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.”
Our Coming Demographic Winter, Part I
(source:)
Should nations view the children as a blessing or as a burden during economic hard times? What about families?
Within one day of taking office the President gave his answer to the first question. He would use the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade to lift the ban on overseas abortion funding. The message: In tough economic times, it is important for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent preventing more life from coming into this world.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was even more overt in her baby-banning agenda. In a national television interview she made it clear that one important way to stimulate the economy was for people to stop having babies.
Pelosi was defended her plan to make tax-payer subsidized child prevention an important part of the $825 billion economic stimulus package, explaining that “contraception will reduce the cost to the states and to the federal government… No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.”
Translation: We must control the population because children are a burden on the economy—-especially, children from lower class families. The less of these children, the less money the government will have to spend on schools and healthcare.
The same day Speaker Pelosi was urging her vision for anti-recession population control measures, a top adviser to the British Government made the case that more abortion and contraception is needed to save the environment. Jonathan Porritt, the former Advisor on the environment to Tony Blair and the Chairman of Britain’s Sustainable Development Commission stated, “I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.”
Ironically, the same day that both Speaker Pelosi’s and Chairman Porrit’s comments were circulating, a very different story was breaking on CNN: “Workers Urged: Go Home and Multiply.”
Kyung Lah reported “Japan is in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country’s low birthrate.”
After decades of social pressure to drastically limit family size, the Japanese economy is on the verge of implosion. With a birthrate of 1.34, they are an aging population without the labor force to maintain their own economy.
Lay writes: “Keidanren, Japan’s largest business group, with 1,300 major international corporations as members, has issued a plea to its members to let workers go home early to spend time with their families and help Japan with its pressing social problem.”
Who is right?
FYI
A certain post has been moved to the private section for confidentiality reasons, so you will need to login in order to view it.
Thanks!
The Call to Dunkirk
This message needs to be spread.
It is as I have been saying for years. Who ever control the schooling of the kids, controls the future of the entire country.
Who do you feel is qualified to teach your children?
The Next Big Battle on the Horizon…
I’m just going to copy an update here on a situation which is going to become very much more publicized in the next coming months.
Read it for yourself.
—
Dear Friend of Parental Rights,
I was in the United States Senate this past week meeting with lawyers for a Senate office. They told me directly what I have been hearing indirectly on a regular basis ever since the election.
Those who want to change family policy in America to comply with international law are preparing a full-scale effort to seek ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child during this next Congress. Barbara Boxer recently told a planning group that they intend to use children’s health care as leverage to seek ratification of this UN children’s rights treaty.
Please link to our website to see a succinct summary of the problems with this UN treaty.
The strength of their forces has been greatly increased with the addition of Hillary Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State. She will have direct control over the submission of this treaty to the Senate and will acquire the authority under international law to sign any other treaty on any subject.
Hillary Clinton was the person who made the announcement for the Convention on the Rights of the Child when her husband’s administration signed the treaty. Seeking its ratification is a lifelong dream for her.
Our situation is grim if we were to look only at the position of the elected officials.
However, recent post-election polling demonstrates that almost 70% of Americans do not believe that the use of international law in American courts on such matters is appropriate. Less than 20% favor the use of international law. (The rest are undecided). Virtually every sub-group in America opposes this kind of use of international law.
America is on our side. However, we have to be able to get the word out to help people hear the truth about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Our proposed Parental Rights Amendment will permanently stop this treaty. So we have a one-two punch planned for the internationalists.
First, we must build a huge grassroots movement of patriotic Americans who believe that good families should be able to raise their children without worrying about compliance with international law.
Second, these same grassroots forces need to convince our elected officials that we are not content with defeating this treaty for today alone. We insist on a permanent solution. We need the Parental Rights Amendment.
I need you to do two things to help this become a reality. First, please send a copy of this letter to everyone you know who believes in parental rights and American patriotism.
Second, we need to raise a war chest to get prepared to launch a massive grassroots campaign. The other side has millions of dollars left in their campaign coffers, and they have the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and all the media waiting to carry their message.
We can win the debate because we have the truth on our side. And we have public opinion. But we won’t win if we can’t reach people.
Will you please make as big a gift as you can to support Parentalrights.org?
Here is what they are saying about us. At the hearing which featured Barbara Boxer, one of the speakers said that the people who will oppose this treaty are the “narcissistic sovereignty crowd.” In other words, those who love America first are so guilty of excessive self-love that he describes us as having the mental illness of narcissism.
This is their real heart. Not only do they want international law to control our families. They think that we are mentally ill for loving America.
It is time for those of us who believe in loving our families and loving America to rise up! We will not surrender this country or our children to such people.
Get involved today! The battle is about to begin.
For God, family, and America,
Michael Farris
—
Vert Insightful little Antidote
From a 3rd Grade teacher: “The most eye-opening CIVICS LESSON I ever had was while teaching third grade in 2008. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”
She surely would say more, but she didn’t. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide. … So now we have had OUR election and 52.7% took up the offer like eight and nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 46% also know that THEY are the ones who are going to have to pay the bill.”
Global Warming?
So it is 1:20AM right now, November 15′th, and I just went out side and it is plenty comfortable in a t-shirt and shorts…
Something is wrong with that.
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