TOPIC: Outrageous Homosexual Bill Passes California Senate
SB 777 a serious assault on religious freedom in schools
by Christiansunite.com Staff
The California State Senate voted Thursday (23-13) to pass SB 777 (Kuehl), legislation that will ban textbooks and teachers from any instruction that "reflects or promotes bias against" homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues. SB 777 is similar to last session's highly controversial SB 1437, which passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens." Earlier this month homosexual advocacy group Equality California attacked CRI's opposition to the bill. A board member for the radical group sent an e-mail and video to CRI declaring that they would "bury" CRI if we "continued our efforts" in opposing this outrageous legislation. CRI also received hate mail from the so-called "tolerant" supporters of Equality California and the homosexual "tolerance" agenda.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," stated England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

SB 777 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities. School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom. Under SB 777 school districts could potentially be prohibited from having a "prom king and queen" because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.
"Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented the policies in this bill," said Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "In that district, boys who perceive themselves as girls may enter the girls' locker room and restroom. Teachers and school officials are required to hide the gender identity of a transgender student if the parents are unaware of what's taking place at school. This astonishing policy will be expanded to every school in the state if SB 777 becomes law."

The Sope-Bocks: Californians need to contact their state representatives NOW! The slippery slope that SB 777 provides is one that many generations will pay a heavy price for -- if this sort of intolerant legislation is allowed to become law. EVERYONE should be protected by the First Amendment -- not just those who choose to engage in the homosexual lifestyle.

TOPIC: CWA: 'Hate Crimes' -- Unequal Protection Under the Law
Article from christiansunite.com / Concerned Women of America
"Hate crimes" bill H.R. 1592, which is on the fast track to passage in Congress, will officially give homosexuals and cross dressers special elevated status in society based upon their chosen sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe. Under H.R. 1592, the victims at Virginia Tech would officially be considered less valuable to society than homosexuals and cross dressers who are the targets of insults, intimidation, simple assault or other "violent acts."
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees "equal protection under the law" for all citizens -- regardless of their sexual preference. "Hate crimes" legislation flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. Such legislation would require the government to invest more resources in the investigation and prosecution of crimes against homosexuals than it would the victims at Virginia Tech.

It is an irrefutable fact that H.R. 1592 would treat certain citizens unequally from others. Concerned Women for America (CWA) asks Congress to grant equal government resources, concern and respect to the victims at Virginia Tech and their families as they do to the demands of liberal homosexual activists by reaffirming the precepts of the 14th Amendment and voting NO on this dangerous and discriminatory piece of legislation.

"If Seung-Hui Cho's horrific actions were not an act of 'hate,' then what where they?" asked Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with CWA. "All violent crimes are 'hate crimes.' By H.R. 1592's definition, Cho's actions would have constituted a 'hate crime' except for the fact that he targeted his victims with the wrong kind of bias. In this case, Cho 'perceived' his victims to be 'rich kids.' However, under H.R. 1592, 'rich kids' are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho's crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.
"The FBI's latest statistics show that there were zero 'hate crimes' murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of thirty-two so-called 'hate crimes' murders committed against perceived 'rich kids' in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those 'rich kids' would be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole 'hate crimes' concept really places logic and reason on its head," concluded Barber.

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

TOPIC: What's in the News Today?
I decided to offer Sope-Bocks readers a smathering (a Southern word) of websites that offer news and information on a daily basis. Here are just a few for your consideration -- featuring April 19, 2007:

• Democracy NOW! (Democratic news biased towards liberals)
• News Busters ("Exposing and combating liberal media bias")
• Trader Mike (Stock Market recap for each day)
• Business Report (A no-nonsense look at international markets & business news)
• DailyTechRag (Daily news from the world of technology)
• Security Incite (Daily security news from the IT arena)
• The JoyStiq (Mostly news for gamers)
• 10 Favorite Gizmodo Posts (From the readers/writers at Gizmodo - "a gadgets weblog")
• dcist (On the lighter side... a blog featuring a "Photo of the Day")
• SearchCap (Information on the top searches of the day)

TOPIC: Liberal Bias in the Media -- PROVEN
I'm not a big John Gibson fan, but his latest My Word notes something The Sope-Bocks has been saying since Day One (post regarding this bias are here, this one and one other). Here is the transcript from Gibson's MyWord:

"I have long thought the mainstream media is decidedly left wing. Now there's proof. The Center for Media and Public Affairs did an accounting of the network newscasts from September 5 thru October 22 and found an overwhelming liberal bias. On the "Big Three" network newscasts, the audit showed a clear jihad against the Republican Party. Only 12 percent of election stories that aired on NBC, ABC, or CBS could be regarded as remotely "favorable" to Republicans.
In contrast, as The Washington Times put it this morning, "Democrats basked in glory." The study showed that 77 percent of news accounts in the six-week period offered favorable evaluations of Democratic candidates and lawmakers. Robert Lichter, director of the CMPA, said: "The numbers are pretty striking. The coverage has become a referendum on Republican leadership."The killer stat from this study: Midterm elections in 2002 warranted only 35 stories from the "Big Three." Midterms in 2006 got 167 stories, and 77 percent were pro-Democrat.
Now, we've known for many years that reporters, editors and news executives are overwhelmingly liberal or Democrat. There really isn't much point debating that anymore. But what's changed here — this time around — is the willingness to come out of the closet. Instead of just tilting left in the story while pretending to be objective, the mask is now off.
The mainstream media, typified by the "Big Three," is rooting for the Democrats to win, and slant coverage to make it happen. They want to make sure the conservative argument is shouted down, buried and made entirely disreputable. They do it with coverage: story selection, interview selection, sound bite selection and snarky scripts, and lead the viewers to their network conclusions that were set in stone at the 9:00 a.m. meeting.
These are people who think so little of their own vaunted tradition of objectivity that they are willing to throw it all away just to see their favorites win an election. And why is that? It all comes down to Bush. It all comes down to the huge number of elites in this country who think it is their duty to bring the Bush era to an end, to bury it, and marginalize anyone who says Bush was really right all along.
Stand by. More of this is coming, especially if the Democrats win and they get subpoena power. This is what they have been living for.
That's My Word." -- John Gibson

What EVERYONE needs to key on from the transcript is this: "The mainstream media, typified by the "Big Three," is rooting for the Democrats to win, and slant coverage to make it happen. They want to make sure the conservative argument is shouted down, buried and made entirely disreputable." Bernard Goldberg was an award winning reporter for CBS -- and has written a book about the left leaning bias of the mainstream media. It's a very good read for anyone questioning the validity of bias claims.
This morning, Jennifer Harper, of The Washington Times, penned an article regarding the same study. Here are a couple of good quotes:

• CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric (aka Katie Communist), for example, said yesterday that 2006 would prove a "wave election, where public dissatisfaction changes the political environment" and "incumbents are washed away."

• On NBC, Brian Williams led a report from Ohio with the phrase, "Could this red state end up going blue?"

• ABC News' Jake Tapper also showcased Ohio voters, saying they showed "an extra layer of disillusion with the Republican Party."

Like negative campaign ads, negative news reports may have a destructive rebound effect on a fickle viewing public. "For the past week, the mainstream media has run story after story about the nastiness of this year's campaign ads -- perhaps as a way to distract our attention from their own dirty tricks," observed Stephen Spruiell of National Review Online yesterday.
"Viewers can get sick of negative TV coverage. They consistently rate the news coverage as one of the worst parts of a campaign, specifically citing negative content," Robert Lichter (Director of the CMPA) said.