Saved By His Grace


Thursday, June 29, 2006

Bill to Save Mt. Soledad Cross Introduced to Congress

In response to the Federal Appeals Court's order to remove the cross of a veteran's memorial atop Mount Soledad, California Reps. Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, and Darrell Issa have introduced a bill that would transfer the cross from city control to the federal government, a move that could possibly save the landmark.

Once acquired, responsibility for the monument's maintenance would be provided by the Department of Defense. According to the bill, the department also would reach a contractual arrangement with the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, a private group that built the cross in 1954 to honor Korean War veterans and continues to maintain the site.

“The fight to save the Mount Soledad Veteran's Memorial is not about religion,” Hunter said in a statement. “It's about protecting a symbol of our freedom and honoring those who have chosen to defend it all costs. Removing this long recognized and respected landmark is an insult to the men and women memorialized on its walls and the service and sacrifice of those who have worn a uniform in defense of our nation.”

Hunter also said that it is important to “exhaust every possible option for preserving this revered memorial and ensuring its continued presence atop Mount Soledad.”

This kind of reminds me of how I was just listening to a Christian radio show today and a caller who decided to comment said "There's this park in Alabama that puts up these beautiful Nativity scenes and Christmas decorations in December...I can't tell you where it is, though, I don't want the ACLU to sue!" It kind of reminds me of the Child Catcher from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"...I could see someone like him joining the ACLU..."There are Christians here, I can smell them!!"

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Cross

A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 21, 2006, that the majestic 30-foot cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego must be removed by August 1, or the city will face $5,000 per day fines.

Atheists began a crusade to remove the cross when they filed a lawsuit against the city 17 years ago. The cross, located in a city-owned park in the Pacific Beach area with a breathtaking 360° view of the California coastline, was built in 1953 as a Korean War Veteran Memorial.

The attorney fighting to remove the cross is James McElroy, a Planned Parenthood attorney who spent over a decade suing pro-lifers, and has stated that he believes it is his mission in life to get pro-life Christians off the street.

While supporters of the cross monument were disappointed in the three-member panel ruling, they were mystified that the 9th Circuit scheduled oral arguments for an appeal before the full panel of judges for the week of October 12th, two months after the deadline set for the removal of the cross.

In November 2005, San Diegans approved Proposition A with an overwhelming 76% of the vote, which would have allowed the cross to remain by transferring the title to the land. A District Court judge ruled that Prop A was unconstitutional, but in an ironic twist, the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled moments after the 9th Circuit that the city could appeal the Prop A ruling.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the likelihood of the nation’s highest court hearing the case seemed slim, since it refused to hear an appeal earlier in the litigation process.

“Our nation’s landmarks that give assent to our Christian Heritage are rapidly facing extinction,” said Troy Newman, who grew up not far from the historic cross. “The fact that the cross has survived 17 years of aggressive litigation is a testament to the popularity of the monument and the determination of the people of San Diego not to allow a couple of atheist bullies to deprive them of a beloved memorial that has graced the skies over San Diego for over 50 years.”

It is believed that an executive order from President George W. Bush could save the historic monument. If you would like to express your opinion to the President concerning the Mt. Soledad Cross war memorial, here is the contact information:

Mailing Address
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461


Saturday, June 24, 2006

Where Is The Outrage?

My thoughts exactly. I can't believe that people like the ACLU complain if a prisoner's bed feels a tad uncomfortable for them or that the lights are too bright in the prison, yet they stay silent on the issue of torture once American soldiers are butchered like this. Why?

Sunday, June 18, 2006

'Tolerant' Governor fires 'intolerant' Christian

Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., of Maryland, fired one of his appointees to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority yesterday after the board member expressed his personal beliefs on a local cable talk show that homosexuality is immoral.

On the talk show, Metro board member Robert J. Smith responded to a speaker that said homosexuals do not want the government interfering in their sex lives. "That's fine, that's fine," Smith said. "But that doesn't mean that government should proffer a special place of entitlement within the laws of the United States for persons of sexual deviance."

The termination came a few hours after Smith was publicly confronted by a transit board colleague. Board member Jim Graham, a District of Columbia councilman who is openly gay, called on Smith to disavow his remarks or resign during yesterday's regular meeting of the panel, which oversees Metro business.

Governor Ehrlich said that he is intolerant of any view that opposes the full social acceptance of homosexual behavior and the promotion of the lifestyle in government. "Robert Smith's comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable," the governor said. "They are in direct conflict to my administration's commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity."

So this guy contradicted his own statement! He is promoting tolerance toward homosexual practice while being intolerant to Smith's Christian beliefs and the teaching of his church.

Smith said he has always supported the transit agency's policy against all forms of discrimination. Asked if he planned to apologize to Metro board member Jim Graham, an open homosexual who called for Smith's firing, Smith replied: "I didn't make the comments to Mr. Graham...I'm sorry he feels that way. I don't agree that his lifestyle is an appropriate way to lead one's life."

"Homosexual behavior, in my view, is deviant. I'm a Roman Catholic. The comments I make in public outside of my [Metro board job] I'm entitled to make. [My personal beliefs] have absolutely nothing to do with running trains and buses and have not affected my actions or decisions on this board."

Smith was fired not because he wasn't doing a good job. He was fired not because of his practice, but because of his thinking. He was fired because he held different beliefs. So much for tolerance! If this firing is allowed to stand, it means that any Christian that publicly states that homosexual behavior is morally wrong does so at the risk of being fired.

Please help preserve the rights of Christians to publicly express their beliefs and the teaching of their church on homosexuality without the fear of being fired by e-mailing Governor Ehrlich, at .

Monday, June 05, 2006

Why I Oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment

Those who know me know that I take a strong position in supporting traditional marriage and opposing any statutory imitations of marriage designed to appease the homosexual lobby.

While I support the need for a federal constitutional amendment, because it is the only way to ensure that marriage between one man and one woman is protected, I strongly oppose S. J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment, because of the second sentence.

The situation at this moment could be called a triumph of anti-federalism. Not only do states not have an individual voice in this debate – one state, Massachusetts, has imposed homosexual marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution on the other 49 states.

Coverage of the marriage battle being fought across America often overlooks the corrupt nature of what happened in Massachusetts. The citizens of Massachusetts had conducted a signature drive to put the marriage issue on the ballot for a commonwealth-wide referendum there. Extra parliamentary and illegal maneuvers by the Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Birmingham kept the legislature from conducting a vote to put the measure on the ballot. Experts believe the legislature would have approved the measure had it ever been put to a vote, and the resulting public referendum would have resoundingly supported traditional marriage.

The refusal of one House leader to allow the vote in the legislature deprived the public of its voice in the debate in Massachusetts. Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts took advantage of the delay to issue a decision which thwarted the will of the people and substituted, in its place, the will of a handful of liberal judges.

Homosexual activists had been advocating so-called civil unions because (a) they assumed marriage was years away from being a politically attainable goal and (b) because they felt civil unions would be the transitional step to the ultimate goal of homosexual marriage.

All of this brings us to two important points about the current version of the Marriage Protection Amendment now before the Senate.

First, the wording of the second sentence would allow for civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other innovative synonym for marriage. Matt Daniels, the Chairman of the Alliance for Marriage told Time Magazine in February, 2004, the amendment was written to preserve the right of states to enact civil unions.

“The amendment would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, but it would not out-law civil unions, which Daniels believes should be available to all states,” the TIME article reported.

I understand the faulty argument that this is a political sop which must be thrown to some in order to win their vote. But I also understand that this negates the impact of the first sentence.

Second, the homosexual leaders are right. Civil unions are the stepping stone to full recognition of homosexual marriage. Any reasonable person and even some federal judges would recognize that there is only a nominal difference between civil unions and marriage.

I believe proponents of the amendment have settled for a rhetorical and superficial “victory” of form which will ultimately amount to a defeat in the important substance so necessary to defending traditional marriage.

Proponents have led the American people to believe that the MPA “fixes the problem” and “stops homosexual marriage” and its counterfeits. Many have artfully avoided the discussion, which Mr. Daniels, to his credit honestly admits is about an amendment which is both pro-marriage and pro-civil unions.

No polling question has ever been formulated to give Americans the choice which proponents of this amendment attempt to make for them. If asked, to choose between traditional marriage and homosexual civil unions, most Americans would recognize this “distinction without a difference” gimmickry and reply neither.

I believe an amendment which is simple and clear about the uniqueness of marriage is what most Americans want and I encourage Americans to use their voice and their vote to bring forth an amendment which delivers marriage from those who would destroy it. I believe a one sentence amendment, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife,” which is simple and clear about the uniqueness of marriage, is what most Americans want. In theological circles, there is a saying that “on the far side of complexity lies simplicity.” This is truly a case in which simplicity and directness are required. Political maneuvering with a wink to our opponents or some attempt to finesse our differences with the homosexual lobby will reduce this debate to a confused state in which the truth becomes merely another opinion.

I encourage support of a simple and clear amendment that fully protects marriage and the withholding of support from the current amendment and anything else which is less.

Friday, June 02, 2006

Who Cares About The Facts?

In a particularly egregious example of bias trumping truth, the BBC (in both news stories and links on its web site) is still reporting the embryonic stem cell research conducted by the South Korean team of scientists led by Hwang Woo-suk as valid, despite the international headlines which have broadcast those findings as being completely fraudulent and falsified.

For instance, in a recent article criticizing members of the U.S. Congress for voting against funding embryonic stem cell research, the BBC includes a sidebar graphic detailing advances in stem cell research over the years -- and last two bullet points include a 2004 notation saying "South Korean scientists clone 30 human embryos and develop them over several days" and a 2005 note claiming "Korean team develops stem cells tailored to match individual patients."

The BBC is also guilty yet repeating the erroneous research claims in a list of related news articles.
I encourage all pro-lifers to contact the BBC and urge them to revise their news stories and links to accurately cover the falsification of embryonic stem cell research advances. You can send feedback via their website here.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Another Potential Texas Futile Care Law Victim

The Texas Futile Care Law, which allows medical facilities to judge if a patient's situation is hopeless, and then tell the family of the patient that they have ten days to find another medical center willing to treat the patient before medical help is removed, has struck again.

This is the third time in the past three months that the Texas Futile Care Law has caused a battle to look for a safe place for a patient to be treated, the previous cases being those of Andrea Clark and Yenlang Vo.

In this case, 10-month-old Daniel Belcher is considered nearly brain-dead by doctors. He cannot breathe without a ventilator. He cannot eat without a feeding tube. The hospital's ethics board has just ruled that it would be futile and inappropriate to keep Daniel alive-despite his mother's wishes to try.

"Something deep down inside is telling me not to unplug my 10-month-old," said Dixie Belcher, Daniel's mother. "I know it's going to take him quite a while to pull out of this, but I know he's my little fighter, and he's got to pull through. He's got to pull through."

So much for "choice" in "end-of-life" decisions.

A judge plans to hear the case on Friday, June 2nd, but as in the other two cases, the family is now panicked and searching for a medical facility to care for Daniel as soon as possible.

If this isn't involuntary euthanasia, then I don't know what is. First patients are given euthanasia as a "choice," and now it is slowly becoming not the patient's or the family's decision, but the doctor's decision to judge whether or not someone's life is "futile" or "a burden". Next thing you know, we'll be judged on whether or not we are "useful" in society by not only our health, but by our beliefs, looks, or even something as trivial as whether we have blond or black hair...