Our NancyPelosi dislikes Catholics who live their beliefs. While taking Communion she raising money for abortions. The church teaches that we should help our neighbors and those in need. Pelosi creates taxes that make people poor. The bible teaches to save lives, Nan voted for Obama death panels that have already voted to keep life saving drugs from some breast cancer victims.
“This time, Pelosi is upset that the nation’s Catholic bishops are protesting a potential Obama administration decision forcing insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions. They say certain religious groups may not be exempt from providing the insurance, which would violate their moral and religious views.
Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post.
“Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing” that the Post said Pelosi “insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.”
San Fran Nan is a liar–a devout Catholic who supports the killing of the unborn. She is as devout a Catholic as an Atheist.
Be sure to check Steve Frank's California News & Views http://www.capoliticalnews.com/!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
SF Columnist Contrasts Rev. Walter Hoye With "Occupy Oakland"
Debra Saunders writes in today's San Francisco Chronicle:Inside Oakland bubble, all free speech isn't equal
For all their whining about the "police state" and the city's failure to respect their "First Amendment rights," Occupy Oakland activists have managed to flout the law with regular impunity. Somehow demonstrators have managed to turn Frank Ogawa Plaza into a tent stew and shut down parts of the city in a so-called general strike Nov. 2, and still they think they're victims who have been deprived of their free speech rights.
But if they want to see what it's really like to fight City Hall, they should talk to Walter Hoye. Hoye's offense was to walk up to people with a sign that said, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help." For that he was arrested twice in 2008 and sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Read the whole thing, but we have to quote the Reverend's final sentences, because it captures the man's kindness and humility in a nutshell:
"I asked Hoye how he feels when Occupy Oakland protesters complain that they are victims whose free expression has been suppressed.
'I don't think they really know what being treated unfairly is,' he answered. 'I didn't see any of the kind of leniency that they received.'
And: 'Thank you for thinking of me. People have asked me about that.'"
The picture shows Reverend Hoye with Zack Goodman, a 12 year-old pro-life activist from Colorado, and Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs.
MHR UPDATE: Second Non-Catholic Minister who Advocates Same-Sex "Marriage" to Speak at Vespers Services
On November 22, California Catholic Daily reported on the scheduled appearance of retired Episcopal Bishop Otis Charles at San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer Church. Bishop Charles is the invited speaker for the church’s November 30 Advent Vespers service. The Episcopal Church severed ties with the Bishop when he “married” another man in 2004.
Bishop Charles is not the only 2011 Vespers speaker invited to Most Holy Redeemer who is a same-sex “marriage” supporter, nor the only one who has been disciplined by his church. According to the November 27 Most Holy Redeemer bulletin, the scheduled speaker at the December 14 Vespers service is a “Ms. Jane Spahr.” Unless there are two Jane Spahr’s knocking around San Francisco, she’s not “Ms.” Jane Spahr; her correct title is the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr. From her biographical page at the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, & Transgender Religious Archives Network: “The Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr, Janie, as she prefers to be called, describes herself as a lesbian, feminist, Presbyterian minister committed to justice issues for the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender community, pursuing connections for wholeness with other oppressed communities claiming their freedom.” Other “queer” religious websites refer to her simply as a “lesbyterian.”
In August of 2010 a regional court of the Presbyterian Church meeting in Napa, California “rebuked” Reverend Spahr for celebrating 16 same-sex “marriages.” The “marriages” took place in 2008, during the time when such things were legal in the state. The Christian Post reported: “In a 4-2 vote by the Redwood Presbytery Judicial Commission, the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr was found guilty of representing the ceremonies as marriages, persistently disobeying church law, and violating her ordination vows.” Rev. Spahr had received a previous censure from the Presbyterian Church for performing two such “marriages” in 2004.
While there has been no public response from the Archdiocese of San Francisco on Most Holy Redeemer’s hosting of Bishop Charles and the Reverend Spahr, others have taken note. One group which is watching carefully, and who say they are encouraged by Archbishop Niederauer’s silence, is the homosexual activist Rainbow Sash Movement. On November 23, Bob Anderson wrote at the Rainbow Sash blog: : "The Rainbow Sash Movement is encouraged by Archbishop Niederauer lack of action on this matter, and believes he is taking a role in responding to the rampant homophobia that is alive and well in the Church."
Mr. Anderson should be encouraged. It is precisely due to 30+ years of inaction on the part of the Archdiocese that these two speakers were invited to MHR at all. Even if the Archbishop prevents Bishop Charles and Reverend Spahr from speaking, that does not address the underlying issue. The problem is that the community-forming experience and the real lived religion at MHR is not Catholicism, it is the celebration of homosexuality. That’s why ministers, even non-Catholic, even non-Christian, are welcome speakers at vespers. They are welcome even though they oppose the Church on non-negotiable issues. They are welcome because they oppose the Church on non-negotiable issues. Faced with a choice between Catholic truth and the celebration of homosexuality, the parishioners at MHR will, quite rationally from their point of view, choose the celebration of homosexuality every time. If Catholic truth on sexuality is ever preached MHR, I think it quite likely that most parishioners would leave. That does not mean the Archdiocese is excused from preaching it.
Bishop Charles is not the only 2011 Vespers speaker invited to Most Holy Redeemer who is a same-sex “marriage” supporter, nor the only one who has been disciplined by his church. According to the November 27 Most Holy Redeemer bulletin, the scheduled speaker at the December 14 Vespers service is a “Ms. Jane Spahr.” Unless there are two Jane Spahr’s knocking around San Francisco, she’s not “Ms.” Jane Spahr; her correct title is the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr. From her biographical page at the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, & Transgender Religious Archives Network: “The Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr, Janie, as she prefers to be called, describes herself as a lesbian, feminist, Presbyterian minister committed to justice issues for the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender community, pursuing connections for wholeness with other oppressed communities claiming their freedom.” Other “queer” religious websites refer to her simply as a “lesbyterian.”
In August of 2010 a regional court of the Presbyterian Church meeting in Napa, California “rebuked” Reverend Spahr for celebrating 16 same-sex “marriages.” The “marriages” took place in 2008, during the time when such things were legal in the state. The Christian Post reported: “In a 4-2 vote by the Redwood Presbytery Judicial Commission, the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr was found guilty of representing the ceremonies as marriages, persistently disobeying church law, and violating her ordination vows.” Rev. Spahr had received a previous censure from the Presbyterian Church for performing two such “marriages” in 2004.
While there has been no public response from the Archdiocese of San Francisco on Most Holy Redeemer’s hosting of Bishop Charles and the Reverend Spahr, others have taken note. One group which is watching carefully, and who say they are encouraged by Archbishop Niederauer’s silence, is the homosexual activist Rainbow Sash Movement. On November 23, Bob Anderson wrote at the Rainbow Sash blog: : "The Rainbow Sash Movement is encouraged by Archbishop Niederauer lack of action on this matter, and believes he is taking a role in responding to the rampant homophobia that is alive and well in the Church."
Mr. Anderson should be encouraged. It is precisely due to 30+ years of inaction on the part of the Archdiocese that these two speakers were invited to MHR at all. Even if the Archbishop prevents Bishop Charles and Reverend Spahr from speaking, that does not address the underlying issue. The problem is that the community-forming experience and the real lived religion at MHR is not Catholicism, it is the celebration of homosexuality. That’s why ministers, even non-Catholic, even non-Christian, are welcome speakers at vespers. They are welcome even though they oppose the Church on non-negotiable issues. They are welcome because they oppose the Church on non-negotiable issues. Faced with a choice between Catholic truth and the celebration of homosexuality, the parishioners at MHR will, quite rationally from their point of view, choose the celebration of homosexuality every time. If Catholic truth on sexuality is ever preached MHR, I think it quite likely that most parishioners would leave. That does not mean the Archdiocese is excused from preaching it.
Is the Church falling apart?
According to the annual "Status of global mission" report produced in 2011, the Catholic Church has one billion and 160 million faithful around the world, with 34,000 new people joining every day. The figures from the study, released by the agency Analisis Digirtal, say that there are two billion people in the world today, out of a total of approximately seven billion, who have never received the Gospel’s message. Another two billion and 680 million listen to it sometimes, or are vaguely aware of it, but they are not Christians.
"Despite the fact that Jesus Christ only founded one Church, and shortly before his death he prayed ‘that all would be one’ today there are many separate Christian denominations: at the beginning of the Twentieth century there were 1600; in 2011 there are 42,000," according to the study. The number of charismatic Protestants reaches 612 million. There are 426 million “classic” Protestants and this number is growing at a rate of 20,000 a day.
The Orthodox Churches count 271 million baptized believers and are joined by an additional five thousand a day. Anglicans, concentrated mainly in Africa and Asia, amount to 87 million, with three thousand more joining each day. Those which the study defines as "marginal Christians" (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, those who do not recognize the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity) amount to 35 million and are growing at a rate of two thousand a day.
Marco Tosatti -- Rome
"Despite the fact that Jesus Christ only founded one Church, and shortly before his death he prayed ‘that all would be one’ today there are many separate Christian denominations: at the beginning of the Twentieth century there were 1600; in 2011 there are 42,000," according to the study. The number of charismatic Protestants reaches 612 million. There are 426 million “classic” Protestants and this number is growing at a rate of 20,000 a day.
The Orthodox Churches count 271 million baptized believers and are joined by an additional five thousand a day. Anglicans, concentrated mainly in Africa and Asia, amount to 87 million, with three thousand more joining each day. Those which the study defines as "marginal Christians" (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, those who do not recognize the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity) amount to 35 million and are growing at a rate of two thousand a day.
Marco Tosatti -- Rome
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Pelosi and "that conscience thing": Dead Silence From One Peter Yorke Way
Nancy Pelosi's latest attack on faithful Catholics has been widely reported. From LifeNews:
"Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again, bashing Catholics for their pro-life position when she has promoted abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teaching at every turn.
This time, Pelosi is upset that the nation’s Catholic bishops are protesting a potential Obama administration decision forcing insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions. They say certain religious groups may not be exempt from providing the insurance, which would violate their moral and religious views.
Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post.
“Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing”...
That is the position of "devout Catholic" Pelosi at the exact time faithful Catholics nurses are threatened with losing their jobs for refusing to participate in the killing of unborn children. There has been no reponse from Archbishop George Niederauer.
We point out that nearly five years ago, in his pastor's message of January 14, 2007, Fr. Malloy had no trouble responding to Pelosi, in the clearest possible English:
"Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice , i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again, bashing Catholics for their pro-life position when she has promoted abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teaching at every turn.
This time, Pelosi is upset that the nation’s Catholic bishops are protesting a potential Obama administration decision forcing insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions. They say certain religious groups may not be exempt from providing the insurance, which would violate their moral and religious views.
Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post.
“Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing”...
That is the position of "devout Catholic" Pelosi at the exact time faithful Catholics nurses are threatened with losing their jobs for refusing to participate in the killing of unborn children. There has been no reponse from Archbishop George Niederauer.
We point out that nearly five years ago, in his pastor's message of January 14, 2007, Fr. Malloy had no trouble responding to Pelosi, in the clearest possible English:
"Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice , i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Judge Rules for SF Archdiocese in Transfer Tax Case
From today's Catholic San Francisco:
"A Superior Court judge on Nov. 18 issued an opinion that would throw out an attempted multi-million-dollar “delinquent” tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor/recorder, Phil Ting, after a more than three-year legal fight.
Judge Richard A. Kramer issued a 43-page “Tentative Statement of Decision” in favor of the archdiocese, Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the archdiocese, reported Nov. 22. A case management conference is scheduled Jan. 9, 2012....Kramer agreed with the archdiocese’s central arguments: The transfers were not “realty sold,” and the transfers were a change in the form of ownership that did not make them subject to transfer tax.
“The Archdiocese of San Francisco is delighted that the Superior Court has vindicated the position the archdiocese has taken all along,” said George Wesolek, director of communications for the archdiocese.... “It would have chilled the missions of this and all churches, religions and non-profit organizations in the city, and would have sent ripples through the for-profit community as well... Fortunately, the court saw through this attempt.”
Mr. Wesolek then notes that this is another case of San Francisco Democratic Party politicians using the legal system to harass good people at public expense, just like they are doing right now with First Resort:
“The Assessor/Recorder apparently expected the archdiocese to roll over in the face of this attack but underestimated the resolve of the church. It is unfortunate that the miscalculation forced the archdiocese to spend more than three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defeat this illegal action, but the archdiocese is hopeful that the Assessor/Recorder’s office will now be dissuaded from taking similar measures in the future.”
Don't hold your breath, George.
You can read our previous posts on the issue here.
"A Superior Court judge on Nov. 18 issued an opinion that would throw out an attempted multi-million-dollar “delinquent” tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor/recorder, Phil Ting, after a more than three-year legal fight.
Judge Richard A. Kramer issued a 43-page “Tentative Statement of Decision” in favor of the archdiocese, Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the archdiocese, reported Nov. 22. A case management conference is scheduled Jan. 9, 2012....Kramer agreed with the archdiocese’s central arguments: The transfers were not “realty sold,” and the transfers were a change in the form of ownership that did not make them subject to transfer tax.
“The Archdiocese of San Francisco is delighted that the Superior Court has vindicated the position the archdiocese has taken all along,” said George Wesolek, director of communications for the archdiocese.... “It would have chilled the missions of this and all churches, religions and non-profit organizations in the city, and would have sent ripples through the for-profit community as well... Fortunately, the court saw through this attempt.”
Mr. Wesolek then notes that this is another case of San Francisco Democratic Party politicians using the legal system to harass good people at public expense, just like they are doing right now with First Resort:
“The Assessor/Recorder apparently expected the archdiocese to roll over in the face of this attack but underestimated the resolve of the church. It is unfortunate that the miscalculation forced the archdiocese to spend more than three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defeat this illegal action, but the archdiocese is hopeful that the Assessor/Recorder’s office will now be dissuaded from taking similar measures in the future.”
Don't hold your breath, George.
You can read our previous posts on the issue here.
What are we teaching our teens?
If you put stock in the media hype, the hit TV show, “Glee,” is breaking new ground this week.
The game-changer in the controversial episode consists of two parallel sexual initiations - one a heterosexual teen couple and the other a homosexual teen couple. This may be new in the sense of it being even more corrupting than previous episodes or containing even more indecent material shoved in our faces, but it’s certainly not a positive new development. Such media promotion of early sexual activity - not to mention the promotion of gay behavior - flies in the face of what is best for teenagers and bucks the current, more positive trends that show teen sexual activity, teen abortions and teen births declining.
Anyone familiar with social-science research knows that abstinence is healthiest for teenagers. Teenage sexual activity routinely leads to emotional turmoil and psychological distress. Rather than increasing a teen’s self-confidence, engaging in sexual activity leads to empty relationships, feelings of self-contempt and a sense of worthlessness - typical precursors to depression. In fact, sexually active teens are more likely than those who are abstinent to attempt suicide (15 percent to 5 percent for girls, 6 percent to 1 percent for boys). Only 1/3 of girls who had early sexual activity describe themselves as “happy” as compared with more than half of those who waited. But the most telling fact is that the majority of teenagers who have engaged in sexual activity express regret over experimenting sexually and wish they had waited longer to have sex - 72 percent of girls and 55 percent of boys.
The bottom line is that more than two-thirds of teens who become sexually active admit they wish they could go back to sexual innocence again and wish they had waited.
Concerned Women for America released a major study on sexually transmitted diseases in July that describes some 49 types of STDs, some curable, others not. Twenty percent of all AIDS cases are among college-aged young people. Having three or more sexual partners in a lifetime multiplies by 15 a woman’s odds of contracting cervical cancer. The shocking facts about the extent of STDs among young people are documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - 19 million new cases a year, with half of those cases among 15- to 24-year-olds. These STDs are hidden by the glossy advertisements in the media that make them appear to be an insignificant health threat and suggest that all are cured or controlled without difficulty or complications (as anyone who has seen the TV ads for herpes medications can attest). Sadly, most of the young people with STDs will be dealing with the symptoms and consequences for the rest of their lives. In the United States, new cases of STDs are triple what they were just six years ago. Many of the STDs are incurable and others have persistent, significant symptoms requiring bothersome, expensive, lifelong treatment.
We have begun making headway with teen births. The latest birth data for 2009 show that the teenage birth rate fell 6 percent to 39.1 per 1000 women. In addition, the number and rate of births to unmarried women declined, but the percentage of nonmarital births increased to 41 percent. These numbers indicate a glimmer of hope that some truths about sexual realities are breaking through in contemporary culture. The bottom line is this: The radical rhetoric of the past 40 years is not quite as in vogue as it used to be, but its ethic of sexual experimentation is widespread and firmly rooted in the popular culture - as evidenced by “Glee.”
The media have saturated our culture with the myth of sexual freedom and public schools, along with Planned Parenthood and theSexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, have implicitly condoned, if not actually promoted, sexual permissiveness via “comprehensive” sex education which sells the idea that casual, recreational sex is acceptable for singles as long as the persons involved are “responsible,” defined as using a condom.
But that isn’t true, particularly for teens. Early sexual activity means more sexual partners. If a girl begins sexual activity in her early teens, she is, on average, likely to have more than a dozen partners over her lifetime, and the “turnover” rate of partners is more than four times as high among those who begin sexual activity in their early 20s. Such girls are also more than twice as likely to become infected with STDs. And about 40 percent of teens who are sexually active eventually become pregnant out-of-wedlock.
The vast majority of young people - 92 percent - think marriage would make them happy and want to be married some day; most also want to have kids. The assault on teens - telling them casual sex is “no big deal” and has “no consequences” - will not be neutralized until those who know better find their voices and convince today’s “Glee” generation that only discipline and restraint will open the gateway to achieving dreams and ambitions. Our culture must change to cultivate the attitude that says, “I won’t mess up my tomorrows by fooling around today.”
Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Children at Risk” (Transaction, 2010), is director of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.
The game-changer in the controversial episode consists of two parallel sexual initiations - one a heterosexual teen couple and the other a homosexual teen couple. This may be new in the sense of it being even more corrupting than previous episodes or containing even more indecent material shoved in our faces, but it’s certainly not a positive new development. Such media promotion of early sexual activity - not to mention the promotion of gay behavior - flies in the face of what is best for teenagers and bucks the current, more positive trends that show teen sexual activity, teen abortions and teen births declining.
Anyone familiar with social-science research knows that abstinence is healthiest for teenagers. Teenage sexual activity routinely leads to emotional turmoil and psychological distress. Rather than increasing a teen’s self-confidence, engaging in sexual activity leads to empty relationships, feelings of self-contempt and a sense of worthlessness - typical precursors to depression. In fact, sexually active teens are more likely than those who are abstinent to attempt suicide (15 percent to 5 percent for girls, 6 percent to 1 percent for boys). Only 1/3 of girls who had early sexual activity describe themselves as “happy” as compared with more than half of those who waited. But the most telling fact is that the majority of teenagers who have engaged in sexual activity express regret over experimenting sexually and wish they had waited longer to have sex - 72 percent of girls and 55 percent of boys.
The bottom line is that more than two-thirds of teens who become sexually active admit they wish they could go back to sexual innocence again and wish they had waited.
Concerned Women for America released a major study on sexually transmitted diseases in July that describes some 49 types of STDs, some curable, others not. Twenty percent of all AIDS cases are among college-aged young people. Having three or more sexual partners in a lifetime multiplies by 15 a woman’s odds of contracting cervical cancer. The shocking facts about the extent of STDs among young people are documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - 19 million new cases a year, with half of those cases among 15- to 24-year-olds. These STDs are hidden by the glossy advertisements in the media that make them appear to be an insignificant health threat and suggest that all are cured or controlled without difficulty or complications (as anyone who has seen the TV ads for herpes medications can attest). Sadly, most of the young people with STDs will be dealing with the symptoms and consequences for the rest of their lives. In the United States, new cases of STDs are triple what they were just six years ago. Many of the STDs are incurable and others have persistent, significant symptoms requiring bothersome, expensive, lifelong treatment.
We have begun making headway with teen births. The latest birth data for 2009 show that the teenage birth rate fell 6 percent to 39.1 per 1000 women. In addition, the number and rate of births to unmarried women declined, but the percentage of nonmarital births increased to 41 percent. These numbers indicate a glimmer of hope that some truths about sexual realities are breaking through in contemporary culture. The bottom line is this: The radical rhetoric of the past 40 years is not quite as in vogue as it used to be, but its ethic of sexual experimentation is widespread and firmly rooted in the popular culture - as evidenced by “Glee.”
The media have saturated our culture with the myth of sexual freedom and public schools, along with Planned Parenthood and theSexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, have implicitly condoned, if not actually promoted, sexual permissiveness via “comprehensive” sex education which sells the idea that casual, recreational sex is acceptable for singles as long as the persons involved are “responsible,” defined as using a condom.
But that isn’t true, particularly for teens. Early sexual activity means more sexual partners. If a girl begins sexual activity in her early teens, she is, on average, likely to have more than a dozen partners over her lifetime, and the “turnover” rate of partners is more than four times as high among those who begin sexual activity in their early 20s. Such girls are also more than twice as likely to become infected with STDs. And about 40 percent of teens who are sexually active eventually become pregnant out-of-wedlock.
The vast majority of young people - 92 percent - think marriage would make them happy and want to be married some day; most also want to have kids. The assault on teens - telling them casual sex is “no big deal” and has “no consequences” - will not be neutralized until those who know better find their voices and convince today’s “Glee” generation that only discipline and restraint will open the gateway to achieving dreams and ambitions. Our culture must change to cultivate the attitude that says, “I won’t mess up my tomorrows by fooling around today.”
Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Children at Risk” (Transaction, 2010), is director of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
BREAKING: CA Supremes: Prop 8 Backers CAN Defend Measure
UPDATE II:
New Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye makes a powerful statement about the lawless behavior of the Governor and Attorney General:
"It is essential to the integrity of the initiative process ... that there be someone to assert the state's interest in an initiative's validity on behalf of the people when the public officials who normally assert that interest decline to do so," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in her first significant opinion since taking office in January.
"Neither the governor, the attorney general, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters," Cantil-Sakauye said.
UPDATE: The court ruled unanimously. The great Ed Whelan has this short excerpt from the ruling:
"In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so."
Very big news on the Defense of Marriage front. We were sure the court would vote this way, it's a no-brainer, but you never know. Eventually the case will wind up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
From the LA Times legal blog:
"The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.
The state high court’s decision, a defeat for gay rights groups, sets the stage for a federal ruling -- which could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- that would affect marriage bans outside California.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering an appeal of a trial judge’s ruling that overturned Proposition 8, had asked the California court to clarify whether state law gives initiative sponsors standing, or legal authority, to defend their measures.
State officials are entitled to champion ballot measures in court, but the governor and the attorney general have refused to defend Proposition 8.
Although the 9th Circuit is not bound by Thursday’s ruling, the decision makes it less likely that the appeals court would decide Proposition 8’s future on narrow, standing grounds.
The 9th Circuit panel considering the gay-marriage dispute indicated in a hearing last December that it was leaning toward overturning Proposition 8 if the standing question could be resolved. Former U.S. Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who has since retired, overturned the marriage ban after a two-week trial that focused on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.
Gay rights groups argued that ProtectMarriage did not have standing to appeal Walker’s ruling. But they also contended they could win the case in federal courts on constitutional grounds."
New Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye makes a powerful statement about the lawless behavior of the Governor and Attorney General:
"It is essential to the integrity of the initiative process ... that there be someone to assert the state's interest in an initiative's validity on behalf of the people when the public officials who normally assert that interest decline to do so," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in her first significant opinion since taking office in January.
"Neither the governor, the attorney general, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters," Cantil-Sakauye said.
UPDATE: The court ruled unanimously. The great Ed Whelan has this short excerpt from the ruling:
"In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so."
Very big news on the Defense of Marriage front. We were sure the court would vote this way, it's a no-brainer, but you never know. Eventually the case will wind up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
From the LA Times legal blog:
"The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.
The state high court’s decision, a defeat for gay rights groups, sets the stage for a federal ruling -- which could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- that would affect marriage bans outside California.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering an appeal of a trial judge’s ruling that overturned Proposition 8, had asked the California court to clarify whether state law gives initiative sponsors standing, or legal authority, to defend their measures.
State officials are entitled to champion ballot measures in court, but the governor and the attorney general have refused to defend Proposition 8.
Although the 9th Circuit is not bound by Thursday’s ruling, the decision makes it less likely that the appeals court would decide Proposition 8’s future on narrow, standing grounds.
The 9th Circuit panel considering the gay-marriage dispute indicated in a hearing last December that it was leaning toward overturning Proposition 8 if the standing question could be resolved. Former U.S. Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who has since retired, overturned the marriage ban after a two-week trial that focused on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.
Gay rights groups argued that ProtectMarriage did not have standing to appeal Walker’s ruling. But they also contended they could win the case in federal courts on constitutional grounds."
California's Fiscal Disaster: Two Stories That Should be Read Together
Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle reported:
State fiscal nightmare: deep cuts on horizon
"California faces deep midyear cuts to its universities, community colleges, social service programs and public schools - which may have their year shortened - because the state will collect billions of dollars less in revenue than expected, according to a report released Wednesday."
Then read this article by Steven Malanga, at City Journal:
Cali to Business: Get Out!
Firms are fleeing the state’s senseless regulations and confiscatory taxes.
Excerpt:
"As California has transformed into a relentlessly antibusiness state, those redeeming characteristics haven’t been enough to keep firms from leaving. Relocation experts say that the number of companies exiting the state for greener pastures has exploded. In surveys, executives regularly call California one of the country’s most toxic business environments and one of the least likely places to open or expand a new company. Many firms still headquartered in California have forsaken expansion there."
State fiscal nightmare: deep cuts on horizon
"California faces deep midyear cuts to its universities, community colleges, social service programs and public schools - which may have their year shortened - because the state will collect billions of dollars less in revenue than expected, according to a report released Wednesday."
Then read this article by Steven Malanga, at City Journal:
Cali to Business: Get Out!
Firms are fleeing the state’s senseless regulations and confiscatory taxes.
Excerpt:
"As California has transformed into a relentlessly antibusiness state, those redeeming characteristics haven’t been enough to keep firms from leaving. Relocation experts say that the number of companies exiting the state for greener pastures has exploded. In surveys, executives regularly call California one of the country’s most toxic business environments and one of the least likely places to open or expand a new company. Many firms still headquartered in California have forsaken expansion there."
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Diocese of Orange Hosts Conference Linking Immigration/Homosexual Activism
An edited version of this article appeared in this morning's California Catholic Daily.
On Saturday, September 19, the Diocese of Orange and Immaculate Heart of Mary Church in Santa Ana will host a forum called the “Orange County Assembly on Immigration.” The forum will be held at Immaculate Heart of Mary. According to the online invitation, local organizations co-hosting the event include the ACLU of Southern California; CIPC (California Immigration Policy Center) CLUE (Clergy & Laity for Economic Justice) the Diocese of Orange, El Centro Cultural de México en Santa Ana, Immáculate Heart at Mary and Father Ed, OCCCO (Orange County Congregation Community Organization), The Center of OC, and the SEIU.
An agenda of issues to be addressed at the forum is published on the invitation. While most of the items are general, and would seem to be of immediate interest to illegal immigrants, one is astonishing in both its remoteness and incongruous specificity. The agenda is reprinted below, exactly as it appears in the online invitation:
Come and learn about/Venga y aprenda sobre :
• Education/Educación
•The intersectionality between the LGBTQ and Undocumented communities/La interseccionalidad entre las comunidades indocumentada y homosexual
• Know Your Rights/Conoce Tus Derechos
• E-Verify
• Issues that affect our local immigrant communities/Problemas que afectan a nuestra comunidad inmigrante local.
• And much more!/Y mucho más!
The intrusion of the homosexualist agenda into a forum on immigration may seem inexplicable, but the application of the concept of “intersectionality” is a growing tactic of co-option among homosexualist activists. Examples can be easily found online. As recently as November 7, 2011, the LGBT Resource Center of the University of California at Riverside sponsored a lecture called “LGBTIQ & Undocumented Struggle: The Parallels and Intersectionality of Two Movements.” On October 5, 2010, we reported in California Catholic Daily on this trend: ‘Communities of color’ targeted; Homosexual activists to spend $350,000 in attempt to change minority attitudes on natural marriage.” The article documented how “the Horizons Foundation, the nation’s oldest LGBT foundation, is opening up a new front in California’s battle over the definition of marriage. In 2010, Horizons is awarding $350,000 in grants to organizations throughout California to ‘help build bridges and support for same-sex marriage in communities of color.’”
The “Orange County Assembly on Immigration” invitation does not indicate who requested that “The intersectionality between the LGBTQ and Undocumented communities” be included in the agenda. But the presence of the co-host “The Center of OC” is suggestive. The only group with such a name affiliated with the other co-hosts is “The Center Orange County” or “The Center OC.” Those names are accepted shorthand, as its webpage says, for the “Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County (The Center Orange County).”
The Center Orange County’s “About Us” page gives a the organization’s mission statement and history:
“The mission of The Center Orange County is to advocate on behalf of the Orange County LGBT community, and to provide services that ensure its wellbeing and positive identity…. The Center Orange County (The Center OC) was established as a volunteer organization in 1971 and incorporated in 1975 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit community based organization. We are one of the oldest gay and lesbian community centers in the United States.”
Affirming the “positive identity” of the LGBT community for The Center OC includes a long-time partnership with leather s/m organizations. A December 2007 calendar page from The Center OC’s website advertises a “BDSM Sampler” offered by a group called the OCLA (Orange Coast Leather Assembly). The page describes the event (partial):
“Created in 1991, Sampler is a weekend event for experts and novices alike, where you can 'sample' BDSM related play and concepts 1-on-1 with noted BDSM authorities.”
The page also stresses the long and close relationship between the OCLA and The Center OC:
“OCLA (Orange County Leather Assembly) is an educational organization and information source for the leather, S/M and fetish community in the Orange County and surrounding area of Southern California. The group is open to adults over 18 years old, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. OCLA has been an outreach program at the Center Orange County for last 15 years.”
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
On Saturday, September 19, the Diocese of Orange and Immaculate Heart of Mary Church in Santa Ana will host a forum called the “Orange County Assembly on Immigration.” The forum will be held at Immaculate Heart of Mary. According to the online invitation, local organizations co-hosting the event include the ACLU of Southern California; CIPC (California Immigration Policy Center) CLUE (Clergy & Laity for Economic Justice) the Diocese of Orange, El Centro Cultural de México en Santa Ana, Immáculate Heart at Mary and Father Ed, OCCCO (Orange County Congregation Community Organization), The Center of OC, and the SEIU.
An agenda of issues to be addressed at the forum is published on the invitation. While most of the items are general, and would seem to be of immediate interest to illegal immigrants, one is astonishing in both its remoteness and incongruous specificity. The agenda is reprinted below, exactly as it appears in the online invitation:
Come and learn about/Venga y aprenda sobre :
• Education/Educación
•The intersectionality between the LGBTQ and Undocumented communities/La interseccionalidad entre las comunidades indocumentada y homosexual
• Know Your Rights/Conoce Tus Derechos
• E-Verify
• Issues that affect our local immigrant communities/Problemas que afectan a nuestra comunidad inmigrante local.
• And much more!/Y mucho más!
The intrusion of the homosexualist agenda into a forum on immigration may seem inexplicable, but the application of the concept of “intersectionality” is a growing tactic of co-option among homosexualist activists. Examples can be easily found online. As recently as November 7, 2011, the LGBT Resource Center of the University of California at Riverside sponsored a lecture called “LGBTIQ & Undocumented Struggle: The Parallels and Intersectionality of Two Movements.” On October 5, 2010, we reported in California Catholic Daily on this trend: ‘Communities of color’ targeted; Homosexual activists to spend $350,000 in attempt to change minority attitudes on natural marriage.” The article documented how “the Horizons Foundation, the nation’s oldest LGBT foundation, is opening up a new front in California’s battle over the definition of marriage. In 2010, Horizons is awarding $350,000 in grants to organizations throughout California to ‘help build bridges and support for same-sex marriage in communities of color.’”
The “Orange County Assembly on Immigration” invitation does not indicate who requested that “The intersectionality between the LGBTQ and Undocumented communities” be included in the agenda. But the presence of the co-host “The Center of OC” is suggestive. The only group with such a name affiliated with the other co-hosts is “The Center Orange County” or “The Center OC.” Those names are accepted shorthand, as its webpage says, for the “Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County (The Center Orange County).”
The Center Orange County’s “About Us” page gives a the organization’s mission statement and history:
“The mission of The Center Orange County is to advocate on behalf of the Orange County LGBT community, and to provide services that ensure its wellbeing and positive identity…. The Center Orange County (The Center OC) was established as a volunteer organization in 1971 and incorporated in 1975 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit community based organization. We are one of the oldest gay and lesbian community centers in the United States.”
Affirming the “positive identity” of the LGBT community for The Center OC includes a long-time partnership with leather s/m organizations. A December 2007 calendar page from The Center OC’s website advertises a “BDSM Sampler” offered by a group called the OCLA (Orange Coast Leather Assembly). The page describes the event (partial):
“Created in 1991, Sampler is a weekend event for experts and novices alike, where you can 'sample' BDSM related play and concepts 1-on-1 with noted BDSM authorities.”
The page also stresses the long and close relationship between the OCLA and The Center OC:
“OCLA (Orange County Leather Assembly) is an educational organization and information source for the leather, S/M and fetish community in the Orange County and surrounding area of Southern California. The group is open to adults over 18 years old, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. OCLA has been an outreach program at the Center Orange County for last 15 years.”
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
First Resort Sues City of San Francisco
No surprise at all. Our posts on First Resort and the City and County of San Francisco are here.
From First Resort's release:
"Today, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, First Resort filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The City adopted an ordinance set to go into effect in early December which, if left unchallenged, would significantly infringe upon our constitutionally protected right of free expression.
This law was enacted to hinder First Resort's ability to communicate effectively and truthfully with women who are or may be considering abortion. We cannot allow the government to control how and when we tell Bay Area women about our services.
This is a first for First Resort. We participated fully in the legislative process trying to defeat the ordinance. Both publicly and privately, we described its unconstitutionality; but we did not prevail in a politically charged election season against NARAL and other pro-abortion groups who continue their assault on us and similar organizations across the country."
Similar "laws" have been struck down in Baltimore, and suspended by injunction in New York, and just this week, in Austin, Texas. But the Culture of Death and their minions in the Democratic Party don't care. Why should they? Legal costs and settlements will be paid by you, the taxpayer.
You can support First Resort by going here.
From First Resort's release:
"Today, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, First Resort filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The City adopted an ordinance set to go into effect in early December which, if left unchallenged, would significantly infringe upon our constitutionally protected right of free expression.
This law was enacted to hinder First Resort's ability to communicate effectively and truthfully with women who are or may be considering abortion. We cannot allow the government to control how and when we tell Bay Area women about our services.
This is a first for First Resort. We participated fully in the legislative process trying to defeat the ordinance. Both publicly and privately, we described its unconstitutionality; but we did not prevail in a politically charged election season against NARAL and other pro-abortion groups who continue their assault on us and similar organizations across the country."
Similar "laws" have been struck down in Baltimore, and suspended by injunction in New York, and just this week, in Austin, Texas. But the Culture of Death and their minions in the Democratic Party don't care. Why should they? Legal costs and settlements will be paid by you, the taxpayer.
You can support First Resort by going here.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
An unspeakable blasphemy!
Warrner Brothers distributes highly blasphemous and anti-Catholic film called “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas”
In the new movie, “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas,” there are such disgusting scenes as:
Lesbian activity among nuns
Obscenities hurled at Our Lord Jesus Christ
Priests running after an altar boy
The trashing of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Small children high on cocaine
It shows that Catholics cannot become complacent when the Faith is attacked. Otherwise, the promoters of blasphemy keep on pushing the envelope with new and more outrageous insults to the Catholic Church.
Yet they don’t attack Muhammad in this same way!
For too long, Catholics have remained silent and done nothing while the Faith was attacked. Now, we must peacefully and prayerfully protest and speak out against these mockeries of our Faith.
And please do an act of reparation for this most terrible blasphemy against Our Lord, Our Lady and the Catholic Faith.
John HorvatTradition Family Property
In the new movie, “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas,” there are such disgusting scenes as:
Lesbian activity among nuns
Obscenities hurled at Our Lord Jesus Christ
Priests running after an altar boy
The trashing of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Small children high on cocaine
It shows that Catholics cannot become complacent when the Faith is attacked. Otherwise, the promoters of blasphemy keep on pushing the envelope with new and more outrageous insults to the Catholic Church.
Yet they don’t attack Muhammad in this same way!
For too long, Catholics have remained silent and done nothing while the Faith was attacked. Now, we must peacefully and prayerfully protest and speak out against these mockeries of our Faith.
And please do an act of reparation for this most terrible blasphemy against Our Lord, Our Lady and the Catholic Faith.
John HorvatTradition Family Property
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
