I RESIST LEFTIST EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN

Comment

Comment by Kathryn McEwen 4 hours ago

SHARIA LAW GAINING MOMENTUM: HOW DO WE STOP IT?

http://godcountryusa.ning.com/group/islamicissues/forum/topics/dave-gaubatz-sharia-law

Comment by Janette on February 21, 2010 at 8:27pm

Lies from the feminists regarding abortion.
From Proud To Be Canadian
By: Ashley Herzog

The anti-life groups are as loopy as D.C. in trying to tamp down pro-life conservatives. This article proves they will go to any length, even outright lies, to further their agenda. It is sometimes fun to watch these folks skirming and a delight to see them exposed.

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/index/writergroup/rewriting_history_on_abortion/

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on January 25, 2010 at 6:05pm

DOMA-destroying legislation' afoot in Senate
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/17/2009 7:15:00 AM
A conservative activist warns that both houses of Congress are moving forward with a back-door attempt to achieve federal recognition of same-sex "marriage."

The Senate Homeland Security Committee voted 8-1 yesterday to approve a bill that would provide the same family benefits to homosexual federal civilian employees that are provided to married heterosexual employees.

The measure, S. 1102, is sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). A similar bill passed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in November.

Peter Labarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says the Lieberman-Collins bill severely undermines the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"This appears to be a violation of the spirit and the law of DOMA. DOMA was intended to encourage marriage, the recognition of marriage by the federal government, and this is the repudiation of that," Labarbera contends. "This is giving marital benefits to both homosexuals and heterosexual 'shack-up' couples. It's very bad public policy for the federal government to de-incentivize people getting married...and that's exactly what this legislation would do."

The long-time family advocate believes that when President Obama reiterated his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, he effectively gave the Senate the green light to move forward with what LaBarbera calls "DOMA-destroying legislation."

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 28, 2009 at 4:54am

Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Law Center’s Challenge to San Francisco’s Anti-Catholic Resolution

December 17, 2009

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a packed courtroom in San Francisco, eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument yesterday in a case that could flush out what the U.S. Supreme Court means when it proclaims that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not permit hostility toward religion. At issue was San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ resolution that virulently condemned the Catholic Church for its moral teachings prohibiting the adoption of children by homosexual couples. Click here to read the Board’s resolution.

The anti-Catholic resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, was challenged by the Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on behalf of the Catholic League and two Catholic residents of San Francisco.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, observed, “Homosexual activists have complete control of San Francisco’s Board and over the years have intensified their anti-Christian attacks to the point of a totalitarian intolerance of Christians. A week after the anti-Catholic resolution, the Board passed another resolution, this time condemning 25,000 Evangelical teens who were gathering in the city to express their opposition to abortion and homosexual conduct.”

Continued Thompson, “I want to commend the Catholic League, Valerie Meehan and Richard Sonnenshein for taking this courageous stand to end San Francisco’s hostility against Christians.”

The Board’s resolution refers to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans, ” “hateful, ” “insulting and callous, ” “defamatory, ” “absolutely unacceptable, ” “insensitive and ignoran.” The resolution makes reference to the Inquisition; and it urges the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives.

Representing the plaintiffs was Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise. Muise told the court the Resolution was a specific condemnation of religious beliefs; and just as the Constitution forbids government endorsement of religion, it also prohibits government hostility toward religion.

The attorney defending the Resolution contended the supervisors had a secular purpose and were entitled to express disapproval of any group opposed to that purpose.

Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said he thought the resolution was anti-Catholic and would inhibit Catholicism. Referring to the Supreme Court rulings against excessive government entanglement, he asked, “What could be more entangling than telling a the cardinal to defy the Vatican?”
Other judges seemed to defend the resolution.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at http://thomasmore.org.

URL Link to San Francisco City Board Resolution:

http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/CityofSanFrancisc...

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 23, 2009 at 4:23am

Here's a link to sign a petition against the pro-abortion Manager's Amendment that the Senate just approved:

http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=geJMITNrFbJMJ2K&s=fqLUK3OELfIML2MDLmE&m=efKHKWMwE7LRF&af=y

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 22, 2009 at 2:57am

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

Department of Health and Human Trafficking
First the Obama administration backed off on prosecuting pornography and drug use, and now it's hoping to ease restrictions on international sex trafficking. With barely a peep from the press, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is trying to overturn a key policy of PEPFAR-the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Under this new rule, the countries that receive HIV/AIDS dollars under PEPFAR would no longer have to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking-which was a condition of the funding under President Bush.

Since 2003, PEPFAR has been one of the most successful initiatives launched by the U.S. government to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. It was initially passed in 2003 with the anti-sex trafficking provision, and both were reauthorized last year. Every time this program comes before Congress, anti-prostitution organizations, including FRC, have fought to ensure that your taxpayer dollars wouldn't flow to organizations that promote the trafficking of human beings.

Apparently, the Obama administration thinks our position is too restrictive. Instead of protecting the most vulnerable, this President is trying to relax the rules for groups that exploit women and children! Not only is prostitution associated with several health, emotional, and physical risks, but it's also one of the leading causes of HIV/AIDS in these regions. Some reports estimate that close to 70% of prostitutes in certain areas are infected with this disease. Of course, this begs the question: Why would we fund the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa if our own policy is promoting it?

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 18, 2009 at 9:15pm

Harry Reid: Government's Gift to Women?
At the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Offices of Women's Health already exist--at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level, and in the Center for Disease Control (CDC), National Institute of Health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Apparently, that's not enough. Sen. Reid's legislation would create five brand new offices for women's health spread throughout the government--some of which already have established offices! He even included a provision (Section 1011) to prevent anyone from consolidating or abolishing any of the current offices or posts. Here's a list of the expansion targets: an Office on Women's Health in the HHS Secretary's office (Section 229), a new CDC Office of Women's Health (Section 310A), a new AHRQ Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 925), a new HRSA Office of Women's Health (Section 713) and a new FDA Office of Women's Health (Section 1011). I couldn't find any similar men's health offices. Sorry guys--it looks like we're on our own.

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 11, 2009 at 12:35am

Fact #20: Tie the Knot, Get Roped into More Taxes
As we pointed out before, expect to be punished by Senator Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) health care bill if you're married. Payroll taxes would impose an extra 0.5% payroll tax on married couples with more than $250,000 in wages and individuals with more than $200,000 in wages. That's a huge marriage penalty. Two cohabitating people could make $200,000 each before getting taxed while married couples would get taxed at $250,000. Senator Reid's message couldn't be clearer: Penalize taxpayers for saying "I do" and reward a liberal agenda with surplus tax dollars instead.







Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 4, 2009 at 2:16am

The discriminatory 'Non-Discrimination Act'
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 12/3/2009 9:45:00 AM

Today's Democratic leadership is a predictable lot. They've cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic tinkering. It's a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the "forked-tongue test."

If Dems say "Fairness Doctrine," expect unfairness in spades. When Harry Reid tags Obamacare the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," we know that the patient gets hosed, and the "care" breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the "No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act," bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol Rotunda.

And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House). According to its leftist proponents, ENDA – which is under consideration in both houses of Congress – would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination. But in truth, this legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

ENDA would force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish, or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology.

This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an "out and proud" adulterous "swinger." It's a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional nature. "[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)," noted the statement. "The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard."

The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our sacred Constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes ENDA no less unconstitutional.

Chai Feldblum (pronounced "high" as in "stoned") is a lesbian activist and sexual anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is like having Michael Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Feldblum – ENDA's chief framer and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its enforcement – has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.

Feldblum believes that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka, "gay rights") is a "zero sum game," meaning that the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. One must triumph over the other. (Guess who wins in her twisted analysis?)

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Feldblum snapped: "Gays win; Christians lose." And where Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of "gay rights," Feldblum has admitted having "a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win." Of course Feldblum's analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent.

In fact ENDA would – for the first time since the Constitutional Convention – extend special, federally preferred government status to individuals based upon a changeable and objectively aberrant sexual lifestyle, rather than requiring that such status be delineated by immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color or gender.

Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

But Ken Hutcherson, a prominent, well-respected African-American pastor from the Seattle area, summed it up even better, stating rather incisively: "Don't compare your sin to my skin."

Comment by Kathryn McEwen on December 4, 2009 at 1:40am

Political philosophy played a hidden role in the struggle over women's health.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Review-of-Paraslim-Force&id=3271797

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page