••۞₣ĄŦĦΣŔ'§◦۩◦}{ØûڴΣ۞••

A new study provides fresh information on potential harm of the abortion drug, RU-486.

The study comes from Finland and was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Dr. Randall O'Bannon of National Right to Life tells OneNewsNow that what the public typically sees from the abortion industry is a claim that RU-486, also known as Mifeprex, is a safe and simple process for abortions.
 
"But this latest study from Finland shows that at least 20 percent of the women that use RU-486, the abortion pill, they suffer from at least one significant complication, and in many cases, from two complications," O'Bannon reports.
 
The three most significant problems are hemorrhaging, infection and incomplete abortions, which are the same troubles patients face in surgical abortions. Resulting from the chemical method, 15.6 percent of those undergoing this form of abortion hemorrhaged while 1.7 percent encountered infection and 6.7 percent experienced incomplete abortions.
 
O'Bannon feels that one of the reasons America does not report the figures is because, "we have people that control the data. The abortion industry keeps all of this very close to the vest, and so the only time you can get data is if they are willing to share it," he says. "They report some of these things to the FDA, but whether they report all of them, we don't know."
 
The lesson from the new study is that people need to make themselves aware of the hype about RU-486's safety and the pitch that it is somehow more safe or simple than other abortion methods. The public needs to consider the possibility that RU-486 is not being honest about its issues.

Traditional marriage advocates in Washington, DC are telling city officials "We'll see you in court." 

 The DC Board of Elections and Ethics ruled yesterday that a measure to let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriages in DC cannot go on the ballot. According to the board, such a measure would violate the city's human rights law.
 
The DC City Council is expected to approve same-sex marriage next month, but proponents of traditional marriage are planning to hold a rally in Washington on December 8th to lobby members of Congress to override the council's wishes.
 
Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., who heads the group Stand for Marriage DC, says an important civil right of same-sex marriage opponents is being violated in the District.
 
"The Home Rule Charter tells us that we should have the same rights as the DC Board of Elections and as the DC City Council," Jackson contends.  "In other words, if they can vote on something, we can vote on something.  If they can initiate a law, we should be able to initiate a law, as what is done in Maine and California."
 
Jackson says Stand for Marriage DC intends to appeal the decision by the Election Board to the DC Superior Court.

Plans are underway for a 600-bed Christian prison to be built in Wakita, Oklahoma, a town of 380 residents near the Kansas border.

The unique facility is the brainchild of Bill Robinson of Corrections Concepts Inc. in Dallas, Texas, a nonprofit prison ministry. Robinson himself is an ex-con and prison minister. He hopes to open the facility in about 16 months. 

Private prisons are not a new concept, and numerous prisons have Christian or faith-based units, but Robinson says he does not know of any with an all-Christian staff. He envisions a staff that will see their work as ministry.
 
“All of the employees will be Christians,” Robinson says. “We have an opinion letter from the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] that says we can do that.”
 
The facility would house only prisoners who want to transfer there. They will not be required to go to church or Bible study, but will be required to sign an agreement to participate in some prison programs. Inmates will be offered classes in literacy, GED requirements and life skills.
 
“It’s a faith-based, work ethic, corrections initiative where we take men in their last 12 to 24 to 30 months before their earliest release, and they have to volunteer to come, which makes us constitutional,” Robinson says.
 
He says no public funds will be used in the $42 million project. A bond backer who underwrites and does revenue bonds for Christian-related ventures has agreed to finance it.
 
Robinson believes there is great support for the facility which will work to change the hearts of inmates and help them stay out of trouble upon their release.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=760912

In the wake of last week's Fort Hood massacre, a terrorism expert is suggesting that Muslim recruits must be completely and thoroughly screened before allowing them to join the U.S. military.

 Major Nidal Malik Hasan stands accused of killing 13 adults and an unborn child as well as wounding more than two dozen others during the November 5 shooting rampage at the Texas Army outpost. As previously reported, terrorism investigators conducted an "assessment" of the Army psychiatrist.  At that time, the agency decided that Hasan did not pose a threat.
 
Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America and author of the New York Times bestseller They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, says the military must do a better job of screening Muslims who want to join the armed forces.
 
"At a time of war, we need to be very wise and very careful as to who is serving in our military. Have we been infiltrated? Who is radicalizing our soldiers? Why would Muslims want to serve in our military if they consider us infidels?" she asks.
 
Gabriel feels the military should not be concerned about complaints of profiling from Muslims.
 
"When we have this ideology infiltrating of our military, we'd better scrutinize every single Muslim serving in our military branches right now just to be safe," the terrorism expert urges. "If they have nothing to hide, then we have nothing to lose. If anybody would have scrutinized this guy, we would not have over 13 people dead and over 30 wounded right now."                               
 
Gabriel supports Senator Joe Lieberman's (I-Connecticut) investigation into the Fort Hood massacre.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=765530

National Right to Life is warning that pro-abortion Democrats will fight tooth and nail to get a prohibition on federal funding of abortion ultimately removed from their healthcare bill.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida), the Democrats' chief deputy whip in the House, said yesterday that she and other pro-abortion lawmakers would work to strip the Stupak amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding of abortions under the public health insurance option. (See earlier article)
 
Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC, "I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that the language won't be there."

Story continues below ...

What was the real reason that liberal House Democrats allowed

the Stupak amendment to be added to the healthcare bill?

Vote in our poll

 
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, says the fate of the abortion funding ban depends on what U.S. senators hear from their constituents.
 
"They're going to be under enormous pressures from these well-funded, pro-abortion advocacy groups -- and President Obama will certainly be trying to get abortion back in the bill," Johnson warns.
 
"Remember, all along these people have been trying to pretend that abortion wasn't in the bill -- and now this is fleshed out into the open and there's going to be a terrific battle about this," he says. "And in the end, the outcome is going to depend upon what input senators are getting from their constituents."
 
Over the weekend, Planned Parenthood sent out an alert asking people to contact the president to ask him to live up to his promise to have abortion in the new government healthcare plan. Although the American people heard President Obama tell a joint session of Congress in September that he did not want federal funding of abortion, he promised Planned Parenthood in 2007 that abortion funding would be in his healthcare plan.

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.