The ACLU is targeting a Virginia school district for displaying the Ten Commandments in one of its high schools. “The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia filed the lawsuit [September 13th] against Giles County School Board in U.S. District Court in Roanoke on behalf of an unidentified Narrows High School student and the student’s parent,” reported the Washington Post. “The lawsuit says the display unconstitutionally promotes a specific religious faith and serves no secular purpose.”
The ACLU is demanding that the Ten Commandments be removed from school walls and that the court impose a ban on any further biblical displays. According to CBN News, “School board members voted in June to re-hang the biblical texts as part of a display that included other U.S. historical documents. More than 50 students had walked out of class in protest over the commandments removal earlier in the year.”
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled September 13th that a California teacher’s First Amendment guarantees were not violated when the principal at the school where he worked ordered him to remove classroom banners that connected America’s heritage of freedom to faith in God. The decision overturned a lower court’s ruling that the Poway Unified School District had violated the free speech rights of Bradley Johnson, a mathematics teacher in the district.
As reported by the Los Angeles Times, Johnson “had displayed banners in his classrooms for two decades that he saw as celebrating the religious heritage of America, including ‘In God We Trust,’ ‘God Bless America,’ and ‘God Shed His Grace on Thee.’ ”
But when Johnson transferred to a another school in the district in 2007, his new principal, Dawn Kastner, ordered him to remove the banners, some over seven feet wide, saying that their size made them “a promotion of a particular viewpoint,” as Kastner was quoted in the court’s 40-page opinion.
The Cherokee Nation is in a heap of big trouble from the top chiefs at the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has fired an epistolary arrow at the nation because it sent its black members on a trail of tears.
The tribe booted out 2,800 descendants of blacks freed during the War of Northern Rebellion and given the full rights of Cherokees in 1866. Blacks, the tribe says, are not Indians. The pointed admonition from the great white city in the East ordered the tribe to let the blacks back in. A federal agency cut off a wagonload of wampum.
The Cherokees’ answer? They'll stand their ground.
The Cherokee relationship with blacks began many moons ago. Most people don't know it, but many Cherokees not only owned slaves but also fought for the Confederacy. Others sided with the Union.
North Carolina’s legislature placed the fate of marriage in that state into the hands of the citizenry on September 13 when the state Senate voted 30-16 in favor of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. That vote came one day after the state House approved the amendment by a 75-42 margin, setting up next May’s ballot referendum, which will require a simple majority approval by voters in order to inscribe the marriage protection measure into the state’s constitution.
“It is time for us to let the people of this state decide what they want in their constitution as far as marriage is concerned,” Republican state Senator Phil Berger challenged fellow lawmakers during floor debate on the amendment. “It may pass, it may fail. But it is time for them to make that decision about their constitution.”
As reported by Baptist Press News: “All four states that border North Carolina passed constitutional marriage amendments in 2004 or 2006, but leaders in the then-Democratic controlled North Carolina legislature blocked an amendment from even coming to a floor vote. That changed last year when Republicans took over both chambers for the first time in more than 100 years.”
In a shocking ruling by a Canadian appeal court, a woman who strangled her son with her underwear after secretly giving birth to him will face no jail time because the judge determined that her actions were no different from an abortion.
When Katrina Effert was 19-years old, she gave birth to a baby boy, and immediately strangled the child and threw his body over the fence into the neighbor’s yard on April 13, 2005.
Two years ago, a jury found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but the highest court in the province decided that the jury had made a mistake. The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, and replaced it with a lesser charge of infanticide.
The Criminal Code of Canada classifies infanticide as follows:
Pro-life leaders in Poland remain optimistic despite the narrow defeat of a bill that would have completely banned abortion in the largely Catholic nation. The historic bill, the result of a nationwide grassroots campaign that garnered 600,000 petition signatures in support of the law in two weeks, was narrowly defeated in late August in Poland’s parliament by a 191-186 vote, with five abstentions and 78 lawmakers not present for the vote, according to LifeSiteNews.com.
Nonetheless, said Polish pro-life commentator Tomasz Terlikowski, in spite of the “undeniable defeat of the entire project, it was a huge success.” Terlikowski told LifeSiteNews that the victory came in “the introduction to public debate, unthinkable in other European countries, of a total ban on abortion.” He added that those in Poland who are committed to defending the unborn, “among whom I count myself, certainly will not rest. In the next Parliament we will re-submit the bill banning all abortions.”
Texas Governor Rick Perry continued to take fire from his rivals in the September 12 CNN/Tea Party Express debate on the issue of mandating Gardasil injections for 12-year-old girls by executive order. And the Texas Governor defended legislating by executive order.
Fellow Texan Congressman Ron Paul, who is a medical doctor, said the worst part of Perry's decision was not the medicinal part of the decision but how he ignored the legislative branch in mandating the STD inoculation designed to prevent cervical cancer. "That is what is so bad," Paul stressed. "I made a promise that as President I would never use the executive order to legislate." Paul added: "Some executive orders are legal. When the President executes proper function of the presidency, like moving troops and other things, yes it's done with an executive order. But the executive order should never be used to legislate."
Under the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ), over the past two years or so the Obama Administration has aggressively targeted pro-life activists and counselors who try to persuade women arriving at abortion clinics from killing their unborn babies.
National Public Radio (NPR) reported that under the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), signed into law by President Clinton, “the Justice Department’s civil rights division has filed eight civil cases since the start of the Obama administration. That’s a big increase over the George W. Bush years, when one case was filed in eight years.”
Subtly connecting the efforts of peaceful pro-lifers with the violent murder of late-term Wichita abortionist George Tiller by a lone gunman, NPR cited the claims of the National Abortion Federation that major violence against abortionists (which has never risen above isolated incidents — all of them condemned by legitimate pro-life groups) has plummeted over the past two years, thanks, in part, to DOJ diligence in pursuing “anti-abortion” activists.
The enlightened scholars of the American Political Association gathered for a convention during Labor Day Weekend, and wouldn’t you know it, the degreed wizards agree: Tea Party Americans are bigots.
While last week’s report in the Washington Times is hardly unique, it suggests Tea Party Americans can expect the mainstream media and its lefitst allies to continue smearing the grass-roots movement as part of their effort on behalf to reelect President Obama.
Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, the Left has been peddling the lie that Tea Party members are sheet-wearing night riders for some time, and the charge hasn’t just come from the fever swamps of the blogosphere. Seemingly intelligent top-level officials in Washington say the same thing.
There currently is a debate raging over public nudity in San Francisco. It’s not what you think. It’s already entirely legal to parade about in the buff on the city’s streets, and no one is discussing the resurrection of indecent-exposure laws. Rather, the question is whether sanitary behavior — namely, posterior protection for public seating — should be required of nudists by law.
Reports the Los Angeles Times:
Retired math teacher David Goldman and his husband, Michael Koehn, were sharing a pleasant alfresco moment at a public plaza in the heart of the Castro district this week, passing a slender joint between them (medicinal, of course), as Eric Anderson sunbathed one table over. Naked.