May 2014

GosnellIf you haven’t done so yet, you have one last opportunity to help fund the making of the movie Hollywood is desperate to kill. Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer are documentary filmmakers whose credits includerackNation (an answer to the fraudulent anti-fracking fantasy Gasland) and Not Evil, Just Wrong about climate change alarmism. Now, they are taking on the story of serial killer/abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The have already raised the $2.1 million that they needed to get going, and are now seeking to simply increase the number of givers beyond the 25,000+ they already have in order to raise visibility and send a message to a film industry that has done all it could to prevent this movie from being made (including getting the initial crowdsourcing site, Kickstarter, to reject the project because they claimed it violated their “standards”). Here’s Ann and Phelim’s latest appeal:

This last day is very important for the success of the Gosnell Movie. We want to have an army of supporters so that Hollywood and the media can no longer say there is no demand, no audience for a movie about Kermit Gosnell

If you haven’t contributed please consider doing it now at

If you have given alrady, we’d love you to get your friends and family to join this historic project, and we only want $1 from them. We currently have nearly 25,000 contributors but we NEED to grow this number. Please encourage your family and friends to give just $1 and add their name – their vote to the growing army of people who are demanding that the censorship stops now.

And we also need you one more time. We’ll be hosting a tweetfest on Twitter on Monday, twice: at 12-2pm EST and again at 8-9pm EST and we’d love you to be there for us. Our goal for this tweetfest is to get to 30,000 contributors before the campaign ends. We’ll be tweeting with the hashtag #GosnellMovie, we want to get it trending!

You’ll be also hearing Ann and Phelim on the radio, they’ll be on The Hugh Hewitt Show, The Dennis Prager Show and on CBS Philly.

Lets make this one last big effort and push to finish strong! We’ll see you on Twitter and at the finish line.

I just made my contribution. You can, too. Let’s help get this movie made, send a message to Hollywood and the mainstream media that so devoutly ignored the Gosnell story, and get the story the pro-abortion movement doesn’t want Americans to hear before the world.

From the San Bernadino (CA) Sunbehold the brilliance of the people paid by you the taxpayer to teach your rugrats:

The Rialto Unified School District is defending an eighth-grade assignment that asks students to debate in writing whether the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain.”

The district says the assignment is merely to teach students to evaluate the quality of evidence made by advocates or opponents of an issue.

“When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence,” the assignment reads. “For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain. Based upon your research on this issue, write an argumentative essay, utilizing cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe the Holocaust was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain. Remember to address counterclaims (rebuttals) to your stated claim. You are also required to use parenthetical (internal) citations and to provide a Works Cited page.”

The Anti-Defamation League complained to interim Rialto school superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam (I know that sounds like something Groucho Marx came up with, but it’s right there in the article), and his spokesperson and a school board member responded:

The project was designed by district teachers and assigned during the eighth grade’s “Diary of Anne Frank” unit, according to district spokeswoman Syeda Jafri.

The Common Core state standards, which have been adopted by most states and the District of Columbia, emphasize critical thinking in students, which is what the assignment is intended to teach, according to school board member Joe Martinez.

“One of the most important responsibilities for educators is to develop critical thinking skills in students,” Martinez wrote in an email Friday morning. “This will allow a person to come to their own conclusion. Current events are part of the basis for measuring IQ. The Middle East, Israel, Palestine and the Holocaust are on newscasts discussing current events. Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship. This thought process creates the foundation for a good education. The progression is within district board policy and also supports the district’s student inspired motto: ‘Today’s Scholars, Tomorrow’s Leaders.’”

KTLA-TV adds that students were directed to three sources to help them put this opus together:,, and a nasty little site called, which despite the name is also about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Because eighth graders with heads full of mush really should be exposed to stuff like this as a counterpoint to The Diary of Anne Frank. Nothing like being fair and balanced, doncha know.

In what I think is a bit of a surprise, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that opening a town council meeting with prayer doesn’t violate the First Amendment. According to AP:

Prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court said in 5-4 decision that the content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or proselytize.

The ruling by the court’s conservative majority was a victory for the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester. The Obama administration sided with the town.

In 1983, the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska legislature and said that prayer is part of the nation’s fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment. Monday’s ruling was consistent with the earlier one.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation’s traditions.

“The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,” Kennedy said.

Personally, I’ve never cared about this issue one way or the other. I’ve done prayers for town council meetings, always praying in the name of Jesus because I considered it to be my prayer for the council, rather than the representative act that a pastor does on behalf of a congregation. (I would also use the first rather than third person pronoun, which I never do at church gatherings.) I am quite certain that there was no intent on the part of the Framers to bar this practice, if for no other reason than that Congress did it from the beginning, and it would have made no sense to think that Congress could do it when state or city legislatures couldn’t–the First Amendment was originally a bar on congressional action, after all, not state or local. But I don’t think the fate of the republic, or religious freedom, is at stake regardless of whether prayer is permitted at such gatherings or not. In fact, while the state may not be effected, one could argue that generic civil religion has done more to damage Christianity in America than any secularizing tendencies.

At the same time, I have to admit that the prospect of heads exploding at the ACLU or American United for the Separation of Church and State over this gives me a certain glee.

UPDATE: Right on schedule, Americans United bellows out its disapproval:

Today, in a disappointing 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that opening prayers at town council meetings do not violate the Constitution, even if they routinely promote Christianity. The court said that the content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or proselytize.

This ruling is out of step with the realities of modern-day America. In a country where pluralism and diversity are expanding every day, a Supreme Court decision that gives the green light to ‘majority-rules’ prayer at local government is exactly what we don’t need.

Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens are disappointed as well. This morning, AU’s lead attorney in the case, Ayesha Khan, spoke with both plaintiffs. Susan said, “I’m very disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to ignore the rights of millions of Americans who don’t wish to be subjected to sectarian prayers before government meetings.” Linda added, “Government is supposed to represent everyone, not just those who believe in God. I’m deeply saddened, but so thankful that AU was by our side every step of the way.”