Author Archives: Editor

Lesbian Bus Driver Berates Girl Over Her Christian Views

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

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

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

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

Normal human problems are turned into medical conditions, spiking healthcare costs

By Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

Mainstream medicine has a huge new growth industry underway — the “medicalization” of the human condition. That’s the conclusion of a study headed by Brandeis University sociologist Peter Conrad that was just published in the journal Social Science and Medicine. The report, the first study of its kind, documents that over the last several decades, numerous common problems — many of which are simply due to being human — have been newly defined as medical disorders that supposedly need prescription drugs and other costly treatments.

For example, menopause is a perfectly natural part of womanhood but it is now considered a “condition” complete with symptoms that physicians often believe need treatment with hormones and anti-depressants. Likewise, normal pregnancies, taking longer-than-average time to get pregnant and impotence (now known by the medical term “erectile dysfunction”) are all now seen as medical conditions that may need intense medical monitoring and treatment. And if a child fidgets in class — bingo! He or she is frequently classified as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and quickly placed on stimulant drugs like Ritalin
.
Conrad and his colleagues used national data to estimate the costs of these and other common conditions — including anxiety and behavioral disorders; worries over body image; male pattern baldness; normal sadness; being overweight; difficulty in sleeping through the night and substance-related disorders. In order to document what role medicalizing these problems could be playing in escalating U.S. healthcare spending, the Brandeis research team evaluated current data showing just how much medical spending results from the diagnosing and treatment of these “conditions”.

Their findings? The researchers concluded there is a strong and undeniable trend toward a medicalization of human conditions, with a constantly increasing number of medical diagnoses and treatments for behavioral problems and what the researchers called “normal life events”.

When they analyzed payments to hospitals, pharmacies, doctors and other health care providers for medical treatments of these medicalized conditions, the researchers discovered that the costs accounted for $77.1 billion in medical spending in 2005. That amounts to almost 4 percent of the total U.S. healthcare expenditures.

“We spend more on these medicalized conditions than on cancer, heart disease, or public health,” Conrad said in a statement to the press.

Conrad added that medicalization of human problems may have several causes, including increased consumer demands for medical solutions and Big Pharma’s expanding markets for drugs. “By estimating the amount spent on medicalized human problems, we’ve raised the obvious question as to whether this spending is ‘appropriate’. The next question is whether we can more directly evaluate the appropriateness of these medical interventions and consider policies that curb the growth or even shrink the amount of spending on some medicalized conditions,” Conrad said in the press statement.

Source: Natural News, May 28, 2010.

Are municipalities that fluoridate water perpetrating a crime?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressman Steve Austria on National Debt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S.B. 242 would require:

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

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

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

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

The bill now goes to the Ohio House of Representatives.

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

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

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

Rasmussen Reports Memorial Day Tribute

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

These figures have held steady for the past two years.

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

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

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

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

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

Rasmussen Reports, May 29, 2010.

Liberals Memorial Weekend Assault On America’s Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Finds Women Who Refuse Abortions Often Face Violent Attacks, Death

By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor

Women who refuse requests from their husbands or boyfriends to have abortions are often finding themselves subject to violent attacks that sometimes result in their deaths. That’s the finding of a new report from the Elliot Institute, which calls the problem a “widespread epidemic.”

The new report, Forced Abortion in America, is drawing attention to attacks on pregnant women and girls in order to prevent them from continuing their pregnancies.

It points out a “widespread epidemic of unwanted, coerced and forced abortions taking place in the United States.”
The report notes how research suggests most abortions are likely unwanted or coerced, with one survey of women who had abortions finding that 64 percent said they felt pressured by others to abort.

The same survey found 80 percent of women said they did not receive the counseling they needed to make a decision — even though more than half said they felt rushed or uncertain about the abortion.

The consequences for those who refuse abortion can be dangerous and even deadly, according to the report, which details cases of women and girls facing violent attacks or murder for resisting abortion.

Studies of death rates among pregnant women in the U.S. have found that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women, the authors say.

The cases detailed in the report represent only a fraction of the more than 200 cases the Elliot Institute has on file of women and girls being attacked or killed with the intent of getting rid of the pregnancy. The updated report contains new cases as well as a new special section on teens and forced abortion.

Among the new cases added to the report:

* A Kansas man and his wife were convicted of sexual abuse after the man raped his stepdaughters over a several year period, resulting in four pregnancies and at least one abortion, performed on an 11-year-old. The case was reported to authorities by a pro-life organization after one of the girls visited their office seeking an abortion; the group says that the abortion business did the abortion without informing authorities of any suspected abuse.

* Two Ohio teenagers were convicted for kidnapping and assaulting a pregnant teen, killing her unborn child. Police said one of the boys thought he had fathered the child, and the two hit the teen and kicked her the abdomen to cause the death of her 8-month-old unborn child. One of them allegedly told her that she should have gotten an abortion, and that “now your baby is going to die.” DNA tests showed the teen was not the father.

* A man was sentenced to 9 years in prison for secretly giving his wife an abortion-inducing drug after she refused to abort. The woman secretly taped him admitting to giving her the drug but trying to convince her that she really wanted to have an abortion.

* A high school junior was beaten to death by her 22-year-old boyfriend after she refused to have an abortion. According to police, the man hit the teen at least four times on the head with a bat and admitted he did not want her to have the baby. He pleaded guilty after leading police to the girl’s body, which he had buried under leaves in the woods. The man was sentenced to 22 years to life in prison.

“Our files contain hundreds of stories from women and girls who were attacked or killed with the intent of getting rid of the pregnancy,” said Elliot Institute spokesperson Amy Sobie.

She told LifeNews.com, “We’ve been collecting these stories for more than six years through mainstream media sources and pro-life organizations who have been diligently reporting on these kinds of cases. The information is out there, but many people aren’t aware of what might be going on in their own communities.”

Sobie said people might not immediately connect this with abortion because in many cases the woman or girl never makes it to an abortion center — she’s attacked or killed before she even gets there.

“In our opinion, the availability of abortion makes it easier for those around her to think that she shouldn’t be having this baby, and gives those with an interest in getting rid of the unborn child a justification for doing so,” she said.

Some of the new cases included in the report involve assailants using abortifacients or other drugs to secretly induce an abortion. For example, in several cases the attackers secretly put the RU-486 abortion drug in their wives’ or girlfriends’ food or drink with the intent of killing the unborn child.

In addition to destroying the life of the unborn child and subjecting the mother to the emotional trauma of the loss of her child, these attacks may also put the mother at risk of physical problems without her being aware of it. Side effects of RU-486 include hemorrhaging, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, painful cramping, heart problems, infections and death of the mother.

And the availability of the drug may make it easier for those who want to cause an abortion to do so without the need to use pressure, intimidation or force to get the mother to an abortion business — putting more women and girls at risk.

Other new cases focus on pregnancy discrimination by employers, schools and others that can make women feel they have no choice but to abort.

For example, a study published in the Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics found that student athletes conceal pregnancy, feel forced into abortion or fear losing financial aid because of pregnancy, which could jeopardize their ability to stay in school.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled cases with two large U.S. companies for refusing to hire a pregnant applicant and firing an employee who became pregnant.

“Pressure may also come from bosses, school counselors and others who see a pregnancy as a threat to the woman’s ability to do her job or continue her education,” Sobie said. “The EEOC has reported an increase in the number of pregnancy discrimination complaints filed against employees, and a number of large companies have settled or are facing lawsuits over claims they fired or demoted female workers who became pregnant.”

Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon said that cases of women being pressured, threatened, or subjected to violence if they refuse to abort are not unusual. He pointed out that studies have shown that homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S. and that women in abusive relationships are at risk for increased violence during pregnancy.

“In many of the cases documented for this report, police and witnesses reported that acts of violence and murder took place after the woman refused to abort or because the attacker didn’t want the pregnancy,” he said. “Even if a woman isn’t physically threatened, she often faces intense pressure, abandonment, lack of support, or emotional blackmail if she doesn’t abort. While abortion is often described as a ‘choice,’ women who’ve been there tell a very different story.”

Reardon said the report underscores the need for legislation, like that recently passed in Nebraska, holding abortion businesses liable for failing to screen women for evidence of coercion or pressure to abort and to direct them to people and resources that can help them.

“Too often, abortion clinics and others simply assume that if a woman is coming for an abortion, it is her free choice,” he said. “This ‘no questions asked’ policy is especially harmful to those in abusive situations, including young girls who are victims of sexual predators. Women should not be forced into unwanted abortions and subjected to violence or pressure from others.”

Link: www.lifenews.com/nat6356.html

New Housing Up In First Quarter of 2010

The number of new housing starts this quarter increased by 1100 percent. That is a fantastic rate, but let’s not let our exuberance blur reality. During the first quarter of 2009, the total number of new housing developments was a dismal one (1). The excitement is all about the whooping 11 permits issued for new housing.

Eleven new housing starts is a good sign.

Let’s hope the trend continues until the new starts outpace the many more residents who have left Xenia. If that happens, city officials will have a real cause for exuberance–more tax revenue and more fee-based income for the enterprise. I’m sure union employees will quit sweating about the threat to their scheduled pay raises.

Rep. Austria on Immigration Reform

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

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