YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

Battle over 'Fairness Doctrine' heats up
Support for 'censorship' largely divided on political lines

The president isn't going to blame the Democrats – yet – for not fully supporting a plan that would assure broadcasters in the United States their freedom from government-imposed censorship on their views and comments.

The issue concerns the ongoing battle over the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" by which the federal government used to require radio broadcasters to "balance" their comments between conservative and liberal viewpoints.

There have been a multitude of calls in recent years for that doctrine to be reasserted by the federal government, in light of the overwhelming success of more traditional perspectives on radio airwaves today.

A spokeswoman for President Bush today said he doesn't believe there's any need for such censorship.

"The president believes that the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the press, should not be denied to radio and television by the so-called Fairness Doctrine, doesn't he?" asked Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House.

"That's correct," said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman.

"Republican congressman Mike Pence of Indiana has introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which needs only 24 more signatures on a discharge petition to go to the House floor for a vote. And my question: Since, in the House, both of Maryland's Republicans have supported the Broadcaster Freedom Act, but all six of Maryland's Democrats have refused to do so, the president recognizes this as an indication the Democrats generally want the return of the Fairness Doctrine's on-air censorship, doesn't he?," Kinsolving continued.

"I don't know if that's necessarily the case, but it sounds like you have some lobbying work to do up on Capitol Hill, so we should dispatch you up there and see if you can get it done," Perino said.

CBS then noted, "He (Kinsolving) is not allowed to lobby and hold a press pass at the same time, remind him."

While that generated a laugh, the issue of "Fairness" censorship is serious for broadcasters around the nation.

Pence, in introducing his plan earlier, noted the Federal Communications Commission and its precursor developed the "Fairness Doctrine" in the 1930s and 1940s, but it fell by the wayside under President Ronald Reagan's veto in 1985.

"The lifting of the Fairness Doctrine has opened the public airwaves to free and vigorous discussion of controversial issues by individuals of all political stripes," he said. "Talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate."

But he said the recent discussion has focused on "the need to level the playing field … A liberal think tank recently condemned what they called the 'massive imbalance' on the radio airwaves."

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech," he said.

Pence, a former broadcaster, said his Broadcasters Freedom Act would ensure that "true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves."

He now is trying to assemble the signatures on a discharge petition that would force a House floor vote on the issue. The Indiana Republican needs two dozen more.

WND reported earlier when Bush expressed the opinion that the doctrine is "Orwellian."

Former White House spokesman Tony Snow also told WND when he held the post that the Fairness Doctrine is not needed, even though Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has lobbied for the provision.

In a column, WND founder and editor Joseph Farah, issued a warning about what would be coming if Democrats retain control of the Senate and House in November.

"Prepare for a major, frontal assault on the First Amendment – perhaps the worst in American history," he wrote, citing a letter written by U.S. Senate President Harry Reid, D-Ariz., to talk radio superstar Rush Limbaugh's network several months ago, demanding he apologize for something he never said.

"It was a shot across the bow by an arrogant group of petty, wannabe tyrants who would, if they could, use the coercive power of the state to stifle all dissenting views," Farah warned.

"They would do it under the rubric of 'hate speech' legislation. They would do it with the rationalization of 'fairness' and 'accuracy' – two qualities they wouldn't recognize if they tripped over them. They would do it in the name of campaign finance reform. In fact, they would do it without any excuse whatsoever," he continued.

"To them, the First Amendment doesn't actually protect the inalienable right to free speech and the free press. It only protects their speech and their press. They want a monopoly on media. They had it once and they got spoiled. They decided they can't live without it any more."

He said come January 2009, if Reid still is running the Senate and Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., still is running the House, "they are going to pass a law bringing back the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.' If Barack Obama is in the White House, he will sign it."

[Soldier4Christ]

Planned Parenthood provision defeated

Irate Americans have derailed a move to put more money in the pockets of Planned Parenthood.

Members of Congress had attached to the War Supplemental funding bill a provision that would have permitted Planned Parenthood to purchase drugs at already discounted prices. Planned Parenthood would then sell those drugs at a huge markup -- in some cases up to 1,400 percent (see earlier story).

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America says that does not make sense. "Planned Parenthood already gets over $300 million from our taxes through federal, state, and local funding," she points out. "[A]nd just in 2006 they reported $112 million in profit."
 
However, it took a tremendous grassroots push to convince Congress to drop the provision. Wright thanks the hard work of those who contacted their congressional representatives, and the hard work of the members of Congress who "negotiated with the Democratic leadership" in order to remove the supplemental bill.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court rejects death penalty for raping children
Ruling states execution would violate ban on cruel and unusual punishment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. He is one of two people in the United States, both in Louisiana, who have been condemned to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.

Forty-five states ban the death penalty for any kind of rape, and the other five states allow it for child rapists. Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child.

'National consensus against'
The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.

In this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty, a point mentioned by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.

"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Alito wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."

But Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

Kennedy also acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape."

Still, Kennedy concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals — as opposed to treason, for example — "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

The decision does not affect the imposition of the death penalty for other crimes that do not involve murder, including treason and espionage, he said.

Louisiana case
Patrick Kennedy was convicted in 2003 of raping his stepdaughter at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans. The girl initially told police she was sorting Girl Scout cookies in the garage when two boys assaulted her.

Police arrested Kennedy a couple of weeks after the March 1998 rape, but more than 20 months passed before the girl identified him as her attacker.

His defense attorney at the time argued that blood testing was inconclusive and that the victim was pressured to change her story.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the sentence, saying that "short of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving" of the death penalty. State Chief Justice Pascal Calogero noted in dissent that the U.S. high court already had made clear that capital punishment could not be imposed without the death of the victim, except possibly for espionage or treason.

A second Louisiana man, Richard Davis was sentenced to death in December for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl in Caddo Parish, which includes Shreveport. Local prosecutor Lea Hall told jurors: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today."

The high court's decision leaves intact Kennedy's conviction, but will lead to a new sentence. The case is Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.

[Soldier4Christ]

Feds boot Boy Scouts
for Rainbow Family
'It appears the group has managed
to intimidate an entire federal agency'

About 1,000 members of the honor society for the Boy Scouts of America have been booted from a long-planned national service project in Wyoming by federal officials in favor of a gathering by the "Rainbow Family," an unorganized annual assembly of "free spirits" who commune with nature and each other.

The action has left local leaders infuriated.

"It's a matter of intimidation," Sublette, Wyo., County commissioner Joel Bousman told WND. "It appears the Rainbow group has managed to intimidate an entire federal agency."

As WND has reported, the honor society for the Scouts, the Order of the Arrow, has been working for several years to put together this year's public service project called ArrowCorps5.

The plans include about 5,000 top Boy Scouts from across the country donating an estimated 250,000 hours of time to restore, repair, rebuild, reclaim and refurbish miles of trails, acres and glens in the nation's forests.

"ArrowCorps5 is the largest, most complex, most challenging conservation project ever conceived by the Order of the Arrow and Boy Scouts of America," said Brad Haddock, chairman of the National Order of the Arrow Committee. "This project provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for each participant to set an example of leadership in service to those who treasure our national forests."

The week-long projects already have taken place in Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri and Manti-La Sal in Utah. The projects in George Washington and Jefferson National Forest in Virginia are going on this week. Work in Shasta-Trinity in California starts July 12 and at Bridger-Teton in Wyoming, the work was set to begin July 26.

But the conflict arose with the Wyoming location and dates, because Rainbow Family participants announced they would meet in the same general location as the Scouting work was to take place. The Rainbow Family events are not organized, there is no official website, and the makeup of the assemblage varies. Their activities grow to a peak over the July 4th weekend and then taper off, but the cleanup from the estimated 25,000 people expected to invade Wyoming's Sublette County, population 6,000, is expected to take the time the Scouts otherwise would have been doing repairs.

Mary Cernicek, a spokeswoman for the Bridger-Teton National Forest, told the Casper Star-Tribune federal officials will look for other work in another location to substitute for the Scouts.

"We're heartbroken, but we're committed to giving the Boy Scouts a good experience and providing them with the education and leadership skills they're seeking," she told the newspaper.

Bousman said it's fairly simple: The Scouts applied for permission for their project, filled out forms, went through red tape, and got permission. Then came the announcement from Rainbow members they've chosen the same location.

Mark Rey, the federal undersecretary supervising the U.S. Forest Service, met with Rainbow Family members recently in Pinedale, and urged them to move their gathering, the Star-Tribune said. They refused.

Rey told WND he thought the decision to move the Scouts to somewhere else and leave the Rainbow Family alone was the best under the circumstances. He said the government allows the Rainbow Family to bypass its regular permit requirements in favor of an "operating plan" but the bottom line was that the government didn't want to be arresting hundreds or thousands of people.

"They couldn't be expelled without a fairly significant amount of law enforcement activity," he told WND.

Sue Bradford, a Montana woman who has attended Rainbow gatherings since the 1990s, said the group told the Forest Service where members would assemble, but no one informed them of the conflict until it was "too late," according to the newspaper.

"The Boy Scouts have been planning this since 2004," Bousman told WND. "They've been through the planning process and have been working very cooperatively with our Forest Service. They've spent lots of money planning the biggest venture ever for the Boy Scouts.

"They did everything legally, they had their permits. But because of the fact Undersecretary Rey, for whatever reason, took it on himself to do what he has referred to as an experimental process by which he does not require the Rainbow Group to have any permit, the conflict developed," Bousman said.

The problem for the county is simple: Time and money to prepare for any law enforcement, public health, environmental impact or other needs for an itinerant group numbering roughly four times the county's permanent population.

"It basically undercuts the ability of our county's law enforcement team to prepare," he said.

"It's hypocritical to allow this group with no permit to replace the Scouts," he said.

One of the websites run by a volunteer who publicizes information about the Rainbow Family calls it "the largest non-organization of non-members in the world. We have no leaders, and no organization … I think it's safe to say we're into intentional community building, non-violence, and alternative lifestyles.

"We also believe that peace and love are a great thing, and there isn't enough of that in this world. Many of our traditions are based on native American traditions, and we have a strong orientation to take care of the the (sic) Earth."

Garrick Beck, a New Mexican who has attended Rainbow gatherings since 1972, blamed the federal government.

"It's a mess, and it's unfortunate, and there's plenty of blame," he told the newspaper. "But this never would have happened, or could have happened, if the Forest Service at the very beginning had said, 'No, this is not a workable site.'"

He said there already were several hundred people living on the land when the Forest Service raised the issue of the conflict.

Forest Service officials disagreed. They reported they warned Rainbow representatives during their initial meeting this site created a conflict with the Scouts.

Scott Scheffler, a volunteer spokesman for the Scouts, told WND the various work projects are making "immediate" changes. In Missouri, for example, 100 acres of invasive salt cedar was removed, restoring the area's water table, allowing grasslands to re-grow and restoring the area's beautiful vistas.

Not only are Scouts donating their time and talents, they are paying their own expenses to travel in most cases and fees of about $250 per person per week, to cover the costs of food, housing, equipment and the like, officials said.

There are about 4.7 million people ages 7-20 in the scouting program run by more than 300 councils across the United States and its territories. The Order of the Arrow involves about 180,000 of those. The Forest Service manages about 193 million acres of land across the U.S., roughly the equivalent of the state of Texas.

[Soldier4Christ]

Dem pledges: I'll 'rip apart' child-rape victims on stand
'I'm going to make sure rest of their life is ruined'

Massachusetts politician and defense attorney Rep. James Fagan is under intense public scrutiny after he promised to "rip apart" child victims of rape who testify if the state imposes strict sentences for sex offenders.

Fagan, a Democrat, made his controversial remarks on the state House floor, Fox News reported.

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of child victims. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they're 8 years old, they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep; when they're 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody."

As a defense attorney, Fagan said he would prevent accused child sex offenders from experiencing a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions."

According to the report, his statements angered both colleagues and activists.

"I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary," said Bradley Jones, Massachusetts House minority leader. "I appreciate that he's a defense attorney, and felt he had a point to make, but I think it was unnecessary. It was excessive."

Mark Lunsford, a Florida father who lost his 9-year-old daughter after she was kidnapped, wrapped in a trash bag and buried alive by a sex offender in 2005, said he was shocked by Fagan's remarks. He told the Boston Herald that Fagan should have more respect for the rights of sexually abused children.

"Why doesn't he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica's Law?" Lunsford asked. "These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?"

The bill Fagan was so strongly opposed to designates mandatory minimum sentences of 10 to 15 years for crimes against children. It has passed in the House and made its way to the Senate.

According to Fox News, law professor Phyllis Goldfarb said Fagan comments were somewhat truthful in that they describe a defense attorney's obligation to find holes in the prosecutor's case when a person accused of sexually abusing a child faces mandatory sentencing.

"It is fundamentally true … if the proof is coming almost exclusively through a child witness you may have to find a way to test it," Goldfarb said. "That's the attorney-client obligation there."

Goldfarb said Fagan's language might have been dramatic, but she said he was just describing his profession.

"You do have to challenge a witness," she told Fox News. "Some people find ways of doing that that are loyal to their role as defense attorneys – testing the proof (in ways) that aren't abusive to a witness, but it's very hard. And I think being put in that hard position is what he seems to be railing against here, using language that's probably a little bit hyperbolic."

According to Boston Herald reports, Lunsford plans to appear before the Massachusetts Senate to convince lawmakers to incorporate fixed prison sentences into the state's final version of Jessica's Law.

[Soldier4Christ]

Jindal condemns Supreme Court, signs castration bill
Governor glad for new law to punish sex offenders on same day as 'atrocious ruling'

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it struck down the death penalty for child rape in his state, Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a bill authorizing castration of sexual offenders.

Jindal – frequently mentioned as a potential vice-presidential nominee – said he was "especially glad" to sign the Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill "on the same day the Supreme Court has made an atrocious ruling against our state's ability to sentence those who sexually assault our children to the fullest extent."

"Those who prey on our children are among the very worst criminals imaginable," Jindal said in a statement.

In a 5-4 vote announced yesterday, the Supreme Court's majority said imposing the death penalty in child rape cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Hailing the new state castration law, Jindal said that as a father of three children, as well as a governor, he believes "sexually assaulting a child is one of the very worst crimes, and I am glad we have taken such strong measures in Louisiana to put a stop to these monsters’ brutal acts."

"I want to send the message loud and clear – to the Supreme Court of the United States and beyond – make no mistake about it, if anyone wants to molest children and commit sexual assaults on kids they should not do so here in Louisiana," said the governor.

"Here, we will do everything in our power to protect our children, and we will not rest until justice is won and we have fully punished those who harm them," Jindal said.

The Louisiana bill, SB 144, gives the court the option of castration on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature.

Castration is required on a second conviction of the listed crimes.

The bill also allows a court to order physical castration instead of chemical castration. Convicted sex offenders who undergo castration must still serve their full sentence.

In the case addressed by yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, 43-year-old Patrick Kennedy was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. The assault was so severe the girl needed surgery to repair some of her organs.

Kennedy is one of two people in the country condemned to death for a rape not accompanied by a killing.

Both cases are in Louisiana, where proponents of the law argued there is a national trend toward the death penalty for child rape cases. Justice Samuel Alito pointed that out in his dissent, arguing the "harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave."

"It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty," Alito wrote.

Justice Kennedy contended, however, "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape," based on the absence of any executions for rape and the fact that only five states allow it.

Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions for child rape if the defendant had a previous conviction for the crime.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Religion in private' OK, says ACLU
New limits on Christians leave family groups reeling

Colorado's new state law that was based on the apparent belief that free speech rights are not unalienable and they sometimes must be restricted is scaring residents who now fear expressing their opinions in public.

WND has reported previously that the law, SB200, which was promoted as an "anti-discrimination" plan favoring alternative sexual lifestyles and gender perceptions, has made it a criminal offense to discriminate against someone based on those lifestyles or perceptions.

The Christian publishing house Focus on the Family has called it a payback by the Democrat-controlled legislature and Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter to homosexual activists such as millionaire Tim Gill, who has donated widely to pro-homosexual political candidates.

The Focus analysis of the plan, according to spokesman Bruce Hausknecht, shows that besides the obvious impacts of opening restrooms and locker rooms statewide to members of either sex, depending on a perception of their gender, "the biggest danger this law poses is to the religious or moral consciences of small business owners who may object to doing business with people whose lifestyle they do not want to promote."

"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" Focus founder James Dobson said. "Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence."

Other groups also have issued warnings.

Colorado Family Action wrote of the plan: "This bill lays groundwork for state-sanctioned abuse of individuals and organizations who have faithfully held religious convictions and refuse to offer or sell goods or services to homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered, or transsexual individuals because of such beliefs.

"This desire to limit the constitutionally guaranteed right to the 'free exercise of religion' can be seen in Cathryn Hazouri's, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, testimony given before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee," the group said.

"One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others," she had said.

Individual residents also now are beginning to realize the potential of the new law, which was approved by the legislature with a declaration that it is needed for "public safety" so it is not subject to any vote of the people.

"Now, as I stand outside of a movie theater bathroom or a swimming pool shower room door and guard the most precious thing in my life: my wife and daughter's safety, modesty and privacy, I can no longer stop a man from entering a woman's domain," wrote a concern resident whose name was withheld. "(I will anyway, that's why I'm a criminal!)"

"An act that once was criminal is now legitimate, and what was taught to me as a virtue is now a vice. Not only am I liable for civil penalties but criminal, as I can be sentenced for up to a year in jail," he wrote.

"I immediately contacted my state representative, Wes McKinley, to ask him what his stand was on this bill. He proudly told me he supported it. I brought to his attention the recent case in New Mexico that was in national news. A photographer refused to photograph a lesbian ceremony. The lesbian couple found another photographer who would and then turned around and sued the Christian photographer for refusing. They won the suit and the photographer was fined over $6,000.00. I asked Rep. McKinley if he thought this was right. He told me no and assured me that wouldn't happen with this bill," the resident wrote.

"I then contacted my attorney who told me that SB200 does, indeed, open the door to this kind of litigation, and that I would have to be careful to not express my convictions in public in this kind of situation," he wrote.

He also reacted to Hazouri's comments, which were unchallenged by the state legislature.

She said, "You give up some of your rights when you go into the public square," the resident said. "Wow, I didn't know that. I was taught in school that these rights of free speech were 'unalienable.' Apparently, gay rights trump heterosexual rights, as well as the First Amendment."

"So, as long as I keep my convictions to myself and only express them in my home or church, I'm legal. Somehow, I don't think this is what the Bill of Rights meant," he said.

"Will SB200 be the end of it? No. Next, hate crime legislation must be passed so that it is illegal for me to write this letter (as it is now illegal in Canada); then enforced homosexual/transsexual indoctrination of our children in the public educational system; finally, all other alternative forms of education must be outlawed. Impossible, you say? It's already happened in California," he said. "As I'm being forced into this 'shotgun wedding' with the radical homosexual agenda, I hope it's not too late to 'speak now, or forever hold my peace.' What is it called when you are forced, against your will, to participate in a sexual lifestyle that you find objectionable? I believe that is called 'rape.' My state legislature has 'violated' me and charged me with the crime."

Tom Minnery, the senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus, told the Denver Post there are "multiple problems" with the plan, "but the problem of restrooms is the most breathtaking one. … With SB200, however, we no longer have two 'sexes,' we enter a brave new world with a myriad of 'sexual orientations' that must not be discriminated against, upon pain of the substantial civil and criminal penalties contained in the bill.

"Woe to the first women's fitness facility or mall owner who objects to a man dressed as a woman who wants to enter previously forbidden territory. And what an opportunity for sexual predators," he wrote.

He said every Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owner now is under a threat.

"We've seen … charges brought by homosexuals against a video reproduction business in Virginia, a medical clinic in California, an adoption service in Arizona and a church in New Jersey," he continued. "Colorado tops them all on the potential outrage meter, however, because in addition to civil fines and penalties, small-business owners can be prosecuted under the criminal laws of Colorado and spend up to one year in jail for trying to live according to their faith."

There are other groups preparing for full-scale war in Colorado.

"American RTL [Right to Life] Action is a political 527 group headquartered a half-block from the Colorado capitol, and we're not going to hire someone cohabitating outside of marriage, let alone a homosexual," said Steve Curtis, the group's president and former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. "SB200 also makes it a crime for us to publish biblical teaching on immorality, so we are prepared to violate this anti-Christian government censorship. The liberals always said what homosexuals do in private could never affect anyone else; of course that was always a lie; they're trying to criminalize traditional Christianity. The fight is on."

[Soldier4Christ]

State frees teachers
to criticize evolution
Global warming, origins of life,
cloning also may be scrutinized

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this week signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows school districts to permit teachers to present evidence, analysis and critique of evolution and other prevalent scientific theories in public school classrooms.

The law came to the governor's desk after overwhelming support in the legislature, including a unanimous vote in the state's Senate and a 93-4 vote in the House.

The act has been criticized by some as an attempt to insert religion into science education and hailed by others as a blow for academic freedom in the face of pressure to ignore flaws in politically correct scientific theories.

Robert Crowther, director of communications for The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank on science and culture, called the act necessary.

In an article posted on The Discovery Institute's evolution news website, Crowther wrote, "The law is needed for two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do."

Specifically, the act allows teachers in the state's public schools to present evidence both for and against Darwinian theories of evolution and allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials that may open critical discussions of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, human cloning and other scientific theories.

Teachers are still required by the act to follow the standardized science curriculum, and school districts are required to authorize both the teachers' classes and additional materials. The state's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials it deems inappropriate, and the act prohibits religious instruction.

Section 1D of the act states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Despite section 1D, many national voices, including the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a New York Times editorial, and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure.

Marjorie Esman, state director of Lousiana's ACLU told the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "To the extent that this might invite religion in the public school classroom, we will do everything we can do to keep religion out."

John West, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, however, said opponents of the bill are misunderstanding it. Rather than being about infusing intelligent design or creationism into the classroom, he contends, the bill is about giving teachers the freedom to talk about the debates that already exist in science, even among evolutionists themselves.

"This bill is not a license to propagandize against something they don't like in science," West told the Times-Picayune. "Someone who uses materials to inject religion into the classroom is not only violating the Constitution, they are violating the bill."

Gov. Jindal released a statement at the time of the signing that read, in part: "I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and (the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education) to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children."

[Soldier4Christ]

Court affirms law calling unborn 'living human beings'
Ruling lifts Planned Parenthood injunction against state's abortion statute

A federal court ruled against Planned Parenthood and rejected an injunction against a state law requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that they may face serious medical conditions and will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit issued a 7-4 ruling Friday to lift an injunction against the South Dakota informed consent abortion law. Attorneys representing the Alliance Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council in defense of the law.

"A woman's life is worth more than Planned Parenthood's bottom line," said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence in a press release. "Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women supports making sure they have access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has argued adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies. We're pleased the court's decision today will make sure women have access to the information they need and deserve."

The court said U.S. Supreme Court rulings allow a state to "use its regulatory authority to require a physician to provide truthful, non-misleading information relevant to a patient's decision to have an abortion, even if that information might also encourage the patient to choose childbirth over abortion."

The South Dakota act defines a human being as "an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation."

According to the law, a woman is not considered to be informed unless she receives written notice stating:

    * That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
    * That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being an that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
    * That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
    * A description of all known medical risks of the procedure including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide

Planned Parenthood moved for the preliminary injunction against the law, arguing that it would "violate physicians' free speech rights by compelling them to deliver the State's ideological message."

The new ruling reverses a federal district court opinion barring enforcement of the 2005 informed consent law and sends the case back to district court.

[Soldier4Christ]

Attorney challenges ruling over justice's links to 'gays'
Lawyer in preacher's defamation case hit with $90,000 penalty

A Wisconsin attorney is challenging a state Supreme Court decision that he should pay a $90,000 penalty because the deciding vote was cast by a justice who accepted money from the attorney's opponents.

The case that sparked attorney James Donohoo's dispute with the high court was brought against a "gay' activist group called Action Wisconsin, which later called itself Fair Wisconsin. That group had described visiting pastor Grant Storms, who appeared at a conference on homofascism, as having advocated the murders of homosexuals.

Donohoo, on Storms' behalf, brought a defamation action, which a trial court judge, Patricia McMahon, dismissed as frivolous. An appeals level panel reversed the decision, concluding that the jury should have been given the dispute to resolve.

The state Supreme Court, however, stepped in and with the vote of Justice Louis B. Butler Jr., who had accepted campaign contributions from those opposing Donohoo, reinstated the order for him to pay about $90,000 in legal fees incurred because of the case.

Now Donohoo has filed paperwork with the court petitioning that Butler be excluded from making decisions in his case because of the more than $1,000 in contributions his opponents gave the judge.

Butler declined to return a WND call requesting comment on the situation. But Donohoo said Butler had reported a $300 donation from Lester Pines, a lawyer for Fair Wisconsin, but failed to report a donation of $125 from Peter Bock and donations of $100 and $1,000 from Ruth Irvings, both board members for the organization.

Donohoo told WND Butler had made a public commitment not to take contributions from parties with cases pending during his re-election campaign, and to report any contributions from attorneys for parties in pending cases.

"Equally disturbing, the Centers Advocate PAC held a hardcore intimate fundraising 'Garden Party' on August 26, 2007. This PAC's sole purpose is to advance the cause of LGBT equality, including same-sex marriage, and they work together for the same goals with Fair Wisconsin (Action Wisconsin). On January 22, 2008, the PAC endorsed Justice Butler, and an additional PAC Internet posting in March of 2008 again endorsed Justice Butler, explaining that Justice Butler had attended the August 26, 2007 'Garden Party,' and had spoken in support of LGBT equality," Donohoo told WND.

"A PAC Internet posting entitled 'Garden Party at Joseph Pabst Home' Sunday, August 26, 2007, reported that this fund raising event raised an unprecedented amount of $21,000 to work towards LBGT equality in Wisconsin," Donohoo said.

The PAC endorsement explained Center Advocates is "Wisconsin's only group dedicated to electing candidates who will work for and defend equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people."

It lists "Justice Louis Butler – Wisconsin Supreme Court" among those being endorsed.

"These candidates have a long history of advancing LGBT equality through legislation or support of current legislation that protects LGBT people," the PAC stated. "Each one has either voted in their positions against the amendment to ban same-gender marriage or have spoken out on behalf of fair and equal treatment of LGBT families in Wisconsin."

Should Butler be disqualified and no other votes changed, the Supreme Court opinion would deadlock 3-3, which would mean the appeals court decision that the case was not frivolous would stand, Donohoo said.

In Wisconsin, judges are not required to withdraw from cases involving people or groups over a campaign contribution. However, the code of conduct for judges requires avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

"How can I feel it was impartial … when he's got these ties to the opposing party?" Donohoo said.

Another group, Wisconsin Family Action, Inc., also has raised similar issues about Butler's "impartiality."

Butler eventually lost in his April 1 election to Circuit Judge Michael Gableman of Burnett County.

"This pattern of conduct on the part of Justice Butler … including his failure to disclose to Attorney Donohoo the facts illustrating his bias and prejudice in cases involving LGBT issues, even after a judicial complaint was filed against him, constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct," Donohoo wrote.

"It also fatally compromised Justice Butler's ability to participate in Attorney Donohoo's case. In light of the above facts, his participation in Attorney Donohoo's case reeks with the appearance of impropriety and undermines the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," he wrote.

"To pretend that Justice Butler's decision was not influenced by this homosexual issue would be disingenuous," he wrote.

He said the high court needs to answer whether is is "acceptable for a Supreme Court justice to continue to participate in a case where, while campaigning for re-election, the justice accepts serial contributions from a party " in the case.

[Soldier4Christ]

Latest buzz: Shock bracelets for all airline passengers
'Just when you thought you've heard it all'

A columnist at the Washington Times has issued a warning that the U.S. government actually has considered having airline passengers wear electronic bracelets that could be triggered like Tasers to stun the victim into immobility.

The alert comes from columnist Jeffrey Downing, who wrote that not only has a Canadian company proposed such a product and is advertising it, the U.S. government has put its interest in writing.

"It is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes," said the letter posted on the company's website. It was purported to come from Paul S. Ruwaldt, of the Department of Homeland Security.

"Just when you thought you've heard it all," wrote Denning.

According to a company video on the website for Lamperd Less Lethal, the bracelets would be a help to the pilots and crew members on commercial air carriers, the "last line of defense" against terror attacks.

The video says passengers could be fitted with such "electronic ID bracelets" that they would wear until they disembark their flights. It is promoted as being able to replace a ticket, carry passenger information, track passengers through terminals, and track carryon luggage.

But the best part is that the bracelets could be discharged, as a gun, and leave the wearer "immobile for several minutes" although without causing "permanent injury."

"For a businessman on his way home, to a young family going south for a winter holiday, wearing an EMD bracelet during flight is a small inconvenience to assure their safe arrival," says the company. "Many, if not most, passengers would happily opt for the extra security."

The company even acknowledged the story about its product, because its video has been viewed constantly in the few days since Denning raised his concerns.

"It is amazing how much controversy our new research project has created," the company said on its website.

Denning, who according to The Aviation Nation writes a new aviation safety blog for the Times, was horrified.

"Clearly the Electronic ID Bracelet is a [euphemism] for the EMD Safety Bracelet, or at least it has a nefarious hidden ability, thus the term ID Bracelet is ambiguous at best. EMD stands for Electro-Muscular Disruption," he wrote.

"So is the government really that interested in this bracelet? Yes!," he continued.

"[Ruwaldt] wrote, 'To make it clear, we [the federal government] are interested in…the immobilizing security bracelet, and look forward to receiving a written proposal,'" Denning said.

"Would every paying airline passenger flying on a commercial airplane be mandated to wear one of these devices? I cringe at the thought," wrote Denning. "Not only could it be used as a physical restraining device, but also as a method of interrogation, according to the same aforementioned letter from Mr. Ruwaldt.

"Would you let them put one of those on your wrist? Would you allow the airline employees, which would be mandated by the government, to place such a bracelet on any member of your family?"

On the Times forums page, some readers ridiculed the idea of such measures.

"If you boarded the plane with the intent of terrorism, what would you do first? 1. Try to light your bomb shoes on fire. 2. Place your plastic explosives on the flight door to gain access to the cockpit. 3. Wave your weapon about and start shouting. 4. Remove your bracelet," posed "BrainGouge. "Ding ding ding, you chose #4, unless you sir are an idiot."

Lamperd, of Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, also provides training and designs and specialized civil defense-related equipment. It boasts of expertise in "less-lethal tactics and equipment" that is used by military and police departments around the world for crowd control and "peacekeeping."

It also responded to the publicity about its proposal with a website statement:

"We wish to clear up any misconceptions regarding the EMD Safety Bracelet for Airline Security," the company said. "The bracelets remain inactive until a hijacking situation has been identified. At such time a designated crew member will activate the bracelets making them capable of delivering the punitive measure – but only to those that need to be restrained. We believe that all passengers will welcome deliverance from a hijacking, as will the families, carriers, insurance providers etc. The F-16 on the wingtip is not to reassure the passengers during a hijacking but rather to shoot them down. Besides activation using the grid screen, the steward/stewardess will have a laser activator that can activate any bracelet as needed by simply pointing the laser at the bracelet - that laser dot only needs to be within 10 inches of the bracelet to activate it."

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress' approval plunges to 9 percent
1st time ever rating for lawmakers sinks to single digits

This month's release of Rasmussen Reports' survey of congressional approval ratings serves a scathing reproach of politicians on Capitol Hill. For the first time since Rasmussen has been tracking congressional approval ratings, less than 10 percent of Americans say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Against President Bush's much-publicized poor approval ratings, today's poll shows Congress' numbers have plunged to less than a third of the president's.

The most recent report calculates a mere 9 percent approve of congressional performance, while a majority of Americans, 52 percent, say Congress is doing a poor job, which also ties a record high.

The Democrat-controlled Congress enjoys its highest rating among Democrat respondents, 13 percent of whom rated the Congress favorably. Only 8 percent of Republicans were willing to say Congress is doing a good job, while an almost non-existent 3 percent of unaffiliated voters gave Congress a positive rating.

The polling company also asked respondents if they thought Congress has passed any legislation in the last six months to improve life in this country. 12 percent said yes, while 62 percent said Congress has done nothing to improve life in America. A further 55 percent said it was unlikely that Congress would do anything in the near future to address important problems facing the nation.

Despite dismal ratings for the Democrat Congress, another Rasmussen Report released today shows Americans are unwilling to vote the majority party out of office. When given the choice, 47 percent of voters said they would vote for their district's Democratic candidate, while 34 percent said they would vote Republican.

In related Rasmussen Reports, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama holds a 6 percent lead over rival John McCain (46 percent to 40 percent) in a poll released today, and President Bush scored a 32 percent approval rating in a poll released last week.

[Soldier4Christ]

I'm really surprised that it is even at 9%.

[nChrist]

I'm really surprised that it is even at 9%.

WOW! - I was thinking the exact same thing while reading this! Their numbers would have been higher if they stayed home and did nothing at all. The numbers would definitely be higher had they kept their mouths SHUT and not talked about ANYTHING they wanted to do for the FUTURE! Maybe we could give them a pay increase for staying HOME and being QUIET! The ECONOMY might even start doing better, especially without the constant talk of raising taxes and paying for all kinds of dimwitted programs that have no chance of doing ANYTHING except WASTING MONEY! YES - I'M COMPLETELY SERIOUS!

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate passes telecom immunity, eavesdropping rules
Bows to Bush's demand to protect companies from lawsuits for helping spy on Americans

The Senate approved and sent to the White House a bill overhauling controversial rules on secret government eavesdropping today, bowing to President Bush's demand to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and bitter debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign it soon. He scheduled a 4 p.m. EDT White House statement to praise the passage.

The long fight on Capitol Hill centered on one main question: whether to shield from civil lawsuits any telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. from wiretapping lawsuits. About 40 such lawsuits have been filed, and all are pending before a single U.S. District court.

Numerous lawmakers had spoken out strongly against the no-warrants eavesdropping on Americans, but the Senate voted its approval after rejecting amendments that would have watered down, delayed or stripped away the immunity provision.

The lawsuits center on allegations that the White House circumvented U.S. law by going around the FISA court, which was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

"This president broke the law," declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

The Bush administration brought the wiretapping back under the FISA court's authority only after The New York Times revealed the existence of the secret program. A handful of members of Congress knew about the program from top secret briefings. Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified effort, and some objected that they were being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter compared the Senate vote to buying a "pig in a poke."

But Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the bill's most vocal champions, said, "This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters."

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

The bill tries to address concerns about the legality of warrantless wiretapping by requiring inspectors general inside the government to conduct a yearlong investigation into the program.

The measure effectively dismisses about 40 lawsuits that have been bundled together. But at least three other lawsuits against government officials will go forward.

In one of those cases last week, a judge decided that surveillance laws trumped the government's claim that state secrets were imperiled by the lawsuit. However, the judge said the plaintiff could not use classified government documents it had accidentally received to prove it was subjected to illegal eavesdropping. It must instead use unclassified information to show it was wiretapped without court approval. FISA makes provisions for the use of secret evidence once a case is accepted.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California civil rights organization, intends to challenge the constitutionality of the immunity provision.

Beyond immunity, the new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, but others would loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that electronic surveillance on his own.

The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets and how the intercepted American communications would be protected.

The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law has required court orders to be obtained to access those as well.

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law said three days.

The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was "a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy."