Judge Recuses Herself from Trial of Her Husband's Pro-Life Antagonists

The apostasy at Notre Dame is unmistakable when a virulent pro-abortion politician is invited as guest of honor, pro-life demonstrators are arrested en masse, and pro-abortion demonstrators are welcomed to campus, unmolested by police.

That it took the obviously compromised judge, Jenny Pitts Manier, so long to recuse herself suggests a claustrophobic insiders' game reminiscent of "In the Heat of the Night." Was she actually so obtuse that she didn't recognize her bias, or did she just think nobody would notice, or that nobody would dare press the issue? She gives Hoosiers a bad name. (OK, Hoosiers Charles Manson and Jim Jones were worse than her, but she's an embarrassment.)

Judge Bows Out of Pro-Life Case
by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Almost 90 pro-lifers were arrested at Notre Dame last year while demonstrating against President Obama's graduation speech in South Bend, Indiana. Tom Brechja of the Thomas More Society in Chicago tells OneNewsNow that attorneys Tom Dixon and Dave Wemhoff asked Judge Jenny Pitts Manier to step down "because she was biased."

"Her husband is a tenured professor of philosophy, who not only works for Notre Dame and therefore has a financial interest, but he's also a very outspoken critic of the Catholic Church teaching on the sanctity of life, which of course is exactly what protesters were speaking out in favor of," Brechja notes.

The judge rejected the argument then withdrew from the case shortly after an appeal was filed. The cases will be reassigned to another judge, and Brechja is hopeful that the head of the school, John Jenkins, will ask the county prosecutor to drop the charges against the pro-lifers.

"These are people from all over the country, including Alan Keyes, Norma McCorvey -- a lot of very, very good people," he regards.

At the same time, pro-abortion forces were permitted on Notre Dame property to demonstrate for Obama and for abortion. None were arrested.

Obamist IRS Presses Pillow to the Face of Peaceful Pro-life Activism in Iowa

One has to wonder if the Obama IRS clamp-down on peaceful pro-lifers in Iowa is a harbinger of future totalitarianism. According to this slightly edited press release from the Catholic lawyers' Thomas More Society, the new sheriff in town has delivered an ultimatum to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: abandon your protests against Planned Parenthood, or abandon your tax-exempt status.

As a Condition for 501(c)(3) Recognition, IRS Demanded Assurance that the "Coalition for Life of Iowa" Not Picket or Protest Planned Parenthood Locations

The Thomas More Society has demanded that the IRS withdraw its opposition to the 501(c)(3) status of the Coalition for Life of Iowa.

After inquiring about the "educational" nature of the Coalition for Life of Iowa's activities, the Internal Revenue Service stated that it would not grant tax exemption unless the Coalition agreed to limit its "picketing" and "protesting" of Planned Parenthood. Compliance with this request would result in a restriction of the speech of the Coalition for Life, as well as a breach its First Amendment rights.

While other similar pro-life non-profits have had little trouble attaining tax-exempt status from the IRS in the past, this unwarranted ultimatum reveals what may be a new government prejudice against pro-life organizations and the Pro-Life movement. Such demands should never arise in the IRS's decision-making process to grant tax-exempt status for any applicant non-profit organization.

Read more on the IRS ultimatum on the TMS website at http://www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Is Respect for "Rule of Law" Morphing into Tragic Judicial Activism?

The Obama administration is reportedly pressuring client states to adopt pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies as a condition of North American financial assistance. A coalition of Catholic and Muslim nations, organized by the Vatican representative to the United Nations, held the line against strong-arming by the Clinton administration about 15 years ago.

Now the North American Democrats are employing a more sophisticated strategy to piggyback leftist judicial activism onto advances in the rule of law. In other words, having persuaded Third World elites of the advantages of respecting and enforcing judicial review, we now undertake to corrupt it, and deploy it in the service of sodomy and baby-killing. How utterly heartbreaking on numerous levels!

The Republic of Colombia can take a hint. Highly dependent on U.S. aid to resist some of the worst narco-terrorists on the planet, facing in Obama and his Secretary of State two former Senators who helped vote down the Free Trade Agreement with them, Colombian judicial activists have elbowed the freely elected legislature in Bogota aside, and extended a broad range of rights to homosexuals, withholding only the right to adopt children. Can abortion-on-demand be far behind?

LifeSiteNews.com reports below on the consternation at the Colombian legislature.

LifeSiteNews.com
Colombian Supreme Court Grants Broad Special Rights to Homosexual Couples
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BOGOTA LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Colombia has ruled that homosexual couples are entitled a broad array of rights normally granted to heterosexual couples under the law.

Under the ruling, announced on Wednesday, homosexual couples will receive equal status with heterosexual couples under 42 different provisions of the law, ranging from military benefits to naturalization of a foreign partner. Homosexuals will also be excused from testifying against their sex partners.

However, the Court, in an apparent response to the strong pro-family values of Colombian society, did not grant the right to adopt children. It also refused to allow homosexual relationships to be called a "marriage."

The ruling arrives after years of refusal by the Colombian Congress to grant special rights to the partners of homosexuals, a sentiment that is echoed with almost perfect unanimity throughout the strongly Catholic and pro-family Latin America.

The decision of the Court, however, is being strongly denounced by pro-family legislators as a case of judicial activism. The President of Columbia should consider "closing the Congress because there are now nine people who are taking on the faculties and carrying out the functions of the 200 who were selected by the people," said ex-congressman Victor Velasquez in a press conference.

He also reportedly called on the leaders of the Catholic Church to protest against this "attack against the morals of the country." Velasquez also declared his intention to seek a declaration of nullity on the grounds that the Court is exceeding its constitutional authority.

Hernando Salazar, an editorialist for BBC World, said that the decision of the court is "paradoxical" because the "the Congress has rejected various bills in favor of same-sex couples" while "the judicial branch has nullified legal measures that it considers to be in violation of the right to equality for those unions."

He also stated that "other experts consulted by BBC World, who requested anonymity, believe that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are a response to the 'homophobia and the machismo that is observed in the Congress of the Republic.'"

"The Court has recognized a social reality with extreme prudence and moderation," said Excobar Gil, one of the Court's nine justices. "It has expanded rights in situations similar to those of heterosexual couples without affecting basic values of our culture and social morality, and protecting the institution of the family."

The verdict, which came in response to a lawsuit filed by homosexual rights advocates, follows a 2007 ruling that granted health benefits and pensions to the partners of homosexuals.

Christians Brace for Obama Appointees

According to this press release from the American Center for Law and Justice, the incoming Obama administration's position on a U.N. resolution against "religious defamation" bears watching.

Pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the measure could be used to silence Christians and to prevent Muslims from voluntarily converting to other faiths, which is already a capital crime in some Islamic countries.

Christian activists are also closely following Obama's Federal Communications Commissioner appointments, in anticipation of a campaign by the American Left to suppress Christian and conservative talk radio by means of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

An Obama Administration & Keeping an Eye on the U.N.

A new Administration means change and at the American Center for Law and Justice, we're closely examining what's at stake as President-elect Obama begins to govern. At the same time, we're monitoring developments at the United Nations, where an anti-Christian resolution is up for a vote.

The new president is moving fast, naming Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his new chief of staff as well as beginning to float names for his Cabinet. He has also made clear what his first 100 days will look like, pledging to sign as many as 200 executive orders. With these orders, President-elect Obama is promising to overturn President Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, restore the ban on offshore drilling and reinstate taxpayer funding for the United Nations Population Fund, an organization committed to coerced abortions.

There's already movement in reshaping the nation's Federal Communications Commission, the agency that would be critical in re-launching the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a measure that would cripple Christian and conservative talk radio.

The new president named made two appointments to the FCC "transition team" -- Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach to the posts. Werbach, a former counsel at the FCC during the Clinton Administration, specializes in information and communication technologies. With Obama's first chance of appointing a new FCC commissioner coming in June of 2009, we will be keeping an eye on who he appoints. A simply majority of the five commissioners is all an Obama Administration needs to re-implement the so called Fairness Doctrine.

Also being discussed this week in Washington, DC is the change in committee and subcommittee structures in both the House and Senate. With Democrats soon to hold as much as a three vote majority in many of the committees in the Senate and even bigger margins in the House, it is critical that we keep an eye on what is going on behind the scenes.

Pro-life riders, increased funding for Planned Parenthood, the Employer Non-Discrimination Act and a host of other issues will be decided in these committees. At the same time, there will be much attention focused on the next Congress and the issue of judicial nominations.

As you know, for years Democrats blocked many of President Bush's nominees to the federal judiciary with filibusters. With a new majority in the Senate that may reach 60 seats for the Democrats, it would make it much more difficult for Republicans to challenge the new president's judicial nominees. Of course, in addition to the numerous vacancies in the federal judiciary, the Obama Administration will make nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, should a vacancy or vacancies occur.

While we're focused on the new developments unfolding in Washington, we're also concerned about what's taking place at the United Nations.

In recent months, we've talked a lot about the resolution on the Defamation of Religions - a measure that protects the religion of Islam while targeting other religions including Christianity - a measure being pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

As our international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), has reported in the past, the OIC uses the concept of "defamation of religions" as both sword and shield. In Islamic countries, blasphemy laws are used as a shield to protect the dominant religion, but even more dangerously, they are used to silence minority religious believers - especially Christians - and prevent Muslims from converting to other faiths, which is still a capital crime in many Islamic countries.

Tomorrow in the U.N. - in what is known as the Third Committee - this troubling resolution will receive a vote. If it clears the committee, it is likely the General Assembly at the U.N. will vote on it early in December. We will have representatives at the U.N. tomorrow and bring you an update on Wednesday.

Without question, this is a time of change. Our Government Affairs team is working to ensure that the ACLJ is in a position to stand up for your constitutional and religious freedoms - as the nation prepares for a new president and a new Congress which convenes in early 2009.

We will continue to report on upcoming changes and let you know how you can make a difference.