Homeless in Arizona

Florida mayor candidate claims Jesus endorsement

Florida mayor candidate claims Jesus endorsement

Associated Press Tue May 14, 2013 12:09 AM

NORTH MIAMI, Fla. — One of seven candidates vying to become the next mayor of North Miami is claiming the endorsement of none other than Jesus Christ.

Candidate Anna Pierre, who is a registered nurse, told The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/13flXcL) that Jesus came to her in a dream and provided what she believes is a firm endorsement. The campaign flier posted on her Facebook page reads “Anna Pierre, RN, is endorsed by Jesus Christ” complete with a photo of Jesus.

Earlier in the campaign, Pierre claimed she was the victim of a voodoo attack and death threats. Last week, candidate Jean Marcellus was punched in the face by an acquaintance who didn’t want him to run.

Voters go to the polls Tuesday in the North Miami race.

North Miami mayoral candidate endorsed by Jesus???

North Miami mayoral candidate says she was endorsed by Jesus

By Nadege Green and Marc Caputo ngreen@miamiherald.com

North Miami’s unpredictable election exploits entered the final day on a divine note: a mayoral candidate claiming she was endorsed by Jesus Christ.

Anna Pierre, who previously said she was a victim of Vodou sorcery, posted the message in a campaign-style flier featured on her Facebook page.

Reached on Monday, Pierre said Jesus came to her in a dream.

“I had a revelation when I was going to give up on this race. I had a dream. I know what I saw,” she said. “A figure I can’t explain told me, ‘Don’t be afraid. I am your friend. I am walking with you side by side. You are not alone.’ I felt it was from heaven. It was an endorsement by Jesus.”

Meanwhile, District 2 candidate Joseph Haber was passing out “clean up city hall” soap to voters . And a week ago, mayoral candidate, Jean Marcellus was punched in the mouth by an acquaintance who didn’t want him to run for office.

The theatrics and eyebrow raising moments on the campaign trial should come to an end Tuesday, when North Miami voters go to the polls to choose a mayor and two City Council members.

Pierre, a registered nurse who sings the Creole language hit Suk Su Bon Bon (“Sugar on my Cookie”), said Jesus reassured her that she can overcome all obstacles placed in her way.

“I was a victim of Vodou, death threats. People accused me of putting a negative light on the Haitian community. Jesus is my friend, my salvation,” Pierre said.

Seven candidates are vying for mayor: Pierre, Marcellus, Lucie Tondreau, Modira Escarment, Smith Joseph, Gwendolyn Boyd and Kevin Burns.

In the District 2 race, incumbent Michael Blynn faces Carol Keys and Haber. And Jacques Despinosse, Philippe Bien-Aime and Hans Mardy are running for the District 3 seat left vacant by Marcellus.

Arizona could deny resources for federal laws under bill

And of course this would apply to stuff like the insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs" which is clearly unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment, despite the Supreme Courts ruling that the "war on drugs" is Constitutional per the "interstate commerce" clause.

Of course sadly when it comes to mixing religion and government, the tyrants in Arizona government probably flush the First Amendment down to toilet far more then the tyrants in the Federal government do.

Source

Arizona could deny resources for federal laws under bill

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 14, 2013 9:59 PM

Arizona voters in 2014 will decide whether the state can deny resources to federal laws or programs it deems unconstitutional.

The Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016, its latest effort to flex state muscle against the federal government. The measure will go on the November 2014 ballot. It proposes to allow either the governor and state Legislature or voters to refuse to use state personnel and resources on any federal law or action deemed to be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, sponsored the bill.

“We need to stand up and use our sovereign rights and this is another tool in the toolbox to be able to do that,” he said in a public hearing on the bill.

Former state lawmaker and unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Jonathan Paton and Phoenix businessman Jack Biltis are behind the resolution.

This is a second attempt at passing such a measure by Biltis, who runs an employer-services firm. He spent more than $1 million of his money on an unsuccessful 2012 effort to put a similar measure on the ballot. The Checks and Balances in Government initiative lacked enough valid signatures to qualify, elections officials said.

Biltis said in committee hearings on SCR 1016 that he would again invest his own money in campaigns for the measure.

Paton told lawmakers during a committee hearing that he believed the measure is constitutional based on Supreme Court rulings. He said the court clearly ruled the federal government cannot “commandeer” a state to act in support of a federal law. [Again, I think comments by the Founders in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers support this.]

“We can’t stop the federal government directly ... but we can say how we are going to use our resources within the environs of our own state,” he said. “We have the power as a state to decide what’s right for our state.”

States, including Arizona, have pushed for measures in recent years to ignore certain federal laws, such as “Obamacare” or proposed gun restrictions. Paton said this is not “nullification” — a state refusing to enforce a federal law — but rather a broad solution that can be used whenever a situation arises.

“I don’t envision this as a left or right issue,” he said. “I envision this as a checks and balances issue.” [Again, I think the statements by the Founders in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers agree with this.]

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he envisions the bill as “a complete waste of time.” [Chad Campbell is a "complete waste of time"]

“It’s talking about not wasting money on things we feel are unconstitutional at the state, but the referendum itself is unconstitutional,” he said. “You can’t supersede federal authority.” [True, but 99.9 percent of the laws passed by the US Congress are unconstitutional and this bill simply allows Arizona to ignore those unconstitutional laws]

He said there are already checks and balances against the federal government overstepping its bounds — the courts. [Sadly the checks and balances and the courts don't work. The insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs" is clearly unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment, but the Supremes have allowed it to continue for 100 years.]

And that, he said, is exactly where this would end up. He said if voters or the Legislature decide to deny services for a certain federal action, the federal government will likely sue and the courts will still be the deciding factor in the end. [True, but for the wrong reason. The Feds would certainly sue, but the royals rulers have grown too big for their britches and they have said that the "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution gives them the power to do anything they damn well feel like, and sadly the Supreme Court has agreed with them!]

“This is just another example of the figurative finger-pointing we’ve been doing at the federal government ... and in some cases, the literal finger-pointing,” he said.

Egyptians targeted with blasphemy charges

Egyptians targeted with blasphemy charges

By MAGGIE MICHAEL | Associated Press

CAIRO (AP) — The pale, young Christian woman sat handcuffed in the courtroom, accused of insulting Islam while teaching history of religions to fourth-graders. A team of Islamist lawyers with long beards sang in unison, "All except the Prophet Muhammad."

The case against Dimyana Abdel-Nour in southern Egypt's ancient city of Luxor began when parents of three of her pupils claimed that their children, aged 10, complained their teacher showed disgust when she spoke of Islam in class. According to the parents, Abdel-Nour, 24, told the children that Pope Shenouda, who led the Egyptian Coptic Church until his death last year, was better than the Prophet Muhammad.

Blasphemy charges were not uncommon in Egypt under the now-ousted autocrat Hosni Mubarak's regime, but there has been a surge in such cases in recent months, according to rights activists. The trend is widely seen as a reflection of the growing power and confidence of Islamists, particularly the ultraconservative Salafis.

"Salafis are the engineers of these stories," said Abdel-Hamid Hassan, a Muslim and the head of the parents' council at the primary school where Abdel-Nour teaches. Hassan's daughter was among several students who denied any wrongdoing by Abdel-Nour.

"If the pope himself came here from the Vatican and tried to spread Christianity among us, he would fail. We learn about our religion starting from the age of 5," he said, alluding to the allegation against Abdel-Nour, since withdrawn, of "spreading Christianity."

Criminalizing blasphemy was enshrined in the country's Islamist-backed constitution that was adopted in December.

Writers, activists and even a famous television comedian have been accused of blasphemy since then. But Christians seem to be the favorite target of Islamist prosecutors. Their fragile cases — the main basis of the case against Abdel-Nour's case the testimony of children — are greeted with sympathy from courtroom judges with their own religious bias or who fear the wrath of Islamists, according to activists.

The result is a growing number of Egyptians, including many Christians, who have been convicted and sent to prison for blasphemy.

In at least one celebrated case, the offense was clearly provocative: Seven Coptic Christians living in the United States received death sentences in absentia for producing an anti-Islam film that sparked waves of protests by ultraconservative Islamists in front of U.S. embassies across the Arab world on Sept. 11, 2012.

But rights groups say the vast majority of blasphemy cases are merely attempts by Islamists to crack down on their opponents.

"Islamists are using the law to hunt down critics to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Christians are the weakest," said Medhat Klada, a Switzerland-based Coptic Christian activist whose organization Copts United tracks such cases. "The numbers of Christians implicated is unprecedented," he added.

Many believe that restrictions on freedoms are more severe under Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's first freely elected president, than during his predecessor's 29-year reign.

Under Mubarak, "you might have had 50 cases, which means a case or two a year on average, but now you have like 10 cases in a year," said Mamdouh Nakhla, who leads The Word Group for Human Rights and focuses on Christian-related persecution.

Freed Tuesday on nearly $3,000 bail after almost a week in detention, Abdel-Nour is due to stand trial on May 21. Her family refused several requests by The Associated Press to speak to her. Her father, Ebid Abdel-Nour, said: "She is innocent. God be with us. She can't talk because she is in very bad condition."

Emil Nazeer, a Christian activist who visited her, says she is suffering a "nervous breakdown."

Rights advocates see cases like Abdel-Nour's as politically motivated persecution. They say the verdicts tend to be harsher in southern Egypt, where Islamists are particularly powerful and Muslims are more conservative.

"Any move or word by a Christian is enough to get the rumor mill working," said Amr Ezzat, a prominent researcher in Islamic groups at the Cairo-based Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR). "Rumors quickly spread in villages or the towns where the radar of Islamist activists detect them and turn them into a rallying cry under the pretext that Islam's supremacy is endangered."

Salafis advocate an uncompromising and literal interpretation of the Quran, believing society must mirror the way the prophet and his immediate successors ruled in the 7th century. Some Salafi-based political groups are at odds with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group from which Morsi hails, while others are avid supporters of his government.

Part of the Salafis' antagonism toward Christians is rooted in the belief that they were a protected group under Mubarak's regime while they, the Salafis, were persecuted. Now empowered, they may be out to exact revenge on the Christians, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt's 90 million people.

The Egyptian Federation for Human Rights, led by former judge Naguib Gibrael, detects a trend in the number of lawsuits and court rulings leveled against Christians and school teachers in particular over the past year.

Gibrael, a lawyer who is representing Abdul-Nour, says it's his 18th case defending Christians — several of them teachers — detained over insulting Islam. He says his 17 other clients received three to six years in prison. They go to appeals courts, hoping for retrials or lighter sentences.

Another rights group, the EIPR, said it chronicled at least 36 blasphemy cases in 2011 and 2012, including more than 10 convictions, and that Christian school teachers were frequent targets.

"Teachers are an easy target," said Gibrael. "Any two students can say anything about their teachers. Islamist teachers collect signatures, and quickly Islamists move a case, then terrorize the court by holding protests and besieging the court building until the judge issues a verdict. I have seen it all," he said.

In Cairo, public figures who have lately faced blasphemy accusations or trials like movie star Adel Imam were all cleared, thanks to media attention, lobbying by rights groups and heavy police presence.

In rural areas, according to EIPR researcher Ishak Ibrahim, even those acquitted or otherwise cleared of blasphemy accusations face social or administrative punishment, with some forced by villagers to leave their homes, pay a fine or get demoted or suspended by their state employers.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood likes to project itself as a more moderate Islamist group when compared to the ultraconservative Salafis, but they still play a role in the blasphemy cases.

The top Brotherhood leader in Luxor, Abdel-Hamid el-Senoussi, is a lawmaker and the head of the legal team representing the families whose children testified against Abdel-Nour.

He acknowledged that two investigations by the school found no justification for the children's claims, but said he does not trust those findings.

"They just want to avoid discord. But we prefer to get to the bottom of it," he said. "Even if the court clears the teacher and rules that she is innocent, she must be fired from the school."

"There are people who want to mess up with the ship of the nation and this teacher is one of them," he said.

For him, the penalty for contempt of religion is not harsh enough. "I prefer 10 years imprisonment and, in case the judge clears the defendant, a fine that goes toward the upkeep of places of worship."

"Anyone who insults religions must be punished to deter further assaults," he said.

___

AP writer Haggag Salama contributed to this story from Luxor, Egypt

High court to weigh in on legislative prayers

Associated Press Mon May 20, 2013 9:13 AM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a new case on the intersection of religion and government in a dispute over prayers used to open public meetings.

The justices said they will review an appeals court ruling that held that the upstate New York town of Greece, a Rochester suburb, violated the Constitution by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the town should have made a greater effort to invite people from other faiths to open its monthly board meetings.

The town says the high court already has upheld prayers at the start of legislative meetings and that private citizens offered invocations of their own choosing. The town said in court papers that the opening prayers should be found to be constitutional, “so long as the government does not act with improper motive in selecting prayer-givers.”

Two town residents who are not Christian complained that they felt marginalized by the steady stream of Christian prayers and challenged the practice. They are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Reacting to the court action Monday, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said, “A town council meeting isn’t a church service, and it shouldn’t seem like one.”

The town is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based group that presses faith-based cases in courts nationwide. ADF senior counsel David Cortman said the framers of the Constitution prayed while drafting the Bill of Rights. “Americans today should be as free as the Founders were to pray,” Cortman said.

From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha’i congregation.

A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there.

The court ruled the town should have expanded its search outside its borders.

Arguments will take place in the fall.

The case is Town of Greece v. Galloway, 12-696.

Also on Monday, the justices voted 6-3 to uphold the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to try to speed local government decisions on applications to build or expand cell phone towers.

In four other decisions, all unanimous, the court:

— Ruled against the Internal Revenue Service and for companies that want to claim U.S. tax credits to offset millions of dollars in windfall tax payments in Great Britain.

— Allowed a woman to collect attorney’s fees even though she waited too long to file a lawsuit claiming damage from a vaccine.

— Said that convicted murderer Burt Lancaster was not entitled to a new trial, reversing a lower court ruling that said Lancaster should have been allowed to argue that mental illness mitigated his culpability.

— Rejected the Mississippi NAACP’s challenge to the state’s 2011 elections because they were held without adopting new legislative districts to take account of 2010 census results and diluted African-American voting strength.

The justices also:

— Agreed to decide the extent of whistleblower protection for people who report wrongdoing under the Sarbanes Oxley law that tightened accounting regulations in response to corporate scandals.

— Stepped into a dispute between Delta Air Lines and Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg, who sued Delta-owned Northwest Inc. after he was kicked out of its frequent-flier program for complaining too much.

Rep. Juan Mendez - I’m an atheist

The good news was the gay community has fought that, so now while a lot of people still hate gays it has become socially unacceptable to terrorize gay folks like it used to be.

Sadly us atheists are in the same position that gays were in 20 years ago. Sadly it's still socially acceptable to terrorize atheists.

I think it's great that Rep. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe has come out and admitted that he is an atheist. While a lot of people will hate him for it, I think that it will help people began to see the fact that atheists should have the same rights as all other people, even if they hate us.

I am still pretty pissed at Arizona US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema for refusing to admit that she is an atheist. It sure seems like Kyrsten Sinema refuses to tell the public any of her positions if she thinks it may cost her votes, even if it is the truth.

Her official religion at the US Congress is listed as no religion, even though us folks here in Phoenix that know her, know that she is an atheist.

I am also still pretty pissed off at Kyrsten Sinema's attempt to slap an 300 percent tax on medical marijuana when she was in the Arizona Legislator.

I know Kyrsten Sinema never met a tax she didn't love. I a lot of conservative groups consider Kyrsten Sinema the worst legislator in the history of Arizona when it comes to her socialist tax and spending.

I also know that in all of Kyrsten Sinema campaigns for both the Arizona and US Congress she has been supported by the police unions. She says she supports the people, but when she votes, it seems like she supports the police state.

So I don't know if she tried to slap that 300 percent tax on because it is part of her usual love to tax and spend and simply thinks that every penny in your wallet is hers.

Or if she did it for the police unions, in an attempt to flush Prop 203 down the toilet. Prop 203 is Arizona's medical marijuana law.

Oddly Kyrsten Sinema does admit she is a gay, while not admitting she is an atheist, other then saying she doesn't have a religion.

Kyrsten Sinema is also a gun grabber and has been given an F by the NRA with a zero percent rating on a scale of 0 to 100.

Source

Arizona lawmaker: I’m an atheist

By Mary K. Reinhart The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 21, 2013 10:06 PM

A state lawmaker acknowledged that he is an atheist as he gave the daily House invocation Tuesday, urging legislators to look at each other, rather than bow their heads, and “celebrate our shared humanness.”

Rep. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, who said it was freeing to be open about his secular views, also introduced about a dozen fellow members of the Secular Coalition for Arizona who watched from the House gallery.

The House and Senate convene with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Members take turns giving the prayer or inviting a religious leader to do so — similar to practices that have taken place for centuries in Congress, statehouses and city halls throughout the country.

Mendez’s secular invocation comes as the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether prayers can be offered at government meetings.

An appeals court last year ruled unconstitutional the practice in Greece, N.Y., of having Christian pastors give prayers before public meetings. The Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom appealed and the high-court ruling, expected by June 2014, will resolve conflicting appeals-court rulings about religious expression.

Tuesday’s invocation was to have been given by Serah Blain, executive director of the Secular Coalition of Arizona. But Mendez said House staff had no record of his request to allow Blain’s remarks, so he offered the remarks himself.

“This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration,” he said. “But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human we have much more in common than we have differences.”

House lawmakers appeared to have no reaction to Mendez’s remarks.

But in a statement Monday on the Supreme Court case, Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, defended the practice of praying before government meetings.

“The outcome of this case could very well preserve or eliminate one of the great American traditions, which poses no threat to the secular nature of the business of the state,” he said.

Blain leads a growing coalition that represents 17 secular organizations at the Legislature, focused on pushing back against the powerful Christian-based Center for Arizona Policy and promoting a death-with-dignity law and science-based sex education in schools.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that people with no religious affiliation make up the third-largest group worldwide, after Christians and Muslims. About 20 percent of people in the U.S. say they are religiously unaffiliated.

Court strikes down Arizona's 20-week abortion ban

9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban

Posted: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:00 pm | Updated: 3:08 pm, Tue May 21, 2013.

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Calling a woman's rights "unalterably clear,'' a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Arizona's nearly year-old ban on abortions at 20 weeks and beyond.

In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the law on what states can and cannot restrict has varied since the landmark 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. That ruling barred states from banning a woman's right to an abortion, at least early in her pregnancy.

But Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the court, said one thing has remained constant.

"A woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable,'' she said. "A prohibition on the exercise of that right is per se unconstitutional.''

While a federal judge last year declared the law valid, it has never been enforced. That's because the appellate court put it on "hold'' while it considered the appeal.

Tuesday's ruling is a setback not only for the majority of legislators who voted for the ban but also for Gov. Jan Brewer who signed the measure. She believes most abortions should be illegal.

But it is not likely the last word. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who personally argued the case to the appellate court, has said he sees the law as a chance to have the whole issue of the viability standard revisited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And Cathi Herrod, president of the anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy, said she is "not surprised or discouraged.''

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is well known for opinions that get overturned by the United States Supreme Court,'' she said.

But Herrod said the high court does not have to overturn Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings which have clearly said states cannot ban pre-viability abortions. Herrod said she believes the statute can be defended without asking the court to void its historic ruling.

"Obviously, I wouldn't be upset if they did,'' Herrod added.

The legislation makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion beyond the 19th week unless it's necessary to prevent a woman's death or "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

Montgomery conceded during legal arguments last year in San Francisco that Supreme Court rulings generally prohibit states from interfering with a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy any time before a fetus is considered viable outside the womb. That is generally considered somewhere around the 23 or 24-week mark.

But he pointed out that the high court has allowed reasonable restrictions for legitimate reasons. And Montgomery said lawmakers had such justification for what he termed just a restriction.

One was the conclusion by the Legislature that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain. The other, also based on testimony, is there is an increased risk to the mother's health from an abortion at and after 20 weeks.

But Berzon said no amount of argument from Montgomery could overcome the fact that the Arizona law was not a restriction like a 24-hour waiting period but an outright ban. And that, she said, Arizona cannot do.

"Since Roe, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have repeated over and over again that viability remains the fulcrum of the balance between a pregnant woman's right to control her body and the state's interest in preventing her from undergoing an abortion,'' Berzon wrote. And because it is a ban, and not merely a limitation, "no state interest is strong enough to support it.''

In a concurring opinion, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said there may be legal ways for the state to deal with its stated concerns.

"Were the statute limited to protecting fetuses from unnecessary infliction of excruciating pain before their death, Arizona might regulate abortions at or after 20 weeks by requiring anesthetization of the fetuses about to be killed, much as it requires anesthetization of prisoners prior to killing them when the death penalty is carried out,'' Kleinfeld wrote.

He also brushed aside the measure's stated interest in protecting a woman's health as a reason to keep her from getting an abortion at or after 20 weeks.

"People are free to do many things to their health, such as surgery to improve their quality of life but unnecessary to preserve life,'' Kleinfeld said. "There appears to be no authority for making an exception to this general liberty regarding one's own health for abortion.''

Kleinfeld acknowledged there are problems with using viability as the standard to determine when a state can and cannot ban abortion, pointing out that in 1973 that was considered 28 weeks. And he said medical science for premature babies may advance to where they are viable three or four weeks earlier than now.

But Kleinfeld said no one from the state is arguing that has happened, forcing his court to decide the legal issue based on the current state of science.

"The 9th Circuit got it exactly right,'' said Janet Creps, the attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights which challenged the law.

"When you tell somebody that they are absolutely forbidden to do something, that's a ban,'' Creps said. "Most people can pretty commonly understand when something is a ban and something is a regulation.''

Kleinfeld also said the fact that an Arizona woman wanting an abortion at or after 20 weeks can go to another state does not make the law any more unacceptable.

"I am unaware of any case in which one state might deprive someone of a constitutional right because the individual could exercise it in another state,'' he said.

Source

Court strikes down Arizona's 20-week abortion ban

By Paul Elias Associated Press Tue May 21, 2013 1:05 PM

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal court Tuesday struck down Arizona’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy absent a medical emergency.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law violated a woman’s constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. “Viability” of a fetus is generally considered to start at 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks.

Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier. Several of those bans had previously been placed on hold or struck down by other courts.

Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel on the San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violate a long string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The judge wrote that “a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable.”

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the ban into law in April 2012 after it was approved by the Republican-led Legislature. Supporters said the law was meant to protect the mother’s health and prevent fetuses from feeling pain. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of those concerns, but the 9th Circuit blocked the ban from going into effect until it ruled.

Lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban wasn’t technically a law but rather a medical regulation because it allowed for doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies. Berzon rejected that reasoning and deemed the legislation a law banning abortions before a fetus is viable.

“The challenged Arizona statute’s medical emergency exception does not transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of abortion procedure,” Berzon wrote. “Allowing a physician to decide if abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term.”

Berzon was joined by judges Mary Schroeder and Andrew Kleinfeld.

Cathi Herrod, the head of a Christian social conservative group that championed the 2012 legislation, said the ruling overlooks the state’s interest in protecting maternal health,” but that the outcome wasn’t surprising because of the court’s reputation as siding with politically liberal causes.

“We look forward to an appeal to the United States Supreme Court,” said Herrod, president of the Phoenix-based Center for Arizona Policy. The group filed a legal brief in support of the Arizona law.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court’s jurisdiction, and Idaho is the only other state in the region with a similar ban. A federal judge earlier declared Idaho’s ban unconstitutional.

Janet Creppe, a lawyer who argued against the ban in court for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the ruling Tuesday affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion before viability.

“These laws are all unconstitutional,” she said. “This is not a close legal question at all. These laws are unconstitutional.”

Texas judge says lesbian couple can’t cohabitate

Texas judge says lesbian couple can’t cohabitate, cites morality clause in divorce papers

By Associated Press, Published: May 21

MCKINNEY, Texas — A judge has ruled that a North Texas lesbian couple can’t live together because of a morality clause in one of the women’s divorce papers.

The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home. If the couple marries, they can get out from under the legal provision — but that is not an option for gay couples in Texas, where such marriages aren’t recognized. [So what! A lot of contracts for home sales says the home can be resold to colored people. I am sure those contracts are just as unconstitutional as the clause in these divorce cases]

The Dallas Morning News (http://dallasne.ws/16MlSUQ) reported that in a divorce hearing last month for Carolyn and Joshua Compton, Collin County District Judge John Roach Jr. enforced the terms detailed in their 2011 divorce papers. He ordered Carolyn Compton’s partner, Page Price, to move out of the home they shared with the Comptons’ two daughters, ages 10 and 13. The judge gave Price 30 days to find another place to live.

Paul Key said his client, Joshua Compton, wanted the clause enforced for his kids’ benefit. [Yea, they always claim these outrageously unjust things are "to protect the children"]

“The fact that they can’t get married in Texas is a legislative issue,” Key said. “It’s not really our issue.”

The Comptons had been married for 11 years before their split. Carolyn Compton originally filed for divorce in September 2010.

Roach said the clause doesn’t target same-sex couples, adding that the language is gender neutral.

“It’s a general provision for the benefit of the children,” the judge said.

Price and Carolyn Compton said in a statement that they believe the clause is unconstitutional. But they also said they would comply with the order “even though it will be disruptive to their family and has the potential of being harmful to the children.”

They also said in the statement that the clause “is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression.”

They are considering whether to file an appeal.

In Collin County, the clause is part of the standing orders that apply to every divorce case filed and remains in force while the divorce is pending. In the case of the Comptons’ divorce, the clause was also added to their final divorce decree. It has no expiration date.

___

Information from: The Dallas Morning News, http://www.dallasnews.com

Should legislative prayers be open to atheists?

Source

Should legislative prayers be open to atheists?

The Republic | azcentral.com Wed May 22, 2013 5:15 PM

When lawmakers pray at the Capitol, it's often a Christian prayer.

But is that how it should be?

Some are upset with state Rep. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, an atheist who in lieu of praying asked his colleagues to look around and "celebrate our shared humanness." Lawmakers often rotate the traditional invocation; on Tuesday, it was Mendez's turn.

State Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, spoke against Mendez's actions Wednesday and led a second prayer in "repentance."

Opinions editor Robert Leger and digital opinions editor Joanna Allhands discuss the controversy in the video above.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Should prayers kick off government proceedings? And if so, should people of different faiths -- or no faiths -- be allowed to participate?

Some business owners resist providing employees with contraceptive coverage

Some business owners resist providing employees with contraceptive coverage

By Robert Barnes, Published: May 22 E-mail the writer

CHICAGO — Religiously devout business owners are waging a broad rebellion against providing their employees with contraceptive coverage, bringing dozens of lawsuits that seem certain to land the issue before the Supreme Court.

The company owners say their religious beliefs take precedence over a new federal requirement, contained in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, that they give employees insurance that covers contraceptives.

The legal battle took an important step forward Wednesday when an appeals court here heard arguments in two cases brought by business owners who are Catholic. Another challenge is scheduled to be heard Thursday by an appeals court in Denver, and two other courts are set to hear similar cases over the next two weeks.

There are 60 cases filed nationwide objecting to the impending mandate, which requires employers to provide no-cost coverage of all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The challenges are split almost equally between those brought by corporations and by nonprofit entities with a religious affiliation or moral objection to contraception.

So far, it is the objections from religious-affiliated nonprofit corporations and institutions that have drawn the most attention. Groups such as Catholic bishops have accused the Obama administration of waging war on religious groups by insisting on the contraceptive mandate. But those cases are mostly in legal limbo as the administration works on regulations that might provide a compromise.

Further along in the legal process are the suits filed by businesses with religious owners. These enterprises are involved in profit-making activities that have nothing to do with faith. The companies, among other things, make wooden cabinets, run a national chain of arts and crafts stores and supply salad greens to local Panera restaurants.

Their challenges offer a complex set of issues — religious freedom, equality for women workers, whether a company rather than a person is protected in its exercise of religion — that already are dividing lower courts.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit heard a pair of cases brought by an Illinois-based construction company, K&L Contractors, and an Indiana maker of vehicle-safety products, Grote Industries. Both firms were seeking permanent injunctions against the contraceptive requirement.

Cyril and Jane Korte, who own the privately held construction company, have vowed to run the business in concert with their Catholic beliefs, according to their lawyer, Edward L. White III. White is a senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, one of several groups representing business owners in the lawsuits.

He said the law would force them to either submit to actions that “implicate their moral beliefs” or be subject to more than $700,000 in annual penalties. “It would destroy the business,” he told the court.

The federal government, for its part, has drawn support from groups advocating for women’s rights and for the separation of church and state, as well as civil libertarians.

“Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but just as religious objections to desegregation were not an excuse for racial discrimination, private businesses cannot use religion as an excuse to deny basic health care to the women who work for them,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In some of the lawsuits, business owners object to insurance plans that cover any contraceptives, while in others, the owners reject only certain devices or drugs.

All of them are basing their arguments on the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion and on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act prohibits the federal government from imposing a “substantial burden” on a person’s exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” and the measure is the least restrictive method of achieving the interest.

So far, courts have been split. Appeals courts in Denver, Philadelphia and Cincinnati have denied business owners’ requests for temporary injunctions, while courts in the District, St. Louis and the 7th Circuit have granted temporary injunctions.

The Supreme Court ultimately may be required to settle the question. “I don’t know if the Supreme Court will be eager get into this, but I think they will find it hard to avoid,” said Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor who is an expert on religious freedom.

The two cases Wednesday were heard by the same three judges who previously overturned the decision of a lower-court judge and gave the Kortes and the Grote family a temporary injunction. There was no indication that the intervening months had changed the minds of Judges Joel M. Flaum and Diane S. Sykes, who agreed with the businesses, and Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner, who has sided with the government.

U.S. Justice Department lawyer Alisa B. Klein made the federal government’s argument that secular, for-profit corporations are not entitled to the RFRA protections that apply to the “persons” mentioned in the law.

It is a “bedrock principle of American corporate law” that corporations are distinct from their shareholders, she said. The Kortes and Grotes may have religious rights, she said, but that does not free their corporations from having to comply with federal laws. The corporations cannot comply with only the parts of the law with which they agree, she said.

A brief supporting the government from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the companies’ rationale “could allow other employers to withhold insurance coverage for any number of other medical treatments — from blood transfusions to psychiatric care to the use of medicine ingested in the form of gelatin capsules.”

But Klein drew repeated skepticism from Sykes. The judge said the companies “had a corporate mission here to operate within Catholic doctrine” and that there was no challenge to their sincerity.

Sykes said that because corporations have rights to political speech, it would make no sense for them to be denied First Amendment rights to exercise religion. In its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in January 2012, the Supreme Court said that political contributions by corporations and labor unions are a form of protected speech.

Klein argued that if Congress had intended to include corporations in RFRA, it would have done so explicitly. Sykes countered that it was just as logical to think that Congress believed that it did not need to.

The question of whether corporations are included in RFRA could prove crucial for the government’s case, according to Michael W. McConnell, a religion law expert who heads Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center. Otherwise, the government could be in a weak position because it has already granted so many exemptions to the contraceptive mandate — for instance, to religious groups — and has grandfathered in existing health insurance plans, which may not cover contraceptives.

By the government’s own estimate, that means 100 million Americans might not have contraceptive coverage, said Matt Bowman, an Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer representing the Grotes in one of the two cases heard Wednesday. That could undercut the government’s argument that the need to carry out the mandate is so compelling it trumps the couple’s religious beliefs.

In court, Rovner questioned how the Kortes and Grotes would be harmed if they had to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. The owners are not forced to use contraceptives, only to offer insurance plans that cover them, she said. She wondered how this would be any different from a worker telling her employer she was was going to use her paycheck to get a procedure that the employer disapproved of.

Rovner also wondered whether courts were supposed to investigate the legitimacy of a company’s claims about the religious devotion of its owners. What if “Apple or Walmart or Juicy Couture” decided not to comply because of religious objections, she asked. Are courts “obliged to accept those assertions?”

Such questions are why Laycock, the University of Virginia expert, said the cases are such a tough call. Particularly as the objecting companies get bigger, he said, “it’s harder to say you are just practicing your religion.”

On Thursday, the appeals court in Denver hears the case of Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts retailer that has more than 500 stores and 13,000 employees. In an unusual move, the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit will be hearing the Hobby Lobby case.

A panel of the appeals court turned down the company’s request for a temporary injunction, as did Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees the circuit.

Sotomayor said that because the court had never ruled on whether a corporation was covered by RFRA, the company could not meet the high court’s strict standards for when an injunction should be granted.

Depending on how fast the appeals courts work, the challenges could reach the Supreme Court in time for the term that begins in October.

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

Man gets 340 years for victimless crimes

Source

Flagstaff man gets 340 years for child sex crimes

Associated Press Thu May 23, 2013 10:37 PM

FLAGSTAFF -- A 45-year-old man has been sentenced to 340 years in prison in a child-sex case that included voyeurism, surreptitious videotaping and extensive downloading of child pornography.

David Greenberg was sentenced Wednesday in Coconino County Superior Court to 17 years in prison on each of 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. State law requires that the terms be served consecutively, so the sentences add up to 340 years.

The sentence imposed was the normal one prescribed by state law, above the minimum of 190 years sought by Greenberg’s lawyer and below the maximum of 482 years sought by the prosecution, the Arizona Daily Sun reported.

Defense attorney David Bednar argued that the sentencing violated his client’s constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

However, Judge Cathleen Brown Nichols ruled that it didn’t because Greenberg was sentenced on multiple counts.

Nichols said Greenberg’s actions caused extreme harm to the victims and that she doubted Greenberg’s expressions of remorse.

Hailing the lengthy prison sentence, County Attorney David Rozema cited Greenberg’s voyeurism and extensive collection of child pornography.

“The threat of harm from this type of offender cannot be overstated,” Rozema said.

A Flagstaff police detective testified that Greenberg had so much pornography that police decided to not look at most of it because it would take a detective one year of full-time work to review it all.

“This was the most graphic, gut-wrenching, stomach-turning content I’ve ever seen,” said Sgt. Gene Shantz.

Greenberg is a former science researcher and doctoral student at Northern Arizona University.

Shantz said the case began when Greenberg was arrested trespassing at a home and investigators suspected from Greenberg’s statements that he was a predator. The investigation led to a search of Greenberg’s home and the discovery of child pornography.

Greenberg told Nichols that his obsession was shameful and disgusting. However, Greenberg said it was an addiction that never physically threatened anyone because he never actually touched any of the victims.

“The shame I feel no one can even begin to understand and I have to live with that for the rest of my life. I don’t understand how I’m going to prison for the rest of my life,” Greenberg said.

Prosecutor Jonathan Mosher said Greenberg’s behavior had caused great harm.

Each time a person views an image or video of a child being abused, that child is victimized again, Mosher added.

“When you possess an image of a baby being (sexually abused), you get the maximum — period,” Mosher said.

The rise of the fourth branch of government

And at the same time these members of Congress who are doling out pork and cash can deny giving special treatment to the people who gave them campaign contributions by saying "I didn't write those laws. Those laws were created by some unnamed federal bureaucrat in some unnamed federal agency. I am shocked at how those unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats are wasting out tax dollars [but of course they never will pass any laws to stop it, because they agree with those unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats who are helping them rob us taxpayers blind]"

Government also frequently works like this at the state, county and city levels too. When elected officials can blame unelected bureaucrats for their decisions it makes it a lot easier for them to rob us blind and get reelected at the same time.

Source

The rise of the fourth branch of government

By Jonathan Turley, Published: May 24 E-mail the writer

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.

The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

For much of our nation’s history, the federal government was quite small. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.

The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”

The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.

These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. Just ask John E. Brennan. Brennan, a 50-year-old technology consultant, was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration. He was cleared by a federal judge, who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech. The TSA was undeterred. After the ruling, it pulled Brennan into its own agency courts under administrative charges.

The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.

Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.

Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency.

It’s a small percentage of agency matters that rise to the level of presidential notice. The rest remain the sole concern of agency discretion.

As the power of the fourth branch has grown, conflicts between the other branches have become more acute. There is no better example than the fights over presidential appointments.

Wielding its power to confirm, block or deny nominees is one of the few remaining ways Congress can influence agency policy and get a window into agency activity. Nominations now commonly trigger congressional demands for explanations of agencies’ decisions and disclosures of their documents. And that commonly leads to standoffs with the White House.

Take the fight over Richard Cordray, nominated to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray is highly qualified, but Republican senators oppose the independence of the new bureau and have questions about its jurisdiction and funding. After those senators repeatedly blocked the nomination, Obama used a congressional break in January to make a recess appointment. Since then, two federal appeals courts have ruled that Obama’s recess appointments violated the Constitution and usurped congressional authority. While the fight continues in the Senate, the Obama administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.

It would be a mistake to dismiss such conflicts as products of our dysfunctional, partisan times. Today’s political divisions are mild compared with those in the early republic, as when President Thomas Jefferson described his predecessor’s tenure as “the reign of the witches.” Rather, today’s confrontations reflect the serious imbalance in the system.

The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.

In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.

We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.

Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.

Sex-offender data is used to collect money and intimidate

I have always disliked the governments requirement that sex offenders are required to register with the government and have their personal information placed in online databases that anybody can view on the internet.

I think the governments intent is to humiliate, belittle and intimidate the alleged sex offenders and it doesn't serve any legitimate function of protecting public.

Last the term "sex offender" is misleading. If you get arrested for taking a leak in an alley under Arizona's laws you are considered a "sex offender" and required to register under this stupid law.

Text of atheist prayer given in Arizona House

Text of atheist prayer given in Arizona House

By Associated Press,May 22, 2013

An atheist lawmaker’s daily prayer Tuesday at the Arizona House of Representatives led a fellow lawmaker to ask for a do-over the following day.

Democratic Rep. Juan Mendez of Tempe said he was looking for a way to convey his feelings like other members do when they participate in the prayer rotation at the beginning of the daily floor session. Rep. Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) on Wednesday said the prayer wasn’t a prayer at all.

The complete text of Mendez’s prepared remarks is below:

“Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads. I would like to ask you not to bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people of our state.

“This room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration. But this is also a room where, as my Secular Humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences. We share the same spectrum of potential for care, for compassion, for fear, for joy, for love.

“Carl Sagan once wrote, ‘For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love.’ There is, in the political process, much to bear. In this room, let us cherish and celebrate our shared humanness, our shared capacity for reason and compassion, our shared love for the people of our state, for our Constitution and for our democracy— and let us root our policymaking process in these values that are relevant to all Arizonans regardless of religious belief or nonbelief. In gratitude and in love, in reason and in compassion, let us work together for a better Arizona.”

Republican Rep. Steve Smith - Atheists can't pray????

Arizona House Prayer Given By Atheist Lawmaker Sparks Do-Over From Christian Lawmaker

By BOB CHRISTIE 05/22/13 05:34 PM ET EDT AP

PHOENIX -- An atheist lawmaker's decision to give the daily prayer at the Arizona House of Representatives triggered a do-over from a Christian lawmaker who said the previous day's prayer didn't pass muster.

Republican Rep. Steve Smith on Wednesday said the prayer offered by Democratic Rep. Juan Mendez of Tempe at the beginning of the previous day's floor session wasn't a prayer at all. So he asked other members to join him in a second daily prayer in "repentance," and about half the 60-member body did so. Both the Arizona House and Senate begin their sessions with a prayer and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

"When there's a time set aside to pray and to pledge, if you are a non-believer, don't ask for time to pray," said Smith, of Maricopa. "If you don't love this nation and want to pledge to it, don't say I want to lead this body in the pledge, and stand up there and say, `you know what, instead of pledging, I love England' and (sit) down.

"That's not a pledge, and that wasn't a prayer, it's that simple," Smith said.

Mendez said he was just looking for a way to convey his own feelings like other members do when they take the rotation giving the daily prayer.

"I wanted to find a way to where I could convey some message and take advantage of the opportunity that people have when they offer these prayers," he said. "If my lack of religion doesn't give me the same opportunity to engage in this platform then I feel kind of disenfranchised. So I did want to stand up and offer some kind of thing that represented my view on what's going on."

Wednesday's dust-up over religion comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether an upstate New York town is violating constitutional prohibitions on government sanction of religion by offering prayers to open public meetings. The justices will review an appeals court ruling that held that the upstate New York town of Greece, a Rochester suburb, violated the Constitution by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity.

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin and Senate President Andy Biggs filed a legal brief agreeing with the town's position.

On Wednesday, Tobin said he had no problem with Mendez's prayer.

"From my perspective I didn't see an issue with Mr. Mendez yesterday," said Tobin, R-Paulden. "I can appreciate what Mr. Smith was saying, but I think all members are responsible for their own prayerful lives and I think the demonstration that we take moments for prayer we all do collectively and in our own hearts."

Rep. Jamescita Peshlakai, who represents a northern Arizona district on the Navajo reservation, did take offense. She said Smith's criticism of another member's faith, or lack of it, was wrong.

"I want to remind the House and my colleagues and everybody here that several of us here are not Christianized. I'm a traditional Navajo, so I stand here every day and participate in prayers," even without personally embracing them, said Peshlakai, D-Cameron. "This is the United States, this is America, and we all represent different people ... and you need to respect that. Your God is no more powerful than my God. We all come from the same creator."

Mendez gave the invocation Tuesday while members of the Secular Coalition for Arizona were in the visitors' gallery. He began his remarks by asking fellow lawmakers not to bow their heads but to instead look around at the other men and women in the room, "sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people of our state."

___

Follow Bob Christie on Twitter at http://twitter.com/APChristie

AZ lawmaker opens session with atheist 'prayer'

AZ lawmaker opens session with atheist 'prayer'

Posted: May 22, 2013 6:09 PM Updated: May 22, 2013 8:21 PM

By Ray Downs - email

(RNN) - An atheist state representative from Arizona began Monday's session with what has been described as an atheist "prayer" at a time when the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of religious prayers at official political meetings.

According to the Phoenix New Times, State Rep. Juan Mendez, of Tempe, opened the session by asking people not to bow their heads as they normally do, but instead look around at their counterparts. He proceeded to talk about his "secular humanist tradition" and quoted popular science writer and atheist, Carl Sagan.

"This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration," Mendez said. "But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences. We share the same spectrum of potential for care, for compassion, for fear, for joy, for love."

Mendez continued, "Carl Sagan once wrote, 'For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love.'"

The atheist "prayer" was widely commended by atheists who saw Mendez's opening statements as a form of sticking up for atheist beliefs.

"Thank you Rep. Juan Mendez for representing nonbelievers and secular humanist values!" tweeted Brianne Bilyeu, who blogs about atheism and science.

On her blog, Bilyeu continued: "Thank you for the god-free invocation, for being a role-model for other politicians who might wish to be more open about their lack of religion but who feel unable to do so in our current religulous political climate, and for upholding the constitution of the United States."

The "religulous" was a reference to comedian Bill Maher's 2008 documentary about his view that religious belief s a mental disease.

The Secular Coalition for Arizona, which was in attendance, commended Mendez on its Facebook page.

"We applaud the courage and character of Representative Juan Mendez for publicly standing in solidarity with Arizona's secular community," the statement read.

Two days later, however, Republican Rep. Steve Smith said Mendez's statements were not prayer at all and asked other members to join him in a prayer of "repentance."

Mendez's statement during the opening of an official political meeting comes at a time when various cities and states across the country, including Greenville, NC and Rowlett, TX, are increasingly grappling with the issue of opening these events with religious prayers, which are almost exclusively Christian.

The issue won the attention of the Supreme Court, which agreed Monday to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of opening city council meetings with prayers in Greece, NY.

In that case, two residents of the Rochester, NY suburb who are not Christian said they felt marginalized by the Christian prayers conducted at the meetings.

"A town council meeting isn't a church service, and it shouldn't seem like one," said Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, a religious watchdog group representing the plaintiffs.

Lynn added: "Government can't serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion."

Rev. Vince DiPaola, pastor at Lakeshore Community Church in Greece, NY, said people against prayer in city council meetings are trying to shut religion down.

"It‘s just that in our culture, a minority of people seem to have the ultimate goal of telling people that you have to keep your faith locked away between your ears," DiPaola said, according to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. "They want you to shut up and intimidate you."

The case is slated to begin in October and could have nationwide ramifications for how political meetings open

Atheist Lawmaker Addresses House With His Own Prayer

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell

Atheism makes headway in two surprising places

Evan Puschak

Atheism is making strides in some unlikely places–first, in the Arizona House of Representatives, and then, in a radio address by the Pope himself.

Earlier this week, Democratic Arizona State Rep. Juan Mendez was invited by a Republican-controlled House to give the day’s opening prayer. What Mendez, an atheist, said was less a prayer than an invocation of the First Amendment, and the separation of church and state:

Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads. I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all the men and women here in this moment, sharing this extraordinary experience of being alive, and dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people of our state. This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration. But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist traditions stress, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences…Let us root our policy-making process in these values that are relevant to all Arizonans, regardless of religious belief or non-belief. In gratitude and in love, in reason and in compassion, let us work together for a better Arizona.

The Pope too seemed to soften the Roman Catholic church’s stance on atheism Wednesday in a weekly radio address. As MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said in Thursday’s Rewrite, His Holiness “got all performance art and inserted an imaginary atheist in a dialogue” about doing good.

“We must meet one another doing good,” the Pope implored, to which the fictional atheist in his speech said: “‘But I don’t believe, Father. I am an atheist!’ But do good,” the Pope replied, “we will meet one another there.”

This exchange, said O’Donnell, “is a very big improvement on ‘you will burn in Hell forever,’ which was the official Catholic position [on atheism] through the first half of the 20th Century.”

Sex-abuse investigations rip open Catholic Church's secret files

Sex-abuse investigations rip open Catholic Church's secret files

By Victoria Kim, Los Angeles Times

May 27, 2013, 6:40 p.m.

Preparing for his return to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles after six months' treatment at a center for pedophile priests, Father Michael Wempe sat down to type out a list of concerns. Arrangements for his dog. Counseling and support groups for himself.

Above everything, he wrote at the top of the list in the 1987 memo: "Confidentiality — Reports from here destroyed, even this paper."

Wempe had good reason for the request. The reports from the center laid out how he had confessedto molesting young boys. Wempe's therapists also urged church officials to immediately destroy everything. If the papers fell in the hands of law enforcement, the priest, the archdiocese and the treatment center could be in serious trouble.

But Cardinal Roger Mahony and other church leaders ignored the warnings. Rather than shred or burn the reports, they preserved them in carefully organized file cabinets where they remained until this year.

The release of those records — and thousands of pages of other damaging abuse documents in January — begged a question: Why did the church hold on to decades-old evidence of its priests' sins?

The explanation lies in centuries of Catholic Church history and is a tale involving secret betrothals, scandal, even a murder or two. Since the time of the Enlightenment, the Catholic Church has maintained two sets of records: one for the mundane and a second "secret archive" for matters of a sensitive nature. The cache — known as sub secreto files, Canon 489 files, confidential files or C-files — was to be kept under lock and key, only for the eyes of the bishop and his trusted few.

After the files became known to prosecutors and plaintiff's lawyers, the American justice system has pried open the doors to an archive long kept sealed. Thousands of additional pages are set to become public in coming months, as more than a dozen Catholic orders — Salesians, Claretians, Vincentians and others — prepare to bare their own secrets pursuant to agreements with victims. L.A. County Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias could set the date for their release at a hearing Tuesday.

For some, the revelations were damning. For others, they offered validation for dark, private memories.

::

The files were never meant to go beyond church walls.

The earliest mention of the secret archives in church history dates to the 1700s, in an edict on marriage issued by Pope Benedict XIV. The archives were to bear witness to "marriages of conscience" — unions that may be banned under civil law or otherwise scandalous, but celebrated by a priest in secrecy.

In the 20th century, when church law regulating the archives were written, Canon 489 prescribed that there was to be "a safe or cabinet, completely closed and locked, which cannot be removed" to which only the bishop would hold the key.

Safeguarding the files was not taken lightly. One scholar suggested in 1954 that files could be kept in "modern safes" that could "withstand concentrated burglarious attacks by drills, sledge hammers, wedges and mechanical tools."

Over time, the files came to hold information about priests' alcohol problems, squabbles over parish funds, clerics who had impregnated parishioners. By the 1970s and '80s, church leaders found themselves increasingly documenting in the files whispers of a more disturbing sort: sexual abuse of children at the hands of priests.

::

Few outside the innermost circles of the church knew of the trove's existence until the late 1980s, when Minneapolis attorney Jeff Anderson received a tip from a priest that evidence of molestation was probably sitting somewhere within the local diocese. Anderson and other victims' lawyers subpoenaed the secret files. Church lawyers resisted, arguing that forcing the church to disclose the files was an infringement of its right to religious freedom.

It doesn't matter "whether the church gives a file a particular name," judges ruled in one 1988 Pennsylvania case, ordering the disclosure of the file of a priest who allegedly molested a "mildly retarded" boy for nearly a decade.

Such decisions set off alarm bells. One Cleveland bishop suggested at a canon law society meeting that precautions could be taken ahead of time.

"If there's something there you really don't want people to see you might send it off to the Apostolic Delegate," A. James Quinn said in 1990, referring to the Vatican's embassy. "They have immunity to protect something that is potentially dangerous."

Anderson said that when he finally laid hands on the files, he felt shivers.

"It makes you both excited and sick at the same time," he said.

::

Prosecutors in Toledo, Ohio, stumbled upon archives there while investigating a cold-case murder of a nun.

They had their suspicions trained on Father Gerald Robinson, believing that new forensic technology linked him to the 1980 death of the nun, who was covered with an altar cloth and stabbed 31 times. In 2004, they subpoenaed the local diocese for Robinson's file but were incredulous at how little the church offered.

"I said, 'Three pages! He's been working there for 20 years!' " said Thomas Matuszak, then a Lucas County prosecutor.

Matuszak spent two weeks poring over canon law and applied for a search warrant for the secret files, using church law as probable cause. Detectives went to the diocesan headquarters with the warrant and came away with a 148-page file, including another priest's letter laying out his suspicions of Robinson. The priest was convicted in 2006.

In Pennsylvania, it was an accused septuagenarian murderer who sought the secret files. The man, David Stewart, had shot and killed a priest whom he suspected of having an affair with his wife. He demanded the Rev. Leo Heineman's records to prove he had fired the gun in self-defense.

After a seven-year battle that went to the state Supreme Court, the church was ordered in 1997 to turn over the file. In it was a letter regarding the priest's alcohol treatment and an anonymous letter about his erratic behavior, according to local reports. Stewart was convicted the following year of manslaughter but cleared of premeditated murder.

::

When claims of molestation by priests flooded into the L.A. Archdiocese after the sex-abuse scandal erupted in 2002, church leaders' reaction was to reach for each priest's C-file. Some already had a thick volume chronicling a troubled history. Others had none, and a new file was created.

New accusers wrote to the archdiocese about Wempe, by then serving as a chaplain at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

"I should have written this letter many years ago," one man wrote in a letter that was added to Wempe's lengthy file. "It would happen during weekend trips to the mountains … a cabin, and in a vacation trailer."

Within months, the district attorney obtained grand jury subpoenas demanding the archdiocese hand over the confidential files. The church fought prosecutors to the U.S. Supreme Court but ultimately lost. Wempe was convicted in 2006 of molestation and sentenced to three years in prison.

It would take a six-year legal fight for the church to publicly release 375 pages from Wempe's file dating back to 1978.

In the pages were not only Wempe's abuses, but the blunt words of church leaders who clearly thought no one outside the church would ever read the secret file. There were mentions of the criminal implications of Wempe's acts and how to keep the police from finding out.

"Discussed aiding victims and the problem that might cause," an unnamed church official wrote in 1987 summarizing a conversation with Wempe.

Terry McKiernan, founder of BishopAccountability.org which collects clergy sex-abuse related documents from across the U.S., said Mahony was clearly a far more meticulous keeper of records than his predecessors and that may have hurt him when the archive was made public.

"I don't know of any other diocesan archive where scheming to manipulate reporting laws and access of law enforcement to these cases is as explicit as in these L.A. documents," he said.

Nicholas Cafardi, a canon law professor and former general counsel with the Diocese of Pittsburgh, said that although "secret archives" may sound nefarious, they were like any other church records dating back to the Gospels.

"The church expects to be here forever," he said. "They never know when they're going to need it."

victoria.kim@latimes.com

FBI operates child porn website????

For the record I am for legalizing all victimless crimes, and that includes child porn.

Sure some people that are involved in child porn are sick perverts, but as long as they don't hurt anyone they should be allowed to do their thing.

And if you look at things historically the government used to shake down homosexuals just like they now shake down people that look at child porn.

I think that most American will agree, that even if gay folks are as sick and perverted as the government claims, they should be allowed to do anything they want in their bedrooms as long as they don't hurt anybody.

Source

FBI shared child porn to nab pedophiles; Washington home raided

BY LEVI PULKKINEN, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Published 10:19 pm, Monday, May 27, 2013

The FBI seized and ran a child pornography service late last year as investigators worked to identify its customers, one Western Washington man allegedly among them.

Following a lengthy investigation, Nebraska-based agents raided the large child pornography service in November hoping to catch users who shared thousands of images showing children being raped, displayed and abused.

The Bureau ran the service for two weeks while attempting to identify more than 5,000 customers, according to a Seattle FBI agent's statements to the court. Court records indicate the site continued to distribute child pornography online while under FBI control; the Seattle-based special agent, a specialist in online crimes against children, detailed the investigation earlier this month in a statement to the court.

The investigation appears to mark a departure for the Bureau and other federal law enforcement agencies aiming to root out child porn purveyors.

Historically, child pornography investigations stem from tips made to law enforcement, interactions with undercover officers posing as customers or reviews of documentation seized during searches of child porn clearinghouses like the one recently raided in Nebraska. While investigators are known to have posed as child porn dealers – a 2011 effort involved targeted emails to suspected pedophiles – it is not apparent that the FBI previously dealt child porn as part of a sting.

The Nebraska investigation is still in its early stages, and, while charges appear to be forthcoming, no one being prosecuted has been publicly tied to the site thus far. Information obtained during the investigation resulted in a search of one Western Washington home, and investigators are presently reviewing computers seized during that April search.

The FBI declined requests to discuss the investigation or investigators’ motivations to continue operating the site. Court records indicate investigators hoped to trace customers and were unable to do so through traditional means.

“This remains an ongoing investigation, and local court rules and Department of Justice policy prohibit me from providing more information at this time,” said Sandy Breault, spokeswoman for the FBI Omaha Division. “As in any given matter, if charges are filed, they will eventually become a matter of public record.”

1,000s of images shared during investigation

Named only as “Website A” in an April 10 search warrant affidavit filed by the Seattle-based agent, the child pornography service was described as an online bulletin board with the primary business of advertising and sharing child pornography.

The affidavit was obtained by seattlepi.com earlier in May through a publicly accessible court records system. It has since been sealed.

Agents in the Omaha area seized “Website A” on Nov. 16 and continued to operate it until Dec. 2, monitoring messages from users of the website, the Seattle special agent told the court. The site was shut down Dec. 2.

At the time the service was shuttered it had more than 5,600 users and 24,000 posts, nearly all of which related to child pornography. At least 10,000 photos of children being posed nude, raped or otherwise abused were broadcast through the site.

Writing the court, the special agent recounted the site users’ discussions on how to avoid detection by police. One went so far as to publish a lengthy guide on encryption, and protections placed on the service impeded investigators’ work.

Most often, though, “Website A” users chatted about their shared interests – the rape and molestation of children. Message threads on the site included “How to lure a child in my car,” “Meeting other pedos in real life,” and “Do kids LIKE anal sex?”

On Nov. 9, a U.S. District Court judge in Nebraska approved a request by law enforcement agents to track down the website’s users.

Arizona Guard whistle-blowers get to speak at Capitol

Source

Arizona Guard whistle-blowers get to speak at Capitol

By Dennis Wagner The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 28, 2013 10:55 PM

About a half-dozen National Guard whistle-blowers who spoke during a public forum Tuesday at the state Capitol said leadership shortcomings are to blame for a state military organization rife with corrupt conduct.

“We already have rules and regulations ... about how we’re supposed to conduct ourselves,” Lt. Col. Rob White said. “The problem is when officers don’t uphold those standards.”

“Soldiers and airmen are praying for justice to be restored to the Arizona National Guard,” added Seth Israel, a former staff sergeant who said he turned in all of his medals and retired because of retaliation he faced for reporting sexual harassment and other wrongdoing. “The leadership knew about these issues before they reached critical mass, but no one stood up.”

Those comments came during a discussion hosted by Rep. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix, and other House Democrats in the wake of last month’s independent investigation blasting the Guard’s culture.

The National Guard Bureau, a federal umbrella organization, launched its probe after The Arizona Republic documented systemic misconduct that included sexual abuse, cronyism, fraud, theft, drug dealing and reprisal against victims. The review team concluded that fraternization by Guard commanders established a “perception that the leadership lacked the moral high ground to take appropriate steps when disciplinary matters arose.”

Gov. Jan Brewer, who ordered the inquiry, subsequently instructed Maj. Gen. Hugo Salazar to prepare and execute reforms in the organization of about 8,000 soldiers, airmen and civilian personnel.

White and others who testified Tuesday said they lost faith in the Guard’s administration and turned to the media last year after failing to win reform through complaints to superior officers, inspectors general, the governor and members of Congress.

Paul Forshey, who retired as the Guard’s legal counsel, or JAG officer, said he decided to speak out last year after Salazar fired Brig. Gen. Michael Colangelo, then the Air Guard’s commander. Colangelo had terminated two subordinate officers for misconduct. His decision was sanctioned by Salazar, who nevertheless issued a letter of reprimand and later dismissed Colangelo.

“He gave him that letter knowing it to be false,” Forshey said.

Forshey noted that the independent investigation substantiated a corrupt culture, and said Brewer employed “a Jedi mind trick” when she declared that the Arizona Guard is “not broken.”

Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said Tuesday’s hearing illustrates why the governor sought an independent review.

“That assessment has led to a corrective action plan, which will be implemented to lessen incidents of misconduct and make certain violations are addressed quickly and consistently,” he added.

Salazar, who has told Brewer he intends to retire before the end of the year, could not be reached for comment. However, Col. Steve Smith defended his boss at the forum, and complained that news coverage of the controversy has been inaccurate.

“I still believe we have a very strong organization,” said Smith, who was promoted to a new command this month. “We have great leadership. ... There is no other institution in this state of Arizona that is more trusted than the National Guard.”

Others maintained that the Guard has a toxic atmosphere, and questioned Salazar’s ability to create a new culture.

“This culture lacks integrity at the top,” said Cynthia Dowdall,the ex-wife of a retired Air Guard officer. “It’s a culture that destroys many military members and many military families.”

McCune Davis said she convened Tuesday’s informal session after GOP legislative leaders declined to hold formal hearings. A panel of six House Democrats listened to public comments.

“The Arizona Guard — and its reputation — is something we must protect,” McCune Davis said.

McCune Davis said she will submit a report to Brewer. She declined comment on whether Salazar should remain as Guard commander.

Arizona sued over ban on abortions based on sex, race

Source

Arizona sued over ban on abortions based on sex, race

Associated Press Wed May 29, 2013 12:08 PM

Civil rights groups are suing Arizona to block a 2011 law that bans abortions based on the race or sex of the child and makes it a felony to knowingly provide a sex- or race-based abortion.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of two civil rights groups. They say the law unconstitutionally singles out Asian and black women based on stereotypes and the sponsors’ beliefs that Asian and black women may choose an abortion because of race or the baby’s sex.

The suit seeks an injunction blocking the law.

Republican Rep. Steve Montengro was a sponsor of the 2011 law and says it was needed to protect the dignity of life and not allow abortions based on sex or race.

Source Posted on May 29, 2013 12:01 pm by EJ Montini

State sued, again, over abortion law

Arizona is getting sued – again – due to a misguided, overreaching anti-abortion law passed by the legislature.

So what else is new?

Just last week the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down an Arizona law that would have outlawed abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The Arizona law, passed in 2011, was struck down by a unanimous three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit (including a conservative appointed by the first President Bush), which wrote in part, “A woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable. A prohibition on the exercise of that right is per se unconstitutional.”

Being “per say unconstitutional” doesn’t mean much in the abortion argument.

The abortion argument is more about emotion.

More about appeasing powerful political interests.

Now the state is being sued for having passed HB 2443, a classic solution in search of a problem.

The law outlaws abortions performed to prevent the births of female and minority babies.

There is no evidence this is a problem in Arizona.

None.

All the law does, in essence, is raise unnecessary and unwarranted suspicion of African American and Asian American women.

So the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit on behalf of the NAACP of Maricopa County and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF).

In challenging the law, Mariam Yeung, Executive Director of NAPAWF, issued a statement that reads in part:

“HB 2443 perpetuates anti-immigrant sentiment by unfairly stereotyping Asian women who seek an abortion. This is deeply offensive to our community.

“By assuming Asian American women, because of our culture, will choose to terminate pregnancies based on sex, this law turns Asian American women into suspects and encourages invasive scrutiny of our motives that other women would not be subjected to. The law is cloaked in the language of civil rights and equality for women, but it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing…”

Funny (not in a ha ha way), that’s a description I’ve heard more than once for the Arizona Legislature.

Atheists Want Representative Steve Smith to Apologize

Atheists Want Representative Steve Smith to Apologize for His "Repentance" Prayer

By Matthew Hendley Wed., May 29 2013 at 10:26 AM

A national atheist organization wants Republican State Representative Steve Smith to apologize for his prayer of "repentance," which Smith apparently led for the purpose of spiting a non-Christian colleague.

David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, said Smith's stunt was "one of the most un-American remarks I have ever heard from a public servant," as he and other atheists released a letter asking Smith to apologize.

Mendez essentially came out as an atheist when he delivered the opening prayer for the House of Representatives last week by asking that people not bow their heads, and instead spoke about the values of his "secular humanist tradition."

"I hope today marks the beginning of a new era in which Arizona's non-believers can feel as welcome and valued here as believers," Mendez later said.

In response, Smith asked the next day that everyone in the House pray for the second time of the session -- in "repentance."

In addition to the letter, American Atheists also released a statement from Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, who said that Smith "embarrassed himself," adding that Smith "demonstrated how, unfortunately, religious belief can be used as a basis for exclusion and hatred."

"Representative Smith owes Representative Mendez, and the citizens of our state, an apology for his inappropriate remarks," Krauss says.

Dear State Representative Smith:

On behalf of atheists, nontheists, religious minorities, and non-Christians nationwide, we formally ask you to apologize to state Representative Mendez, to us, and to the American people for your disparaging remarks made on Wednesday, May 22 during the opening of the Arizona Senate session.

Your invitation of a second daily prayer in "repentance" for the secular invocation offered by Representative Mendez on Tuesday was insulting and degrading to him and to all nonreligious Arizonians as well as all non-Christian Arizonians.

America is a diverse country with many people who practice many religions and no religion and this is true for Arizona and your senate district. In fact, there are about 1.3 million atheists in Arizona. Additionally, in the Arizona legislature, there are members who are not Christian and Christians who do not practice Christianity the same way you do. To recognize these differences does not denigrate America but celebrates its diversity.

There is no requirement to be a Christian in order to be a patriot. Your statement that in order to love this country one must be a Christian is unpatriotic, deeply troubling, and counter to the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Again, we ask that you apologize to Representative Mendez, to your constituents, to the people of Arizona, and most especially, to all non-Christians--not for being a Christian nor for wanting to pray, but for using your position as an elected official to denounce another person's life view as wrong and in need of correction.

Sincerely yours,

American Atheists

David Silverman, President
Amanda Knief, Managing Director
Dave Muscato, Public Relations Director
Nick Fish, Development Director
Todd Jones, Director of Operations
Ken Loukinen, Director of Regional Operations
Greg Lammers, National Affiliates Director
Don Lacey, Arizona State Director
Dennis Horvitz, Atheist Viewpoint Co-Host
Serah Blain, Executive Director, Secular Coalition of Arizona

Churches begin severing Boy Scout sponsorships

Source

Churches begin severing Boy Scout sponsorships

By Bob Smietana Nashville Tennessean Fri May 31, 2013 11:40 PM

For the Rev. Ernest Easley, the decision to cut ties with the Boy Scouts was simple.

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. The Boy Scouts do not.

“We are not willing to compromise God’s word,” said Easley, pastor of the 2,300-member Roswell Street Baptist Church in Marietta, Ga., which has sponsored Boy Scout Troop 204 since 1945.

Easley, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s executive committee, said his church will shut down its troop at end of the year, over a recently adopted policy to allow openly gay scouts. He’s urging other Baptists to do the same.

Roswell Street is one of the first churches to cut ties with the Scouts over the new policy. Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Ky., a 23,000-member megachurch, has also announced plans to shut down its troop. Other critics of the new policy, which doesn’t take effect until January 2014, are taking a wait-and-see approach.

Finding new homes

Deron Smith, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts, said the organization will help troops that have lost their church sponsors to find new homes. He said the new policy fits the beliefs of most religious groups that sponsor troops.

“This policy reaffirms that doing one’s ‘duty to God’ is absolutely explicit and one of the fundamental principles of Scouting and states that sexual conduct by any Scout — heterosexual or homosexual — is contrary to the virtues of Scouting,” he wrote in an email.

Kent Barnett, executive director of the Abilene, Texas-based Members of the Churches of Christ for Scouting, who became an Eagle Scout in 1973, says he wishes the Boy Scouts hadn’t changed its policy, but churches should “not take their ball and go home.”

He said his troop, which is sponsored by Abilene Christian School, will continue its programs.

“These Boy Scouts still need godly men and women,” he said.

‘A terrible message’

At least one denomination hopes the new policy will lead to more Boy Scouts in its churches. The Rev. Mike Schuenemeyer is executive for health and wholeness advocacy for the United Church of Christ, which sponsors 1,191 scout troops. He said the church has downplayed that relationship in the past because of the ban on gay Scouts but now wants to expand.

Cutting ties with the Boy Scouts makes no sense, he said, because it tells gay Scouts they should be shunned.

“It sends a terrible message to youth of any sexual orientation,” Schuenemeyer said.

Catholic leaders have had a mixed response to the new Boy Scout policy. Parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Nashville will still be encouraged to host Boy Scout troops, Bishop David Choby said.

Choby said there’s no conflict between the Boy Scout policy and Catholic teaching. He said that although gay Scouts are allowed, sexual behavior of any kind is not allowed.

“The policy in its form is not inconsistent with church teaching, which upholds the dignity of each and every human being, regardless of sexual orientation,” he said. “It does not communicate in any way an approval or support for sexual activity between scouts.”

Bishop Paul Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington, Va., was more critical.

“I deeply regret that the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America, after years of principled and steadfast resolve, has now wavered in their commitment to the values that the Scouting movement has traditionally embraced and taught,” he said in a statement to the Catholic Herald, the diocese’s newspaper.

Mexican President Vicente Fox backs pot legalization in US

Video: Former president of Mexico Vicente Fox backs marijuana legalization in US

By jakeellisonseattlepi-com-jake-ellison@blog.timesunion.com

At a press conference in Seattle today the former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, backed plans in Washington and Colorado to make a legal market for marijuana in the United States.

Citing the loss of human life in his country due to the failed war on drugs and the black market that grew up in its shadows to feed the massive market for marijuana in the U.S., Fox said he hoped for an orderly and tightly regulated marijuana market here.

“We all understand that we human beings perform best in scenarios of peace and harmony. A new responsible society will bring this peace and harmony. About the loses? We cannot be worse than where we are. The war [on drugs] has been lost all along and it has been lost again and again. It’s time for a new start. It’s time for a new vision. That’s why I applaud this group,” Fox said.

The conference was organized by former Microsoft manager and now marijuana advocate Jamen Shively to announce his company’s plans to create a national brand and business out of the legal marijuana markets coming online in Washington and Colorado.

Check out the videos for the rest of the story: Above Fox expresses his support and concerns and below Jamen Shively, CEO of Diego Pellicer Inc., lays out his company’s plan to become a major player in an international and national marijuana market.

Censor your children????

Source

Letter: ‘R-rated’ movies for your child?

Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:09 pm

Letter to the Editor

Just an advisory note to all Maricopa County Regional Library User parents: unless you put a parental control on your child’s library card, any child can check out any DVD, even sexually explicit “R-rated” movies. Please monitor your child’s library card and activity for their protection, especially over the summer months. It is our duty to protect our children.

Mary Sevigny

Gilbert

Uncle Sam reads your email and listens to your phone calls

Monumental phone, Internet monitoring laid bare in reports

Sure the jackbooted thugs in the FBI, Homeland Security, DEA, BATF, and ICE who created this program are the problem, but the real problem is the members of the US Congress and US Senate who passed the unconstitutional laws such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which allow the police thugs in those government agencies to do this.

The article didn't mention this but in addition to monitoring our phone conversations and reading our emails the government at both the Federal, state, county and city levels routinely monitor our websites, chat rooms, Facebook, Tweeter and other internet activities.

Every day some of my web pages get a visit from an IP address in Shady Grove, Maryland, which I suspect is the home of some Federal police agency. On a map Shady Grove, Maryland looks like a suburb in the Washington, D.C. metro area and I suspect it is the home of one branch or another of the US Department of Homeland Security.

I have read a number of articles in the Arizona Republic about people who have been arrested by police from the cities of Tempe, Phoenix and the Arizona Department of Public Safety who troll the internet pretending to be horny underage girls who want to have sex with older men.

Source

Monumental phone, Internet monitoring laid bare in reports

Associated Press Fri Jun 7, 2013 7:42 AM

A leaked document has laid bare the monumental scope of the government's surveillance of Americans' phone records — hundreds of millions of calls — in the first hard evidence of a massive data collection program aimed at combating terrorism under powers granted by Congress after the 9/11 attacks.

At issue is a court order, first disclosed Wednesday by The Guardian newspaper in Britain, that requires the communications company Verizon to turn over on an "ongoing, daily basis" the records of all landline and mobile telephone calls of its customers, both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries. Intelligence experts said the government, though not listening in on calls, would be looking for patterns that could lead to terrorists — and that there was every reason to believe similar orders were in place for other phone companies.

Some critics in Congress, as well as civil liberties advocates, declared that the sweeping nature of the National Security Agency program represented an unwarranted intrusion into Americans' private lives. But a number of lawmakers, including some Republicans who normally jump at the chance to criticize the Obama administration, lauded the program's effectiveness. Leaders of the House Intelligence Committee said the program had helped thwart at least one attempted terrorist attack in the United States, "possibly saving American lives."

Separately, The Washington Post and The Guardian reported Thursday the existence of another program used by the NSA and FBI that scours the nation's main Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, emails, documents and connection logs to help analysts track a person's movements and contacts. It was not clear whether the program, called PRISM, targets known suspects or broadly collects data from other Americans.

The companies include Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. The Post said PalTalk has had numerous posts about the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war. It also said Dropbox would soon be included.

Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft and Apple said in statements that they do not provide the government with direct access to their records.

"When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law," the company said.

The leaks about the programs brought a sharp response from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. In an unusual statement late Thursday, Clapper called disclosure of the Internet surveillance program "reprehensible" and said the leak about the phone record collecting could cause long-lasting and irreversible harm to the nation's ability to respond to threats.

Clapper said news reports about the programs contained inaccuracies and omitted key information. He declassified some details about the authority used in the phone records program because he said Americans must know the program's limits. Those details included that a special national security court reviews the program every 90 days and that the court prohibits the government from indiscriminately sifting through phone data. Queries are only allowed when facts support reasonable suspicion, Clapper said.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said of the phone-records collecting: "When law-abiding Americans make phone calls, who they call, when they call and where they call is private information. As a result of the discussion that came to light today, now we're going to have a real debate."

But Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Americans have no cause for concern. "If you're not getting a call from a terrorist organization, you've got nothing to worry about," he said. [Yea, and if this were Nazi Germany, I am sure Sen. Lindsey Graham would have said the Jews shouldn't be alarmed at some of the things Hitler was doing, after all they were aimed at Jews, but rather at helping the Nazis catch bad criminals.]

A senior administration official pointed out that the collection of communication cited in the Washington Post and Guardian articles involves "extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court [FISA courts, secret courts created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which are normally not open to the public, and which don't keep records of their decisions that are open to the public, and which meet in location which the public is not allowed], to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons." The official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and requested anonymity, added that Congress had recently reauthorized the program.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the order was a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice that is supervised by federal judges who balance efforts to protect the country from terror attacks against the need to safeguard Americans' privacy. The surveillance powers are granted under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, which was renewed in 2006 and again in 2011.

While the scale of the program might not have been news to some congressional leaders, the disclosure offered a public glimpse into a program whose breadth is not widely understood. Sen. Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat who serves on the Intelligence Committee, said it was the type of surveillance that "I have long said would shock the public if they knew about it."

The government has hardly been forthcoming.

Wyden released a video of himself pressing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on the matter during a Senate hearing in March.

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Wyden asked.

"No, sir," Clapper answered.

"It does not?" Wyden pressed.

Clapper quickly softened his answer. "Not wittingly," he said. "There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect — but not wittingly."

There was no immediate comment from Clapper's office Thursday on his testimony in March.

The public is now on notice that the government has been collecting data — even if not listening to the conversations — on every phone call every American makes, a program that has operated in the shadows for years, under President George W. Bush, and continued by President Barack Obama.

"It is very likely that business records orders like this exist for every major American telecommunication company, meaning that if you make calls in the United States the NSA has those records," wrote Cindy Cohn, general counsel of the nonprofit digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, and staff attorney Mark Rumold, in a blog post.

Without confirming the authenticity of the court order, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said such surveillance powers are "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats," by helping officials determine if people in the U.S. who may have been engaged in terrorist activities have been in touch with other known or suspected terrorists.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., stressed that phone records are collected under court orders that are approved by the Senate and House Intelligence committees and regularly reviewed.

And Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada played down the significance of the revelation.

"Everyone should just calm down and understand that this isn't anything that's brand new," he said. "This is a program that's been in effect for seven years, as I recall. It's a program that has worked to prevent not all terrorism but certainly the vast, vast majority. Now is the program perfect? Of course not." [Yea, and Harry Reid probably would have said the same things to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Trust your government, these laws are not aimed at murdering Jews, but at catching criminals. Trust the government, we are here to help you, not harm you!!!]

But privacy advocates said the scope of the program was indefensible.

"This confirms our worst fears," said Alexander Abdo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. "If the government can track who we call," he said, "the right to privacy has not just been compromised — it has been defeated."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who sponsored the USA Patriot Act that governs the collection, said he was "extremely troubled by the FBI's interpretation of this legislation." [Another government liar who will say anything to get elected??? If this tyrant is so concerned about the Patriot Act he created why doesn't he pass a law to repeal it??? Probably because he is getting money from the special interest groups in the FBI and other Homeland Security agencies]

Attorney General Eric Holder sidestepped questions about the issue during an appearance before a Senate subcommittee, offering instead to discuss it at a classified session that several senators said they would arrange.

House Speaker John Boehner called on Obama to explain why the program is necessary.

It would "be helpful if they'd come forward with the details here," he said.

The disclosure comes at a particularly inopportune time for the Obama administration. The president already faces questions over the Internal Revenue Service's improper targeting of conservative groups, the seizure of journalists' phone records in an investigation into who leaked information to the media, and the administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. [I have always said Obama is a carbon copy clone of George W. Bush, now it seems like Obama is also a clone of Richard M. Nixon!!!]

At a minimum, it's all a distraction as the president tries to tackle big issues like immigration reform and taxes. And it could serve to erode trust in Obama as he tries to advance his second-term agenda and cement his presidential legacy.

The Verizon order, granted by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on April 25 and good until July 19, requires information on the phone numbers of both parties on a call, as well as call time and duration, and unique identifiers, according to The Guardian.

It does not authorize snooping into the content of phone calls. But with millions of phone records in hand, the NSA's computers can analyze them for patterns, spot unusual behavior and identify "communities of interest" — networks of people in contact with targets or suspicious phone numbers overseas.

Once the government has zeroed in on numbers that it believes are tied to terrorism or foreign governments, it can go back to the court with a wiretap request. That allows the government to monitor the calls in real time, record them and store them indefinitely.

Rogers said once the data has been collected, officials still must follow "a court-approved method and a series of checks and balances to even make the query on a particular number." [From what I have read these FISA courts are secret courts created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which are normally not open to the public, and which don't keep public records of their decisions. So that really isn't a system of checks and balances to prevent government abuses, in fact it's an invitation to government abuses]

But Jim Harper, a communications and privacy expert at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, questioned the effectiveness of pattern analyses to intercept terrorism. He said that kind of analysis would produce many false positives and give the government access to intricate data about people's calling habits.

Verizon Executive Vice President and General Counsel Randy Milch, in a blog post, said the company isn't allowed to comment on any such court order.

"Verizon continually takes steps to safeguard its customers' privacy," he wrote. "Nevertheless, the law authorizes the federal courts to order a company to provide information in certain circumstances, and if Verizon were to receive such an order, we would be required to comply."

The company listed 121 million customers in its first-quarter earnings report this April — 98.9 million wireless customers, 11.7 million residential phone lines and about 10 million commercial lines. [That is about one third of American's population of 310 million people]

The NSA had no immediate comment. The agency is sensitive to perceptions that it might be spying on Americans. It distributes a brochure that pledges the agency "is unwavering in its respect for U.S. laws and Americans' civil liberties — and its commitment to accountability."

Under Bush, the NSA built a highly classified wiretapping program to monitor emails and phone calls worldwide. The full details of that program remain unknown, but one aspect was to monitor massive numbers of incoming and outgoing U.S. calls to look for suspicious patterns, said an official familiar with the program. That official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

After The New York Times revealed the existence of that wiretapping program, the data collection continued under the Patriot Act, the official said. The official did not know if the program was continuous or whether it stopped and restarted at times.

The FISA court order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compelled Verizon to provide the NSA with electronic copies of "all call detail records or telephony metadata created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls," The Guardian said.

The law on which the order explicitly relies is the "business records" provision of the Patriot Act.

Free government breakfast & lunch at churches???

Summer schools offer free hot meal

By Kerry Fehr The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jun 7, 2013 6:35 AM

Churches, community centers and public schools across the Valley are extending their reach to serve free breakfast and lunch this summer in hopes of making sure that children don’t go hungry over summer break.

The Department of Agriculture Summer Food Service Program serves 17 million people nationally. Statewide, 3.3 million meals were served through the Summer Food Service Program last year, according to the state Department of Education, with many eating breakfast and lunch. The service began Monday in most districts and lasts through summer break, which is usually the first week of August.

There are no income restrictions, nor any requirement that a child be enrolled in a school to participate, but they must be 18 or younger.

The Arizona Department of Education administers the annual program and school districts across the Valley advertise the locations and times for meals on their websites.

The Education Department also lists locations at azsummerfood.gov.

“It’s critical not only for Glendale but for families across the state,” said Jim Cummings, spokesman for the Glendale Elementary School District. “Our responsibility is to our students and when school ends, that responsibility doesn’t end.

“You can’t just cut people off during the summer.”

With 90 percent of the district’s 13,500 students qualifying for free- and reduced-price meals during the school year, the K-8 district has one of the largest summer food programs in the state.

Cummings expects the district will serve 55,000 meals at 12 sites, including water-recreation areas and apartment complexes for the first time.

Also new this year to Glendale: Adults can eat breakfast for $2 and lunch for $3.

Other Valley school districts also allow adults to eat for a similar fee.

With 50 million Americans lacking access to nutritious food each day, according to estimates, most urban and suburban districts want to increase the number of students and families they are reaching.

In the Chandler Unified School District, which operates a modified year-round calendar with a summer break of seven weeks, the program ends as early as June 28 at school locations and July 12 at city pools.

This year, the district is using a $1,500 grant from the Dairy Council of Arizona to provide games and crafts for students between breakfast and lunch at Hartford Sylvia Encinas Elementary School in central Chandler.

The grant covers a staffer’s time and supplies.

The between-meal activities make Hartford unique among the summer food programs in Chandler. It’s aimed at ensuring that kids get two nutritious meals a day, Monday through Friday.

“We’re thrilled to have that onboard this year,” said Patty Narducci, the district’s supervisor for the food and nutrition department. “The idea is to keep the children who are most vulnerable.”

In addition, Chandler Unified is one of two districts in the state participating in a pilot program for the third year to distribute weekend food bags on Fridays at seven locations.

Litchfield Elementary School District is the other one. The USDA is giving Chandler Unified a $71,000 grant for its weekend program.

The summer food program wasn’t a secret to Chandler resident Becki Padilla, who once worked for the food service when she was in college.

Now a single mother of two and a special-education teacher at Chandler High, Padilla takes advantage of breakfast, lunch and the free activities at Hartford.

“It’s an awesome, awesome program,” Padilla said.

The Scottsdale Unified School District expects to serve 112,000 summer meals, up from 75,000 last year.

The increase is due to a new middle-school summer program, plus the number of children being served in non-district programs, such as a local Boys & Girls Club and a community center.

About half of its meals will go to children in non-district summer programs.

'Warrentless' inspections of abortion clinics???

Arizona lawmakers seek 'warrentless' inspections of abortion clinics

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Posted: Friday, June 7, 2013 7:00 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | 2 comments

Abortion foes are making a late-session push to allow health inspectors to inspect clinics without a warrant.

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said Thursday that abortion clinics are the only medical facilities in the state regulated by the Department of Health Services where a warrant is needed prior to an unannounced inspection. She is working with Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, to end that exemption.

Herrod acknowledged that a 1999 law allowing warrantless inspections was voided by a federal appeals court after being challenged by the Tucson Woman's Clinic. It took a decade of negotiations between state health officials and those who challenged the law to come up with the current rules which permit unannounced inspections -- but only after obtaining a warrant from a judge.

But Herrod said the legal landscape has changed in the last 14 years. That includes Arizona adopting comprehensive abortion regulations that have been upheld by the courts.

Herrod said she believes that eliminates the problems that caused the appellate court to ban warrantless inspections in the first place.

"Every medical facility in Arizona is subject to unannounced inspections by regulators except for abortion clinics,'' she said, "It's a no-brainer to say that abortion clinics should have to abide by the same health and safety process that other medical facilities in our state are required to abide by.''

Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, acknowledged that abortion clinics are unique in that unannounced inspections require a warrant. But he said the solution should be for other kinds of health facilities to demand the same kind of protections, including the requirement to prove to a judge there is probable cause to show up without notice, rather than end protections for abortion facilities.

And Howard said abortion clinics are unique because groups like Herrod's have targeted them. He said the need for a warrant is appropriate "given the hostility of some political figures to the services we provide, and the disruption that our patients would face if they were subject to an unannounced inspection for no reason.''

Barto's move comes weeks after the legislative deadline to introduce and debate policy issues in committee.

She acknowledged the requirement for a warrant is nothing new, having been enacted by rule in 2010. But Barto said the issue came to the forefront only recently as the result of the release of an undercover video by the anti-abortion group Live Action taken at the Family Planning Associates clinic in Phoenix.

That video, according to Live Action founder Lila Rose, misleads the woman, a Live Action volunteer, about the procedure and the development of the fetus at that point. Calls to the clinic seeking comment were not returned.

Barto also cited last month's murder verdict against a Pennsylvania abortion doctor.

"We've seen from the Kermit Gosnell trial what abortion clinics will do when they are not properly regulated,'' she said. "I shudder to think that these very crimes may be happening in our own state.''

Howard, however, said the evidence proves otherwise.

He pointed to the 71-page written response given last month by the state Department of Health Services to a public records request by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

It says that in a 5-year period the state has taken only one enforcement action against an abortion facility. And that was based on violation of rules on administration, infection control and expired medications and supplies.

That still leaves the question of why state health officials should need a warrant to inspect facilities where abortions are performed -- but not for any other.

State law says if the health director has "reasonable cause'' to believe there are violations of licensing requirements, inspector may enter the premises of any health care institution "at any reasonable time'' to inspect. The law also says that application for a license "constitutes permission for and complete acquiescence'' for inspection.

Howard stressed that health officials can show up unannounced at abortion clinics -- but only after getting a judge to conclude there is probable cause.

He said that additional hurdle is justified given the efforts by Herrod's group and others to harass them and put them out of business.

"Hospitals, for example, ambulatory surgery centers, are not under continuously politically inspired assault,'' Howard said.

`The Center for Arizona Policy is not seeking to close down St. Joe's (hospital),'' he continued. "They are seeking to shut down Planned Parenthood and their protestors do seek to interrupt and impose burdens on women getting health care.''

Howard said that is why the federal court in 2010 agreed to allow inspections only with a warrant.

"The judge authorized that settlement in that case out of the recognition that women's health care services, health centers, are subject to a level of hostility that has nothing to do with the quality of their care,'' he said. Howard said the requirement for a warrant ensures there is a real basis for such inspection and not "when it is serving the political motives of an inspector.''

Herrod has never denied her organization's ultimate goal is to make abortion illegal in Arizona. But she said that is irrelevant to the question of unannounced warrantless inspections.

"Center for Arizona Policy is trying to ensure that women considering an abortion have all the facts before they make that decision, and that their health and safety is protected when they walk into an abortion clinic,'' Herrod said. "We are as concerned about the women considering abortion as we are about the lives of the pre-born children.''

Phoenix coach arrested on suspicion of drug use

Of course all of these folks are not evil criminals, they are just committing a victimless crime that should be legal.

And again, while the drug marijuana has never caused any recorded deaths, the laws agaist marijuana have caused many people to be killed or hurt when government thugs attack people for committing victimless drug war crimes.

In this case Adam Yazzie is still in the hospital with injuries caused by the Tempe police thugs who arrested him for the victimless crime of smoking marijuana.

Source

Phoenix coach arrested on suspicion of drug use

By Matthew Longdon The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jun 4, 2013 11:20 AM

A Phoenix high-school wrestling coach and another man are facing charges of drug possession, aggravated assault and resisting arrest after they were caught smoking marijuana Saturday in Tempe’s entertainment district and tried to flee officers, police say.

Cory Watson, 26, a coach at Phoenix Christian High School, and Adam Yazzie, whose age was not available, scuffled with officers as they tried to evade arrest, according to police. Officers said they had to use Tasers to subdue Watson and Yazzie before the two were taken into custody.

A third person fled the scene and wasn’t found, police said.

Authorities said two officers spotted the group smoking marijuana near Sixth Street and Mill Avenue on Saturday night. When the three were confronted, Watson began to resist one officer as another officer tried to handcuff Yazzie.

According to the report, Watson threw an officer to the ground and was punched twice in the face by an officer.

Yazzie fled the scene with a handcuff around one wrist, according to police. Officers found him about a half-mile away, where he was Tasered and arrested, police said.

A bag of marijuana was found in Watson’s pocket, according to the police report.

Yazzie suffered injuries to his back and the back of his head from the Taser prongs, the report said. He was still in the hospital Monday.

Both officers suffered minor injuries, the report said.

In a police interview after his arrest, Watson said he saw Yazzie, whom he did not know, smoking a cigarette. Watson told police he asked to smoke the cigarette, which contained marijuana, and he was handing the cigarette back, just as police arrived, because he does not smoke marijuana.

According to police, both men have outstanding warrants for their arrest, but it was unclear what the warrants were for.

Lt. Scott Smith of the Tempe Police Department said Watson’s behavior was unfortunate.

“The fact that Mr. Watson is a wrestling coach and is charged with teaching our community’s youth about health and fitness and good citizenship, for him to be involved with this kind of conduct is disappointing,” he said.

Libertarianism is in vogue

Libertarianism is in vogue. Again.

By Chris Cillizza, Sunday, June 9, 10:52 AM E-mail the writer

Looking for the hot new(ish) thing in American politics? Try libertarianism.

Yes, that long-dismissed political philosophy that eschews government intervention in favor of individual liberty is again coming into vogue, particularly among young voters.

Two issues highlight the growing libertarian strain in the country.

The first is legalizing marijuana. For the first time in more than four decades of polling on the subject, a Pew Research Center survey found in April that a majority of Americans (52 percent) favored legalizing it. Among millennials — those born after 1980 — the numbers were significantly higher, with 65 percent supporting legalization.

The second is same-sex marriage. In a March Washington Post-ABC News poll, 58 percent of all respondents said that gay marriage should be legal, including a whopping 81 percent of those ages 18 to 29.

Polls aside, an analysis of actual votes in the 2012 presidential election also suggests that libertarianism is on the rise. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nominee and the former Republican governor of New Mexico, received nearly 1.3 million votes on Election Day — the first time the party’s nominee had ever taken more than a million votes. (Johnson won 0.99 percent of the overall votes cast, the all-time second highest for a Libertarian candidate, behind Ed Clark in 1980, who took 1.06 percent.)

More telling, however, was then-Rep. Ron Paul’s showing in the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Paul, who was the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential nominee and continued to espouse the party principles in 2008 and 2012 despite running as a Republican, was the fourth-highest vote-getter in last year’s primary process, winning more than 2 million votes in a campaign fueled by the active support of young voters. Perhaps as importantly, the Texas congressman raised $41 million for his campaign, the vast majority of that total coming from online donations.

Now, consider all of those data points in light of the still-breaking news of the widespread collection of phone records and Internet data by the National Security Agency, a series of programs that President Obama and his top advisers have described as a necessity to combat terrorism. Combine the growing libertarian strain in the country with the controversy over the government’s encroachment into all aspects of our lives and you begin to see the potency of the message heading into 2016.

All of which brings us to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of Ron and the elected official who most clearly embodies the rising tide of libertarianism within the country and within his party.

Paul is responsible for the single most memorable moment in politics this year when he took to the Senate floor in March to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination as CIA director. Paul’s goal was to highlight the U.S. policy on drones and to raise questions about the possibility of the government targeting U.S. citizens on American soil.

Before it was all over, roughly 13 hours after it had begun, Paul had been joined on the Senate floor by a who’s who of Republican Party luminaries, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), the party’s 2016 favorite for president; Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), the Republican leader in the chamber; and Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the most recent head of the Senate GOP’s campaign arm. Libertarianism had won a victory on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

For his part, Paul has been careful to avoid being labeled as a flat-out libertarian — a categorization that badly hurt his father’s chances at actually being a contender in 2012, considering his strongly stated noninterventionist foreign-policy beliefs. Instead, Rand Paul has sought to create a sort of Republicanism with libertarian principles that fits more comfortably within the bounds of the GOP.

“The way we’re going to compete is by running people for office who can appreciate some issues that attract young people and independents: civil liberties, as well as a less aggressive foreign policy, not putting people in jail for marijuana, a much more tolerant type of point of view,” Paul told Spencer Ackerman during an interview for Wired magazine late last month. (Paul went on to predict that embracing such a view would make Republicans politically competitive in California, which seems a bit far-fetched, at least at the moment.)

Paul’s 2016 candidacy — and he will run for president in three years’ time — will test just how much libertarianism Republicans want in the Grand Old Party. But for a party badly in need of finding new voters open to their message, embracing libertarianism — at least in part — might not be a bad avenue for Republicans to explore.

In 50 years, huge strides for gay-rights movement

In 50 years, huge strides for gay-rights movement

Associated Press Sat Jun 8, 2013 12:08 PM

Go back 50 years in time.

Homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder by the nation’s psychiatric authorities, and gay sex was a crime in every state but Illinois. Federal workers could be fired merely for being gay.

Today, gays serve openly in the military, work as TV news anchors and federal judges, win elections as big-city mayors and members of Congress. Popular TV shows have gay protagonists.

And now the gay-rights movement may be on the cusp of momentous legal breakthroughs. Later this month, a Supreme Court ruling could lead to legalization of same-sex marriage in California, and there’s a good chance the court will require the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in all U.S. jurisdictions where they are legal — as of now, 12 states and Washington, D.C.

The transition over five decades has been far from smooth — replete with bitter protests, anti-gay violence, backlashes that inflicted many political setbacks. Unlike the civil rights movement and the women’s liberation movement, the campaign for gay rights unfolded without household-name leaders.

Progress came about largely due to the individual choices of countless gays and lesbians to come out of the closet and get engaged.

These were people like a Chicago graduate student willing to confront a high-profile critic of gay relationships. A young community organizer plunging into advocacy work for AIDS victims. Three gay couples in Hawaii suing for the right to marry at a time when that seemed far-fetched even to many activists.

“It is pretty mind-blowing how quickly it’s moved,” said David Eisenbach, who teaches political history at Columbia University and has written about the gay-rights movement.

“There are kids coming out in high school now, being accepted by their classmates,” Eisenbach said. “Parents, relatives, friends are seeing the people they love come out. It’s very hard to discriminate against someone you love.”

As the Supreme Court rulings approach, here is a look back at three of the gay-rights movement’s pivotal phases and some of the people who chose to get involved.

INTO THE STREETS

Dr. David Reuben had many fans after publishing his best-selling “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex” in 1969. Murray Edelman wasn’t among them.

Edelman, then a University of Chicago graduate student, was part of a tiny band of activists who launched a gay liberation movement in the city late in 1969.

When Reuben — who depicted gay men’s relationships as bleakly impersonal and short-lived — was booked to appear on a TV talk show in Chicago in January 1971, Edelman and some fellow activists decided to attend.

Irked at being denied a chance to ask questions, Edelman headed to the stage toward the end of the session, seeking to confront Reuben. He was hauled out of the studio, but the incident received TV and newspaper coverage.

“It was the first time they really acknowledged there were gay activists in the city,” Edelman said.

It was an era abounding with firsts for the gay-rights movement.

Historians can trace its roots back to individuals and incidents many decades earlier, and some pioneering national gay-rights organizations were formed in the 1950s.

But the pace picked up in the 1960s — which saw the first gay-rights protest in front of the White House and, in 1969, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that federal civil servants could no longer be fired solely because they were gay.

Gay activists formed organizations in New York, San Francisco and elsewhere. Amid the ferment of the anti-war movement and civil rights movement, there was a surge of interest in gay liberation — gays and lesbians publicly revealing their sexuality and evoking it as a source of pride, not shame.

The movement broadened — and public awareness grew — after police harassment of patrons at the Stonewall Inn, a New York City gay bar, sparked three days of riots in June 1969.

Emboldened by Stonewall, Edelman decided to promote gay activism at the University of Chicago. Through an ad in the student newspaper, he and friend convened a meeting to launch a gay liberation group. It started with a handful of members and grew steadily,

“We came to the conclusion that, before we could do anything else, we had to come out,” Edelman said. “We decided to wear buttons — ‘Out of the closets, into the streets.’”

By the summer of 1970, the activists had hosted some well-attended public dances and organized Chicago’s first gay pride parade.

Edelman, now 69, went on to work for CBS News and serve as editorial director for Voter News Service, the consortium that conducted exit polling during several presidential elections.

What did he and his colleagues accomplish four decades ago?

“It was a whole new consciousness for gays — we made it OK to be gay,” he said. “We thought that we had strength in each other, that we could define ourselves differently from how society defined us.”

COPING WITH CRISIS

The 1970s brought a rush of milestones as gays came out of the closet and started demanding equal rights — the first openly gay people elected to public office, the first local laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, the first national gay rights march in Washington. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

With those winds of change at his back, 27-year-old Tim Sweeney moved to New York in the fall of 1981 to become executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay legal advocacy group.

A few months earlier, The New York Times had published an article headlined “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals.” Sweeney worried this mysterious illness would give the public another excuse to denigrate gay people at a time when he and his colleagues were feeling hopeful.

He couldn’t have conceived of the pain, losses and political challenges that lay ahead.

It would be a year before the cluster of strange ailments afflicting not only gay men, but intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs and some women would have a name — Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS — and another year before the virus that caused it, HIV, was isolated.

Sweeney had come to Lambda Legal planning to oversee challenges to state laws that criminalized gay sexual activity, to represent people fired from jobs because they were gay. That work continued early in the epidemic while volunteers and community clinics cared for the growing numbers of terminally ill.

Soon, though, the scourge became all-encompassing.

In 1983, Lambda took on the case of a doctor being evicted from his rented Manhattan office because he treated people with AIDS. A court blocked the eviction, ruling that it violated state laws protecting the disabled; the decision provided a template for securing insurance coverage for the afflicted. As panic and prejudice spread, gay lawyers also sought to protect the confidentiality of patients being tested or treated for AIDS.

The epidemic made gay people more visible than ever and spotlighted the absence of legal protections for their relationships. Survivors who cared for longtime partners found themselves barred from hospital rooms, frozen out of funerals, stripped of shared possessions. Without marriage as an option, couples prepared wills and even tried to adopt one another so their relationships would be respected in the event of death.

And death loomed terrifyingly. By the end of 1985, 15,527 cases of AIDS had been reported in the U.S. and 12,529 deaths attributed to the disease.

But President Ronald Reagan still had not uttered the word “AIDS” publicly and the government had not devised a plan for combatting the disease.

Seeking to intensify pressure on federal officials to invest in a national response, Sweeney became public policy director and eventually executive director of the New York-based Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the nation’s first AIDS service organization.

It was a huge operation, with 235 staff and 4,000 volunteers feeding, counseling and advocating for people with AIDS. The group, and similar organizations in other cities, also promoted “safe sex” messages that later would be credited with slowing infection rates.

Reflecting the gay community’s growing anger over the slow government response, Sweeney also participated in the launch of ACT UP, which used protests and civil disobedience to bring urgency to the cause of developing effective drugs.

“We were losing in those days dozens and dozens of clients at GMHC every single month. We had staff who died. We had board members who died … It was a very dark period,” he said. “We somehow took that incredible loss and fury we all felt about how dispensable certain people in this society thought we all were and forced change in the system.”

By mid-1993 Sweeney had left Gay Men’s Health Crisis to care for his older brother, who would die of AIDS the next year. The deaths still were mounting, but federal engagement had gradually increased. President Bill Clinton established an AIDS policy office in the White House, and Congress passed legislation protecting people with AIDS from discrimination. The pace of federally funded research picked up.

In 1996, as drugs emerged that would eventually change AIDS from a death sentence to a somewhat manageable disease, Sweeney returned to full-time activism with the Empire State Pride Agenda, a group that later would help legalize same-sex marriage in New York. Since 2007, he has led the Gill Foundation, a major financial supporter of gay-rights causes.

For Sweeney, there’s no doubt that AIDS hastened the gay-rights movement’s growth by shining a light on inequality and mobilizing the gay community.

“When they saw how much we cared, how much we organized and reached across every barrier, whether it was race or gender or neighborhood or class … the fact that we showed that kind of heart and innovation and courage in spite of what was just relentless stigma and dehumanization, I think that really changed the country’s sense of who were as human beings,” he said.

THEN COMES MARRIAGE

The three gay couples didn’t even have an attorney, let alone an inkling of the weighty consequences, when they arrived at Hawaii’s Health Department on Dec. 17, 1990, to apply for marriage licenses.

Indeed, one couple, Ninia Baehr and Genora Dancel, had met only six months earlier. They’d fallen in love; Dancel had already bought Baehr a ring.

“For us, it wasn’t part of long-term strategy,” Baehr said in a recent interview. “It was the emotional part of wanting that respect, and wanting the protections of things like health coverage.”

The couples’ applications were rejected — unsurprising given that same-sex marriage was legal in no state or nation — and their plan to file a lawsuit floundered when major gay-rights groups turned down the case.

Eventually, a lawyer in private practice took the case, which dragged on for five years while a backlash materialized. Hawaii lawmakers voted in 1994 to limit marriage to unions between a man and woman, and in September 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages and said no state could be forced to recognize such marriages that might become legal in another state.

In December 1996, the three couples and their legal team — reinforced by New York-based gay-rights lawyer Evan Wolfson — won the first-ever judgment ordering a state to legalize same-sex marriage. Circuit Judge Kevin Chang said Hawaii failed to provide sound reasons for banning such marriages, and rejected the claim that same-sex couples are less fit to raise children than heterosexuals.

The victory was short-lived. Chang suspended his ruling to allow an appeal, and in 1998 it was rendered moot when Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment giving state legislators the power to limit marriage to heterosexual unions. Over the next two decades, 30 other states passed amendments banning gay marriage — including California with a ballot measure that’s been challenged in one of the cases now before the Supreme Court.

Despite the setbacks, the campaign for marriage equality grew inexorably from a quixotic cause to a broad mass movement now supported, according to many polls, by a majority of Americans.

Under a court order, same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts in 2004. Soon legislators and voters in other states were legalizing it without court pressure. With the addition of Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota in May, there are now 12 gay-marriage states.

Wolfson is now president of Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group that has played a key role in the movement.

The Hawaii case, Wolfson says, “was the real turning point.”

“It was the first time in the history of the world that the government was forced to come before a trial judge and show a reason for excluding gay people from marriage,” Wolfson said. “We were able to show that the government doesn’t have one.”

Tens of thousands of American gays are now legally married, though none of the Hawaii couples who filed the suit are among them.

Baehr and Dancel broke up not long after Chang’s 1996 ruling, though they stay in touch.

“Being part of that case, and such a public face of it, brought us closer,” Baehr said. “But it also placed a lot of stress on us.”

Baehr, who works for the American Civil Liberties Union in Montana, believes same-sex marriage will eventually prevail nationwide. Short term, she hopes the Supreme Court will order federal recognition of the same-sex marriages that exist now, striking down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act that surfaced as a backlash to the Hawaii lawsuit.

“We’ve had that feeling like DOMA is our responsibility — it was a bad thing that happened in part because of what we’d done,” Baehr said. “To see it made right, two decades later, is going to be very sweet.”

3 Scottsdale churches poised to become historical properties

Source

3 Scottsdale churches poised to become historical properties

By Michael Clancy The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:03 AM

Three Scottsdale churches likely will win historic-register designation when the Scottsdale City Council considers them for inclusion on June 18.

Proposed for the list:

First Church of Christ, Scientist, 6427 E. Indian School Road.

Glass and Garden Community Church, 8620 E. McDonald Drive.

Holy Cross Lutheran Church, 3110 N. Hayden Road.

Each of them opened in the 1960s, during a time of rapid growth in the community. Each is still used for its original purpose, as a house of worship.

“The local historic register is an honor roll of buildings that are important to city history,” said Don Meserve, Scottsdale’s historic-preservation officer. “It provides recognition.”

He said the designation does not guarantee survival of the buildings, but rather serves as formal recognition of their significance to the community, and honors past accomplishments in the city. Designation also means eligibility for some incentives, although currently they are available only for private homes.

Meserve said he anticipates approval for the churches.

One church building, the 1933 mission church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, is on the register. The building, at First Street and Brown Avenue in Old Town, still is owned by the congregation, which now worships at 7655 E. Main St.

“We have such a beautiful building here,” said Lois Fitch, a member of the Christian Science church on Indian School Road.

She notes its decorative concrete ceilings in both the sanctuary and children’s room, the open-block wall facing Indian School, and the use of native materials, including copper and adobe bricks.

Fitch took the lead in persuading members to go along with the designation. A former history teacher who is active in the community, she organized meetings and votes.

At Holy Cross, Pastor Brian Murphy said the church’s unique architecture was among the first things he learned about when he arrived in 2000.

“It doesn’t rain here much, but when it does, water drains from the roof into the columns and shoots outside,” he said. “That’s pretty cool.”

He said the historical recognition is most deserved by the church’s first members.

“Some people had a great idea and hired an innovative architect,” he said.

The sanctuary, he said, offers a “wonderful worship environment,” even though it was built as a multipurpose center that was supposed to be replaced by another building. That never happened.

Pastor Gene James of the Garden Church, current occupant of the church formerly named Glass and Garden, did not return calls.

The church was set up to accommodate drive-in services, and it continues those services today via a low-power radio broadcast that can be heard in the parking lot.

Two other churches, the old Ascension Lutheran Church at 75th Street and Indian School Road, and St. Maria Goretti, 6261 N. Granite Reef Road, are likely to be designated eventually.

Mexican mayor turns over city to God, stirring debate

Source

By Tracy Wilkinson

June 11, 2013, 12:01 p.m.

MEXICO CITY -- She rose to the podium and cast her eyes skyward. The mayor of Monterrey then entrusted her Mexican city to God and Jesus Christ as the crowd around her cheered.

“I open the doors of this city to God as the maximum authority,” Mayor Margarita Arellanes said. “I recognize that without his presence and his help, we cannot have real success.”

Whether a sign of desperation for how dire things are in northern Mexico, which is plagued by drug violence, or simply a profession of faith, Arellanes’ weekend speech has rankled many in this country where the separation of church and state is a founding principle -- one that helped spark a violent uprising a century ago.

One columnist called her the new Mexican Sarah Palin -- alluding, he explained, to a relatively inexperienced politician who isn’t shy about wearing her religion on her sleeve, like the former U.S. vice presidential candidate.

Leftist congressmen in Mexico City suggested Arellanes should be investigated and maybe even brought up on charges. A host of academics and legal experts quickly listed the articles of the Mexican Constitution that she may have violated. Even some from her own conservative National Action Party (PAN) complained, but perhaps because her pious pledge came at an event organized by evangelical churches, not Roman Catholic ones.

“She should have been more careful,” said PAN Sen. Luisa Maria Calderon, sister to former President Felipe Calderon.

Monterrey’s leading independent human rights organization, which is run by a nun, said turning the city over to Jesus was “undemocratic and unrepublican.”

Arellanes, 36, is sticking to her convictions, saying she broke no laws because she spoke as a private person, not the mayor of Mexico’s wealthiest and third-largest city. That distinction, however, seemed to have been missed by most who either heard the mayor speak or have since watched her presentation on YouTube.

What apparently irks many here is that displays of religion have been steadily creeping into public life in recent years, which some Mexicans see as an erosion of the secular identity of the state. Former President Calderon made no secret of his Catholic faith as the basis for fierce opposition to laws that liberalized gay marriage and abortion in Mexico City.

The 1917 Constitution, which was born out of revolution, enshrined the ideal of Mexico as a lay country. It also contained harsh measures of repression against the Catholic Church, which eventually led to the so-called Cristero uprising of 1926. Thousands of people died. Property belonging to the church was seized; clergy were not allowed to wear vestments in public.

Over the decades, restrictions were relaxed, and the church exercised a gradually more central role, although the formal separation continued to be the law of the land.

It’s always been a somewhat schizophrenic relationship, however. Mexicans remain a fairly religious people. Images of the Virgin of Guadalupe, patron saint of Mexico, are everywhere. Papal visits attract record crowds. Taxi drivers and street vendors routinely cross themselves when they pass a church.

Her critics say Arellanes’ mistake was not her faith but to go so public with it.

“If she does not feel strong enough to govern, then she should take a leave of absence or resign,” Sen. Miguel Barbosa of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party said. “She should not try to use public venues to move people over a private belief … in order to gain sympathy.”

Rep. Trent Franks says pregnancies from rape are rare

Source

Ariz. lawmaker says pregnancies from rape are rare

By Catalina Camia USA Today Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:58 AM

WASHINGTON — Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Wednesday that the incidences of pregnancy from rape are “very low,” months after a similar comment led Todd Akin to lose a Senate race in Missouri.

Franks made his statement during a House Judiciary Committee meeting Wednesday on the Arizona congressman’s bill that would ban abortions nationwide after 20 weeks’ gestation. The lawmaker’s comments were first reported by The Washington Post.

Franks, a social conservative first elected in 2002, objected to a Democratic amendment that would make exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

“The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said, according to The Post.

Franks continued: “But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose of such an amendment.”

The comment evoked memories of a remark by then-Rep. Todd Akin, who said in a TV interview last summer that pregnancy can be prevented by a woman involved in a “legitimate rape” because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said there is “no veracity” to Akin’s claim.

Akin repeatedly apologized, but he lost support from top Republicans such as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and the Senate GOP campaign committee. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., capitalized on Akin’s remark in the campaign, and she easily defeated him to win a second term.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic National Committee sent out e-mails highlighting Franks’ comment.

EMILY’s List, the group that helps elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, said Franks has “doubled down on ignorant commentary.”

Franks said in a statement on his website that his abortion bill was prompted in part by Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor who was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of three fetuses inadvertently born alive.

“We, as a nation, find ourselves at a point at which we don’t offer unborn children even the most basic protections -- even protections we extend to animals and property,” Franks said this month before his abortion bill was approved by a Judiciary subcommittee. “The trial of Kermit Gosnell exposed late abortions for what they really are: relocated infanticide.”

Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, said the bigger issue is the intent of Franks’ bill and not just his comments Wednesday.

“The Republican assault on women’s rights and opportunities never seems to end,” Schriock said in a statement. “They’re supporting the same anti-woman policies that led voters to reject them during the last election, and trying to rebrand themselves with the hope that nobody will notice.”

We "MUST" be able to trust our Valley law enforcement officials

Source

Richardson: We must be able to trust our Valley law enforcement officials

Retired Mesa master police officer Bill Richardson lives in the East Valley and can be reached at bill.richardson@cox.net.

Posted: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:15 am

Guest Commentary by Bill Richardson

You can’t pick up the paper or turn on the news without hearing about yet another Arizona police officer being fired or investigated for a crime or violating their department’s rules of conduct. [And you never hear about the hundreds more that commit crimes against the people they pretend to serve and don't make it to the news]

Last Saturday’s Arizona Republic told about a member of the Phoenix Police Department’s DUI unit being investigated for filing a false police report and insurance fraud. He reportedly lied about his stolen truck. Last July a Phoenix sergeant was caught on video stealing cash from a business during a burglary investigation.

On Friday the Republic reported an ex-con who was friendly with deputies at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office obtained a sheriff’s badge and access to county vehicles, uniforms and was impersonating a deputy. The list of misconduct at MCSO is lengthy. Last April a deputy pled guilty to stealing $5,000. Another deputy just pled guilty to beating a man and faces prison.

Last week an ex-Tempe officer was jailed for stealing city property. Earlier in the year a Tempe detective pled guilty to stealing evidence from the police station. A few weeks ago a Tempe officer was allowed to retire after he lied to get a search warrant. [Instead of being fired like he should have been, and slapped with criminal charges of perjury like a civilian would have been.] In December a Tempe detective reportedly violated internal policies and procedures, lied to a murder victim’s mother and botched a murder investigation along with several other serious felonies. He still has his job.

A Mesa police sergeant was indicted last summer. A Coolidge sergeant was arrested for beating his wife and a Pinal deputy was investigated for homicide.

In December it was reported a police motorcycle gang was involved in a drunken melee that sent a citizen to the hospital. Criminal charges are pending. [Yea, but don't count on it. Crooked cops are rarely charged with crimes. Of course if a civilian had committed the same crime he would still be in jail waiting to go to trial]

For whatever reason Arizona seems to be plagued with excessive police misconduct. The problems aren’t just with lower ranking officers. [You forgot to mention Sheriff Joe, he is the biggest criminal in Maricopa County]

In my April 20, 2012 column (Arizona lacking in good, honest law enforcement leaders,” evtnow.com/5ju) I wrote about the reported integrity and conduct issues of two sheriffs, the MCSO ex-chief deputy, the ex-Glendale, Quartzite and Glendale police chiefs, the current Tempe chief, the Arizona Attorney General and the head of the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Since I wrote that column a Glendale assistant police chief has been demoted for intimidating a business owner.

Law enforcement officers are only as good as their leadership. Weak and corruptive leadership can trickle down and negatively affect an agencies organizational integrity and effectiveness.

The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, or AZPOST, is the agency that licenses officers and operates under the wing of DPS. AZPOST has no standards for what it takes to be a police chief and has been hit and miss when it comes to holding some officers accountable for their conduct. In many cases new police chiefs and command officers aren’t required to submit to a polygraph or a new background investigation. [Look Bill, even though I hate corrupt cops, a lie detector test or polygraph test is a subjective tool that is worthless in rooting out corrupt cops. That is why it's not allowed to be used as evidence in courts]

AZPOST allowed a fired Chandler officer who cost the city millions after his negligence resulted in the deaths of two people to keep his officer’s license. They refused to take action against the Tempe detective who botched the murder case I mentioned above. Lying by a police officer in Arizona is no longer sure grounds to lose your license. Lying by an officer can’t be tolerated in any form. [But of course it is a crime for us civilians to lie to cops and people who do it are routinely arrested and punished. On the other hand the Supreme Court has said a number of times it is OK for cops to lie to civilians to trick them into confession to crimes. And the "9 Step Reid Method" which is used by most police departments across the USA and world is based on using LIES to get suspects to confess!!!!]

With the serious corruptive influences from Mexican Drug Cartels ever present in Arizona, the integrity of our police should be of utmost concern.

Several officers who work for a department with a history of problems told me they’re proud to wear the badge, but ashamed of the departmental patch.

Just one bad officer can cause the public to distrust the police. [Sadly it ain't just ONE corrupt cop, the police have more corrupt cops then honest ones] It’s not fair to the officers who serve honorably to be painted with the same brush as the crooked officers who continually make the news. It’s also not fair to us. If we want a safe community to live in we must be able to trust the police and their leadership unequivocally. [And that isn't going to happen. So if you want to keep the system from screwing you you should figure out right now that the police are corrupt to the core and can't be trusted for ANYTHING]

• Retired Mesa master police officer Bill Richardson lives in the East Valley and can be reached at bill.richardson@cox.net.

Monterrey mayor gives city to God

Monterrey mayor gives city to God

Published on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 01:10

by VÍctor MAYÉN

The News

Monterrey Mayor Margarita Alicia Arellanes Cervantes gave Jesus Christ the key to the city at a public prayer event held on Saturday.

Arellanes Cervantes said that her city, which, ironically, was first settled by Sephardic Jewish conquistadors, was founded in the name of God, which is why Christians needed to “conserve it, defend it, love it.” She added that only “the light of faith in God can drive out darkness” and asked God to enter the city and make it his abode.

Her speech caused controversy after it was recorded and uploaded to YouTube. Mexico has one of the strictest separations of church and state in the Americas. The 1917 Constitution prohibits religious figures from attempting to influence politics, and it was illegal to wear clerical garb in public as late as the 1970s.

Cristina Día Salazar, who represents Nuevo León in the Senate, said that the mayor may have crossed a “very delicate” line, as her actions threatened Mexico’s official secularism. “I understand that the intention was to make a public prayer,” she said, adding that she believed that the issue needed to be analyzed by legal experts.

Fellow Nuevo León Senator Marcela Guerra Castillo said that the “Monterrey Prays” event was only organized by Arellanes Cervantes to gain popularity. “It’s a way to grab people’s attention and create controversy,” she said. “Instead of seeking popularity, she should seek efficiency in the administration of her city.”

La presidenta municipal de Monterrey "entrega" la ciudad a Dios

La presidenta municipal de Monterrey "entrega" la ciudad a Dios

(CNNMéxico) — La presidenta municipal de Monterrey, Margarita Alicia Arellanes Cervantes, del Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), “entregó” la ciudad a Dios, a quien pidió “que entre en esa ciudad y la haga su habitación”.

Arellanes Cervantes participó el pasado sábado en la clausura del evento religioso Ora Monterrey, organizado por las Alianzas de Pastores de la ciudad, y aunque no hay información sobre sus actividades de ese día en el sitio de internet del ayuntamiento, en redes sociales se dio a conocer un video donde se muestra parte de su discurso.

La alcaldesa primero lee un fragmento de un pasaje de la biblia y luego afirma que “Dios quiere corazones valientes, que no se avergüencen ni lo oculten, si no que lo honren en la palabra”.

Arellanes Cervantes, que es alcaldesa de Monterrey desde octubre pasado, critica entonces a quienes se escandalizan si se habla de Dios públicamente y los calificó de intolerantes, pero según ella, si toleran y callan “ante el odio y el mal” y “se vuelven pasivos sin proponer y construir un mejor país”.

“Vivimos en una nación que canta día a día que el destino de los mexicanos por el dedo de Dios se escribió, pero al mismo tiempo lo confinamos a actuar en secreto, ignorándolo casi en todas las demás esferas de una sociedad”, dijo la alcaldesa.

Según Arellanes, una sociedad sin Dios solo puede aspirar a “dolor, pobreza, violencia y el resquebrajamiento moral”, y recordó que en la propia acta de la fundación de Monterrey dice que “en el nombre de Dios todopoderoso” nació la ciudad del norte del país.

Luego, entregó la ciudad a Dios: “Yo, Margarita Alicia Arellanes Cervantes, entrego la ciudad de Monterrey, Nuevo León, a nuestro señor Jesucristo, para que su reino de paz y bendición sea establecido. Abro las puertas de este municipio a Dios como la máxima autoridad. Reconozco que sin su presencia y su ayuda no podemos tener éxito real”, dijo.

“Humildemente le pido a Dios, ante esta comunidad como testigos que entre en esta ciudad y la haga su habitación, y que el señor habite en los corazones de cada uno de los regiomontanos”, agregó.

Luego, dos niños recibieron un documento enmarcado como símbolo de la entrega de la ciudad a Dios.

Este lunes, en conferencia de prensa, la alcaldesa aclaró que “entregó la ciudad a Jesucristo a título personal”, no como funcionaria del ayuntamiento.

“Sí, dije que entregaba la ciudad, bueno eso lo puede señalar cualquiera, creo que todos queremos que el lugar donde vivimos y nuestra familias sea un lugar de principios y valores para nuestras familias”, añadió Arellanes.

“Si en algún momento alguien se ha sentido lastimado u ofendido (por mis declaraciones), en ningún momento ha sido mi intención, por el contrario asumo la responsabilidad de gobernar para todos”.

El artículo 40 de la Constitución establece el carácter laico de la República, mientras que el artículo 130 de la Constitución establece la separación de la Iglesia y el Estado. Entre otras disposiciones, dicho artículo establece que las autoridades no intervendrán en la vida interna de asociaciones religiosas y que no se podrán celebrar en templos reuniones de carácter político.

Arellanes Cervantes elogió lo realizado por su gobierno en los últimos meses, y dijo que los cambios en la ciudad son debido a que “le hemos abierto las puertas a Dios”.

El caso de Arellanes Cervantes no es el único en meses recientes. En septiembre pasado, el alcalde priista Enrique Pelayo Torres, de Ensenada, entregó las llaves de la ciudad a Jesucristo. El priista César Garza, alcalde de Guadalupe, Nuevo León, lo hizo en diciembre de 2012 con un discurso similar al de Arellanes, mientras que el panista Rodolfo Ambriz Oviedo, hizo lo propio en Benito Juárez, Nuevo León.

PGP - Pretty Good Privacy - Use it to encrypt your data

Personally I suspect that if you can encrypt it the government can decrypt it. The only question is how long will it take for the government to decrypt it and how much will it cost the government to decrypt it.

When Phil Zimmermann first invented PGP the US government threatened to put him in jail if he gave people outside of the USA copies of the software. The government says PGP is a munition and therefor subject to the governments control.

Phil Zimmermann got around that problem and put the source code on the internet and the cat has been out of the bag since then. The government didn't carry out it's threat to put him in jail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is a data encryption and decryption computer program that provides cryptographic privacy and authentication for data communication. PGP is often used for signing, encrypting and decrypting texts, e-mails, files, directories and whole disk partitions to increase the security of e-mail communications. It was created by Phil Zimmermann in 1991.

http://www.gnupg.org/

The free version of PGP

http://www.pgpi.org/

More free PGP software

http://www.symantec.com/encryption

The commercial version of PGP

http://cryptography.org/getpgp.htm

Where to get PGP

http://www.openpgp.org/

http://philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/

Libertarians & Republicans team up to allow gay marriage in Arizona???

Source

Libertarian Leads Effort for Gay Marriage Recognition in Arizona

Scott Shackford|Jun. 19, 2013 4:35 pm

Marriage recognition is currently a man-and-wife only affair in The Grand Canyon State, thanks to a constitutional amendment passed in 2008.

But as gay marriage recognition is seeing increasing public support, there’s a new effort in Arizona to modify the state’s definition to allow for same-sex couples, and this new effort is being led by a libertarian and a Republican. Equal Marriage Arizona, co-chaired by libertarian blogger and business owner Warren Meyer and Arizona Log Cabin Republican caucus chair Erin Ogletree Simpson, filed their petition Monday and have begun collecting signatures to bring it to a vote.

The wording of the initiative is very simple: It changes the definition of recognized marriages in Arizona from a man and a woman to two people, gender neutral. An added section declares that religious organizations will not be obligated to solemnize or officiate at such ceremonies.

I spoke with Meyer briefly earlier today about his involvement. He said he worked with Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s campaign and had gotten involved with the Our America Initiative, the pro-liberty group Johnson formed prior to his run for president. Meyer said the group contacted him to see if he would be interested in taking on leadership of an initiative effort in Arizona, and he agreed. Johnson, too, has declared his support for the effort and is listed as an honorary chairman for Equal Marriage Arizona.

Asked whether Arizona’s conservative political reputation meant this push had a better chance succeeding if it came from the right, Meyer agreed, though emphasized this is a nonpartisan effort.

“This is an individual liberty issue, and we’re hoping to get to the point in Arizona that people are okay with this with addition of some liberty protection,” he said.

He attributed federalism as a key reason why attitudes toward gay marriage are evolving.

“I think the federalist experiment has helped,” he said. “These other states have done it and things turned out of fine. It helped people have comfort to discuss it and it all worked in our favor. I think we’ve permanently moved to the point where Arizona is in support of equal marriage.”

A poll from April by the Behavior Research Center backs up Meyer’s claim. Despite passing a constitutional amendment a mere five years ago, 55 percent of Arizona voters now say they support gay marriage recognition.

Asked about the libertarian argument that we should eliminate government licensing of marriage entirely, Meyer agreed that it would be the preferred solution in an ideal world, but in the absence of that outcome, he’ll push for equitable application of policy.

“I went through the Arizona revised statutes, he said. “For just spouses, they’re mentioned 1,135 times in more than 350 separate pieces of legislation. We’ve embodied special privileges for marital status throughout the legal code. … We live in a world where recognized marriage carries all sorts of responsibilities and privileges under the law and the only way to equalize that is to have marriage recognition.”

Equal Marriage Arizona will need just shy of 260,000 signatures by July 3 to make the ballot, but Meyer said they’re shooting for 400,000, just to be sure.

Meyer was interviewed by Reason TV in 2010 for a completely unrelated matter: His business is responsible for privately managing parks in Arizona. Watch our interview with him here about the privatization of parks management and visit his blog here.

Into the mind of ... Erin Ogletree Simpson

Into the mind of ... Erin Ogletree Simpson

The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:17 PM

The Equal Marriage Arizona co-chair explains why her group is preparing to ask voters to allow gay marriage.

Were it to pass, what would your initiative accomplish?

Two simple things. First, it will strike the terms “a man and a woman” and insert “two persons” in Arizona’s Constitutional definition of marriage. Second, it will affirmatively protect the freedom of religious organizations, associations or societies by specifying that such organizations shall not be required to officiate or solemnize any particular marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their Constitutional right to free exercise of religion.

Why add the clause on free exercise of religion?

Because religious freedom and individual liberty are both vitally important, and this amendment honors both.

Why did you announce your proposed ballot initiative before the Supreme Court rules on California’s Proposition 8?

We are obviously presuming the Supreme Court will return the issue of equal marriage to the states. We wanted to hit the ground running and begin collecting the nearly 260,000 signatures of registered Arizona voters as soon as the ruling is released.

In 2008, Arizonans passed a measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Why do you think they might vote differently today?

Polling shows that perspectives on equal marriage are changing, and rapidly. Within the last few years, society has begun recognizing that this is primarily a matter of individual liberty.

Why did you decide to lead this effort?

I am a lifelong conservative Republican, and I am gay. I love this country, and I love this state. Among even my conservative and religious friends, I am beginning to sense frustration that the party has allowed an issue that many good and honest people disagree about to become central to its identity. That is poor strategy, at a minimum, and inconsistent with central historical values of Republicans.

You are chairwoman of the Arizona Log Cabin Republicans. How do you square your membership in a party that is often perceived as hostile toward gays?

Sexual orientation does not control political orientation. Given any particular issue pertaining to how government should best function, I generally agree with the Republican approach. Because those roots run deep in me, I feel the best role I can play is to push from the right on this issue because no one political group can succeed in establishing equal marriage on its own.

Your co-chair is a Libertarian. Is there a method in having a Republican and Libertarian lead this effort?

Soon we will be announcing additional co-chairs on this committee, including Democrats and people from all over the political spectrum. But by starting with a Libertarian and a Republican, we felt the Equal Marriage Amendment had the best potential to draw other like-minded conservatives.

What has been the reaction since you announced you would pursue this initiative?

Enthusiastic support. Fairness and a quest for individual liberty have always been hallmarks of Arizonans.

Are you starting to get significant financial support?

Yes! Since filing this past Monday, we have received just over $100,000 in contributions from organizations and businesses.

Group seeks to boot Tucson 'A' Mountain shrine

Group seeks to boot Tucson 'A' Mountain shrine

Associated Press Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:58 AM

TUCSON — A national group dedicated to keeping church and state separate is pressuring Tucson to remove a two-decades-old religious shrine from “A’’ Mountain.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter last week to City Manager Richard Miranda asking the city to remove or relocate to private property the Our Lady of Guadalupe shrine from a small grotto on the mountain’s southeast slope, the Arizona Daily Star reported (http://bit.ly/12n5YbG).

But city officials say the shrine isn’t hurting anyone, and they’re not inclined to take it down anytime soon.

The shrine dates to 1993, when a former Pima County jail inmate created it as thanks for an answer to one of his prayers.

The inmate, Pancho Murrietta, was released from confinement after police located a witness who confirmed Murrietta was innocent. Over the years, countless others have visited the site to pray and leave behind religious items in hopes of a similar outcome.

The foundation, based in Madison, Wis., asserts the presence of this “patently religious symbol” on city land constitutes “government endorsement of Christianity in an extremely public way.”

An attorney for the foundation said the shrine could violate the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause, which prohibits government from establishing an official religion.

“Basically, leaving this semi-permanent, or permanent, shrine on city property is a violation,” foundation staff attorney Patrick Elliott said.

It also opens the door for others to set up religious symbols on public property wherever they see fit. And that’s not a precedent local municipalities should be setting, Elliott said.

Elliott said his group got involved after a local resident contacted it to complain about the shrine.

City officials have had only a short time to review the letter, but it’s clear where their sentiment lies.

“We are aware of the complaint,” city spokesman Mike Graham said in an email. “The city has looked at the shrine and determined that it does not pose any public safety or health issue. At this time there are no plans to remove it.”

City Attorney Mike Rankin said he does not believe the shrine is a violation.

Source

Group seeks to boot 'A' Mountain shrine
Wants the religious symbols off city property

Alex Dalenberg/Arizona Daily Star

A national group dedicated to keeping church and state separate is pressuring the city to remove a two-decades-old religious shrine from "A" Mountain.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter Friday to City Manager Richard Miranda asking the city remove or relocate to private property the Our Lady of Guadalupe shrine from a small grotto on the southeast slope of the mountain.

City officials say the shrine isn't hurting anyone and they're not inclined to take it down anytime soon.

The shrine dates to 1993, when a former Pima County jail inmate created it as thanks for an answer to one of his prayers.

The inmate, Pancho Murrietta, was released from confinement after police located a witness who confirmed Murrietta was innocent. Over the years, countless others have visited the site to pray and leave behind religious items in the hopes for a similar outcome.

The foundation, based in Madison, Wis., asserts the presence of this "patently religious symbol" on city land constitutes "government endorsement of Christianity in an extremely public way."

An attorney for the foundation said the shrine could violate the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause, which prohibits government from establishing an official religion.

"Basically, leaving this semi-permanent, or permanent, shrine on city property is a violation," said foundation staff attorney Patrick Elliott.

It also opens the door for others to set up religious symbols on public property wherever they see fit. And that's not a precedent local municipalities should be setting, Elliott said.

Elliott said his group got involved after a local resident recently contacted the foundation to complain about the shrine. The Star was unable to contact the individual who made the complaint for a comment.

City officials have had only a short time to review the letter, but it's clear where their sentiment lies.

"We are aware of the complaint. The city has looked at the shrine and determined that it does not pose any public safety or health issue. At this time there are no plans to remove it," city spokesman Mike Graham said in an email.

City Attorney Mike Rankin said he does not believe the shrine is a violation.

Some say whoever made the initial complaint should find more productive ways to spend his or her time.

"I think this falls under the category of somebody seriously needing to get a life and quit being strung so tightly that everything is cause for being offended," said City Councilman Steve Kozachik. "Allowing a shrine up on 'A' Mountain isn't establishing a religion. It's simply respecting a group's desire to express their faith. If the guy doesn't want to participate, he can go and watch the sunset from the other side of the parking lot up there."

As of now, Elliott said he wasn't certain if a lawsuit would ever be filed. He said the easiest solution would be to move it to private land.

What about the others?

The shrine on "A" Mountain is not the only religious structure on city property, beyond the spontaneous temporary roadside shrines that often appear after accidents.

Elliott makes no reference to two much larger and more well-known shrines:

• El Tiradito, the Wishing Shrine, on a city-owned lot at 418 S. Main Ave., is reputed to be the only Catholic shrine in the United States dedicated to a sinner buried in unconsecreated ground. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and attracts thousands of visitors annually, many of whom light religious-themed candles and leave notes hoping a wish will be granted.

• The Garden of Gethsemane, on the bank of the Santa Cruz River just north of West Congress Street, in Frank Lucero Park, just below "A" Mountain. The park is named for the man who created the numerous life-size religious statues there between 1938 and 1951, in homage to the Virgin Mary for his life being spared in World War I. The statues are delicate and massive, and moving them would be expensive.

Elliott said he wasn't familiar with any other displays because the foundation typically takes action only after a complaint is filed by a local resident.

Despite that, Elliott said, if the other displays are similar, then the foundation believes the city should remove them as well.

"We do not have plans to contact the city about other displays at this time," Elliott said. "That said, they remain a liability and should be addressed. Very few cities across the country have this problem. The city could easily remove items left on public property."

Contact reporter Darren DaRonco at 573-4243 or ddaronco@azstarnet.com.

Jesus statue stays - First Amendment null and void????

Jesus ski resort statue can stay, says judge

1:47 p.m. EDT June 25, 2013

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Jesus statue that has for six decades been a curiosity to skiers as they cruise down a popular run at a northwest Montana ski resort will not be evicted from federal land, a judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen said the Flathead National Forest can re-issue a 10-year permit for the statue installed on the ski hill by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's organization.

The judge disagreed with a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics that argued the Forest Service was unconstitutionally sanctioning the statue. Its religious nature has been made clear in special-use permit applications since the 1950s, the Freedom From Religion Foundation had argued.

The Forest Service first indicated in 2011 that it would reject a new permit for the statue, which occupies a 25-by-25 foot patch of land at Whitefish Mountain Resort. But the agency reversed itself in 2012 amid public outcry.

Christensen said that the statue does not convey to a reasonable informed observer that the government, rather than a private party, endorses Christianity over any other faith or the absence of faith. The new federal judge, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2011, said the statue is one of the last remaining remnants of the original Big Mountain Ski Resort and some locals say it reflects the transition from old timber town to tourist hotspot.

"The statue's secular and irreverent uses far outweigh the few religious uses it has served. The statue is most frequently used as a meeting point for skiers or hikers and a site for photo opportunities, rather than a solemn place for religious reflection," the judge wrote.

"Typical observers of the statue are more interested in giving it a high five or adorning it in ski gear than sitting before it in prayer."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which argued the statue violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on Congress making any law regarding an establishment of religion, said it was shocked by the ruling. The group disputed the notion that the Knights of Columbus statue honors veterans, calling it a ruse to place a Catholic shrine on public land.

"Saying it is fine to appropriate federal land to benefit the Knights of Columbus proselytizing efforts would seem to say the government is endorsing religion," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president.

She said the statue's length of time on the hill does not justify keeping it there, and she argued it makes the constitutional transgression worse. The group said it likely will appeal.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which defended the monument in court, applauded the "commonsense" decision. It argued the statue is a far cry from creating a state religion and not every religious statue runs afoul of the Constitution.

"What we are seeing on the other side is Iconoclasm, the destruction of idols. If they disagree with something religiously, they have to destroy it," said Eric Rassbach, an attorney for the group.

The statue has been maintained by the local Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, since members that included World War II veterans — inspired by religious monuments they saw while fighting in the mountains of Europe — erected the monument in 1955. The Knights have never been charged for use of the public land.

Time to support equality

Source

Time to support equality

Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:46 PM

Thirty-one years ago in a small Kansas town, I stood before a judge who was soon to take my 4-year-old son from me. I was called vile, disgusting, perverted, and the most hurtful of all, an “unfit mother.” Why? Because I am a lesbian.

When I heard the Supreme Court decisions last week, a very large weight was lifted from me. I have carried those hurtful words around with me for 31 years. Those words have been in every area of my life and today I can shake them off and understand for the first time that I am “equal.” I am not the person that judge, so long ago, labeled me. I am very much “fit” to be a mother and now a grandmother.

Don’t look back many years from now and see yourself on the side of history that stands up for inequality. Search your heart and understand that we are all just people wanting to love and be loved.

Please join me in my quest for all people to be happily married. It’s the right thing to do, and no one will be able to stop this runaway train from reaching its destination.

Equal rights for all people. Hop on board.

— Cheryl Reed, Sun Lakes

Respect transcends religion

Source

Respect transcends religion

By Sean McCauley

June 11, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

While this quoted separation is never actually in the written words of the Constitution, the First Amendment has nevertheless continued to prove itself extremely controversial to the hearts and minds of Americans.

Last week in Bradford County, Fla., a group of atheists decided to erect America’s first “atheist monument,” near a small Christian group’s display of the 10 commandments found in the Bible’s Old Testament.

Regardless of your personal interpretation of morality and law, this monument’s commencement may seem like something completely irrelevant to the progression of this country.

Digging a little deeper, however, this “monument” becomes the epitome of secular hate toward all things religious.

The monument, according to The Huffington Post, will display “Biblical quotes that supporters say correspond to the Ten Commandments, such as Deuteronomy 13:10, which says to ‘stone him with stones’ so ‘that he die’ in reference to people who worship other gods.’”

To put this in perspective, let’s reverse things. Imagine that the atheists of the world have some sort of religious text, and that they peacefully built a monument near a public courthouse in Arizona. Would it be appropriate for a Christian group to mock this text by erecting a nearby monument solely for the purpose of belittling the concept of atheism by using the text of its own “holy” book? Would it be appropriate for them to engrave logical arguments against atheism onto it?

Of course not.

The Florida-based Christian group is merely using this monument as a peaceful way of expressing what they believe is important to their god; they aren’t using it as a platform to attack any other faiths.

This is the main difference between the two monuments, and it’s a profound difference that serves to pointlessly magnify the spiritual and cultural battle in the U.S.

While I vehemently disagree, yet sympathize with secularists who are trying to remove all aspects of religion from society, I cannot help but think that this monument’s purpose is not to attempt to “spread” atheism; instead, it is an attempt to publicly belittle religion.

Why not, for instance, erect a monument without Biblical quotes?

Why not quote Friedrich Nietzsche or some other prominent atheist?

I understand that atheism is inherently at odds with any form of religion that adheres to any concept of “god,” but that doesn’t give atheists the right to act so lewd and disrespectfully toward other religions.

Simply, I do not question the legality of the monument; rather, I question the legitimacy of its premises and the purposes behind its erection.

Respect is something that transcends religion. It is something that atheists, Christians, Muslims, Mormons and members of every religion should consider highly important.

Remember the Florida pastor who made it a national point to burn every Quran he could get his hands on? As a Christian, I’m deeply saddened at this and even more frustrated with the fact that this pastor apparently did not believe that the peaceful free market of ideas could not produce a victor.

What is this man trying to prove? Even if the burning was just a publicity stunt, it’s disrespectful, contradictory and ridiculous. Every Christian should condemn it, regardless of the holy book being burned.

Perhaps spiritual respect is too much to ask, but it is crucial to the peaceful act of worship in America.

Tell Sean what you think about the atheist monument at spmccaul@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter at @sean_mccauley

3 seeking to defend ban on abortions

Source

3 seeking to defend ban on abortions

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jul 2, 2013 9:45 PM

A Republican state lawmaker, a national Christian minority organization and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery want to join in the defense of a state law restricting abortions.

Civil-rights groups in May filed a lawsuit challenging a 2011 law that makes it a felony to perform an abortion if the provider knows it is sought based on the fetus’ sex or race, or a woman is being coerced to have an abortion based on the fetus’ sex or race.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Maricopa County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum. According to court documents, it alleges the law is an “attack on the dignity” of African-American, Asian and Pacific Islander women.

“Based on nothing more than invidious racial stereotypes about the reasons minority women seek abortion care, the Act intentionally singles out Black and API women and stigmatizes their abortion decisions,” the lawsuit states. “The Act is premised on the sponsors’ beliefs that Black and API women are deliberately using abortion to destroy their own communities.”

The plaintiffs have asked the court to stop the law from being enforced while the lawsuit moves forward. No hearings have been scheduled.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne is the defendant in the case. Montgomery, Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, and the Frederick Douglass Foundation have filed a request with the federal courts to join Horne in defending the law.

The Scottsdale-based Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Montgomery and the Frederick Douglass Foundation.

“(The law’s) prohibition on race discrimination in abortion will dissuade abortionists from targeting majority African-American communities, decreasing their numbers and limiting the voice of African-Americans in public affairs,” the court document states.

Montenegro was the law’s primary sponsor as it moved through the Legislature. The bill passed with mostly Republican support, although Rep. Albert Hale, D-St. Michaels, and Rep. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, also voted for it.

Montenegro said he hopes to join the lawsuit so he can explain the true intent of the law.

“It’s twisted, the way the ACLU is presenting the lawsuit. The plaintiffs say we are trying to target certain ethnicities of women,” he said. “On the contrary, we are trying to prevent discrimination against any ethnicity.”

The intent, Montenegro said, is to protect minority fetuses.

“No one should be discriminated against by being subjected to an abortion because they are going to be born the ‘wrong’ gender or the ‘wrong’ race,” he said.

He called the lawsuit an attack on the integrity of the bipartisan group of lawmakers that passed the law.

During public hearings on the bill, he said, opponents argued that abortions based on race or sex weren’t happening in Arizona. “Now they’re arguing that they should be allowed to do it,” he said.

The Arizona law is the only state law in the nation that bans race-based abortions, according to the New York-based Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws. Five other states — Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma — ban sex-based abortions.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

'A' Mountain's religious shrine needs to be moved

'A' Mountain's religious shrine needs to be moved

The "A" Mountain religious-shrine issue has generated a lot of interest and enthusiastic expressions of widely varying opinions. Personal opinions range from "if you don't like the shrine, live somewhere else" to "it's junk littering our desert, get rid of it."

What's a wise City Council to do as it weighs its options on how to react to the complaint by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)? In my view, the City Council should follow the law while showing sensitivity to Catholics who consider the shrine holy, to others who see it as integral part of our community's heritage, and to secularists who want public areas free of religious symbolism.

Our Founding Fathers knew of the centuries of bloody religious wars that tore Europe apart, as well as the decades of colonial sectarian strife among settlers on the eastern shore escaping from European dissent. These men recognized that faith-based issues could have similar consequences for our new country. An attempt to defuse this destructive potential was the purpose of the opening sentence in the First Amendment to our federal Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Thomas Jefferson interpreted this phrase to mean a "wall of separation between Church and State"; the Supreme Court interprets it to mean that government shall neither favor religion over irreligion nor one religion over another. Our government must be neutral to religion. Accordingly, multiple court decisions affirm religious shrines such as those on "A" Mountain are unconstitutional because they violate these principles.

These are facts, not opinion. The claims that religious objects on public property are not health or safety hazards, or that they should remain because they've been there for a long time, or that the complainants should "get a life" and find better things to do, will not fly in the courts.

As the Tucson City Council considers the legitimate request of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to remove the "A" Mountain shrine, it should bear in mind that many other municipalities have received similar requests from FFRF. Those cities have found it much less expensive to remove religious displays from public property than to fight this group that has settled constitutional law on its side.

The City Council needs to reflect on the fact that faith is a personal, private and subjective matter. Everyone has the right to believe or not believe whatever one chooses so long as it does not violate the rights of others or our Constitution. This leaves untouched the right of faith-based groups to have their symbols on their own premises or on private property.

When such groups, however, insist on placing their religious displays on government property, land belonging to the entire community, they flaunt their personal belief systems, disrespect the beliefs of others and violate both our Constitution and the golden rule, both of which work for believers and nonbelievers.

Atheists and believers alike should insist that Tucson City Manager Richard Miranda and the City Council do the mutually respectful thing, the constitutional thing, the right thing. Move the Catholic shrine off public property.

Stephen Uhl is a former Roman Catholic priest, a retired psychologist and a friendly atheist. Contact him at author@outofgodscloset.com

Mexican land donation to church draws fire

Source

Mexican land donation to church draws fire

Associated Press Fri Jul 5, 2013 10:54 PM

MEXICO CITY — A government donation of land to the Roman Catholic church to build a chapel in the Mexican resort city of Cancun is drawing fire in a country sensitive to religious favoritism.

Local officials in other Mexican cities have drawn fire recently for publicly “dedicating” their cities to Jesus Christ and God at religious events, despite the country’s long history of religious conflicts, including the 1920s Cristero war in which tens of thousands died.

But the Cancun donation especially angered some residents because the government-owned land was designated for public use, and some wanted to turn it into badly-needed park for a low-income neighborhood located several miles from the glitzy coastal hotels.

“People are angry, because they wanted a park,” said Tulio Arroyo, an environmental and civic activist whose Ombligo Verde group has fought in the past to defend public spaces in real-estate hungry Cancun.

Arroyo said the land was listed as an “urban services” area, which meant it should be used for parks, schools, a fire station, or other public services.

But last week, residents got a surprise when a wire fence went up around the land, saying “Private Property, Cancun-Chetumal Prelature, Legitimate Owner.”

Bertha Grajales, the spokeswoman for the housing authority in the Caribbean coast state of Quintana Roo, where Cancun is located, confirmed Friday that the land had been donated to the church, but she could not say when or why.

Mexican law says the government should be non-religious and not show any preference for any one faith.

Cristobal Pech, the spokesman for the prelature — a Roman Catholic regional body resembling a diocese — acknowledged it was government land that was donated to the church by the state government after local residents asked for a chapel.

“The plans are to build a chapel. The local Catholic community there asked for a chapel to be built,” Pech said.

Arroyo said his group has filed a complaint with municipal authorities seeking to have the land donation cancelled.

Real estate development has gobbled up much of the once-open land in Cancun, leaving the city’s 670,000 inhabitants with few parks and very limited access to the city’s famous beaches.

But religion is an even more sensitive theme: Mexico was dominated economically, spiritually and intellectually for centuries by the Catholic church. After the 1910-1917 revolution, strict anti-clerical laws were passed that sparked a 1926-1929 uprising by militant Catholics known as the Cristero War.

While the restrictions were eased in the 1990s, many Mexicans — even those who are nominally Catholic themselves — are wary of any church involvement in politics or public affairs.

In early June, the mayor of Monterrey, Mexico’s third-largest city, angered many when, at an outdoor religious gathering of Roman Catholics, she essentially handed over the keys of the city to Jesus Christ.

“I deliver the city of Monterrey … to our lord Jesus Christ, so that his kingdom of peace and blessing may be established,” said Mayor Margarita Arellanes. “I open the doors of this city to God, as the highest authority.”

Arellanes later said she was speaking as an individual, not as mayor, and said her words weren’t meant to offend people of other religions. Still, her statement upset some legislators, who called for her to be censured. Other mayors in northern Mexico made similar comments previously.

Into the mind of ... Kyrsten Sinema

Kyrsten Sinema shovels the BS???

Remember Kyrsten Sinema is the Arizona Senator who introduced a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana. Kyrsten Sinema is now a US Congresswoman.

I guess the title of this article should have been "Vote for me and I will give you free stuff"

Source

Into the mind of ... Kyrsten Sinema

The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:27 PM

The first-term congresswoman reflects on her first six months in Washington.

After six months in Congress, what’s the No. 1 thing you’ve learned about the place?

I’ve learned I can still get a lot done for Congressional District 9 even though leaders in Congress aren’t accomplishing much. [I suspect Kyrsten Sinema means that she has accomplished tons of stuff while her fellow slackers have accomplished nothing. Of course if you ask me I would have said none of them have accomplished anything - well other then robbing us blind and micro-managing our lives]

In our district office, social workers help constituents solve problems every day. In our D.C. office, we help businesses access federal agencies, support local groups seeking federal grant funding, and advocate for the issues important to CD9 residents and businesses. [Translation - vote for ME and I will give you free stuff - lots of free government pork!!!!!]

What’s the biggest difference between the Legislature and Congress?

I’ve always believed that relationships are key to solving problems.

In the Legislature, my relationships with Republicans and Democrats alike helped me serve my constituents well. In Congress, I’m working to build bipartisan relationships as well, though it’ll take a bit longer to make friends with all 537 of my colleagues! [Kyrsten, you didn't answer the question. It was "What’s the biggest difference between the Legislature and Congress?" - But I guess the main purpose of this article is to tell the voters that if they vote for you, you will give them free stuff, so who cares if you answer the question]

What’s the biggest frustration? The biggest satisfaction?

Unfortunately, issues that shouldn’t be partisan, like military sexual trauma and college affordability, have been stymied by political posturing in Congress. Leaders in Congress should stop playing games and get to work solving our country’s challenges.

However, our office has been able to make a tremendous difference in the lives of CD9 residents.

For example, we recently helped Glen in Phoenix, who has a brain tumor. Last month, Glen had to choose to either buy expensive medicine to treat his tumor or buy a replacement bed for his home.

We worked with local charities and the pharmaceutical company to help him get both a bed and his life-saving medication. [Again - vote for ME and I will give you free stuff - lots of free government pork!!!!!]

As a member of the minority party, it’s hard to get a bill passed. What have you been able to accomplish?

Congress is pretty divided right now and sadly, they’re not getting much done.

I’m proud to be one of the founding members of the United Solutions Caucus. We’re a group of 38 freshmen, Democrats and Republicans, working together to solve our fiscal crisis and reduce our debt and deficit. [Don't make me laugh Kyrsten, when it comes to taxing and spending in the Arizona legislator you were number #1. I am sure that in the US Congress you are also the #1 Congresswoman when it comes to taxing and spending. You reduce our debt??? Again don't make me laugh!!! Kyrsten, as the debt goes up you will probably cause it to increase more then any other Congressperson!!!!]

We’ve introduced the SAVE Act, which cuts $200 billion in wasteful spending. Earlier this year, I helped pass the Violence Against Women Act.

Are there any issues you’re working on with other Arizona members? [Well other then that "vote for ME and I will give you free stuff" nonsense]

I’m working with Reps. Matt Salmon and Raul Grijalva on a bill to prevent the NSA from gathering innocent civilians’ private data. [Give me a break Kyrsten, on every election sign of your you have the fact that you are supported by the police unions on the signs. I find it hard to believe that you are trying to reduce the police state, when the police unions helped you get elected!!!] Reps. Ron Barber, Ann Kirkpatrick and I are working on legislation to help veterans get quicker and better access to VA services. [More of the old "vote for ME and I will give you free stuff" nonsense]

You and Salmon, a Republican, have made several joint appearances. What’s the connection?

Our offices work closely together on constituent cases, and Matt and I share similar views on issues like global competitiveness, increasing foreign investment in Arizona companies, and increasing trade and exports. Plus, he’s a good guy and we get along.

What will immigration reform look like when the House is finished with it?

It’s too early to predict, but I’m committed to a bill that secures our border [so you do support the police state - 20,000 new Border Patrol cops???], creates a workable plan for a future flow of workers into the United States, and settles the status of “dreamers” and hard-working families living in the U.S. Compromise must be a part of any viable solution, and I hope the House is ready to get to “yes.” I certainly am! [Kyrsten, when a politician like you says "compromise" it means "if you vote for my pork, I will vote for your pork". Kyrsten with that in mind, I suspect you know how to compromise better then any other Congressman or Senator in Washington D.C.]

The Laws You Can’t See

Sadly government bureaucrats do this ALL the time and come up with silly reasons on why they don't have to obey the US and State government constitutions.

An example of that is how the BATF has made an arbitrary decision that anybody that uses medical marijuana is not allowed to purchase a gun and doesn't have any Second Amendment rights. The IRS doesn't the same thing when it arbitrarily declares you to be a tax evader and assumes you are guilty till you prove your innocence, rather then the expected "innocent till proved guilty"

At the state level the police and DMV have ruled that you give up your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination when you get a drivers license and that you MUST submit to alcohol and drug tests if stopped by the police for DUI.

The good news is on that the Arizona courts have recently ruled that is a bunch of BS.

Source

The Laws You Can’t See

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: July 8, 2013 225 Comments

In the month since a national security contractor leaked classified documents revealing a vast sweep of Americans’ phone records by the federal government, people across the country have disagreed about the extent to which our expectation of personal privacy must yield to the demands of national security.

Under normal circumstances, this could be a healthy, informed debate on a matter of overwhelming importance — the debate President Obama said he welcomed in the days after the revelations of the surveillance programs.

But this is a debate in which almost none of us know what we’re talking about.

As Eric Lichtblau reported in The Times on Sunday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has for years been developing what is effectively a secret and unchallenged body of law on core Fourth Amendment issues, producing lengthy classified rulings based on the arguments of the federal government — the only party allowed in the courtroom. In recent years, the court, originally established by Congress to approve wiretap orders, has extended its reach to consider requests related to nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks. Its rulings, some of which approach 100 pages, have established the court as a final arbiter in these matters.

But the court is as opaque as it is powerful. Every attempt to understand the court’s rulings devolves into a fog of hypothesis and speculation.

The few public officials with knowledge of the surveillance court’s work either censor themselves as required by law, as Senator Ron Wyden has done in his valiant efforts to draw attention to the full scope of these programs, or they offer murky, even misleading statements, as the director of national intelligence, James Clapper Jr., did before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March.

As outrageous as the blanket secrecy of the surveillance court is, we are equally troubled by the complete absence of any adversarial process, the heart of our legal system. The government in 2012 made 1,789 requests to conduct electronic surveillance; the court approved 1,788 (the government withdrew the other). It is possible that not a single one of these 1,788 requests violated established law, but the public will never know because no one was allowed to make a counterargument.

When judicial secrecy is coupled with a one-sided presentation of the issues, the result is a court whose reach is expanding far beyond its original mandate and without any substantive check. This is a perversion of the American justice system, and it is not necessary.

Even before the latest revelations of government snooping, some members of Congress were trying to provide that check. In a letter to the court in February, Senator Dianne Feinstein and three others asked that any rulings with a “significant interpretation of the law” be declassified. In response, the court’s presiding judge, Reggie Walton, wrote that the court could provide only summaries of its rulings, because the full opinions contained classified information. But he balked at releasing summaries, which he feared would create “misunderstanding or confusion.” It is difficult to imagine how releasing information would make the confusion worse.

Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, recently reintroduced a bill that would require declassification. It was defeated in December. In light of the national uproar over the most recent revelations, the leadership in Congress should push to pass it and begin to shine some light on this dark corner of the judicial system.

We don’t know what we’ll find. The surveillance court may be strictly adhering to the limits of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Or not. And that’s the problem: This court has morphed into an odd hybrid that seems to exist outside the justice system, even as its power grows in ways that we can’t see.

Nigerian Islamic extremist: Burn schools, kill teachers

Source

Nigerian Islamic extremist: Burn schools, kill teachers

By Michelle Faul Associated Press Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:54 AM

LAGOS, Nigeria — Shaking a finger while cradling an assault rifle, the bearded leader of Nigeria’s extremist Islamic sect threatens to burn down more schools and kill teachers. But he denies his fighters are killing children.

In a new video released Saturday, Islamic radical Abubakar Shekau said he “fully supports” attacks on several schools in northeastern Nigeria in recent weeks.

The United Nations Children’s Fund says at least 48 students and seven teachers have been killed since June, with some burned alive in a dormitory this month.

“We support the work they did at the school, at Mamudo and Damaturu, and other attacks in other schools,” said Shekau, who wore military fatigues in the video. “We are going to burn down the schools, if they are not Islamic religious schools for Allah.”

But Shekau insisted his fighters do not kill children.

“We don’t touch small children, we only burn the schools,” he says. “Our religion does not permit us to touch small children and women, we don’t kill children.”

He said his fighters would, however, attack teachers. “School teachers who are teaching Western education? We will kill them! We will kill them!” he warns, wagging his finger.

Shekau is a leader of the extremist group Boko Haram, whose name means “Western education is forbidden” in the Hausa language.

Attacks on schools have continued although thousands of troops have deployed in northeastern Nigeria to put down the Islamic extremists’ violent campaign which poses the greatest threat in years to the security of Nigeria, Africa’s biggest oil producer.

President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency on May 14 in the three northeastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe.

In northwestern Nigeria this week, security forces said they engaged in a five-hour gunbattle against a group of Boko Haram fighters in Sokoto. The city is home to the Sultan of Sokoto, the pre-eminent leader of Nigeria’s tens of millions of Muslims, who preaches against extremism and who has condemned Boko Haram.

Police said they recovered a weapons cache including assault rifles, grenades, rocket launchers and homemade bombs.

There has been no attack on Sokoto since July 30 last year, when suicide bombers in cars laden with explosives simultaneously attacked a police station and the regional police headquarters. The two bombers and at least three other people were killed. At the time, Boko Haram threatened to assassinate the sultan.

Recently, the extremists have started targeting civilians, especially government workers, Christian pastors, school teachers and their students.

In the video, received by The Associated Press through intermediaries, Shekau also denied he is negotiating a peace agreement with the Nigerian government.

“We will not enter into any agreement with non-believers or the Nigerian government,” he said, speaking in his native Hausa.

“The Quran teaches that we must shun democracy, we must shun Western education, we must shun the constitution,” Shekau said in the 15-minute video.

At the end, he speaks in English to denounce the West, accusing it of trying to destroy Islam and working “to tactically make the Quran insignificant and unimportant.”

Texas abortion providers fear major shutdowns

Source

Texas abortion providers fear major shutdowns

By Ramit Plushnick-Masti Associated Press Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:52 AM

HOUSTON — Dr. Howard Novick winces as he recalls treating two and three women a week for infections and complications from botched abortions. It was the early 1970s, before the procedure was legalized, and the experience persuaded him to devote his life to this area of medicine.

Now, more than 40 years later, new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature could force Novick to close the Houston abortion clinic he opened in 1980 because, he says, he does not have $1 million to $1.5 million to convert his run-of-the-mill medical office into a fully loaded surgical center with wide corridors and sophisticated air-flow systems.

“I have saved some women’s lives. They are so grateful we’re here for them and nonjudgmental,” Novick said. “I really feel a kinship for this.”

The legislation, passed early Saturday following weeks of mass protests and a high-profile filibuster, allows abortions only in surgical centers, requires doctors who perform them to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, dictates when abortion pills are taken and bans abortions after 20 weeks unless the woman’s life is in imminent danger.

Abortion-rights advocates argue the costs associated with converting clinics into surgical centers are so high they will force more than 35 clinics to close, possibly leaving only a handful of facilities across the vast state. In rural areas such as the farthest reaches of West Texas or the Rio Grande Valley, that could put the closest facility 300 or more miles away.

The law could also create a backlog so great in the remaining clinics that women seeking abortions will miss the 20-week deadline, said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, a company that runs five clinics in Texas.

Abortion opponents insist, however, that the new rules are designed to guarantee the best health care.

“All we’re asking for is better surgical care for women seeking these procedures,” said Christine Melchor, executive director of the Houston Coalition for Life.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst posted on Twitter a link to a map of facilities that would be affected and implied that any shutdowns would be an added benefit. The timeline for closures isn’t immediately clear; opponents have vowed to sue to block the regulations from going into effect.

Texas already has stringent abortion laws. Two years ago, the Legislature passed a rule requiring women to get a vaginal ultrasound and a full explanation from the treating physician 24 hours before an abortion. Opponents of that rule say it adds travel costs to the expense of the procedure, and in some cases means women also have to stay overnight.

For Melissa Bradshaw, all of it seems absurd. She spent the past year going through a bitter divorce and readjusting her children to a new life. An unplanned pregnancy was the last straw. So after heart-wrenching deliberation, she decided to terminate the pregnancy, calling Novick’s AAA Concerned Women’s Center in Houston just as Texas lawmakers held an angry debate over the new restrictions.

“Your mind is made up when you pick up the phone to call … nobody feels good about it,” Bradshaw said, noting the desperation women or teenage girls often feel.

The new requirements may not survive a court challenge. They conflict with the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established a woman’s right to get an abortion until her fetus could viably survive outside the womb at about 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Federal courts have already struck down parts of similar laws in other states.

Novick says the law is medically unnecessary. The Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology agree.

“It’s been years and years since we had to send someone to a hospital,” Novick said of his clinic.

For Houston, though, the bigger problem may be that its two remaining surgical centers will have to treat women from areas that will no longer have their own clinic.

Rochelle Tafolla, a spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood Center for Choice in Houston, said between the travel, the 24-hour waiting period and the lack of available clinics, the 20-week deadline could create time constraints.

“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that it’s going to have a significant impact on when women can get the care that they need,” she said.

About 72,500 abortions are performed annually in Texas, according to the state Health Department. The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Some, such as the four-bed facility Hagstrom Miller runs in San Antonio, cannot accommodate those numbers.

“With more restrictions, we see more abortions happening later in the pregnancy,” she said, adding that since the 24-hour waiting period was implemented, more terminations occur in the second trimester, and now some may miss the 20-week timeline. “It happens already.”

The situation will be most dire for women in remote areas, she said.

In McAllen in the Rio Grande Valley, Hagstrom Miller said she will likely close her clinic because architects have estimated it would cost $1.4 million to retrofit a 4,000-square-foot facility to meet all the requirements that come with transforming it into a surgical center. Since the clinic across is not large enough, she would have to move. To build a new facility would cost $3 million, she said.

Women treated under the soft-lighting in the purple rooms in the McAllen clinic already face significant challenges, said Andrea Ferrigno, Whole Woman’s Health director of service excellence. They struggle to pay and to arrange for transportation, childcare and days off from work.

After the 24-hour waiting period was instituted, the facility saw a spike in women trying to end their own pregnancies by purchasing prescription drugs at Mexican pharmacies across the border, Ferrigno said.

“I’m pretty sure we’re going to see a lot more of that,” she said.

Another facility owned by Hagstrom Miller in the southeast town of Beaumont is the only clinic between New Orleans and Houston and serves a 350-mile radius. It will close because the patient load does not justify the cost of moving the facility, which cannot be renovated, she said.

In West Texas, two clinics in Lubbock and Midland serve a population of more than 656,000 people in a 300-mile-wide area. The Planned Parenthood Women’s Health Center in Lubbock sees women who travel from New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma to the one-story building behind locked wrought-iron gates.

The clinic normally performs about 60 procedures a month. Most of the women are poor and a trip to San Antonio, Dallas or Houston — each more than 350 miles away — would be too expensive, Director Angela Martinez said.

The clinic estimates the cost to retrofit just one room would be as much as $500,000, more than it can afford.

“People are really discouraged,” Martinez said.

Coalition sues to halt electronic surveillance

Coalition sues to halt electronic surveillance

Associated Press Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:10 AM

Rights activists, church leaders and drug and gun rights advocates found common ground and filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the federal government to halt a vast National Security Agency electronic surveillance program.

The lawsuit was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents the unusually broad coalition of plaintiffs, and seeks an injunction against the NSA, Justice Department, FBI and directors of the agencies.

Filed in federal court in San Francisco, it challenges what the plaintiffs describe as an “illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet electronic surveillance.”

The suit came after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details about NSA surveillance programs earlier this year.

NSA public affairs deferred comment on the lawsuit to the Justice Department. A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the lawsuit, the coalition demands that the federal government return and destroy any telephone communications information in its possession. It also wants a jury trial on the allegations contained in the suit.

The plaintiffs include the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, the Council on American Islamic Relations Foundation, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Students for Sensible Drug Policy and others.

The federal government has “indiscriminately obtained, and stored the telephone communications information of millions of ordinary Americans as part of the Associational Tracking Program,” the lawsuit states.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in New York asking the government to stop the phone tracking program.

BOP Career Opportunities: Chaplain

Source

BOP Career Opportunities: Chaplain

Chaplain - GS-060-12. Chaplains administer, supervise, and perform work involved in a program of spiritual welfare and religious guidance for inmates in a correctional setting.

Qualifications: GS-12: must have successfully completed an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university and a Master of Divinity degree or the equivalent (20 graduate hours of theology, 20 graduate hours of sacred writings, 20 graduate hours of church history or comparative religions, and 20 graduate hours of ministry courses) from an American Theological School (ATS) accredited residential seminary or school of theology; ordination or membership in an ecclesiastically recognized religious institute of vowed men or women; at least 2 years of autonomous experience as a religious/spiritual leader in a parish or specialized ministry setting; current ecclesiastical endorsement by the recognized endorsing body of the faith tradition; willingness to provide and coordinate programs for inmates of all faiths; and the necessary credentials and the ability to provide worship services in his/her faith tradition.

Employment Opportunities If you are an experienced, credentialed minister with an ecumenical spirit, there is a special community that needs you. The Federal Bureau of Prisons can provide you with an opportunity to do challenging, spiritually satisfying work.

Source

How to Become a Federal Chaplain

By an eHow Contributor

Federal chaplains are clergy who offer their services to government institutions such as prisons, military installations and VA hospitals.They perform religious rituals, hold services and give spiritual direction and support to people unable to attend conventional religious ceremonies. Federal chaplains are comprised of various faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Muslim. Generally, they are expected to offer nondenominational services, so that they can help people regardless of their religious affiliation.

Source

United States Army Chaplain

Location: USA & World Wide
Denomination: Non-Denominational
Start Date: After receving an Army commission
Length: Open ended reserve and active duty chaplains
Employment Type: Full Time
Pay Rate: See Description
Requirements: A minimum of 72 graduate hours with a Masters Degree in Religious Studies (Degree may be less than 72 Hours) from an Accredited College or Seminary; For Active Duty one must also have a minimum of two years of pastoral experience.
Description: ARMY CHAPLAIN MINISTRY/Active Duty

Basically the Army Chaplain is a pastor in boots. The average Battalion (starting point in ministry) is 275 to 450 Young Adults who are mostly age 18 to 26, with 60% being married, and so congregations have several little children as well. The majority of the people know Jesus Christ as Lord and so there is a great opportunity to Disciple, as well as a great opportunity for outreach. The starting pay and allowances are around $56,900, and there are great savings in shopping at the PX and Commissary, and wonderful Recreational, Educational, Travel, Medical and other benefits; in addition, the Government pays half of the Social Security, and offers a Thrift Saving Plan that allows the Chaplain to invest Basic Pay so the principal and interest are shielded from taxes until withdrawn at a later date.

ARMY RESERVES

It is now the Army policy to give a $ 10,000 Bonus to Chaplains when they complete the 12 week Chaplain Officer Basic Leader Course at Fort Jackson South Carolina and agree to give Pastoral Care an Army Reserve Troop Unit for six years.

The program looks like this:

12 weeks of 1st Lieutenant Basic Pay @ $ 2,943.90 month = $ 8,831.70* Housing for three months @ $ 1,236.00 month = $3,708.00 BASIC ALLOWANCE SUBSISTENCE @$210.50 month = $604.50 BASIC COURSE PAY & ALLOWANCES $13,144.20 BONUS UPON COMPLETION $10,000.00= TOTAL $23,144.20

Another Army Reserve option for those with valid Student Loans from a Bona Fide Student loan Organization, is a payment of up to $20,000 to retire Student Loans. After the Basic Course, the Chaplain serves a Troop Unit in his/her home area and on the Anniversary of each valid year of service, the amount of $6,666.66 is sent as payment to retire the student loan obligation. NOTE: THE AMOUNT CAN ONLY BE SENT TO A BANK OR CERTIFIED STUDENT LOAN GRANTING ORGANIZATION. If the loan from parents or a relative or friend, no payment will be issued.

[*note - above illustration assumes no previous Military Service. If you have military service, the above basic pay will be higher to reflect your past service. Call or e-mail me for details.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR RESERVE OR ACTIVE DUTY CHAPLAINS

US Citizen or Green Card Holder Under age 47 unless prior service in Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Coast Guard. Call me if you have questions. Able to pass a physical examination Meet the Army height and weight standards A Masters Degree in Theology or Religion of at least 72 hours from an accredited school.

CHAPLAIN BENEFITS:

Innovative Ministry that is well supported; the Chaplain is a part of a Military Unit and has free access to minister in Chapel, Work Areas, Recreation Areas, Billets and Quarters. Competitive Salary - Chaplains are paid at their Army Rank. See end of letter for examples of pay & allowances. Reasonable Housing and Subsistence Allowances Possibility of a Year of Funded Clinical Pastoral Education after the third year of Active service and a year of Funded Graduate School between 10th to 12th year of service. Continuing Education in Suicide Prevention, Marriage Preparation and Enrichment, Family Ministry Help Low cost Insurance of $ 400,000 Medical and Dental Plans Great Retirement Benefits 30 Days Annual Vacation Free Travel for soldier and family on Government Aircraft Commissioned as a First Lieutenant; Active Duty Chaplains are considered for Captain after 6 months and after two years in the Army Reserves. Doctor of Ministry Possibility through 22 Accredited Seminaries

CHAPLAIN CANDIDATE QUALIFICATIONS:

A student at an Accredited Theological School Must be Commissioned before 43rd Birthday See 2-4 above under CHAPLAIN QUALIFICATIONS

CHAPLAIN CANDIDATE BENEFITS:

No Army obligations during the Academic Year. The Army wants the student to do their best so no drills or Army obligations. The Chaplain Candidate is Commissioned as a Second Lieutenant The student may receive $ 4,500 Tuition Assistance each year. In the summer the Chaplain Candidate attends the Chaplain Officer Basic Course at Fort Jackson, SC, and receives the pay and allowances of a 2nd Lieutenant for the 12 week Officer Basic Course. [The Basic course is normally completed in two years by doing 6 weeks per year]

I see several pastors who moved to Central Texas for Retirement, as the weather allows for less on utilities, however, cost for food, housing, fuel and especially health care, eats into the money saved, and for many, the Retirement Years are less than Golden. The Reserve Chaplain Ministry adds income now on a steady basis, and builds to a more secure retirement with affordable health care under Tri Care for Life and free transportation on Military Air Craft within the USA and free flights to Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa. I was almost 39 when I joined the Army. Before the Army I served in Nigeria, West Africa (2 yrs), India (10 years) and a Parish Pastor (4 yrs); I found the Chaplain Ministry the greatest "youth group" in the world. Please share this great opportunity with pastors you know and seminary students. I look forward to your important "Partnership in the Gospel," and I stand by to answer any questions and assist in any way I can. God's richest blessings in ministry, and thank you for your help. Paul F. Howe CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) USA (Retired) 30701 BERRY CREEK DRIVE GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 HOME PHONE: (512) 864-2281 CELL PHONE: (512) 517-6078 paulfhowe@aol.com

ACTIVE DUTY PAY AND ALLOWANCES [REFLECTS 2008 PAY GUIDELINES] EACH MONTH

2nd LIEUTENANT BASIC PAY $2,555.70 HOUSING * $963.00 SUBSISTENCE $201.50

1st LIEUTENANT BASIC PAY $2,943.90 HOUSING* $1,236.00 SUBSISTENCE $201.50

CAPTAIN BASIC PAY $3407.40 HOUSING* $1500.00 SUBSISTENCE $201.50

* Listed above is the BASIC HOUSING ALLOWANCE. In addition to Housing, the Army pays a "Cost Of Living Allowance" that is adjusted for the living. Higher in Washington, DC than Fort Bliss, Texas. The amount in housing above was an average, and could be higher in a high cost area and lower in a low cost area.

ARMY RESERVE PAY PER DRILL 2008 PAY SCALE 2nd LIEUTENANT $340.76 1st LIEUTENANT $392.52 CAPTAIN $515.04

Who to Contact: US Army Chaplains Paul F. Howe, Chaplain (Colonel, retired) 30701 Berry Creek Drive

Georgetown, TX 78628

Phone: (512)517-6078

Fax:

E-mail: paulfhowe@aol.com

Other articles on mixing religion and government

More artilces on mixing religion and govenrment.