UK's Labour Govt. Shoving Homosexuality Down The Throats Of The People

I haven't been living under a rock lately, so I cannot imagine why I haven't heard about this story sooner (sarcasm). But thanks to DrTony, who read it on HotAir (Allapundit), who saw it in the Daily Mail <----(click here for full article), this story is finally making its rounds. And that's how the Main Stream Media inadvertently invented blogs, by burying politically incorrect stories.

In the UK they have a law known as the "Equality Act of 2006" which has "Sexual Orientation Regulations" which among other things, require foster parents to promote homosexual lifestyles to children as young as 11 years, no matter the religious beliefs or values of the foster parents.

Vincent and Pauline Matherick, the latest victims of these new laws, were forced to give up their most recent foster child (number 28 that this Christian couple have successfully raised, but whose counting?) because they refused to teach him values that conflict with their faith.

When asked if they could look after the child until a new home is found, they were told by officials the child would be placed in a council hostel on Friday. Obviously the government cannot wait to indoctrinate this young boy into a state sanctioned perverted lifestyle. Don't believe me? The couple were also told they would be required to take the child to "gay association meetings" so he could hear the other side's point of view. It makes me wonder what's stopping the Labour Government from imposing this requirement on ALL parents. I'm also wondering if they'll force parents to introduce other religions (as if on par with their own) to their kids.

There is a ray of hope here in that the Mathericks are going to court, and not alone. The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is backing them and others who have refused to take this lying down. Will keep you updated.

It should also be mentioned that this story comes out on the heels of another from early September of this year about the homosexual couple in Britain who freely sexually abused their foster children (one of the kids being autistic), because social workers feared retribution from investigating complaints. Obviously the social workers feared the same laws that have the Mathericks up in arms. Read more here (hat tip Michelle Malkin).

(photo from Daily Mail, SWNS)

UPDATE: GOOD NEWS! Friday morning 11-2-07, it was reported that our prayers were answered. The Mathericks can be foster parents without being forced to subject their foster children to homosexual propaganda. It is assumed that the 11 year old child that was taken from them has already been returned.

Fred Thompson Releases Immigration Plan

Here is Fred's plan in its entirety from his website:

Border Security and Immigration Reform Plan

In the post-9/11 world, immigration is much more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, fails in a fundamental responsibility. As we take steps to secure our borders and enforce our laws, we must also ensure that our immigration laws and policies advance our national interests in a variety of areas, and that the immigration process itself is as fair, efficient, and effective as possible.

Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law

A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to secure the nation's borders and enforce the law. The following policies and initiatives will put the nation on a path to success:

1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.

2. Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:

A. Doubling ICE agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.

B. Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons.

C. Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug-smuggling, gun-smuggling, and alien-smuggling.

D. Implementing fully and making greater use of the expedited removal process already allowed under federal law.

E. Enabling the Social Security Administration to share relevant information with immigration and law enforcement personnel in a manner that will support effective interior enforcement efforts.

3. Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:

A. End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

B. Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.

C. Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).

4. Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security's electronic database (the E-Verify system) to confirm that a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. Now that the technology is proven, provide sufficient resources to make the system as thorough, fast, accurate, and easy-to-use as possible.

5. Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.

6. Increased Prosecution. Deploy the additional assets outlined above to prosecute alien smugglers ("coyotes"), alien gang members, previously deported felons, and aliens who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws much more vigorously.

7. Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking. Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, as has been required by federal law for more than ten years, and connect it to the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), in order to curb visa overstays and permit more effective enforcement.

Improving the Legal Immigration Process

The United States is a nation of immigrants. We must continue to welcome immigrants and foreign workers who come to our country legally, giving priority to those who can advance the nation's interests and common good. Immigrants and foreign workers who play by the rules need to be rewarded with faster and less burdensome service, not delays that last years. Advancing the following initiatives will require close cooperation between all levels of government, the business community, and concerned citizens:

1. Maximize Program Efficiency. Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas. This can be accomplished by hiring more personnel at Citizenship and Immigration Services and the FBI. Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs.

2. Enhanced Reporting. Improve reporting to the government by businesses that rely on temporary workers so that the government can track whether the visa holder remains employed.

3. Modernize Immigration Law/Policy. Change the nature of our legal immigration system to welcome immigrants who can be economic contributors to our country, are willing to learn the English language, and want to assimilate.

A. Reduce the scope of chain migration by giving family preference in the allocation of lawful permanent resident status only to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and no one else (no siblings, no parents, no adult children, etc.).

B. Eliminate the diversity visa lottery.

4. English As Official Language. Make English the official language of the United States to promote assimilation and legal immigrants' success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.

5. Freedom from Political Oppression. Preserve U.S. laws and policies to ensure that the United States remains a beacon and a haven for persons fleeing political oppression, while assuring appropriate admission standards are maintained.

6. Service to Country. Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.

Future Saint

Amen!

Now perhaps someone can explain the difference between this little Christian girl and the little Islamo-Nazis in the post below to Christiane Amanpour.

Future Mujahideen

Hello, and welcome to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week! Created by David Horowitz, it started this morning. So in honor of this momentus occasion I had to post the above video of Muslim children which I found on Little Green Footballs' blog.

There are a few things I find disturbing about the video, not limited to the fact that children are being indoctrinated into a Hitler-Youth type cult of hatred and violence. One is that it looks like any normal tumbling or even karate class, minus the guns. Another is that...well,...how can I say this? A few of the children looked awfully white. One or two even had red hair. I only mention this (political correctness requires me to explain, though I really don't think I should have to) because we have almost always been able to tell the Muslim terrorists by their Middle Eastern features. Now it appears they could look like just about anybody--an advantage once shared by the IRA. This would come as a relief to those who look like Islamo-Fascists but don't think like them. But it may throw a monkey wrench in the profiling process....

Republican Debate In Orlando

Tonight's debate in Orlando, FL was a very lively one with fireworks-a-plenty. It started out with Chris Wallace playing let's-you-and-him-fight in which both Giuliani and Romney were presented with quotes about them from Fred Thompson which were critical in nature. They responded to Fred who responded back. The exchange was revealing about the inconsistencies in the conservatism of both Giuliani and Romney, while Fred responded well to Giuliani's attack about Tort reform.

Everyone but Giuliani and Ron Paul looked better than usual tonight. Rudy didn't look horrible, but didn't seem to measure up to past debates. No doubt he wasn't expecting Fred to be so aggressive.

Fred Thompson had a good night tonight with answers that were more clear and specific than the previous debate. And the final question of the debate directed at Fred's so-called "laziness" was answered with pleasure and wit by Fred himself, who gave a very brief biography of his experience and hurdles throughout his life, and in doing so revealed the ridiculous nature of the question. Artfully done.

But it was not Fred Thompson, nor was it Mike Huckabee, nor Tancredo, nor even Romney (who did very well on the health insurance question) who won tonight's debate, in my humble opinion. No, it was McCain...again. His answers were direct and to-the-point and at times very humorous. His comments about Hillary Clinton proposing a Woodstock music museum were very noteworthy: I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time. The last part being a reference to his stay at the Hanoi Hilton as a POW.

McCain's ability to shine in a debate disturbs me. All but written off when several key members of his campaign staff abandoned him, he has risen in the polls over the past few months due to his nothing-to-lose attitude and feisty demeanor at debates. I really don't think he has the patience or mindset to be president. Nor does his record reflect the consistent conservatism he claims to have---see McCain-Feingold, Amnesty Bill, and Keating Five just to name a few. The only thing about him which lends confidence (to me, at least) is his ability to manage a war. Every time he disagreed with President Bush on war policy, McCain was proven right. But that alone is not reason enough to elect someone to the highest office.

If more candidates drop out perhaps we'll have debates with more than a one minute answer period. That would help Fred a lot. He doesn't seem to take well to the shot-gun approach. But he may get the hang of it before someone else calls it quits. I look forward to seeing Fred in the next debate.

I'm Back....Sort Of

Haven't posted for a bit due to the presence of a stubborn Trojan virus KillAV, which forced me to format the entire hard drive and reinstall XP. And if you ever had to reinstall Windows XP Media Edition you know just how painful that can be.

Things still aren't looking quite right on my computer's display, so I need to spend even more time on fixing things. In the meantime, please feel free to read the Fred widget to your left for Fred news (updated as it happens), as well as the NRA feed below that to see who's trying to trample our 2nd Amendment rights.

I will be posting more exciting news and commentary soon!

Revealing....Very Revealing

Write a caption for this by clicking on "comments" below....if you dare.

Bad News Good...Good News Not News....??????

The above video clip is from Howard Kurtz's show on CNN called "Reliable Sources." In it we see Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN rationalize why good news out of Iraq is buried, while bad news is news worth reporting.

Noel Sheppard of News Busters points out a couple of recent examples as to why this reasoning is so hypocritical:

[No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.

And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.]

Read the rest of the article here.

Does anyone not realize that the real reason to suppress good news from Iraq is to keep President Bush's approval ratings low? Was this not the same reason the big three networks declared they would never again show video of the 9-11 attacks and the WTC crashing to the ground? I believe the official reason given for the latter was that it would be too upsetting for viewers. But we know the real reason was that it would add to President Bush's popularity and give him a mandate for responding forcefully---which would insure his reelection. After all, since when did the major networks give a hoot about our sensibilities? Read my posting below about being DONE with CBS. But I digress...

(Hat tip to LGF)