Values Voter News

CNN Reports more on Tiller



AP reports



Testimony of lady who had an abortion at Tiller's clinic



Apparently, the shooter was a fringe character. Do some follow up checking on this but found this information concerning him at ADL.org: "July 7, Kansas: Scott Roeder is sentenced to sixteen months in state prison for parole violations following a 1996 conviction for having bomb components in his car trunk. Roeder, a sovereign citizen and tax protester, violated his parole by not filing tax returns or providing his social security number to his employer."

Relatives of suspected shooter identified him as Scott Roeder.

"Relatives identified him as Scott Roeder. Roeder's uncle, Clarence Roeder, issued a statement Sunday evening.

"This is a tragedy for the Tiller family and we feel so badly about that, that Scott would murder the doctor in the Lutheran church. We are also Lutherans, and that adds a double touch of sadness and irony."

Family members told KMBC's Jim Flink that Scott Roeder had been in and out of trouble in the 1990s, and they had not seen him since 2000, when his father died.

President Obama released this statement: ""I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," Obama said."

Phil Kline, an abortion opponent who investigated Tiller and a former Kansas Attorney General said, "I am stunned by this lawless and violent act, which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law," Kline said in a written statement. "We join in lifting prayer that God's grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller's family and friends."

Operation Rescue who is a pro-life group very aware of Tiller's abortion business and has exposed it for years issued this statement:

"We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down," Newman said. "Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ."


The New York Times reports:

"The killing of Dr. Tiller is likely to return the issue of abortion to center stage in the nation’s political debate. Until recently, President Obama, who supports abortion rights, had largely sought to avoid the debate. Last month, he confronted the issue in a commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame, an appearance that drew protests because of his views....Some described Dr. Tiller as one of about only three doctors in the country who had, under certain circumstances, provided abortions to women in their third trimester of pregnancy, and said his death would mean that women, particularly in the central United States, would have few if any options in such cases."

Related: Pro-choice atheist columnist at the Denver Post makes excellent point and argument for the most innocent of our society.
Gallup poll confirms findings in Pew survey. Americans and American women for the first time ever indentify themselves as prolife.

JillStanek.com posted a weekend question for its readers to make comments. A must read through comments section.

Here is the question:

"If you are a convert to the pro-life position, what prompted your change of heart?

And if you were once pro-life and are now "pro-choice," same question."

Here are two for sample from the pro-choice to pro-life and then one below of supporter of pro-choice with some comments from Values Voter News in response:

Pro-life to Pro-Choice

"I had a 2 lb preemie in 1995 and some of my pro-choice (also post-abortive) friends would come to visit at the hospital but they never came a second time.When they came and saw my beautiful but tiny son in the incubator, they just got choked up and cried. I knew why they cried. They saw this was a baby, not a blob of tissue. Anyone who can go into a NICU and still be unquestionably pro-choice must have a hardened heart. These are tiny human beings. You cannot deny their humanity.
For myself, after having 5 miscarriages between 12 and 16 weeks and seeing my little tiny babies in my hand, there could be no doubts for myself. I know they were my sons even at 12 weeks.
I will always regret my abortion I had at 21 years old. I believe my premature birth and the miscarriages were a result of my abortion. It damages you. It is not a safe and simple procedure. There is not one day that I do not think of my daughter that I lost. She would be 27 now and I mourn my potential grandchildren.
Abortion is killing a weaker smaller person and it goes against the very nature of a woman. No other animal in the animal kingdom kills its young. We were meant to give birth and nurture. Abortion traumatizes our very innate self."

"Here is another story. When my teen daughter was pregnant she choose life. A friend of hers who was a cheerleader got pregnant but even after going to counseling at a prc decided that cheerleading was more important to her and she would have to give up cheerleading if she continued the pregnancy. She chose to abort. Fast forward about five years. My daughter is taking her son to the mall to buy new shoes for kindergarten. Her old friend is working there and waits on her. As she measures the feet of the five year old she looks up with tears in her eys and says....for a season of cheerleading I killed my own child! How sad."



Pro-Choicer

"PLA. Based on several years of reading Harsanyi's column, I think he is sincere in his libertarian beliefs and will not "get over them". He believes in minimal intrusion of government in the lives of its citizens.

You, on the other hand, apparently love to "tell others what to do" and believe the government should force others to conform to your beliefs, because you are right, and better than everyone who does not share those beliefs."

Values Voter News responds to Pro-Choicer bit

The government is right now allowing women to enforce their own beliefs on another innocent unborn child/human being. The problem with this argument is that once you have determined a life to be a life even before it is born then this argument fails miserably and is the very reason why pro-lifers easily reject it. This argument only works if an unborn child is not a human being. If the unborn child is human and we still are going to justify this argument then you might as well do away with any laws on murder whatsoever cause the government has no right to enforce the views of law abiding citizens over those of terrorist.

For those who have come to conclude that this is a sin and have committed this sin or been involved in it in anyway there is hope for forgiveness rooted in atonement and justice in the One who has shed His own innocent blood for the sake of those who have shed innocent blood. See Testimony of Roe of Roe vs Wade. No other god came to earth to conquer such guilty consciences like Jesus. Jesus laid down His life for His message in the most providentially memorable act of sacrifice ever by any god at all. Even 2000 years later statements are made of this Jesus like those of Bono of U2 at Bono of U2, "I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity" where he said in an interview: "The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me that's farfetched"

Napoleon also said this, "Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ" after he said, "In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is accountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. " and this all after he said, "I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him.... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man.... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me.... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts.... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful!"

Some may dispute these to be the words of Napoleon but if so whoever did pen them penned some interesting observations. Christ is worthy of our love and faith like no other god is. We may not understand it all like we don't understand it all about most things but like most things it doesn't mean they don't exist and are not worthy of recognition.

Related: Google, evolutionists and Big Media introduces the "missing link" to the masses but is there another possible explanation?

AnswersinGenesis.org reports on The Times report of how much was paid for Ida the "missing link" fossil on their weekly News to Note page.

"The paleontologist who brought Ida to the media spotlight dropped a cool $750,000 (£465,000) to get his hands on it.

Even for those who only pay casual attention to the news, it was hard to miss the unveiling (literally) of “Ida” last week, the well-preserved fossil hailed as a “missing link” in human evolution by the small group of researchers who presented it. (We answered the claims in a full article, Ida: the Missing Link at Last?)

But, as the Times reports, those researchers were summarily “subjected to professional condemnation” over discrepancies between the peer-reviewed scientific analysis and the sensationalized media presentation (we covered the condemnation as well, in Ida: the Real Story of this “Scientific Breakthrough”).

The lead scientist on Ida has now revealed he paid a whopping three-quarters of a million dollars to obtain the fossil. Jørn Hurum purchased the fossil from an amateur collector whose original asking price was $1 million (as had previously been reported). The fossil itself was discovered in 1983.

The revelation fueled further debate over the media circus surrounding Ida, which many scientists have argued was not in line with scientific professionalism (again, see Ida: the Real Story of this “Scientific Breakthrough”). Hurum defended himself by telling the Times:

It’s the only near-complete fossil primate ever found. There is absolutely nothing like it. She could easily have been bought by a private collector and disappeared for another 20 years.

Other scientists argue that Hurum fueled an inappropriate “black market” in fossils. “Nobody should stimulate the idea that these things are of monetary value,” said Duke University paleontologist Elwyn Simons.

Chris Beard, Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator and already an outspoken critic of the handling of Ida, added, “The big problem is that we have to go to the Third World and convince our colleagues there that these fossils have only scientific worth and not commercial value.” According to the Times, Beard believes that “further examination of the fossil will eventually lead to it being placed on the lemur line.”

But Hurum likens the big-ticket purchase of Ida to the way art museums obtain masterpieces. Hurum also told the Times that neither he nor the museum will receive significant income from the media hubbub surrounding Ida, quieting suggestions that Hurum’s risky purchase demanded a large return—and consequently the sensationalism.

Our primary interest in the fossil is not how it was financially handled by the researchers and the media—or, at least, not directly—but rather the exaggerated claims made by the Ida researchers. Nonetheless, it seems at every turn that the disagreement over Ida is growing.

Celebrating 25 years with a 95% success rate.

The program has been featured in People Magazine, World Magazine, Christian Reader, Wall Street Journal, and seen on CBS This Morning, ABC World News Tonight, CNN Parenting Today, NBC Making A Difference and on CBN's The 700 Club. Voice America Positive Living.



CBNNews.com has a more recent and excellent 5 minute video report found here.

"For the last 25 years, more than 800 boys have dropped anchor and found peace on the shores of the Saint James River in Jacksonville, Fla. This is where they found the Safe Harbor Boys Home.

Tyler, who is now 18, arrived at the home 15 months ago. He had spent years on a path of crime, drugs, and bad behavior.

"I look at it in two ways," he told CBN News. "I'd either be dead or I'd be in jail. One of the two guaranteed."

These days, Tyler dreams of becoming a chef and owning his own restaurants. Like so many of his Safe Harbor peers, the home is where Tyler found hope and the chance to sail away his troubled home.

Click here for more on Safe Harbor Boy's Home.

"When you get here you kind of resent it," he said, remembering his first few weeks at Safe Harbor. "You have never been in such a structured environment; and the rules, wake up times. When you eat and what you eat."

"It's definitely one of those once in a lifetime experiences where you do it, and you are going to look back on it the rest of your life," said Will, another young man who has been at Safe Harbor a little more than year.

Will spent months skipping school before he found the home. He hated high school, but these days he dreams of being a mechanic and going to college.

The Key to a Structured Experience

Water is at the center of each of the boy's new structured experience. Executive Director Robbie Smith is one of the captains steering the successful ship. By her side is her husband Doug, who is the program pirector. This is their life's work, but neither takes a salary.

"Faith is what keeps us buoyed up," Smith told CBN News. "And it is what keeps us afloat and keep us going and moving forward because we know there is a purpose behind what we are doing. And we know there is a purpose for our life."

Neither of the Smiths planned to open a boys home in 1984. Fast forward 25 years, and the story of how it began is the focus of an original Hallmark Channel movie. "Safe Harbor" premieres on the cable network Saturday, May 30. Check local listings.

The film begins with the pair preparing to sail the country on their yacht after selling Doug's successful business and retiring early. Before they can begin their adventure, a friend who Robbie knew from her career as child therapist, asks them to look after two teenage boys in trouble.

"These couple of boys come into our lives, which subsequently changes the whole direction of our life," Smith said. "But we really feel like at that point that is when we start to work in God's plan. Not that we knew it because if we knew it, we might have sabotaged it."

95 Percent Success Rate

Safe Harbor has a 95 percent success rate. In the last 25 years, the residential high school program has grown to include lessons in welding and nautical upholstery. Between their studies, the boys learn to build hydroplane racing boats and learn to prepare all the meals at the home. Safe Harbor can accommodate 15 boys at a time. There are 12 in the program now. Each boy lives aboard his very own boat and is fully responsible for all the upkeep.

"The boat is donated," Doug explained, who can see himself in each of the boys he serves. "They fix the boat and as they fix the boat they learn a skill. And as they learn a skill, they discover they can do anything they put their mind to."

This totals 98 first amendment case victories since 06/2008 see trail by starting at:Church can put sign up on church property as City scraps sign ordinance after attorneys got involved.

Michigan

Atheists rebuffed in Detroit: ADF attorneys secure victory for inner-city church

Church represented by ADF attorneys to receive complete reimbursement for requested property improvements

DETROIT — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled Thursday in favor of an inner-city church that had been denied reimbursement for property improvements requested by the city of Detroit because of a lawsuit that was filed by American Atheists. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund had appealed an earlier decision by a federal district court that had allowed for most of the money promised to be reimbursed, but not the entire amount.

“Churches shouldn’t be penalized simply because groups that don’t like their beliefs choose to ignore the Constitution,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “The church was simply responding to the city’s plan for property improvements before the Super Bowl to present a positive image of the city. The reimbursement promised to the church was for non-religious purposes and did not violate the First Amendment.”

In its opinion, the court wrote, “That the program includes, rather than excludes, several churches among its many other recipients helps ‘ensure neutrality, not threaten it’. . . . No reasonable, reasonably informed observer, moreover, would infer from the churches’ participation in this program, alongside and on equal terms with dozens of secular entities, that the agency endorsed or approved of the churches’ religious views. . . .Excluding the churches from taking part in the program, by contrast, would send a far stronger message—a message not of endorsement but of disapproval.”

The city of Detroit entered into a contract with St. John’s Episcopal Church to improve its exterior appearance to enhance the city’s image prior to the 2006 Super Bowl and to spur economic development in the area. American Atheists filed suit on behalf of itself and residents claiming the reimbursement violated the First Amendment. Americans United for Separation of Church and State also filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the church be denied reimbursement.

As a result of the suit, the city withheld the money owed to the church, which had already secured a loan and completed the improvements. In August 2008, a federal district court ruled that the church should receive most of the money promised by the city, but not the entire reimbursement. ADF attorneys appealed that decision to the 6th Circuit to secure the entire reimbursement for the church.

• Opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in American Atheists Inc. v. City of Detroit"
  

Louisiana

Federal court: La. town violated Christian man’s free speech rights

Court rules city of Zachary’s use of ordinance against ‘annoying’ speech
violated the Constitution

BATON ROUGE, La. — A federal court Wednesday ruled in favor of a Christian man threatened with arrest for sharing a religious message outside a restaurant with a bar in the town of Zachary. The court ruled that the city’s use of an ordinance banning “annoying” and “offensive” speech violated the First Amendment rights of John Todd Netherland, represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys.

“Christians shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. “The court correctly ruled that the city did not have constitutional justification to completely silence Mr. Netherland’s speech just because someone thought it was ‘annoying.’ The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was designed to prevent exactly that sort of muzzling by government officials.”

According to the court’s ruling, “There was no adequate justification for the City’s actions when its officers sought to silence Mr. Netherland’s religious pronouncements. Speech cannot be restricted simply because it causes serious offense to others. Thus, even if Mr. Netherland’s speech was highly offensive to some people, it is protected in a traditional public forum. The government ‘may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.’”

In November 2006, John Todd Netherland stood approximately 75 to 100 feet away from the entrance of a Baton Rouge bar on a public easement to speak about his Christian faith. Even though Netherland was on public property, a police officer ordered him to stand on the far side of the easement or face jail and arrest.

After complying, the officer told Netherland that if he continued preaching–even at the prescribed distance–he would be arrested for “disturbing the peace.” The city ordinance to which the officer referred prohibits speech that is “annoying” or “offensive” to other people.

The court had already issued a preliminary injunction against the ordinance, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sent the case back to the district court asking it to first rule on the ordinance as applied to Netherland before ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance itself.

• Summary judgment ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in Netherland v. City of Zachary"

Continued study from: New Testament words and passages that deal with eschatological timing.

In the post at New Testament words and passages that deal with eschatological timing. Quick Bible Commentary. was posted many verses dealing with timing of eschatological events in the New Testament.

Here are some verses that Christ deals with concerning the kingdom of God from Luke concerning when and timing.

Luke 19:11-28 "And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. (note contrast between "immediately" and "at the doors", "is near", "at hand", "nigh", "is come" and "shortly" at New Testament words and passages that deal with eschatological timing.)

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem." (A note of interest. Luke said "And as they heard these things, he added". Jesus in Luke 17:1-10 was just talking about "Zacchaeus, which was the chief among publicans" and Jesus calls Zacchaeus to let him stay at his house and Zacchaeus joyfully receives him. And it then says, "when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, that he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner." Then Zacchaeus says he will give to the poor and Jesus says "This day is salvation come to this house, for so much as he also is a son of Abraham" and Jesus concludes "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." And then Luke 17:10 "And as they (the very same people who murmured against Christ) heard these things, he added...". And then Christ goes on talking about a nobleman going away to receive a kingdom and his own citizens hating him to which he concludes about them as "enemies" and they are to be slayed. I couldn't help but to think of John 1:11,12 "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" and also in Luke 13:28,29 and Matthew 21:31-46, etc etc etc. Notice also that the returning here and in Matthew are all about the kingdom of God and a judgement of the people he came to namely unbelieving Jerusalem. So when it comes to the timing of the kingdom of God it so far appears to be at least in part about the gentiles being received into this kingdom and then a judgement on unbelieving Jerusalem.)

Luke 17:20-37 "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. (See above in Luke 19:11-28 "...because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear)

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together."

Advertisement: The next time you head to Mexico get Mexican Vehicle Insurance from a Pro-life, faith and family owned agency. Click image below for more information.

Republican Weekly Address



President Obama Weekly Address





CitizenLink weekly update

LifeNews.com reports that Governor Schwarzenegger tax payer funded state budget proposes to cut $36 million from Planned Parenthood.

This is big considering the size of California.

President of Planned Parenthood said this will jeopardize their ability to provide essential health care. To which some may respond "if you really care then provide it without abortion. Look at the picture to the left. What about their essential care?"

"Unfortunately, there has been an attempt to distort the facts about the impact these budget cuts will have and how funds are being used. Let me be clear: family planning money does not fund abortions," she claimed.

While Richards claims the family planning money will go to help women with primary medical care, Planned Parenthood's own numbers show most pregnant women who go to its centers get abortions."

"...Planned Parenthood also says it helped just under 11,000 women in 2007 with prenatal care and pregnancy help services.

Yet, prenatal care and adoption referrals resulted for only 5 percent of the total services provided to women in 2007 while abortions accounted for 95 percent of the services that year, according to Planned Parenthood's own figures.

The report also shows more government funding for Planned Parenthood equals more abortions."

One thing that gets missed in this debate is the sex. What specific sex act are individuals seeking to engage in? Imagine a sex ed class having to explain how to have proper homosexual sex. And for parents, what type of sexual activity should our children be encouraged to engage in when they become married and why? Do you really want society and public schools teaching your children that this specific type of sexuality is safe, natural and normal? I know Big Media has done loads to normalize homosexuality but the actual act of sex is far from biologically normal, natural nor safe.



Townhall.com reports that opposition to same sex marriage is on the rise.

"A Gallup poll of 1,015 adults released Wednesday (May 27) shows that Americans oppose legalizing "gay marriage" by a margin of 57-40 percent, the highest opposition has been in the poll since 2005, when a similar survey showed a margin of 59-37 percent against "gay marriage." The poll was conducted May 7-10 via landline and cell phones.

Last year, the Gallup poll showed 56 percent opposing "gay marriage," 40 percent supporting it. In 2007, it was 53-46 percent in opposition.

Additionally, this year's Gallup poll showed that 48 percent of Americans believe "that allowing two people of the same sex to marry will change our society for" the worse. Thirty-six percent say it would have no effect and 13 percent say it will change society for the better.

"While Americans have become increasingly likely to believe that the law should not discriminate against gay individuals and gay couples, the public still seems reluctant at this point to extend those protections to the institution of marriage," Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones wrote in an online analysis. "Public support for gay marriage appears to have stalled in the last two years, even as the gay marriage movement has scored a number of legal and legislative victories at the state level in the past year."

The poll was released one day after the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, a citizen-enacted constitutional amendment that bans "gay marriage." Prop 8 passed 52-48 percent, but a new poll shows that support for the amendment may be increasing. A SurveyUSA poll of 600 adults conducted Tuesday for four California TV stations shows that Californians oppose "gay marriage" by a margin of 53-45 percent. Additionally, they back the court's decision, 56-40 percent.....

The Gallup survey comes on the heels of a Quinnipiac survey of 2,041 registered voters nationwide in April that showed 55 percent would "oppose a law in your state that would allow same-sex couples to get married." Thirty-eight percent would support such a law.

The Gallup survey asked: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

The SurveyUSA questions asked: "Do you think same-sex couples should or should not be allowed to marry in California?" and "California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage. Do you agree or disagree with the court's ruling upholding Proposition 8?"

For more on this debate see videos and ample links below of recent events proving that same sex marriage will effect society in more ways then many think.




Related: Parents rights under attack in Canadian schools. If you don't think the gay marriage/rights debate has anything to with parental rights think again.
Schools in Alameda, CA to re-educate "homophobic" kindergartners...
Same Sex Marriage will effect education.
More than 20 parents file suit against a California school district concerning a lesbian minister who was invited to school to speak about wedding...
If you don't think the gay marriage debate will effect education look no further then California, the NEA and then head out to the UK
If you don't think same-sex marriage will effect public school education a lesson can be learned in same-sex marriage state of Massachusettes...
People who oppose same-sex adoption are "retarded homophobes", , according to advice published by a Government-funded adoption charity.
Grandparents denied visitation rights because of anti-gay stance in Scotland and Chile student's are taught that Christianity is discriminatory....

JillStanek.com reports on Denver Post atheist columnist who is rethinking his pro-choice position publicly.

He makes an excellent point in his column on 05/27/2009.

"After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life.?

So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?

You may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.

But it's difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.

The more I thought about it, the creepier the issue got...."

Now Jill Stanek responds to a portion of Harsanyi's comments.

"Now, I happen to believe... that the right to life and liberty is the foundation of a moral society. Then again, I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions."

Jill Responds.

"There is no law that has not been broken. But we do not stop making them. It would appear that laws against child porn have done little to mitigate child porn, but we do not abandon the law and forsake the children.

At any rate, I think your premise is faulty. Laws restricting abortion have indeed mitigated it - from parental notice before a minor aborts to 24-hour waiting periods before abortions. It stands to reason that making abortion illegal will lower the number of abortions."

This video was highlighted when a ballot initiative attempt was being campaigned in Colorado this last election cycle which makes a similar point.

The Scarecrow from Personhood USA on Vimeo.

Related: Testimony of Roe of Roe vs Wade

LifeSiteNews.com reports that the African country of Togo is set to ban the death penalty but legalizes abortion under international pressure form the UN.

"By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

ROME, May 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Kokou Biossey Koné, Togo's Justice Minister, announced at the Fourth International Congress of Justice Ministers in Rome that Togo will soon be the latest African country to abolish the death penalty.

The congress, titled "From the Moratorium to the Abolition of Capital Punishment: No Justice Without Life," was a meeting sponsored by the Community of Sant'Egidio in Rome of more than 35 ministers, government officials and policy advisers from 25 countries.

Togo established a moratorium on the death penalty 30 years ago, but only last year tabled a bill to abolish capital punishment. The legislation is set to pass this week.

However, in 2007, Togo gave in to pressure from the United Nations to expand its previously limited access to abortion with legislation that allows abortion in cases of rape or incest, or when the unborn child can be verified to have a "strong risk" of a "particularly serious medical condition."

As in most African countries, abortion was previously illegal in Togo except when necessary to save the life of the mother.

Marco Impagliazzo, president of the Community of Sant'Egidio, said that Togo's abolition of the death penalty represents a "new moral level."

Read related LSN coverage:

African Nation of Togo Succumbs to UN Pressure and Expands Abortion Access
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07010207.html"

United Nations Steps up Pressure on Northern Ireland to Permit More Abortion

By John-Henry Westen

BELFAST, May 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A second United Nations (UN) committee has insisted that Northern Ireland permit abortion in cases beyond the life-of-the-mother exception under which some 70-80 abortions currently take place annually. In meetings that ended last week, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights called for Britain's liberal abortion law to be extended to Northern Ireland.

This marks the second time in under a year in which the UN has insisted that Northern Ireland reject legal protection for the right to life. Last July, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) similarly called on Northern Ireland to allow more abortion.

At the most recent meeting, which took place in Geneva, the UN committee said in its report: "The Committee calls upon the State party to amend the abortion law of Northern Ireland to bring it in line with the 1967 Abortion Act with a view to preventing clandestine and unsafe abortions in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormality."

The UK pro-life group, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), has criticized the UN committee for its abortion advocacy, which flies in the face of long-established UN principles. Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland said: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family, including children before birth. It is disturbing, therefore, to see how far the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has departed from the UN's founding principles.”

Northern Ireland pro-life leaders and politicians say they resent the interference of the UN and the British government into the highly sensitive topic of abortion. As recently as May 2008, the leaders of all four main political parties in Northern Ireland wrote to the government at Westminster objecting to plans to impose legalized abortion on the country.

The UN pressure has been insistent, however, over the objections of Northern Ireland’s government representatives.

When the 2007CEDAW committee queried about changing the abortion legislation, the Irish representative responded that abortion was a matter of criminal law and that no change in legislation could occur in Northern Ireland without consent from all parties. A CEDAW committee member fired back that the government was not adequately addressing the abortion issue and that not taking action on the matter is "incompatible with obligations under the CEDAW convention."

SPUC has called on those supporting the right to life to tell the UN to stop promoting abortion. “UN committees must be told to stop promoting abortion,” said Gibson. “It is time for pro-life politicians everywhere to call on the UN to return to its founding principles and protect the human rights of all members of the human family from the first moments of life until its natural end."

To contact the UN:

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

"

LifeNews.com reports that the UN claims Nicaragua's Pro-life Laws on abortion violate torture treaty.

"...This is the first time this committee has reviewed Nicaragua since that government outlawed abortion for any reason three years ago.

The torture committee is the fourth UN committee to pressure Nicaragua with respect to its laws protecting unborn life, joining the committees charged with monitoring the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...."

Other testimonies





Here is Obama's testimony and another Illinois democrat





Other Testimonies continued







Some further criticism on universal health care

Wisconsin Right to Life released its final ad to residents of the Madison, Wisconsin area.

This has been an excellent campaign. To see other ads and for context to what prompted the ads in the first place see:

Wisconsin Hospital under the Providential gun. Pro-life ads to appear in State Journal and are under lawsuit for denying care to disabled who dies.

Pro-lifers lost a battle over late term abortions at a University of Wisconsin Hospital but 147 emails later show they are winning and may win.

Related: Oklahoma and Texas deciding to fund Adult Stem Cell Research instead of Embryonic.

Found this transcript of just the abortion discussions from CBNNews.com.

Q I wanted to ask you about the concern among several -- many people in the abortion rights community about Judge Sotomayor, and I'm wondering if you can respond to that and talk about -- I know you said there was no litmus test and no demand of an answer when the President interviewed her, but did he talk with her at all about her views on the constitutional right to privacy, sort of talk around the issue at all with her?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously -- and we talked about this throughout the process -- the President obviously is familiar with the Constitution and the teaching of constitutional law. In their discussions they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally including her views on unenumerated rights and the Constitution and the theory of settled law.He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his, though the bulk of the conversation was about her approach to judging.

Q Can you put that into non-lawyer language since I'm not a lawyer? Does that mean that he feels comfortable --

MR. GIBBS: You should have seen the language that I had earlier. (Laughter.)

Q Let's progress a little bit further. Does it --

MR. GIBBS: Stare decisis was in the original --

Q I mean, would unenumerated rights be sort of code for the right to privacy, since it's not enumerated in the Constitution?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think there was, as I said a minute ago, a general discussion about the constitutional interpretation, about how one viewed the document, and the President left very comfortable with the fact that -- she says a similar interpretation that he does.

Q Does that mean he feels comfortable that she believes in a constitutional right to privacy?

MR. GIBBS: I think he feels comfortable with -- comfortable that she shares his philosophy generally on the Constitution.

Q Does he think she should be asked about these issues at her hearing, whether she -- she should be asked about how she would rule?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that the President was careful not to, as previous Presidents have been careful not to ask and I think others have been at hearings careful not to, ask specifically how one might rule when a case comes -- in a case that could come before the Supreme Court. So, again, I think the President felt comfortable with -- generally with her view and with, again, with her approach to judging.

Q A couple questions, one following up on Jennifer's question. During a Democratic primary debate, November 15th, 2007, then-Senator Obama said, "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy." And yet you're telling us right now that he has a general comfort with her view on the Constitution, but not necessarily with that quote -- not necessarily with the right to privacy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, let me be specific that he was not -- he did not specifically ask, as we've stated for the past several days, but as I just said I think he feels -- I know he feels comfortable generally with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.

Q Well, does that mean that when he said "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy," he didn't mean it?

MR. GIBBS: I think -- again, Jake, I think he feels comfortable with where she is.

Q I just want to follow up again on the abortion issue and privacy. Mark Knoller yesterday asked you a question about what the President may have said on the campaign trail. You said you would look that up.

MR. GIBBS: I think Jake helpfully did that for us all today.

Q Right, I mean, this one was a little different than the one that Jake presented here, but it was talking about the campaign promise -- the President made it a campaign promise about this issue. And the President said at this event in Florida that he "will stand up for choice." He says, "I'm a President who understands -- who understands that five men on the Supreme Court don't know better than women and their doctors and their pastors." He goes on to say that, "that's why I'm committed to appointing judges who understand how law operates in our daily lives."

Q So if the President is talking about it in these terms on the campaign trail, why wasn't it important for him to ask her about where she stood on abortion?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President believed it was exceedingly important to get her views on how she interprets the living document of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Q But on that one question, why wouldn't he bring that question up? I mean, you've said for the last couple of days that he didn't ask the question.

MR. GIBBS: Right, because I think he feels comfortable in asking her to describe the way she interprets, to describe her views on that. He felt comfortable that they shared a philosophy on that interpretation.

Q -- on the same issue, on the Roe v. Wade privacy issue, you mentioned stare decisis. That actually -- and I understand it's a legal term and maybe it would take some explanation -- but if they talked about stare decisis in the context of unenumerated rights and perhaps even the right to privacy, that might have given us a lot more information about what went on in this meeting. So could you go back to that legal explanation?

MR. GIBBS: Let me tell you, Chip, I'm not going to get deeply into all the conversations that the President has had in private with prospective nominees.

Q But you said the President has been careful, and you're right, Presidents have been careful and they've been careful on the Hill, too, not to ask -- well, they ask, but they don't get answers -- on cases that come before the Court. But asking about a right to privacy and whether you agree on the right to privacy in the Constitution is not asking about a particular case that might come before the Court. I don't understand why you can't simply confirm that he did what he said he was going to do during the campaign, which is appoint somebody who believes in a right to privacy.

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I feel comfortable with -- as the President feels comfortable with her philosophy, I feel comfortable with my answer in having answered your question.

Q Would it be possible to get that stare decisis quote that you were talking about earlier?

MR. GIBBS: I don't believe there was a stenographer in the meeting with -

Q Well, would you go back to them and -- I mean, if they were willing -- that sounds like it went further than what you're talking about -- than what you're giving us now.

MR. GIBBS: In what way?

Q You were talking about stare decisis in the context of unenumerated rights; that's like big code for not overturning Roe v. Wade in the eyes of many.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would refer you to what I said.

Q Just to pick up on what Chip was saying, what I think everyone is getting at is, the President, you're saying, is comfortable that she believes in a right to privacy and shares that view that he holds, and yet --

MR. GIBBS: What I said is comfortable with her interpretation and the way she interprets the Constitution.

Q Right. But I still think what people are wondering is why -- it strikes -- it comes across as a little bit of artifice, or people talking in code or talking around this issue. And yet you're saying he's comfortable that she shares his views. I guess, what would be wrong with him asking, hey, do you believe the Constitution encompasses the right to privacy?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think, as Chip noted that -- my statement in saying that many past Presidents have not done that. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss some set of precedent in order to discuss the Supreme Court, but I'm simply telling you what the President did in those meetings?

Q There's a difference between asking somebody how they would rule on a case that might come before the Court and how one views whether there's a right to privacy -- that's a matter of judicial philosophy --

MR. GIBBS: And the President is comfortable with her judicial philosophy.

Q How comfortable with it if he doesn't want to ask the point-blank question that would elicit her views?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he feels comfortable in being able to talk to her about her judicial philosophy, the way she interprets the Constitution. I'm not burdened by the knowledge of being a constitutional law professor, but obviously they're having discussions and I feel comfortable relaying to you that he feels comfortable.

Q Can I try it a different way? Is the President --

MR. GIBBS: Sure. (Laughter.)

Q Is the President at all concerned that she could be part of a 5-4 majority overturning Roe v. Wade?

MR. GIBBS: I haven’t talked to him about that.

Q Could you?

MR. GIBBS: He's in California or somewhere over the continental United States.Yes, sir.

Q One more time, and then I have to ask you a Germany question. (Laughter.) You mentioned settled law.

MR. GIBBS: Yes. I'm going to get into settled answers in a minute.

Q Was the issue of settled law in the context of Roe versus Wade?

MR. GIBBS: Jonathan, I was -- not only was the stenographer not in this, I was not in that interview either. So I have --

Q But you said back to back, they talked about unenumerated rights and the concept of settled law, which everyone understands to mean Roe v. Wade, the super precedent, and unenumerated rights referring to the right to privacy. So I think that's why everyone is wondering if there was some talking around this issue.

MR. GIBBS: I'm simply conveying to you what was discussed. The President feels comfortable with her interpretations of the Constitution.

Q Is there any chance you could go back to those lawyers and recreate what they were telling you about stare decisis and unenumerated rights?

MR. GIBBS: I will endeavor to see if they're likely to give me anything more, and I'll predict that the chances of that are somewhere between slim and none.

Q Do you doubt that she'll be asked on the Hill?

MR. GIBBS: Do I doubt she'll be -- I don't know what she'll be asked on the Hill. Obviously she -- we believe that when the Senate gets back next week -- I don't have specific information yet on her appointments, but I assume she'll start those visits sometime relatively early next week

Q Robert, I just want to make sure I'm not missing what might be an obvious step in this process, the conversation with Judge Sotomayor. I understand the President didn't ask her opinion or thoughts on Roe v. Wade, or the underlying abortion rights embedded in the privacy rights of the Constitution. Did she volunteer an opinion or an evaluation of her thoughts on that to the President without him asking?

MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of, no.

\Q So what would be the source then of the comfort on this question? If he didn't ask and she didn't volunteer, what's the source of the comfort?

MR. GIBBS: The general -- as I said earlier, the general way in which she interprets the Constitution.

Q So it has nothing to do with a conversation in particular about privacy rights?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know how many different times I can say this --

Q No, I just asked if she volunteered; you said no. You said he hasn't asked. So apparently, taking your words, there was not a specific conversation about privacy rights. And I'm just asking --

MR. GIBBS: I said that three days ago.

Q -- what's then the source of the comfort level?

MR. GIBBS: And I repeated for about the eighth time in a very short of period of time, their general conversation about their philosophy, their approach to the Constitution, and her approach to judging.

Q Robert, do you know if anyone other than the President in the White House asked the Judge any questions relating to abortion or the right to privacy, or these issues? And -- wait, I'm not -- different question.

MR. GIBBS: Oh, good. I'm sure this will change the whole answer. Go ahead.

Q -- and whether the reports that were generated -- we've seen 30-, 60-, 70-page reports that were generated for the President on each of these nominees -- whether they came to any conclusions or made any recommendations about what they believe, based on their sort of investigation of her background, her position might be on these issues?

MR. GIBBS: I have no reason to believe that if the President didn't ask, that others did. And I don't know -- if they didn't ask, I'm not sure how they could have put it in a report based on their not asking.

Q There was an investigation done of her background. They could ask other people, talk to people about what -- you know, sort of what her views are generally on --

Q She does have more federal judiciary experience than any other nominee in the century.

MR. GIBBS: I am glad that after countless number of times of saying it, it seeped in. I'm hoping we have the same sort of luck with my previous answer.

Q Robert, simply, granted the abortion issue didn't come up in the President's meeting with Judge Sotomayor, what leads you to believe that her decisions or her thought process is consistent with the President's, as we see this opinion from the Mexico City case? I mean, that dealt with funding, U.S. funding. That had nothing to do with an actual decision on abortion. So what leads you?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not -- I have not read that particular opinion. It didn't lead me to believe that; it led the President to believe that.

Q Did he read the opinion?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know exactly what he did or didn't read. Based on his teaching of the Constitution, though, I think he feels -- I know he feels comfortable with where she is.

Q Well, within her six hours when she was here at the White House, what staffer talked to her about the issue of abortion? Because he feels the way he feels --

MR. GIBBS: I think I answered this. Did Mike -- did you try this one? Yes.

Q But I'm going back to it again.

MR. GIBBS: I would refer you to the answer I gave two rows earlier.

Q You can answer it again.

MR. GIBBS: I think I said, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Shear, that I'm under no belief that anybody here asked her what the President didn't --

Q You said you have no reason to believe that anybody talked about it. (Laughter.) But why can't you say nobody talked about it?

MR. GIBBS: Because I said I have no reason to believe. Have I asked for a complete download of all seven hours? Unfortunately, it's not on YouTube."

The Hill reports that Obama said of Hollywood that "If it weren't for you, we would not be in the White House." This was a $30,400 dinner that brought in about $4 million dollars for the event(s) all together.

Other comments of interest that were reported is:

he "would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR."

"Los Angeles, you ain't seen nothing yet."

Apparently, he conceded to some mistakes and admitted that more will come which is fair but I am not looking forward to seeing more FDR Big Government nor the most anti-life American government ever.

I have decided to boycott Hollywood for the most part. I mean it is kind of hard enjoying a well made, produced and acted movie when you know that the dollars spent on this is going to expand government at the expense of faith, family and life. Not to mention the all out full on attack of the unborn.

I have yet to boycott all of Hollywood cause I know there are some out there that do not support liberal politics but when I come to know who does then I put them on my "blacklist" and now we won't be watching any DreamWorks movies in our household.

Related: YouTube video illustrating for us laymen Obama's cut/spending and our National Debt in parables.
In pictures: President Obama's own charts predicting how the stimulus package would effect unemployment thus far vs how it really has...
Obama said, "you’ll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending"
Obama's spending vs Obama's spending cuts in pictures. Obama's $100-Million savings plan equals .007 percent of 2010 deficit.

Found this video and comments and BusinessandMedia.com

"...budget director Peter Orszag said in March that if the permits weren’t auctioned “it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.”

Corporate welfare may be the reason so many companies are lobbying for cap-and-trade. The Washington Post reported on May 26, that there is a “strong consensus” at the Copenhagen summit among hundreds of CEOs and business experts favoring cap-and-trade over a carbon tax.

“Leaders agreed at the end of the three-day conference on the need for ‘immediate and substantial’ emission cuts by 2020, based on the best science available, followed by cuts of "at least half of 1990 levels by 2050,” the Post said.

But the Post ignored claims that companies are supporting cap-and-trade out of self-interest.

Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, is one such CEO who has advocated cap-and-trade on one of the news networks his company owns: CNBC. Immelt appeared on “Squawk Box” May 20 to push what he called “the most effective way to create a [carbon] market and go.”

GE is the largest wind turbine generator maker and according to an “O’Reilly Factor” investigation the company “stands to make billions” from cap-and-trade.

Bill O’Reilly pointed out the “conflict of interest” and said, “Now, if this were any other industry, anything else, there’d be a federal investigation. But the press is largely above the law. There’s no oversight on the press at all,” May 15.

Other companies already invested in low-carbon forms of energy like wind, solar or nuclear are poised to benefit from cap-and-trade, while it will devastate coal and gas companies as well as the overall economy, which is heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

Ebell said GE has large nuclear and wind divisions and a program called “eco-imagination” which would go into companies and tell them how to increase their energy efficiency.

In the short- term, Ebell said GE and many other companies lobbying for this policy “might make windfall profits. Jim Rogers of Duke Energy is looking for a big retirement package and he might get it.”

According to The Journal, Europe’s cap-and-trade program illustrated the way free permits “can fatten polluters’ profits without protecting consumers from higher prices.”