Opportunity for Impact

An Americans United for the Separation of Church and State official told Vanderbilt University Christians to "stop whining" about the institution's all-comers policy and hold their meetings in private homes like Christians in communist China.

Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said "I would suggest that people in this position – to use a phrase on a button in my dentist office that he always wears when he works, it says, 'stop whining.' I'd say stop whining here. Why not do what evangelicals do: go out into the world, out into the community and have your meetings, if you have to, off campus. Show your faith and meet with students not in a club room somewhere in the university, but in those home churches that kept Christianity alive during the darkest days of communist China."

For more than a year now, Vanderbilt University and several religious student groups have been locked in a battle over discrimination.

The university insists that groups like the Christian Legal Society, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Vanderbilt Catholic and others cannot require prospective leaders to share their faith and values. To do so would run afoul of the university’s non-discrimination policy to admit “all comers.” If the student groups don’t shape up, they’ll have to ship out.

One group already has. In March, Vanderbilt Catholic said it would pick up and move off campus, rather than sign a pledge that non-Catholics were welcome to apply for positions of leadership. To do that, the group's leaders said, would be to compromise the entire purpose of the organization.

It seems that this is a perfect opportunity for Christian leaders to join one of the 7 gay and lesbian organizations and run for leadership positions. This would allow a Christian voice to be heard in the groups that most likely have none.

Christ dined with many people who were not believers and did not compromise his beliefs. This is an opportunity for Christians to join non-Christian clubs and make an impact for Christ! Get as many Christians as you can to join these secular clubs and vote Christian leaders into positions of influence in the club.  The opportunity to spread the Word and see the impact is ready to be had at Vanderbilt. This applies to all colleges and universities as well.

Loophole in the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act

The Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act states in part:

§51-253.  Burden upon free exercise of religion.

A.  Except as provided in subsection B of this section, no governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

B.  No governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:

1.  Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and

2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The law says that “Substantially burden” means to inhibit or curtail religiously motivated practice. It defines “Exercise of religion” as the exercise of religion under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (referring to itself), and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It seems that this law says that the Oklahoma State Government cannot inhibit your free exercise of religion unless it is in the best interest of the government to do so.

The law defines “Exercise of religion” as the exercise of religion under Article 1, Section 2.

Section 1 Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution reads:

Religious liberty - Polygamous or plural marriages.

Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.  Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

This article of the state constitution does not make any reference to the fact that the government cannot stop you or impede you from free exercise of religion, only that you cannot be harmed or mistreated because of how you worship. 

We will notice that §52-253 says that “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, no governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion”.  Section B then declares that the exception is when in the best interest of government and the least restrictive means of furthering government interest. 

The bill also mentions the US Constitution in defining “Exercise of religion”.  Of course we know that the First Amendment states Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. However, regulations can be established that are not congressional laws exactly, not a part of US Code or Oklahoma Statutes, which may impede the exercise of religion. 

In order to close these loopholes the law could be amended so that Section B of §51-253 is repealed and Section A would simply read “No governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” This covers both laws established and regulations passed in the affirmation of an individual’s inherent right to worship as and who they desire.

Veteran Needs Help

Sometimes a cause comes about that will stir us to action. Frankly, there are so many these days it is often hard to know which way to turn. I have not been one to place ads on the blog or seek donations for myself or others. However, I am going to tell you of a person in need that we can help.

It is understandable that we often get jaded by the hordes of locusts out there trying to scam everyone out of our money. People who just don’t want to work will try all sorts of schemes to steal from us directly or indirectly through deceit. I have known this person all of my life and know this is a real need of a real person who has worked for many years in a rest home helping the elderly.  He is my uncle.

I know he lives in a modest home and does not have a lot of fancy clothes, jewelry, toys and those types of things. He currently receives $1073.00 a month in social security and Veterans Disability.  Not much to live on these days, especially with medication and for him and his wife.

I would guess there are thousands of stories like this out there. Image if a thousand of us simply gave this man $10.00 each. That is not much from each of us. But together we would have given him $10,000 to help pay medical expenses, housing, food and daily necessities.

I simply ask you to consider this, pray about it and see if this is someone you may be able to help.

Here is the link to his story and the sight uses PayPal for secure transactions (you can also donate by other means). http://www.youcaring.com/fundraiser_details?fundraiser_id=2573&url=veteranneedsyourhelp

Also, consider the same actions for other veterans, elderly groups and homeless shelters. If we all give a little the impact is enormous.

Thank you for your time.

If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good is it?

(James 2:15-16)

Poopcorn

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods for human use that present no health hazard. These "Food Defect Action Levels" listed here are set on this premise--that they pose no inherent hazard to health.

Here are the hazardous levels;

Allspice: Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 10 grams, Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 10 grams

Berries: Average of 4 or more larvae per 500 grams or Average of 10 or more whole insects or equivalent per 500 grams (excluding thrips, aphids and mites)

Frozen Broccoli: Average of 60 or more aphids and/or thrips and/or mites per 100 grams

Ground Paprika: Average mold count is more than 20%, Average of more than 75 insect fragments per 25 grams, Average of more than 11 rodent hairs per 25 grams

Ground Cinnamon: Average of 400 or more insect fragments per 50 gram, Average of 11 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams

Chocolate: Average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined or

Any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments, Average is 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams in 6 100-gram subsamples examined or Any 1 subsample contains 3 or more rodent hairs

Canned Citrus Juice: Average mold count is 10% or more, 5 or more Drosophila and other fly eggs per 250 ml or 1 or more maggots per 250 ml

Red Fish and Ocean Perch: 3 % of the fillets examined contain 1 or more copepods accompanied by pus pockets

Hops: Average of more than 2,500 aphids per 10 grams

Macaroni and Noodle Products: Average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples, Average of 4.5 rodent hairs or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples

Popcorn: 1 or more rodent excreta pellets are found in 1 or more subsamples, and 1 or more rodent hairs are found in 2 or more other subsamples or 2 or more rodent hairs per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples or 20 or more gnawed grains per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples

There are more items listed, these are just a few. We have been ingesting these things for some time, but the thought of rodent poop in our popcorn is just a bit much.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The paper written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva claims that abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

The claim is that because a baby is incapable of attributing his or her own existence they have no right to life.  The writers stated that “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”

They argue that a person is “at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development, which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.” Anyone who is put to death will be incapable of understanding the different situation they would have been in had they lived.

Following this case, if my parent has Alzheimer’s and is thus incapable of knowing the situational difference if harmed, this allows us to kill humans who have Alzheimer’s or other mental illnesses.

The writers’ seem to believe that giving this murder a different name aid acceptance. They wrote ”In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

The important point they make- is it really any different to kill a baby in the womb than killing it out of the womb?

More on Pseudoephedrine Tracking Bill

I recently posted information on House Bill 2941 that requires any pharmacy that dispenses sells or distributes any compound mixture or preparation containing any detectable quantity of base pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, its salts or optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers shall maintain an electronic record of the sale. 

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety and Judiciary gave a do pass recommendation Wednesday.

It was noted that the bill changes the limit from 9 grams in a 30 day period to 3.4 grams per day or 7.1 grams within any thirty-day period or 60 within a twelve-month period. 

The question has been asked- So what does this “grams allowed mean?” There are 1000 milligrams in 1 gram. This means that a box containing 100 tablets with 60 milligrams of Pseudoephedrine each, yield a total of 6 grams.  This is more that you would be allowed to purchase in a day. You would need to get a 50 count container of the medicine to meet the 3.4 grams per day rule.

You could by 2 of the 50 count boxes of allergy or cold medication in a month which would be 6 grams of Pseudoephedrine for that 30 day period, falling below the 7.1 limit. This would allow around 3 pills a day per person.

The bill notes that a person has the limits not an address so it would follow that a household with two adults could purchase twice the allowed dosage for a single person. So if you and your husband or wife takes the medication there would be no major issues- except the tracking of your purchases of course.

Getting Involved- Contact Those Who Represent You

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." Lyndon Johnson

One of the reasons the stories are posted here is to inform you. Once you have been informed and make a decision on the articles presented you may wish to contact your state or federal representative to encourage the passage of legislation, discourage the passage or share other views. You can find Your Federal and State Legislators here, by entering address and click Search. You will get the names, phone numbers, contact addresses, email addresses and website links to appropriate person.

How can we expect our public servants to serve us if we do not express our wishes from time to time? It is important to express the manner in which you are to be represented to your representative during the debate of legislation rather than after it has failed or succeeded.  As Thomas Jefferson said, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

Liberty is the consequence of action. Tyranny is the consequence of apathy. A bully will not retreat until you resist. If a person goes to work and no one tells them what is expected the outcome should not be disappointment in the worker. It is important to let your representatives know what the expectations of the people are.

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?"James Madison, Federalist Papers 62

School Choice in Oklahoma

Public School Choice

In Oklahoma, the state has two limited open enrollment policies: intra-district and inter-district open enrollment. In other words, students are permitted to enroll in any school within their neighborhood school district or in any alternative district in the state. The Center for Education Reform reports that Oklahoma has an average charter school law. Nearly 6,000 students attended the state’s 17 public charter schools in 2010.

Private School Choice

As of 2011, Oklahoma offers private school vouchers to low-income students via a tax-credit scholarship program. The program provides tax credits to individuals and businesses that contribute to scholarship-granting organizations. Additionally, in 2010, Oklahoma enacted private school choice for special-needs students. The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program provides vouchers to families in the amount that it would cost to educate a child in a public school or a private school of choice, whichever is less.

Online Learning

According to the Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning report, Oklahoma does not have a state-led online program. However, two online distance-learning programs are sponsored by state universities: the University of Oklahoma Independent Learning High School, which is a diploma-granting program, and the Oklahoma State University K-12 Distance Learning Academy, which is a supplemental program. In addition, the state has opened three full-time online charter schools since 2010: the Oklahoma Virtual High School, the Oklahoma Virtual Academy, and as of fall 2011, the Oklahoma Connections Academy. During the 2010-2011 school year, 4, 456 students were enrolled in either full-time or part-time online learning programs.

Recent Developments

In 2011, Oklahoma passed legislation to provide scholarships for low-income students via a new tax-credit scholarship program. The program provides tax credits to individuals and businesses that contribute to scholarship-granting organizations.

Basics

Open enrollment allows students to attend a public school district other than their district of residence. Students who are deaf or hearing impaired may apply to transfer at any time during the school year to a school with a specialized deaf education program. The Oklahoma law states that each district must develop a policy of standards for acceptance of nonresident pupils which may include capacity. Athletic ability (in addition to academic ability, other extracurricular ability, or disability) may not be used as admissions criteria. Nonresident students are not eligible for extramural athletic competition for one year following transfer.

What it really means

According to the School Choice - Oklahoma State Department of Education Toolkit FAQ’S:

1. What are Public School Choice options for parents?

Public School Choice is the opportunity for eligible families to select another public school in the district for their children to attend. Public School Choice is offered to parents whose children are attending a school in the first or second year of School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring. Parents must be offered this option no later than the first day of the school year.

2. Which children qualify for School Choice?

All students in a Title I school in School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring are eligible to participate. In providing students the option to transfer to another public school, the district will give priority for transportation to the lowest achieving eligible children from low-income families in cases where there are insufficient funds to serve all the students whose parents request these services. However, all eligible students who request transfers should be allowed to transfer.

3. How do parents know if a school is offering School Choice options?

When a school is identified as a school in the first or second year of School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring, the district or school will notify parents of their Public School Choice options. Parents may send their child to another public school in the district that is currently making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

4. What is the cost of School Choice?

School Choice transportation is provided at no cost to the parents.

Title I school in School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring

Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring are ranked based on students scoring proficient or advanced on state reading and mathematics assessments, all Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring were ranked based on the percent of students scoring Proficient or Advanced for five years on the state reading and mathematics assessments used for AYP determinations. These percents included all FAY (Full Academic Year) students who took tests administered through the Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests, Oklahoma Modified Alternative Assessment Program, and the Oklahoma Alternative Assessment Program.

Parents can determine if their child's school is a "Title I school" by searching the Public Schools database supplied by the National Center for Education Statistics.

To find information about the Title I status of your child's school:

1. Visit the National Center for Education Statistics search page.

2. Enter the school name in the "name" field.

3. Click "Public Schools" under "Institutions."

4. Click "Search."

5. Click on the School name in the search results.

6. Click on "More information" at the top of the school data page.

7. The school's Title I status is listed in the "School Characteristics" section of the page.

Conclusion

Oklahoma has a limited school choice program. Only students in a Title I school in School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring are eligible to participate.  This means you may have to keep your child in a school that under-performs for a number of years before they are eligible for a transfer.

A “money follows the child” system would in effect make the public schools for K-12 like universities in which they would have to compete for funding. The better the schools perform the more parents would want their children there. This plan will cut across all income ranges in which the funding that would have been in a local lower performing school would allow the parent to send the child to a higher performing school. Schools and teachers would be accountable to provide better education for all children regardless of location.  Schools that fail to provide a good education would fail and possibly close. This would provide quite the incentive to provide an excellent atmosphere for learning and growth of our children.

The NEA states in their case against vouchers "True equity means the ability for every child to attend a good school in the neighborhood." If the neighborhood school has to perform well to compete then every child can attend a good school in their neighborhood.

 The opposition claims it will cause public schools to close. In truth it will be an incentive for the public schools to exceed the performance of private schools in order to succeed. The funds could be limited to various public and charter schools rather than private ones. We all want our children to have the best education possible be it in a public or private institution.  In order to make it happen we the people must make it happen.

Cloned Meat, GMO and Pink Slime

Pink Slime

It was Zirnstein who, in an USDA memo, first coined the term “pink slime” and is now coming forward to say he won’t buy it.

“It’s economic fraud,” he told ABC News. “It’s not fresh ground beef. … It’s a cheap substitute being added in.”

Zirnstein and his fellow USDA scientist, Carl Custer, both warned against using what the industry calls “lean finely textured beef,” widely known now as “pink slime,” but their government bosses overruled them.

According to Custer, the product is not really beef, but “a salvage product … fat that had been heated at a low temperature and the excess fat spun out.”

The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them at low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.

The “pink slime” does not have to appear on the label because, over objections of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry labeled it meat.

ABC News reported the woman who made the decision to OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. It was a call that led to hundreds of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime.

When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

GMO

Most of the genetically-modified (GM) corn products forced on American consumers today are hidden in processed foods in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn oil, corn starch, and various other corn-based additives. But soon to be available at a Walmart near you is Monsanto's Bt sweet corn, the agri-giant's first ever GM corn product made available to consumers as whole ears right on the cob in the produce section-- and like with all other GMOs, neither Walmart nor Monsanto has any intention of labeling it.

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.” This is despite the fact that a variety of polls show US consumers what the foods labeled. 

In October The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit organization, has issued a petition to the FDA to change their regulations and require all food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be clearly labeled. The petition legally requires a response from the FDA and is the first step towards suing the government. Watch the Center for Food Safety’s comedic commercial aimed at raising public awareness in the video below. The lack of labeling may have helped the US become the global center for GMO development, but it looks like advocacy groups and consumers are fed up with the secrecy surrounding how we are fed.

Peru recently called for a 10 year moratorium on the planting of genetically modified food crops.  France just upheld a ban on the planting of genetically modified maize.  All GMOs are outlawed in Japan and Ireland.  One of the world’s leading bio-tech companies has completely abandoned the European market due to public and farmer opposition.  That company is Bayer, the same company that made cyanide gas for the concentration camps under Hitler.  Bayer’s GMO division has relocated to the Raleigh-Durham area in North Carolina, finding a more favorable business climate here. GMOs are viewed with extreme hostility in all of the European Union.  If a product contains even a trace amount of GMO material it must be labeled as such.  China and Russia have severely limited them, China having just announced that after a seven year long study they will not develop genetically engineered rice.  Not so in the United States, where the vast majority of GMO research, development and production occurs.

Cloned Meat

In February 2012, the FDA has claimed that cloned animals are safe for human consumption!

What is a cloned animal? Using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), the genes of a donor animal are inserted into an egg cell which has had its own nucleus removed. This new egg cell is then implanted into a surrogate where it will develop. This was how Dolly the sheep circa 1996, the first ever cloned animal, entered into existence. Technically speaking then, a clone is a genetically identical copy of the donor animal, its identical twin, simply just born at a different time.

According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, approximately 600 cloned cattle, pigs, and goat were present in the United States in 2008. Today, March 2012, it is highly likely that the offspring of these cloned animals have already entered into the U.S food supply and Canadian food supply.

What is the problem? Like with many other products, cloned animal, cloned animal offspring, and clone products do not have to be labeled. Also, independent studies question the safety of the meat! Public backlash, evident from the Consumers Union poll in 2007, found that 89% of Americans want cloned products to be labeled, and 69% of consumers were concerned about the safety of consuming cloned animals and their products.

FDA however suggests that there is no need to labeling because clones are genetically identical to donor animals; hence there is no difference in the food composition.

The Centre for Food Safety sure thinks that there is something wrong! They believe that the FDA’s approval of cloned products “without mandating further study is clearly arbitrary, capricious, and irresponsible.” Here are some troubling facts of FDA’s approval (to read the full CFS report, click here)

•Several defects have been found in clones that have NEVER before been seen in normal animals!

•FDA approval of clone, their offspring, and products were approved with very little to no data whatsoever. Only one toxicology study was looked at which examined 20 rats that ate cloned meat and milk products for 14 weeks. The largest study reviewed looked at milk from 15 cloned cattle, which showed that cloned milk was significantly different in composition.

•FDA did not do its due diligence by conducting its own studies, but gathered information from 10 small studies conducted for the most part by cloning companies

If I am what I eat I am not sure what I am anymore.