe not surprisingly, the only party that clearly has benefited has been the Brotherhood.

Read the rest here.

 

Report: Taliban poised to retake Afghanistan following NATO withdrawal

It won’t be the Afghan government that fills the security vacuum. As became the template for the decade to follow in other countries, the U.S. greatly underestimated the Afghan population’s support for the Taliban, for Sharia, and for jihad for the sake of imposing it. That is in large part because the U.S. greatly underestimated the content of Sharia, accepting a sugar-coated, vapor-ware Sharia — what is at best an academic, drawing-board conception of what Sharia, could, would, or should be according to agenda-driven apologists, and at worst an outright lie — as what it really has been in practice all these centuries.

“Taliban “poised to retake Afghanistan” after NATO,” by Hamid Shalizi and Mirwais Harooni for Reuters, February 1:

KABUL (Reuters) – The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war.Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, confirmed the existence of the document, reported on Wednesday by Britain’s Times newspaper and theBBC.

But he said it was not a strategic study.

 

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement that prior to any negotiations, confidence building measures must be completed, putting pressure on Washington to meet demands for the release of five Taliban in U.S. custody.

The hardline Islamist movement also said it had no plans to hold preliminary peace talks with Afghanistan’s government in Saudi Arabia, dismissing media reports of talks in the kingdom.

The U.S. military said in the document that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) security agency was assisting the Taliban in directing attacks against foreign forces.

Reasserting control over the country would be more difficult a second time for the
Taliban, however, with Afghan police and soldiers expected to number about 350,000 beyond 2014 and some foreign troops likely to remain, including elite forces.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

The Obama Administration Declares War Against Religion

This is blatant,in your face,and totally about power. Religious liberty and conscience don’t matter.

 

Obama tests faith boundaries

by Sheila Liaugminas | 1 Feb 2012 |

He won election with a slim majority of Catholic voters because enough progressives believed his policies aligned with social justice mandates of the Gospel. He just lost them with a mandate of his own.

The case his Department of Justice took before the Supreme Court was an audacious opening salvo. Now, his administration has launched an all-out assault on the church and believers and sympathizers.

Of the barrage of columns and articles and blog posts and commentaries on this, there are a few that stand out starkly for saying Obama’s Left Catholics. They deserve attention.

Ross Douthat in the New York Times:

When government expands, it’s often at the expense of alternative expressions of community, alternative groups that seek to serve the common good. Unlike most communal organizations, the government has coercive power — the power to regulate, to mandate and to tax. These advantages make it all too easy for the state to gradually crowd out its rivals…

Sometimes this crowding out happens gradually, subtly, indirectly. Every tax dollar the government takes is a dollar that can’t go to charities and churches. Every program the government runs, from education to health care to the welfare office, can easily become a kind of taxpayer-backed monopoly.

But sometimes the state goes further. Not content with crowding out alternative forms of common effort, it presents its rivals an impossible choice: Play by our rules, even if it means violating the moral ideals that inspired your efforts in the first place, or get out of the community-building business entirely.

This is exactly the choice that the White House has decided to offer a host of religious institutions — hospitals, schools and charities — in the era of Obamacare. The new health care law requires that all employer-provided insurance plans cover contraception, sterilization and the morning-after (or week-after) pill known as ella, which can work as an abortifacient. A number of religious groups, led by the American Catholic bishops, had requested an exemption for plans purchased by their institutions. Instead, the White House has settled on an exemption that only covers religious institutions that primarily serve members of their own faith.

Which absolutely everyone except HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius knows is not an exemption at all, nor even a fig leaf. It’s a sham.

The regulations are a particularly cruel betrayal of Catholic Democrats, many of whom had defended the health care law as an admirable fulfillment of Catholicism’s emphasis on social justice. Now they find that their government’s communitarianism leaves no room for their church’s communitarianism, and threatens to regulate it out of existence.

Critics of the administration’s policy are framing this as a religious liberty issue, and rightly so. But what’s at stake here is bigger even than religious freedom. The Obama White House’s decision is a threat to any kind of voluntary community that doesn’t share the moral sensibilities of whichever party controls the health care bureaucracy.

The Catholic Church’s position on contraception is not widely appreciated, to put it mildly, and many liberals are inclined to see the White House’s decision as a blow for the progressive cause. They should think again. Once claimed, such powers tend to be used in ways that nobody quite anticipated, and the logic behind these regulations could be applied in equally punitive ways by administrations with very different values from this one.

Rest of the story – http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/10245

 

 

 

Some good news on the pro-life front -

BREAKING: Komen for the Cure abandons Planned Parenthood funding

BY JOHN-HENRY WESTEN

  • Tue Jan 31, 2012 16:52 EST

 

NEW YORK, January 31, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The largest funder of breast cancer research in the nation has ended its controversial ties with Planned Parenthood. Susan G. Komen for the Cure has announced that it is shutting the door on funding the abortion giant after seven years of pressure from pro-life Americans.

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun explained that “the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities,” according to Fox News. Last year a U.S. House committee announced that it was investigating Planned Parenthood to determine whether the abortion organization handles criminal conduct properly, or has mishandled federal funding to pay for abortions.

Komen has removed a document on their website defending their funding of Planned Parenthood. As well, a new statement on the site dated November 11, 2011 describes their policy not to fund research involving human embryonic stem cells. The statement notes that Komen funds stem cell research only where the stem cells are “derived without creating a human embryo or destroying a human embryo.”

 

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards expressed shock, describing a phone call she received from Komen about their decision to AP.

“It was incredibly surprising. It wasn’t even a conversation — it was an announcement,” said Richards.
Pro-life leaders have pointed to the relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood for years, including several U.S. bishops who have encouraged boycotts of Komen. In December, publishers behind a Bible edition intended to benefit Komen pulled the book from shelves in response to a backlash over the Planned Parenthood connection.

Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP), a project of the American Life League dedicated to shutting down Planned Parenthood, released a report on August 24 of last year detailing the $629,159 in funding various Komen affiliates contributed directly to Planned Parenthood affiliates across the US in 2009-2010, according to the 990 Forms Komen submitted to the IRS for those years.

“The continued, collective efforts of the pro-life movement have paid off,” said Bradley Mattes, Executive Director of the Life Issues Institute. “Our work to educate Komen donors to the reality that the organization has financially supported the nation’s largest chain of abortion mills has caused Komen to halt the financial hemorrhaging. Evidently, Komen had to choose between political ideology and financial viability. They made a good choice.”

Pro-life activist had long highlighted the irony that Komen was funding the United States number one abortion provider, when numerous studies have pointed to a strong link between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.

What Do You Know About Polygamy ?

The ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those WHO ENTER INTO POLYGAMY.”(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)-Brigham Young

Quote from the infamous false prophet Brigham Young (Mormon),who had over 50 wives.

There is a slight discrepancy in this next story between what the polygamists say they are receiving in benefits and what the city and provincial officials believe the men are receiving.My bet is on the city officials being clueless to the amount of fraud that is ongoing.


Muslims claiming cash for numerous wives

Islamic leaders: Hundreds in GTA get extra welfare for polygamous unions

By TOM GODFREY — Sun Media

The Toronto Sun


President of the Canadian Society of Muslims Mumtaz Ali says “polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims.” (SUN MEDIA/Dave Thomas)

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages — some with a harem of wives — are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

“Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims,” Ali said yesterday. “Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others.”

He estimates “several hundred” GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

The average recipient with a child can receive about $1,500 monthly, city officials said.

Rest of the article – http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/08/4834833-sun.html

The problem is even worse in Great Britain-

The truth about polygamy: A special investigation into how Muslim men can exploit the benefits system

By SUE REID

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041244/Polygamy-Investigation-Muslim-men-exploit-UK-benefits-system.html#ixzz1ku9NJBIH

Ghulam is a taxi driver who lives in Blackburn, a once-booming textile town in Lancashire. He has a terrace house near his local mosque (one of 53 in the area), a silver Nissan car and a very complex private life.

For he has so many children that he struggles to remember their names, and five wives from various countries, including Yemen, Egypt, Turkey and his own birthplace, Pakistan.

Ghulam’s latest bride is a shy 20-year-old called Hafeza. He brought her to Britain from Morocco, soon after his 45th birthday earlier this year. They married in an Islamic wedding ceremony called ‘the Nikah’ in her village, with Hafeza’s pleased parents among the guests.

Two experienced Lancashire social workers say that in their estimation there are 20,000 bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK

Two experienced Lancashire social workers say that in their estimation there are 20,000 bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041244/Polygamy-Investigation-Muslim-men-exploit-UK-benefits-system.html#ixzz1ku99m1qL

 

Yes,and polygamy exists here in the United States as well. The FLDS cult is infamous for its abuse of children-especially by the leadership.They are following the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Shocking Polygamy Photos Surface- http://www.momlogic.com/2008/05/shocking_polygamy_photos_surfa.php

posted Thursday, May 29, 2008

Pictures are now evidence in a custody battle over a 1-week-old baby.

polygamous_kiss2.jpg

Deseret News

Photos have surfaced of polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs kissing young girls. Texas Child Protective Services lawyers claim the girl in one of the photos is his 12-year-old bride. Twelve. When asked about the picture in court, FLDS polygamist Dan Jessop said, “”I do not consider a girl kissing a man sex abuse.” We beg to differ.

An affidavit filed by state officials depicts a religious culture rife with sexual abuse of young teenage girls, reports NPR. Texas Child welfare officials allege that for generations, women in the polygamist group were taught to prepare themselves and their daughters for sexual relations with older men as soon as they reached puberty.

“There is horrific abuse of children,” says cult expert Rick Ross. “The abuse becomes acute in this group once the kids reach puberty. Most of the girls are married or pregnant at 13 or 14.

“Parents have perpetuated systematic abuse for generations,” he says. “I’m sure they love their children, but they are willing to cooperate with mandated sexual abuse of chlildren. They don’t see it that way. They see this as holy and sacred–but it’s sexual abuse and exploitation, bottom line.”

What do you think?

polygamous_kiss3.jpg

Read more: http://www.momlogic.com/2008/05/shocking_polygamy_photos_surfa.php#ixzz1kuAhczZd

 

If you would like to learn more about the scourge of polygamy check out this website – http://www.polygamystop.org/home-page.html

Polygamy Stop

Campaign Against Polygamy And Women Oppression International (CAPWOI)

Discouraging polygamy through education, advocacy and support.

 

Mission Statement

We are women and men creating a louder voice for over two billion-voiceless women and children living under the oppression of polygamy in Africa, the third world and beyond.

With the use of scientific facts, human rights principles and ‘moralsuation,’ we are creating global awareness for the less publicised dangers of polygamy on women and children.

We are campaigning against polygamy because we have overwhelming evidence to support the fact that the practise breeds women oppression, corruption, poverty, sexual immorality, overpopulation, mass illiteracy, spread of pandemic diseases (i.e. HIV/AIDS), religious violence, anti-Western feelings and terror. Polygamy has for decades divided the world into two rival groups, namely; the polygamous nations and monogamous nations. By implication, polygamy does not support world peace, unity and security.

Our Goal

Bringing the problems of over two billion women and children living under the oppression of polygamy to the front banners of the world governments, world media and the United Nations General Assembly, including the organisers of World Women Conference and continental summits. Also, we are craving the attention and support of benevolent peoples of the West, philanthropic establishments, religious and international-human rights organisations. Such that in few years to come polygamy could have been discouraged on global scale and monogamy would have become a new world social order.

Campaigning to encourage African and third world politicians fighting for elections into parliaments or state legislatures to limit their families to one wife and two or three children, so setting example for the rest of their respective countries.

Leading a campaign for total ban of polygamy in Africa, Middle East and most parts of the third world as already achieved in most Western countries over a hundred years ago.

Parent’s:How Much Sex Education Propaganda Will You Tolerate ?

Sex Ed: Education or Propaganda?

By S. Michael Craven | Christian Post Guest Columnist

The last four decades have seen a significant shift in the philosophy behind sex education in America’s public schools. Prior to the sexual revolution, human biology and reproduction, hygiene, and marriage were the focus of sex education. In essence, this approach was grounded in particular moral virtues, namely biblical.

The new emphasis seeks to eliminate these traditional moral distinctions. Instead the student’s “choice” is given the supreme moral authority and the goal of these curriculums is to merely aid in the “safest” expression of the child’s choice.

This follows the vision set forth by Dr. Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, first president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS) and the architect of modern sex education, when she wrote:

A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality – for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance. (Calderone & Johnson, The Family Book About Sexuality, 1981)

However, more and more modern sex education programs are becoming nothing more than publicly funded platforms for legitimizing homosexuality and other deviant and unsafe behaviors—pro-homosexual propaganda presented under the guise of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

As Olivia St. John writing for WorldNetDaily.com points out, “Thanks to public apathy and the efforts of misguided state and federal lawmakers, activist judges and liberal teachers unions, our nation’s schools have become the new red-light district of the 21st century.

Rest of the article here – http://www.christianpost.com/news/sex-ed-education-or-propaganda-30946/

 

The first article was written in 2008. The next article is current news. The sex education propaganda machine has continued unabated over the past four years,and there is no sign that they are letting up.

From LifeSiteNews -

Brand new ‘guidelines’ pushing radical, explicit sex ed agenda on schools nationwide

BY CHRISTINE DHANAGOM

  • Thu Jan 12, 2012 17:44 EST

January 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A group of progressive education organizations in league with the family planning and homosexual lobby have released a new set of sex education “guidelines” that they are pushing on schools nationwide.

The guidelines, published Monday in the Journal of School Health, were authored by the American Association of Health Education, the American School Health Association, the National Education Association – Health Information Network, the Society of State Leaders of Health and Physical Education, Advocates for Youth, Answer, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

The document is being touted as “the first-ever national standards for sexuality education in schools,” and as an answer to what it calls “the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide.”

“Forty individuals from the fields of health education, sexuality education, public health, public policy, philanthropy and advocacy convened for a two-day meeting in December 2008 to create a strategic plan for sexuality education policy and implementation,” reads the introduction. “A key strategic priority that emerged from this work was the creation of a national sexuality education standards to advance the implementation of sexuality education in US public schools.”

While the document does not say what organizations were represented at the meeting, the “advisory committee” and list of “additional reviewers” includes two representatives from Planned Parenthood, a representative from Planned Parenthood’s former research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, and the director of training and curriculum development for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The recommendations begin with a kindergarten to second grade curriculum. They suggest that, by the end of second grade, children should be using “proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy,” be familiar with “different kinds of family structures,” and be able to “describe differences and similarities in how boys and girls may be expected to act, and provide examples of how friends, family, media, society and culture influence ways in which boys and girls think they should act.”

Introduction to sexual orientation would begin in the 3rd – 5th grade, and by 5th grade, students are expected to be able to define sexual orientation as “the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.”

The 6th – 8th grade curriculum calls for an explanation of the correct way to use a condom and an analysis of “external influences that have an impact on one’s attitudes about gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

“Gender identity” is defined in the glossary as a person’s “inner sense of their gender.” The document explains: “most people develop a gender identity that corresponds to their biological sex, but some do not.”

By the end of 12th grade, the curriculum prescribes that students should be able to “differentiate between biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression.”

It also recommends that students be able to “compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including condoms,” and “explain how to access local STD and HIV testing and treatment services.”

Leslee Unruh, President of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, said that the proposed curriculum was an attempt to recruit students for a “twisted worldview.”

“These guidelines undermine parental rights and I am scared for the children and the parents,” she said. “I’m asking for an alarm to go out to parents for them to take charge and to refute these guidelines in the school systems.”

Unruh also said that some of the organizations involved in setting the standards, such as Planned Parenthood, stand to benefit financially from their implementation.

A Victory for Religious Freedom

Which of us has really admitted that God’s goodness can also lead us into conflict. No Rusty Swords-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

5. “Fear God. Honor the Emperor.” 1 Pet. 2:17http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/barmen-declaration.html

Scripture tells us that by divine appointment the State, in this still unredeemed world in which also the Church is situated, has the task of maintaining justice and peace, so far as human discernment and human ability make this possible, by means of the threat and use of force. The Church acknowledges with gratitude and reverence toward God the benefit of this, his appointment. It draws attention to God’s Dominion [Reich], God’s commandment and justice, and with these the responsibility of those who rule and those who are ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word, by which God upholds all things.

We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the State should and could become the sole and total order of human life and so fulfil the vocation of the Church as well.

We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the Church should and could take on the nature, tasks and dignity which belong to the State and thus become itself an organ of the State. (From the Barmen Declaration)

 

From LifeSiteNews-

\UPDATED: Supreme Court unanimously shoots down Obama admin in religious freedom case

BY BEN JOHNSON

  • Thu Jan 12, 2012 18:08 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a breakthrough decision for religious freedom, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that religious institutions have a constitutional right to determine their ministers without government interference.

Although the High Court has long recognized churches’ First Amendment right to choose priests and senior pastors, yesterday’s 9-0 decision marked the first time it upheld the “ministerial exception” for religious schools and other parachurch ministries.

“[T]here is a ministerial exception grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 36-page ruling. “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision.

“Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs…According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”

Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad hoc committee for religious liberty, hailed the ruling as “a great day for the First Amendment.” He said, “This decision makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance of keeping internal church affairs off limits to the government – because whoever chooses the minister chooses the message.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asked the court to overturn the ministerial exception, which was first adopted by lower courts in 1972, a legal precedent that precedes Roe v. Wade. Mark Rienzi, an attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told the radio program Kresta in the Afternoon on Thursday the EEOC’s position “said in essence religion gets no special treatment here.”

The Court’s decision called the EEOC’s view of the ministerial exception “untenable,” “extreme,” and “remarkable,” according to religious organizations no greater rights than those enjoyed by “a labor union, or a social club.” The 9-0 ruling amounted to a “very emphatic rejection of this administration’s very narrow view of religious liberty,” Rienzi said.

The Obama administration sued a Detroit-area Lutheran school for dismissing Cheryl Perich, a teacher and “commissioned minister,” for breaking a church doctrine requiring disputes to be resolved internally. Perich, who was diagnosed with narcolepsy, claimed the school really fired her because of her medical condition. Rather than attend a church tribunal, she filed a discrimination lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) joined in litigation against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School, arguing all church employees other than priests or senior pastors should be able to sue for discrimination.

Douglas Laycock, the University of Virginia Law professor who argued the school’s case, said no court could evaluate whether a minister had been fired under a pretext without first ruling whether his views and conduct were sufficiently orthodox, something forbidden under the First Amendment. The First Amendment forbade state intrusion into church hiring practices, Laycock said, adding that Perich referred to herself as a minister and claimed a ministerial housing allowance on her taxes.

The EEOC argued since lay teachers performed the same duties, and ministry took up only 45 minutes of her workday, Perich was entitled to lost wages, damages, and attorneys’ fees. Justice Roberts ruled, “The issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch.” In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated, “the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones.”

Religious liberties advocates argued the case had far-reaching consequences for church ministries of all backgrounds. Government interference in church personnel decisions could lead to a chilling of free speech not favored by the current administration, argued John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, which filed an amicus brief on the school’s behalf. “When a church is forced to make employment decisions based on a lawsuit rather than spiritual needs, the end result is that its core activities and spiritual message are inevitably altered in order to accommodate or protect against government pressures or expectations,” he stated.

Ken Klukowski of the Family Research Council described the lawsuit as a “profoundly troubling claim of power over churches.”

Proponents of the administration believed the plaintiff’s civil rights outweighed potential First Amendment concerns. Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, stated, “Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces.”

The Obama administration’s lawsuit was supported by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and People for the American Way, American Humanist Association, and several other organizations.

One Catholic organization, BishopAccountability.org, offered an amicus for the EEOC.

Justice Clarence Thomas offered a concurring opinion broadening the ministerial exception and stating the Church should be free to select its ministers entirely free of government regulation. The state, he wrote, should “defer to a religious organization’s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister.” Justices Alito and Elena Kagan added in their concurrence that the term “ministers” should not be definitive, to assure Christian sects and non-Christian religions that have no notion of ordained ministry enjoy the same protections.

The issue is likely to come before the court again, as this ruling did not offer a blanket definition of who qualifies for the ministerial exception, or what other kinds of lawsuits may be allowed. Roberts ruled, “There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.”

The case is Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Ephesians 5:22-23:Sunday School

Wives and Husbands

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, 23 for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. 27 He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 since we are members of His body.
31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.32 This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.

Commentary from the “My Study Bible” commentary notes:

5:19-21 The Spirit’s fullness is demonstrated in spiritual understanding, praise, and thanksgiving that are constant and comprehensive. The church that is filled with the Spirit will be characterized by praise and thanksgiving to God. Beyond that there will be evidence of self-control, mutual encouragement, and mutual submission, which is the opposite of rudeness, haughtiness, and self-assertion.

5:21 This verse serves as a hinge to connect what is prior with what follows. Grammatically, the participial phrase (lit “submitting yourselves”) goes with verses 18-20. The content of verses 22-33, however, depends on the principle of submission in verse 21.

5:22 Wives submit directs wives to be submissive to their own (Gk idios; “one’s own”) husbands (cp. Col 3:18-4:1). The distinctive feature here is that the relationship between husband and wife is compared with that between Christ and the church. No verb is in the original language of verse 22. The imperative “submit” is understood from verse 21.

5:22-24 Paul addressed wives first. They were to be voluntarily submissive to their husbands. No external coercion should be involved, nor should submission imply that the wife is a lesser partner in the marital union. The submission is governed by the phrase as to the Lord. Christian wives’ submission to their husbands is one aspect of their obedience to Christ. Submission is a person’s yielding his or her own rights and losing self for another. Submission is patterned after Christ’s example (Php 2:5-8) and reflects the essence of the gospel. Submission distinguishes the lifestyle of all Christians.

5:25 Paul turned to the duties of husbands. The society in which Paul wrote recognized the duties of wives to husbands but not necessarily of husbands to wives. As in Col 3:19, Paul exhorted husbands to love their wives, but Ephesians presents Christ’s self-sacrificing love for the church as the pattern for the husband’s love for his wife.

Husbands are to love their wives continually as Christ loves the church. The tense of the Greek word translated “love” indicates a love that continues. Love is more than family affection or sexual passion. Rather it is a deliberate attitude leading to action that concerns itself with another’s well-being. A husband should love his wife: (1) as Christ loved the church (vv. 25-27); (2) as his own body (vv. 28-30); and (3) with a love transcending all other human relationships (vv. 31-33).

5:26-27 Cleansing her with the washing of water: Paul explains more fully the result of Christ’s atonement for the church: it makes the church holy and pure. The purpose of Christ’s giving himself up for the church is the church’s sanctification and cleansing.

5:28 Since husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, they give up their personal rights for the good of their wives. It is a solemn picture of covenant love.

5:29-30 On first sight, Paul seems to have descended from the lofty standard of Christ’s love to the low standard of self-love when he says no one ever hates his own flesh, but he reminded Christian couples of their oneness, their “one-flesh” relationship. For this reason a husband’s obligation to cherish his wife as he does his own body is more than a helpful guide. His sacrificial love is an expression of the sacred marital union. True love is evidenced when husbands and wives have this spiritual, emotional, and physical oneness.

5:31-32 Paul appealed to Gen 2:24, which is God’s initial statement in the Scriptures regarding marriage. The marriage commitment takes precedence over every other human relationship.

5:31 One flesh means closely joined. It hallows the biblical standard of covenantal heterosexual marital relations and excludes polygamy and adultery. What is primarily a divine ordinance graciously and lovingly is designed for mutual satisfaction and delight.

5:33 Love… respect concludes and restates this section’s theme. The husband’s ultimate responsibility is to love his wife with a Christ like love.

I Peter 3:1-7

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit,which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Gospel Centered Marriage – Tim Chester

If you’re married, then your marriage is to be a partnership of service. That doesn’t mean you always serve together. But it does mean you support one another in your service of God.

“

Introverted marriages eventually shrivel—they become small marriages with small horizons. Your family is part of a bigger family of faith that demands your primary allegiance (Mark 3 v 31-35). It’s great to spend time alone together, but recognize that you can bond just as well through serving together. So hold time alone lightly because serving Christ is the focus of your marriage.

“

Principle : Your marriage is to demonstrate that it’s good to live under God’s reign.

“

the rule of God doesn’t sound much like good news in our culture. We don’t want someone else ruling over us. So how can the rule of God be good news? It’s a lie as old as humankind. It was the lie back in the Garden of Eden, when the serpent portrayed God as a tyrant holding Adam and Eve back. The serpent portrayed God’s rule as oppressive and manipulative. But in reality, God’s rule is a rule of blessing, freedom, love, life, justice and peace. It’s good news. It’s gospel.

“

Because we have rejected God’s rule, we not only get God wrong, we get authority wrong. We take over. And we rule—not like God, but like Satan’s lie about God. We rule in a way that is self-serving and tyrannical. No wonder women resist that. When humanity rejected God’s authority, it radically altered the way marriages work. After our rebellion, God said to the first wife: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you” —or “dominate” you (Genesis 3 v 16, NLT). The wife resists authority. The husband abuses authority

“

In Ephesians 5 Paul says marriage was designed to illustrate God’s relationship with His people.

“

The Bible says: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord … Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5 v 22, 25). Submission and love are very close. Both mutual love and mutual submission are commended within the wider body of Christ (5 v 2, 21). Clearly also, the wife is to love her husband and there is a sense in which it’s appropriate for a husband to submit to his wife as one believer to another.

“

What’s the difference? But submission and love also have their differences, since in Ephesians 5 the relationship between husband and wife is compared to the relationship between Christ and the church. My relationship to Christ is not a mirror of His relationship with me. Christ does not submit to me! Men and women are equal. But equality does not rule out having complementary roles or “headship”—one person being in charge. The place we see this clearly is in the doctrine of the Trinity. The persons of the Trinity are equal in terms of their being (their “God-ness” if you like). But the Son joyfully submits to the Father: He puts the will of the Father before His own (John 5 v 19; 8 v 28 etc.) This is the point Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 11 v 3. “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Or consider how we submit to political authorities or employers (1 Peter 2). We don’t think it makes us less equal or less significant as people. But we do recognize different roles and different authority. So what do submission and love mean in practice? The wife puts her husband’s will before her own. The husband puts his wife’s interests before his own. This captures the similarities in their respective attitudes. But it also captures the differences. It gives the husband a lead role, but a lead role defined by the cross—one which seeks the good of the other rather than self-interest.

“

The big issue here is what it means to exercise authority. Our problem is that we understand authority in the image of Satan’s lie as tyrannical, rather than in the image of God’s rule, which is liberating. Men believe the lie when they abuse authority; women believe the lie when they reject headship. Men abuse authority because they’re self-interested; wives reject submission because they are self-willed.

When I look at Christian wives, I should see what it means to submit to Christ’s authority—not begrudgingly, not with whining, but joyfully and freely. And when I look at Christian men I should see what it means to exercise authority—not in a way that is self-serving, but loving and sacrificial. That’s a high standard—for both sexes! And we might look at this ideal and think: “There’s no way I can live up to that!”

“

Notice what submission does not mean: Submission does not mean agreeing with everything your husband says, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 believes Jesus is Lord whereas her husband does not. Submission does not mean never trying to change your husband, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 is trying to convert him through her godly life. Submission does not mean a wife gets her spiritual strength from her husband, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 cannot gain spiritual strength from her husband. Submission does not mean acting out of fear, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 is told “do what is right without fear of what your husbands might do” (3 v 6, NLT).

“

What then is submission? Paul says: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5 v 22-24). Your husband’s will before your will.

“

But with marriage that changes. God is saying, in effect: “Wives, submit to your husbands instead of just submitting to yourselves.” You have to think about your husband now. You’re not free to do as you wish. This means respecting his God-given authority over you. That’s how Paul sums it up: “The wife must respect her husband” (Ephesians 5 v 33). You’re to submit to your husband in a way that illustrates what it means to submit to Christ. That’s the model for our submission. That means submitting without whining and without manipulating.

“

Some people stress that the two commands are reciprocal or conditional on one another. So the wife is only bound to submit if the husband is exercising his authority with the sacrificial love that Christ models. Others stress submission “in everything” (v 24), saying that wives should submit even if their husband is abusive. Neither view really captures what the Bible actually says, which is that you must submit even when your husband is not perfect. The alternative is a cycle of recrimination in which the wife gradually withdraws her submission and the husband gradually withdraws his love. The result is that the church’s glad submission to Christ is not modeled. What is being modeled is the very worst kind of church—where love for Christ is cold. But neither is submission weak and passive. It should be robust and reinforced with gospel conviction. We should challenge one another, speaking the truth in love (4 v 15). But we don’t do this for our own sake. We do this for the sake of Christ and His glory, and for the sake of our spouses and their holiness.

“

Wives should put their husband’s will before their own, but that doesn’t mean they should put his will first—first place always belongs to Jesus. Both husband and wife have a higher allegiance and a higher purpose: to submit to Christ and to seek His glory.

“

There is one important difference between submitting to a husband and submitting to Christ: your husband is not God. He will make mistakes. He will make bad judgments. And sometimes you will need to challenge him because your top allegiance is to the Lord. You’re to speak the truth in love to him (Ephesians 4 v 15). So the wife puts her husband’s will before her own—but not before Christ’s will.