Test Post.
Well Folks. Just updated to Wordpress 2.8 as I was having some posting issues with the old setup. Turns out that it was just a permissions problem, but not a bad thing to update anyway. I do like the new management interface and there are some nice features. Anyhow, if this works, then we are good, and you might start seeing some updates from me more frequently… 
Muslim Demographics
Guys, this is well worth watching.
This is what you get when you advocate population control, birth control, and cease to fulfill the biblical mandate to be fruitful and multiply.
Sodom.
The viciousness of man’s lust knows no boundaries. Beware, this country is just beginning to see the ruthlessness of the passion for evil that the homosexual movement contains. Watch and see as this minority group will not take “no” for an answer and continues to press their own agenda and will upon the populace. We have let it grow subtly out of view, but now that it is in the spotlight, it will not stop for heaven or hell.
What I fear now, is that the people will become so accustomed to it, and start to believe the lie, that these are just “normal” people with “normal” desires. These are “normal” people, but with wicked self-motivated desires. The person is not what I fear, but the disease, the epidemic, the plague, that is homosexuality. It knows no bounds, nor borders. It’s desire is unto death.
—-
The Iowa Supreme Court’s Unanimously ruled Friday overturning a state law protecting marriage as between a man and a woman. Organizations across the country are urging ALL citizens to contact Iowa lawmakers. The Iowa House DOES have the ability to protect marriage by passing House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6), known as the Iowa Marriage Amendment.
HJR 6 is the first step toward giving Iowans the chance to vote to protect marriage, in response to the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.
In order to debate HJR 6, the House must force it out of committee with a procedural vote. The House Republicans are prepared to initiate this procedural vote, but to pass it they need your help!..
—-
Vermont has become the fourth state to “legalize” sodomite marriage. In a remarkable act of defiance against the Lord, His law-word, and the historical, biblical, definition of marriage, the Vermont legislature overturned an executive veto of a same-sex marriage law. This act follows on the heels of a similar outcome in Iowa. This makes Vermont the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling. It comes less than a week after the Iowa Supreme Court performed their own act of judicial tyranny, declaring by fiat that same-sex marriages would be legal in their state.
Similar measures are pending in about a dozen other states.
—-
God help our country!
Rick Warren Disavows support for Prop. 8
California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California’s Proposition 8, and now claims he “never once even gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment.
Monday night on CNN’s Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California’s voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has “never been and never will be” an “anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist.”
“During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going,” Warren told the CNN audience on Monday. “The week before the — the vote, somebody in my church said, ‘Pastor Rick, what — what do you think about this?’ And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is — really should be defined, that that definition should be — say between a man and a woman.”
However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. “We support Proposition 8 — and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8,” he said.
The following is a complete transcript of Warren’s comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:
“The election’s coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you’re praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.
“Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 — and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.
“This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing — it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.
“Now here’s an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.
“This is not even just a Christian issue — it’s a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.
“So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I’m going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views.”
During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. “There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends — the leaders that I knew — and actually apologized to them. That never got out,” he admitted.
Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision last week to legalize same-sex “marriage” because it was “not his agenda.”
Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. “For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that’s on his agenda is just something that’s hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice,” Fischer notes.
Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren’s decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8.
“Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor — and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them,” he concludes.
Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.
(source)
April 1’st?
Somehow, my lunch got doctored…
So this is what you get when you let your sister make lunch on a day like this…
(did I tell you the sandwiches, and the apple were similarly modified?)
California Supreme Court Hearing on Prop 8
All our briefs have been filed. Our attorneys are fully prepared. Our supporters held a Day of Prayer for Proposition 8 last Sunday. Now tomorrow, the fate of Proposition 8 will be in the hands of the California Supreme Court.
We have confidence that the Court will uphold Proposition 8. Why do we believe this? Because the law is clearly on our side. Proposition 8 has become Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution, and though some justices on the Court may not agree with the decision the people made in adopting Prop 8 and defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, we are very confident that the Court will respect the right of the people to have decided this issue. The people have reserved to themselves the sovereign right to define their constitution. By a 600,000 vote margin, they voted to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the constitution. As Dean Kenneth W. Starr has told the court in his brilliantly written briefs, “The constitution has now been amended by the sovereign people who are its creators. That is the beginning and end of this case.”
The legal issues before the Supreme Court tomorrow are primarily procedural and deal with whether Proposition 8 was a properly enacted constitutional amendment. This is a very different legal battle than when the Court decided last year to interpret the constitution to provide a right to marry for same-sex couples. Now, the constitution is plainly clear that only traditional marriage is valid in California. Thus, the main issue before the court is whether the people had the right to enact Prop 8 in the first instance. Our opponents argue that Prop 8 was so sweeping that it constituted a fundamental revision of the constitution. But as we detailed in our legal briefs, the law is clear that the people had the right to enact Prop 8, and properly exercised it. Here are excerpts from our briefs:
“There is no higher legal authority within California to which the judiciary can appeal.”
Court: State trashed church’s 1st Amendment rights
An appeals court ruled the state of Montana violated a church’s First Amendment rights to encourage its members to support traditional marriage.
The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the state’s determination that the church was an “incidental political committee” because members promoted and signed petitions supporting traditional marriage, and the pastor also encouraged it.
The complaint against Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena was sparked by a complaint from a homosexual activist group, the court ruling noted. The Alliance Defense Fund took up the fight for the church by filing a lawsuit in 2004 after the state issued its ruling against the church.
“Churches shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs. They should never be forced to forfeit their free speech rights just because the government decides to enact unconstitutional laws requiring them to remain silent on social issues,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt, who litigated the case with co-counsel Tim Fox of the Helena law firm of Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman.
Montana Joins States Considering Sovereignty Measures
On Tuesday, February 17,
Montana joined the growing list of states considering state sovereignty bills. Already considered by many to be on that list due to their “Made in Montana” guns rights bill, the state formally joined the other six – Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington – with the introduction of H.J. 26 by state Representative Mike More.
The bill relies heavily on Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, as does New Hampshire’s bill; both warn in no uncertain terms that the state will no longer tolerate the usurpation of its authority (or that of its free citizens), and that further violations against the Tenth Amendment will constitute a nullification of the federal Constitution. In a word, these two states are threatening to secede.
What does any of this have to do with parental rights? It is a question of authority, a question of freedom
Homeschooling in California, Part 1
This is a story of the recent battle in the courts for the legitimacy of the fundamental right of parents to train their own children.
I will praise thee , O LORD, with my whole heart; I will shew forth all thy marvellous works.
–
“This is quite a bad decision. Do you think we’d be interested in getting into an appeal?”
I was on vacation when my colleague, HSLDA Staff Attorney Darren Jones, sent me this rather understated email notifying me that an infamous opinion had been handed down that day by the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District.
…
HOW BEAUTIFUL ON THE
MOUNTAINS ARE THE FEET
OF HIM WHO BRINGS GOOD
NEWS, WHO PROCLAIMS PEACE
—Isaiah 52:7
…
As I read the opinion for In re Rachel L., two distinct thoughts penetrated the sinking feeling that came over me as I realized that an appellate court had essentially outlawed home education in California.
First, this was the worst-case scenario—a juvenile court case where the legality of home education became the centerpiece of the opinion, even though education was not the issue properly before the court. And because the earlier proceedings were confidential, HSLDA and the rest of the homeschooling community at large didn’t hear about the case until the appellate opinion was published.
Second, I knew that the opinion was bad. And I don’t mean only in the obvious sense that it meant trouble for California homeschoolers. The opinion was a bad example of the judicial craft.
While appellate judges often write opinions that I disagree with, they rarely write opinions that completely ignore critical cases and statutes.
But the Rachel L. opinion did not account for key provisions in the California private school statutes or modern constitutional law cases that should have led the court to a different decision.
Over the years, HSLDA had relied on these provisions and cases to successfully defend California homeschoolers in several “little” cases, preventing those little cases from becoming front-page news like Rachel L. It appeared to us that the opinion did not discuss those critical statutes because they had probably not been included in the briefing.
We immediately began planning a strategy to get the opinion reversed. But we had to act quickly.
There is much to tell about how the same three-judge panel that declared homeschooling illegal in February unanimously and categorically reversed itself on August 8, 2008. It is a story about writs and petitions, judges and lawyers—lots of lawyers. It is a story that illustrates the coming of age of the homeschooling movement in all of its diversity and complexity. Most of all, it is a story about how a big God turned the hearts of three judges and performed countless miracles along the way.
We will be telling these and other stories in a special November/December issue of the Court Report.
In this stop-press article, we will focus on the legal issues decided in the case of In re Rachel L. (now called Jonathan L.) and what the case means for California homeschoolers.
In re Rachel L.
The case In re Rachel L., which started a roller-coaster ride for California homeschoolers in February 2008, actually began in 2005 when Rachel, a young teenager, ran away from home. After several weeks, she turned herself in and accused her parents of abusing and neglecting her.
…
“EVENTUALLY, THE PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM GOT USED TO THE IDEA
THAT HOMESCHOOLS OPERATE AS
SMALL PRIVATE SCHOOLS.”
…
Following an investigation, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition in juvenile court. The petition asked the court to assume jurisdiction over Rachel, who had been placed outside the home, for her protection. The petition also asked the court to take jurisdiction of Rachel’s younger siblings, Jonathan and Mary Grace, because of what had allegedly happened to Rachel, even though the two remained in the home and there were no allegations that they had ever been abused or neglected.
Significantly, neither the legality nor the quality of the home education the parents were providing were included as issues in the dependency petition.
Dependency cases are divided into two distinct proceedings: the adjudication and the disposition. The adjudication is where the county must prove that the children have been neglected. The disposition is where the court decides what orders to make to protect the children while preserving the family.
In this case, after the adjudication, the juvenile court commissioner concluded that Rachel was indeed in need of court protection. The commissioner also determined that Jonathan and Mary Grace needed to be under court supervision because of what had happened to Rachel. However, since Rachel came of age during the course of the appeal, the two cases were separated and the court then focused on Jonathan and Mary Grace.
At the disposition hearing, the commissioner ordered the parents to attend parenting classes, receive family counseling, and cooperate with county social workers. So far, the case was identical to countless others and would have been of little interest to homeschoolers across the state and the nation.
But during the disposition hearing, the case took an unusual turn.
In addition to attorneys representing DCFS and each of the parents, Jonathan and Mary Grace’s court-appointed attorney was also present. As with most Los Angeles cases, this attorney had been appointed from the Children’s Law Center (CLC).
During the hearing, the CLC attorney asked the juvenile court to make an additional order. She requested that Jonathan and Mary Grace be ordered to attend public or private school, outside the home, to ensure that the children had regular contact with adults other than their parents—adults who by law are required to report suspected abuse or neglect. In other words, the issue raised by the CLC was about the children’s immediate safety—it was not about education, per se.
The juvenile court disagreed with the CLC and did not issue the requested order. Normally, when a juvenile court declines to issue an order sought by an attorney, the only recourse is to appeal that decision. But under certain urgent circumstances, an attorney may seek expedited appellate court review of a decision if it can be demonstrated that the juvenile court abused its discretion—normally a very high burden of proof indeed.
People of faith may be target of ’stimulus’ package
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, tells OneNewsNow there is a provision of the act that actually allows for funds to be given by the federal government in the form of grants for renovation of existing colleges and universities.
“But when you read a little bit further into this legislation, there’s a specific prohibition on two things,” the attorney explains. “One, if the university itself is a religiously based or faith-based institution, it does not qualify. And if the facility that is being renovated allows religious worship to take place, it also does not qualify.”
Specifically, the provision reads that stimulus funds may not be used for “modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities — (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”
Under that provision, according to Sekulow, many schools would bar on-campus worship or even Bible study because it will put federal funding in jeopardy. That, he says, should raise a warning flag in a federal courthouse.
“It is unconstitutional — and while I’m prepared to challenge it in court, and we’re already working on a possibility, it really needs to be handled in the legislation,” the ACLJ leader suggests. “That needs to be job one…remove this provision and get it out of the legislation.”
Sekulow states that a “troubling pattern” is developing regarding the use of taxpayer money — and that this provision is the latest example. He contrasts it with the new administration’s swift move to make federal funds available for abortion-providers overseas.
“There is a priority problem in Washington,” he says in a press release. “This is not what ‘economic stimulus’ is about. We know that the American people don’t want their tax dollars used for discriminatory measures. That’s why this provision must be removed now.”
The attorney says if the discriminatory provision is not removed from the stimulus package and is approved and signed into law, the ACLJ will challenge it in federal court.
Stimulation of discrimination?
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, agrees that the “anti-faith” language of the provision will censor and force people of faith from the public square.
“In order to receive stimulus money our public schools will have to expel after-school Bible clubs and weekend religious meetings,” says the Christian attorney. “People who want to speak about their faith will be unwelcome in public places.”
He adds that President Obama’s idea of faith-based initiatives apparently is to “remove faith from all initiatives.”
Welcome!
Thank you for taking the time to visit my blog! Take a second to peek around and check out some of my articles and posts. Of course, I would love to find out what you think as well, so make sure to comment. See you around!
Recent Comments