Archive for October 25th, 2007

Obama Strongly Disagrees With Gospel Singer on Issue of Homosexuality

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

The homosexual communtiy is asking Obama to cut all ties with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. McClurkin has been freed from the sin of homosexuality and believes that others can be delivered from it as well. McClurkin said of homosexuality, “I don’t believe that it is the intention of God.” Obama disagrees with McClurkin.
I find it interesting that Obama has tried so hard to ‘fit in’ with the conservative Christians and he wants their votes, but he is aligning himself with a group whose core beliefs are contrary to those of conservatives. Where I come from we call that trying to ‘have your cake and eat it too’. He is already behind with the Values Voters so he may as well go ahead and pick a side and quit trying to play both ends against the middle.

A conservative black pastor says now that Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s campaign has become desperate, he’s pandering to black churches in the Bible Belt.

Homosexual activists are calling on Obama to cut ties with a Grammy Award-winning singer who says God delivered him from the homosexual lifestyle and can do the same for others. Donnie McClurkin, an ordained minister, is among several gospel singers scheduled to raise money for Obama at a concert in South Carolina this weekend.

McClurkin, who is also a pastor, says of homosexuality, “I don’t believe that it is the intention of God.” But he says the issue is what people do rather than what they are. But in a statement, Senator Obama (D-Illinois) said he “strongly disagrees” with McClurkin’s views and “strongly believe[s] that African Americans and the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community must stand together in the fight for equal rights.”

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., of the High Impact Leadership Coalition says Obama is probably “not really as aware as he should be” that the black gospel industry is riddled with homosexuality.

Original Link

Officials: Major California Wildfire Declared Arson

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

That’s all the poor people affected by this disaster needed to hear. This is so awful.

SAN DIEGO — A major wildfire that has scorched thousands of acres and destroyed hundreds of homes in Southern California has been declared an arson, according to Orange County law enforcement and FBI officials.

A total of $125,000 in reward money – $70,000 from the Orange County Fire Authority and $50,000 from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger – is being offered for information leading to an arrest for those responsible for the Santiago fire in the rugged eastern part of the county.

The FBI has become involved in the investigation because part of the fire was on federal land in National Forest.

Original Link.

Court Rules Social Workers Must Follow Law

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

Too many times social services abuses it’s “power”. There needs to be a reasonable distinction between parental rights (which I believe are being threatened more and more each day) and safety for children in real danger.

A federal court has ruled that social workers have to respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights, and if they don’t they may be held liable.

The ruling comes in an Arizona case in which social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family’s children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family’s home.

U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll ordered that a lawsuit by the family against the social workers and sheriff will be allowed to continue, because the social workers’ concerns were based on “an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs’ home was uninhabitable.”

However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, “without more, does not constitute probable cause.”

The case is being publicized by the Home School Legal Defense Association because of the involvement of the organization’s members, the family of John and Tiffany Loudermilk.

“Social workers and sheriff’s deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children,” the organization said.

“The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks’ children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry… An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks during the confrontation,” the HSLDA report said.

Under duress, the family allowed the social workers and deputies inside, who found nothing wrong, the report said.

But as a result of the search, the family sued the social workers and others citing the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights in the search, and violations of their 14th Amendment rights to privacy and family integrity because of the threats.

The judge, acting on motions submitted by the defendants to escape liability, agreed with the family.

“Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children,” the judge said.

“Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.”

Even the assistant attorney general was cited for exerting “coercive pressure” through threats.

“The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional,” said James Mason, senior counsel for the HSLDA. “We hope that this ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers all over the country.”

“There you have it, [social agencies and workers] cannot threaten parents with court orders or the removal of children because parents assert their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights and refuse to cooperate,” added Thomas Dutkiewicz, of the Connecticut DCF Watch organization.

“Parents do not have to cooperate with DCF whatsoever and DCF employees have to go away when parents deny them access to their home and children,” he said. “DCF workers here in Connecticut are trained and instructed in this unconstitutional practice in order to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure of the home and child. They are to lie and threaten any way they can. All parents who were threatened should file a federal lawsuit against DCF, their workers, their supervisors and the police.”

Original Link.

Amnesty Agenda in Senate ‘Not Working’

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

Even though the American people have told the legislature in no uncertain terms, the dems continue to push for rewards for illegal aliens. It’s good to know that the American are smart enough to realize what he dems are trying to do.

Yesterday the Senate fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes needed to move forward with the DREAM Act, a bill sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) that awards citizenship to children of illegal aliens who claim to have entered the U.S. before age 16. Former INS agent Mike Cutler, a senior fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, says he is relieved the legislation failed.

“Goodness gracious, I mean how many times do the American people have to say no before the politicians get it? If a young lady had to say it that many times to a date, the word no, I think they would accuse the date of attempted date rape. I mean, this is remarkable,” he exclaims.

Cutler contends the 52 senators who wanted to advance the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act are not listening to their constituents. “We made our voices very clear on this. If you look at what happened when they tried passing comprehensive immigration reform — a bill that I came to refer to as the ‘Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act’ — the telephone lines melted,” he says. “Now that should have served clear notice to the members of the United States Senate that the American people did not want this to happen.”

Original Link.

Activist Judges Stymie Local Immigration Enforcement, Critics Charge

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

No great surprise here…

( – The so-called “comprehensive approach” to immigration reform that co-joins stepped-up border security with legal and financial benefits for illegal aliens is untenable, some policy analysts suspect, because federal judges are likely to strike down enforcement measures while leaving “amnesty” provisions intact.

With public opinion heavily weighted against the distribution of social services and government benefits to illegal aliens, the proponents of lax immigration policies have made adept use of the judicial branch to advance their agenda, Steve Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), told Cybercast News Service.

The lobbying effort pushing “comprehensive reform” is in many respects a ruse set up to entice law enforcement advocates with reforms that would ultimately be short circuited, he said. This unsettling reality was demonstrated most recently when a work-site enforcement rule fell prey to U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in California, said Camarota.

A directive from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requiring employers to follow up on Social Security discrepancies was discontinued as a result of the preliminary injunction by the judge. ( )

Camarota views Breyer’s ruling as part of a larger judicial juggernaut that has derailed attempts to rein in illegal immigration on the local, state and federal level.

Citizen activists like Marianne Davies of Pennsylvania are equally mindful of the judiciary’s apparently permissive posture toward illegal immigration.

Although the public strongly supports local ordinances, such as Hazelton, Pa.’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act, well-financed ethnic lobbying groups and legal defense funds still have a leg up thanks to the courts, said Davies. The law inspired similar moves across the country in places like Riverside, N.J., and Farmers Branch, Texas.

Without exception, the ordinances ran into legal obstruction.

In September, U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled against Hazelton, while township officials in Riverside reluctantly concluded they could no longer absorb the legal costs connected with further defense of their own ordinance. The voter-approved ordinance in Dallas was also voided by a federal judge in May.

In the Hazleton decision, the judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution to include rights for illegal aliens, a position that is consistent with thinking of ethnic lobbying groups and legal defense funds, Davies said.

In anticipation of losing out to public opinion, powerful special interests, such as the National Council on La Raza (NCLR), have successfully interjected themselves into the judicial confirmation process where they lobby for activist judges, she added.

Original Link.

Hamas Would Take Over Divided Jerusalem, Netanyahu Warns

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

Any territory given to the pali terrorist will be used as a staging ground for their terrorist activities.

Jerusalem ( – Israeli opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu — a past and maybe future prime minister — pledged that he would never divide Jerusalem. He also warned that the consequences of such a move would put Islamic radicals on the doorstep of Jewish neighborhoods.

“Jerusalem has been the pulsating heart of the Jewish people. Now there are those who come and say, let’s divide this heart,” Netanyahu said on Tuesday. “The prime minister wants to come and divide this city. If we leave any part of Jerusalem, militant Islam walks in. That is the reality of the Middle East.”

Original Link.