March 2014

The contraception mandate was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today. According to the Daily Caller:

“We are encouraged by the arguments today. The justices seemed deeply skeptical of the government’s arguments that Americans who open a closely held family business give up their right to religious freedom and can be subject to the mandates that they do,” Lori Windham, counsel for Hobby Lobby with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said after oral agreements. “The Green family has long operated Hobby Lobby consistently with its religious beliefs and religious principles. They hope to be able [to continue] doing so.”

“The choice that the government has forced on us is out of step with the history of our great nation founded on religious freedom.  We believe that no American should lose their religious freedom just because they open a family business,” Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby added on the steps of the Supreme Court. “We were encouraged by today’s arguments, we are thankful that the Supreme Court has heard our case, and we prayerfully await the justices’ decision.”

Also outside the Court this morning, two of the high priestesses of the cult of Molech managed to demonstrate that they haven’t got a clue what this case is about, what the reality of contraception availability in America is, or that they give a hoot in hell about any religion other than that of their demon:

“What the court heard today is that if it were to find for the plaintiffs in this case it would be the first time the court of this country had proactively extinguished the rights of any Americans. This is about all women,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America.

“Our bodies are not our bosses’ business,” she added.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards also weighed in, saying the case showed “the importance of having women on the Supreme Court.”

“I was so proud to be there as a woman who cares about women’s health to have the justices talk about the fact that what’s at stake in this case is whether millions of women and their right to preventive care, including birth control, is trumped by a handful of CEOs who have their own personal opinions about birth control,” Richards said, adding that she is optimistic the court will rule in favor of the government’s mandate.

It is fortunate for their cause that the lawyers for the government aren’t so stupid as to try this kind of propagandistic nonsense on the justices. The Supremes are not the low-information voters or college freshman/faculty lounge lizards that lap this kind of drivel up. It is unfortunate for the cause of religious freedom that those lawyers are smarter than this, because it means that we’re all going to have to wait it out until June to see if the First Amendment is still operative for those who don’t subscribe to the culture of death.


student group at Stanford University asked for funds from the student government to put on an event subversive of community standards, guaranteed to provoke outrage among the establishment, and challenging of accepted mores. Was it a production of the Vagina Monologues? An evening with performance artist Karen Finley? A public hanging in effigy of the Koch Brothers? No, something far, far more disturbing:

The student government at Stanford University voted to rescind funding to a conservative student organization that was attempting to host an event in support of traditional marriage.

The event was deemed hateful by the Stanford Graduate Student Council.

The Stanford Anscombe Society had requested funding in order to host a conference geared toward the promotion of secular arguments in favor of traditional marriage. Anscombe asked for $600, according to The College Fix.

During the meeting, at which Anscombe’s request was discussed, several students insisted that merely funding the event would increase the rate of suicide among LGBT students on campus. Others claimed that gay people would no longer feel welcome at Stanford if the event proceeded.

Brianne Huntsman, a student and employee of the LGBT center on campus, told Campus Reform that she did not object to the event taking place, but rather to the idea that the student government should fund it.

“I’m so glad that GSC chose not to fund this event-because it shows the grad community (and the larger Stanford community) that Stanford is a safe space filled with people who work hard to make sure it stays that way,” she said in a statement.

Now, I know it’s incredible to think that anyone at an institution as august as Stanford would even dream of doing such a thing. As all right (or left) thinking people know, discussion of the subject of traditional marriage on the property of any elite college has been shown by the Centers for Disease Control to cause LGBTQQIIXYZ people to come down with hives, shakes, the screaming meemies, elephantiasis, schistosomiasis, cancer of the Achilles tendon, the heartbreak of psoriasis, night sweats, and an irrational obsession with bridezillas. It has therefore been prohibited in the interest of public health and accommodating the wussiest members of the QBITGIZYLXQ community.

Personally, I can’t believe that the members of the Anscombe Society could possibly be so insensitive, so gauche, so threatening toward those who are so powerless and despised. They need to be locked in a pink room and forced to undergo extensive re-education at the hands of Rosie O’Donnell, Dan Savage, and Bishop Gene Robinson. That’ll learn ‘em.

Any readers here planning on applying for a job with the Ferndale (Michigan) School District? Don’t bother:

The contract ran from 2011 to 2012 but was extended to 2017. The teachers belong to the Ferndale Education Association, a division of theMichigan Education Association.

Regarding promotion to a vacant position, it states on page 22:

Should there be two (2) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications for the position and one (1) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications is a current employee, the current employee with the greatest seniority shall be assigned. Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith. However, in all appointments to vacant positions, the Board’s decision shall be final.

Earlier in the contract is a “no discrimination clause” that states no employee can be discriminated against based on their religion. [Emphasis in original.]

Michigan Capitol Confidential found this, and Ed Morrissey of Hot Air brought it to a much bigger audience. This is where diversity-mongering has gotten us–open, explicit discrimination against Christians.

Two specific problems with this: first, it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment’s so-called “Establishment Clause,” one so egregious it makes one wonder whether anyone connected to either the school board or the teachers’ union has ever so much as glanced at a copy of the Constitution. Second, it is a violation of who-knows-how-many civil rights and employments laws, because it necessarily involves asking questions specifically forbidden by those laws such as “what religious beliefs to you hold?” or “what church do you attend?” Once again, this is wrong on so many counts that only someone who has been hermetically sealed away from any contact with American culture over the last fifty years would not know how illegal this is. And only a teachers’ union representative or a union-compliant school board would not instantly recognize how genuinely un-American this is.

Everyone in Washington knows that the President’s submission of a 2015 budget was nothing more than Kabuki theater, especially since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had announced a couple of days before that the Senate would not be passing a budget this year. But it still pays to go through it to see what it says about the administration that submitted it. You never know what you’ll find in it.  Guy Benson of Townhall and Hot Air found this in the section devoted to the State Department:

That of the funds appropriated under Title III of this Act, not less than $575,000,000 should be made available for family planning/reproductive health, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.

“Reproductive health,” of course, is the Molech cult’s favorite euphemism for abortion. So here’s what this seems to be saying: $575 million of taxpayer money, which may not be used to fund abortions in the United States, is going to be used to fund abortion in order to cut down the human population where it “threatens” animal or plant life.

The United States government is going to pay for human beings to be killed in the womb in order to save the overseas equivalent of the delta smelt.

Every time you think they’ve sunk as low as they can go, the death worshippers find a way to sink even lower.

I got an email today from the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Office of Public Witness. It was about one of the most important foreign policy issues facing the United States today. That means it had to be about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the ongoing protests against the authoritarian government of Venezuela, or the continuing civil war in Syria, or the threat of Iran to build nuclear weapons, right? Nope:

With just a few months remaining until Presbyterians gather in Detroit for the 221st General Assembly, the economic conditions for Palestinians living under occupation remain bleak. As Presbyterians we believe strongly in the right of safety, security, and economic opportunity for both Palestinians and Israelis and see the current economic conditions inhibiting a future peace agreement.

Click here to send a message to your members of Congress today!

One of the clearest examples of the continued depressed economy can be seen in the closure of Shuhada Street in the Palestinian city of Hebron. Once the bustling economic center of life in Hebron, a major Palestinian city, Shuhada Street is now effectively inaccessible to Palestinians. What was only supposed to be a temporary closure, following the 1994 massacre of 29 Muslims worshippers by Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein, has now become a nearly decades long reality. The closure of Shuhada Street to Palestinians, while Israeli settlers are free to use the road, continues despite an agreement between the PLO and Israeli government, brokered by the US in 1997, which called for the immediate reopening of the street.

The closure represents a grave hindrance to the right of access for Palestinians as well as a threat to peace and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians. The condition of Shuhada street represents a microcosm of the overall Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please consider contacting your elected officials to encourage them to ensure that the U.S. brokered deal concerning Shuhada Street is implemented.

Yes, this is definitely what I’m writing my congressman about. I’m sure that with all the other inconsequential stuff going on in the world, he’s overlooked this world-shattering injustice that needs to be addressed by the U.S. Congress NOW!

For the record, I think the Israeli settlement policy incredibly misguided, and the settlement in Hebron–500 Jews, many of them hotheads with a propensity for violence, living amid 125,000 Arabs–especially stupid, and have said so for years. That being said, to elevate this item, one that the email admits is of almost 20 years standing, to one that deserves an “alert” to OPW subscribers is so inane as to provide yet another piece of evidence that PCUSA doesn’t care much about injustice anywhere in the rest of the world unless it’s committed by Jews.

That’s the news out of the Department of Homeland Security, according to the Christian Post:

The Department of Homeland Security has granted a special status to the Romeikes, a German homeschooling family that was under threat of being deported after being denied a Supreme Court review Monday, that will allow them to stay in the United States.

DHS has granted them “indefinite deferred status,” according to a Home School Legal Defense Association press release.

“This is an incredible victory that I can only credit to Almighty God. I also want to thank those who spoke up on this issue — including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made a huge impact. What an amazing turnaround — in just 24 hours,” Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Tuesday.

“We are happy to have indefinite status even though we won’t be able to get American citizenship any time soon,” Uwe Romeike, the father, said. “As long as we can live at peace here, we are happy. We have always been ready to go wherever the Lord would lead us — and I know my citizenship isn’t really on earth.

“This has always been about our children. I wouldn’t have minded staying in Germany if the mistreatment targeted only me — but our whole family was targeted when German authorities would not tolerate our decision to teach our children — that is what brought us here.”

Praise God! And it’s always nice to hear that there are still people in the federal government with a modicum of compassion and/or sense.

Legalize 12 million people who crossed the U.S. border without regard for U.S. law or sovereignty? An Obama administration priority. Protecting a family that came to America seeking the freedom to practice their religion without fear of the state taking away their children? DEPORT THEM!

A German family that claims it will be persecuted for homeschooling if sent back, lost its asylum request Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court and could be deported.

The justices, without comment, turned down the appeal of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who applied to stay in the United States on grounds of religious freedom.

Keeping with their Christian beliefs, they are educating their five children at home.

They said German law requires all children to attend public or state-approved private schools, and that such institutions “engendered a negative attitude toward family and parents and would tend to turn their children against Christian values.”

The Romeikes claimed German authorities threatened to take custody of their children if they did not comply.

The family moved to east Tennessee six years ago and applied for asylum with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

An immigration judge initially granted their request in 2010 to the Romeikes and their children, saying they were “members of a particular social group” and would be punished for their religious beliefs if returned.

But the Justice Department revoked it last year.

The Board of Immigration Appeals concluded homeschoolers are too ‘amorphous” to constitute a social group eligible for protection under the asylum law.

For the sake of argument, let’s grant that the Justice Department had a genuine problem granting political asylum to the Romeikes. Let’s say their request really did run afoul of one law or rule or another that would make it impossible to give them political asylum. And let’s say that the Supreme Court, in refusing to hear their appeal, had legitimate reasons based in law to conclude that the case was rightly decided.

Grant all of that, and then ask this question:

Why in the name of all that’s holy did the White House allow this case to get this far, and refuse to use their favorite power–that of “prosecutorial discretion”–to put an end to this family’s nightmare?

My wife suggested that perhaps the administration wanted to establish a legal principle, and now that that’s done they will take action to allow the Romeikes to stay. We can hope and pray that such will be the case. If you like reading tea leaves, you can try to predict the future by deciphering this response from the White House to a petition signed by over 125,000 since last March:

The We the People Terms of Participation explain that “the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government.” To the extent that these petitions request a particular law enforcement or adjudicatory action, or address a matter before the courts, we cannot issue a comment.

But while we can’t comment on this particular issue, we know that homeschooling is a popular option for many parents pursuing high academic standards for their children. Homeschooling can provide young people with the resources and attention they need to succeed academically, and we understand why their parents value this freedom.

That response has no date on it, so I suspect it was issued long before today’s ruling. That means it’s time to start ramping up the public pressure on the administration to do the right thing. Now.

Next Page »