President Barack Obama signed a Defense Authorization bill earlier this week which includes a broad expansion of hate crimes legislation that has many free speech and religious liberty advocates worried for a variety of reasons.

Craig Parshall, chief legal counsel for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), discounts a statement in the legislation allegedly protecting religious speech, pointing out that such laws in other countries have been used to silence people of faith. He believes the law approved by Congress is potentially dangerous as it relates to comments made about homosexuality or another religion. “Under the criminal law of incitement, if something is said in a broadcast that another person uses as a motivation to go out and commit an act of what they call ‘bodily injury’ in the statute, then a broadcaster could be held criminally liable,” he explains.

Our U.S. Senators, Dick Durbin and Roland Burris, voted in favor of this special rights legislation. Of Illinois’ 19 U.S. Representatives, only 5 voted against ‘THOUGHT CRIMES’, 14 voted to support the pro-homosexual bill. Republicans Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined Illinois Democrats who all voted for this bill.

For more on this news item click on this link: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=740586

Liberal Media Does Not Tell Whole Story

The issue of President Barack Obama’s proposal that would reform America’s health care system has certainly received a great deal of attention. However, sometimes, it’s what the liberal press doesn’t reveal that is most telling.

When Obama recently addressed a joint session of Congress, he said illegal immigrants would not be covered under any health care plan he would sign into law. If we split hairs, the President’s statement was accurate. It would be political suicide for both Democrats and Republicans to sign any bill that would provide taxpayer funds for those who are in America unlawfully. Well, technically, the language in one of the health care reform proposals tries to have it both ways.

According to a CNN.com article

…noncitizens who can be considered “resident aliens” under tax law — which doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants–would be required to buy health insurance.

Yet the proposal clearly says that federal subsidies would go only to U.S. citizens and immigrants who are in the United States legally.

Sound confusing? Well, perhaps that’s how it’s meant to be.

But here is something you won’t learn from the liberal media. High on President Obama’s agenda is the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. This was legislation that was backed by George W. Bush and members of both sides of the political aisle in 2008. The bill faced a firestorm of criticism from the American people primarily because the comprehensive immigration reform legislation would have granted amnesty for an estimated 12 to 20 million individuals who are now residing in the United States illegally.

Now here’s the catch. If a health care reform bill, including a public option, is passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama, illegal immigrants would technically not be eligible for public-subsidized health care. But Obama’s plan that would grant amnesty to “undocumented aliens” will soon come on the Congressional docket and Americans can expect legislators, both Democrat and Republican, to be in favor of the bill.

If health care reform with a public option becomes law, together with a bill that would provide amnesty to those who are in America illegally…POOF…illegal immigrants and their health care will become the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers.

As usual, as far as Congress is concerned, the devil is in the details. Bush’s plan for comprehensive immigration reform was put on the back burner when the lines of legislators were deluged with phone calls from the public. For the first time in memory, the American people got their way. Bush and immigration reform supporters were intimidated by the response from citizens who believed in the rule of law.

But don’t be fooled. There are politicians on both sides of the political aisle who are yearning to make comprehensive immigration reform a reality. Republicans see the influx of illegal immigrants as a cheap labor force which helps big business. Democrats view illegal immigrants as a huge potential voting bloc.

Conveniently, the liberal press is not giving Americans all the facts concerning Barack Obama’s political agenda. The health care reform issue does not stand alone. The issue is inexorably tied into a plan which most Americans are not aware of.

Federal Issue

U.S. Representative Jarrold Nader (D-NY) introduced a bill (H.R. 3567) to Congress that would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The federal DOMA is the only thing that prevents homosexual “marriage” from becoming legal across the country. This bill would repeal DOMA in its entirety. It would force Illinois to recognize same-sex couples, married in another state, just like a marriage between husband and wife.

Signing on as co-sponsors for this bill are four U.S. Congressmen from Illinois. They are Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago).

Below you will find their email and phone number. Please email and call their office telling them: “As a Illinois citizen, I ask that you remove your name from the list of co-sponsors that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.”

U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez — Webform
2201 W. North Avenue
Chicago, IL 60647
(773) 342-0774
(773) 342-0776 FAX

U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson — Webform
7121 S. Yates Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60649
(773) 734-9660
(773) 734-9661 FAX

U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley — Webform
3742 West Irving Park Road
Chicago, IL 60618
(773) 267-5926
(773) 267-6583 FAX

U.S. Rep. Janice Schakowsky — Webform
5533 N. Broadway
Chicago, IL 60640
(773) 506-7100
(773) 506-9202 FAX

Homosexual activists are again pushing radical legislation known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — H.R. 2981 & S. 1584. It has already been introduced in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate and is currently in committee. President Barack Obama is on record supporting ENDA.

Take ACTION: Please contact your Congressman and ask him/her to vote NO on ENDA. You can also call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators at (202) 225-3121 and provide your zip code to be connected to your House member’s office.

Co-sponsors from Illinois are U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D), Roland Burris (D) and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th).

Background
The Illinois Family Institute opposes ENDA, in part because it will elevate self-identified homosexual and gender confused indivuals to protected class status in the workplace. If passed, this will force religious employers to hire and promote homosexual employees even if they find that lifestyle to be morally objectionable. Other federally protected classes are determined by the following criteria:

1) an obvious immutable (not capable of change) characteristic; 
2) a history of discrimination evidenced by economic disenfranchisement; and 
3) political powerlessness.

“Sexual orientation,” “transgenderism” and “gender identity” fail to meet any of the above criteria.

The underlying purpose of ENDA, contrary to its disingenuous title, is to discriminate against anyone opposing homosexuality and transgenderism in the workplace. It is another effort to normalize homosexuality in the culture. ENDA will establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes in the workplace, equivalent to unchangeable characteristics of race and gender and constitutionally protected religious beliefs. 

Under ENDA, employers will be forced to make decisions that run contrary to their religious beliefs — a violation of their First Amendment rights. Employees will be forced to remain silent regarding their views on homosexuality in order to avoid “hostile work environment” claims. Many real-life examples attest to the negative impact ENDA-type policies have in the workplace.

ENDA, at the very least, is a serious threat to the religious liberty of Christians in the workplace.

This is worth every MINUTE (only 4) to watch this! U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) hits it out of the ballpark while addressing the other members of Congress. Video was taken from the floor of our national legislature…

Illinois Family Institute joins the Family Research Council and the American Family Business Foundation in releasing a new report analyzing the effects of the estate tax (“death tax”) on jobs, government revenues, and economic growth.

The report, “Repealing Death Tax Will Create Jobs and Boost Economy,” combines two recent analyses of the death tax by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Congressional Budget Office director, and Stephen J. Entin, president and executive director of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation (IRET).

Considering that Congress will have to act on the estate tax this fall, given its scheduled elimination in 2010 and reversion to the high tax rate and low exemption of 2001 in 2011, this report detailing the economic effects of the estate tax is critical. Among its findings:

• Eliminating the Death Tax could create over 1.5 million jobs for small and family business workers, including 65,708 jobs in Illinois.
• The distortion the Death Tax causes with respect to other tax collection methods results in a net revenue decrease for the federal government. Government could bring in nearly twice the revenue with no death tax at all.
• Ending the Death Tax would add $119 billion to GDP. Allowing the rates to revert to 2001 law, 55% with only a $1 million exemption, would reduce GDP by $183 billion.
• Ending the Death Tax would boost workers’ income by $79 billion.
• The Death Tax targets America’s main economic engine-small businesses. Small businesses have been responsible for 60 to 80 percent of all net new jobs in the last decade.
• Large publicly traded corporations pay no Death Tax at all. Thus, family businesses undergo repeated trauma as they are passed from one generation of employers to the next, while their publicly traded competitors gain a strong competitive advantage.

While the Department of Justice (DOJ) defends the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in another case, President Barack Obama’s administration filed a legal challenge to DOMA on Monday, August 17, claiming the federal statute is, get this, discriminatory. Yes, you read that right, natural marriage — which celebrates the diversity of a man and a woman, and unites them — discriminates.

DOMA protects the federal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman (for purposes of the tax code, federal benefits, etc.), and protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states. The president’s revelation comes on the heels of the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) bold announcement that they’re lobbying U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to head a legislative effort to overturn DOMA.

The attack on DOMA comes from a very dedicated minority which seeks to force their radical views of homosexuality on the entire nation. They want to overrule the opinions of a majority of Americans and the votes of 30 states that have passed constitutional amendments to protect their state laws. DOMA passed the US House with 80 percent support and the US Senate with 85 percent support in September 2000.

Obama fully supports the homosexual agenda

As a presidential candidate, Obama occasionally made it sound like he supported natural marriage, though he was clear that he is an advocate of the homosexual political agenda and that the far-left positions he consistently took in the Illinois General Assembly and U.S. Senate would not change.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans did not learn of his radical positions on pro-family issues — thanks in large part to the dominant complicit media. There should have been a fire-storm when Obama claimed that Jesus Christ supported same-sex marriage in the Sermon on the Mount when campaigning in Ohio. Why is it that a Christmas ad by then presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee created more of a controversy? (The debate had to do with whether the bookshelf in the background forms a cross and whether that’s a crypto-Christian symbol.) Perverting our Lord’s Word is infinitely more controversial than an alleged (and harmless) subliminal message.

Yet the left leaning media spoon fed a carefully cultivated image of him — perpetuating the candidate’s own talking points that suggested that he was a new kind of politician, rather than the ultra-liberal ideologue he is.

Moreover, I cannot believe that the citizens of Wisconsin — who voted to protect natural marriage by a vote of 59 to 41 percent in 2006 — would be in favor of their senator leading the charge to repeal DOMA.

Feingold is up for election in 2010. Maybe the citizens of Wisconsin — and voters throughout the nation — will want to send a strong message to the political and media elite via the ballot box next November.

We can only hope.

The Acton Institute

A vote on President Barack Obama’s “government healthcare reform” in Washington D.C. has been delayed until September or later. This provides additional time for citizens to communicate with their Congressmen and Senators about the issue.

The president is pushing hard to get enough federal lawmakers to support his bill (H.R.3200) to turn over health care to government control. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is lobbying her members hard, though the moderate and conservative Democrats are pushing back.

It is critical that your member of the U.S. House of Representatives hear from you concerning this push for government health care. In spite of polls showing that nearly 80 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the health care coverage that they currently have, Congress and the president are moving headlong toward a government takeover of the health care industry.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to your U.S. Representative now. Ask him or her to vote against H.R. 3200, the healthcare “reform” bill! Let your U.S. Representative know that if this bill is passed, Americans will suffer more in quality of care, costs, rationing of care and the loss of control over their own medical decisions regarding their life and health.

Background
There are some very serious issues of concern in this 1000+ page bill. Not only can this bill be killed, it must be killed:

• The bill would likely increase the number of abortions.
• It includes forced public funding of abortions.
• It denies any conscience rights for health care workers.
• It would grant benefits to domestic partners defined as “an adult unmarried person living with another adult unmarried person of the same sex in a committed, intimate relationship.”
• It would establish school-based “health” clinics (which would be able to dispense birth control pills, condoms & provide abortion referrals).
• It would provide a government approved list of end-of-life resources. (Euthanasia)
• It would require the government to instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney.
• It would require preventative services — including vaccinations — no choices.
• It targets senior citizens and handicapped people, requiring them to meet with a counselor every five years to determine whether their lives are worthy of medical treatment.
• People would have little or no choice of health plans, doctors or treatments.
• It would cover ALL NON-U.S. citizens.

In other words, this so-called “health care” bill reduces the value of life, both before birth and in one’s final years. It limits or denies choice for Americans in plans, doctors or treatments. In addition to these life and death issues, the bill would put an immense financial burden on the federal government (a.k.a. — taxpayers), and put government in control of yet another area of our lives.

Please take a moment to contact your U.S. Representative. When you call, leave your name and address with the staff person and ask to be listed as “opposed to H.R. 3200, the so-called health care reform bill.”

Read more:

Overview of HR 3200 (Liberty Counsel)

How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan (Wall Street Journal)

Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America (The Heritage Foundation)

Federal Issue

The state of Massachusetts is challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman and protects individual states from the marriage laws of other states. The lawsuit, being championed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, says that Congress intruded into a matter that should have been left to individual states.

“Unsatisfied with having unleashed marriage redefinition on an unwilling state population by judicial fiat and legislative inaction; unsatisfied with exporting same-sex “marriage” to other states with the repeal of the 1913 law; our ever-wise state government has decided to attack the one federal law protecting the definition of marriage for the United States of America,” said Massachusetts Family Institute President Kris Mineau. “Martha Coakley has overstepped her bounds. She is beholden to the homosexual special interest groups, who have steadfastly supported her political career.”

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 3, regarding the definition of marriage, not Section 2, pertaining to individual states being required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. DOMA was enacted by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.

The lawsuit says: “In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.”

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action issued the following statement last week on news that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the military’s prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the armed forces. The high court refused an appeal from former Army Captain James Pietrangelo II, who was discharged after his superiors learned that he self-identified as “gay”: 

“This is a military victory of a different sort,” said Barber. “Today our armed forces triumphed over the enemy of moral relativism; an enemy that seeks to replace military wisdom with San Francisco vice. This is a victory for our fighting young men and women and for the nation.

“The military is no place for such radical social experimentation; especially during a time of war. As polls continue to prove, the vast majority of military leaders and personnel agree. It has long been established that to enlist those who define themselves as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ would both disrupt unit cohesion and harm troop morale.

“In an age of rampant judicial activism it’s refreshing to witness some commonsense judicial restraint. This decision by the Supreme Court should once again remind everyone that, contrary to the propaganda fomented by the organized homosexual lobby, homosexual temptation and the destructive but changeable homosexual lifestyle must not be confused with neutral and immutable characteristics such as race or gender for purposes of assigning special government minority status or protections.

“It is properly illegal, for instance, to ban African-Americans from serving in the armed forces. It is neither illegal nor discriminatory, however, to disallow an African-American who ‘loudly and proudly’ chooses to engage in distractive, destructive and deviant sexual behaviors. Today’s decision hammers home that reality.  

“I’m speaking from personal experience,” continued Barber. “I served twelve years in the Army National Guard. During basic training a young man who later turned out to be homosexual was discharged after making unwanted advances toward other soldiers and for inappropriately touching several while they slept in the barracks.

“A lengthy investigation ensued. Troops were pulled away from their regular training to answer questions. It was a tremendous distraction for our entire platoon. This incident most definitely disrupted unit cohesion and harmed troop morale.

“Still, although today’s news is good news, the battle is far from over. For the good of the country and in the interest of national security, President Obama should heed the wisdom of the high court and our military leadership. He should cease his ill-advised efforts to force the military to implicitly sanction sexual deviancy by allowing it to occur. He should leave Don’t Ask Don’t Tell alone.”

Federal Issue

Openly homosexual U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) has again introduced his Hate Crimes Bill,H.R.1913. Co-sponsors of this anti-family bill include Illinois’ own U.S. Representives Mark Kirk (R-Winnetka) and Judy Biggert (R-Hinsdale).

Hate crime laws are actually “thought crime” laws that violate the right to freedom of speech, of religion and of conscience. Such laws subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person’s criminal actions.

Take ACTION: CLICK HERE to send an email or fax to your Congressman. Ask him/her to vote AGAINSTH.R.1913. 

The bill is not about stopping crime, but about giving sexual preference the same legal status as race and prosecuting two identical crimes differently because of what is perceived to be in the perpetrator’s mind. 

This legislation is just a stepping stone to regulate the speech of people who support family values, as in the case of the Philadelphia 11, a group of people holding signs about freedom from homosexuality at a gay pride event in Philadelphia who were arrested and charged with hate crimes, even though no crime was committed. 

Background
This law is a first step toward making vocal opposition to homosexuality and homosexual marriage (and other controversial issues) a crime. In particular, this bill will give clergy reason to think twice about speaking out on the issue because of an existing federal law, 42 U.S.C Section 2. 

Section 2 of current federal law states that whoever “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures [the] commission [of a federal crime], is punishable as a principal.”

In other words, if a person who breaks the hate crimes bill has heard a sermon on homosexuality, you better believe there will be homosexual advocates pushing to have that minister prosecuted for having “counseled” or “induced” the perpetrator to act. Why? Because the minister’s sermon got the perpetrator riled up, “inducing” the hatefulness that caused the crime.

Moreover the law will provide unequal justice to victims because two criminals who commit the same crime will be treated differently because of their motives. The “motivation” for a crime should not result in the victims of the same crime having their perpetrators treated diffently, with one victim getting “more justice” than the other.

Please, let your Congressman know you are opposed to the legislation today! Take action now.

Read more: 
Read about the dangers of “hate crimes” laws (Liberty Counsel)

‘Hate crimes’ bill – bad news for believers (OneNewsNow.com)

You may have seen the IFI E-Alert I sent to you last week regarding President Barack Obama’s nomination of David W. Ogden to be the Deputy U.S. Attorney General, the “CEO” of the Department of Justice. More than 1,200 Illinois residents have already contacted our two U.S. Senators.

Take ACTION: If you have not yet done so, please contact Senators Durbin and Burris to ask them NOT  to confirm someone who advocated an extreme position on a federal child-pornography statute that the Senate unanimously repudiated 16 years ago.

Update
We understand that there will be no further hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Ogden’s nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee was expected to have voted last Thursday, February 5, but they are now expected to vote this Thursday, February 12.

Assuming his nomination is commended to the full Senate, the full Senate will probably vote within days of the Committee’s vote. You may find the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee here:http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm.

To our knowledge, neither of our two U.S. Senators have formally stated their intentions should Mr. Ogden’s nomination reach the Senate Floor.

At last week’s committee hearings and in face of the mounting national opposition, it was not surprising that Mr. Ogden retreated from virtually every position he has held for years. But a lifetime portfolio of work is not overcome by one week’s worth of testimony when a position one covets is at stake!

Thank you again for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.

God bless you,

David E. Smith
Executive Director

President Barack Obama recently nominated David W. Ogden to be the Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice, which prosecutes obscenity violations. Attorney Ogden has been praised by the adult entertainment industry as a “strong pick” since he has represented pornography companies such asPlayboy, Penthouse and Adam & Eve. Ogden has even defended child pornography!

Take ACTION: Ask Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris to vote against David W. Ogden’s nomination to the Department of Justice.  Send an email or a fax to the Senators from Illinois to ask them NOT  to confirm someone who advocated an extreme position on a federal child-pornography statute that the U.S. Senate unanimously repudiated 16 years ago.

Background
by Attorney Patrick A. Trueman

While he was in private practice, Ogden filed a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of child pornographer Stephen Knox. The brief was on behalf of the ACLU and others. Knox had been convicted of federal child pornography offenses involving videos of several children. Though the children were not completely naked in the videos, they were deliberately posed so that the focus of the depictions was on the children’s genitals, covered or partially covered by underwear or other cloth. This is the kind of material that could only appeal to pedophiles. The brief asserted that such sexual exploitation of children was protected by the First Amendment!

Federal child pornography law prohibits “sexually explicit conduct” involving children, including video or photographic depictions focusing on the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.” The Knox brief filed by Ogden expressed concern that, “Publishers, producers, retailers and librarians, faced with the prospect of child pornography prosecutions based on images of clothed minors limited only by a subjective test of lasciviousness, would have only one rational response: self-censorship.” Is that too much to ask — that they remove sexually exploitive videos with children posed in a lascivious way?

At the time of the Knox case, I was representing American Family Association which led a nationwide effort to get then Attorney General Janet Reno to change her position on the case, expressed in another brief before the Supreme Court which also was supporting Knox’ position. Her position on the matter outraged many because it was the Department of Justice which had convicted Knox! The conviction occurred in the previous administration, that of President George H.W. Bush.

Attorney General Reno’s support for Knox caused a firestorm of controversy in the public. I was doing several press interviews a day about the case and I would tell skeptical reporters to go to the Supreme Court and view the videos, which were available. Without fail, those who did agreed that the videos were definitely child pornography. Knox and Attorney General Janet Reno lost the public opinion war because the videos themselves, which the Justices probably viewed, made the case that Knox was guilty.

Then something extraordinary followed: President Bill Clinton was asked at a press conference whether he agreed with his own attorney general on the case and he said no! The press had a field day over this public rebuke of Reno. The embarrassment of Reno, (and who knows what else went on between the President and Reno) undoubtedly caused Reno to order that her brief in support of Knox be replaced with one urging the Supreme Court to deny review in the case an uphold the conviction. That is what the Court did.

So far as I can tell, Ogden has never changed his position. The Department of Justice should have no place for a man who thinks that the First Amendment protects a child pornographer like Stephen Knox and those who sexually exploit children.