Category Archives: politics

Ohio Senate Passes Ban On Human Animal Hybrids

Last Wednesday, Ohio’s Senate voted 24-8 to pass legislation prohibiting the creation, transportation, or receipt of a human-animal hybrid, the transfer of a nonhuman embryo into a human womb, and the transfer of a human embryo into a nonhuman womb.

Though the latest version of the bill, S.B. 243, does not ban human cloning as an earlier one had, it was still hailed by pro-family and Christian groups as “vital legislation” amid “outrageous” advancements in science.

“Ohio Christian Alliance believes that no human life should begin and end as the subject of an experiment,” the organization stated following Wednesday’s vote.

“We attest that a process that knowingly encourages human life to be created, manipulated for research, and ultimately destroyed is immoral and should be prohibited,” it added.

For this and other reasons, OCA said it worked for the past seven years with members of the Ohio Legislature to ban embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and in recent years, animal-human hybrid.

And for the past three years, OCA worked with State Senator Steve Buehrer (R-Delta) and other members of the Ohio Senate to introduce S.B. 243, which – until recently – also banned human cloning.

Though the original bill was eventually stripped down to help move it forward and to broaden its appeal, OCA still commended sponsors of the final legislation and said “[a]ll who believe that human life, including nascent human life, is a unique and precious gift from our Creator have an obligation to support efforts to ban it.”

“Science has advanced to the point where DNA from animals and humans can be intermixed in scientific laboratory experimentation. This is simply outrageous,” exclaimed OCA President Chris Long in a statement.

Following Wednesday’s vote, the bill now moves to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives for further consideration.

Source: Christian Post June 03, 2010.

Ohio Legislators Pass Questionable Obesity Bill

Healthy Choices for Healthy Children legislation–SB 210–passed both Houses of the Ohio Legislator. The bi-partisan legation aims to address childhood obesity. As reported by the Ohio Hospital Association, more than one in three children (35.6 percent) in Ohio is overweight or obese. The bill specifically targets increased physical activity, improved nutritional options, and body mass index (BMI) testing in Ohio schools. (Heath e-News+ June 4, 2010)

Commendable as this bill may be, its provisions like the following raise some questions:

* Providing free breakfast to eligible children during the school day;
* Requiring physical education (PE) teachers to have a PE license;
* Increasing parents’ awareness about their children’s health through BMI screenings.
 

The first provision-providing free breakfast–has been part of federal funded since the beginning of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This grand federal empowerment program has been a local school cash cow for both poor and rich school districts alike. So, why does Ohio legislators need to duplicate an existing program? Is the U.S. Department of Education too bankrupt to continue funding it? Does the feds require more local and state paper work to obtain those dependency enhancing programs? Or are Gov. Strickland and his liberal associates in both the White House and Congress inspiring Ohio politicians to attempt another attempt to double dip into taxpayers dwindling pockets? Besides being ignored by the powers that be, one answer to these questions is why not convince McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Bob Evans, etc. to contribute free breakfasts to their many community’s needy school children. This would provide such business endless “good neighbor” marketing fodder.

Besides, what does free breakfast have to do with reducing obesity? If schools serve bacon and donuts with breakfast. will that reduce body fat or obesity?

The second provision–requiring PE teachers to possess a license–is eye-popping. Who would have ever thought it possible for any Ohio teacher to teach without state certification or license? Could it be current unlicensed PE teachers (if they actually exist) are training kids to be lazy, computer mongering, and junk food connoisseurs? I think not! If finger pointing is called for, the big fat finger should be pointed at school officials wanting monetary kick backs from pop, candy, junk food machine vendor purchases by students and fat teachers. Another boney finger should be aimed at those same officials for permitting  during homeroom TV programming whose advertising sells the same obese enhancing junk foods and other accouterments of that lifestyle. One more waging finger should alos be pointed in the same direction. The same school officials are often guilty of condonning  lunch menus that mimic fat food restaurants.

At home, parents may cater to their kids’ whinny demands for fat tasty foods, but paternal state officials should have an even stiffer backbone. Alas, the paternal state also trains society’s parents and their children. Big sigh!

Of course, the obesity problem may be like other post-modern lifestyles; they were born that way. Those poor downtrodden fat kids are just victims of their DNA (and a few actually are). That means Ohio legislators and health professionals should be ashamed of themselves for forcing on them a false and degrading solution to an irresolvable condition. OAA (Obese Anonymous Association) may be there only refuge and hope. Better than that, they probably just need to come out of the closet and flaunt their fatty stuff.

But, please, don’t blame PE teachers. They do not deserve the regulating punishment of state licensure for the paternal state’s lack virtue and self-discipline. It is the paternal state itself that should be required to possess a license. That might enable the public to better regulate its attitudes and practices.

Last but not least  is the third provision–the Body Mass Index.  School-based BMI screening of children might help parents to regulate their children’s weight issues. However, it will never replace the good old fashion practice of making kids eat a healthy diet. The paternal state and its local school nannies are not necessary for a stern disciplining mom or dad.

What would help parents and the rest of Ohio citizens even more than a BMI index is a GSI index. No, GSI is not a gas saturation index. GSI is a government-spending index that would make Ohioans aware of how much wasting fat the paternal state is accumulating. After all, GSI would also remind Ohioans how much of their limited incomes the paternal state is consuming on the proverbial junk food called debt.

Lesbian Bus Driver Berates Girl Over Her Christian Views

In 2008, a lesbian bus driver was caught on video bullying a Christian girl. The video shows the repeated verbal attacks were elicited by the girl’s expressed views about abortion same-sex marriage. The girl’s father complained to the Indiana’s Carmel School District officials, but the school board officials defended the abusive actions of the lesbian driver. Attorneys representing the middle school girl and her parents have filed a lawsuit against the driver and the school system.

If the driver had been religious and had lectured a gay student for her views, the school board would have fired the driver as soon as the gay students parents had complained, and rightfully so. No school employee has a right to berate, belittle, or verbally attack any student for his or her views.

Based on other incidents over the past few years, it appears so-called gay rights trump the rights of all other Americans. This is nothing new. The end result of gay rights is as ancient as Semites like Abraham and his nephew Lott. The lesson taught by the story about Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18-19 of Genesis is that tolerance of immoral behaviors eventually results in zero rights except those approved by gays and their supporters. Gay rights is therefore just another subtle form of tyranny.

One bright spot in the history of tyranny is George Washington’s victory over gay British generals, womanizing British commanders, and partying officers. If it wasn’t for them, American liberty would have been a misty dream of past revolutions buried in a dusty grave with many hopes for thecommon goods of true justice. (Read God In The Trenches by Larkin Spivey for this part of American history.)

Are municipalities that fluoridate water perpetrating a crime?

Xenia City officials have attempted several times to pass an ordinance allowing the water department to fluoridate the water supply. Each time voters have voted against it. If voters had passed it, would it still be a crime for city officials to medicate our drinking water with tooth decay fighting fluoride?

Yesterday, Mike Adams raised this issue in an article published in Natural News. In it, he argues dripping fluoride into public water supplies in order to reduce cavities among citizens is practicing medicine without a license. Doctors including dentists are not permitted to prescribe medications without first determining that a legitimate illness exists and requires drug treatment. Yet, this is exactly what cities and towns across the nation are doing. Adam concludes his argument with the following statement:

“Every city and town in America currently engaged in fluoridation of the water supply is committing felony crimes. Town leaders who approve of water fluoridation are criminals operating in clear violation of FDA regulations, state medical laws and federal laws.”

Adams does not take into account the fact that many cities and towns received voter approval to madicate their water supplies. Citizens must have believed it would a health benefit. They probably were not made aware of the considered harm fluoridating has caused to many persons.

With the above in mind, my original question maybe restated this way: Does voter approval make it legal for city officials to prescribe the medication “fluoride” to fight the presumed epidemic of tooth decay without medical license?

Here is a reference for the next time city officials attempt to get Xenia citizens to accept mass medicating in order to save a few bucks. Reading the article by Adams would also prove helpful seeing he suggests ways to fight against it. You can read “Why the fluoridation of public water supplies is illegal” by clicking on the highlighted text.

Congressman Steve Austria on National Debt

Our nation is making history for the wrong reason as our national debt reached $13 trillion, putting each American’s share of the debt at around $42,000 and each taxpayer’s share at $118,000. This level of debt is deeply troubling and threatens the economic prosperity of our children and grandchildren. A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 21 percent of the public think that today’s children will be better off than their parents.

Today, we still have no budget; no plan to reign in this out of control spending. For the first time the House will fail to even propose a budget at a time when the American people are demanding fiscal responsibility. To pay for the massive spending initiatives that have passed this Congress, the Democrat leadership has increased our national debt ceiling twice. These actions have added to the present level of debt we find ourselves in, which continues to grow every day. To pay for the massive spending initiatives that have passed this Congress, the Democrat leadership has increased our national debt ceiling twice. These actions have added to the present level of debt we find ourselves in, which continues to grow every day.

We can address the issue of job creation without racking up trillions of dollars in stimulus bills and bailouts; that we have yet to see any significant results from. We can make health care more accessible and affordable without a $1 trillion price tag. These are important issues that need to be addressed head on. To be serious about fixing these important issues, we need to be passing fiscally responsible policy, not simply throwing money at them which only serves to create additional problems down the road.

Now is the time for Congress to address the issues facing our nation in a fiscally responsible manner. We need to show constraint, set spending guidelines, make the tough choices and eliminate wasteful programs.

It’s important that Members of Congress hear from you on these important issues. I invite you to visit America Speaking Out to make your voice heard.

Ohio Senate Passes Bill on Judicial Bypass of Parental Consent for Abortion

On May 27, 2010, the Ohio Senate voted 22 to 11 to pass S.B. 242, a bill to revise the process of judicial bypass under Ohio’s Parental Consent for Abortion statute.

Under federal court rulings, parental consent statutes must permit a minor girl to “bypass” the parental consent requirement by convincing a juvenile judge either: 1) that she is mature and well enough informed to decide whether to have an abortion; or 2) that the abortion is in her best interests.

S. B. 242, which is sponsored by Sen. Tim Grendell (R, Chesterland) and Sen. Karen Gillmor (R, Tiffin), addresses the fact that some judges are giving virtual “rubber-stamp” approval to these judicial bypass requests. In a 2008 Columbus Dispatch article on bypass hearings, one Franklin County judge indicated that she had never denied a bypass request and another judge stated that she had denied only one request. A 2003 Akron Beacon Journal survey found a bypass approval rate of either 86% or 92% (the latter when a county that lumped voluntary dismissals with denials was excluded).

S.B. 242 would require:

• that the girl must prove her case by “clear and convincing evidence”;

• that the judge ask about the girl’s understanding of the possible physical and emotional complications of abortion and what she would do if she experienced such complications; and

• that the judge ask about the extent that the girl has been “prepped” about how to answer questions and what testimony to give at the bypass hearing.

“We are pleased that the Ohio Senate has recognized that abortion can have serious life-changing effects on a young girl,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life. “S.B. 242 would require that, before cutting a girl’s parents out of the abortion decision, a judge must make sure that the girl understands the possible negative effects of abortion. It would also require the judge to determine whether the girl’s testimony really reflected her maturity or the ‘coaching’ of others,” Gonidakis said.

The bill now goes to the Ohio House of Representatives.

Ohio Senators voting the pro-life position for S.B. 242 were: Steve Buehrer; John Carey; Gary Cates; Kevin Coughlin; Keith Faber; Bob Gibbs; Karen Gillmor; David Goodman; Tim Grendell; Bill Harris; Jim Hughes; Jon Husted; Shannon Jones; Tom Niehaus; Tom Patton; Tim Schaffer; Kirk Schuring; Bill Seitz; Jimmy Stewart; Mark Wagoner; Chris Widener; and Jason Wilson. (22)

Ohio Senators voting the pro-abortion position against S.B. 242 were: Capri Cafaro; Teresa Fedor; Eric Kearney; Dale Miller; Ray Miller; Sue Morano; Tom Sawyer; Joe Schiavoni; Shirley Smith; Fred Strahorn; and Nina Turner. (11)

Source: Ohio Right to Life, May 27, 2010.

Rasmussen Reports Memorial Day Tribute

This Memorial Day, nearly three-out-of-four Americans (74%) have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 12% hold an unfavorable opinion, and 13% are not sure.

These figures have held steady for the past two years.

Thirty-five percent (35%) of adults say they have a relative or close friend currently serving our country in Iraq or Afghanistan, down nine points from a year ago.

Forty percent (40%) also say they’ve lost a relative or close friend who gave their life while serving in the military. Fifty-two percent (52%) have not lost a relative or close friend in the line of duty, but eight percent (8%) more are not sure.

Just 14% of adults say they have served in the military. Eighty-four percent (84%) have not. Men are nearly five times as likely to have served in the military than women. Americans age 50 and older have a much higher level of military service than those who are younger. Republicans are slightly more likely to have served than Democrats and adults not affiliated with either major party.

Republicans also view the military more favorably than Democrats and unaffiliateds.

Commentary: Even though 84% of American have never served in the military, over 74% are supportive view because friends and loved ones are serving or have served. In spite many who have lost loved one because of military conflict, most Americans still highly regard that service. The high level of support then must be related to the positive views of those who service to our military are reflected by most Americans. As noted above, the variations of approval and esteem are not so much the military and its service but partisan politics and related ideologies.

Rasmussen Reports, May 29, 2010.

Liberals Memorial Weekend Assault On America’s Military

On the eve of the weekend that we honor members of the military who have served and those who have fallen to protect our nation, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to use our military for social engineering to benefit the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) political agenda.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi only gave Member of Congress a total of 10 minutes to debate the overturning of a 1993 law that bans homosexuals from openly serving in the military. Congress spends more debate time naming Post Offices than they gave to this historic policy shift in how our military functions.

This will fundamentally change our military – yet Pelosi thought it was so unimportant that she only gave five minutes for supporters of the ban and five minutes to the opponents of the ban to debate this issue. This is an outrage of immense proportions! Now the Senate will attempt to ram the repeal through when they return in two weeks.

The liberal controlled House of Representatives added an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that overturns the 1993 ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Isn’t our military worth more than 10 minutes of debate? Not to liberals.

The failure to permit an honest debate on this amendment is an affront to every soldier, sailor and marine who has ever fought and died to protect this nation from foreign and domestic threats.

The rush to pass this measure is evidence that liberals know their time is short to impose LGBT social engineering upon our military before the mid-term election. The overturning of the 1993 ban is simply Obama’s way of paying back his LGBT supporters who helped get him elected. It has nothing to do with concern for military readiness, morale or unit cohesion.

The men and women we honor this weekend didn’t give their lives so that a zero tolerance program could be instituted in the Armed Forces to silence criticism of homosexual conduct – or to force our military into sensitivity training sessions to affirm gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender sexual behaviors. Yet, this is apparently what our leftist “Representatives” think.

Federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law banning homosexuals in the military. The 1993 law states “there is no constitutional right to serve,” and the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” In living conditions offering little or no privacy, homosexuality presents an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion—qualities essential for combat readiness.

Legalizing homosexual conduct in the military will inevitably lead to the destruction of our all-volunteer forces and potentially bring back the draft. Why? Because heterosexual warriors and patriots know instinctively that homosexual sex is abnormal and threatens to create all sorts of problems within the Armed Forces.

In 2008, the Military Times reported the results of a poll regarding lifting the ban on gays in the military. It showed that 10% of our military will not re-enlist or extend their service if the ban is overturned; another 14% said they would consider not re-enlisting or extending their service. In essence, this could result in a loss of up to 323,000 men and women from the service.

This loss of hundreds of thousands of patriotic soldiers will threaten our national security, yet liberals don’t care.

This Memorial Day let’s remember our fallen soldiers, but also remember that our current soldiers face a domestic enemy in our Congress and among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activist groups who seek to exploit the military for their political gain.

We must put an end to the liberal-gay dominance of our Congress this November. The future of our national security depends on it. Remember this: Our soldiers can’t defend themselves in the political realm. We must do it for them. They’re willing to die for you; are you willing to protect them from social engineering by LGBT zealots?

Source: Traditional Values Coalition, email newsletter, May 28, 2010.

Rep. Austria on Immigration Reform

Last month, the state of Arizona passed a new, sweeping immigration reform law, which immediately received national attention due to its stringency. The new law would, among other things, allow local law enforcement officials to enforce existing federal laws regarding the verification of a person’s immigration status, given there is reasonable cause to do so. Supporters of the law argue that the federal government was not doing its job to enforce the current illegal immigration laws and secure our nation’s borders. Opponents of the new law claim that only the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration laws, and numerous law suits have already been filed against the state of Arizona.

It is unclear whether Congress will consider a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. As a Member of the House of Representatives’ Homeland Security Committee, I recognize that this problem continues to plague our nation and it must be taken seriously and addressed. It is important that we ensure our border patrol and local law enforcement have the resources and tools necessary to secure our borders and adequately enforce our existing immigration laws.

Supreme Court Uses U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child to Justify Overriding American Law

By Daniel Downs

The Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Graham v. Florida. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, based the decision on the 8th amendment clause, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” Florida law does not permit the possibility of parole for those sentenced to life in prison. To sentence a juvenile to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide crimes does seem unusually cruel.

The controversy over the decision, however, is with the Court’s use of the U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child (CRC). According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), the Kennedy opinion echoes his opinion issued in the 2005 Roper v. Simmons case.

“That case involved the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles, which the majority ruled was unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment under their ‘evolving standards of decency’ test. Roper was perhaps most noteworthy for its numerous citations of international law and foreign sources in helping to determine what modern standards of decency should be.”

In Graham v. Florida, the Court, the evolving standards of decency were also justified based on CRC and other foreign national law that also held the same alleged standard of decency. As cited by C-FAM, the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia in Roper v. Simmons still applies.

“The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards—and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.”

Michael Farris, President of Parental Rights, represented 16 members of Congress in the case. He sees the courts reliance on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child as first steps to the certain erosion of the sovereignty of American law over issues of parents and children.

http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={F94AE58A-9D7E-44BA-A40A-5E3DF0D2D851}Farris also noted that along “with recent statements by groups dedicated to the ratification of the U.N. CRC, today’s ruling signals that we must stop the ratification of the CRC before it gains momentum in the Senate.” He urges all Americans to contact their representatives in Congress asking them to oppose the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by supporting both Senator DeMint’s bill S.R.519 and the Parental Rights Amendment.