Please do respond just to let me know if anything that you did get this email. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. God bless you and yours...

Dear Citizen Link,

I was wondering why you all do not send out state by state voter guides. My mother this year voted for Heather Wilson for the Republican nominee and if she just knew that Heather voted for funding for Planned Parenthood and Steve Pearce vote against funding for Planned Parenthood she would have voted for Steve Pearce. Now I know partially it is her fault. I even sent out an email to her about this issue and apparently she missed it and she should be more concerned of her vote but life gets busy and voting can be an overwhelming issue. I know many as I used to be that just don't care about the nominee process but here in NM the republican nominee is very important. If Heather Wilson is our only option then we have another dilemma of having to cast a compromising vote for US Senate in NM like we have with McCain. Now I know you all send out or advertise voter guides but maybe close to election time you all can send out or advertsie something for each state on the issues even for the nominee process and maybe advertise each state to each other state or something so that friends in one state can get the info to friends in other states and it would be nice to have the candidates side by side on the values issues. So many people just wait till after the republican nominee is decided and then vote afterwards for that republican which sometimes doesn't benefit a true Republican nominee. This is the first year I have participated in the Republican nominee process in my state and have found it to be very important and very similar to this years presidential republican nomination. I am a New Mexican and I have some friends in Colorado and I have heard of the recent bill SB 200 and I am in unbelief of it even though here in NM we had that photographer case as you all are probabily aware of. And I sent the below email out to them. Now I know that you can't have an email that persuades a vote up or down on any candidate but I was a little disappointed when all you all did was talk about how bad the bill is (which is true) but not let anybody know any names or who voted up or down. Below I found a voter record site that gave me that info and I passed it on to my friends in Colorado but without me I don't know if they would really know who to vote for in their nominee process or if the nominees are already decided in Colorado who to vote for in November. But since I don't live in Colorado I may be ignorant as to how you all work out there. But is it wrong to air on the radio who exactly voted for and against this bill and who sponsored it on your radio show. This will accomplish 1) that it is highly democrat 2) that in the house even some republicans voted for this so republican voters can be aware 3) if anything bad comes out of this bill then all will know who to blame. Today I do not assume that my friends are educated in political matters at all even my christian friends. Anyways, I thank you for taking the time to view this email. Sorry for being so long but below is that email that I sent out to my friends in Colorado and I believe in addition to the possibility of sexual predators in bathrooms I believe a good argument below is made for why men should go to mens bathrooms and women to womens mainly out of respect for other sexes and I am sure a lawsuite will come out of this arguing privacy between sexes somehow if somebody of an oppoiste sex enters the bathroom of his/her opposite sex...

I am so sorry for my grammar and my longwindedness. I am awful in both areas. So please do forgive my running on sentences and saying the same thing over and over at times..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Coloradoans (making up my own words),

Check out below who voted for or against this (in my opinion) unconstitutional bill (see below comments on ACLU's position on this bill).

I send this to all just for information purpose but am more interested in letting those of you that live in Colorado know who in your state actually voted for and against this bill that allows opposite sex's into bathrooms of their opposite sex. I sure don't want my daughter using a restroom and possibly be exposed to the privates of a member of the opposite sex. I find that completely inappropriate for members of the opposite sex's to be in a position for this exposure. But whatever....I am just blown away by this legislation and how rude it is for those on our opposite side to take it this far. Even if I were gay/transgender I would understand that bathroom privacy between sex's should be honoured. I wouldn't support legislation that would invade the privacy of an opposite sex. I would respect the privacy of a woman even if I weren't attracted to that sex. I mean imagine being a gay man and walking into a bathroom of the opposite sex and the women in that bathroom acting a little uncomfortable and then you interpret that as discrimination/bigotry etc etc and expect them to be completely normalized that a man is in the bathroom with her. Good luck. This is absolutely disrespectful and rude. And that is the flaw in this legislation. It absolutely violates privacy between sex's in the place needed most, the bathroom. This is just plain out right rude legislation and absolutely unconsiderate/intolerant of peoples sexual exposure/privacy between sex's considerations...This has nothing to do with discrimination whatsoever if a woman wants to use a restroom with members of their same sex that is their preference for obvious privacy reason and she doesn't have to think she is a discriminator and if an employer wishes to respect her right to privacy then he/she doesn't need to be viewed as a bigot. Also there are religious reason why one would not desire to be in a position to expose herself to a member of the opposite sex even if they are heterosexual. Maybe a man has a religious conviction to not depants himself before another women even if they were heterosexual. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation discrimination but rather an understanding that the bathroom is not a place to judge peoples motives its a place of obviously needed privacy between sex's....Let women go to the womens bathroom and let men do the same and please out of respect for both let only women go to womens bathrooms and men only go to mens bathrooms...And keep in mind that a public accomodation is much more then just a bathroom. You have locker rooms and much more so good luck Colorado keeping your sexes unexposed to the opposite sex whether hetero or homo...

I can see a lawsuite coming in the future if one does actually go into the bathroom of his/her opposite sex for some sort of invasion of privacy between sex's to strike down this bill...

And if you don't think this bill applies to bathrooms check out the publics understand here on this DenverPost online AP article. And then check out the comments mostly negative toward Dobson on the conservative side of this issue and what they think and notice no rebuttal that this doesn't apply to bathrooms and actually some would find my argument above as ludicrous though some favoured it. So conservative Coloraoans on this issue you are not without your opponents at the ballot box!!!

And lastly but just as importantly, check out these comments by the ACLU,-This is from a Colorado Family action site that may be of interest to you out in Colorado concerning comments made by the ACLU on this bill.

""One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others...."

OK, then. What according to the ACLU is a most heinous practice of religious expression that is so heinous that it should be limited in the public?????????

"If your house of worship rents to the public its other facilities, you have to rent to everybody - you can't discriminate."-Cathryn Hazouri's, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, testimony given before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee."

Yeah. And I am sure our founding fathers would agree (sarcastically)!!!! The only thing that makes these practices heinous are bills like this....Which should tell you something about the bill? It's unconstitutional for it clearly violates the 1st amendment. I am so looking forward to one of these bills being challenged in our newly Bush appointed courts...We finally have judges that would not allow a 1st amendment right to be trampled so easily...

Also, I go to BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) at a church that is allowing its facility to be used for BSF which is not part of the church itself. Because a church allows BSF to use their church for other religious purposes does this now mean they have to allow its facility to be used by homosexual political agendicist which is exact opposite opposed to their values. Now I believe they amended this bill to not include houses of worship but you can see where some on the otherside would like to take it and where it would have gone except some in the house opposed the ACLU's comments!!! The original bill by sponsored by Democrat Senator Jennifer Veiga did not have the bill so amended!!!

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Senate-Voting record in Colorado Senate on this bill. Strait party line Democrats for/Republicans against.

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination House -Voting record in Colorado House. Note that this bill is in no way bypartisan and heavily democrat favoured though some republicans (make sure it's not the one you voted for).

SB200-The actual final bill itself with amendments noted. This bill should of had a religious conscious clause amendment allowing business like photography studios/journalist/freelance writers etc etc not to have to use their business talents for things that would propagate something contrary to their own conscience which is a big issue in Canada right now due to these laws/bills. We know what happened in NM because of this but is being challenged and appealed hopefully right up to the Supreme Court that will be more 1st Amendment minded then these states are. See notes on that NM case here on my email sent out on 04/09/2008, 04/13/2008 and especially the most up to date facts on 04/18/2008.

And to top it all off check this out:

Colorado governor okays open bathrooms-"Colorado lawmakers also slapped voters in the face with a provision that PROHIBITS A PUBLIC REFERENDUM or PETITION drive to overturn the law. Hausknecht says the only choice Colorado voters have now is to send people to the legislature that will act to reverse the law."-or in some way take it to court!!!

You can get the email for your elected officials by clicking on http://www.afa.net/ and then highlight Activism and then click on "elected officials" and you should be able to follow directions from there. For some reason the site is not working properly right now so I couldn't give you an easier link.

I am really interested to see how a majority of Colorado voters vote this next election after the moral unconstitutional crisis of the last 2 years under democrat control.

But to end with GREAT GOOD NEWS. Check this out:

'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization-"For the first time in US history, the issue of personhood will be decided in the public forum by a constitutional amendment....Colorado for Equal Rights has demonstrated an unparalleled grassroots effort thus far, with likely more volunteer circulators than any other ballot initiative in the State's history....This victory is the voice of the people and all credit goes our Creator"

Wow. I am now even more looking forward to seeing how Colorado votes. Get out their Colorado!!! As you probabily already know, your vote really really really counts a whole lot more then the liberal non reporting media may have you as a conservative believe. Get registered and get voting but vote being informed not only by the liberal point of view/issues which most media outlets provide but also with the conservative point of view/issues and you decide what to prioritize!!!! I know not all agree with my point of view or emphasis of issue but at the same time it can't hurt to be informed from a side that is continually under attack of suppression in the public arena in my opinion and thus the reason why I desire to inform and may be a little obsessed and state sometimes the obvious cause I assume not the obvious given the majority of pop media/hollywood/pop music/public education etc etc of today. So if it is obvious to you send my emails to others that may be lacking this important info in their voting decisions and what you don't agree with or can't stand the grammar of edit out and if its not so obvious to you at least you know why I am obsessed. :)

Take care all and love yah all...

Hey Coloradoans (making up my own words),

Check out below who voted for or against this (in my opinion) unconstitutional bill (see below comments on ACLU's position on this bill).

I send this to all just for information purpose but am more interested in letting those of you that live in Colorado know who in your state actually voted for and against this bill that allows opposite sex's into bathrooms of their opposite sex. I sure don't want my daughter using a restroom and possibly be exposed to the privates of a member of the opposite sex. I find that completely inappropriate for members of the opposite sex's to be in a position for this exposure. But whatever....I am just blown away by this legislation and how rude it is for those on our opposite side to take it this far. Even if I were gay/transgender I would understand that bathroom privacy between sex's should be honoured. I wouldn't support legislation that would invade the privacy of an opposite sex. I would respect the privacy of a woman even if I weren't attracted to that sex. I mean imagine being a gay man and walking into a bathroom of the opposite sex and the women in that bathroom acting a little uncomfortable and then you interpret that as discrimination/bigotry etc etc and expect them to be completely normalized that a man is in the bathroom with her. Good luck. This is absolutely disrespectful and rude. And that is the flaw in this legislation. It absolutely violates privacy between sex's in the place needed most, the bathroom. This is just plain out right rude legislation and absolutely unconsiderate/intolerant of peoples sexual exposure/privacy between sex's considerations...This has nothing to do with discrimination whatsoever if a woman wants to use a restroom with members of their same sex that is their preference for obvious privacy reason and she doesn't have to think she is a discriminator and if an employer wishes to respect her right to privacy then he/she doesn't need to be viewed as a bigot. Also there are religious reason why one would not desire to be in a position to expose herself to a member of the opposite sex even if they are heterosexual. Maybe a man has a religious conviction to not depants himself before another women even if they were heterosexual. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation discrimination but rather an understanding that the bathroom is not a place to judge peoples motives its a place of obviously needed privacy between sex's....Let women go to the womens bathroom and let men do the same and please out of respect for both let only women go to womens bathrooms and men only go to mens bathrooms...And keep in mind that a public accomodation is much more then just a bathroom. You have locker rooms and much more so good luck Colorado keeping your sexes unexposed to the opposite sex whether hetero or homo...

I can see a lawsuite coming in the future if one does actually go into the bathroom of his/her opposite sex for some sort of invasion of privacy between sex's to strike down this bill...

And if you don't think this bill applies to bathrooms check out the publics understand here on this DenverPost online AP article. And then check out the comments mostly negative toward Dobson on the conservative side of this issue and what they think and notice no rebuttal that this doesn't apply to bathrooms and actually some would find my argument above as ludicrous though some favoured it. So conservative Coloraoans on this issue you are not without your opponents at the ballot box!!!

And lastly but just as importantly, check out these comments by the ACLU,-This is from a Colorado Family action site that may be of interest to you out in Colorado concerning comments made by the ACLU on this bill.

""One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others...."

OK, then. What according to the ACLU is a most heinous practice of religious expression that is so heinous that it should be limited in the public?????????

"If your house of worship rents to the public its other facilities, you have to rent to everybody - you can't discriminate."-Cathryn Hazouri's, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, testimony given before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee."

Yeah. And I am sure our founding fathers would agree (sarcastically)!!!! The only thing that makes these practices heinous are bills like this....Which should tell you something about the bill? It's unconstitutional for it clearly violates the 1st amendment. I am so looking forward to one of these bills being challenged in our newly Bush appointed courts...We finally have judges that would not allow a 1st amendment right to be trampled so easily...

Also, I go to BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) at a church that is allowing its facility to be used for BSF which is not part of the church itself. Because a church allows BSF to use their church for other religious purposes does this now mean they have to allow its facility to be used by homosexual political agendicist which is exact opposite opposed to their values. Now I believe they amended this bill to not include houses of worship but you can see where some on the otherside would like to take it and where it would have gone except some in the house opposed the ACLU's comments!!! The original bill by sponsored by Democrat Senator Jennifer Veiga did not have the bill so amended!!!

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Senate-Voting record in Colorado Senate on this bill. Strait party line Democrats for/Republicans against.

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination House -Voting record in Colorado House. Note that this bill is in no way bypartisan and heavily democrat favoured though some republicans (make sure it's not the one you voted for).

SB200-The actual final bill itself with amendments noted. This bill should of had a religious conscious clause amendment allowing business like photography studios/journalist/freelance writers etc etc not to have to use their business talents for things that would propagate something contrary to their own conscience which is a big issue in Canada right now due to these laws/bills. We know what happened in NM because of this but is being challenged and appealed hopefully right up to the Supreme Court that will be more 1st Amendment minded then these states are. See notes on that NM case here on my email sent out on 04/09/2008, 04/13/2008 and especially the most up to date facts on 04/18/2008.

And to top it all off check this out:

Colorado governor okays open bathrooms-"Colorado lawmakers also slapped voters in the face with a provision that PROHIBITS A PUBLIC REFERENDUM or PETITION drive to overturn the law. Hausknecht says the only choice Colorado voters have now is to send people to the legislature that will act to reverse the law."-or in some way take it to court!!!

You can get the email for your elected officials by clicking on http://www.afa.net/ and then highlight Activism and then click on "elected officials" and you should be able to follow directions from there. For some reason the site is not working properly right now so I couldn't give you an easier link.

I am really interested to see how a majority of Colorado voters vote this next election after the moral unconstitutional crisis of the last 2 years under democrat control.

But to end with GREAT GOOD NEWS. Check this out:

'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization-"For the first time in US history, the issue of personhood will be decided in the public forum by a constitutional amendment....Colorado for Equal Rights has demonstrated an unparalleled grassroots effort thus far, with likely more volunteer circulators than any other ballot initiative in the State's history....This victory is the voice of the people and all credit goes our Creator"

Wow. I am now even more looking forward to seeing how Colorado votes. Get out their Colorado!!! As you probabily already know, your vote really really really counts a whole lot more then the liberal non reporting media may have you as a conservative believe. Get registered and get voting but vote being informed not only by the liberal point of view/issues which most media outlets provide but also with the conservative point of view/issues and you decide what to prioritize!!!! I know not all agree with my point of view or emphasis of issue but at the same time it can't hurt to be informed from a side that is continually under attack of suppression in the public arena in my opinion and thus the reason why I desire to inform and may be a little obsessed and state sometimes the obvious cause I assume not the obvious given the majority of pop media/hollywood/pop music/public education etc etc of today. So if it is obvious to you send my emails to others that may be lacking this important info in their voting decisions and what you don't agree with or can't stand the grammar of edit out and if its not so obvious to you at least you know why I am obsessed. :)

Take care all and love yah all...

I reported on this earlier today to you all in a quick email and here is another quick update!!! It's Colorado State law. The Governor signed the legislation. Unbelievable!!! A once red state (republican) gone blue (democrat) and here are your consequences!!!

Dr Dobson comments:

Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, issued this statement late today after Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed SB 200: "Who would have believed that the Colorado state Legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?

"Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence. The legislation lists every conceivable type of organization to which this law applies, including restaurants, bathhouses, massage parlors, mortuaries, theaters and 'public facilities of any kind.' Those who would attempt to protect females from this intrusion are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars.

"This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially 'bought' state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!

"And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse."

FOR MORE INFORMATIONCheck Friday's CitizenLink e-mail for more updates on this story.Read previous CitizenLink coverage.

Just one governors signature away...

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popups/media_player.aspx?MediaId={832A9AB0-4AA3-4321-BA40-AA26BA89BDEE}&FAMILYTYPE=null

Dear President,

Enclosed is an email I sent out to my family and friends as a commentary sort of speak on the recent happenings with Crystal Dixon.

With all due respect. I hope you do reconsider your schools position in the future. Please do give an ear to my point of view and hopefully you will in the future think of being more inclusive then you think you are.

Thank you for your patients and time,

A concerned citizen

P.S.-Feel free to respond if you like though I don't expect it and I am only emailing this with concern for real diversity/inclusivity at your university.

Update on Crystal Dixon:

Here is how it all began:

Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective- The actual article that got Crystal Dixon fired!!!! Check it out for yourself as she opens..."I read with great interest Michael Miller's April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs." .... I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider."

UT protects gay rights- President of UT's response..."The University of Toledo welcomes, supports and places value upon persons of every variety." Sure you do!!! "We will be taking certain internal actions in this instance to more fully align our utterances and actions with this value system." Is not Crystal Dixon a valuable person to and thus her religiously conservative opinion that she has "respectfully" and "unhatefully" submitted? Let alone this is not just her own this is the opinion of many of UT's religiously conservative students. What about their value? So how does he consistently apply these values without redefining his values as "The University of Toledo welcomes, supports and places value upon persons of liberal variety at the expense of the religiously conservative variety." This is a bad model of tolerance/diversity/value of persons of every variety/inclusivity/human rights being modeled to UT students in my opinion. What you do to model tolerance to your students is to allow for both opinions and go home loving each other period. That's tolerance!!! And that "places value upon persons of every variety." consistently and non hypocritically!

And here is how it ends:

UT offered Dixon alternate position prior to termination-"A former UT administrator who was fired for opinions she expressed on Toledo Free Press' Web site said the university offered her a demotion and pay cut prior to terminating her employment....After declining the offer, Dixon was notified of her termination May 9 through her attorney, Tom Sobecki, she said, noting UT's offer was "unacceptable because I didn't do anything wrong.""

Unbelievable!!!!

If you don't believe Hate Crimes Legislation will be used to silence religiously conservative speech think again and again. In this university you don't even need a Hate Crime bill to punish those of the religiously conservative perspective. All you need is an intolerant President.

Check out these comments given to the Toledo Free Press from many of their readers.

Reaction letters to Crystal Dixon's article both good and bad but check out the bad. Notice how they deem such speech!!!

Crystal, but not clear-President and Publisher comments on situation. "Not since the Marines controversy have so many hundreds of readers sent letters and left phone messages on a topic. The hot button has been pushed. Here's hoping Dixon and UT find a graceful exit strategy that allows her to move on amiably and protects UT's mission of diversity and inclusion." However, if UT's mission is truely diversity and inclusivity then they are clearly violating there own mission.

Please feel free to review an email I sent to the President of the UT here on an email I sent out 05/08/2008.

"Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."-Romans 2:1 in principle.

Update on Crystal Dixon:

Here is how it all began:

Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective- The actual article that got Crystal Dixon fired!!!! Check it out for yourself as she opens..."I read with great interest Michael Miller's April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs." .... I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider."

UT protects gay rights- President of UT's response..."The University of Toledo welcomes, supports and places value upon persons of every variety." Sure you do!!! "We will be taking certain internal actions in this instance to more fully align our utterances and actions with this value system." Is not Crystal Dixon a valuable person to and thus her religiously conservative opinion that she has "respectfully" and "unhatefully" submitted? Let alone this is not just her own this is the opinion of many of UT's religiously conservative students. What about their value? So how does he consistently apply these values without redefining his values as "The University of Toledo welcomes, supports and places value upon persons of liberal variety at the expense of the religiously conservative variety." This is a bad model of tolerance/diversity/value of persons of every variety/inclusivity/human rights being modeled to UT students in my opinion. What you do to model tolerance to your students is to allow for both opinions and go home loving each other period. That's tolerance!!! And that "places value upon persons of every variety." consistently and non hypocritically!

And here is how it ends:

UT offered Dixon alternate position prior to termination-"A former UT administrator who was fired for opinions she expressed on Toledo Free Press' Web site said the university offered her a demotion and pay cut prior to terminating her employment....After declining the offer, Dixon was notified of her termination May 9 through her attorney, Tom Sobecki, she said, noting UT's offer was "unacceptable because I didn't do anything wrong.""

Unbelievable!!!!

If you don't believe Hate Crimes Legislation will be used to silence religiously conservative speech think again and again. In this university you don't even need a Hate Crime bill to punish those of the religiously conservative perspective. All you need is an intolerant President.

Check out these comments given to the Toledo Free Press from many of their readers.

Reaction letters to Crystal Dixon's article both good and bad but check out the bad. Notice how they deem such speech!!!

Crystal, but not clear-President and Publisher comments on situation. "Not since the Marines controversy have so many hundreds of readers sent letters and left phone messages on a topic. The hot button has been pushed. Here's hoping Dixon and UT find a graceful exit strategy that allows her to move on amiably and protects UT's mission of diversity and inclusion." However, if UT's mission is truely diversity and inclusivity then they are clearly violating there own mission.

Please feel free to review an email I sent to the President of the UT here on an email I sent out 05/08/2008.

"Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."-Romans 2:1 in principle.

Update on Jena:

An update to email sent out to you all on 04/03/2008.

Reminds me of the little kid with some loaves of bread and fish...Maybe there is something here in 3000 population Jena for all America and the world...

Four day man planned revival turn 48 day God ordained revival and then some

"A revival meeting began at Midway Baptist Church Feb. 17. What started out as a typically planned four-day event become so much more. Little did the members of that church know that God would call on church leaders to extend that meeting from four days to 48 days, spanning nine weeks. The impact of the Jena Revival has reached far outside the worship center of Midway....What man could not do through politicians, the government and celebrities, God did in just a few short weeks using ordinary men and women who'd decided to surrender it all to Him."

Below are some testimonies from those involved in Jena. This should be making just as much headlines as the bad news did from Jena in September of last year. Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their media now?

The Beginning of the Jena Revival- "one of Jena 6 become saved"

Transformation Story from Jena May make you cry....

Forgiveness in Jena-Racial Reconciliation. White church reaching out to black church as revival spreads and black pastor reaches out to DA involved in the Jena 6 as reconciliation spreads out from this 4 day human planned revival turn 48 day God planned community revival.

Renewal in Jena-Sweet..

Revival Impact on Jena-Sweet..

Climate in the Jena Wal-Mart-And even sweeter...

Bishop Harry Jackson and CNN commentator and Chicago radio host, Roland Martin-On Washington Watch Weekly Radio discussing Obamas' pastor and racial reconciliation. The whole show was a good one and you can sign up for free podcasts or just go to their web site each week. Even has an audio clip from openly gay Senator McCoy of Iowa accusing a conservative Iowa family organization as anti-gay and equating them to hate crimers. If some are not concerned about hatecrimes legislation/antibullying laws effecting religious speech and other points of view you have to listen to this 3 minute speech from Senator McCoy and scroll down to 3rd play button. There has got to be some other way to handle this problem without incriminating those of differing views. McCoy lost all credibility in my mind. His speech seemed pretty degrading/hateful of religious talk equating it to secular agenda.

Other News of Possible Interest:

Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools-"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of human beings? Man developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms: 13% Man developed over millions of years, but God guided the process: 38% God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years: 45% Source: Gallup Poll of 1,016 U.S. adults, November 2004. Margin of error: +/- 3%...Several states, including South Carolina and Pennsylvania, have passed science standards requiring students to think critically about evolution."-Should they think uncritically!!!! Wall Street Journal

American Psychiatric Association Cancels Forum on Homosexuality and Religion-"Under pressure from a homosexual bishop and his friends, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has canceled a May 5 event in Washington, D.C., that promised "balanced discussion" on the origins and treatment of homosexuality. The pro-homosexual speakers — Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual Episcopalian in New Hampshire, and Dr. David Scasta, past president of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists — had sought "common ground and new perspectives" with two conservatives: Dr. Albert Mohler, president of South Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family board of directors; and Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College.". This would have been great. This is what we need more of in America on these issues!!! Hopefully they reschedule!!!

Focus Hosts Debate on God in the Public Square- "Focus on the Family played host to a debate between noted atheist Michael Newdow and Focus' Dr. Chris Leland on God in the public square."-Wonderful quick 2 minute report. This is what we need more of in America on these issues!!!

Good News: Life Memorial Replaces Abortion Clinic in Alabama-"The former Center for Choice clinic performed abortions for nearly 30 years, during which time an estimated 30,000 preborn babies were killed. Hope's Corner organizers say they want to change the spirit of the building from a culture of death to a culture of life." Their is a link to the web site of the story of Claire Hope Cox who died at 8 weeks that inspired these parents to buy the buildin..."Billy Cox (the Father of Claire Hope) came up with the idea of purchasing the former abortion clinic, the same building he had walked by every day as a youngster on his way to school at St. Pius X Catholic Church. Claire's parents formed an ecumenical committee of Protestants and Catholics along with Christian business leaders to consider how the memorial would look....The building's lease expired the next month. Fittingly, the closing and handing over of the keys to the Cox family took place on Nov. 28, 2007 – exactly one year after Claire's death."-Way to go Claire!!! Read more of this story at www.Claireshope.com.

Intolerable Tolerance: "Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry in Ontario that has cared for more than 1,400 people with developmental disabilities in 180 group homes. The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality. When Christian Horizons fired a female employee who became involved with another woman, she complained to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which fined the ministry $23,000 and two years back pay."-Feel free to browse the many links concerning this subject and also the actual decision made by the Canadian Courts.

YouTube Video: Speaks Out Against Spitzer's NY Bill to Make Abortion a Fundamental Right

International News of Possible Interest:

www.michaelyon-online.com Interesting site of a reporter in Iraq reporting alot of what is happening in Iraq from a different perspective that you don't get in mainstream media for example: Heroic Marine Throws Himself on Grenade

Focus on the family NEW!!! media center-Click on "Shows" under the video screen in Sort By: and then click on 04/24/2008 and listen thru to 05/01/2008. You can skip the message titled "Living with Messy Kids"!! But the shows entitled "Lord keep us free part 1 and 2" are the testimony of an ex-nazi and her wonderful patriotic story which are few and far between nowadays and a great sense of humour as she describes her transition from Nazi Germany to Free America and then click on "Why we must remember part 1, 2 and 3" for Ravi Zacharius speech and definitely the "part 3" for some interesting perspective from one who is currently traveling the world over. I think you all may be somewhat impressed/encouraged by Ravi. And for some good clean humour by Art Linkletter click on dates of 04/16/2008 to 04/18/2008 for about an hour and a half of Art Linkletter humour.

Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured-"The eminent Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas...Speaking at the Buenos Aires International Book Fair...characterized homosexual orientation as a "disorder" rather than an illness, and stated his opinion that 95% of cases are caused by environmental factors, according to the Spanish news service Terra. The disorder, according to Rojas, is the result of an absent father, overweening mother, or sexual abuse in childhood. Rojas blasted the homosexual movement for promoting the development of homosexual tendencies in young people.."

Famed Theologian Quits Anglican Church of Canada-"J.I. Packer, one of the world's most renowned evangelical theologians, left the Anglican Church of Canada, citing "poisonous liberalism" in the church body....Packer, 81, who was named one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the world by Time magazine in 2005...Oxford-trained theologian...While the controversy has focused on homosexuality, Stackhouse says the issue is about more than sex. "This is about the fundamental question of how we derive any kind of Christian truth," he said, according to The Canadian Press. Packer, who has outlined a conservative Christian theology in his 1973 bestseller Knowing God, described the Bible as "absolute" authority on divine truth and that it clearly describes homosexuality as a grave sin"

Swiss Grant Rights to Animals, Consider Same for Plants - Liberalize Abortion Laws-"The added protections afforded to plant and animal life stand in sharp contrast to the Swiss government's recent disregard for the life of the nation's unborn. In June 2002, the country decided to allow women to abort their children during the first trimester, provided a doctor determines that she is in an ambiguously defined "state of distress."

India PM calls aborted fetuses shameful-"Experts say up to 500,000 female fetuses are aborted in India every year because of a deep-rooted cultural preference for male children, who will help support their parents in old age and attract wives with substantial dowries. "This is a national shame and we must face this challenge squarely here and now," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a conference on ways to "Save the girl child."

Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Senator Obama. "Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church."-AP

Another Update on NM Photographer case:

I hope this is the last update until it goes up further in the appeal process. I have been praying for this women and her partner that they would come to the Lord thru all this in some way and that in some way God would be glorified in this. I say this just to encourage you all to not only get a little upset but to handle this with passionate prayer for the lost and that God uses this for good like He did the cross and that we act like Christ did when He was persecuted for His religious beliefs!!!!

Quick update concerning my complaint of KOAT and KOBTV report from the 04-11-2008 AP report on there web sites on my prior email on this subject which you can find here. Check out the NEW MORE ACCURATE AP release on 04-14-2008 www.CBNnews.com entitled: "Human Rights Commission: Christian Discriminated against Lesbians"-"The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends religious liberty"-04-14-2008. Much better!!!

Now, the facts:

The official 35 page briefing in defense of NM Photographer-Check out the Statement of Facts starting on page 3-7, And here is a key argument concerning motivation and quite enlightening..."At best, Willock has introduced direct evidence that Elane Photography does "not photograph same-sex weddings," Resp. Ex. B. at 5, but that does not inform the "ultimate issue" of the Company's motivation....Once a complainant establishes her prima facie case, that prima facie showing "may then be rebutted by evidence that the [complainant] was [refused service] based on a nondiscriminatory motivation."...Id. Here, both Jonathan and Elaine testified that they declined to photograph Willock's wedding-like, same-sex commitment ceremony because they refuse to use, and company policy prevents them from using, their talents and resources to promote a message with which they earnestly disagree, namely, that marriage can exist between anyone other than one man and one woman. Tr. at . Both Jonathan and Elaine testified that they did not refuse their Company's services because of Willock's "sexual orientation." Tr. at . In fact, they both acknowledged that they would offer their photography services to Willock or any other individual regardless of their sexual orientation, but they could not do so in the requested context of a wedding-like, same-sex commitment ceremony because of the message conveyed by that event. Tr. at . On the other hand, if Willock had asked Elane Photography to take pictures of her as part of, for example, individual portraits for a modeling portfolio, the Company would have been happy to provide its services in that context. In sum, then, Elane Photography's refusal to photograph Willock's ceremony was motivated by Jonathan's and Elaine's desire to refrain from furthering, promoting, or endorsing a same-sex "marital" relationship, and not from any soft of unlawful discriminatory animus. This is not some irrational, arbitrary, post-hoc justification for the Company's actions. Context and message are important to artists, and the legitimacy of Elane Photography's nondiscriminatory reason is demonstrated by a simple illustration. Suppose, for example, that a Ku Klux Klan..."-pg 16,17.

The Commission Opinion and Final Order-Documented Email conversation,
"17. On September 21, 2006, Ms. Willock contacted the website of Elane Photography to obtain information about its photographic services and pricing. Ms. Willock sent Elane Photography the following email inquiry: We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we'd like to receive pricing information. Thanks [Testimony of Willock; Exhibit E at 1-2.] 18. Later on the same day, Ms. Elaine Huguenin gave the following response to Ms. Willock: Hello Vanessa, As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer's portfolios. -Elaine— [Testimony of Willock and Elaine Huguenin; Exhibit 1; Exhibit E at 1, 3 & 43 19. Ms. Willock was not sure whether Ms. Elaine Huguenin's response meant that Elane Photography did or did not offer its services to same-gender couples arid sought clarification on November 28, 2006, as follows: Hi Elaine, Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I'm a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples? Thanks, Vanessa [Testimony of Willock; Exhibit I; Exhibit E at 4.] 20. On November 28, Ms. Elaine Huguenin clarified her previous response to Ms. Willock in the following way: Hello Vanessa, Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day. -Elaine"
Notice that she needed clarification 3 months later!!! Just a little odd...

"25. On November 29, 2006, Ms. Willock's partner, Ms. Collinswortb, formerly known as Ms. Pascottini, sought to verify Ms. Elaine Huguenin's refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony by making a similar email inquiry about packages and rates to photograph a wedding, without any mention of same-sex. Ms. Collinsworth sent the following email to Elane Photography: Hi Elaine, I really like your photographs. I was wondering if you would be willing to travel to Ruidoso for my wedding? Can you send me a list of your packages and rates? Thanks!! [Testimony of Collinsworth; Exhibit E at 6.) 26. On November 29, 2006, Ms. Elaine Huguenin responded affirmatively by email to Ms. Collinsworth's inquiry and, at the same time, forwarded Ms. Collinsworth information about the company's photography pricing (base package, $1,450; deluxe package, $1,850; and royal package, $2,250), as well as information about the company's procedure for online proofing credits. The text of Ms. Elaine Huguenin's response to Ms. Collinsworth's inquiry was as follows: Hello Misty, Thanks so much for contacting us. I would definately [sic) be willing to travel to Ruidoso for your wedding. I have attached some information that should be helpful as far as prices and packages. There is also another attachment concerning "print credits" — it explains what online proofing is, because it's something that is a bit newer and not everyone may know what it is yet. Hopefully these items will help you sort some things out. Also, I would love to meet up with you sometime, if you are interested, to show you more of my recent book, along with an example of the "coffee table book" that included in all ofourpacicages. My place of choice is Satellite... Good luck with your planning, and I hope to talk with you soon -Elaine [Testimony of Collinsworth and Elaine Huguenin; Exhibit E at 7; Exhibit C & Exhibit E at 9; Exhibit D & Exhibit E at 10.] 27. On December 19, 2006, having not heard again from Ms. Collinsworth (then known as Misty Pascottini), Ms. Elaine Huguenin sent the following email to Ms. Collinsworth:
Hello Misty, I just wanted to check and see if you had any questions about the prices or packages that I could help answer. I hope that planning is going well for you. Have a great day! -Elaine [Testimony of Elaine Huguenin; Exhibit F at 8.]"

That's all the conversation that took place!!! Some how Vanessa Willock and her partner believed that Elaine had no other reason to not do photographs of there same-gender ceremony except for sexual orientation. It seems to me that if there is any discrimination going on here it would be: religious discrimination on the part of the Human Rights Commission (arbitrarily favouring one right over another)!!!!...This is a case of Religious Discrimination in the name of Sexual Orientation..."Gay rights have trumped religious rights in a New Mexico case."-04/14/2008 AP. I can understand maybe the confusion between Elaine and Vanessa in the email conversations but I have yet to agree with the Human Rights Commission Final Order and Opinion...

Here is an interesting commentary on this case:

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission Refuses to Consider Religious Freedom Objection:

The Breadth of the New Mexico Human Rights Commission's Rationale:

Photographers Denied the Freedom To Choose What They Photograph:
What does Bush have to do with all this:

Fighting religious discrimination: Bush administration's quiet campaign-"In education, for example, the DOJ reviewed 82 cases and conducted 40 investigations from 2001 to 2006. Compare this with the 1995-2000 time period, when the DOJ reviewed one case and made no investigations...As Judge Judy would say, these are real cases about real people. From attacks on houses of worship to incidents of discrimination at school and work, the DOJ over the past five years has investigated scores of cases involving the religious rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Native Americans and others."-When I read this I was reasoned, yep here is another one. I am hardly getting the whole story from ABC, CBS, NBC or PBS. Justifying the slogan below....

Yanking Back the Balance and Filling in the Gaps

P.S.-Concerning the media lack of coverage on these issues I wanted to submit a suggestion concerning motive of lack of coverage. And I do believe I have presented evidence of this unlike Vanessa and her partner. Not only is money and ratings a motive but may I submit that maybe just maybe liberal politics rooted in a liberal worldview is a big part of the pie, also, which highly favours one political party over another....

I always intend just to send a quick email but then I just can't help but to add a little and a little and a little until it is a little to much!!! :)

Take care all.

"When I watched him [former President Bill Clinton] at Mrs. King's funeral, I just have never seen anything like it....There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple. I mean, amazing ability to transcend ethnicity -- race, we call it, it's really ethnicity -- in this country and, and speak to us all in this amazingly primordial way."-MSNBC's Chris Matthews (Awarded "Quote of the year" at the 2008 Dishonors Awards)

Third Update on NM Photographer case:

Finally KOB and KOAT did a report on the christian photographer case. Here it is...

N.M. Human Rights Commission: Photographer Discriminated- It is a rather quick AP report. I think a fair AP report except on the discription of the attorneys handling the case for the photographer. The description reads, "The group handles legal cases aimed at defending the Bible." You'd get the impression that these attorney handle cases aimed at defending the Bible, right. Which makes the attorneys defending the photographer rather strange which then makes the legitimacy of the defense of her position rather strange and doubtful. Let me quote a quote from the attorneys group web site, "ADF was founded for a unique purpose: to aggressively defend religious liberty by empowering our allies, recognizing that together, we can accomplish far more than we can alone." Not to mention that "ADF and its allies has defeated the ACLU and its allies 3 out of every 4 of the hundreds of cases funded and litigated to conclusion- including 33 wins before the US Supreme Court recorded for the past 13 years" as of 2007. And they do it for their clients for free in many situations!!! So let us put the two discriptions of ADF side by side and see how you think this may effect the unknowing readers of the article and thus the credibility of the photographers side of the issue:

AP description of ADF: "The group handles legal cases aimed at defending the Bible."

ADFs' description of ADF: "ADF was founded for a unique purpose: to aggressively defend religious liberty by empowering our allies, recognizing that together, we can accomplish far more than we can alone."

One may wonder why a Bible defender is defending a religious liberty case here. Even in the words of the APs' own writing, "The photographer contends the ruling violates her right to freedom of religion."

And feel free to check out the facts as to whether or not ADF handles legal cases aimed at defending the Bible. Just look on the ACLU's and ADF's web site and see the many many cases they are involved in that are not aimed at defending the Bible.

It is very possible that this is evidence of bias to be so misinforming from a journalist organization that should be held to higher standards then the average me....

Here is a story from the Washington Times that reported on this case way back 02-25-2008 that did a far better job describing ADF. "Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, a "legal ministry" that is representing the Huguenins and defends religious freedom and traditional values.."-Much better. I've noticed that the Washington Times picks up stories like this earlier on then most other media outlets. I don't know if they are conservative or not but I do remember them reporting a very fair report on the Promise Keepers that my dad and I attended in Washington DC many years ago when most other reports were very unfair. So if they aren't conservative at least they have some fairness...

Maybe I am being picky.....you decide.....

Check out the comments made by New Mexicans on this report on KOB. So far there is 76. Now I only read thru the first 20 and it seems alot of New Mexicans are not happy about this as compared to thsoe that are. At least out of those who made a comment to the story.

I have a feeling that KRQE will do a more in depth story on this then the above stations. I sent an email to Dick Knipfing about this story. I don't think it will be a better story casue I sent the email but I do think it will be better because I think that is why they have yet to air a story on this case. My hope is that they are gathering more info to make a more in depth report on the case and actually have a video of it on their web site. KRQE is the only local news channel that reported on the Planned Parenthood situation so maybe they will actually do a little better job on this story then the other stations who didn't report the Planned Parenthood story. This story did also make the Abq Journal finally. I don't know if it made the headlines or if it was stuck somewhere else. This story has made the headlines in every conservative news media outlet that I am aware of and is a hot topic on many national conservative media outlets ever since January. It will be interesting to see if the national non conservative media picks up on it!!!!!!

Some other very interesting information concerning this case I found not even on conservative news sources but on blog sites with the following citations as documented proof...

Background info on lesbian to give revealing info and a face to pray for:

Vanessa Willock has been with UNM since 1997 and is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment."

She is a committe Member at UNM under Strategic Directions Committe and found under one of the sections titled "Value and benefit from the creativity, innovation, insight, and excitement generated by the many dimensions of diversity that are the essence of the University and the State. (Diversity)."-If one claims diversity then live it!!! Diversity for all except this christian photographers conscience???!!! In the name of diversity must we force those of opposing view points to not only promote ours but be actively involved in the promotion???!!! This discrimination law needs reinterpretation to uphold principles of diversity. Unless diversity doesn't include men and women of conscience/principle. And if it doesn't then is diversity itself a principle of conscience and if so then diversity refutes itself. And if it is not then why so much energy being put into diversity training. Thus to be truely diversified you must include in your diversity training men and women of differing principle and conscience then yourself!!!!

Here are actual official documents:

Original Charge of Discrimination and Notice of Charge of Discrimination sent to photograph company. Plaintiffs own words, "I contacted Elane Photography to inquire about...commitment ceremony. I received an email back which stated that the company only photographs traditional weddings....I wrote back to ask for clarification...and I received an email back....which state "we do not photograph same sex weddings"....I believe I have been discriminated against because of my secual orientation..."

Determination of Probable Cause-06/05/2007. "The evidence reflects the emails where Respondent denies you service. The evidence shows that your partner requested services without telling Respondent that it was a same sex cermony and Respondent agreed to photograph....Respondent also told the Human Rights investigator that she does not perform same sex cermonies...I find there is sufficient evidence to believe that discrimination has occurred."

Just another letter of no added consequence except for realism sent from The State of New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions to attorney handling cas for photographer.

My first reaction is to get frustrated about all this but when I saw this photo of the accuser I thought that this is a lost sinner as much as I am and I should also pray for her that she comes to know Christ as her saviour. So to give you a face to pray for click here. She is on 2nd picture. And a close up here.

Let's pray for her!!!

Yanking back the balance and filling in the gaps

"The last time the Senate waited this long in a presidential election year to confirm federal judges, James Polk, the 11th president, was in the White House." -Sen Orrin G. Hatch (R)-Utah

Update on NM Photographer case:

Some time ago I sent an email about a local Albuquerque, NM photographer who would not photographs of a same sex ceremony since she believed it was wrong and was taken to the NM Human Rights Commission and not one report anywhere in any local media outlet that I am aware of here in NM. I could be wrong but I can't find anything but on conservative media outlets everywhere!!! Either NM doesn't care about these issues or either they don't care cause they don't know!!! But either way some do and here is the breaking bad news....

04/09/2008 order of the NM Human Rights Commission-"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent, Elane Photography, LLC, shall pay to the Complainant, Vanessa Willock, an award of attroney's fees and costs, in the amount of $6,637.94." Attorney fees and costs sure are expensive for ONE day before a COMMISSION that issued a ONE page finding. I wonder how much ONE day would cost be before a Court and Judge and the 20 plus pages they usually issue there. Thank the Lord and ADF that this company doesn't have to pay on top of that for their own attorney's fees.

ADF to appeal N.M. commission's ruling against Christian photographer-"Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate."

Fact sheet that I emailed you all in the past in case you missed it.

Other NM related news from ADF since January of 2008 mostly about this case: but some interesting bills going thru the House and Senate like domestic partnership.

04/05/2008 Racism alleged against Planned Parenthood: Have to give credit to Channel 13 for covering some controversial issues concerning Planned Parenthood as of late. Irene Gray of Planned Parenthood in Albuquerque, NM was recorded by a pro-life investigator to see if they would take donations specifically for black babies so that whites would not be disadvantaged because of affirmative action and she did. You can click here for that story and then click on Racism alleged against Planned Parenthood. And it made the 04-05-2008 edition of the Albuquerque Journal but I have no link cause you have to subscribe.

Yanking back the balance and filling in the gaps

"I would agree with St. Augustine that an 'unjust law is no law at all,'" wrote King. "Now what is the difference between the two? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."-Rev Martin Luther King Jr. (From his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" 1963)