Archive for April 19th, 2006

Jesus is a Jew

Wednesday, April 19th, 2006


I was recently admonished on a blog when I claimed that “Jesus is a Jew”. The young woman doing the admonishing responded to my comment with “Of course he isn’t a Jew. He’s a Christian!”
If one were to ask the question “what religion is Jesus” I suspect the response would almost always be “He is a Christian”. What some people don’t realize is that Jesus is a Jew.
How did I arrive at this conclusion? Let’s take a look.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Kentucky Literature Prof Removed for Vandalizing Pro-life Display

Wednesday, April 19th, 2006

Wow, look at the hate some people have for life. How interesting that this liberal professor thought that it would be OK to just destroy someone else demonstration. At least she paid for it with her job. Maybe a counter-protest, approved by the University, of course, would have been a better way to show her feelings?

HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, KY, April 18, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Sally Jacobsen, a professor of language and literature at Northern Kentucky University (NKU) has been dismissed from her post after she incited a group of students to destroy an approved pro-life display erected by a campus pro-life student group.
Jacobsen, who also headed the NKU women’s studies program for three years, told the Kentucky Enquirer she had become so emotional at the sight of a field of white crosses planted as a symbolic cemetery for aborted children, that her strong feelings justified her action.
“Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged,” Jacobsen said.
Pulling up the crosses was similar to citizens taking down Nazi displays on Fountain Square, she said.
The display was put up in response to a series of lectures on abortion “rights” by a faculty group called, Educators for Reproductive Freedom. The group had held two lunchtime discussions on campus with speakers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood. A representative of Educators for Reproductive Freedom disavowed any involvement in Jacobsen’s action.
In response to the faculty lectures, a group of students hastily organized a pro-life group, Northern Right to Life, which was approved by the university administration. The crosses, which were first erected Wednesday April 12, were the group’s first effort at educating the campus on the real nature of abortion. They also handed out literature at the pro-abortion faculty event.
Katie Walker, president of Northern Right to Life, told the Enquirer that her group would like to see charges filed against those responsible for the vandalism. “Campuses are supposed to be public forums. I think professors should encourage that,” Walker said.
Jacobsen admitted to inciting students: “I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to.” She said the crosses were a “slap in the face” to women who might be making “the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion.”
A photo appearing Thursday in the online edition of the campus newspaper, The Northerner, showed Jacobsen tearing up the sign that accompanied the crosses. Campus police are investigating the vandalism, saying that $600.00 in damages was done. About 10 students were involved, witnesses said.
The university’s policies state that even tenured faculty can be dismissed without pay for
misconduct. It reads, “A staff member who conducts himself in a manner that reflects unfavourably upon the University, the department, and himself will be subject to immediate discharge, without advance notice and without further pay.”
Jacobsen’s action has created a stir in high places. The Enquirer reported Sunday that Rep. Paul Marcotte, R-Union, has written to NKU president, James Votruba, demanding that Jacobsen be fired. “I don’t want my tax money used by a professor to radicalize the ‘cemetery Gestapo,'” Marcotte wrote. He called her action “illegal and irresponsible” and “disgusting, offensive behaviour by a tenured professor.”
“Strong punishment will send a message to other unrepentant radicals that the university is part of a larger community and that its members must abide by the community’s laws,” Marcotte stated.
James Votruba has said the university will be investigating and takes its commitment to freedom of speech seriously. “I don’t know if she was pulling up the crosses, but I think she was out there with the students. If so, as far as I’m concerned, she went outside the conditions of her employment,” Votruba said.
In a statement published on the university’s website today, Votruba said, “While the University supports the right to free speech and vigorous debate on public issues, we cannot condone infringement of the rights of others to express themselves in an orderly manner.”
“By leading her students in the destruction of an approved student organization display, Professor Sally Jacobsen’s actions were inconsistent with Northern Kentucky University’s commitment to free and open debate and the opportunity for all sides to be heard without threat of censorship or reprisal.”

Democrats Will Appeal Ruling on Indiana’s Voter ID Law

Wednesday, April 19th, 2006

I have never understood the issue with this. Unless one is attempting to hide from authorities or attempting to cheat on the vote somehow, having a valid ID is not a bad thing.
I have to wonder if the dems are protesting a bit to loudly on this one.

(CNSNews.com) – A federal court has upheld an Indiana law requiring people to show a government-issued photo ID before voting, much to the disappointment of the Democratic Party, which says many of its constituents — minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled — will be adversely affected.
“Indiana’s voter ID law, widely regarded as one of the most restrictive in America, creates unfair obstacles that will prevent citizens who are lawfully eligible to vote from casting their ballots,” said DNC Chairman Howard Dean in a statement issued on Monday.
“I applaud the Indiana Democratic Party’s decision to appeal this ruling,” Dean said. “As part of our Party’s commitment to doing whatever we can to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, the DNC will assist the Indiana Democratic Party’s legal challenge to this unfair law and continue our fight to make it easier for all Americans to exercise their right to vote.”
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued an opinion saying that the plaintiffs, including the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, had produced “not a single piece of evidence” that the law would prevent registered voters from casting ballots.
The ruling means voters who show up for Indiana’s May 2 primary must produce a driver’s license, passport, or other photo identification issued by the state or federal government.
People who don’t have a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification may get a free ID card from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, press reports said.
And the Indiana Secretary of State says people who are “unable or unwilling” to present photo ID on Election Day may cast a provisional ballot, as long as they follow up with the County Election Board within 13 days — providing either a photo ID at that time or an explanation of why the law’s exemptions apply.
Indiana’s Republican-majority Legislature passed a law requiring photo ID at the polls last year, as part of an effort to reduce voter fraud.

TV Networks Taking FCC to Court on Indecency Rulings

Wednesday, April 19th, 2006

Looks like the TV networks don’t like being told by the FCC that they can’t use the “s-word” and “f-word” on the public airwaves. Time to find the off switch on the TV and to be sure that we let the advertisers on these networks that we did find the off switches.

(AgapePress) – Advocates for family-friendly TV programming are blasting the four major television networks for suing the FCC over recent indecency rulings handed down by the federal agency. The networks say the FCC “overstepped its authority” in making the determinations — but media watchdogs claim the networks merely want the right to indiscriminately broadcast foul language in violation of current law.
On March 15, the Federal Communications Commission levied a heavy fine against CBS for graphic scenes in the program Without a Trace, and upheld its earlier half-million-dollar fine against the same network for the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. (See earlier article) At the same time, it released decisions addressing more than 300,000 citizen complaints regarding indecent, profane, or obscene TV broadcasts by the other networks.
Among that latter group were several programs the FCC found violated its standards for broadcasting indecent language — CBS’s The Early Show, several episodes of ABC’s NYPD Blue, and two music award shows aired by Fox. Included in those broadcasts were the “s-word” and the “f-word.” But because the shows named in the lawsuit aired before the FCC’s 2003 ruling that the f-word on live television was not indecent — a decision it later reversed — the federal agency decided it could not fine television stations for broadcasting the shows.
That appears to be the point of contention in the networks’ lawsuits, which were filed late last week in several federal courts by ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, their affiliate stations, and the Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. chain. “We strongly believe that the FCC rulings issued on March 15 … are unconstitutional and inconsistent with two decades of previous FCC decisions,” the networks say. “In filing these court appeals we are seeking to overturn the FCC decisions that the broadcast of fleeting, isolated — and in some cases unintentional — words rendered these programs indecent.”

‘Neighborhood Bullies’
Several media watchdog groups say they find the networks’ lawsuit ludicrous. “It’s beyond preposterous that the networks would even propose that airing the ‘f-word’ and ‘s-word’ on television is not indecent,” says L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council.
He reminds the broadcasters that the nation’s airwaves belong to the American people, and that the industry has to abide by community standards of decency. Obviously, Bozell points out, the networks seem to have forgotten that.
“The broadcast networks are spitting in the faces of millions of Americans by saying they should be allowed to air [the two expletives] on television,” the PTC leader says. “This suggestion by the networks is utterly shameless.”
Bozell implies, however, that the networks know where the American public stands on the issue. “The networks have taken this fight to a court of law because they know they don’t stand a chance in the court of public opinion,” he states.
The director of government relations for Concerned Women for America has a similar take on what he describes as “frivolous” lawsuits. “This is a bold-faced attempt by the networks to have free reign to say whatever they please,” asserts Lanier Swan. “[And] this action illustrates how out of touch television moguls are with American families.”
Swan says he is convinced that millions of Americans — as evidenced by the complaints filed with the FCC — want to be able to turn on their televisions without having to fear their children will be confronted with foul language and overt sexual conduct. But the networks, he says, “choose to ignore and abuse” those millions of consumers. “We encourage the FCC to continue to hold networks accountable for the programming that violates federal decency regulations — and to enforce tougher indecency fines.”
Another watchdog group, the American Family Association, accuses the networks of playing by the rules only when it is to their benefit. Randy Sharp, AFA’s director of special projects, says the networks are acting like schoolyard bullies by challenging the FCC’s rulings.
“The networks employ a bullying technique by exposing children to the profanity they dish out on a daily basis,” observes Sharp. “But when someone finally stands up to them, they play by the rules.”
The AFA spokesman reminds the broadcasters that the s-word and f-word are “off limits” to users of the public airwaves — and that the networks and their affiliates agreed to those rules when they were issued their licenses. “If the television bullies don’t want to abide by decency rules,” Sharp suggests they “turn in their licenses and go play somewhere else.”
Still, Sharp admits he is not surprised by the networks’ legal challenge — and he says he expects the case to make its way all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, the Washington Post states that the broadcasters have acknowledged privately that this could become the test case they have long awaited to challenge the government’s ability to police the public airwaves.