Imprisoned Creationist Faces New Federal Charges. Life Behind Bars

The federal government has always played hardball with Kent Hovind, and that spanned Republican and Democrat administrations alike. But this latest charge is especially outlandish. I'm fairly certain the mail fraud statute was not enacted for this purpose. They are trying to break Kent Hovind and make an example of him. christiannews.net/2015/02/04/kent-hovind-imprisoned-evolutionary-foe-now-facing-new-charges-life-behind-bars/

Ex-gays Outnumber Current Gays

There are more ex-homosexuals than current homosexuals. This is a much more serious concern for coercive Sodomites than any alleged injustices suffered at the hands of homophobes. High attrition rates sap the strength of the Gay movement and, therefore, of the Democratic party. Thus the urgency of marginalizing, discrediting and criminalizing conversion therapy, in which a reluctant homosexual seeks assistance (therapy) in converting to his preferred sexual identity. If ACLU types (like Ruth Bader Ginsburg) really were devoted to individual sexual autonomy, they would be outraged by any attempt to deprive men and women of the right to seek therapy for this painful sexual affliction.  www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic

State's High Court Resists Federal Judicial Frolic

You don't need Law In the Catacombs to update you on the Alabama showdown over jurisdiction and homosexual marriage. That news is in all the major media, albeit slanted in favor of the homosexuals and their confederates on the federal bench. One notable exception is WORLD magazine, which has done a superb job (below) of explaining this rapidly developing story in Alabama and elsewhere in the states.

Before I address the controversy, I would like to point out something that you may have missed: Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who launched this story when he ordered his state's probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal district judge's order that they do so, recused himself from the Alabama Supreme Court proceedings that led to today's order.

Go ahead and look "recuse" up, whether in a generic dictionary or a specialized legal dictionary. And when you find it, please make a photocopy for President Obama's appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code states that judges must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”

Justice Elena Kagan, whom emails establish was deeply involved in Obamacare strategy sessions while she was solicitor general (perfectly proper, by the way) should have recused herself from the Supreme Court's deliberations and vote on Obamacare after she joined the court. It was, in fact, mandatory under Section 455(b)(3). That she didn't can only be described as lawlessness.

Hats off to Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore who holds passionate views on the subject matter of this legal controversy but felt ethically obligated to recuse himself from participation as an impartial jurist.

Now to the controversy at hand: federal district judges are not viceroys. Constitutionally, their courts are established and can be abolished by Congress. Have you heard anything out of the Federal District Court for the Panama Canal Zone lately? Congress can limit or remove their jurisdiction (and should seriously consider doing so, to restrain the recent judicial frolics that imposed Sodomite marriage despite direct legislation to the contrary).

So it is not heedless of the Rule of Law for state courts to dispute federal district judges' authority to impose their extralegal social experiments on unwilling sovereign states. It is perfectly reasonable and, in my view, long overdue.

Neither does the Alabama order defy the U.S. Supreme Court, which had an opportunity to decide the Alabama homosexual marriage issue but declined to take it up. Its members can hardly complain now when the state courts adjudicate it. It (the U.S. Supreme Court) can't delegate its authority to a frisky federal district judge in Montgomery, and there's no indication that it tried to do so.

Enjoy this WORLD article, a rose among the thorns.

Alabama Supreme Court: Stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses

MARRIAGE

By THE EDITORS

Posted March 3, 2015, 08:45 p.m.

The Alabama Supreme Court is taking on the federal judiciary, ordering the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In January, a federal judge struck down the state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2006 that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue an emergency stay of that ruling, allowing same-sex marriage to begin on Feb. 9.

But Alabama Chief Court Justice Roy Moore ordered the state’s probate judges not to follow the federal court order, declaring it did not have the authority to overturn a state law. Most judges followed Moore’s order until another federal judge said they didn't have to.

Amid the confusion, the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program asked the state’s Supreme Court to step in. In tonight’s ruling, from which Moore recused himself, the justices said the U.S. Constitution couldn’t alter the judges’ duty to administer state law. It also accused the federal court, based in Mobile, of using “sleight of hand” to legalize same-sex marriage against voters’ wishes.

The confrontation in Alabama will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the nation’s top justices already are scheduled to hear another set of same-sex marriage cases later this year. So far the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the only federal court to uphold state marriage laws, although several cases are moving through other appeals districts that might also end up siding with the states.

The state of marriage

Until 2003, same-sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states. But a lot has changed in the last decade. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, judges have followed suit by overturning state laws protecting marriage between one man and one woman. Cases challenging those laws have been filed in all states that have them.

The map below shows the state of marriage in each state, with more details about each one listed below.

• Alabama—Voters approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2006; a federal judge struck it down in January 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend a two-week stay, and counties began issuing marriage licenses Feb. 9. State Supreme Court ordered judges to stop issuing marriage licenses on March 3.

• Alaska—Passed the first voter-approved constitutional marriage amendment in 1998, which a federal judge overturned in October 2014.
• Arizona—Marriage amendment passed in 2008; federal judge overturned it in October 2014.
• Arkansas—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; county circuit judge overturned it in May 2014. State Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending appeal. Federal court overturned amendment in November 2014.
• California—Marriage amendment, called Proposition 8, passed in 2008; federal judge overturned it in 2010. Ruling did not go into effect until the Supreme Court upheld it in 2013.
• Colorado—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; state judge struck it down in July 2014. A federal judge followed suit later that same month.
• Connecticut—State Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2008.
• Delaware—State statute legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• Florida—Marriage amendment passed in 2008. Circuit judge ruled in 2014 same-sex couples could marry in the Florida Keys. Another circuit judge issued a similar ruling for Miami–Dade County. Then a federal judge struck down the amendment, and the Supreme Court denied a request for an emergency stay.
• Georgia—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; it still stands.
• Hawaii—State statute passed in 2013 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Idaho—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in May 2014. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
• Illinois—State statute passed in 2013 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Indiana—Marriage law passed in 2007; federal judge overturned it. Federal appeals court upheldthe ruling in September 2014.
• Iowa—State statute legalized same-sex marriage in 2009.
• Kansas—Marriage amendment passed in 2005; it still stands. Judge rules state must allow same-sex marriages while federal case is pending; Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
• Kentucky—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in July 2014, but the law was upheld on appeal.
• Louisiana—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge upheld it in September 2014.
• Maine—Voter referendum in 2012 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Maryland—Voter referendum in 2012 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Massachusetts—In 2003, became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a state Supreme Court ruling.
• Michigan—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in March 2014, but it was upheld on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case, and until then, the state agreed to recognize roughly 300 marriages conducted after the traditional marriage law was briefly overturned.
• Minnesota—State statute passed in 2013 legalized same-sex marriage
• Mississippi—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; overturned by federal judge in November 2014.
• Missouri—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; one county judge has ruled it is unconstitutional, and another county judge has ordered state to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
• Montana—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in November 2014.
• Nebraska—Marriage amendment passed in 2000; overturned by a federal judge in March, 2015.
• Nevada—Marriage amendment passed in 2002; federal judge upheld it, but the 9th Circuitoverturned it.
• New Hampshire— State statute passed in 2009 legalized same-sex marriage.
• New Jersey—State judge’s ruling legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• New Mexico—State Supreme Court ruling legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• New York—State statute passed in 2011 legalized same-sex marriage.
• North Carolina—Marriage amendment passed in 2012; federal judge overturned it in October 2014.
• North Dakota—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; it still stands.
• Ohio—Marriage amendment passed in 2004. Judge ordered state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states in April 2014, but that decision was overturned on appeal.
• Oklahoma—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in January 2014. Ruling upheld by federal appeals court.
• Oregon—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in May 2014.
• Pennsylvania—Marriage law passed by state legislature in 1997; federal judge overturned it in May 2014.
• Rhode Island—State statute legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• South Carolina—Marriage amendment passed in 2006. Federal judge overturned it in November 2014. Attorney general appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but the state began issuing marriages licenses on Nov. 19.
• South Dakota—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in January 2015 but stayed the ruling pending appeal.
• Tennessee—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; it still stands. A federal appeals court overruled a lower court judge’s order that the state must recognize three same-sex marriages performed in other states.
• Texas—Marriage amendment passed in 2005; federal judge overturned it in February 2014. Ruling stayed by the Supreme Court pending appeal.
• Utah—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in December 2013. Ruling upheld on appeal.
• Vermont—State statute passed in 2009 legalizing same-sex marriage.
• Virginia—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in February 2014. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
• Washington—Voter referendum legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.
• West Virginia—Marriage law passed by state legislature in 2000. Same-sex marriage became legal in October 2014 following the state attorney general’s decision to stop defending the law after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court decision in support of gay marriage.
• Wisconsin—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in June 2014.
• Wyoming—Marriage law passed by state legislature in 1977; federal judge overturned it in October 2014.

Interactive Anti-Christian Bigotry Map

The American Family Association recently posted a free interactive resource mapping organized U.S. anti-Christian bigotry in multiple categories.  The connecting thread is that each of the 200+ groups or organizations "openly display bigotry toward the Christian faith."

The home page of the site lists four of the faith's more notorious antagonists - the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Human Rights Campaign and GLSEN - followed by a brief summary of each group's modus operandi.

The map can be accessed directly by mouse click, or searched by state. It can also be filtered by one of four group categories: Atheist, Humanist, Anti-Christian and Homosexual Agenda.

We recommend it for Christian activists, for citizens who want background on organizations in the news, and for home-schoolers. We hope AFA will update it frequently and in fact, "Anti-Christian Bigotry Reports" are linked from the home page, four since Jan. 16. We have high hopes for this resource.

Interactive Anti-Christian Bigotry Map

Ninth Circuit: Take Down That Cross

FRC Calls Mt. Soledad Cross Ruling an Affront to Religious Liberty, American Tradition
Urges Full Ninth Circuit to Consider War Memorial Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) today called on the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to take up the Mt. Soledad Cross case, Trunk v. San Diego. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Mt. Soledad war memorial is unconstitutional.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

"This decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit displays hostility toward religious imagery in the public square that ignores these essential aspects of religious liberty and American tradition.

"In 2001, when militants set out to bomb two colossal Buddhist statues that had stood untouched in Afghanistan for more than a thousand years, the global community rightly condemned the actions as religious barbarism. Like the statues, the Mt. Soledad Cross is a monument to America 's cultural history, a symbol of our Christian heritage and a tribute to brave Americans who laid down their lives in our nation's cause. Their memories should not be besmirched.

"This is the latest sad chapter in a decades-long fight over the Mt. Soledad cross. A Ninth Circuit panel glossed over several important aspects of this complicated case, failing to fully consider their legal importance, and then went on to apply the wrong test to decide this case. With all due respect to the panel, the full Ninth Circuit should now take the case to clean up this mess. If they refuse to do so, then the U.S. Supreme Court must right this wrong. The Mt. Soledad cross is fully constitutional."

Crude, Profane Lesbian With Supportive Boss Harassed Employees With Impunity at Historically Black Alabama College

State Rep. John Knight, Alabama State University's second in command, says a lawsuit contending that three female university employees suffered repeated sexual and racial harassment that was condoned by ASU supervisors and officials is frivolous and possibly the handiwork of a disgruntled former university trustee.

The federal court suit contends that a female supervisor subjected one current and two former university employees to a wide variety of racial and sexual harassment, ranging from verbal harassment to inappropriate touching, and that ASU officials not only did little to correct the situation but retaliated against the employees who reported it.

But Knight, who is the executive vice president and chief operating officer at ASU, said it is political season and accused former university board member Joe Reed and the Alabama Education Association of using the lawsuit to fight progress at the university.

"There are people who served on the board in the past who do not like progress and are basically committed to fund any lawyers that want to have a lawsuit against Alabama State University," Knight said. "That is AEA and Joe Reed."

In the lawsuit, the three women contend that Lavonette Bartley, an associate executive director at the university, who at one time served as their supervisor, repeatedly harassed them -- even to the point of giving one of the women revealing clothing that she wanted her to wear to the office.

The women allege in the suit that they complained to at least three members of ASU's board of trustees, and Reed wasn't one of them. The complaints of harassment and discrimination go back to March 2008, and continue beyond the time Reed was forced to relinquish his seat on the board in September 2008.

Reed said none of the women ever made their complaints known to him while he was on the board.

Cynthia Williams, Jacqueline Weatherly and Lydia Burkhalter allege that Knight and other ASU supervisors not only condoned but also encouraged and sometimes participated in these abuses. Burkhalter alleges that Bartley made overt and Knight more subtle sexual advances toward her.


The women filed the lawsuit against the university on March 4 and are seeking compensation that includes back pay.

The suit contends that instead of trying to resolve complaints that were made in good faith concerning the problems, Knight and Bartley repeatedly retaliated against the plaintiffs. The suit also contends ASU's conduct was so "pervasive as to create a racially and sexually hostile working environment."

Candis McGowan, attorney for the three women, said they have a federally protected right to report discrimination and should not have been retaliated against for doing so.

Knight, who told the Montgomery Advertiser he was speaking on behalf of himself and not the university, said the lawsuit was frivolous and he was "shocked at some of the allegations that are in there."

Most of the allegations are aimed at Bartley, who is alleged to have regularly used the N-word when referring to the plaintiffs, other employees and even students. It also is alleged that Bartley routinely referred to female employees as "bitches," and often made sexually suggestive comments about their anatomy. She is even accused of inappropriately rubbing her breasts against Burkhalter.

According to the suit, Bartley allegedly once complained about employees' work performance, saying, "Y'all n******s gon' learn I ain't nothing to play with. When I need y'all bitches you better be there."

The Montgomery Advertiser, through Kenneth Mullinax Jr., director of public information and media relations, requested interviews with Knight, Bartley and President William Harris. Knight was the only official from ASU to respond.

Burkhalter alleges in court documents that on different occasions Knight made advances that she perceived as sexual in nature, and he once allegedly asked her to "dance for me" and promised that he could take her to parties she'd otherwise never get to attend.

In specifically addressing the allegations against him, Knight said they are "absolutely false. There is no validity to it at all."


"If anybody ever felt that was happening, then they were certainly dreaming," Knight said. He said he has tried his best during his professional career to treat employees with respect and dignity.

Knight said Williams and Burkhalter were terminated and are disgruntled employees. The lawsuit alleges that Williams and Burkhalter were both fired without cause as retaliation for reporting Bartley's alleged behavior.

When asked if he ever witnessed any improper behavior by Bartley, Knight said "absolutely not."

Knight said he became aware of the allegations when Weatherly filed her complaint with the university. He said the university encourages employees to report complaints about sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, as Weatherly did.

He said the university took the appropriate actions. The plaintiffs dispute Knight's recollection of events, alleging that attempts to transfer to other departments or to reach out to other officials were often thwarted by Knight. They also say it was nearly impossible for them to file additional complaints against Bartley and that they were told not to take their complaints further.

But Knight said the university followed procedures when Weatherly filed her complaint. He said after four days of testimony, the committee did not find any sexual harassment, but recommended sensitivity training for Bartley. He said he insisted she go to sensitivity training, that she has attended one session and that she is supposed to attend more training.

The lawsuit alleges that Bartley had not attended any training as of May 2009, which is the same month that Burkhalter was fired for allegedly abandoning her position.

In documents acquired by the Montgomery Advertiser about EEOC complaints against Bartley that were investigated by the university, the human resources director wrote in August 2008 that "Mrs. Bartley's intense involvement with various personnel was humiliating, condescending, intimidating and unwelcome behavior. This type behavior does and will interfere with one's work performance."

The EEOC committee at the university recommended, according to the August memo, giving Bartley a written reprimand "from her immediate supervisor."

Harris approved the recommendation in September 2008. The suit alleges that it took nearly eight months for Knight to act on the committee's recommendation, and when he did write the recommended reprimand, he allegedly wrote that it "does not result from my belief that you have created a hostile work environment within the context of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Knight said Bartley, whom he said he's known "a long time," continues to work under his supervision, but in a different position. He said she no longer supervises employees.

Pro-Abortion Scofflaws Fudge State Senate Votes on Bill to Outlaw Forced Abortions

This is the kind of monkey business that Liberals feel entitled to use to sabotage the legislative process. Obviously, they have no respect for democratic self-government. We are to accept without question the dictates of the Leftist savants from on high. Any attempt by ordinary Virginians to govern themselves without first getting the anointed cultural elites' approval is seen as effrontery, unworthy of deference just because we won a vote in the Legislature.

[Virginia] pro-life advocates experienced a significant victory earlier this month: SB504, a bill "patroned" by Sen. Ralph Smith (R-22, Roanoke) that would criminalize coerced or forced abortion was referred to the full (Senate) Courts committee with a positive recommendation on a vote of 4-2 out of the Criminal subcommittee.

Currently, if a boyfriend or other impregnator physically threatens his pregnant girlfriend and forces her to have an abortion against her will, this form of domestic violence cannot be criminally prosecuted. SB504 would fix that.

That success is the furthest pro-life advocates have been legislatively with this topic. Never before has the bill been given a positive report out of any committee or subcommittee because the bill was always improperly placed in Senate Education and Health committee, (known as “the committee of death” because of the committee's reputation for killing all pro-life measures). This year was the first time the legislation was treated akin to all other bills that address civil or criminal penalties and was placed in the appropriate committee, Courts of Justice.

Knowledge of the players and the process suggests that if the bill gets a favorable report in the Courts of Justice committee and moves to the floor, it would likely win in the Senate. Since the House of Delegates has already voted favorably on this legislation in years past, we believe the House would pass it, sending it to the Governor. We are within inches of a major win!

To ensure that the bill would not get "brought back" and the result changed after we left the subcommittee room, an ally of The Family Foundation stayed in the room and kept watch on the subcommittee until it ended. Nothing happened.

However, when one of our lobbyists checked the bill's status online at the close of business, something was not right. The bill was listed as being referred to the Senate Education and Health committee, not the Courts of Justice committee as was voted on earlier in subcommittee! We have a video of the subcommittee vote on our blog as proof!

If the bill was legitimately referred to Senate Education and Health, its status online should still list the bill's history in Courts committee, and the corresponding votes. However, the way the bill's status appears now, it appears as if the bill was never even heard in the Senate Courts subcommittee! Thankfully we have a dedicated intern who was able to catch this on film or else it would appear online as if it had never occurred!

What the Family Foundation wants to know is this: is this a clerical error or is this an attempt to tamper with a pro-life bill that has seen unexpected success in the Senate? Pro-family advocates have seen numerous victories already this session, so is this an attempt to derail the train?

Earth to Newsweek & CNN: Wanna Beam Down & Have a Look Around the Planet?

Jack Cashill is editor of a Kansas City business magazine, but also writes with considerable insight about politics. His book "What's the Matter with California" was incisive, and he may be onto something here, too: The reporting by our national media is so far off the mark that we can no longer attribute it to blind spots or inadvertent bias. It has crossed the threshold into fraud, sheer legerdemain. The national media appear to be corrupt.

But as a former small-market print newsman myself, let me suggest an alternative explanation in the case of Newsweek: I think it's possible the reporter just took the day off and made up quotes, defrauding not only her readers but her editors and her employer. She obviously didn't watch even 20 seconds of the march, and I don't think she talked to any police officer who would have said such a dumb thing, either. Seriously, Newsweek, you've been had.

LifeSiteNews.com
Group Exposes Media "Fraud" at March for Life
By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, DC (LifeSiteNews.com) - Anyone who attended the March for Life in the nation's capital January 22 - or was anywhere near Capitol Hill that day or the day before - was well aware of the size of the group that came to make its voice heard. District residents could only stand aside as the annual Starbucks-equipped army of young pro-life men and women descended upon the streets surrounding the Capitol. Hordes of March for Life participants filled sidewalks, and clogged crosswalks; while the noise of countless group leaders struggling to keep their contingents together competed with the din of colorfully-dressed gaggles of teenagers.

Such has come to be the late-January tradition in Washington. But from the news reports from the major networks and newspapers, one would never know it. The rest of the country was only shown misleading footage or pictures depicting the endless column of pro-lifers receding into the distance behind the looming presence of, at most, a couple dozen pro-abortion demonstrators.

Fed up with what they call the "mind-boggling corruption" of media coverage of the march, a small production team has released a YouTube video revealing the truth about the enormous event and the skewed media reports that referenced it. The same group released a documentary last year entitled "Thine Eyes," which reveals the sheer size of the 2009 March for Life and the pro-life stories behind it.

"We had hoped to set the media straight, but we did not succeed," says narrator Jack Cashill. "Their performance in 2010 convinced us that the issue at hand is not ignorance or incompetence, not even bias, but outright fraud. "More than any other event, the march reveals the truly eye-popping, mind-boggling corruption of the mainstream media."

Cashill responds to two particularly egregious media misrepresentations: one by CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez, who strongly implied that the number of pro-life marchers and pro-abortion demonstrators at the event were comparable. "Well Rick, we counted at least 300,000 pro-life marchers to 5 pro-choice protestors. In the real world, that qualifies as most," says Cashill.

[Note: I marched toward the end of the procession, and I think I saw 3-4 pro-abortion demonstrators. They were preppy, normal-looking women, and one effeminate young man. They were subdued, not raucous, and they stood at a distance from the marchers. I suspect they were doing it for extra credit in a freshman Women's Studies class. One held a sign that said "keep your Rosaries off my ovaries." How profound.

Near the end of the route, in front of the Supreme Court, there were not more than 10 of them. I heard there had been perhaps 100 earlier. These were older, shabbier and appeared to be old-school traumatized feminist man-haters, plus one sexually ambiguous man in his 50s with a condescending manner and a slight lisp, who struck me as a suburban Unitarian, perhaps a grantwriter or a liaison officer of some kind. I think most of us will always remember Rick Sanchez for his feigned uncertainty whether there were more pro-abortion (105, tops) or more anti-abortion (300,000 minimum) marching. I don't know how we can ever look him in the eye again without stifling a chuckle. B.James Stinson]

The video also skewers a Newsweek article by Krista Gesaman, in which she claimed that young women were "missing" from the March for Life 2010. Gesaman's article quoted a Washington police officer who said, in the reporter's words, that "a majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case."

The YouTube video responds with copious imagery documenting the large percentage of youth at the March, a great deal of whom were women. "Pro-lifers will not soon be too old to stage an actual march, do not worry. In truth, young women of every race, color and creed are the single largest demographic in any march. They number in the scores of thousands," Cashill notes.

"The media will have only themselves to blame if next year the marchers come back to Washington, not just in record numbers, but in righteous anger."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
CNN Gaffe: Anchor Wonders on Air Whether More Pro-Lifers or Pro-Aborts at March for Life
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012806.html

Teary Mayor Throws in Towel, Wants to Redefine California Marriage From Now On to Accommodate Lesbian Daughter

Is this man an absolute imbecile, or have his handlers contrived this sappy theatrical display for Hilltop consumption? Is this going to be his springboard to run for governor of California, or to get his own reality show? It appears that California public service doesn't exactly attract the cream of the crop these days.

LOS ANGELES TIMES

San Diego mayor testifies about his reversal on gay marriage
The Republican former police chief tells the court in the Proposition 8 trial that his former opposition was based on prejudice.
By Maura Dolan

Reporting from San Francisco - After days of anti-Proposition 8 witnesses being described as liberal and activist, challengers of California's gay marriage ban elicited testimony Tuesday from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican and the city's former police chief, who said his previous opposition to same-sex marriage stemmed from prejudice.

At the federal trial over Proposition 8, Sanders told the court that when his elder daughter, Lisa, now 26, was in college, she told him she was a lesbian. He said he expressed his "overwhelming love" for her but also had concerns she would face discrimination.

When he ran for mayor in 2005, Sanders said, he opposed same-sex marriage in favor of civil unions. Lisa worked in his campaign, wanted him to win and did not try to talk him out of his position, he said.

In 2007, the San Diego City Council passed a resolution calling on San Diego to file a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of San Francisco's effort to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. Sanders said he intended to veto the measure and called together gay friends and neighbors to explain why. "I was absolutely shocked at the depth of the hurt, the depth of the feeling," he testified.

Lawyers for the challengers of Proposition 8 played a video of Sanders crying as he told a news conference the next day that he had changed his mind about marriage for gays. Sanders testified that he was emotional because he had come so close to sending a message that gay relationships were inferior to those between heterosexuals. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced," he said.

During cross-examination, an attorney defending Proposition 8 asked whether Sanders' previous opposition to same-sex marriage stemmed from an animus against or moral disapproval of gays. Sanders said it had not, but "it doesn't mean that I don't believe it was grounded in prejudice."

Copyright (c) 2010, The Los Angeles Times

The Church Militant in a Time of Compromise and Depravity

If you've given up on this generation of Catholic youth, if you think that the militant Church of Lech Walensa and Josef Mindzhenty is in the rear-view mirror, have a look at the TFP Student Action website and follow some of the links. I wrote a friend recently that this is robust Catholicism with some bass in its voice. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/

The youngsters have vowed to confront depravity and apostasy in the street and on the Catholic campus alike, to restore the values of Christian civilization. "Youth was made not for pleasure, but for heroism," they exhort their boys at Chivalry Camp.

Their full name is the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. The TFP was founded to "resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property."

It has a full-time volunteer staff of 75, and claims 120,000 members. I'm not Catholic, but I'm profoundly encouraged by this movement during a dark time in our country. They look like a cavalry regiment cresting the ridge, in the nick of time.

Persons, Not Property: Hoye Writes That Personhood Triumphed Over Slavery, Must and Will Prevail Against Abortion

Pastor Walter Hoye blogged in November about the power of dehumanizing language as it was applied historically to Black slaves, and as it is currently applied to unborn people, many of whom also are Black. In both cases, the victim is stripped of personhood in order to accomodate oppression. And yet, he observed with Martin Luther King, Jr., “right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.” Hoye writes that personhood will have the "final word."

Persons Not Property

By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the Southern United States of America and it existed in many different forms. African Americans were enslaved on small farms, large plantations, in cities and towns, inside homes, out in the fields, and in industry and transportation.

By 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, Historian James L. Huston emphasizes the role of slavery as an economic institution. Huston, a leading advocate of secession, placed the value of southern held slaves at $2.8 billion. At about $3 billion in 1860 currency, the economic value of slaves in the U.S. was more than the combined value of all the factories, railroads and banks in the country or about $12 trillion in U.S. dollars today.

Much of the North’s economic prosperity derived from what Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, called “the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil.” President Lincoln was asking Americans to consider the obligations created by slavery. The first of those obligations is to acknowledge the full truth.

The Full Truth

The full truth is African American Slaves were considered property, and they were property because they were black. Their status as property was enforced by violence and by public policy. Slaves throughout the South had to live under a set of laws called the Slave Codes. The codes varied slightly from state to state, but the basic idea was the same: the slaves were considered property, not people, and were treated as such. The killing of a slave was almost never regarded as murder, and the rape of slave women was treated as a form of trespassing. So intolerable were the conditions under which African Americans slaves suffered from day to day that some went as far as committing suicide or mutilating themselves to ruin their property value.

As an African America, I have asked myself these questions:

1. How could this be justified?
2. Was it not obvious that African Americans were persons, living, breathing human beings?
3. Where was the outrage from the American public?

The Language of Oppression Past

Haig Bosmajian, UW professor of speech communication says. “While names, words, and language can be, and are, used to inspire us, to motivate us to humane acts, to liberate us, they can also be used to dehumanize human beings and to ‘justify’ their suppression and even their extermination.”

In order to justify the inhumane treatment of African American slaves and soothe the conscious of the Americans, dehumanizing terminology or the “language of oppression” was established and propagated by way of both “academic” and “legal” opinion at the very highest levels of our educational and legal communities.

From 1815 to 1830, the American Colonization Society: “Free black in our country are … a contagion.”

In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court decided: “A negro of the African race was regarded … as an article of property … a subordinate and inferior class of being.”

In 1858, the Virginia Supreme Court decision declared: “In the eyes of the law … the slave is not a person.”

In 1867, Buckner Payne, Publisher: “The Negro is not a human being.”

In 1900, Professor Charles Carroll: “The negro is … one of the lower animals.”

In 1903 Dr. William English: “The negro race is … a heritage of organic and psychic debris.”

In 1909, Dr. E. T. Brady: “They [Negroes] are parasites.”

The Language of Oppression Present

Today, even while modern medical science clearly and overwhelmingly supports the humanity and personhood of the pre-born child, the same financial motives and oppressive language strategies that were used to oppress African American slaves are being used, right now, to justify killing pre-born children.

For example, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided: “The Fetus, at most, represent only the potentiality of life.” Again, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared: “The word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn.”

In 1979 Professor Joseph Flectcher: “Pregnancy when not wanted is a disease … in fact, a venereal disease.” In 1980 Dr. Mariti Kekomaki: “An aborted baby is just garbage … just refuse.”

In 1984, Professor Rosalind Pollack Petchesky: “The Fetus is a parasite.” Again, in 1984, Rabbi Wolfe: “A fetus is not a human being.”

In 1985, Dr. Hart Peterson on fetal movement: “Like … a primitive animal that’s poked with a stick.”

In 1986, Attorney Lori Andrews: “People’s body parts [embryos] are their personal property.”

This year, in the Sunday, July 12th, 2009, edition of the New York Times Magazine, the power of the language of oppression to corrupt our conscious was revealed in the words of sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said in an interview that she was surprised at a 1980 court ruling that prevented the restoration of Medicaid funding for abortions, because, in her opinion, when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Entirely Indefensible

History teaches us, time and time again, that the use of oppressive language to demonize and dehumanize certain segments of the human race is incontestably evil.

In Germany, the persistent portrayal of the Jews as “vermin,” “bacilli,” “parasites,” and “disease” contributed to Adolf Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

In the antebellum South, the deliberate and systematic labeling of African Americans as “chattel,” “property,” “beasts,” “feebleminded,” and “useless eaters,” eased the conscious of many and paved the way for the subjugation and suppression of African Americans.

From the East coast to the West coast the defining of the American Indian as “non-persons,” “savages,” and “Satan’s partisans” led to the extermination of a significant portion of the American Indian population.

Yet, today, it appears we have not learned our lesson.

Just as the Jewish holocaust in Germany, the African American slavery in the antebellum south, and the death of countless American Indians were despicable events in our human history that were accompanied by the use of dehumanizing language, so today is the deliberate dismemberment and destruction of the bodies of those most vulnerable among us, among the human race, that is to say the pre-born child, entirely indefensible.

Persons Are Not Property

Human beings are persons and persons are not property. As a civil society we must move beyond the loathsome language of oppression of powerful elite and recognize the inherent, inalienable and self-evident humanity of all human beings. Regardless of the means by which we were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability, all human beings need to be and deserve to be protected by love and by law.

The Unarmed Truth

When Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: “I believe that ‘unarmed truth’ and ‘unconditional love’ will have the final word in reality. This is why “right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil” triumphant.”

Today, the “unarmed truth” is that the pre-born child is a person not property.

I believe personhood is God-given and not government-granted. It is not offered to the elite and denied to the “least of these.”

I believe personhood, addresses the most important RIGHT of all - the RIGHT to LIVE, without which all other rights are meaningless.

I believe personhood is RIGHT.

The “unconditional love” for the pre-born child in my heart, is rooted in the love Christ has for all. While the current conditions may have “temporarily defeated” the personhood of the pre-born child.

I believe the “righteousness of personhood” is stronger than the “evil of pre-natal murder” and will ultimately prove triumphant.

I believe personhood is the final word in reality of the pro-life movement.

Pastor Walter Hoye Denounces Racial Suicide, "Womb Lynching," and Passive, Inert African-American Church

California anti-abortion stalwart Walter Hoye blogged for Issues 4 Life Foundation last summer on "why African-Americans accept abortion." He finds that the Black church has failed to confront what he calls "womb lynching," and that today, as a result, a conceived African-American child has less than a 50% chance of being born: every 72 seconds an African-American baby’s life is terminated by abortion. At this rate, Hoye writes, the African-American race will be in danger of extinction by the the end of this century.

Why African-Americans Accept Abortion

The acceptance of abortion by African-Americans is one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century.

Abortion is nothing new and the reasons for it can be found rooted in the Church’s failure to consistently and effectively demonstrate the love of Christ in the terms of James 1:27.

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

Until the quality of life for women is improved by the practical applications of unconditional love, many woman will continue to be attracted to the false sense security abortion provides.

Abortion is not just another surgical or medical procedure that is hygienic and safe.

Abortion is an intrinsically evil act that gravely violates the dignity of an innocent human being by taking his or her life.

Abortion gravely wounds the dignity of those who support it and leaves those who commit it in profound psychological and moral trauma.

Marginalizing abortion marginalizes the sanctity of human life itself and dehumanizes the members of any society.

The freedom, independence, empowerment and sense of security promised women by abortion is a lie.

Can equality for women be achieved at the expense of murdering their children?

Of course not.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.”

Abortion is oxymoronic, a “cruel kindness” if you will.

Abortion is the lie that promises to improve the “quality of life” at the “expense of life”.

Embracing abortion as a necessary social policy to guarantee life would ultimately result in the end of life.

Given that according to the 2006 U.S. Census the African-American community is no longer replacing itself.

The acceptance of abortion in the African-American community is a form of racial suicide.

During the Civil Rights movement African-American’s were willing to be hosed down by Fire Departments, bitten by dogs, beaten by police officers, unjustly incarcerated, financially ruined and lynched by racist white folk to secure access to water fountains, restrooms and seats in the front of the bus.

I believe most of us would assume that African-American’s would do more for their posterity than they would for the right to use a urinal.

However, if you assume this to be true you’d be wrong.

Today an African-American child has less than a 50% chance of being born.

Every 72 seconds an African-American baby’s life is terminated by abortion.

At this rate, the African-American race will be in danger of extinction by the year of our Lord two thousand one hundred (2100).

All this and African-American Pastors are strangely silent regarding the issue of abortion.

I wonder why?

Such silence allows the African-American Pastors to trivialize abortion by equating the killing of babies with other evils in the world when the numbers from pro-abortion communities clearly prove there is no comparison.

Such silence allows the African-American Pastors to politicize abortion by comparing Democrats to Republicans as if winning such a contest will bring our dead babies back to life.

For the record, since 1973 abortion alone, accounts for over fifty (50) million prenatal murders.

According to Father Frank Pavone’s June 11th, 2009 Blog entitled “One Solitary Child” …

“Worldwide, there are 42 million abortions every year.

That means that in the last thirty years, there have been over 1.5 billion abortions! 1.5 billion!

That’s the equivalent of approximately one quarter of the entire population of the planet!

One quarter of the earth’s population, murdered, snuffed out, gone.”

Such silence from the African-American pulpit allows Pastors to avoid wrestling with their congregation over two (2) potentially Church splitting and/or job threatening issues:

1. The biblical truth about abortion and

2. Why they support a President who does not publicly support the biblical truth about abortion and other biblically defined evils.

In my opinion, such silence from men called and ordained by God Himself to preach an uncompromising gospel at all cost, is just inexcusable.

Again, such silence from the African-American pulpit allows the race card to be played in the Black Church and the discussion to be moved from murdering children to whether or not abortion is a Civil Rights issue.

Yes, much has changed since the Civil Rights movement.

Segregation is illegal in all public schools and most private places.

While discrimination still exists in many hearts today, our country has come closer to the ideals of liberty and justice.

Still, why does it appear that African-Americans are more than willing to sacrifice their posterity for prosperity?

To put it bluntly, it appears…

The more affluent African-Americans have become, the fewer children we want.

The higher our material expectations rise, the more we perceive children prevent us from achieving them.

The more affluent African-Americans have become, the less inclined we are to take risks which might destroy our quality of life.

The more affluent African-Americans have become, the more we tend to only associate with the rich and identify with their lifestyle.

Thus, in a divided society like the United States of America, affluence creates materially comfortable prisons, emotionally isolated people and morally bankrupt protocols.

The Bible puts it this way in 1st Timothy 6:10:

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

1st John 3:8 teaches us that “… the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the work of the devil.”

Since torturing babies to death is incontestably the work of the devil, abortion is incontrovertibly evil and the benefits abortion promises are ALL lies.

Still, why can’t African-Americans see this?

Oh we can see it.

There is no doubt that “momma is pregnant with child”.

There is no question that a baby, an innocent human being is murdered every time an abortion takes place.

The biological evidence is overwhelmingly clear.

Human biology has been incredibly revealing.

The biological evidence for the humanity of the unborn child is undeniable, and even advocates of abortion rights now admit this.

Abortion is simply prenatal murder.

In light of Planned Parenthood’s founder’s (i.e. Margaret Sanger) racist and eugenic past, abortion is no less than womb lynching.

The facts are in now and it is painfully obvious who the baby is and what abortion does to him or her.

Oh I can assure you, African-Americans can and do see this.

So why is there such a difference between what we as African-Americans know to be true in our hearts and how we vote?

How can African-Americans consider themselves more religious than the U.S. population as a whole and support the shedding of innocent blood?

Read Proverbs 6:16-17 …

“These six (6) things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven (7) are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.”

St. Francis of Assisi once said “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

In other words, it is time for the Church to speak the truth in love by meeting both the physical and spiritual needs of people.

I believe the answer is not in the White House, but in the church house.

I believe when the Church becomes relevant in the lives of the people …

The Word of God will once again be relevant in the hearts of the people …

And when the Word of God is relevant in the hearts of the people …

I believe abortion, anywhere and everywhere this evil exists, will come to an end.

So join me and let’s go to work.

Roe v. Wade NOT the 'Settled Law' of the Land, Despite Arlen Specter's Confusion

Old-school activists from the Operation Rescue era have ratcheted up their resistance to abortion recently, this time under the banner of the Personhood movement. (http://www.personhoodamendments.com/intro/index.php)

Former Rescuers Cal Zastrow and Chet Gallagher are at the forefront of the movement to enact state Constitutional amendments, which had gone dormant under National Right to Life's leadership.

On the U.S. Supreme Court, even Antonin Scalia has declared his hostility to a federal Personhood statute because he believes the issue properly belongs with the states. Now, activists like Zastrow and Gallagher are petitioning states to put Constitutional Personhood amendments on the ballot where permitted, and elsewhere they are urging state legislators to take up the Personhood issue.

In this article that prolife activist Mary King wrote for a Montana newspaper, she outlines a strategy to "end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it." That strikes me as wildly optimistic, but I do think it's worth a try.

As much as the Personhood activists denounce the incrementalist strategy of the National Right to Life "establishment," I believe every increment is worth fighting for because the increments are comprised of real live babies. If the Personhood movement's successes turn out to be incremental, that is no reason to be dismissive. If they turn out to be as revolutionary as Mary King predicts, I'll be absolutely thrilled to guess wrong.

How pro-lifers can overturn Roe v. Wade
By Mary King

In this month in 1973, the Supreme Court declared open season on unborn babies when they infamously invented a "right" to abortion in their Roe v. Wade decision, making null and void laws protecting the unborn in all 50 states.

In the 37 years since, black-robed despots have devalued the worth of life by systematically defending the slaughter of more than 51 million babies whose only crime was to have been "inconvenient." While this judicial activism has been tenaciously resisted by tens of thousands of pro-life activists in every state, the Congress and state legislatures have so far only whittled away at the margins by passing laws that slightly regulate abortion in the most egregious cases.

Yet the time to bow before the Supreme Court is over. It is time to really defend the defenseless and end abortion-on-demand entirely.

One such bill — a Life at Conception Act — would do just that.

By legislatively establishing the personhood of the unborn, this bill would actually eliminate judicially imposed abortion-on-demand.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, it was based on the new, and previously undefined, "right to privacy" it "discovered" in the so-called "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court left the door open for lawmakers to protect life when it stated in its opinion that the Court "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." It admitted that "if the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [for an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment." That is exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility solely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.

And the grass-roots pressure of pro-lifers has led to ever-increasing support in Congress.

The Life at Conception Act has attracted growing record numbers of co-sponsors in each of the last four Congresses.

And much to the chagrin of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Life at Conception Act in the current 111th Congress — S. 346 by Sen. Roger Wicker, R- Miss., and H.R. 881 by Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif. — are again on track to achieve new record support.

The politicians had better take heed.

Even if a Life at Conception Act doesn't pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the next election.

I can think of no more fitting way to celebrate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade than to prepare for its demise.

— Mary King is executive director of the National Pro-Life Alliance, 4521 Windsor Arms Court, Annandale, VA 22003.