••۞₣ĄŦĦΣŔ'§◦۩◦}{ØûڴΣ۞••

Monstrous and a defiance of the will of the American people - that's how one pro-family group is describing the health bill that House Democrats pushed through Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215.

The President of Concerned Women for America, Wendy Wright, says the bill will ration care and punish citizens who don't have government-mandated insurance.

Wright declares "this montrous bill" will erode the best health care system in the world.

According to Wright, "In exchange for insurance, we'll lose access to proper health care. We'll lose health care providers who will leave the profession."

She says the bill would "create multiple bureaucracies that will control Americans' health care, penalize Americans for not buying a product, fine Americans if a government agent decides their health care plan is not 'government approved' and may force Americans to buy government mandated insurance that funds objectionable procedures."

Wright notes that although an amendment passed to bar federal funding of abortion, Democrat leaders refused to guarantee that it will be in the final bill.  According to Wright, "the vote on the amendment may have been a ruse to gain pro-life Democrats vote on the bill."

Meanwhile, House Republican leader, John Boehner, also issued a statement condemning the bill.

He said "Americans want a common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2,032-page government takeover that increases costs, adds to our skyrocketing debt, destroys jobs with tax hikes and new mandates, and cuts seniors' Medicare benefits."

Boehner noted that Republicans have offered an alternative health care reform package which offers lower costs and expands access to quality care-without adding to the "crushing debt Washington has placed on our children and grandchildren."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=759448

An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is without a job because of his Christian beliefs.

The situation involves a manager from another shop telling Peter Vadala of her impending wedding to another woman. Vedala did not immediately react, nor did he provoke his superior to discuss the issue further. However, after being approached multiple times, he did later express the view of his faith toward homosexual conduct. A short time later, he heard from the chain's human resources department.
 
"I was fired from my job," Vadala reports. "The reason wasn't that I didn't do my job correctly. It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's the reason that I was fired."
 
In Massachusetts, the state anti-discrimination law provides special protection for homosexuals, and that results in silencing any opposition.
 
"Basically, if you work for any company in Massachusetts, if you work for any business, they can fire you for expressing your beliefs as a Christian." The former Brookstone employee iterates that this can happen "even if other people are expressing beliefs to the contrary, which [the manager] did by bringing up her so-called female fiancé."
 
In the termination letter Vadala received, his actions were reported as "harassment," and his comments were deemed "inappropriate and unprofessional." 
 
"I'm a little upset that I got fired because I expressed my belief after being countered with this superior's belief multiple times."
 
Vadala contends that if homosexual marriage becomes legal in other states, people will risk their jobs if they express their sincere, Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Next week a Christian activist will lead a rally before the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.  to stand for free speech.

Next Monday's rally was formed after the U.S. Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. (See previous article)
 
Dr. Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, is organizing the rally.
 
"We're going to exercise our First Amendment rights to preach [the entire] Bible, including those parts that deal with homosexuality and the truth of the sin of homosexuality," explains Dr. Cass. He further says this is being done as a way to clarify "....that this does not constitute a hate crime."
 
The organization president's purpose in organizing this effort is to stop the implementation of the legislation. 

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=760366

Perhaps your local school's sex ed is taught as part of health class.  That would be ironic, since in most cases, teaching sex education has less to do with health than indoctrination.  In fact, much of what's taught under the heading of sex ed actually allows for practices that are distinctly un-healthy.
 
In her latest book, You're Teaching My Child What?, Dr. Miriam Grossman exposes the lies inherent in sex ed teachings and the dangers those lies pose for children.  Grossman is also the author of Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness Endangers Every Student. (Read Marcia Segelstein's column last year on that book)

To understand how modern sex education came to be, it's necessary to go back to Alfred Kinsey.  Dr. Kinsey's academic training was in the classification of insects.  But his personal obsession was sex, so he made it his field of study.  Kinsey was, Grossman writes, "a bona fide mental case."  He filmed sexual encounters with his wife and among his staff as part of his so-called research.  According to Grossman, "Kinsey was all in favor of adult-child sexual contact – what we think of as child molestation – and considered adults who engaged in it 'much maligned.'"  He believed monogamy to be "unnatural," and he disapproved of abstinence.
 
Why should we care about Alfred Kinsey?  "Because," Grossman writes, "modern sex education derives from the personal philosophy of this man....He set out to prove to the world, and probably himself, that there really wasn't anything wrong with him; and lo and behold, it turned out that his research on human sexuality did just that."
 
Years later, thanks in large part to the work of Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Kinsey's research into the sexual practices of Americans was flawed, to put it mildly.  Even at the time, many questioned it.  Lawrence Kubie, a leading psychiatrist of the day, said that Kinsey's research was filled with "inaccurate data...errors, exaggerations...ideas that are patently absurd."  The popular press, on the other hand, bought it hook, line and sinker.  As did the public: his first book was a bestseller.
 
Nonetheless, the influence of Alfred Kinsey can't be diminished.  "Kinsey's findings spawned a revolution and transformed western culture," writes Grossman.  Besides convincing a gullible public that bizarre sexual practices were the norm in America, his legacy was carried on by his associates and passed on to America's youth.  Mary Calderone, who worked closely with Kinsey, founded SIECUS, which stands for Sex Information and Education Council of the United States.  Today SIECUS thrives as the nation's preeminent sex ed organization and primary advocate for "comprehensive sexuality education."  Not surprisingly, prior to forming SIECUS with seed money from none other than Hugh Hefner, Calderone had been director of Planned Parenthood.
 
Grossman writes that Calderone wasn't interested in having SIECUS teach about treating or preventing disease.  "Like Kinsey, she was crusading for social reform...[She] believed there was an urgent need to break from traditional ideas about sex, especially the way it was taught to young people.  She found fault with the model used in school-based programs because they focused on preventing pregnancy and venereal diseases...[now called sexually transmitted diseases].  Calderone believed that when the negativity of sex education is added to society's repressive morality, the result is too many no's."
 
SIECUS managed to work its way into school sex education programs across the country emphasizing sex as "positive, natural and healthy."  Calderone teamed up with another Kinsey acolyte, Lester Kirkendall, and SIECUS began its radical transformation of sex ed.  Grossman writes, "[T]hey embarked on a crusade to inculcate in American youth what were seen by them as eternal, unquestionable truths."  Those "truths" included beliefs that "physical pleasure has worth as a moral value," and that "the boundaries of human sexuality need to be expanded."  Traditional Judeo-Christian values were out.  Kinsey's off-the-wall values were in.
 
In an interview with National Review Online, Dr. Grossman described a pamphlet called "Talk About Sex," published by SIECUS, written "especially for teens."  There are eight pages on sexual rights.  Among other things, the pamphlet tells teens that they "have the right to decide exactly what behaviors, if any, you are comfortable participating in."  Dr. Grossman suggests trying to imagine a pamphlet on nutrition for teens that said:  "There are many types of diets. A diet low in saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sugars helps prevent obesity and cardiac disease.  Some kids try to keep a healthy diet, others don't.  You have the right to decide what to eat."  No school – or parent – would tolerate such absurdity.  And yet the nation's premier sex education organization tells teens to decide for themselves.
 
Having treated a myriad of college students as a campus psychiatrist at UCLA, Dr. Grossman knows too well the results of "comprehensive sex education."  Many of her young patients came to her already infected with herpes, Chlamydia and HPV.  They were not only scared and upset: they were shocked.  They'd been taught about "safer sex."  They hadn't been taught about the lack of protection condoms, for example, provide against STDs, or the emotional devastation that can result from casual sexual encounters.
 
That one man's demented notions of sexuality have worked their way into a "respectable" organization used by schools from coast to coast is shocking.  That children are being taught that an "anything goes" attitude toward sex is normal and healthy, thanks to that organization, is tragic.  More on that in my next column.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=751408

A new website has been created for people who like to 'tweet' but are upset with unwanted twitter. ChristianChirp.com was launched last week by web guru James Paris. 

According to Paris, the idea was born out of frustration over the flap he received concerning a tongue-in-cheek article written about Rush Limbaugh.

"I wrote an article entitled 'Why the NFL was 100% Right in Banning Rush Limbaugh,' and I wrote this article in total sarcasm, comparing and contrasting what I thought was a ridiculous position for the NFL to allow Michael Vick back and then to not allow Rush Limbaugh to buy a share in a team because he was a conservative," explains Paris.
 
The article was linked to his Twitter account and re-'tweeted.' Within one day, Paris alleges that he received hate messages from liberals who were duped into posting the article, thinking Paris was actually in favor of Limbaugh's NFL ban. As a result, Paris says he was suspended from Twitter without notice.
 
"But after eight days, my account came back on -- and within the first day I received a solicitation from a gay romance site," he reports.
 
Paris was not happy as he says his kids use that computer as well. So he started ChristianChirp.com. This new site is similar to Twitter, but it is more family-friendly as it blocks all adult content.

A school counselor in Maine could be in trouble for holding traditional views on marriage.

Donald Mendell is the subject of a complaint filed with the state Board of Social Worker Licensure. That took place after he told a co-worker of his support for traditional marriage. Austin R. Nimocks is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is representing Mendell.
 
"In Maine...we have this wonderful educator who has received prestigious awards and been nominated for Maine educator of the year," Nimocks explains, "and yet because he believes that marriage is one man and one woman, he is now being threatened to have his license taken away...simply for holding that foundational and fundamental belief."
 
In a press statement, Nimocks says several issues -- aside from the definition of marriage -- are at stake in the Mendall case. "Free speech, freedom of conscience, and religious liberty are also in danger," he says.
 
OneNewsNow asked the attorney whether the complaint was filed to intimidate and silence opponents of the homosexual lifestyle -- similar to the intent of hate crimes laws in Canada and Great Britain.
 
"This complaint [specifies] that this man believes that marriage is one man and one woman, and that that is somehow unacceptable for social workers in the state of Maine," argues the ADF attorney. "[It's] outrageous that we can only have one side of this debate for licensed social workers in the state of Maine. [But] this is what is being purported here."
 
Maine voters today are at the polls trying to overturn a law passed by the legislature to legalize homosexual "marriage." President Obama recently signed into law a hate crimes law for the United States. 

New hate crimes law is a mistake (commentary) 

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=750130

PORTLAND, Maine- Voters in Maine have rejected an effort by lawmakers there to impose homosexual "marriage" in that state.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine -- known for its liberal-minded electorate -- and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign. With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, proponents of traditional marriage had 53 percent of the votes.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Read Renewed momentum for federal marriage amendment?

Gay-marriage supporters held out hope that the tide would shift before conceding defeat at 2:40 a.m. in a statement that insisted they weren't going away. "We're in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year -- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign.

At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.

The outcome Tuesday marked the first time voters had rejected a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians put a stop to same-sex marriage a year ago, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Five other states have legalized gay marriage -- starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa -- but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

The defeat left some gay-marriage supporters bitter. "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a personal thing."

The contest had been viewed by both sides as certain to have national repercussions. Backers of traditional marriage desperately wanted to keep their winning streak alive, while gay-rights activists sought to blunt the argument that gay marriage was being foisted on the country by courts and lawmakers over the will of the people.

Had Maine's law been upheld, the result would probably have energized efforts to get another vote on gay marriage in California, and given a boost to gay-marriage bills in New York and New Jersey.

Earlier Tuesday, before vote-counting began, marriage traditionalist Chuck Schott of Portland warned that Maine "will have its place in infamy" if the gay-rights side won.

Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided -- despite her conservative upbringing -- to vote in favor of letting gays marry. "They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.

In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Barack Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters' pronounced independent streak and live-and-let-live attitude.

The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims -- disputed by state officials -- that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Among other ballot items across the country:

- In Ohio, voters approved a measure that will allow casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. Four similar measures had been defeated in recent years, but this time the state's reeling economy gave extra weight to arguments that the new casinos would create thousands of jobs.

- Maine voters defeated a measure that would have limited state and local government spending by holding it to the rate of inflation plus population growth. A similar measure was on the ballot in Washington state.

- Another measure in Maine, which easily won approval, will allow dispensaries to supply marijuana to patients for medicinal purposes. It is a follow-up to a 1999 measure that legalized medical marijuana but did not set up a distribution system.

- The Colorado ski town of Breckenridge voted overwhelmingly to allow adults to legally possess small amounts of marijuana.

A Swiss firm is using tissue from aborted babies to make anti-wrinkle creams.

The process creating this cream was produced at the University of Luasanne from a 14-week-gestation aborted male baby. Debi Vinnedge, executive director of a ministry called Children of God for Life, discovered the happening.
 
"There's a company by the name of Neocutis, and they make several different types of skin care creams," she explains. "They have a product called PSP, which is a skin protein, actually purified skin proteins, that are taken from the tissue from an aborted baby."

Vinnedge says her organization has been investigating cosmetic companies for years to determine if they are using aborted babies, and until now, it has done so without finding proof.
 
However, "Neocutis has put this boldly right on their own website and in their package material," she affirms. According to the Neocutis website, the technology for the product "relies on the use of cultured fetal skin cells obtained from a cell bank."
 
Vinnedge is encouraging people to express their outrage directly to the San Francisco-based company, and provides information for doing so on the Children of God for Life website. The ministry also plans to promote cosmetic companies that do not use tissue from aborted babies

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=742412

A Christian evangelist who was once arrested, jailed, and charged under Pennsylvania's hate crimes law says the federal hate crimes bill signed into law by President Obama is one of the most dangerous laws in the history of the United States.

With the stroke of President Obama's pen yesterday, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act became law. It creates additional penalties for violent crimes motivated by the victim's "actual or perceived" gender, "gender identity," sexual orientation, or disability.
 
Michael Marcavage, director of Philadelphia-based Repent America, was one of 11 Christians who were jailed and charged with a hate crime for carrying Bible verse banners and preaching at a 2004 homosexual pride event in Philadelphia. The charges were later dismissed -- and in 2008, the state's Supreme Court ruled the law had been passed illegally by the Pennsylvania legislature.
 
Marcavage says the new federal hate crimes law is yet another move by the federal government to "silence Christians."
 
"What this bill does is [seek] to shut down those who dare to speak against the sin of homosexuality with the hope and freedom that is found in Jesus Christ," says the Christian activist.
 
"Having been charged under a hate crime, I'm definitely moved with compassion on those who the government is trying to silence us from reaching out to," he continues, "but we're going to continue to do as we have been doing, and ministering to those trapped in the bondage of this lifestyle."
 
Marcavage offers three reasons why he opposes the new law. He says it is ungodly because it "seeks to shut down the gospel of Jesus Christ"; unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment; and also unnecessary because there are already laws on the books that punish violent crimes.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=744446

A hate crimes bill sent to President Obama for his signature raises a red flag for Christians.

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes bill that Christian leaders have warned for years could greatly infringe on the rights of those who speak to loudly about their religious views. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel agrees with most observers that President Obama will sign the measure -- adding that the president desires to "throw a bone to homosexual activists because they have been breathing down his neck...and this is a way to hold them off."
 
Barber views the legislation as something akin to a muzzle. "Unfortunately, it places Christians -- people of faith, people who have traditional values relative to sexual immorality...in an untenable position," says the attorney.
 
He notes that several years ago, a similar law in Pennsylvania resulted in the arrest of 11 Christians who were presenting the gospel at a Philadelphia homosexual rally. Barber goes on to say that the federal bill "will chill religious liberty and free speech -- and that is its intended purpose, not to protect anybody from hate crimes."
 
And as for pastors? "There is a very weak exemption in [the bill] which is totally illusory, and a religious exemption is not going to protect pastors," responds Barber. "Renegade prosecutors and politically correct leftists in positions of authority can subjectively determine what is or is not a hate crime." And then move on to prosecution, he adds.
 
Barber explains that Liberty Counsel intends to challenge the constitutionality of the hate crimes legislation

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=736154

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official -- not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate, but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President -- could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers -- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
 
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
 
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
 
Does any of this sound like America?
 
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
 
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
 
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
 
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
 
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles, and the people of this country.
 
Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God d--- America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.
 
Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.
 
Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?
 
Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government -- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.
 
Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
 
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year -- each bill more than a thousand pages long -- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question -- and the biggest question for this generation.

 http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=740538

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) bars the use of all transmitting devices in the off chance that transmissions could interfere with a plane’s navigation and communications equipment and cause system malfunctions. It’s true that these concerns are overblown, but the FAA likes to err on the side of caution. (Can you blame them?)

The real reason authorities don’t want you flipping open your mobile phone has less to do with crashing your plane and more to do with crashing the cell phone network. The Federal Communications Commission has determined that mid-flight calls have a direct impact on cell phone service on the ground. That’s because cell phones are primarily designed for callers who are firmly planted on land, communicating with a single, nearby tower. If you’re speeding through the sky at 550 mph, your phone will connect with multiple towers and eat up valuable space on their circuits, wreaking havoc on service. A 2007 plan to lift the ban was strongly opposed by cell carriers for this reason. So, at least for a while, frequent flyers should recline their seatbacks and enjoy the last place on Earth that’s free of cell phone chatter. 

Exodus Mandate Project is a Christian ministry to encourage and assist Christian families to leave government schools for the Promised Land of Christian schools or home schooling. It is our hope that this fresh obedience in educating our children according to Biblical mandates will prove to be the key for revival in our families, churches and nation.

Charlotte Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first learned of the  - Deliberate Dumbing Down of America...

Are we the people sane by mutual consent?

            If so the battle for right and wrong will be never ending.  Those seeking a privileged status will make and define pathologies in accordance to their own wills and desires, in their struggles for power and affluence.  If absolutes be done away with, then we all become our own gods doing what is right in our own eyes.  As such violations of another will be inevitable, by the standard of those who are the strongest at any given time.  Murder, rape, and child-molestation in past times was viewed by those in power as simply making use of their property, as such they made the definition of right and wrong in their favor.  Relativism will always bread abuse somewhere down the road.  This is true within the Church as one abuses his position over another and sees the rules and laws of God as not applicable to him or this particular situation.  Absolute values are the only way to have true righteousness and morality, a part from such you abandon it to your own demise. 

            Mental pathology then can only find an adequate definition in absolutes.  Pathology then occurs when one is miss-aligned or contrary to design, with the person of Christ and His spiritual principles, whether or not at any particular moment one feels good or bad about such situation, separation is an unhealthy state of being.  One can feel they have enjoyed life to fullest in this world, but they still miss out on better in Christ, in this world and the next, to me this is a pathological spiritual state!  Socially constructed views of pathology then, are in themselves pathological to believe in and act upon.  The Garden of Eden set the stage for this kind of mentality.  With the knowledge of good and evil we became our own judges and little gods, and suffered in every way possible, spiritually, cognitively, physically, and socially. 

And so I end another rambling session haha… 

The Montana Supreme Court has granted parental rights to a non-parent.

For ten years, two women lived together in a lesbian relationship, during which one of them -- Barbara Maniaci -- solely adopted two children. But in 2006, Maniaci left her roommate and the homosexual lifestyle, and later married a man. Following the break-up, the former roommate sued for -- and now has won -- parental rights.
 
Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, tells OneNewsNow that Montana's highest court decided to uphold the demands of a legal stranger.
 
"What the Montana Supreme Court did was give a third party -- the parent's former roommate and girlfriend -- parental rights...," says the attorney. "And it runs contrary to clear precedent dating back several years in Montana and the United States Supreme Court. [It's] a very, very disturbing decision."
 
He says that historically courts have upheld the rights of "fit natural" parents. "When we undermine the rights of fit natural parents, it causes harm to families and children," argues Nimocks. "Giving strangers and third parties access to kids is not in the best interest of children or families."
 
In making the decision, Nimocks contends the court undermines the rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children and to make sure that their authority is the final authority.
 
One of the dissenting judges in Montana wrote that the decision in favor of a third party "will open a Pandora's Box of potential attacks upon the right of fit and capable parents to raise their own children."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=719520

The Cognitive Process of Being Deceived

There have been some more recent studies done on a particular hypothesis of interest.  It basically states that all input received by our senses (i.e., ear and eye gates) it is received instantaneously as true, until otherwise processed. This theory came about with research into the mind sets of those who follow cult leaders.  Why do otherwise intelligent people follow them?

To test this theory out an electro- magnetic field was created around patents while receiving information that clearly was not true.  They were to hit a button indicating the truthfulness or lack thereof of each statement on the screen.  When the electro-magnetic field disrupted their ability to properly process the incoming information they marked all the statements as true, even the clearly false ones, in which they had identified as such before the magnetic field was applied.¹

If one thinks about the implications of such a statement if true and what it means it’s a bit staggering to take in.  That would mean that the next time your teenager says I don’t really listen to the words of the songs I just like the beat, you may want to take issue with that mentality.  Think about all the information or messages going into their minds unprocessed or unedited (through TV, radio or other means).  If they don’t stop the think about the reality or truthfulness of the messages the brain takes them in as true.  Now this process has to be repeated over and over, it’s not just a onetime deal... So we have all most likely heard the saying, "repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it!" Well more specificly to repeat a lie enough times without it being proper possessed for its truthfulness may soon be accepted.

I think this in part is possibly how "bad company can corrupts good morals" in that information goes unedited or around their peers in not processed effectively or if at all... likewise, here there is peer-pressure that is added to this, but the lack of good discernment in the process is indeed a part of it... its why iron sharpens iron and why it is good to dwell in the presence of wise counsel...

We need to test the spirits... so to say

Reference: