Return To Spring '96 Table of Contents.
Return To Capitol Area Christian News Archive Table of Contents
Return To Spring '96 Table of Contents. Return To Capitol Area Christian News Archive Table of Contents Will you help us today? You Can Mail A Donation To: Neal Horsley, PO Box 1081, Carrollton, Ga 30116, Or If You Can't Donate Now, Click Below and Join The We Choose Life Network.
A Good Maryland Judge - Robert E. Cahill
The judge had sentenced Kenneth Lee Peacock to 18 months on 17 October, 1994 for killing his wife.
Now, it wasn't an ordinary killing. Mr. Peacock had caught his wife in the act of adultery and executed her - but without due process.
Unfortunately, the state does not uphold justice for adulterers. What is a fellow to do?
Moses, writing under the inspiration of Jesus (God), required the death penalty for such behavior What supremely pro-family legislation! It serves not only to eliminate lousy parents from society, but also to deter wayward married people from engaging in anti-family behavior and producing dysfunctional families.
Alas, progress regarding reverence for God's law is slow to come, though the state of Maryland is growing. "Vigilantism" is a concern to those who fear the ravages of Christians turning their morals loose on a society which still enjoys its sexual libertarianism above healthy families.
We agree that Mr. Peacock acted hastily. But, understandably, he had no reason to expect justice from courts which do not regard the capital crime of adultery as a crime at all! Given these conditions and the backwardness of Maryland, we think Judge Cahill judged well.
Unfortunately Maryland's Commission on Judicial Disabilities is conducting hearings concerning possible violations of the state's judicial code of ethics. Numerous leftist and women groups are carping against the good judge at the behest of the investigative counselor for the Commission, Christopher Romano.
We have not heard whether or not Mr. Romano is a sodomite.
A Good Maryland Democrat
It seems nigh on impossible, but there is such an animal. Prince George's Country Councilman Mike Maloney has long been an outspoken defender of womb children. Recently he has led opposition to porn shops in the county. He has championed a drastic measure of requiring the smut shops to "remove doors or curtains from private peep-show stalls" (Washington Times, 12 Oct., 1995). The most recent stimulus for such measures comes from reports from a police detective who discovered used condoms and bottles of a sex-enhancing inhalant in video booths in the county's four pornography shops.
Of course in these philistine times, one cannot argue that the shops are unfit in se. No such moral tenets can serve to advance arguments for legislative relief. That would be scandalous and neanderthal. Modernists brook no arguments for law based upon narrow, monotheistic and moral opinions. Rather, the argument must go to some pragmatic and utilitarian health concerns. And so it did. The county's health officer testified that the bill "would help reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in the county, which ranks second in Maryland in the number of AIDS cases." Now this does pose a problem should a cure for AIDS be found. How shall we then argue for legislation against public stalls for peepers to fornicate or commit sodomy in? Not to mention the more drastic legislation which would forbid outright the displaying fornicators in action on film? Hmm. Might have to rethink something. Maybe we ought to thank God for AIDS and lobby against support for AIDS research. Perhaps that rabble rouser from New Hampshire, Andrew Cabot, was right when he wrote on his picket sign, "AIDS is a Blessing from God."
White Rose Banquet
The first annual was held on 21 January in D.C. with all one hundred tickets sold. In the midst of ACLA activities the banquet provided opportunity for activists from around the country to honor those who have been imprisoned for their sacrifices in behalf of the innocent womb children. Letters from Paul Hill, Curt Beseda, John Arena, and Shelley Shannon were read to the attendants. Among the luminaries present were Reverends Bob Lewis (Philadelphia), Austin Miles (CA), Bauer (NY), and Robert Pierce (NY); St.
Joan (Andrews) Bell of Newark; ACLA representatives Andrew Burnett, David Crane, Michael Dodds, Charlie Wysong, and Tim Dreste; counsel to Paul Hill, Michael Hirsh, Esq.; Rescue America's Don Treshman; OR publicist, Bob Jewett; Prolife Virginia's Don Spitz; AFLM editor and author Paul DeParrie; NOVA's Jack Humphries; and, although he had to leave early to prepare his defense of Michael New, HSLDA's Michael Farris, former candidate for Lt.
Governor of Virginia, joined us for refreshments before dinner.
These and other activists from around the country made possible an occasion to honor the present day saints and share in Christian fellowship. We are grateful to all who attended and made this Lord's Day the beginning of an excellent week.
See more details on the week in the March Life Advocate.
Friday the week was culminated by a devastating report in the Post by Charlie Hall in which he cited Justice and FBI sources who declared the partisan character of the investigation. The probers knew from the beginning that there was no evidence of a national conspiracy to justify the pursuit of anti-abortionists in the fashion undertaken by Clinton's Task Force on Violence Against Abortion Providers. (The code name used by those involved with the investigation was VAAPCON - (Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy.)
The regular Friday night meeting of Cheryl's Church was extra special with her there to join us once again. We express our special thanks to Jack Humphries, Dave Henderson, Jim Rudd, Eric Jurek, Mary Ann Kreitzer, Art Benedetti, and all others who came out to pray regularly for Cheryl outside the jail. Special thanks to Jack and his wife, Cathy, for their presence each night.
Jack Humphries and Project Life - NOVA
We have had the good pleasure of witnessing Jack Humphries's service in the D.C. area in recent months. He was regularly present at federal court house in Alexandria to witness the inquisition and support those being harassed.
Jack publicized Cheryl Richardson's plight and lobbied for her release.
During this time he was being threatened by authorities for his protest activities. (Removing the picture of a man from an abortuary bulletin board and asking the receptionist whether or not the image was that of the local abortionist sequed into a theft charge which was subsequently dumped out of court by a judge in January.)
Jack's pursuit of the "No Place to Hide" writing campaign has netted the retirement of a numerous abortionists from the baby-killing trade.
Abortion fans have naturally called Jack a terrorist, monotheist, chauvinist, racist, anti-gay, and intolerant kind of fellow.
Well we have news for you all! Jack is NOT a racist! It's true!
Moreover, we are flying high with the prospect of Jack's experience being used by President Buchanan. A career military officer and lawyer and 1972 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Jack would make a fine Attorney General in a Buchanan administration.
Oh, we can see it! Out with Janet; in with Jack! Out with the fags; in with the regulars! Out with the crookeds; in with the straights!
Maranatha!
Support NOVA's work at P.O. Box 523238, Springfield, VA 22152
Gov. Glendening: a whore of a politician
Like many of his Democratic kinsmen (Jackson, Clinton, Gore, Gephardt, etc.), Glendening did what he thought he had to do to go with the flow and move on up. The former altar boy and prolife county councilman became "enlightened" and continued to "grow" in compassion and wisdom.
We remember him in his last days of wandering in the darkness of anti-abortionism. The year was 1981; CB 111 was the name of the Prince George's County bill introduced by councilman Frank Casula under the inspiration of County Executive Larry Hogan. The bill would have outlawed abortion in county hospitals. The council of 11 was evenly divided. The spot light was on Sue Mills, who was thought to be a defender of the children in the womb but had recently signaled her intention to vote with the borts.
During public hearings on the vote, Mills was embarrassed when a letter she had written to a constituent proclaiming herself a faithful prolifer fell into the hands of Hogan's office and was read back to her publicly. Mills abstained and the vote in support of the anti- abortion bill fell short; it was 5 to 5.
Glendening was also on that Council. And although he seemed a little uncomfortable during the hearings, he managed to do the right thing and vote for the bill. Perhaps he was planning even then to become the slut that he is today. He now promises to make an annual effort to remove state restrictions on funding of Medicade abortions. It is not enough for Glendening to have "grown" into this new knowledge; he must force his morality upon all Maryland citizens, coercing them to pay for the poor (blacks?) to slaughter their offspring. He is recorded recently saying he is "absolutely committed to the pro-choice philosophy" (Washington Times, 13 Jan.).
Belief in the barbaric right to slaughter babies is hardly a "philosophy."
But harlot politicians naturally like to dignify their paltry activity, freshening it with the perfume of fine language and hiding reality under the fancy clothing of euphemism.
What a perfect governor for the decadent citizens of Maryland who approved abortion in the 1991 referendum and then went on to put him and his sister slut, Bill Clinton, into office.
Hillcrest Abortuary in D.C. and Farrakhan
The chamber in S.E. off Pennsylvania Ave. has been the venue of missionary activity for years. It has been picketed, surrounded by sidewalk counselors, bombed (gloriously in 1984), and frequently glued shut. But the devil doesn't give up easily; neither do his servants. The abortionists persevere, slicing and dicing all those black babies, while misleaders of "African Americans" like Louis Farrakhan parade themselves in front of "my people," claiming to be serving their interests as well as justice. But Farrahkan knows he can't keep the support of other black misleaders like Jesse Jackson and Ben Chavis if he comes out strong against abortion. And he certainly would not have received even the guarded praise from Bill Clinton. True Islamic teachings must, therefore, take a back seat to Farrakhan's political ambitions.
Islam is a false religion and Farrakhan's racist brand of it is worse than false. Look at the racist fruit! Where were Farrakhan's "Fruit of Islam" body guards when black babies were being slaughtered in the shadow of the Capitol during the half-million man march? They weren't guarding the bodies of the innocents.
In the meantime the real works of mercy and justice are carried out by the faithful (white) Christians who regularly save (black) babies at the chamber doors. A recent example comes from Washington's Birthday this year. Upon arriving at the abortuary on Thursday morning , as is their practice, Joe Koslowski and Jim Rudd were delighted to find that access to the chamber was denied by the fact that the doors had been glued shut. They proceeded to treat the customer/victims to some sound doctrine which bore the fruit of repentance. Three turned away. One, a Bernadette James, declared that she was leaving and also going to a CPC recommended by the preachers.
It is Christians - followers of the resurrected God-man, the Savior, the second person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus - who are doing the real works of truth and justice. Let Negroes, blacks, Afro-Americans, or African-Americans embrace a robust Christian faith (which is truly inclusive of all races on the basis of one true creed) and reject the Farrakhan fraud.
PC blockades in D.C.
160 UDC students sat in the street with 200 standing on the sidewalk, blocking traffic for 16 hours on 18 and 19 March. Cocaining, fagophiliac adulterer Marion Barry (a.k.a. the Mayor) instructed the police not to arrest the students.
Pampered students (who pay one of the lowest tuition rates in the country) can block access of thousands of people to hundreds of jobs to extort money from the city. But it is a federal crime carrying severe punishments under FACE to block access to an abortuary.
Your Rights Under FOIA
by
Mike Colvin"The Freedom of Information Act establishes a presumption that records in the possession of agencies and departments of the executive branch of the U.S.
Government are accessible to the people. This was not always the approach to Federal information disclosure policy. Before enactment of the FOIA in 1966, the burden was on the individual to establish a right to examine these government records. There were no statutory guidelines or procedures to help a person seeking information. There were no judicial remedies for those denied access. With the passage of the FOIA, the burden of proof shifted from the individual to the government. Those seeking information are no longer required to show a need for information. Instead, the "need to know" standard has been replaced by a "right to know" doctrine. The government now has to justify the need for secrecy."
This is language that can stir the heart of any freedom-loving person.
Records and data that are produced by government agencies using your tax dollars can be obtained by you. If the government wants to keep anything secret, it has to justify its need for secrecy. What's more, the Congress followed up the FOIA with the Privacy Act of 1974, which provides more detailed guidance to federal agencies on what the exceptions are. The Privacy Act also establishes the firm principle that an individual is entitled to see government records that pertain to himself, as well as the equally firm principle that no one else is entitled to see them.
Well, how about it, all you activists out there? Have you ever wondered what kinds of information the government has in its files concerning you or your organization? Here are some important points to remember, if curiosity (or necessity) leads you to go on a FOIA search: 1. Your request must be addressed to a particularl department or agency, since there is no government-wide FOIA office that can respond on behalf of the whole government. Of course, this means that you must have some inkling of which agencies may have been taking an interest in you, but that shouldn't be too hard, should it?
2. You must ask for documents, not simply for "information." Of course, you don't know what documents are available, so asking for them becomes somewhat of a tricky task. The secret is to describe what "kinds" of documents you think might be there, and then to zero in on the ones you are looking for, e.g. "any surveillance files maintained by the BATF that contain information about Maxwell Xinnis."
3. Your request must be in writing. It should be addressed to the "Freedom of Information Officer" (you don't need to know who that is or where the office is located - it will get there) and the body of the letter should reference both laws, e.g. "I am making this request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act." You should also provide both your mailing address and your phone number, so the FOIA office can call to clarify your request or negotiate with you.
There is no charge for processing a relatively small FOIA request. Congress has mandated that the first two hours of search time and the first 100 pages of document reproduction are free for individuals. Any costs incurred beyond that are calculated at very conservative rates. You may indicate in your letter if there is some dollar limit beyond which you are not willing to go.
Has the government left itself any loopholes? Of course it has. Certain kinds of records are exempt from the provisions of the FOIA and do not have to be released. Any document that is actually classified in the interests of national security cannot be obtained. The Privacy Act generally requires that personal information about someone other than the actual requester be withheld, and the Tax Laws prohibit the IRS from releasing anyone's tax return without their consent. Finally, agencies involved in law enforcment do not have to release documents that, in their opinion, would compromise an ongoing investigation. Related to this is the exemption that would protect the names of confidential sources (stooges, rats) contained in law enforcement files. It is important to remember, however, that the law requires agencies to "edit" documents, if only parts of them are unreleasable. The releasable portion can then be sent out.
If you are unhappy with the response an agency provides to your FOIA request and believe that they are withholding documents that ought to be released, you have the right to file an administrative appeal within that agency. If the appeal is denied by the agency, the law provides that the requester can make a further appeal in U.S. District Court.
Send Comments or Questions Here...
Use Your Internet Connection Fee To Help Deter People From Butchering God's Children
|