Connecticut budget woes coming

Says Mrs. Rell:

Rell's budget office estimated Monday that state's budget deficit for the current fiscal year will be about $300 million, more than double previous estimates. Rell said much of that projected red ink is due to falling state revenues, especially from the income and sales taxes and the state's share of the slot machine take at Connecticut's tribal casinos.

The estimate does not account for any fallout from the recent large fluctuations on Wall Street, she said.

Of course, those "fluctuations" will likely hurt us, given how much of our State's income depends on a relatively few people having big capital gains, mostly in Greenwich, as the Courant recently pointed out:

As the good times rolled in recent years, the state budget became increasingly dependent on Greenwich. Despite having only about 60,000 people, the town contributed nearly $600 million in state income taxes in 2006 — more than three times the income taxes paid by the combined populations of Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven and Waterbury. With only 1.8 percent of tax filers, Greenwich provides nearly 13 percent of all state income tax, helping to pay for schools in West Hartford and road repairs in Rockville, not to mention every other cost related to running the state.

State Supreme Court allows limits on adult businesses

Some good news on the family front where the Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Town of Berlin to regulate so-called adult businesses.

The high court's unanimous ruling comes a month after hearing arguments from attorneys representing the town and VIP, an adult novelty store. The dispute is over the legality of a Berlin ordinance regulating the location of sexually oriented businesses.

At least five other municipalities around the state enacted similar laws, said Berlin lawyer Erika Amarante.

"I'm obviously pleased," Amarante said. "I'm sure those municipalities are happy as well."

Berlin officials contend the ordinance is a way to control the adult businesses that have popped up in recent years. The ordinance bars adult-themed businesses from being within 250 feet of a residentially zoned area.

Give thanks for this good news and let's pray for sanity to make more inroads. More here from the Connecticut Post.

Hartford Police Chief doesn't have the luxury of ignoring reality

Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut gives us the scoop on last week's National Day of Prayer gathering in Hartford and the hypocrisy of the Left. Kudos for Police Chief Roberts for his courage. It's about time we heard this kind of talk from a high public official.

Speaking to a group that at one point reached standing-room-only size, Chief Roberts’ talk made a tremendous impact on the crowd. He called himself “a praying chief” and noted that he was a deacon in his church (his pastor was present). He asked us to work and pray that kids will be brought to God. He said he deals with the kids who are not coming to God, the ones who will kill you over a minor disagreement.

Read all of it and be encouraged.

Pro-Family Rally this Thursday at Capitol

From the Family Institute of Connecticut comes this notice - be sure to visit their site for complete details:

Join Connecticut families from around the state to take a stand for protecting marriage, parental rights and the innocence of our children this Thursday, April 3rd on the east grounds of the state Capitol in Hartford at 10:00 am. More and more Connecticut residents like you who want to do something to stop our state's movement to redefine marriage, impose "transgendered" special rights and force "sex ed" on our children have committed to taking a day off from work to attend the rally.

FIC Action is also working to pass laws to protect the right of parents to homeschool their children, raise the age at which a minor girl must be counseled before obtaining an abortion and establish a task force to study fatherlessness in our state. But to pass the good bills and stop the bad bills, it is critical that we show our support for pro-family values on a weekday while the legislature is in session.

We will begin the day with the Pro-Family Rally on the east grounds of the state capitol and then move over to the Legislative Office Building (Room 1D) to meet with our legislators. We will have some basic training on how to talk to your legislators, so don't worry if you've never done this sort of thing before! Also, it is fine to simply come and attend the Rally and not the Lobby Day. We are asking you to do whatever you can to protect marriage and the family!

The fruit of the sexual revolution

U. S. News & World Report lays it out in black and white:

"What we found is alarming," Dr. Sara Forhan, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a teleconference Tuesday. "One in four female adolescents in the U.S. has at least one of the four most common STDs that affects women."

"These numbers translate into 3.2 million young women nationwide who are infected with an STD," Forhan said. "This means that far too many young women are at risk of the serious health effects of untreated STDs, including infertility and cervical cancer."

These common STDs include human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, herpes simplex virus and trichomoniasis, Forhan said.

Forhan announced the results as part of the CDC's 2008 National STD Prevention Conference, in Chicago.

"These findings are really giving us a lot of pause about how we provide care to adolescent girls who are sexually active," said Dr. Elizabeth Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at Children's Hospital at Montefiore in New York City and chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Section of Adolescent Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "The numbers are really astonishing."

Street preachers rile up Mystic

Interesting issues here:

Last Saturday, one of the preachers, a polite young man from the Victory Bible Baptist Church in Ledyard, 18-year-old Jayson Hill, was issued a $103 ticket by Stonington police, accused of creating a public disturbance.

I was there when police wrote Hill the ticket, and it was a remarkably subdued and, yes, quiet confrontation. Hill and a companion preacher lingered afterwards, still holding big signs suggesting the GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.

Hill stopped preaching that afternoon, but he said he would plead not guilty to the ticket, hire a lawyer if necessary and return.

“We have the right to do what we are doing,” said Hill, who lives in Ledyard and works as a construction laborer. “This is America. We have the freedom to do this. We are spreading the Gospel. We are not going to whisper.”

More here at the Day, and here.

Why people can't tolerate the MSM

I'm not pulling for Gov. Romney, but here's why people have just had enough of the mainstream media, in this case an AP reporter.

Federal lawsuit seeks to overturn Massachusetts homosexual marriage

Rev. John Rankin of the Theological Education Institute has filed a lawsuit in a Federal District Court seeking to overturn the regime of homosexual marriage that was imposed on Massachusetts by its Supreme Judicial Court.

As someone who practiced law for nearly 15 years, I can tell you that his argument is extremely interesting and very fine. In essence, Rankin says that the Massachusetts Judicial Court has destroyed our concept of unalienable rights and thus our system of Constitutional Law by declaring that classes of people possess rights, not individuals. In American law, individuals possess unalienable rights for they have derived them from the Creator.

Goodridge violates the nature of personhood as defined in the Fourteenth Amendment, where the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property are ascribed equally to all persons, as individual persons, and not due to membership in any given group, whether objectively or subjectively defined, whether fixed or malleable in declared nature.

The class of people who would engage in same-sex "marriage" is not even a true class of people, as it is "malleable" or changeable. The result has actually been to destroy the rights of others and create "super rights" before which all others must yield. Thus, while claiming it was upholding rights, it has actually destroyed all rights by making them alienable. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did this without even considering what it was doing with respect to Federal Law and our Federal Constitution. The result is that courts or legislatures can create new rights according to the whims of the season.

Under current federal law (e.g. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), civil rights, congruent with the Fourteenth Amendment, cannot, nor ever have otherwise been assigned to a malleable identity, to subjective choice. Goodridge thus rewrites federal law, and without examining the issue. If such malleability and subjectivity were consistently applied in this context, there would be no boundaries in place to restrict the possibility of consanguineous, polygamous or group marriage. And beyond this context, if applied consistently, malleability of individual and group identity for the sake of perceived government benefit opens up a Pandora’s Box which Balkanizes civil rights.

Notice what Rankin is saying: under the current regime, there is no brake or impediment to a government legalizing incest, polygamy or group marriage. I can't say what success Rev. Rankin will have - in this political climate, probably none apart from a Divine intervention - but I believe he has posed important questions, questions which no one seems to be articulating or which at any rate no one has dared to argue where it might count.

Do you have your "Jesus glasses" on?

If a public high school teacher were to say to his students, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can see the truth," you can bet the American Civil Liberties Union and others would say that the teacher was promoting Christianity, that it was a violation of the separation of church and state. And the school administration would probably agree.

But what if a public high school teacher tells his students that "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth"? Isn't that essentially the same thing? Isn't disparaging a certain religion in a public school classroom just as legally improper as promoting a certain religion?

Interesting stuff regarding a Federal lawsuit against a high school teacher.

Flickr photo by Ben Ostrowsky; some rights reserved.

Connecticut's crime rate low

Statistics from the FBI show Connecticut ranks among the dozen safest states in the U.S., with a below-average number of all types of crime except robberies, according to a new report compiled by state officials.

It is unclear how the report will influence the current debate on criminal justice reforms triggered by July's triple-murder in Cheshire. Gov. M. Jodi Rell's task force on parole, which requested the report, is scheduled to recommend changes by the end of the year.

The legislature's Judiciary Committee will hold a special session to debate several proposals, including a so-called three strikes law, before the regular session starts in February.

Thank God for this, although many sore spots remain. More here.

Ousted Portland Selectman speaks out

Back in October we wrote about the case of one of the selectmen in Portland, CT, a Mr. Scott Adamsons, who had dared to say he was acting not just as a responsible public official but as a Christian when fighting so-called "adult entertainment." Mr. Adamsons has just left a very thoughtful comment and I wanted to run his remarks in the posts so that more of you could see his reply.

I am Scott Adamsons and I am a member of the Colchester Bible Baptist Church in Colchester, CT. Being a Christian is more than a choice, it is a lifestyle. While I do not push this lifestyle on anybody else, I do recommend it. On the flip side, I do not wish to have others (the world) push their way of life on me or my family. It is not unrealistic for a community that is comprised primarily by Christians, Jews, and some Muslims to fight against a developer opening an adult-entertainment establishment in their town. In fact, one would expect a fight if their faith is true. If a reader is caught off guard by this position, then they should consider why they have the beliefs that they do and how their daily decisions and actions are impacted by them. Most of us fall short of our beliefs in our daily walk (just being honest here), but where our hearts are directs the path that we go in. It’s a sobering picture some days. Other days are laced with victory.

Those who would use the first amendment of the US Constitution to claim a right to lewd conduct should know that Christians and those people of other faiths have a first amendment right to freedom of religion. How do lewd conduct and explicit images violate my rights? The mere presence of those types of establishments in the public arena assaults my senses, and undermines the values that I am trying to raise my children under. The advertizing of those establishments in public places accomplishes the same result.

If a vast majority of a town's population has beliefs against such behavior, then perhaps the will of the majority should prevail (for once). There are towns where such establishments are allowed. They are nearby and therefore people who have a strong desire to exercise their “right” of expression have existing outlets that they can use. Given this, for a town that has no such businesses, preventing their influx is not a violation of a developer’s first amendment rights.

Another thought: Over the past 200 years our small community has developed with business districts that are essentially integrated into the residential areas/uses of the town. There just isn’t a “good” place for such an establishment to operate in our community, not one that is far away from children anyway.

In conclusion, the comment in the article of being a "career threatening" move was more accurate than you'd think. I was not re-elected last week. As a close friend of mine has said many times over, “It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.” It is my hope that this position will encourage people in their own communities and on a personal level. What makes you a Christian and why do you have the beliefs that you do? Do your actions reflect those beliefs? It ain’t easy, but it is rewarding.

Respectfully Submitted,
Hon. Scott A. Adamsons
Selectman (out-going), Town of Portland, CT

The biggest story no one's talking about...

It would be smart to pray about this and what it can mean for our future:

The dollar fell to a record versus the euro and the lowest since 1981 against the pound after Chinese officials signaled plans to diversify the nation's $1.43 trillion of foreign exchange reserves.

The U.S. dollar also declined to the cheapest versus the Canadian dollar since the end of a fixed exchange rate in 1950 and a 23-year low against the Australian dollar. The New York Board of Trade's dollar index dropped to 75.077, the lowest since the gauge started in March 1973.

``The dollar is suffering a confidence crisis,'' said Michael Woolfolk, senior currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon in New York, the world's largest custodian bank with more than $20 trillion in assets under administration. ``The dollar is on the ropes. Comments from China about diversification and surging oil prices pushed the dollar to new lows.''

Read the rest here. And then check out this chart showing the strength of the Euro against the dollar.

U. S. Senate to investigate televangelists

A. W. Tozer said we needed a "baptism of clear seeing." Many will see this as persecution; many others will see it as God having to judge his house because his own people would not.

CBS News has learned Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating six prominent televangelist ministries for possible financial misconduct.

Letters were sent Monday to the ministries demanding that financial statements and records be turned over to the committee by December 6th.

According to Grassley's office, the Iowa Republican is trying to determine whether or not these ministries are improperly using their tax-exempt status as churches to shield lavish lifestyles.

The six ministries identified as being under investigation by the committee are led by: Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. Three of the six - Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar - also sit on the Board of Regents for the Oral Roberts University.

The implications are disturbing, both in terms of what we have already heard about lavish lifestyles, and in terms of increasing government supervision of churches as a result. If things go on as they are, I fully expect churches to lose the tax-exempt status they have enjoyed in the U.S.

Read the full story here at CBS News.

Follow-up story here, and video here.

America: Christian or Secular?

Michael Medved, who is no shrinking violet, is out with an op-ed piece claiming that the Founders intended a Christian America, not a secular one. Although this would have been obvious to anyone born prior to 1900, his historical review is instructive for us who live in this benighted latter day:

In fact, the same Congress that approved the First Amendment gave a clear indication of the way they understood its language when, less than 24 hours after adopting the fateful wording, they passed the following Resolution: “Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceable to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.” It never occurred to this first Congress in 1789 that their call for a government sponsored day of “thanksgiving and prayer” would conflict with the prohibition they had just adopted prohibiting “an establishment of religion.” Not until the infamous Everson decision of 1947 did the Supreme Court create the doctrine of a “wall of separation between church and state,” quoting (out of context) from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. President Jefferson created the image of the wall in order to reassure the Baptists that government would never interfere with their religious life, but he never suggested that religion would have no role in government. In 1803, in fact, Jefferson recommended to Congress the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians.

Three times he signed extensions of another measure described as “An Act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military services and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.” Jefferson also participated every week in Christian church services in the Capitol Building in Washington DC; until 1866, in fact, the Capitol hosted worship every Sunday and, intermittently, conducted a Sunday school. No one challenged these 71 years of Christian prayer at the very seat of federal power: given the founders' endorsement of the positive role of organized faith, it hardly inspired controversy to convene worship at the Capitol. In fact, at the time of the first Continental Congress, nine of the thirteen original colonies had “established churches” – meaning that they each supported an official denomination, even to the point of using public money for church construction and maintenance. These religious establishments – clearly in contradiction to the idea of a “secular government” – continued in three states long after the adoption of the First Amendment. Connecticut disestablished its favored Congregational Church only in 1818, New Hampshire in 1819, and Massachusetts in 1833.

Amazingly enough, these established churches flourished for nearly fifty years under the constitution despite the First Amendment’s famous insistence that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Read the whole thing (and comments if you can tolerate it) here.

Photo by Joey Gannon; some rights reserved.

A Christian hangs a bullseye on his back to fight adult entertainment

But Portland First Selectwoman Susan Bransfield
Expresses First Amendment Concerns

A professing Christian in Portland, Connecticut has taken the career-threatening step of using the "C word" - "Christian" - in his role as a public official. In a Middletown Press article about the possibility of adult entertainment in that small town (pop. 10,000 approx.) we learn that:

The town presently has no adult entertainment venues. However, there have been persistent rumors that one may be in the offing.

The town restricts adult entertainment from being established closer than 500 feet from schools, churches, public parks, etc.

Deanna L. Rhodes, the town's planning and land use administrator, has proposed increasing the boundary to 750 feet.

But Selectman Scott A. Adamsons is pressing for a wider boundary.

When the selectmen discussed the issue earlier this week, Adamsons initially proposed a 3,000-foot barrier; however, he was persuaded to reduce that to 1,000 feet. But in a subsequent written communication, Adamsons said his real intent to is "take a stand on principle and ask for a three-mile buffer."

"As a responsible Christian and public official, it is my duty to bring this concept before the board and the community," Adamsons said.

First Selectwoman Susan S. Bransfield cautioned Adamsons that an effort to enact more stringent regulations could run afoul of court rulings that have designated adult entertainment as "protected free speech."

Adamsons was unmoved, however, saying that is a fight he would welcome. He said he wanted to "protect kids from doing things they probably shouldn't be doing." And, he said, adult entertainment is one of three of what he called "the fatal vices," the other two being gambling and alcohol.

We don't know Mr. Adamsons, what church he attends, or anything else about him. But we do applaud his willingness to revive the antiquated idea that there are things probably "shouldn't be doing." To some, this sort of rhetoric makes Christians look like the Taliban. To others, it just marks a call for a return to sanity.

Read the whole thing here.

Attorney Admits Guilt in Church Pornography Case

Back in February we blogged about the case of Attorney Phil Russell, who was accused of obstructing justice by destroying a church computer containing child pornography. Yesterday, Russell pled guilty in a case that lawyers think will hinder their ability to represent people effectively. From the Courant:

After signaling for months that he intended to fight the charges, lawyer Philip Russell disclosed in federal court that he had reached a negotiated settlement with prosecutors. He then pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misprision of a felony, which means he was aware that a felony had been committed, but did not report the crime to authorities.

Russell had been charged with obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence. He was accused of destroying a laptop computer after his clients, officials of Christ Church in Greenwich, found the computer and determined that it contained pornographic images of children. The computer was the property of Robert Tate, the church's former longtime choirmaster.

The problem here for lawyers:

The Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association argued that Russell learned of the computer's contents in a confidential conversation with his client, the church. To turn the computer over to authorities would violate that confidence [creating potential problems for Russell with the Bar]; to retain it would violate federal child pornography laws.

(Read the full story here.)

Not a good choice - ruin your career or be be prosecuted for violating child pornography laws! In any case let's continue to pray for Christ Church in Greenwich and all the persons involved.

More on Connecticut's abortion clinics

Peter Wolfgang at FIC graciously quoted our story yesterday about Planned Parenthood and has done an admirable job digging further into the netherworld of Connecticut's abortion clinics and what happens after the "procedure" is over.

People seldom have the taste for a real examination of all the various businesses that surround the trade in abortion. This is understandable. But reflexive politics shouldn't keep the public and its representatives from looking again - and looking hard.

Read the rest of the FIC Blog story here.

Will States ever prosecute Planned Parenthood facilities for violations?

Disturbing and yet apparently all too common:

Police investigating a kidnapping and sexual abuse case in Connecticut have confirmed that a Planned Parenthood abortion business did an abortion on a 15 year-old girl who is the victim. The news is the latest in a string of cases across the country where abortions have been used to cover up cases of sexual abuse.

That sad saga continues, complete with the revelation, gruesome to me, that abortion centers apparently keep remains long enough to allow DNA testing, but another large question is whether statutory rape statutes are being taken seriously enough by officials and electorates. Does the value they assign on easy abortion on purely ideological grounds outweigh the State's interest in protecting teen (and pre-teen) girls from predation?

Will anyone draw the proper conclusions from the circumstances of the Gault case?

For more on the problem, read this story from the National Catholic Register.

Seven Great Resources for Connecticut Homeschoolers

Should you homeschool? Maybe this young lady's parents should have...
Hat Tip to Judy Aron

Even though it has taken off like a rocket in recent years, the very thought of homeschooling can still be very intimidating. And lack of information can breed paralysis, too. There are lots of questions. Am I capable of teaching my kids? How much will it cost? What are the legalities? Do homeschoolers sit around in calico dresses watching Anne of Green Gables? What are all the pros and cons?

If I were interested in homeschooling, where would I go for dependable information? Here's a list of some top resources for Connecticut homeschoolers and those wondering whether they should take the plunge:

• CT Homeschoolers Inclusive (Yahoo Group)
  

• CT Homeschool Network
  

• Homeschoolblogger.com
  

• HSLDA (Homeschool Legal Defense Association)
  

• HSLDA's analysis of Connecticut Homeschooling Law (PDF)
  

• TEACH (The Education Association of Christian Homeschoolers)
  

• Don't forget Judy Aron's great blog, Consent of the Governed!

Rally for Liberty in Hartford on September 12

From the Family Institute of Connecticut comes this notice:

On Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. FIC will hold a Rally for Liberty on the east grounds of the state capitol in Hartford. Please come to show your support for marriage protection and for self-government! Please also forward this message to every pro-family state resident you know and encourage them to do likewise!

We want to encourage the Supreme Court to do the right thing. The Court should not take it upon themselves to undemocratically impose a radical redefinition of marriage-our most precious social institution-on all of society. They should let the people decide!