Archive for July 12th, 2007

Planned Parenthood ‘Education’ Shut Down

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

And yet another nail in the coffin of abortion on demand…

Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt has signed a bill into law that prevents abortion providers from teaching sex education in schools and makes a state Alternatives to Abortion Services Program permanent.

“All life is precious and needs to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect,” the Republican governor said in a press release. “I commend Rep. Therese Sander and Sen. Delbert Scott on their work to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society. I will continue working with the Missouri General Assembly to pass strong pro-life legislation that respects the sanctity and dignity of all human life.”

Blunt said House Bill 1055 is “one of the strongest pieces of pro-life legislation in Missouri history” as he spoke during a signing ceremony at Concord Baptist Church. The legislation prohibits school districts and charter schools from providing abortion services or allowing abortion providers from offering, sponsoring or furnishing course materials related to human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases.

Missouri Right to Life, the pro-life group backing the measure, told WND that abortion providers like Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to supply sex education materials to schools. President Pam Fichter said the organization is pleased to see HB 1055 signed into law.

“This legislation is going to protect women, save lives and also protect our school children,” she told WND. “It is going to keep out of the classroom those who have a conflict of interest because this disallows those who are abortion providers from teaching sex ed. You wouldn’t ask tobacco companies to come to schools and teach about smoking cessation, so why would you ask abortion providers to teach sex education?”

Blunt echoed her concern, claiming materials provided by Planned Parenthood constitute a “significant source of revenue” for the organization. However, Planned Parenthood claims to provide sex education materials to schools at no cost. It also says staff members who teach sex education in 41 Missouri schools are told not to discuss abortions.

In addition to preventing abortion clinics from providing sex education in schools, the new bill permanently establishes the Missouri Alternatives to Abortion Services Program to provide services or counseling to pregnant women and assistance to mothers in caring for their children or placing them up for adoption. Counseling and services are available to women during pregnancy and for one year after the birth of the child.

Missouri law requires departments administering the program to develop an advertising campaign publicizing alternatives to abortion and to prioritize federal, public and private money for such programs first. Funds will not be used to perform, induce or assist in abortions.

The legislation has Planned Parenthood personnel concerned that new surgical standards could cause clinic closures. HB 1055 places a large number of abortion facilities under government oversight, classifying them as ambulatory surgical centers. According to Associated Press reports, Planned Parenthood has said the law could force it to spend up to $2 million to remodel one of its clinics and halt medical abortions at another.

Paula Gianino, president of Planned Parenthood for the St. Louis region, estimated the new standards under HB 1055 could leave only one abortion facility in the state. However, Fichter expressed little apprehension for Planned Parenthood’s financial hardships.

“Well that certainly wouldn’t cause us any concern,” Fichter told WND. “This requirement is a common sense medical safeguard requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the same regulations as other clinics that perform surgery. So, this is just setting some common sense standards for abortion clinics. If they have problems adhering to that, you have to ask why they aren’t currently maintaining those types of standards.”

The AP reported a similar reaction from Gov. Blunt regarding hardships for abortion clinics: “I say if they can’t meet the same basic requirements that other (medical) providers do, then they should shut down.”

Original Link.

“Rome Revived” by Michael G. Mickey

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

Here are some excerpts from Mike Mickey’s post “Rome Revived”. Be sure to read the whole thing.

A Times Online article entitled “Call for vote on ‘Europe empire’” opens as follows (emphasis added mine):

Britain was told yesterday that it was part of a new European empire — by the Brussels bureaucrat who would be emperor. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, said that all 27 EU members should be proud of their unique union. “At least we in the Commission are proud of it.”

President of the EU Commission José Manuel Barroso is quoted in the article as saying the following of the ever-rising empire that is the European Union:

“We are not the United States of Europe — we are unique in the history of mankind! Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of empire but there is a difference. Empires were made with force with a centre imposing diktat.

“Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire. We have 27 countries that fully decided to work together and to pool their sovereignty. I believe it is a great construction and we should be proud of it.”

In Daniel 7:19, Daniel records that the final empire that will rule the world will be diverse from all the others.

Echoing that, Daniel 7:23 tells us the final empire to rule the world prior to Christ’s return “shall be diverse from all kingdoms” yet it will devour the whole earth, tread it down, and break it in pieces!

Isn’t it interesting, in light of Daniel’s choice of words, that we see José Manuel Barroso referring to the European Union as the first non-imperial empire? That’s what makes it different from all the others from his perspective – and perhaps there is far more to that than meets the eye.

———-

God revealed to Daniel, through Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, there would be five empires that would rule the earth from his kingdom forward in time. These are represented by the different parts of the image Nebuchadnezzar saw as follows:

1. The head of gold – The Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar.
2. The breast and arms of silver – Medo-Persian Empire.
3. The belly and thighs of bronze – Greek Empire.
4. The legs of iron – Roman Empire. This is the kingdom Daniel said would be divided into two parts. The first Roman Empire is represented by the legs of iron. The second part of this kingdom, the revived Roman Empire, is represented by the feet and toes made part of iron and part of clay.
5. The stone which destroyed all the other kingdoms – the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ.

As prophesied by Daniel, the kingdom of Christ will come when the revived Roman Empire is present in the world.
Well guess what? The dream God gave the prophet Daniel is certain, the interpretation made of the dream is sure, and the revived Roman empire is HERE!

All that combined can can only mean one thing! Jesus Christ is coming soon!

Original Link.

“Equality and Tolerance For Some” by Jack Kinsella

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

A conservative Arizona legislator introduced a bill that would forbid teachers in public schools from advocating for one side of any social or political issue. Not surprisingly, teacher’s unions, liberals, and even many conservatives oppose the measure, claiming it infringes on free speech.Just to make sure that teachers know which side of the question they should come down on, a website called Edutopia posted the following carefully loaded poll question: “Should there be limits on teacher’s freedom of speech?”

I call it ‘carefully loaded’ because the question presumes it is an issue of freedom of speech. Now check out the choices for answers:

“Yes. Educators have the power to influence their students. To promote neutrality and equity in the classroom, it’s important for educators to keep strong political, religious, or otherwise controversial opinions to themselves.”

Or, “No. The First Amendment should be applied to all equally. The stating of controversial opinion — as long as it is presented as opinion — is a good lesson for students in democracy, critical thinking, and tolerance.”

Not surprisingly, the “yes” question garnered 35%, while the “no” question got 53%.

Look at the way the two answers are framed — it is an object lesson on how to manipulate the public to say exactly what you want them to say. (The poll questions are aimed at teachers.)

The “Yes” answer invokes the words “strong” and “religious”. If you are one of those who agrees that Bible-based religious studies should be banned from the classroom, then you will pass this one by on that criteria alone.

Now, look at the “No” answer. This one is masterfully constructed. It invokes “equality”, “democracy”, “critical thinking” and, most especially, “tolerance.” Anyone who would pass this one by in favor of the “yes” answer must wrestle with whether or not he or she opposes these noble sounding principles.

The construction of the questions and the choices for answers argue strongly in favor of Arizona Senate Bill 1542’s passage all by themselves. A careful examination of the wording leaves little doubt of the opinion of the poll’s author.

Broken down into its semantic concepts, we find the following choices:

Are you in favor of fundamentalist teachers imposing their religious views on impressionable young minds?

Or are you in favor of teaching children the principles of democracy, critical thinking and tolerance?

Never mind the fact that the very question negates the principle of tolerance.

———-

Consider this: The code of ethics for the free press forbids reporters who are supposed to be reporting the facts from imposing their own opinions, so that the public, armed with naked facts, can make up its own mind on a question.

That ethic is designed to prevent the free press from being used as an instrument of government propaganda.

Journalistic ethics are not a barrier to free speech; they are designed to ensure it.

Pastors, Christian teachers, churches and any other religious group (except Islamic or humanist groups) that receive a 501(c)(3) charitable tax exemption are forbidden from injecting their opinions on political or social issues into their sermons, policies or publications. Not to children. But to anybody, of any age group.

When we are talking about education, we are talking about young, impressionable minds. These young minds are blank slates upon which teachers can imprint ideas that will shape the worldview of the next generation.

When the ‘free speechers’ complain about legislative restrictions on opinions, it is a totally one-sided argument.

They oppose restrictions on liberal opinions, but are completely comfortable with restrictions on conservative or Christian opinions.

Teachers have been fired for wearing a cross on a chain around their necks, possessing Bibles in the classroom, or teaching the historical relationship between the Ten Commandments and English Common Law.

Conversely, guys like Ward Churchill can spew venomous, anti-American, and anti-Christian propaganda without fear of censure. Churchill told his students that the victims of 9/11 were “little Eichmanns” who deserved to be killed and could not be fired because of his ‘right’ to ‘free speech.’

The only way the school could even consider his removal is on the grounds that he faked his academic credentials and plagiarized his research papers, and even then, he still has his tenure.

Read the rest here.

Jews Facing “Gathering Storm,” Canadian MP Tells Israel Audience

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

Continue to pray for God’s Chosen people, the Jews and their nation, Israel.

Jews are facing a “gathering storm” with multiple threats from Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Hamas and international terrorism unmatched since the 1930s, former justice minister Irwin Cotler told a Jerusalem conference on Tuesday.

Speaking on the opening day of the Conference on the Future of the Jewish People, Cotler warned that “radical Islam threatens international peace, security and human rights” and moderate Muslims as well as Jews, amounting to an environment Israel hasn’t seen since the rise of Nazi Germany.

Cotler expressed concerns about a dangerous Mideast threat environment combining Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran with the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections and emergence of the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon “as a state within a state,” he said in his keynote speech entitled The Gathering Storm.

While many of these developments are at least a year old the events “have not only intensified but congealed, constituting now what may be called a gathering storm.” He noted that when Hamas took over the Gaza strip and refugee camps in Lebanon that both erupted in violence due to the infiltration of islamic militants.

“Since last year Iran not only continues to incite a Mideast Holocaust but now also denies that the European one occurred,” he said. “There’s been a quantum leap forward in Iran acquiring lethal atomic capabilities and increased state support for international and Mideast terrorism.”

Cotler also criticized the United Nations Human Rights Council for passing many resolutions against Israel while letting offending countries off the hook, constituting “a country-specific indictment.”

But Israel can count on geopolitics and allies it didn’t have in the 1930s, he stressed.

“It is not 1938. There is a Jewish state as an antidote to Jewish vulnerability,” he said. “There are non-Jews prepared to join together in common cause with the Jewish people and Israel’s not alone.” It can count on allies such as Canada and the U.S. as well as developing relations with emerging powers such as China and India.

“I do believe there is a gathering storm, but there is no inevitability about the negatives,” said the Liberal MP and Opposition Critic for Human Rights.

Original Link.

Anti-American “Art” At Tax-Funded Portland Airport

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

Anti-American Art

What an artist spews is his/her business, but this is inappropriate for display in the Portland airport. A public art gallery, maybe, but not the airport.
I agree with Michelle Malkin…

Radio talk show host Lars Larson wants to know if you think it’s appropriate to display this anti-American “art” at the tax-funded Portland Airport:

Christian-bashing? Check.

Anti-gun message? Check.

Anti-war zealotry? Check.

Anti-capitalism symbolism? Check.

American flag mockery? Check.

I agree with Lars: This should not hang in a public space.

Michael Moore’s living room? Nancy Pelosi’s beach house? Fine.

But in a publicly-subsidized airport? No. What’s next: A display of the soldier burnt in effigy in Portland earlier this spring? Or how about the flag that was defecated upon by a Portland peacenik at the anti-war rally?

Contact the Portland airport authorities here.

Original Link.