I bet you did know this

Newt Gingrich slams Elena Kagan!

Exposed: NAACP Race Hustlers Confronted on Camera

by  Jason Mattera

What's the saying again, if you live in a glass house, don't be the first one to throw stones?
Just a week into the NAACP's sloppy denunciation of alleged "racism" amongst Tea Partiers, video surfaced of Shirley Sherrod, formerly of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, bragging to an NAACP audience that she withheld aid from white farmers in Georgia because, well, they were white. Oops! But wait, I also seem to recall the Senate Majority Leader--Dingy Harry--musing about Barack's light skin and absent "Negro dialect," don't you? Where were the NAACP toolbags then? For that matter, where are the resolution-happy members of this group condemning the billy club-wielding, paramilitary-wearing dudes from the New Black Panther Party?
Good questions. We got you covered, people! HUMAN EVENTS sent an intrepid correspondent to confront Ben Jealous, the president of the NAACP. When asked about the New Black Panthers and Reid's racial remarks, you're not going to believe his lame response.

Actually, maybe you did believe that he'd give such feeble answers. The NAACP does, in fact, favor liberals over blacks. But seriously, "no pass" is the reply? What, did Mr. Jealous give Reid a strongly worded phone call and threaten to call his mommy? Oh, and yes, the demonstrable intimidation that happened at a Philadelphia voting station was the brainchild of Roger Ailes, haven't you heard!
In any event, far be it that an organization whose founding member promoted eugenics, idolized Nazi Germany, and favored segregation (W.E.B. Dubois, folks) lecture the rest of us about race relations.

Let Me Know When You Get It

by  Ted Nugent

One has to jack up one's imagination to try to come up with dumber decisions from our flagrantly corrupt, out-of-control government than those occurring daily in America today.
Americans are tested more and more to convince ourselves that the rookie in chief, his Mao Tse-tung fan-club administration and gang of anti-American czars could possibly be that stupid or, horror of horrors, are in fact intentionally steering the good-ship America into the rocks.
How else to explain these developments:

• Appointing self avowed Marxists and Communists like Van Jones and Cass Sunstein et al. to be in charge of anything in America is clear and present treason from where I stand.
• Having your administration's communications director look to Mao Tse-tung for philosophical direction is phenomenally crazy.
• Surrounding yourself with America-hating radicals like Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and SEIU union gangsters shows us who you are.

• Praising the bizarre cult of ACORN and turning a blind eye to their criminal activities is the act of a collaborator.
• Accelerating a maniacal spending orgy as unaccountable debt piles up at unprecedented rates is economic suicide by any sane soul's measure.

• Banning the development of America's energy resources as our enemies hold us hostage is aiding and abetting those enemies.
• Appointing a self-claimed hater of the free market with promises of redistributing wealth to be in charge of Medicare, Medicaid and America's new healthcare debacle is sabotage of the highest order.
• Suing Arizona for passing a law that simply enforces federal immigration laws while ignoring the criminal violations of sanctuary cities is the act of the enemy of the state, clearly siding with illegal invaders.
• Directing the Department of Justice to drop charges against Black Panther thugs caught on film breaking federal law is insubordination and dereliction of duty.
• Rudely alienating America's top allies shows just which side you are on.
• Bailing out wildly wealthy, criminally irresponsible bankers and crony mortgage outfits without the permission of taxpayers is mutiny.
• Appointing racists Supreme Court justices is anti-American.
• Condemning police officers and rhetorically siding with a friend while admitting not knowing the facts in a case is unpresidential.
• Increasing welfare to your constituency in the face of runaway corruption and abuse is soulless pandering.
• Offering amnesty to illegal invaders is obvious voter baiting.
• Directing NASA to reach out to Muslims is illogical rookie 101.
• Ignoring the development of nuclear capability by America's avowed No. 1 enemy is suicidal.
• Being praised by Russians and other Communists is an overt indicator that our enemies admire the direction of a weakening America.
• Increasing spending and taxes during an economic downturn is ignorant and dangerous.
• Tying the hands of America's military to fight the war on terror is wantonly asking for trouble and will increase terrorist strongholds and their capability to attack us again.
• Burdening small businesses with more taxes and regulations makes America weaker, increases unemployment, reduces America's productivity and strengthens our enemies.
That there are no patriots or statesmen in Congress blowing more whistles and raising more hell is more frightening than the violations of the President and his gang. With a soulless, unprofessional, grossly irresponsible lapdog media kow-towing to such egregious acts by the government which they are supposed to be watch-dogging, is as anti-American as it gets. That it has gotten this bad and this far without a meaningful response from anyone in government or the mainstream media is the worst-case scenario.
Thank God for Glenn Beck and Fox News. Thank God for Rush Limbaugh and much of talk radio. Thank God for the new Tea Party and Americans waking up to the inside job of Barak Hussein Obama and his evil destroyers of America.
November is varmint season, America. It is a target-rich environment. Vote the rats out. Clean house. Take America back.

==============================================================
Thank you Ted for saying it like it is! As you sometimes write...it's so simple, it's stupid. I don't like everything about the republican party, but anybody who can't see that they care more about Americans (all Americans, regardless of age, race, creed, and religion) than the socialists / communists of the other party, is just plain brain dead.

Jul 16, 2010 @ 01:01 PM

Rob, Genesee, Wisconsin

======================================================================
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

AP - WASHINGTON D.C. -
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !

Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer.

If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! THE COMMANDER .THE END OF AMERICA




=

Jul 17, 2010 @ 06:24 AM

COMMANDER ,THE END OF AMERICA, cov ri

Report Abusive Post OBAMA goes about his business by speaking the lie. II Thessalonians 2 says that he comes "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness." Revelation 13:12 says, "and he spoke as a dragon...." Revelation 17 tells us that he was a false prophet, a prophet being one whose calling it is to speak and to teach. The armies of the world may have guns and tanks and bombs to bring people into submission; but the power of speech and ideas is a mighty power. In his initial attempts to destroy the cause of God, OBAMA used a serpent to deceive the woman with crooked speech: "You will be like God." Now he uses a "dragon" who speaks crafty, lying words. His speeches will be heard by millions who will hang on his persuasive rhetoric. The content as well as the form of his speech will attract. Like most false prophets, he will even be sincere and passionate. But he is a liar. He adds dashes of truth to the mix, so that his lie tastes like truth. He will use all the right catchwords, using the language of the church, even throwing in a Bible text or two. But he is the ultimate Liar, and will deceive many. OBAMA will use every tool available: school teachers, politicians, news broadcasters, artists, musicians, scientists and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. All will be pressed into the service of OBAMA to deceive men. But especially he will use those whose calling it is to persuade and to teach -- men who claim to be preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. ================================================================= By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of obama; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.---------------- What does this beast from the sea represent?Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama But obama as a world government, a political power, the likes of which this world has never seen. The origin of this beast is the sea, which represents the restless nations and peoples of the earth. "The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose water cast up mire and dirt."That the beast has power and a throne and great authority. obama is a political reality, a new world order a global unity,,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.----------------If you Don't care that Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer.=== If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! the commander,=== THE END OF AMERICA !!

Jul 17, 2010 @ 06:24 AM

COMMANDER ,THE END OF AMERICA, cov ri

Report Abusive Post..........TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets ////Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led." "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one." "All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it." "Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.========"pelosi don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social hate ...obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half LIES, and the other half RACIAL. How can one expect THE USA to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries... Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit� The media's justification is apparently “because it's out there”, truth be damned., =========GOD OPEN YOUR EYES, Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to enemies INPEACH OBAMA THE COMMUNIST ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur. -------------- THE COMMANDER ,THE END OF AMERICA !!

Liberals Still Acting Stupidly on Race

by  Gary Bauer

07/18/2010

The election of our first black President was supposed to signal a milestone in our nation’s pursuit of a post-racial society. Part of the hope and change millions of voters expected involved racial reconciliation.

Interviewed in the wake of Barack Obama’s victory, Martin Luther King III predicted, “race relations clearly will be advanced…because of President-elect Obama.”
But instead of marking a new beginning in race relations, Obama’s presidency has given new life to the old politics of racial grievance. In fact, ironically, Obama himself has been most responsible for initiating a new era of race-baiting.

One year ago, Cambridge police arrested Obama friend and Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates at his home for disorderly conduct. A few days later, Obama claimed that the police had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, adding “that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

Obama was careful to preface his remarks by conceding, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played.” But Obama’s ignorance didn’t stop him from making his explosive charges, which led to a firestorm of criticism that lasted for months. 

The Cambridge incident established a template that the Left has followed for the past year. Liberals have thrust race into the forefront of most of the top political and social controversies. They’ve alleged racism without sufficient knowledge of the facts and sometimes in spite of the clear facts.

At its annual conference, the NAACP adopted a resolution condemning the allegedly “racist elements” of the Tea Party.  The organization’s leaders cited the supposedly racist signs at Tea Party rallies and the alleged hurling of racist epithets at black legislators at an event in Washington, D.C. No one has found any evidence such epithets were uttered. 

One would think that many NAACP members would be embracing the Tea Party, not condemning it. After all, minorities have been hurt most by President Obama’s economic irresponsibility. At over 15%, unemployment among blacks is nearly twice as high as it is among whites. As Vernon Parker, who is black and a Tea Party member and former mayor, told Politico, “The NAACP should be concerned about bringing jobs to people in depressed areas. Not the Tea Party.”Re-reading columns I have written about race over the last two years, I am struck by the long list of leftwing politicians and media personalities who have attributed opposition to Obama and his agenda to racism. In fact, I am hard-pressed to name many prominent liberals who have not done so.

During the election, opposition to Obama was often blamed on race with virtually no proof.  The McCain campaign was accused of stoking racism even though it went so far out of its way not to be labeled as such that it refused to raise Obama’s racist and anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright as a valid issue. McCain felt highlighting the racism of Obama’s mentor would itself somehow be seen as racist. Sadly, he was probably right.
Since Obama’s election victory, race has been thrust into almost every major political issue.  Townhall protests of socialized medicine were said to be fueled by racism, as was the anti-spending Tea Party movement.

When Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, the media suggested tough questioning by Republicans during her confirmation hearing would risk alienating Hispanic voters. The hearing became a love-fest. 

Obama Atty. Gen. Eric Holder called America a “nation of cowards” on race. It was an ironic allegation from the man heading a Justice Department that has cowardly allowed race to dictate policy.

Under Holder, DOJ is accused by a former Justice official of systematically ignoring civil rights cases in which blacks are the alleged perpetrators. Exhibit A is its refusal to prosecute an air-tight case of voter intimidation by New Black Panther Party thugs.
It’s not that Holder hasn’t prioritized cases in which race plays a role. He has filed a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law and may file another court challenge on grounds of racial profiling. No matter that the law simply requires police to check the immigration status of persons they suspect have been involved in a crime.

With the Justice Department playing racial politics with the law, racial grievance groups are feeling emboldened. Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Janet Murguia of La Raza took to the pages of the Washington Post to call on Major League Baseball to move the 2011 All Star Game from Arizona because of the state’s new immigration law.

They wrote that the game should be moved from Phoenix because “the families, friends and fans” of a third of the players who are non-white “could be treated as second-class citizens because of their skin color or the way they speak.” The authors also absurdly compared Arizona’s immigration law to the racist and segregationist policies under Jim Crow.

There was once a time when the allegation of racism was so toxic that it could end a distinguished career or a promising future in an instant. But the Left has been over-playing its race card. Its race-baiting is becoming increasingly self-defeating, as so many spurious accusations of racism mean real incidents of racism are trivialized.

With each cynical attempt to play racial politics, it becomes clearer that it is the Left that’s acting stupidly on race and in the process is further dividing America.

Which Sex Position Will Your Kid Learn?

Which Sex Position Will Your Kid Learn?

by  Peter Sprigg

07/16/2010

[Caution to readers: this article deals with sexual topics using explicit terminology.]
"Helena is a virtual playground for you and your family," reports one tourist website. (http://www.gohelena.com/)
But some parents raising families in Montana's capital city are concerned about what will be discussed on the actual playgrounds of the city's schools, if a radical new sex education curriculum is adopted by the Helena school district.
The new lessons would teach kindergarteners the names of male and female sex organs, but one mother said, "My 5-year-old girl has no need to understand the scrotum or testicles at this point."

First graders would begin to learn about homosexuality by being taught that "human beings can love people of the same gender & people of another gender." That's true in a literal sense—boys love their fathers and grandfathers, for instance. But since first graders always prefer the company of their own sex, it makes no sense to plant the idea that this might mean they are "gay."
Second graders would be taught not to use anti-gay slurs like "homo," "fag," and "queer"—even if the lesson is the first time they have heard those words.
Fourth graders would be taught that illegal "sexual harassment" can include teasing and taunting. Encouraging kindness and discouraging bullying is worthwhile, but I'm not sure putting children in fear of jail is the best way to accomplish it.
All that is mild compared to what hits in the fifth grade, when children would be taught that sexual intercourse includes "vaginal, oral, or anal penetration." This goes even beyond what the sexual revolutionaries at SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States)and Planned Parenthood recommend in their "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education," upon which the Helena curriculum is ostensibly based. SIECUS does not introduce their sexual trinity until middle school, and only uses the word "penetration" in its definition of rape. And in 6th grade, Helena would elaborate that creative people can have intercourse using the "fingers, tongue, or objects"—details not found in the SIECUS guidelines.
The rationale behind this approach seems to be that some children may experience these behaviors, so all need to be prepared. That doesn't answer the concern that such lessons may plant ideas in young heads that would not have been there otherwise—thus making them counter-productive. One recent survey of urban seventh graders found that 88% had no experience with any of these behaviors  - so why they should be introduced to 100% of fifth graders in Helena, Mont., is a complete mystery.
Also unclear is whether the lessons will fully explain the risks of the three forms of "intercourse." Will students be warned that people can contract sexually transmitted diseases in the mouth and throat through oral sex? Will they be told that the risks of contracting HIV through receptive anal sex are ten times higher than the risks of insertive vaginal sex? While Helena's curriculum is too explicit in many ways, it may not be explicit enough about some politically incorrect truths.
Meanwhile, the curriculum would also teach sixth graders about sex changes, and high schoolers would be taught to "understand erotic images in art."
How will this curriculum be implemented? According to the local paper, they may "hire an instructional health coach using stimulus money." Perhaps innocence-destroying sex-ed is a program that's too perverse to fail.
Citizens were shocked when the proposed curriculum was unveiled in June, and got their first chance to express their outrage directly to the school system's Board of Trustees on July 13.
About 300 citizens turned out, filling the meeting room and an overflow room and spilling out onto the street. According to observers, at least 75%-80% of the crowd was firmly opposed to the proposed curriculum. When the school staffer who oversaw the development of the curriculum, Teresa Burson, declared, "We did this with family values in mind," the crowd openly jeered.
On an issue that is so sensitive as human sexuality, and so caught up with people's individual moral values, parents have an inherent right to be the first to discuss such topics with their children. But I'm convinced that even liberal parents-who favor, for example, contraceptive-based education over a pure abstinence message-are unlikely to want these topics introduced as early as they are in this curriculum. The government should not put itself between parents and their children in this way.
Helena's main street is called "Last Chance Gulch," after the story of discouraged miners who decided to take one last chance—and struck gold. One hopes that when the school Trustees vote on this curriculum in August, they will take advantage of their last chance for sanity to prevail, and reject this curriculum.

 Montana School to Teach Kindergartners about Sex Organs, 1st Graders about Homosexuality
Helena School Board Gets Earful on Sex Ed Proposal

By Matt Gouras, Associated Press

Helena, Mont. (AP) - A proposed sex education program that teaches fifth graders the different ways people have intercourse and first graders about gay love has infuriated parents and forced the school board to take a closer look at the issue.

Helena school trustees were swamped Tuesday night at a hearing that left many of the hundreds of parents in attendance standing outside a packed board room. They urged the school board in this city nestled in the Rocky Mountains to take the sex education program back to the drawing board.

The proposed 62-page document covers a broad health and nutrition education program and took two years to draft. But it is the small portion dealing with sexual education that has drawn the ire of many in the community who feel it is being pushed forward despite its obvious controversial nature.

Parents appeared most worried about pieces of the plan that teaches first graders about same-gender relationships, fifth graders that sexual intercourse includes "vaginal, oral, or anal penetration," and high school students about erotic art. The curriculum would also teach kindergartners anatomical terms such as penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum and uterus.

"They made this more controversial by adding in all this stuff like same-gender relationships to small children, teaching body parts to kindergartners, and teaching erotic art to ninth through 12th graders," said Mikal Wilkerson, who has five children in the school system and a husband who sits on the school board. "They even teach about anxiety about sexual performance in high school."

Supporters say the proposed health education curriculum contains honest, science-based information on wellness and allows students to make better decisions.

The board takes the issue up again next month, and the outrage suggests that members could alter the plan to deal with all the complaints. One resident said parents may have to consider impeachment of board members or a lawsuit if it goes forward.

Marianne Rencher, a lawyer who will have a second grader and a kindergartner in the school system next year, wants certain aspects of the sex education program taken out, particularly the fifth-grade curriculum about intercourse. She said the rest of the health program could go forward while the sex education is recrafted.

Trustee Terry Beaver said he thinks much in the policy is favorable, but believes the public backlash means they should carve out the sexuality elements and deal with them separately.

"It appears to be a strong divisive issue. I think when the community is that strongly divided we need to take a further look at it," Beaver said.

Beaver said his issue with the plan revolves on whether certain components are being taught too young.

"I don't know that anything needs to be taken out," he said. "Some of it might be age inappropriate. We are going to have to consider how we teach it and when we teach it.

Its time

Bremerton Rescue Mission Newsletter Meet the New Staff of the Mission August 2010 Dear Dr. Willis Henry,   We want you to know a little about the new staff at Bremerton Rescue Mission.  We are excited about what God is doing through the Mission and we are delighted to know that we already have a large group of prayer partners and friends.  Our mission remains the same, to take 'Help and Hope' to the poor and homeless of Kitsap County.   Please know that we value your prayers, encouragement, support and time.  Feel free to make your comments at any time.  Walt Le Couteur - Executive Director I am honored and humbled by the invitation to serve as the Director of this important outreach.  I have a heart for the homeless and a desire to see real changes made in their lives. I have over 6 years of rescue mission experience and was the director of my own outreach ministry to bikers from 2001 to 2006 called Wide Turn Ministries. My focus in life is to share the love of God with those who do not share my hope.   I earned my Masters in Business Administration from the University of North Dakota in 1984 and am nearing completion of a  degree in Urban Ministries from the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions (AGRM).  I was ordained in January of 2001 and have served in several ministerial capacities. My greatest desire is to see us develop a program where men and women can recover from addictions, clear up financial and legal encumbrances and work toward a position of dignity in the community with permanent housing, jobs and hope for the future. I have a passion for the lost, hope for the down trodden and respect for all people as children of God.  God has called me to this ministry and I look forward to serving you and the poor and homeless of Kitsap County.  Mike O'Shaughnessy - Operations Manager Mike brings a unique aspect to the Mission.  He was homeless for a time and has a very real understanding of the needs of the homeless.  Mike will be responsible for the Mission Guy Truck and all of our meal sites. His background in inventory management provides him with the skills he needs to handle this multifaceted position.  Mike brings energy, a servants heart and a desire to help others find his hope in Christ. Mike shares my vision for establishing discipleship homes where we can help men and women put their lives in order and have new hope for the future. Amy O'Shaugnessy - Volunteer Coordinator Mikes wife Amy will be taking over the role of Volunteer Coordinator.  She married Mike in 2005 and went through the homeless ordeal with Mike. Her skills in computers make her an excellent addition to our development team. Mike and Amy make a great team and we look forward to the new prospective they bring to the Mission.  Discipleship Homes Discipleship is one more solution to homelessness. This involves a decision by an individual to make a change in their life.  When this decision is made, then it is up to us, the community, to give that person the help he/she needs to make the change.  Not a hand-out but a hand-up.  We are currently looking at three possible homes to provide that helping hand for men and women who want to make that change.  These homes will provide food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life while helping the individuals clear up encumberments to success like, addictions, financial problems and  legal issues.  We also assist the individual in rebuilding the skills needed to be successful in work, life and relationships.  This is all focused on a Christ centered life because we believe that with God at the center, everything else works correctly.  Here is the catch, this all takes a great deal of financial, personal and material resources.  You can help.  Here is your chance to be part of the solution and follow the Lord's desire to help the poor.  When you get an opportunity, read Matthew 25:31-46, and let God lead you in how best to serve him.  There are many ways you can help, come and be part of our team through prayer, volunteering and donating.  Help us to bring 'Help and Hope' to these individuals.   The Bremerton Rescue Mission is a 501(c)3 Non Profit Corporation and all contributions are tax deductable.    Our phone number is (360) 373-3428. God bless you! Walt Le Couteur Executive Director Bremerton Rescue Mission In This Issue New Directror Operations Manager Discipleship Homes Safe Tent Camps Safe Tent Villages The number of unsheltered homeless in Kitsap County, according to the latest homeless count, is over 1800 indivduals and rising.  These men, women and children are living in cars, abandoned buildings or in the woods in very unsanitary conditions. Many of those living in the woods don't even have tents.  What is the solution?  How do we get these folks out of these unsafe conditions and into suitable housing?   There is no one solution to the problem but a tent village is one of many ways to help solve the problems of homelessness. It is not the end to the porblem but one more step toward meeting the needs of the poor in our community.  In a recent visit to Camp Quixote in Olympia we discovered that for a small part of the homeless population, a safe tent village is a step in the right direction.  This camp is occupied, directed and maintained by 'Houseless' individuals working together to solve their problems.  Many of the residents of this camp have gone on to more permanent housing. It is not the solution for all but can provide some of the homeless a chance to change their position.  We support this and are working with the Kitsap Continuum of Care to bring one or two safe camps to Kitsap County.  Join us in bringing 'Help an Hope' to the poor and homeless in our county.  Special Needs Camp Site:  Sleeping Bags Tents Blankets 10x8 Tarps Propane Bottles Clothing: Coats Shoes Gloves Socks Underware Hygeine (small):  Shampoo Body Wash Lotion Tooth Paste Tooth Brushes Quick Links Visit our Web Site  More About Us

Forward email This email was sent to dr.willis.henry@gmail.com by wlecouteur@bremrescue.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by Bremerton Rescue Mission | P.O. Box 1497 | Bremerton | WA | 98337

Good News About Adoptive Parents -- But Not About Same-Sex Couples

Good News About Adoptive Parents -- But Not About Same-Sex Couples

by  Peter Sprigg

What scholars find and what scholars say don’t always match.

In six years of reading research on sexuality and family structure, I’ve found numerous examples of that truth. Another came to light recently with the release of a study of adoptive parents in the American Sociological Review.

The press release announcing the study said that it could undermine arguments against homosexual parenting and same-sex marriage. What it didn’t say was that its findings were based on "married male-female couples." The database used included no same-sex couples in its 161 "adoptive families."

How did a study that has precisely nothing to do with same-sex marriage come to be portrayed as supporting an argument for it? The answer is an object lesson on the uses and abuses of social science research.

Authors Laura Hamilton, Simon Cheng, and Brian Powell said it has often been asserted that children do best when raised by their biological parents. Who says this? Well, among others, the Washington State Supreme Court, which last summer rejected claims of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, declaring, "Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples . . . furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents."

Since same-sex partners cannot, by definition, both be the biological parents of the same child, this belief that biology matters for parenting and childrearing is a major obstacle to full acceptance of same-sex marriage. In an apparent effort to attack this obstacle, the authors decided to compare families headed by two adoptive parents with those that include one or both of the child’s biological
parents.

They compared these families on one key characteristic -- "parental investment" of resources in the child. The resources studied were economic (e.g., having a home computer), cultural (e.g., reading to the child), interactional (e.g., helping with homework), and "social capital resources" (e.g., attending a school event).

The researchers found that adoptive couples actually "invested" more in their children than biological parents. Part of that was because adoptive parents, on average, tended to be wealthier. But even when the findings were controlled for sociodemographic factors like income and education, the adoptive couples invested as much as families with two biological parents, and more than single parents and stepfamilies.

To know that this article did not study any same-sex couples, you would have to go beyond the press release, and even beyond the text of the article, to a footnote which explains that the number of same-sex adoptive couples "is still too small to support statistical analysis. Our analyses focus on married male-female couples who adopt."

Even though the study has nothing to do with homosexual parenting and same-sex marriage, let’s look at other aspects of it. It’s important to note that the variable being studied -- "parental investment" -- measures the behaviors of parents, not outcomes for children.

While it’s not illogical to assume some connection between parental investment and child well-being, there are undoubtedly many other factors which influence the outcomes in life for children. Indeed, it is somewhat suspicious that the authors chose to study only the variable of "parental investment." when a huge body of research has shown that children raised by their own, married mother and father are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than those in any other family structure.

In fact, the only data which the article provides on actual outcomes is found in another footnote dealing with children’s test scores. When the direct, raw data is compared, the reading, math, and general knowledge test scores of children with two adoptive parents were comparable to those of children living with both biological parents.

But when the researchers controlled for the level of "parental investment," and when they controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, they found that adopted children actually did more poorly.

Even if we were to assume that homosexual couples who adopt are similar to the heterosexual couples actually studied, it would not tell us much about general conditions for "children of homosexual parents." Most children being raised by self-identified homosexuals are not adopted at all -- they are the biological children of those individuals who were conceived in a previous heterosexual relationship.

When a child’s biological parent -- who is often divorced from the other biological parent -- now lives with a gay partner, that situation resembles a stepparent household more than an adoptive one. And stepparent households fared poorly in the article’s findings.

The lack of a biological tie between parent and child is not the only reason to be concerned about same-sex parenting. Children can also suffer from the failure to provide both a male and female role model -- a mom and a dad -- within the home, and from exposure to the negative consequences of homosexual behavior itself, which is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse.

On the whole, the study does represent good news for adoptive parents and their children. However, this study’s findings cannot be applied to homosexual couples or the debate over same-sex marriage -- no matter what its authors may have said.

A Parent's Nightmare (It could happen to you)

A Parent's Nightmare

by  Peter Sprigg

02/04/2010

Imagine that you are a mother (perhaps you are). You have only one child -- your own flesh and blood, conceived with your egg, borne in your body, pushed out into the world by your own exertions.
She is seven and a half years old, and for the last six years you have been her sole caretaker. Single parenthood is tough, but your parents help, and it seems your daughter is doing well. She is happy and well-adjusted. You have worked hard to support her and transmit your values to her. She goes to church with you every week.
Now, someone wants to take her away from you. Her father? No -- another woman wants to be her mother. This woman lives in a different state hundreds of miles away. Your daughter once knew the woman, but so long ago that she has no memory of her. The woman has no biological relationship to your child. She has no adoptive relationship to your child. But she wants to take your daughter away from you and be her mother now.
No court has ever found you to be an unfit mother. And yet -- unbelievably -- the courts of two states have ordered you to transfer custody of your child to this other woman.

 

What would you do? Do you simply give your child away?
This is not the plot for a Hollywood thriller. This nightmare scenario is the real-life situation that Lisa Miller found herself in recently.
Apparently, Lisa couldn’t give her daughter away. She chose to run instead.
Of course, there is more to the story. But if reading the description above leaves you with a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach, it should. This is the brave new world of family law, thanks to the gains made by the homosexual movement.
Lisa Miller’s daughter Isabella was conceived through artificial insemination. Her biological father was an anonymous sperm donor. When Isabella was conceived, Lisa was in a lesbian relationship with a woman named Janet Jenkins. It is Janet who now wants to gain custody of Isabella.
Lisa and Janet first met and began living together in Virginia. They obtained a Vermont civil union while still residents of Virginia, but after Isabella was born they decided to move to Vermont.
Under Vermont law, Janet could have adopted Isabella, but she did not. Janet’s lawyers claim that adoption was not necessary. The husband of a married woman who gives birth to a child is presumed by the law to be that child’s father. Since “civil unions” are supposed to reproduce the rights of civil marriage in every detail, Janet claims that she was automatically a legal parent to Isabella, by virtue of their civil union.
This is but one example of the ways in which same-sex “marriage” and its counterfeits (such as “civil unions”) turn logic and reality on its head. The very legal principle on which Janet rests her claim to Isabella has historically been described as the “presumption of paternity” (i.e., fatherhood). It absolved men and women from having to legally prove what was almost always true anyway—that the father of a child born to a married woman is her husband. Now, the same principle is asserted to support something that can never be true, since a female partner can never be a father. A usually-true legal assumption (the presumption of paternity) has been twisted into a complete legal fiction (and re-named the presumption of “parentage.”)
By September 2003, the relationship had soured. Lisa’s personal testimony indicates that she was feeling drawn back into the Christian faith of her youth, and feeling convicted that her homosexual relationship was not right in the eyes of God. Lisa and her daughter Isabella moved back to Virginia.
Since 2003, there has been a complex round of court filings and appeals in both Vermont and Virginia. Vermont courts supported Janet’s parental rights as a result of the civil union. Initially, a Virginia court ruled that because of that state’s marriage amendment,
any rights arising from a Vermont civil union are null and void in Virginia.
Ultimately, though, the highest court in both states ruled that another law must prevail. The federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, originally designed to prevent a divorced parent from taking a child to another state to secure a more favorable custody ruling, gives precedence to the decisions of the first state in which custody and visitation issues were raised -- in this case, when Lisa filed to dissolve the civil union in Vermont. Again, it is highly ironic that a law written (in the context of heterosexual marriage and biological parenthood) to prevent a biological parent from being deprived of their child is now being used to mandate the same thing.
Now, the Virginia Supreme Court has told Lisa she must obey the order of the Vermont courts to turn her daughter over this month or face arrest. No court has ever found Lisa to be an unfit parent. Indeed, the courts do not even claim that it is in Isabella’s “best interest” to be given to Janet. They are simply punishing Lisa for not complying with earlier orders to allow Janet visitation. (Lisa claims that Isabella had severe negative emotional reactions after earlier visits with Janet).
Lisa was told to transfer custody of her daughter on New Year’s Day. She never showed up.
Would you?

Obama Appointee in Black Panther Case Must Answer for Failure

By Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski
A situation involving voter intimidation caught on tape has now exploded, as a Justice Department lawyer resigns to be able to tell the truth to the American people that the Obama-Holder Justice Department is allowing voting-rights violations to go unpunished for political reasons. Those responsible must be made to answer for their betrayal of the public trust.
The Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has a noble mission: Make sure that no eligible citizen is denied their rights, especially the right to vote. That mandate has a special focus on race, because in darker days millions of American citizens were intimidated, threatened, or denied their right to vote simply because of the color of their skin.
Denying someone their civil rights because of race is a betrayal of the Constitution's most sacred promises. We are all created equal, endowed with rights by our Creator, and the Constitution establishes a government to secure those rights for every American.
That's why the threats caught on tape at a Philadelphia voting location are utterly deplorable. Several thugs of the New Black Panther Party stood at the door of a polling location with weapons in their hands, menacingly glaring at white Americans as they went by.
Fortunately, a couple intrepid patriots captured this illegal action on video. They even engaged them in conversation, confirming who they were and what they were doing.
In response to this clear and egregious case of voter intimidation, the Justice Department brought action against these Black Panthers. The defendants didn't even have enough respect for the law to show up in court, and so the judge properly issued a default judgment against them.
Then Barack Obama was sworn in as president, and appointed Eric Holder attorney general. (Holder, who then promptly called America a nation of cowards on issues of race.) The new political appointee heading DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, hand-picked by Attorney General Holder and President Obama, dropped the case against the Black Panthers during the sentencing phase.
Dropped the case? Hadn't the Justice Department already won? Yes, the government had already won. All they had to do was wait for the court to hand down its punishment.
But Thomas Perez and the Obama-Holder team decided to drop the case. Their reason? Perez had the audacity to say that there wasn't enough evidence for the case to succeed. Evidently expecting that people would blindly ignore the fact that the Justice Department had already won, he said with a straight face that the evidence just wasn't there.
As disgusting as this situation was, it looked like it was dead. President Obama had won the White House and chose to nominate far-left Eric Holder to lead the Justice Department, and then the two of them stacked DOJ with a raft of extremists like Thomas Perez who were willing to ignore gross injustices and lawbreaking for the sake of licking the hand of their racist allies at the New Black Panther Party.
(To back up this statement, just look at this video where one of these Black Panthers in this case, King Samir Shabazz, saying, "You gonna have to kill some crackers [white people]. You gonna have to kill some of their babies!" If you use racial slurs and talk about killing babies because of their skin color, then you're a racist.)
Then two unexpected events brought this travesty back to life. First, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission launched an investigation. The investigation started to uncover and verify the facts, shining a spotlight on the inexcusable failure of the Obama-Holder DOJ to execute the judgment against these Black Panther lawbreakers.
Second, a brave lawyer from the Justice Department who had worked on this case, J. Christian Adams, had the courage to resign so that he could go public with the truth. Adams has taken to the airwaves and is now testifying before the Civil Rights Commission, calling for justice to prevail on the pathetic dereliction of duty of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Thomas Perez.
We say dereliction of duty, because the Constitution charges the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Attorney General Holder serves as the chief law enforcement officer in the country, at the pleasure of the president, to make sure that the law is upheld. And this specific instance was under the purview of Thomas Perez. They have utterly failed.
Even more alarming, new records now show that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli was heavily involved in this situation, at the same time that he was consulting with White House Deputy Counsel Cassandra Butts, who has a record as a radical extremist similar to that of Communist Van Jones, who was forced to resign in disgrace.
As we show in our book, The Blueprint, this is different than previous administrations. Every president has different law enforcement priorities, and as such make different decisions about how to spend resources to prosecute which crimes. But in this instance, the case was over. DOJ won. The work was complete. And yet Perez, Perrelli, and the Obama-Holder team dropped their victory to the ground, to the shock of career DOJ lawyers.
This failure is utterly intolerable. If Republicans take back the U.S. House this November, they should immediately drag Thomas Perez and Thomas Perrelli up Capitol Hill and put them under oath to justify their decision. If that investigation verifies that things are as they appear, then whoever made the decision to drop this case, whether Perez, Perrelli, or perhaps Eric Holder himself, should be forced to resign.
The right to vote is the beating heart of democracy, and the only way that we the voters hold accountable those with power to govern our lives. This situation cannot be allowed to stand.
Whether it's Perez, Perrelli, or even Holder, if the official responsible for this pathetic tragedy refuses to resign, Congress should impeach him.
Ken Blackwell is Senior Fellow, Family Empowerment and Ken Klukowski is Director, Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council.
This article appeared in Big Government on July 12, 2010.

Graham Prays at Pentagon, Says 'Islam Got a Pass

Graham Prays at Pentagon, Says 'Islam Got a Pass'
Thursday, May 06, 2010
By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press


Rev. Franklin Graham speaks with reporters after praying in the Pentagon parking lot, Thursday, May 6, 2010. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
Washington (AP) - Evangelist Franklin Graham prayed on a sidewalk outside the Pentagon Thursday after his invitation to a prayer service inside was withdrawn because of comments that insulted Muslims.

"It looks like Islam has gotten a pass," he told reporters. "They are able to have their services, but just because I disagree ... I'm excluded."

In 2001, Graham, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, described Islam as evil. More recently, he said he finds Islam offensive and wants Muslims to know that Jesus Christ died for their sins. The Pentagon's chaplain office called those comments inappropriate and, at the request of the Army, withdrew Graham's invitation to attend a multi-denominational "National Day of Prayer" service that was held in the Defense Department auditorium.

He came anyway, arriving in the Pentagon parking lot just before 8 a.m. EDT - his party of a half dozen people forming a circle on the sidewalk and praying.

They stood there for about five minutes, heads bowed, as people arriving for work passed by - a man with a briefcase, one on a bike, a woman carrying breakfast pastry in a bag and another man carrying a skateboard.

Then the group walked to the Pentagon's Sept. 11 memorial roughly a couple of hundred feet away, where media had gathered because it's one of the few places were cameras are allowed on the Pentagon property. There, Graham held a news conference that lasted nearly twice as long as the prayer.

Asked why he had come, Graham said it was to pray for the men and women serving at the warfront, including his son, who he said had already been wounded in Iraq and now serves in Afghanistan.

He said he doesn't believe "all religions are equal" and that there is only "one way to God" - and that is through Jesus.

Asked if he still believes Islam is evil, he said: "I believe the way they treat women is evil, yes I do." And, can he understand how some of his comments would be offensive to Muslims? "Oh, I'm sure," he said. "But I find what they teach and what they preach and what's on the Internet - I find that to be offensive, too."

Another moment in the news conference, he said people shouldn't be offended because it's simply a disagreement in what people believe.

Graham said many American Christians "feel we are losing our freedoms while people of other faiths are gaining their freedom. It's a perception, whether it's right or wrong."

While Graham spoke outside, some 80 people attended a service inside the Pentagon that included Roman Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Protestant chaplains.


(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)


Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-2 of 2
Comments



Loading... Loading...
aussiepal (1 months ago)

I think its a shame that the Roman Catholic, protestant and Jewish chaplains didn't boycott the event thus forcing the issue ...then it would have been a nonsense that the only belief system represented there would have been muslim...just as it is a nonsense to have discriminated against Graham...what about all the foul things muslims have said against Jews and Christians...this is utter hypocrisy..behind all this is OBAMA who refused to take part in the National Day of Prayer...stands out like tits on a bull ! is that dude even American?? sure as hell acts like a muslim..
suspvk (2 months ago)

I'm tired of Muslims whining about EVERYTHING anyone says that is critical of their religion. Sometimes, they even issue death threats when they're "offended." No other religion does that. We are supposed to have free speech in this country, but some Muslims are doing all they can to censor what people are allowed to say. It's bad enough we have the politically correct crowd doing that already. Now, the Muslims are joining in. I thought this was America, not Saudi Arabia.

Obama Violates Own Executive Order, Funds Abortions
Operation Rescue: Heath care bill was passed under false pretenses and should be repealed

Contact: Troy Newman, President, 316-841-1700; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, 316-516-3034; both with Operation Rescue, info@operationrescue.org

WASHINGTON, July 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Department of Health and Human Services under radical abortion promoter Kathleen Sebelius has approved the first disbursement of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions, despite an Executive Order that promised the American people such abortion funding would not be permitted.

As part of Obama's health care plan, Pennsylvania will receive $160 million to fund a "high risk" insurance pool. Those in the pool will qualify to have any abortion legal in the State of Pennsylvania paid for by taxpayers.

"We knew when Obama signed the Executive Order that would have allegedly blocked tax funding of abortion that it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Now that has been proven to be true," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

"It is shocking and disturbing to see the ease at which Obama and Sebelius can flat-out lie to the American people and apparently get away with it. This kind of dishonest treatment of the American people and disregard for agreements made and signed shows that the word of both Obama and Sebelius cannot be trusted, which makes them unfit to serve - something we have been saying all along."

Over 70 percent of the American people oppose tax funded abortion in the national health care system. Several Senators and Congressmen voted for the health care bill only on the condition that tax money would not go to fund abortion. Now that Obama has reneged on the agreement and violated his own Executive Order, Operation Rescue urges Congress to repeal the heath care legislation that was enacted under false pretenses last March.

Previous OR statement on Executive Order supposedly banning tax funding of abortions

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation and has become a strong voice for the pro-life movement in America. Operation Rescue is now headquartered in a former abortion clinic that it bought and closed in 2006. From there, Operation Rescue launches its innovative new strategies across the nation, exposing and closing abortion clinics through peaceful, legal means. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to stop abortion and ultimately restore legal personhood to the pre-born in obedience to biblical mandates.