Today's Cultural Warfare Update

[solarbird]

AP: New York court says same-sex partners (married in other states are not) have no standing to sue over the malpractice death of a partner;

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility accuses Bush administration of political screening for upper-level employees;

American Family Association threatened boycott of American Girl reaches AP news;

Focus on the Family just comes out and says it: you can support a nominee because of their religion, but cannot oppose on the same basis;

FotF article saying that a California judge has declared a courthouse to be a "no free speech zone";

Ohio considers broad ban on stem-cell research, much of which will be hidden under a "cloning" ban; other parts are via funding cutoffs, including salaries of University professors who have separate funding for their research;

Alliance Defense Fund sends out general notice that they're ready to send in teams of lawyers anywhere requested this Christmas;

CWA blasts Planned Parenthood's new outreach minister;

LifeNews article on fundamentalist groups wanting Harriet Miers's nomination for Supreme Court withdrawn;

Baptist Press article on Texas's anti-marriage/anti-civil-unions amendment - also includes summary of other anti-marriage efforts in various states, most of which also ban civil unions;

Family Research Council ACTION ITEM against including GBLT-folk in hate-crimes legislation;

Family Research Council ACTION ITEM for parental-notification proposition in California;

Latest fundraiser letter from the Faith and Freedom Network in the Pacific Northwest - they tell all their potential donors that a donation to them is tax-deductible, but that's only true for state taxes in Oregon. Bad political organisation! Bad! QUESTION OF THE DAY: did they somehow carry over the old Faith and Freedom Educational Foundation's 501(c)3 status for the new Faith and Freedom Network? F&FN was formed by merging WERG and the F&FEF, the latter of which was 501(c)3. There's still nominally a separate F&FEF, tho' it has very little presence out there on the web.


----- 1 -----
Court: Same-Sex Partners Can't Sue Hospitals for Malpractice
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Associated Press

NEW YORK — A divided state appeals court ruled Thursday that a man cannot sue a Manhattan hospital for malpractice (search) in the death of his longtime partner, saying it could not provide tacit approval of same-sex marriages.

The court overturned a judge's 2003 decision that John Langan, of Vermont, could sue St. Vincent's Hospital for alleged malpractice in the death of Neil C. Spicehandler.

The appeals court, in a 3-2 vote, decided that Langan had no standing to sue the hospital despite the couple's 2000 civil union (search) in Vermont. Attorneys for Langan claimed the civil union gave him standing as a spouse to sue the hospital under New York law.

Any ruling favoring Langan would be "taken as judicial imprimatur of same-sex marriages and would constitute a usurpation of powers expressly reserved by our Constitution to the Legislature," the court ruled.

Adam Aronson, the attorney for Langan, criticized the decision and said he would discuss a possible appeal with his client.

"If this decision is allowed to stand, same-sex couples will be denied the very significant and important protections that all married heterosexual spouses can get," Aronson said. "And they will be denied those protections for no reason other than the fact they are gay."

[Lost the URL - sorry -_-;;]


----- 2 -----
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release (www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: October 13, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

POLITICAL SCREENING FOR ALL PARK SERVICE MANAGERS — Mid-Level Managers Picked for Fealty to “the President’s Management Agenda”

http://www.peer.org/news/print_detail.php?row_id=598

Washington, DC — The National Park Service has started using a political loyalty test for picking all its top civil service positions, according to an agency directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the new order, all mid-level managers and above must also be approved by a Bush administration political appointee.

The October 11, 2005 order issued by NPS Director Fran Mainella requires that the selection criteria for all civil service management slots (Government Service grades or GS-13, 14 and 15) include the “ability to lead employees in achieving the …Secretary’s 4Cs and the President’s Management Agenda.” In addition, candidates must be screened by Park Service headquarters and “the Assistant Secretary [of Interior] for Fish, and Wildlife, and Parks,” the number three political appointee in the agency.

The order represents a complete centralization of Park Service promotion and hiring in what has traditionally been a decentralized agency. More strikingly, the order is an unprecedented political intrusion into what are supposed to be non-partisan, merit system personnel decisions.

The President’s Management Agenda includes controversial policies and proposals such as aggressive use of outsourcing to replace civil servants, reliance on “faith-based initiatives” and rollbacks of civil service rights. Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s “4Cs” is a slogan she uses to express her management approach: “4 Cs: communication, consultation, cooperation, all in the service of conservation.”

“It is outrageous that park superintendents must swear political loyalty to the Bush agenda and parrot hokey mottos in order to earn a promotion,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “The merit system is supposed to be about ability, not apple polishing.”

The order applies to all hires for park superintendents, assistant superintendents and program managers, such as chief ranger or the head of interpretive or cultural programs. Overall, the policy applies to more than 1,000 mid-level management and supervisory positions in the Park Service.

“Presidents come and go but the civil service is designed to serve whoever occupies the swivel chair in the Oval Office,” Ruch added. “It is downright creepy that now every museum curator, supervising scientist and chief ranger must be okayed by a high-level political appointee.”


----- 3 -----
Groups Threaten to Boycott American Girl
Associated Press
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Fri Oct 14, 7:39 PM ET

Long URL elided

NEW YORK - American Girl, manufacturer of a highly popular line of dolls and children's books, has become the target of conservative activists threatening a boycott unless the toy maker cuts off contributions to a youth organization that supports abortion rights and acceptance of lesbians.

The protest is directed at an ongoing American Girl campaign in which proceeds from sales of a special "I Can" wristband help support educational and empowerment programs of Girls Inc., a national nonprofit organization which describes its mission as "inspiring girls to be strong, smart and bold."

American Girl, whose often patriotic products have long had a loyal following among conservatives, issued a statement Friday defending its support of Girls Inc. and assailing the protest campaign.

"We are profoundly disappointed that certain groups have chosen to misconstrue American Girl's purely altruistic efforts and turn them into a broader political statement on issues that we, as a corporation, have no position," the statement said.

[More at URL]


----- 4 -----
THE RELIGIOUS TEST: FAITH CAN BE A HELP, BUT NOT A HINDRANCE
The Constitution spells outs how religion can be considered.
by Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0038249.cfm

Note to the White House and the media: it's okay to talk
about judicial nominees' faith.

Between the White House attempts this week to highlight
and then minimize Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers'
faith, and liberal interest groups crying "hypocrisy" for
treating her faith differently than John Roberts' faith, a
funny thing happened.

Everyone forgot to read the Constitution.

Article VI -- a sort of catch-all for things like
validating pre-constitution debts and contracts and
articulating that the Constitution, the laws of the land
and treaties shall be the "supreme law of the land" --
also says that "no religious test shall ever be required
as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States." That would include, obviously, a test for
non-religion, such as was invoked against overtly
religious appellate court nominees Charles Pickering and
William Pryor who were filibustered for their "extremism"
by liberal Senate Democrats.

Which is why conservatives warned liberals not to go near
John Roberts' Catholic faith while he was being vetted and
debated, since liberals don't like what serious Catholics
believe about abortion. Keeping Roberts from a seat on the
high court because of his faith would violate Article VI,
and the warning to liberals in that case was well-founded.

However, there is nothing in Article VI that prohibits the
President from considering a potential nominees' faith a
"plus."

See the distinction?

[...]

So here's a summary for the White House press corps:

Keeping people of faith off the court = bad.

Looking for nominees of faith = good.

[More at URL]


----- 5 -----
First Amendment Group Fights Judge's 'No Speech Zone'
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
October 14, 2005

[Received in email; no URL]

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is challenging a
California Superior Court judge who declared on Sept. 13
that all public areas of Los Angeles courthouses are "no
speech zones."

ADF attorneys are representing two Christian ministers who
have shared their faith outside a courthouse for more than
two years.

Ray Comfort and Emeal Zwayne spent 20 minutes each morning
talking with people waiting for the courthouse to open for
the day. According to an ADF news release, the two never
caused any disturbances for the court or for uninterested
persons. But now Judge William MacLaughlin declared they
are no longer allowed to share the Gospel.

Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for ADF, said a
courthouse is the last place you'd expect to find a
restriction on free speech. He expects the ruling to be
found unconstitutional.

"The courts are supposed to be protecting our First
Amendment rights, not suppressing them," Johnson said.
"This judge's order is a constitutional travesty and has
already forced our clients and other law-abiding citizens
from engaging in classic, ordinary free speech."


----- 6 -----
Ohio Considers Ban on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
October 14, 2005

[Received in email; no URL]

The Buckeye State House of Representatives will consider
banning the use of state money for researching new lines
of human embryonic stem cells and also banning any human
cloning.

The restrictions would even cover a college professor's
salary whose research might be funded privately, The
Associated Press reported.

Under the bill Ohio would become the seventh state to ban
any human cloning.

The process of extracting human embryonic stem cells
always requires the destruction of human life.

State money would be limited to research on the stem-cell
lines designated by President Bush in 2001 as qualifying
for federal funding.


----- 7 -----
Attorneys Ready to Defend Christmas
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
October 14, 2005

[Received in email; no URL]

With Christmas just around the corner, the Alliance
Defense Fund (ADF) has mailed a brochure to the nations'
schools telling them why it is OK to say "Merry
Christmas." They've also promised to provide free legal
aid anyone challenged for doing so.

ADF outlined the reasons school principals and
superintendents do not need to fear a lawsuit if students
perform a Christmas song or participate in
Christmas-related activities. The U.S. Supreme Court has
never ruled against a school over the word "Christmas."

Paul Weber, executive vice president of ADF, said students
have rights.

"We want a nation that feels comfortable and confident to
say Merry Christmas around the land," he said. "Students
don't give up their rights to Christmas expression when
they go to school."

FOR MORE INFORMATION: For information on how to protect
Christmas expression in public schools, contact the
Alliance Defense Fund.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/


----- 8 -----
Methodist Pastor is Chaplain/PR Flack for Planned Parenthood
Concerned Women for America
10/14/2005
By Janice Shaw Crouse

Can he sell the morality of its mission?

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9186/BLI/life/index.htm

According to the Wesley Blog, Planned Parenthood has hired a chaplain, Dr. Ignacio Castuera. This chaplain, though, doesn’t serve the spiritual needs of people. Instead, he serves the public relations needs of Planned Parenthood (PP). Here’s the description of his responsibilities, from a PP press release:

As chaplain, Dr. Castuera will act as a public spokesperson to promote Planned Parenthood's mission and vision. He will play a pivotal role in communicating the theological justification for choice, sexuality, and contraception to the Planned Parenthood community and the general public. He will also be available to provide advice to volunteer and staff leadership on moral and ethical issues around our mission. In addition, Dr. Castuera will work with affiliates to expand their relationships with religious leaders and organizations in their communities.
In other words, the “chaplain” is nothing more than a PR flack for the organization and his special focus is to provide “theological justification for choice, sexuality and contraception.” In addition, he is supposed to build relationships with religious leaders and the public so that he can sell them on the morality of PP’s mission and vision.

As noted in Wesley Blog, Dr. Castuera is a full-time pastor at a United Methodist Church. That means: His new Planned Parenthood job conflicts with his day job. He is not only personally and professionally providing a cover of credibility for abortion, his position in the church gives the imprimatur of the denomination for his activities.

Of course, the United Methodist denomination is already in trouble in this area. The Women’s Division is actively involved in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice –– which demonstrates for abortion and other issues related to sexual “freedom” in the most crude and objectionable manner possible.

[More at URL]


----- 9 -----
Conservatives Ask President Bush to Withdraw Harriet Miers Pick
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 14, 2005

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1696.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Some conservative political advocates are calling on President Bush to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. They say Miers is not as qualified as other potential nominees and that the defense of her nomination by friends and the president make it appear as if she was picked because of her evangelical Christian views.

Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a conservative group that has pushed for confirmation of John Roberts and Bush's past appeals court picks, says Bush should take the nomination off the table.

"The calls to withdraw are serious, and they're going to increase," he told the San Francisco Chronicle. "The more that we heard from the nomination's defenders, the more people became convinced that there was no substance in the nomination and that her friends were her worst enemies."

[More at URL]


----- 10 -----
Can social conservatives continue the marriage amendment momentum?
Oct 14, 2005
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21853

AUSTIN, Texas (BP)--The nationwide movement to ban "gay marriage" moves to Texas in November, when voters there decide whether to amend their constitution to protect the natural definition of marriage.

But Texas' vote could be only the beginning in what figures to be a busy 12 months for the nationwide pro-family movement. In 2006 alone, at least nine states could be voting on marriage amendments. And conservatives in some states -- such as Massachusetts, where "gay marriage" is legal -- already are looking ahead to 2008.

Although 18 states have adopted marriage amendments, that number easily could approach 30 by the end of next year. A marriage amendment has never failed at the ballot.

"An amendment is the only way to take it out of the hands of judges and leave it in the hands of the people," Kelly J. Shackelford, president of the pro-family Free Market Foundation in Texas, told Baptist Press.

Ironically, court rulings have aided the marriage amendment push. Massachusetts' high court sparked the amendment movement in 2003 when it handed down its landmark ruling legalizing "gay marriage." Since then, lower courts in California, New York and Washington state have issued similar decisions. All are being appealed. None of the states have a marriage amendment.

[...]

Following is an update on other states considering marriage amendments:

ALABAMA -- Alabama citizens will vote on a marriage amendment in the next statewide election, which as of now is June 2006. The amendment breezed through the legislature earlier this year, passing the Senate 30-0 and the House 85-7. The amendment bans "gay marriage" and any "union replicating marriage," a phrase which could be interpreted as banning Vermont-style civil unions.

ARIZONA -- The pro-family organization Protect Marriage Arizona (www.protectmarriageaz.com) is gathering signatures with the goal of placing an amendment before voters in November 2006. Approximately 183,000 valid signatures must be gathered by July 6. The amendment bans "gay marriage" and any "legal status … similar to that of marriage."

CALIFORNIA -- Conservatives in the Golden State have split into two camps and are promoting competing amendments each hopes to see on the ballot in 2006. Each amendment requires approximately 600,000 valid signatures. ProtectMarriage.com's amendment has the backing of Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, the Alliance Defense Fund and Concerned Women for America. VoteYesMarriage.com's amendment has the support of the American Family Association, Campaign for Children and Families, Liberty Counsel and the Traditional Values Coalition.

The two sides disagree over the language an amendment should include. Each side, though, claims its amendment bans both "gay marriage" and civil unions.

California conservatives could be in a race against time: A lawsuit seeking "gay marriage" legalization is making its way through the state courts.

FLORIDA -- The conservative group Florida4Marriage.org must collect 611,000 valid signatures by Feb. 1 in order to qualify its amendment for the November 2006 ballot. The amendment bans "gay marriage" and any "union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof." The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to try and keep the amendment off the ballot.

ILLINOIS -- A conservative group, Protect Marriage Illinois, must collect 283,000 valid signatures by April in order to place a referendum on the November 2006 ballot. The referendum itself would not amend the constitution but instead would call on Illinois legislators to do so. (According to Illinois law, amendments must by initiated by the legislature, which thus far has been cool to the idea.) Conservatives hope a successful signature drive and referendum will put heat on politicians. The group has launched a website: www.protectmarriageillinois.org.

INDIANA -- The Indiana legislature passed a marriage amendment earlier this year, completing the first step of a lengthy three-step process. It must pass again during the next elected legislature before going to voters, which would be 2008 at the earliest. The House passed the amendment this year, 76-23, the Senate, 42-8. The amendment bans "gay marriage" and prevents the "legal incidents" of marriage from being given to unmarried couples.

MASSACHUSETTS -- The conservative group VoteOnMarriage.org must collect some 66,000 valid signatures for its marriage amendment by Thanksgiving. If successful, the amendment would then need the support of at least 25 percent of legislators in two consecutive sessions. If that hurdle is cleared, then the amendment would go on the ballot in 2008. The amendment essentially would reverse the 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts high court legalizing "gay marriage." The amendment would ban future "gay marriages" but allow those that already have taken place to stand. Conservatives fear that a stronger-worded amendment would be struck down in federal court and would never make it through the legislature, which is one of the more liberal ones in America.

SOUTH CAROLINA -- Citizens there will vote on a marriage amendment in November 2006. It passed the South Carolina Senate this year 37-1 and the House on a voice vote. The amendment bans "gay marriage" and says traditional marriage is "the only lawful domestic union" that is to be recognized. That phrase could be interpreted to nix civil unions.

SOUTH DAKOTA -- The state legislature passed an amendment earlier this year, sending it to citizens for a November 2006 vote. It passed the state House 55-14 and the Senate 20-14. The amendment bans "gay marriage", Vermont-style civil unions and California-style domestic partnerships.

TENNESSEE -- Citizens in the Volunteer State will vote on a marriage amendment in November 2006. The amendment passed the state House this year, 88-7, and the Senate, 29-3. The amendment bans "gay marriage" but apparently does not ban civil unions, although that would be up to judicial interpretation. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit trying to keep it off the ballot.

VIRGINIA -- The Virginia legislature passed an amendment in February, and must pass it again during the next session if it is to appear on the November 2006 ballot. It passed the House of Delegates 79-17 and the Senate 30-10. The amendment would ban "gay marriage," civil unions and domestic partnerships.

WISCONSIN -- An amendment passed the Wisconsin legislature in 2004 and must pass again in order to appear on the ballot in November 2006. It passed the Senate 20-13 and the Assembly 68-27. It bans "gay marriage" and "any legal status identical to or substantially similar to" marriage.
--30--
For more information about the national debate over "gay marriage," visit www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage.


[More at URL]


----- 11 -----
Stop the Homosexual Movement's Agenda in U.S. Senate
Family Research Council
October 14, 2005 - Friday
Forward to a Friend!

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05J05&f=PG03I03

When I wrote you two weeks ago, the U.S. House, with no advance warning, had just passed a key item on the homosexual movement's agenda, the hate crimes bill. FRC immediately began working with key Senators to make sure the bill goes no further. I have to say, we are in an uphill battle and the homosexual movement and their supporters in Congress are gaining ground.

The conservative movement faces fresh challenges in Washington, D.C today. Many issues compete with our agenda for attention, Katrina, Rita, the war in Iraq and, of course, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The homosexual movement sees this as an opportunity. While the conservatives are debating the White House and each other over the Miers nomination, the homosexual movement is mobilizing its forces to pass the hate crimes bill in the Senate. I've warned that hate crimes laws punish thoughts, not just actions. They equate homosexual behavior with race, and could eventually lead to criminal charges for preaching or teaching against homosexual conduct. We must stop the U.S. Senate from passing this bill.

I have directed our legislative staff to fight it with every resource we have. Right now I am making plans to meet personally with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to let him know that passing the hate crimes bill will be a major mistake, for our country and for him. I want to take your support with me. Will you sign our Hate Crimes Petition to Sen. Frist? He needs to see that there are hundreds of thousands of pro-family citizens across this land who are willing to stand up and be counted in the battle against the homosexual movement. Will you be one of those who will stand with me?

Please sign our Hate Crimes Petition and please also take time to make a generous contribution right now to help FRC fight the agenda of the homosexual movement.


----- 12 -----
Vote 'Yes' on Proposition 73, Parental Notification
October 14, 2005 - Friday
California (more on this state)
Forward to a Friend!

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05J07&f=PG03I03

Senator Barbara Boxer and California Treasurer Phil Angelides (who is a candidate for Governor in 2006) have spoken out against Proposition 73. Boxer said language in the initiative would set a precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. And Angelides, the father of three girls, said in an AP story dated October, 11, 2005 that he couldn't imagine "compelling them to talk [to him] about this difficult subject."

Although many supporters of abortion support parental notification, abortion rhetoric such as Boxer's inflames passions against Proposition 73, which deals with parental notification - not the legality of abortion or even parental consent.

The health and well-being of young girls is at risk, which is precisely why parents should be the ones who make decisions with regard to the best interest of their children. The lawmakers in California do not have the best interest of our children in mind, which is why Proposition 73 is so important.

Americans are losing their parenting responsibilities and it is crucial that the voters pass Proposition 73 to protect the health of young girls and to let the parents, not the lawmakers, decide what's best for their children.

For what you can do to help in the campaign for parental notification, visit the following websites:

www.caparentsrights.org/volunteer.htm
www.yeson73.net/wst_page2.html

Vote YES On Proposition 73!


----- 13 -----
Faith and Freedom Network
Formerly W.E.R.G. (Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government)
(425) 486-6594 * 16300 112th Avenue NE * Bothell, WA 98011 * www.faithandfreedom.us

Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman
Gary Randall, President

October 1, 2005

Dear Friends of Faith and Freedom:

The word "vigilance" is often used.

And for good reason.

This past month, John Conjers, D-Mich., attached a pro-gay amendment to a federal bill that was actually designed to tighten the law against sexual offenders, especially against kids. How ironic. [Ed. note: note the equation of sexual offenders and gayfolk.]

We shouldn't be surprised at such tactics. In the world of moral relativism, the end always justifies the means. And there are no absolutes, so truth is what you say it is.

In that spirit, California passed a domestic partners bill the day after 9/11/01 and again passed their gay marriage bill while Hurricane Katrina was dominating the news. [Ed. note: This has been picked by a few anti-GBLT organisations; fags exploit tragedy to get our own selfish goals.]

This is why the Bible makes much of the importance of the WATCHMAN. The Lord called Ezekiel to be a Watchman and Isaiah, speaking for the Lord said, "I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they shall never hold their peace day or night, you who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent." The watchmen of Jerusalem were to play an important role in both restoration and the advancement of righteousness.

Perhaps the watchman best describes what it is that God is calling His people to be in these perilous times.

Faith & Freedom Network is about being vigilant and ready to act, while advancing Godly principles - righteousness.

Throughout this summer we have remained vigilant, expecting a ruling to come down from the Washington Supreme Court regarding marriage. They have not yet spoken. While we do not expect them to rule in support of traditional Biblical marriage, we are preparing to respond either way.

If they rule against traditional marriage, we will immediately begin the process to amend the State Constitution. If they rule in favor of traditional marriage, those driving the homosexual agenda are prepared to move quickly toward civil unions, which is gay marriage by another name. We are prepared to strongly oppose that bill.

Oregon already has achieved State Senate approval of a civil union bill. There is no doubt they will bring it back in the next Oregon session.

We are prepared to fight that bill as well.

Bill by bill, amendment by amendment, those who oppose Godly principles and righteousness try to erode the moral fabric of our country and our communities.

Unfortunately many Christians and Christian leaders do not recognize the imminent peril or feel the responsibility that God has given his people.

Daniel Webster said, "If we abide by the principles taught by the Bible, our country will go on prospering."

Fortunately, there are those who understand the time in which we live and accept the responsibility.

You who receive this letter are among those who know that we cannot be silent. The watchman must not be silent.

With the idea of the watchman comes a sobering reminder and warning in Ezekiel 33:6, "But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and take the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable ..."

We feel we will need upwards of $250,000 to launch the response to defend traditional marriage.

I can assure you, the other side is prepared and well-funded. We must not falter at this point.

Thank you for the regular support from some, and the larger one-time donations from others.

This is indeed the quiet before the storm.

Please send the most generous gift you can send. It is tax-deductible.

Thank you and God bless you,


Gary Randall, President
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman

Comments

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

My parents and sisters are sending me the kids' Christmas gift lists, and my niece is very big on American Girls, signed up on their gift registry, etc. Today my mother emailed us with a reference to that article, made fun of it, and urged us to get EXTRA American Girl things. :-)

[solarbird]

Heh. Good. ^_^