VICTORY in Indiana!!!

Today, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the ACLU lawsuit regarding praying in Jesus name in the Indiana House of Representatives. The District Court ruling was a landmark decision marking the first time a federal court had attempted to dictate the specific content of prayer in a state or federal legislative body.

Representative Jackie Walorski said, "This is a great day of victory in the State of Indiana and for the United States as well, that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of uncensored prayers at the Indiana Statehouse. I am thankful to the thousands of people in our State that have fervently prayed for this ruling to be overturned and today, we are thankful that we can again openly pray in Jesus' name in our State. In our culture today, it is critical to protect individual freedom and freedom of expression, and this is a major victory!" For nearly 190 years, it has been the tradition of the Indiana House to allow clerics from many faiths to offer prayer before the House begins its business for the day. This tradition is also followed by Congress for over 200 years. This freedom, for individuals to offer prayers freely and in accordance with their own religious beliefs has been protected for generations as a free expression of speech and freedom of religious expression. The District Court that originally banned prayer ignored this tradition and sought to require the House Speaker to censor prayers. The Court of Appeals returned the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss for want for jurisdiction.

Bush will veto ENDA, White House says.

The White House is warning that a pending piece of federal legislation to create new rights for homosexuals would push the boundaries on constitutionality, and President Bush's advisers will recommend a veto if it does come before him.The plan at issue is H.R. 3685.

read more | digg story

Ban on 'Mom' and 'Dad' sparks call for exodus

A call is being issued to Christians who have been engaged in the culture wars in California's schools to abandon the system, after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on "discriminatory bias" against homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles.

read more | digg story

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose. "We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked tr

read more | digg story

The next President of the United States

Every column I write I write as an individual, but I want to be especially clear that I am writing this particular column not as the president of Faith2Action, a radio host or as a member of the Values Voter Debate committee, because in this column I want to tell you how I believe those who value life, liberty and the family will regain the White House – and who I believe is the man to do it. The dilemma we face is that we have a conservative vote-split between some very good candidates and the only way we can win is if we unite. The question is whom to unite behind? Let's set up the ground rules: the one the values voters unite behind must be pro-life and pro-marriage. Not a particularly high standard, but a disqualifying one. Secondly, he needs to be able to win – which of course, happens when we unite behind him. That life/marriage disqualifier rules out: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: rabidly pro-abortion and anti-marriage. Duh. Mayor Rudy Giuliani: wants you to pay for child dismemberment with your tax dollars and is against the Marriage Protection Amendment – other than that, he's a nice guy. Gov. Mitt Romney: His position, perhaps best summarized by the question asked by Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth to an empty podium at the Values Voter Presidential debate: "Governor Romney, you are running as a pro-life, pro-marriage candidate, but you have a history of being strongly pro-abortion on demand and pro-homosexual. You supported Roe v. Wade and said abortion should be 'safe and legal.' In 2002, you opposed a state constitutional amendment that would have stopped homosexual so-called 'marriage' in Massachusetts. You said homosexuals should be allowed in the Boy Scouts of America, and as governor, you officially celebrated 'Gay-Straight Youth Pride Day.' You sat on Marriot's Board of Directors for 10 years while it profited off the sale of hard-core pornographic videos to its guests. Why should voters trust you after you spent so much of your career aggressively promoting anti-life and anti-family positions? I understand a 'change of heart,' but a 'change of position' on life, marriage, gun control, pornography, and immigration all preceding your run for president?

read more | digg story